Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
International Journal of Trend in Scientific
Research and Development (IJTSRD)
UGC Approved International Open Access Journal
ISSN No: 2456‐6470 | www.ijtsrd.com |Volume ‐ 1 |Issue ‐ 5
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a reliable control design technique only within a prespecified subset of the control
for linear, time-invariant, multi-input multi-output components. In addition, the actuators and sensors are
(MIMO) systems with degraded actuators and sensors. subject to either failure or normal operation which
The degradation defined in this paper ranges from neglects the possibility of partial degradation. Fujita
normal operational conditions to complete failure of and Shimemura [2] provide necessary and sufficient
actuators and sensors. We derive linear matrix inequa- conditions by introducing a class of U-matrices for
lity (LMI) conditions ensuring robust stability of the examining system stability against arbitrary feedback-
system using static state feedback. The potential of the loop failures in multivariable control systems with a
proposed technique has been demonstrated by an ex- stable plant and controller. This condition requires an
ample of three coupled inverted pendulums. exponential growth in computation as a function of
plant dimension. Partial failures are not considered.
Keywords—linear matrix inequality; static state For a given stabilizing controller of a plant,
feedback; MIMO; degradation. Vidyasagar and Viswanadham [3] studied the problem
of designing the second controller such that either
I. Introduction controller acting alone stabilizes the plant and both
Conventional feedback control designs for a MIMO acting together also stabilize the plant. A computing
system may result in instability in the event of the method for the second stabilizing controller which
degradation of actuators and sensors, even though it involves stable coprime factorizations using the plant
may be possible to control the system using only the and the first controller data are established and may
surviving functions of actuator and sensor. It is worth result in the second controller of high order. Cho et al
noting that this condition can occur even if the open [4] used the same methodology as [3] except that the
loop system is stable. It is therefore of interest to second stabilizing controller is of adaptive controller
develop feedback control designs which guarantee which again ends up with high order.
robust stability despite degradation of actuators and In this paper, we design a static state feedback control
sensors. system to tolerate the degradation ranging from
There are relatively few methods for design of reliable normal operational condition to complete failure of
control. Veillette et al [1] develop observer-based actuator and sensor. The degradation is modeled as a
reliable centralized and decentralized control systems multiplicative uncertainty at the plant input or output.
provided the failure of actuators and sensors occur We accomplish this via diagonal weighting and norm
@ IJTSRD | Available Online @ www.ijtsrd.com | Volume – 1 | Issue – 5 Page:90
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) ISSN: 2456-6470
bounded matrices. To simplify the derivation we will (3) 0 < ur < 1 indicates the rth actuator may fail
first develop and prove LMI conditions which tolerate partially.
sensor or actuator degradation independently. Our
u uk
approach is extended to the simultaneous degradation x Ax Bu +
pu = [ pu1 .... pur ... pum ]T, pur R s = diag (s1 .... sl ... sn ), sl R
qu = [ qu1 .... qur ... qum ]T, qur R s = diag ( s1 .... sl ... sn), sl R
u = diag ( u1 .... ur ... um), ur R The degraded sensor signal xs(t) can be readily
ur(t) is the real valued unknown bounded uncertainty represented as
and it is assumed to be time-varying scalar quantity.
xs(t) = ( I + s(t)s)x(t)
The control signal u(t) can be readily computed as
where the possibility of full or partial failure of sensors
u(t) = ( I + u(t)u)uk(t)
is defined in the similar way as in the actuator case
where the I is identity matrix and u = diag (u1 .... ur ... using variables s and s in place of u and u,
um ), ur R. Since |ur(t)| 1, i.e. -1 ur(t) 1, respectively.
x u
the degradation is modeled by a priori weighting u as + x Ax Bu
follows. ps s qs s
xs
(1) u = 1 indicates the rth actuator may fail fully.
r
actuator fails partially or fully. Figure 2 Closed Loop System for Sensor Case
p sl sl q sl , sl ( t ) 1. u1
u3
m1
u2 m3
m2
k13,b13
l1
If there exist matrices P, W, Su, Sx, Ss, , and l2 l3
satisfying k12,b12
k23,b23
P P 0 , Su S 0 , S x S 0 , S s S sT 0 ,
T T T
a2
u x
1 2 3 a3
a1
> 0, > 0
where Tu u , for a given weighting matrix u We will first demonstrate actuator degradation. The
and s, then the following statements are equivalent, weighting is chosen u=diag(1, 0.1, 0.28) which
represents the possibility of degradation for each
(1) The closed-loop system (3.6) is asymptotically actuator. For instance, actuator for m1 may fail during
stable. its operation, actuators for m2 and m3 are subject to
(2) (A + BK) is Hurwitz for K = WP-1. 10% and 28% variation of its nominal operation signal.
We will demonstrate nominal operation of actuators,
Proof. See Appendix B for proof. i.e. u = 0, at time t 0.5. Then, we will show the case
Remark 3. Normally speaking, the matrix inequalities where the actuator for m1 is subject to fail and the
(3.6)-(3.8) should be solved simultaneously. However, actuator for m2 and m3 are partial failure. Detail
it is not possible to solve using convex programming conditions are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
due to inversely coupled terms, Ss, Su, Sx, and .
time m1 m2 m3
Thus, we suggest for some given we solve (3.8) for
P, W, Sx , Ss, and Su and then verify (3.6) and (3.7). 0 t < 0.5 S1 S2 S3
control signals
K - 362.5824 - 93.3584 - 2.9357 -17.3282 - 4.3807 -10.9399
- 25.4243 7.1539 4.5474 16523
. 35.8191 10.0032
5
−5
0.1
(1) Table 3
0
time m1 m2 m3
−0.1
−0.2
. m
V ( x ) r ( q ur q ur pur pur ) 0 (A.1)
T T
0.2
(2) r 1
outputs − theta1 theta2 theta3
0.1
0 (1)
for some r>0. Substituting (2.1) into (A.1) and
rearranging the expression, we obtain
−0.1
(3)
AT L LA LBK ( LBK)T
−0.2
x
T
T T LB x (A.2)
p K u u K p 0
−0.3
u u
−0.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 BLT
time (sec)
30 A T L LA LBK ( LBK ) T
LB (A.3)
K u u K 0
T T
25
T
20
B L
control signals
15
Expanding by Schur complement and letting Q = L-1,
10
Y = KQ, and M = -1, we may have
5 (3)
r 1 r 1
Appendix A
PA T AP W T B T BW
WT P Ts
BS x B S u
T
W T S s
1
0 0
(B.7)
sP 0
1