Pole placement

control
O.Sename

State feedback
Pole placement control: state space and polynomial control

Pole placement
approaches control: a state
space approach
Lecture 2 Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
O. Sename1 control

Integral Control

1 Gipsa-lab, CNRS-INPG, FRANCE Some important

features
Olivier.Sename@gipsa-lab.fr
www.gipsa-lab.fr/∼o.sename

November 21, 2017

 Pole placement
Outline control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
State feedback control Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications
Pole placement control: a state space approach
Observer

Observer-based
control
Specifications
Integral Control

Some important
features
Observer

Observer-based control

Integral Control

Some important features

 Pole placement
About Feedback control control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
How to design a controller using a state space representation ? space approach

Tow cases are possible : Specifications

Observer
I Static controllers (output or state feedback) Observer-based
control
I Dynamic controllers (output feedback or observer-based)
Integral Control
What for ? Some important
features
I Closed-loop stability (of state or output variables)
I disturbance rejection
I Model tracking
I Input/Output decoupling
I Other performance criteria : H2 optimal, H∞ robust...
 Pole placement
control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

State feedback control Integral Control

Some important
features
 Pole placement
State space representations control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
Let consider continuous-time linear state space system given bt : space approach

( Specifications
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), x(0) = x0 Observer
(1) Observer-based
y (t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) control

Integral Control

I x(t) ∈ Rn is the system state (vector of state variables), Some important

features
I u(t) ∈ Rm the control input
I y (t) ∈ Rp the measured output
I A, B, C and D are real matrices of appropriate dimensions
I x0 is the initial condition.
n is the order of the state space representation.
 Pole placement
Why state feedback and not output feedback? control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
y (s) control: a state
1
Example: G(s) = u(s)
= s2 −s
space approach

Specifications
1. Give the controllable canonical form considering x1 = y , x2 = ẏ . Observer
2. Case of output feedback= Proportional control : u = −Kp y Observer-based
control
I Compute the closed-loop transfer function and check that the
closed-loop poles are given by the roots of the characteristic Integral Control

polynomial PBF (s) = s2 − s + Kp . Some important

features
I Can the closed-loop system be stabilized ?
3. Case of state feedback : consider the control law
u = −x1 − 3x2 + yref
I Compute the state space representation of the closed-loop system.
I What are the poles of the closed-loop systems?
I Is it stable?
I If yes why this second control solves the problem?
 Pole placement
State feedback control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
Definition space approach
A state feedback controller for a continuous-time system is: Specifications

Observer
u(t) = −Fx(t) (2) Observer-based
control
where F is a m × n real matrix. Integral Control

When the system is SISO, it corresponds to : Some important

features
u(t) = −f1 x1 − f2 x2 − . . . − fn xn with F = [f1 , f2 , . . . , fn ].
When the system is MIMO we have
   
u1   x1
 u2  f11 . . . f1n  x 
  . ..   2 
 .  =  ..  . 

 ..  . 
 .. 
fm1 . . . fmn
um xn
 Pole placement
Definition of the state feedback control control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
A state feedback controller for a continuous-time system is: space approach

Specifications
u(t) = −Fx(t) (3) Observer

Observer-based
where F is a m × n real matrix. control

When the system is SISO, it corresponds to : Integral Control

u(t) = −f1 x1 − f2 x2 − . . . − fn xn with F = [f1 , f2 , . . . , fn ]. Some important

features
When the system is MIMO we have
   
u1   x1
 u2  f 11 . . . f1n  x 
  . ..   2 
 .  =  ..  . 

