Ch2-Design of Control Systems in State Space - MIMO

OPTIMALCONTROL
DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace
2012/2013 JosSdaCosta Chapter2

Summary
2.DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace
2.1StateSpaceControl
2.2RegulatordesignbyPolePlacementContinuousTime
systems
2.3RegulatordesignbyPolePlacementDiscreteTimesystems
2.4SolvingPoleplacementwithMATLAB
2.5DesignofServoSystemsbyPolePlacement
2.6PolePlacementinMIMOSystems
JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 2
In this chapter we discuss pole placement (assignment) method in
state space.
The poleplacement method in statespace is somewhat similar to
the rootlocus method in that we place closedloop poles at desired
locations.
The basic difference is that in the rootlocus design we place only the
dominant closed loop poles at the desired locations, while in the
poleplacement design we place all closedloop poles at desired
locations.
In rootlocus we design a controller (compensator) such that the
dominant closedloop poles have a desired damping ratio and an
undamped natural n.
Inrootlocusdesignweassumetheeffectsontheresponsesofno
dominantclosedlooppolestobenegligible.
Inpoleplacementdesigninstatespace:
Weassumethatallstatevariablesaremeasurableandareavailable
forfeedback.
Our initial discussions is mainly focused to SISO systems. The MIMO
case is much more complex since there is no unique solution. The
MIMO case is discussed later.
Different from specifying only dominant closedloop poles (the con
ventional design approach), the present poleplacement approach
specifies all closedloop poles.
The desired closedloop poles are located based on the transient
response and/or frequencyresponse requirements, such as speed,
damping ratio, or bandwidth, as well as steadystate requirements.
Inpoleplacementdesign:
There is a cost associated with placing all closedloop poles, since
placing all closedloop poles requires successful measurements of all
state variables or else requires the inclusion of a state observer in
the system.
Thereisalsoarequirementonthepartofthesystemfortheclosed
looppolestobeplacedatarbitrarilychosenlocations thatthe
systembecompletelystatecontrollable.
Summary
2.2RegulatordesignbyPolePlacementContinuousTime(CT)
Systems
2.2.1Necessaryandsufficientconditions
2.2.2Determinationofthegainmatrix
2.2.3Locationofclosedlooppoles
2.2RegulatordesignbyPolePlacementCT
ConsiderthecontinuoustimeSISOsystemgivenby
x (t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu (t ) (1)
y (t ) = Cx (t ) + Du (t ) (2)
where
x =statevector(nvector)
u =unconstrained controlsignal(scalar)
y =outputsignal(scalar)
A =n xn state matrix
B =n x1 inputmatrix
C =n x1 outputmatrix
D =constant(scalar)
Weshallchoosethecontrolsignaltobe u = Kx (3)
Thismeansthatthecontrolsignalu isdeterminedbyaninstantaneous
statefeedback.
The1 x n matrixK iscalledthestatefeedbackgainmatrix.
Thisclosedloopsystemhasnoreferenceinput(regulatorproblem).Its
objectiveistomaintainthezerooutput.
Becauseofthedisturbancesthatmaybepresent,theoutputwill
deviatefromzero.
Substitutingeq.(3)intoeq.(1)gives
(t) = (A BK)x(t)
Thesolutionofthisequationisgivenby
x(t ) = e( A-BK )t x(0) (4)
wherex(0) istheinitialstatecausedbyexternaldisturbances.
Thestabilityandtransientresponsecharacteristicsaredeterminedby
theeigenvaluesofmatrixA BK.
IfmatrixK ischosenproperly,thematrixA BK canbemadean
asymptoticallystable matrix,thusforallx(0) 0,itispossibletomake
x(t) approach0 ast approachesinfinity.
TheeigenvaluesofmatrixA BK arecalledtheregulatorpoles.
Iftheseregulatorpolesareplacedinthelefthalfsplane,thenx(t)
approaches0 ast approachesinfinity.
Theproblemofplacingtheregulatorpoles(closedlooppoles)atthe
desiredlocationiscalledapoleplacementorpoleassignment
problem.
