Adv Control & Robotic Lec 4

METR4202 – Advanced Control & Robotics
Lecture 4
Review of Controller Design

METR4202/7202 – AAdvanced Control & Robotics, Semester 2, 2005: Page: 1
Frequency Domain PD Controller Design

State-Space Feedback Control Design
Introduction to State-Space Observer Design
G. Hovland 2004-2006
Solutions: Tutorial week 4, Q5

Step 1a: Find Phase Margin and Frequency
%
− ln
100 − ln(0.1)
ζ = = = 0.5912
% π 2 + ln 2 (0.1)
π + ln
2 2
100
π π
wn = = = 3.90
Tp 1 − ζ 2
1.0 1 − 0.3495
2ζ 1.1823
Φ M = a tan = a tan = 58.6o
− 2ζ 2 + 1 + 4ζ 4 0.7219
Desired Closed-Loop Frequency Response:

Y ( s) ωn 2
= 2
U ( s ) s + 2ζωn s + ωn 2
Desired Open-Loop Frequency Response:

Y ( s) ω 2
= 2 n
U ( s ) s + 2ζωn s
Step 1b: Desired Frequency Response
r(t) ωn 2 y(t) r(t) ωn 2 y(t)

-
s 2 + 2ζωn s = s 2 + 2ζωn s + ωn
2
Bode Plots: (wc = 2.8 rad/sec) and Phase Margin = 58.6o

Tutorial Q5: Step 2a, Actual Response
Kd
Gc ( s ) = K p + K d s = K p s +1
Kp
Start with Kp=1 and Kd=0
Must increase gain

by 32dB to get wc at
2.8 rad/sec
Convert dB to gain:
32 dB = 10(32/20)
≈ 40 = Kp
Tutorial Q5: Step 2b, Actual Response

Phase Curve
Phase margin only
15o. Needs to be lifted
approx. 45o.
Kd
Gc ( s ) = K p s +1
Kp
Kp / Kd is the location
of the zero. The zero
will lift the phase curve.
Approximately 45o lift
where zero is.
Choose Kd = Kp/2.8 = 14.3,

which gives a zero at
2.8 rad/sec
Tutorial Q5, Step 2c: Actual Response
Bode plots with Kp = 40 and Kd = 14.3
The zero has also increased the Phase margin now ok

crossover frequency wc.
Some fine-tuning required, but simply reduce gain while keeping zero.
Kp = 30 and Kd = Kp / 2.8 = 10.7 gives desired result.
Tutorial Q5, Step 3: Verification
Peak time exactly

1.0 seconds.
Overshoot slightly higher

than 10%.
Design is not accurate, since

the PD controller and G(s)
do not match exactly
ωn 2
s 2 + 2ζωn s
Bode plots of (s+a) = a (s/a + 1)
Review from Lecture 1b. Asymptotic Bode plots
Figure 10.6
a. magnitude
plot;
b. phase plot.
Gain and Phase Margin via Nyquist (10.6)

Review from Lecture 1b. The Nyquist plot explains why
we look at 0dB and -180o for the open-loop transfer
function.
Figure 10.35
Nyquist diagram
showing gain
and phase
margins
METR4202/7202 – AAdvanced Control & Robotics, Semester 2, 2005: Page: 11 Tutorial w4, Q6
1
roots([1 6 11 6]) G( s) =
( s + 1)( s + 2)( s + 3)
1 1 1
u s 1 s 1 s 1
y
-1 -2 -3
Tutorial w4, Q6b
u dz3/dt
1 z3 dz2/dt 1 z2 dz1/dt 1 z1
s 1 s 1 s 1
y
-1 -2 -3
z1 = −3z1 + z2
z 2 = −2 z 2 + z 3
z3 = − z3 + u
−3 1 0 0
Az = 0 − 2 1 Bz = 0 C z = [1 0 0] Dz = 0
0 0 −1 1
z1 z1 z1
z2 = A z2 + Bu y = C z2 + Du
z3 z3 z3
METR4202/7202 – AAdvanced Control & Robotics, Semester 2, 2005: Page: 13 Tutorial w4, Q7
Tutorial w4, Q7: Step 1. Desired Polynomial