 ..  . 
 .. 
fm1 . . . fmn
um xn
 Pole placement
State feedback (2): stabilization control
O.Sename
Using state feedback controllers (6), we get in closed-loop (for simplicity
State feedback
D = 0)  control
ẋ(t) = (A − BF )x(t), Pole placement
(4) control: a state
y (t) = Cx(t) space approach

Specifications
The stability (and dynamics) of the closed-loop system is then given by
Observer
the eigenvalues of A − BF .
Then the solution y (t) = C exp(A−BF )t x0 converges asymptotically to Observer-based
control
zero! Integral Control

Some important
F Discrete-time systems features

Using u(k ) = Fd x(k ) we get


x(k + 1) = (Ad − Bd Fd )x(k ),
(5)
y (k ) = Cd x(k )

Remark
For both cases, the good choice of F (or Fd ) may allow to stabilize the
closed-loop system.
But what happens if the closed-loop system must track a reference
signal r ?
 Pole placement
State feedback (3): reference tracking control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
Objective: y should track some reference signal r , i.e.
Pole placement
control: a state
y (t) −−−→ r (t) space approach
t→∞ Specifications

Observer

When the objective is to track some reference signal r , why not select: Observer-based
control

u(t) = r (t) − Fx(t) (6) Integral Control

Some important
or u(k ) = r (k ) − Fd x(k ) for discrete-time systems (7) features

Can we ensure that y tracks the reference signal r , i.e y (t) −→ r (t) ?
t→∞
No since, the closed-loop transfer matrix is :
y (s)
= C(sIn − A + BF )−1 B (8)
r (s)

for which the static gain is C(−A + BF )−1 B and may differ from 1 ! (see
examples)
 Pole placement
State feedback (4): complete solution for reference tracking control

When the objective is to track some reference signal r , the state O.Sename

feedback control can be selected as: State feedback

control
u(t) = −Fx(t)+Gr (t) (9) Pole placement
control: a state
space approach
G is a m × p real matrix. Then the closed-loop transfer matrix is :
Specifications
GCL (s) = C(sIn − A + BF )−1 BG (10) Observer

Observer-based
G is chosen to ensure a unitary steady-state gain as: control

Integral Control
G = [C(−A + BF )−1 B]−1 (11) Some important
features

F When D 6= 0

GCL (s) = [(C − DF )(sIn − A + BF )−1 B + D]G

F Discrete-time systems (with Dd =)

u(k ) = −Fd x(k ) + Gd r (k ) (12)

with Gd = [C(In − Ad + Bd Fd )−1 Bd ]−1 (13)
 Pole placement
Implementation in Simulink control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Integral Control

Some important
features
 Pole placement
control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
Pole placement control: a state control

Integral Control

space approach Some important

features
 Pole placement
Pole placement control control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Problem definition Specifications

Given a linear system (1), does there exist a state feedback control law Observer

(6) such that the closed-loop poles are in predefined locations Observer-based
control
(denoted γi , i = 1, ..., n ) in the complex plane ? Integral Control

Some important
Proposition features

Let a linear system given by A, B, and let γi , i = 1, ..., n , a set of

complex elements (i.e. the desired poles of the closed-loop system).
There exists a state feedback control u = −Fx such that the poles of
the closed-loop system are γi , i = 1, ..., n if and only if the pair (A, B) is
controllable.
 Pole placement
Pole placement control (2): case of the controllable canonical control

form O.Sename

State feedback
control
c0 +c1 s+...+cn−1 sn−1
Let assume that the system G(s) = a0 +a1 s+...+an−1 sn−1 +sn
is given by Pole placement
control: a state
0 1 0 ... 0 0
   
space approach
 0 0 1 0 ...   ..  Specifications
 ..

.. .. .. ..
  . 
   Observer
A=  . . . . . , B =  ..  and
Observer-based
.
  . 
control
..
   
 0 0 1   0 
Integral Control
−a0 −a1 . . . . . . −an−1 1 Some important
  features
C= c0 c1 ... cn−1 .
Let F = [ f1 f2 . . . fn ]
Then
0 1 0 ... 0
 
 0 0 1 0 ... 
.. .. .. .. ..
 