2.2.1NecessaryandSufficientConditionforArbitraryPole
Placement
Weshallprovethatarbitrarypoleplacementforagivensystemis
possibleifandonlyifthesystemiscompletelystatecontrollable.
Thenecessarycondition:
We begin by proving that if the system is not completely state
controllable, then there are eigenvalues of matrix A BK that cannot
be controlled by state feedback.
Suppose that the system of eq. (1) is not completely state controlla
ble. Then the rank of the controllability matrix is less than n, or
Thismeansthatthereareq linearlyindependentcolumnvectorsinthe
controllabilitymatrix.
Letusdefinesuchq linearlyindependentcolumnvectorsasf1,f2,...,
fq.
Also,letuschoosen q additionalnvectorsvq+1,vq+2,...,vn such
that
isofrankn.
Then,bysimilaritytransformationofmatrixA weobtain
Nowdefine
Thenwehave
whereIq isaqdimensionalidentitymatrixandInq,isan(n q)dimen

sionalidentitymatrix.
NoticethattheeigenvaluesofA22 donotdependonK.
Thus,ifthesystemisnotcompletelystatecontrollable,thenthereare
eigenvaluesofmatrixA thatcannotbearbitrarilyplaced.
Therefore,toplacetheeigenvaluesofmatrixA BK arbitrarily,the
systemmustbecompletelystatecontrollable(necessarycondition).
Thesufficientcondition:
Ifthesystemiscompletelystatecontrollable,thenalleigenvaluesof
matrixA canbearbitrarilyplaced.
Inprovingasufficientcondition,itisconvenienttotransformthestate
equationgivenbyeq.(1)intothecontrollablecanonicalform.
DefineatransformationmatrixT by
T=MW (5)
whereM isthecontrollabilitymatrix
(6)
and
(7)
wheretheai's arecoefficientsofthecharacteristicpolynomial
Defineanewstatevectorby
If the rank of the controllability matrix M is n (meaning that the
system is completely state controllable), then the inverse of matrix T
exists, and eq. (1) can be modified to
(8)
where
(9) (10)
Thus, given a state equation eq. (1), it can be transformed into the
controllable canonical form if the system is completely state control
lable and if we transform the state vector x into state vector by use
of the transformation matrix T given by eq. (5).
Letuschooseasetofthedesiredeigenvaluesas1,2,...,n.Then
thedesiredcharacteristicequationbecomes
(11)
Letuswrite
(12)
When u (t ) = -KTx isusedtocontrolthesystemgivenbyeq.(8),the
systemequationbecomes
Thecharacteristicequationis
Thischaracteristicequationisthesameasthecharacteristicequation
u (t ) = -Kx
forthesystem,definedbyeq.(1),whenisusedasthe
controlsignal.
Nowletussimplifythecharacteristicequationofthesysteminthe
controllablecanonicalform.Referringtoeqs(9),(10),and(11),we
have
(13)
Thisisthecharacteristicequationforthesystemwithstatefeedback.
Therefore,itmustbeequaltoeq.(11),thedesiredcharacteristic
equation.
By equating the coefficients
of like powers of s, we get
Solving the preceding equations for the i's and substituting them into
eq. (12) we obtain
(14)
Thus, if the system is completely state controllable, all eigenvalues can
be arbitrarily placed by choosing matrix K according to eq. (14)
(sufficient condition).
We have thus proved that a necessary and sufficient condition for
arbitrary pole placement is that the system be completely state
controllable.
It is noted that if the system is not completely state controllable, but is
stabilizable, then it is possible to make the entire system stable by
placing the closedloop poles at desired locations for q controllable
modes.
Note that the remaining n - q uncontrollable modes are stable since
the system is stabilizable.
So the entire stabilizable system can be made stable.
2.2.2 Determination of the Gain Matrix K
From last results we saw that pole placement design consists to
calculate the state feedback gain matrix K based on the desired pole
location to meet the prespecified transient and steady state characte
ristics of the system response in closedloop.