We already have the desired polynomial from Q1
%
− ln 1
100 − ln(0.1)
ζ = = = 0.5912
π 2 + ln 2 (0.1) s 2 + 2ζωn s + ωn
% 2
π + ln
2 2
100
π π 1
wn = = = 3.90 =
Tp 1 − ζ 2
1.0 1 − 0.3495 s + 4.6 s + 15.2
2
The system is 3rd order. We have no zeros to cancel. Hence, we

add another pole at 40 (a decade above wn) where it has little
effect on overshoot and peak time.
1 1
=
( s + 40)( s 2 + 4.6s + 15.2) s 3 + 44.6s 2 + 199.2 s + 608
Tutorial w4, Q7: Step 2. Phase Variable-Form
x1 0 1 0 x1 0
x2 = 0 0 1 x2 + 0 u
x3 − a0 − a1 − a2 x3 1
1 1
G( s) = =
s 3 + 6s 2 + 11s + 6 s 3 + a2 s 2 + a1s + a0
x1 0 1 0 x1 0
x2 = 0 0 1 x2 + 0 u
x3 − 6 − 11 − 6 x3 1
Ax Bx
Tutorial w4, Step 3: Controller Gains by Inspection
0 1 0
Ax − Bx K x = 0 0 1
− (6 + k1 ) − (11 + k2 ) − (6 + k3 )
Desired Polynomial:
1
s 3 + 44.6s 2 + 199.2 s + 608
k1 = 602
Controller gains in
k2 = 188.2 phase-variable form
k3 = 38.6
Tutorial w4, Q7: Step 4. Transformation Matrix
The transformation matrix P to convert from cascade to

phase-variable form
0 0 1
CMZ = [ Bz Az Bz Az Bz ] = 0 −3
2
1
1 −1 1
0 0 1
CMX = [ Bx Ax Bx Ax Bx ] = 0 −6
2
1
1 −6 25
1 0 0
−1
P = CMZ * CMX = 3 1 0
6 5 1
Tutorial w4, Q7: Step 5. Final Controller Gains
K z = K x P −1
1 0 0
= [602 188.2 38.6] − 3 1 0
−5 1
9
= [384.8 − 4.8 38.6]
METR4202/7202 – AAdvanced Control & Robotics, Semester 2, 2005: Page: 19 Tutorial w4, Q7: Verification
Peak time exactly 1.0 seconds
Overshoot exactly 10%.
Limitations of state-feedback control
In practice, all the states x are not measured and

available for feedback.
For mechanical systems, such as robots, the joint
angles are typically measured but the velocities not.
Reducing the number of sensors reduces the cost of the
overall control system.
Hence, we need to develop methods for state-space

controller design when the only measurement is the
scalar y.
State-feedback design using observers
A) Unforced observer B) Forced observer
Details of
forced observer
Unforced Observer
x = Ax + Bu
The plant dynamics
y = Cx
xˆ = Axˆ + Bu
The observer dynamics
yˆ = Cxˆ
x − xˆ = A (x − xˆ ) The error dynamics.

Note that the error e = x − xˆ
y − yˆ = C(x − xˆ ) approaches zero given by the
transient dynamics of A
This is not a particularly good observer; we want the error dynamics

to be much faster than the system dynamics.
Forced Observer
x = Ax + Bu The plant dynamics
y = Cx
xˆ = Axˆ + Bu + L( y − yˆ ) The forced observer

yˆ = Cxˆ dynamics
x − xˆ = A ( x − xˆ ) − L( y − yˆ )
y − yˆ = C( x − xˆ )
Forced error dynamics. We
can now design the transient
response of the error by
placing the poles of A-LC
x − xˆ = ( A − LC)( x − xˆ )
Observer Design vs. Controller Design
In controller design we placed the poles of A-BK

The phase-variable or the controller canonical forms
made feedback gain selection easy: by inspection
In observer design we will place the poles of A-LC

The observer canonical form will turn out to be ideal for

observer feedback gain selection: also by inspection
3rd Order Observer: Observer Canonical Form
b3 s 2 + b2 s + b1
G( s) = 3
s + a2 s 2 + a1s + a0
Signal-flow chart for

the unforced observer
Signal-flow chart for

the forced observer
Observer Design Procedure

Observer
Canonical
Form
Here you see why
this form has the
advantage
Desired Poles:
METR4202/7202 – AAdvanced Control & Robotics, Semester 2, 2005: Page: 27 Example 12.5: Observer Design
From Lecture Notes 3
Desired poles:
( s 2 + 2ζwn s + wn )( s + p )
2
= ( s 2 + 2 s + 5)( s + 4) = s 3 + 6s 2 + 13s + 20
Observer Canonical Form

xˆ = Axˆ + Bu + L( y − yˆ )
yˆ = Cxˆ = xˆ 1
METR4202/7202 – AAdvanced Control & Robotics, Semester 2, 2005: Page: 29 Ex 12.5: Characteristic Polynomial
Ex 12.5: Desired Polynomial