 
A − BF = 
 . . . . . 
 (14)
 .. 
 0 . 0 1 
−a0 − f1 −a1 − f2 ... ... −an−1 − fn
 Pole placement
Pole placement control (3) control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
From the specifications the desired closed-loop polynomial Pole placement
(s − γ1 )(s − γ2 )...(s − γn ) can be developed as: control: a state
space approach

Specifications
(s − γ1 )(s − γ2 )...(s − γn )sn + αn−1 sn−1 + . . . + α1 s + α0 Observer

Threfore the chosen solution: Observer-based

control

Integral Control
fi = −ai−1 + αi−1 , i = 1, .., n Some important
features
ensures that the poles of A − BF are {γi }, i = 1, n.
Remark: the case of controllable canonical forms is very important
since , when we consider a general state space representation, it is first
necessary to use a change of basis to make the system under
canonical form, which will simplify a lot the computation of the state
feedback control gain F (see next slide).
Matlab: use F=place(A,B,P) where P is the set of desired
closed-loop poles (old version F=acker(A,B,P) )
 Pole placement
Pole placement control (4) control
O.Sename
Procedure for the general case:
State feedback
1. Check controllability of (A, B) control

2. Calculate C = [B, AB, . . . , An−1 B]. Pole placement

control: a state
−1 space approach
qn

 
q1 Specifications
qn A
Note C −1 =  ... . Define T = 
 
Observer
..
   

 .  Observer-based
qn control
qn An−1 Integral Control

3. Note Ā = T −1 AT and B̄ = T −1 B (which are under the controllable Some important

features
canonical form)
4. Choose the desired closed-loop poles and define the desired
closed-loop characteristic polynomial:
sn + αn−1 sn−1 + . . . + α1 s + α0
5. Calculate the state feedback u = −F̄ x̄ with:

f̄i = −ai−1 + αi−1 , i = 1, .., n

6. Calculate (for the original system):

u = −Fx, with F = F̄ T −1
 Pole placement
control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based

Specifications: control

Integral Control

continuous-time case Some important

features
 Pole placement
Specifications: what should be the closed-loop poles? control
O.Sename

The required closed-loop performances should be chosen in the State feedback

following zone control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Integral Control

Some important
features

which ensures a damping greater than ξ = sin φ .

−γ implies that the real part of the CL poles are sufficiently negatives.
 Pole placement
Specifications (2) control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications
Some useful rules for selection the desired pole/zero locations (for a
Observer
second order system):
Observer-based
1.8
I Rise time : tr ' ωn
control

Integral Control
4.6
I Seetling time : ts ' ξ ωn Some important
features
I Overshoot Mp = exp(−πξ /sqrt(1 − ξ 2 )):
ξ = 0.3 ⇔ Mp = 35%,
ξ = 0.5 ⇔ Mp = 16%,
ξ = 0.7 ⇔ Mp = 5%.
 Pole placement
Specifications(3) control
O.Sename
Some rules do exist to shape the transient response. The ITAE (Integral
of Time multiplying the Absolute value of the Error), defined as: State feedback
control
Z ∞
Pole placement
ITAE = t|e(t)|dt control: a state
0 space approach

Specifications
can be used to specify a dynamic response with relatively small
Observer
overshoot and relatively little oscillation (there exist other methods to do Observer-based
so). The optimum coefficients for the ITAE criteria are given below (see control

Dorf & Bishop 2005). Integral Control

Order Characteristic polynomials dk (s) Some important

features
1 d1 = [s + ωn ]
2 d2 = [s2 + 1.4ωn s + ωn2 ]
3 d3 = [s3 + 1.75ωn s2 + 2.15ωn2 s + ωn3 ]
4 d4 = [s4 + 2.1ωn s3 + 3.4ωn2 s2 + 2.7ωn3 s + ωn4 ]
5 d5 = [s5 + 2.8ωn s4 + 5ωn2 s3 + 5.5ωn3 s2 + 3.4ωn4 s + ωn5 ]
6 d6 = [s6 + 3.25ωn s5 + 6.6ωn2 s4 + 8.6ωn3 s3 + 7.45ωn4 s2 + 3.95ωn5 s + ωn6 ]

and the corresponding transfer function is of the form:

ωnk
Hk (s) = , ∀k = 1, ..., 6
dk (s)
 Pole placement
Specifications(4) control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

1.2
Pole placement
H1 control: a state
H2 space approach
H3
H4
H5 Specifications
1 H6
Observer

Observer-based
control
0.8

Integral Control
STEP RESPONSE OF TRANSFER FUNCTIONS
WITH ITAE CHARACTERISTIC POLYNOMIALS Some important
0.6
features

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
NORMALIZED TIME ωn t
 Pole placement
control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Observer Integral Control

Some important
features
 Pole placement
Introduction control
O.Sename

A first insight State feedback

control
To implement a state feedback control, the measurement of all the state Pole placement
variables is necessary. If this is not available, we will use a state control: a state
space approach
estimation through a so-called Observer. Specifications

Observer
Observation or Estimation
Observer-based
The estimation theory is based on the famous Kalman contribution to control

filtering problems (1960), and accounts for noise induced problems. Integral Control

The observation theory has been developed for Linear Systems by Some important
features
Luenberger (1971), and doe snot consider the noise effects.

Other interest of observation/estimation

In practice the use of sensors is often limited for several reasons:
feasibility, cost, reliability, maintenance ...
An observer is a key issue to estimate unknown variables (then non
measured variables) and to propose a so-called virtual sensor.
Objective: Develop a dynamical system whose state x̂(t) satisfies:
I (x(t) − x̂(t)) −−−→ 0
t→∞
I (x(t) − x̂(t)) → 0 as fast as possible
 Pole placement
Open loop observers: a first approach to estimation from control

input data O.Sename

Let consider ( State feedback

control
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), x(0) = x0
(15) Pole placement
control: a state
y (t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) space approach

Specifications
Given that we know the plant matrices and the inputs, we can just
Observer
perform a simulation that runs in parallel with the system
Observer-based
control
˙
(
x̂(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), given x̂(0) Integral Control
(16)
ŷ (t) = C x̂(t) + Du(t) Some important
features

Therefore, if we would have x̂(0) = x(0), then x̂(t) = x(t), ∀t ≥ 0.

BUT
I x(0) is UNKNOWN so we cannot choose x̂(0) = x(0),
I the estimation error (e = x − x̂) dynamics is determined by A, i.e
satisfies ė(t) = Ae(t) (could be unstable AND cannot be modified)
I the effects of disturbance and noise cannot be attenuated (leads to
estimation biais)
NEED FOR A FEEDBACK FROM MEASURED OUTPUTS TO
CORRECT THE ESTIMATION !
 Pole placement
Closed-loop Observer: estimation from input AND output control

data O.Sename

State feedback
control
Objective: since y is KNOWN (measured) and is function of the state
Pole placement
variables, use an on line comparison of the measured system output y control: a state
space approach
and the estimated output ŷ .
Specifications
Observer description:
Observer

˙
x̂(t) = Ax̂(t) + Bu(t) + L(y (t) − ŷ (t))
Observer-based
control

(17)
| {z }
Integral Control
Correction
x̂0 to be defined Some important
features

where x̂(t) ∈ Rn is the estimated state of x(t) and L is the n × p

constant observer gain matrix to be designed.
 Pole placement
Analysis of the observer properties control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
The estimated error, e(t) := x(t) − x̂(t), satisfies: Pole placement
control: a state
ė(t) = (A − LC)e(t) (18) space approach

Specifications

If L is designed such that A − LC is stable, then x̂(t) converges Observer

asymptotically towards x(t). Observer-based

control

Proposition Integral Control

Some important
(17) is an observer for system (1) if and only if the pair (C,A) is features
observable, i.e.

rank (O) = n
C
 
 CA 
where O =  .. .
 