Supposethatthesystemisdefinedby
= Ax + Bu
andthecontrolsignalisgivenby
u = Kx
Method1:TransformationMatrixT
ThestatefeedbackgainmatrixK thatforcestheeigenvaluesofABK
tobe1,2,...,n(desiredvalues)(ifi isacomplexeigenvalue,then
itsconjugatemustalsobeaneigenvalueofABK )canbedetermined
bythefollowingsteps:
Method 1: Transformation Matrix T (cont.)
Step1:Checkthecontrollabilityconditionforthesystem.Ifthe
systemiscompletelystatecontrollable,thenusethefollowingsteps:
Step2:FromthecharacteristicpolynomialformatrixA,thatis,
determinethevaluesofa1, a2, .. . , an.

Step3:DeterminethetransformationmatrixT thattransformsthe
systemstateequationintothecontrollablecanonicalform.(Ifthe
givensystemequationisalreadyinthecontrollablecanonicalform,
thenT = I.)Itisnotnecessarytowritethestateequationinthe
controllablecanonicalform.AllweneedhereistofindthematrixT.
ThetransformationmatrixT isgivenbyeq.(5),orT=MW
whereM isthecontrollabilitymatrixgivenbyeq.(6)andW isgiven
byeq.(7).
Method 1: Transformation Matrix T (cont.)
Step4: Usingthedesiredeigenvalues(desiredclosedlooppoles),
writethedesiredcharacteristicpolynomial:
anddeterminethevaluesof1, 2, . . . , n.
Step5:TherequiredstatefeedbackgainmatrixK canbedetermi
ned fromeq.(14),rewrittenthus
(14)
Method2:DirectSubstitutionMethod
Ifthesystemisofloworder(n 3),directsubstitutionofmatrixK
intothedesiredcharacteristicpolynomialmaybesimpler.
Method2:DirectSubstitutionMethod (cont.)
Forexample,ifn = 3,thenwritethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK as
SubstitutethisK matrixintothedesiredcharacteristicpolynomial,i.e.
|sI A + BK| = (s 1)(s 2)(s 3)
Sincebothsidesofthischaracteristicequationarepolynomialsins,by
equatingthecoefficientsofthelikepowersofs onbothsides,itis
possibletodeterminethevaluesofkl,k2,andk3.
Thisapproachisconvenientifn = 2 or3.
Forn = 4,5,6,...,thisapproachmaybecomeverytedious.
Notethatifthesystemisnotcompletelycontrollable,matrixK cannot
bedetermined.(Nosolutionexists.)
Method3:Ackermann'sFormula
Thereisawellknownformula,knownasAckermann'sformula,forthe
determinationofthestatefeedbackgainmatrixK.
Weshallpresentthisformulainwhatfollows.
Considerthesystem
= Ax + Bu
whereweusethestatefeedbackcontrolu = Kx.
Weassumethatthesystemiscompletelystatecontrollable.
Wealsoassumethatthedesiredclosedlooppolesareat1,2,...,n.
Theclosedloopstatefeedbackequationis
= (A BK)x
Letusdefine = A BK
Method 3: Ackermann's Formula (cont.)
Thedesiredcharacteristicequationis
SincetheCayleyHamiltontheoremstatesthat satisfiesitsown
characteristicequation,wehave
(15)
Weshallutilizeeq.(15)toderiveAckermann'sformula.
Tosimplifythederivation,weconsiderthecasewheren = 3.(Forany
otherpositiveintegern,thefollowingderivationcanbeeasily
extended.)
Considerthefollowingidentities:
Multiplyingtheprecedingequationsinorderby 3, 2, 1 and0,
(where0 = 1),respectively,andaddingtheresults,weobtain
(16)
Referringtoeq.(15),wehave
Also,wehave
Substitutingthelasttwoequationsintoeq.(16),wehave
Since() = 0,weobtain
(17)
Sincethesystemiscompletelystatecontrollable,theinverseofthe
controllabilitymatrix
exists.
Premultiplyingbothsidesofeq.(17)bytheinverseofthecontrolla
bility matrix,weobtain
Premultiplyingbothsidesofthislastequationby[0 0 1],weobtain
whichcanberewrittenas
ThislastequationgivestherequiredstatefeedbackgainmatrixK.