Desired Poles from Example 12.4:
( s 2 + 2ζwn s + wn )( s + p )
2
= ( s 2 + 2 s + 5)( s + 4) = s 3 + 6s 2 + 13s + 20
10 Times Faster wn:
= ( s 2 + 20s + 500)( s + 100) = s 3 + 120s 2 + 2500s + 50000

This is the pole selection in the book,

alternatively cancel the zero at 4.
By inspection: = 112, = 2483, = 49990

Observer Response
A) With observer feedback

gains L
B) With observer feedback

gains disconnected
Observable and Non-Observable Systems

All the states influence
the output
The state x1 does not

influence the output
Observability by inspection:
Convert to parallel form by eigenvectors
The Observability Matrix: Analytic Approach
An nth-order plant whose state and output
dynamics are:
x = Ax + Bu
y = Cx
is completely observable if the matrix

Compare
C with
controllability
CA matrix
is of rank n. OM =
CA n −1
Example 12.6: Observability

Determine if the system above is observable!

x1 = x2
x2 = x3
x3 = −4 x1 − 3x2 − 2 x3 + u
y = 5 x2 + x3
Example 12.6: A and C Matrices
0 1 0
A= 0 0 1 C = [0 5 1]
−4 −3 −2
The observability matrix:
C 0 5 1
OM = CA = − 4 − 3 3
CA 2 − 12 − 13 − 9
det(OM) = -344 ≠ 0 Hence, the system is observable
Example 12.7: Unobservability

This system looks
as if it could be
observable.
x1 = x2
21
x2 = −5 x1 − x2 + u
4
y = 5 x1 + 4 x2
1 0
A= 21 C = [5 4]
−5 −
4
C 5 4
OM = = Rank is 1, not observable
CA − 20 − 16
Summary so far: Observers
We need observers for state-feedback control when not

all the states x are measured.
First, check observability. If the system is observable,
you can go on and design an observer.
Second, if the system is in observer canonical form, the
observer design is a simple gain matching by inspection.
If the system is not in observer canonical form, we need

to first transform the model into this form.
Transformation Matrix P
Original System: Transformed System:
z = Az + Bu x = P −1APx + P −1Bu
y = Cz y = CPx
C CP
CA CP( P −1AP)
OMZ = OMX = = OMZ P
CP( P −1AP) n −1
CA n −1
Hence, We now have two ways

of obtaining P: either via the
−1
P = OMZ OMX controllability matrices or
the observability matrices
Transformation to Observer Canonical Form
This is the observer canonical form (system X):
− an −1 1 0 0
− an − 2 0 1 0
AX = C X = [1 0 0]
− a1 0 0 1
− a0 0 0 0
With this transformation matrix

−1
P = OMZ OMX we can transform any system Z
to the observer canonical form X
In Matlab: P = inv(obsv(Az,Cz)) * obsv(Ax,Cx)
Design gains in observer canonical form: Convert back to system Z

Lz = PLx
Ex. 12.8: Observer Design by Transformation
Design an observer for the plant
1
G( s) =
( s + 1)( s + 2)( s + 5)
represented in cascade form.

Let the closed-loop performance of the observer be

governed by the characteristic polynomial:
s 3 + 120s 2 + 2500s + 50000

Ex 12.8: Cascade Form
1
G( s) =
( s + 1)( s + 2)( s + 5)
z1 = −5 z1 + z2
z 2 = −2 z 2 + z 3
−5 1 0
z3 = − z 3 + u
A = 0 −2 1 C = [1 0 0]
0 0 −1
Ex 12.8: Observability Test