 . 
CAn−1
 Pole placement
Observer design control
O.Sename

The observer design is restricted to find L such that A − LC is stable State feedback
control
(ensuring that (x(t) − x̂(t)) −−−→ 0), and has some desired eigenvalues
t→∞ Pole placement
(ensuring that (x(t) − x̂(t)) → 0 as fast as possible). This is still a pole control: a state
space approach
placement problem. Specifications

Specifications Observer

Observer-based
Select the observer poles according to the systems closed-loop control

dynamical behavior (see later). Integral Control

Some important
Design method features

I In order to use the acker or place Matlab functions, we will use

the duality property between observability and controllability, i.e. :
(C, A) observable ⇔ (AT , C T ) controllable.
I Then there exists LT such that the eigenvalues of AT − C T LT can
be randomly chosen. As (A − LC)T = AT − C T LT then L exists
such that A − LC is stable.
I Matlab : use L=acker(A’,C’,Po)’ where Po is the
set of desired observer poles.
 Pole placement
Theoretical validation scheme using Simulink control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Integral Control

Some important
features
 Pole placement
How to choose the observer poles ? control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
First Pole placement
control: a state
This is quite important to avoid that the observer makes the closed-loop space approach
system slower. So the observer should be faster than you intend to Specifications
make the regulator. Observer

Observer-based
Second control

Increasing the observe gain is actually possible since there is no Integral Control

saturation problem. Some important

features
However the measured outputs are often noisy.
Trade-off between high bandwidth observers (very efficient for
estimation but noise sensitive) and low bandwidth ones (less than noise
sensitive but slower)

Rule of thumb
Usually the observer poles are chosen around 5 to 10 times higher than
the closed-loop system, so that the state estimation is good as early as
possible.
 Pole placement
About the robustness of the observer control
O.Sename

State feedback
Let assume that the systems is indeed given by control

( Pole placement
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + Edx (t), x(0) = x0 control: a state
space approach
(19)
y (t) = Cx(t) + Ddy (t) Specifications

Observer
where dx can represent input disturbance or modelling error, and dy Observer-based
control
stands for output disturbance or measurement noise.
Integral Control
Then the estimated error satisfies:
Some important
features
ė(t) = (A − LC)e(t) + Edx − LDdy (20)

Therefore the presence of dx or dy may lead to non zero estimation

errors due to bias or variations. Then do not forget that you can:
I Provide an analysis of the observer performances/robustness due
to dx or dy (see later)
I Design optimal observer when dx and dy represent noise effects
(Kalman - lqe, see next course )
I Design robust observer suing H∞ approach (see next year)
 Pole placement
Practical implementation control
O.Sename

State feedback
Rules control

Pole placement
I use a state-space block in Simulink control: a state
space approach
I enter ’formal’ matrices ’A’=A-LC,’B’=[B L], Specifications
’C’= eye(n), ’D’= zeros(n,m)) Observer
I Choose x̂(0) 6= x(0), Observer-based
control

Integral Control

Some important
features

I alternative use of estim

 Pole placement
control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Observer-based control Integral Control

Some important
features
 Pole placement
Observer-based control control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
When an observer is built, we will use as control law: control: a state
space approach

u(t) = −F x̂(t) + Gr (t) (21) Specifications

Observer

The closed-loop system is then (considering here D = 0) Observer-based

control

ẋ(t) = (A − BF )x(t) + BF (x(t) − x̂(t)), Integral Control
(22)
y (t) = Cx(t) Some important
features

Therefore the fact that x̂(0) 6= x(0) will have an impact on the
closed-loop system behavior.
The stability analysis of the closed-loop system with an observer-based
state feedback control needs to consider an extended state vector as:
 T
xe (t) = x(t) e(t)
 Pole placement
Observer-based control: stability analysis control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
Defining
 T Pole placement
xe (t) = x(t) e(t) control: a state
space approach

The closed-loop system with observer (17) and control (21) is: Specifications

    Observer
A − BF BF BG Observer-based
ẋe (t) = xe (t) + r (t) (23) control
0 A − LC 0
Integral Control