Generalizing,foranarbitrarypositiveintegern,wehavethe
AckermannsFormula tocomputetherequiredstatefeedbackgain
matrixK givenby
(18)
2.2.3 Locations of Desired ClosedLoop Poles
The first step in the poleplacement design approach is to choose the
locations of the desired closedloop poles.
The most frequently used approach is to choose such poles based on
experience in the rootlocus design, placing a dominant pair of closed
loop poles and choosing other poles so that they are far to the left of
the dominant closedloop poles.
Note that if we place the dominant closedloop poles far from the j
axis, so that the system response becomes very fast, the signals in the
system become very large, with the result that the system may
become nonlinear. This should be avoided.
Note that requiring a highspeed response implies requiring large
amounts of control energy. Also, in general, increasing the speed of
response requires a larger, heavier actuator, which will cost more.
Locations of Desired ClosedLoop Poles (cont.)
Anotherapproachisbasedonthequadraticoptimalcontrolapproach.
Thisapproachwilldeterminethedesiredclosedlooppolessuchthatit
balancesbetweentheacceptableresponseandtheamountofcontrol
energyrequired.(Wewilladdressthisapproachlatter).
Example
ConsidertheregulatorsystemshowninFigure.Theplantisgivenby
= Ax + Bu
where
and u = Kx
Example (cont.)
Letuschoosethedesiredclosedlooppolesat
s = 2 + j4, s = 2 j4, s = 10
Wemakesuchachoicebecauseweknowfromexperiencethatsucha
setofclosedlooppoleswillresultinareasonableoracceptabletran
sient response.
DeterminethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK.
Resolution
First,weneedtocheckthecontrollabilitymatrixofthesystem.
SincethecontrollabilitymatrixM isgivenby
wefindthat|M| = 1,andtherefore,rankM = 3.
Example (cont.)
Thus,thesystemiscompletelystatecontrollableandarbitrarypole
placementispossible.
Next,weshallsolvethisproblembyusingeachofthethreemethods
presentedbeforetocalculatethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK.
Method1: TransformationMatrixT
InthismethodthestatefeedbackgainmatrixK isgivenby
Thecharacteristicequationforthesystemis
Example (cont.)
Hence, a1 = 6, a2 = 5, a3 = 1
Thedesiredcharacteristicequationis
Hence,1 = 14, 2 = 60, 3 = 200

Referringtoeq.(14),whereT = I forthisproblembecausethegiven
stateequationisinthecontrollablecanonicalform,thenwehave
BydefiningthedesiredstatefeedbackgainmatrixK as
Example (cont.)
andequating|sI - A + BK| withthedesiredcharacteristicequation,
weobtain
Thus,6 + k3 = 14,5 + k2 = 60,1 + k1 = 200 fromwhichweobtain
Example (cont.)
Method3:Ackermann'sformula
Referringtoeq.(18),wehave
Since
Example (cont.)
and
weobtainthestatefeedbackgainmatrixK as
Example (cont.)
Asaconclusionwehave:
The feedback gain matrix K obtained by the three methods are the
same.
If the order n of the system is 4th or higher, methods 1 and 3 are
recommended, since all matrix computations can be carried out by a
computer.
If method 2 is used, hand computations become necessary because
a computer may not easily handle (only by symbolic tools) the
characteristic equation with unknown parameters k1, k2, . . , kn.
Note that matrix K is not unique for a given system, but depends on
the desired closedloop pole locations (which determine the speed
and damping of the response) selected.
2.2RegulatordesignbyPolePlacement
The selection of the desired closedloop poles or the desired
characteristic equation is a compromise between the rapidity of the
response of the error vector and the sensitivity to disturbances and
measurement noises. That is:
If we increase the speed of error response, then the adverse effects of
disturbances and measurement noises generally increase.
If the system is of second order, then the system dynamics (response
characteristics) can be precisely correlated to the location of the desired
closedloop poles and the zero(s) of the plant.