Determinant equals 1
C 1 0 0 Hence, observable
OMZ = CA = − 5 1 0
CA 2 25 −7 1
1 Poles expanded:
G( s) =
s 3 + 8s 2 + 17 s + 10
( s + 1)( s + 2)( s + 5)
Observer Canonical Form X
−8 1 0
A X = − 17 0 1 C X = [1 0 0]
− 10 0 0
CX 1 0 0
OMX = CX A X = −8 1 0
−8 1
2
CX A X 47
Ex 12.8: Observer Gains by Inspection
− (8 + l1 ) 1 0
A X − L X C X = − (17 + l2 ) 0 1
− (10 + l3 ) 0 0
Characteristic Polynomial is:
s 3 + (8 + l1 ) s 2 + (17 + l2 ) s + (10 + l3 )
Desired Polynomial is:
s 3 + 120s 2 + 2500s + 50000
Observer design by coefficient matching
L1 = 112 L2 = 2483 L3 = 49990
Example 12.8: Final Design

Convert observer gains back to original cascade form:
Lorig = PLX = OMZ-1 * OMX * LX = [ 112 2147 47619]T
Ex 12.8: Forced and unforced responses
Forced response
Response with observer

gains disconnected. This
response has the same
transient as the system
itself.
Summary: Observer Design

The observer canonical form is used to find the observer
gains by inspection
As for state-space controller gains, the observer gains
need to be transformed back to the original state-space
model using the transformation matrix P.
For observer design, the transformation matrix P is
found from the observability matrices.

For controller design, the transformation matrix P is
found from the controllability matrices.
The observer poles should be typically designed 10
times faster than the controller poles.
With the information in this lecture, you can now
proceed with the observer for the inverted pendulum
practical experiment.

Adv Control &amp; Robotic Lec 4

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Adv Control &amp; Robotic Lec 4

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

METR4202 – Advanced Control & Robotics

Review of Controller Design

Frequency Domain PD Controller Design

Introduction to State-Space Observer Design

Solutions: Tutorial week 4, Q5

Desired Closed-Loop Frequency Response:

Desired Open-Loop Frequency Response:

Step 1b: Desired Frequency Response

r(t) ωn 2 y(t) r(t) ωn 2 y(t)

Bode Plots: (wc = 2.8 rad/sec) and Phase Margin = 58.6o

Must increase gain

Tutorial Q5: Step 2b, Actual Response

Choose Kd = Kp/2.8 = 14.3,

The zero has also increased the Phase margin now ok

Tutorial Q5, Step 3: Verification

Peak time exactly

Overshoot slightly higher

Design is not accurate, since

Gain and Phase Margin via Nyquist (10.6)

Tutorial w4, Q6b

Tutorial w4, Q7: Step 1. Desired Polynomial

The system is 3rd order. We have no zeros to cancel. Hence, we

Tutorial w4, Step 3: Controller Gains by Inspection

The transformation matrix P to convert from cascade to

Tutorial w4, Q7: Step 5. Final Controller Gains

Peak time exactly 1.0 seconds

Overshoot exactly 10%.

Limitations of state-feedback control

In practice, all the states x are not measured and

overall control system.

Hence, we need to develop methods for state-space

x − xˆ = A (x − xˆ ) The error dynamics.

This is not a particularly good observer; we want the error dynamics

xˆ = Axˆ + Bu + L( y − yˆ ) The forced observer

Observer Design vs. Controller Design

In controller design we placed the poles of A-BK

In observer design we will place the poles of A-LC

The observer canonical form will turn out to be ideal for

Signal-flow chart for

Signal-flow chart for

Observer Design Procedure

From Lecture Notes 3

Observer Canonical Form

Ex 12.5: Desired Polynomial

= ( s 2 + 20s + 500)( s + 100) = s 3 + 120s 2 + 2500s + 50000

This is the pole selection in the book,

By inspection: = 112, = 2483, = 49990

A) With observer feedback

B) With observer feedback

Observable and Non-Observable Systems

The state x1 does not

is completely observable if the matrix

Example 12.6: Observability

Determine if the system above is observable!

The observability matrix:

det(OM) = -344 ≠ 0 Hence, the system is observable

Example 12.7: Unobservability

We need observers for state-feedback control when not

observer design is a simple gain matching by inspection.

If the system is not in observer canonical form, we need

Hence, We now have two ways

With this transformation matrix

In Matlab: P = inv(obsv(Az,Cz)) * obsv(Ax,Cx)

Design gains in observer canonical form: Convert back to system Z

Adv Control & Robotic Lec 4

Adv Control & Robotic Lec 4