The characteristic polynomial of the extended system is: Some important

features

det(sIn − A + BF ) × det(sIn − A + LC)

If the observer and the control are designed separately then the
closed-loop system with the dynamic measurement feedback is stable,
given that the control and observer systems are stable and the
eigenvalues of (23) can be obtained directly from them.
This corresponds to the so-called separation principle.
Remark: check pzmap of the extended closed-loop system.
 Pole placement
Closed-loop analysis control
O.Sename

State feedback
The closed-loop system from r to y is then computed from: control

 T Pole placement
control: a state
y = [C 0] x(t) e(t) space approach

Specifications
which leads to
y Observer
= C(sIn − A + BF )BG
r Observer-based
control
However if some disturbance acts as for: Integral Control
( Some important
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) + Ed(t), x(0) = x0 features
(24)
y (t) = Cx(t)

where d is the disturbance, then the extended system writes

     
A − BF BF BG E
ẋe (t) = xe (t) + r (t) + d(t) (25)
0 A − LC 0 E

which is a problem for the performances of closed-loop system and of

the estimation (see later the Integral control).
 Pole placement
The controller control
O.Sename

The observer-based controller is nothing else than a 2-DOF Dynamic State feedback
control
Output Feedback controller. Indeed it comes from Pole placement
control: a state
˙
 space approach
x̂(t) = Ax̂(t) + Bu(t) − L(C x̂(t) − y (t))
(26) Specifications
u(t) = −F x̂(t) + Gr (t)
Observer

which can be written as Observer-based

control

˙
 Integral Control
x̂(t) = (A − BF − LC)x̂(t) + BGr (t) + Ly (t)
(27) Some important
u(t) = −F x̂(t) + Gr (t) features

We then can write:

U(s) = Kr (s)R(s) − Ky (s)Y (s)

with

Kr (s) = G − F (sIn − A + BF + LC)−1 BG

Ky (s) = F (sIn − A + BF + LC)−1 L

and the analysis can be done through the sensitivity functions.

 Pole placement
control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Integral Control Integral Control

Some important
features
 Pole placement
Integral Control or how to ensure disturbance attenuation control

with a state feedback control? O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach
Preliminary remrak: a state feedback controller may not allow to reject
Specifications
the effects of disturbances (particularly of input disturbances).
Observer
Let us consider the system:
Observer-based
( control
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)+Ed(t), x(0) = x0 Integral Control
(28)
y (t) = Cx(t) Some important
features

where d is the disturbance.

The objective is to keep y following a reference signal r even in the
presence of d, i.e
y
r −
−−→ 1
I
t→∞
y
d −
−−→ 0
I
t→∞
 Pole placement
Formulation of the Integral Control control
O.Sename
Introduction
A very useful method consists in adding an integral term (as usual on State feedback
control
the tracking error) to ensure a unitary static closed-loop gain, therefore Pole placement
to choose control: a state
Z t space approach
u(t) = −Fx(t)−H (r (τ) − y (τ))dτ Specifications
0
Observer
But the question is: how to find H? Observer-based
control
The state space method Integral Control

It consists in extending the system by adding a new state variable: Some important
features

ż(t) = r (t) − y (t)

 
x
which leads to define the extended state vector .
z
Then the new open-loop state space representation is given as:

          
ẋ(t) A 0 x 0 B E
= + u(t) + r (t) + d(t)
ż(t) −C 0 z 1 0 0
 
  x
y (t) = C 0
z
 Pole placement
Synthesis of the Integral Control control

Let us define: O.Sename

   
A 0 B   State feedback
Ae = , Be = , Ce = C 0 control
−C 0 0 Pole placement
control: a state
The new state feedback control is now of the form space approach
  Specifications
x
u(t) = −Fe Observer
z Observer-based
control
= −Fx(t)−Hz(t) denoting Fe = [F H]
Integral Control

Then the synthesis of the control law u(t) requires: Some important
features
I the verification of the extended system controllability

I the specification of the desired closed-loop performances, i.e. a

set Pe of n + 1 desired closed-loop poles has to be chosen,

I the computation of the full state feedback Fe using

Fe=acker(Ae,Be,Pe)
We then get the closed-loop system
        
ẋ(t) A − BF BH x 0 E
= + r (t) + d(t)
ż(t) −C 0 z 1 0
 
  x
y (t) = C 0
z
 Pole placement
Integral control scheme control
O.Sename

The complete structure has the following form: State feedback

control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

r + 1 z Specifications

Observer

- s H -
Observer-based
control

u y Integral Control

- Plant Some important

features
F
x
(Or x̂ in case of an
observer-based control)

When an observer is to be used, the control action simply becomes:

u(t) = −F x̂(t) − Hz(t)

 Pole placement
Integral control scheme control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
Compute the closed-loop system representation and check that: control

Integral Control
I the closed-loop system has a unitary gain
Some important
features
I the effect of the disturbance d in steady-state is nul
 Pole placement
control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Some important features Integral Control

Some important
features
 Pole placement
Some extension: reduced-order observers control
O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications
In practice, since some output variables are measured it may be non Observer
necessary to get an estimation of all the state variables. Observer-based
For instance, if :   control

x1 (t) Integral Control

x(t) =
x2 (t) Some important
features

and y (t) = x1 (t) is measured, then it possible to estimate only x2 (t),

which is referred to as a reduced-order observer (order = n − p).
N.B: the use of a full-order observer also induces a filter effect on the
measurements.
 Pole placement
Performance analysis control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
As seen in (27) the general form of a Dynamic Output Feedback
Pole placement
controller is 2-DOF state space representation as: control: a state
space approach
  
r (t) Specifications
 ẋK (t) = AK xK (t) + BK


 y (t) 
Observer
(29)
r (t) Observer-based
 u(t) = CK xK (t) + DK

 control
y (t) Integral Control

Some important
with features
   
BG G
AK = A − BF − LC, BK = , CK = −F , DK =
L 0

This allows to compute the well known sensitivity functions since, from
K (s) = DK + CK (SIn − AK )−1 BK , we can write:
 
R(s)
U(s) = K (s) := Kr (s)R(s) − Ky (s)Y (s)
Y (s)
 Pole placement
Performance analysis (SISO) control

The general control scheme is of the form O.Sename

State feedback
control

Pole placement
control: a state
space approach

Specifications

Observer

Observer-based
control

Integral Control
The closed-loop system satisfies the equations Some important
features
1
y = 1+G(s)Ky (s)
(GKr r + dy − GKy n + Gdi )
1
u = 1+Ky (s)G(s)
(Kr r − Ky dy − Ky n − Ky Gdi )

Defining the Sensitivity function:

1
S(s) =
1 + G(s)Ky (s)
The performance sensitivity functions are then
y GKr y y y
r = 1+GKy = SGKr di = SG dy=S n= −T
u u u u
r = Kr S di = −Ty dy = −Ky S n = −Ky S
 Pole placement
Performance analysis (MIMO) control
O.Sename

State feedback
control
The closed-loop system satisfies the equations
Pole placement
control: a state
(Ip + G(s)Ky (s))y (s) = (GKr r + dy − GKr n + Gdi ) space approach
(Im + Ky (s)G(s))u(s) = (Kr r − Ky dy − Ky n − Ky Gdi ) Specifications

Observer
Defining Observer-based
control
Output and Output complementary sensitivity functions:
Integral Control

Sy = (Ip + GKy )−1 , Ty = (Ip + GKy )−1 GKy , Sy +Ty = Ip Some important
features

Input and Input complementary sensitivity functions:

Su = (Im + Ky G)−1 , Tu = Ky G(Im + Ky G)−1 , Su +Tu = Im

and the performance sensitivity functions are then

y y y y
r = Sy GKr di= Sy G dy= Sy n= −Ty
u u u u
r = Su Kr di = −Su Ky G dy = −Su Ky n = −Su Ky