For higherorder systems, the location of the closedloop poles and the
system dynamics (response characteristics) are not easily correlated.
Hence, in determining the state feedback gain matrix K for a given
system, it is desirable to examine by computer simulations the
response characteristics of the system for several different matrices
K (based on several different desired characteristic equations) and
to choose the one that gives the best overall system performance.
Summary
2.3RegulatordesignbyPolePlacementDiscretetimesystems
2.3.1Necessaryandsufficientconditions
2.3.3Deadbeatcontrol
2.3RegulatordesignbyPolePlacementDT
Asinthecontinuouscaseinthediscretetimepoleplacementdesign:
Weassumethatallstatevariablesaremeasurableandareavailable
forfeedback.
Inthetimebeingwelimitourdiscussionstosingleinputsingle
outputsystems.
Ourproblemistoreducetheerrorvectortozerowithsufficient
speed.
Allclosedlooppolesarespecifiedinpoleplacementdesign.
Thedesiredclosedlooppolesarelocatedbasedonthetransient
responseand/orfrequencyresponserequirements,suchasspeed,
dampingratio,orbandwidth,aswellassteadystaterequirements.
ConsidertheopenloopcontrolsystemshowninFigure.The
stateequationis
x(k 1) Gx(k ) Hu (k ) (19)
y (k ) Cx(k ) Du (k )
where
x =statevector(nvector)
u =unconstrained control
y =outputsignal(scalar)
G =n xn state matrix
H =n x1 inputmatrix
C =1xn outputmatrix
D =constant(scalar)
Ifweusethestatefeedbackcontrolu = Kx.
whereK isthestatefeedbackgainmatrix(a1xnmatrix).
Thenthesystembecomesaclosedloopcontrolsystemanditsstate
equationbecomes
x(k 1) (G HK )x(k ) (20)
NotethatwechoosematrixK suchthattheeigenvaluesof
G HK arethedesiredclosedlooppoles,1,2,...,n.
Placement
Likeinthecontinuoustimecase,inthediscretetimecasetheneces
sary andsufficientconditionforarbitrarypoleplacementisthatthe
systembecompletelystatecontrollable.
Theprooffollowsthesamestepsthanthecontinuoustimecase.
Placement
Havinginmindthatthetransformationmatrix T = M W whereM is
thecontrollabilitymatrixgivenby
Then,thestatefeedbackgainmatrixK willbegivenby
(21)
whereais resultsfromthecharacteristicequation
andisfromthecharacteristicequationwiththedesiredeigenvalues,
i.e.
AllmethodscontinuoustimemethodstocalculateK havetheir
counterpartinthediscretetimecase.
Oncethedesiredcharacteristicequationisselected,thereareseveral
differentwaystodeterminethecorrespondingstatefeedbackgain
matrixK forthesystemdefinedbyeq.(19)whichisassumedtobe
completelystatecontrollable.
Method1:TransformationMatrixT
Asshowninthepreceding,matrixK canbegivenbyeq.(21)
(22)
wheretheai's arethecoefficientsoftheoriginalsystemcharacteristic
equation
andthei'sarethecoefficientsofthedesiredcharacteristicequation
forthestatefeedbackcontrolsystem;thatis,
DiscreteTimePolePlacementDesign
Method1:TransformationMatrixT (cont.)
ThetransformationmatrixT isgivenbyT=MW whereM andW are
given,respectively,bythediscretecounterpartofeq.(6)andeq.(7).
Ifthesystemstateequationisalreadyinthecontrollablecanonical
form,thedeterminationofthestatefeedbackgainmatrixK canbe
madesimple,becausethetransformationmatrixTbecomesthe
identitymatrix.
InthiscasethedesiredmatrixK isobtainedbysubstitutingT = MW =
I intoeq.(22).
Iftheordern ofthesystemislow,substitute into
thecharacteristicequation
andthenmatchthecoefficientsofpowersinz ofthischaracteristic
equationwithequalpowersinz ofthedesiredcharacteristicequation
Method3:Ackermann'sFormula
ThedesiredstatefeedbackgainmatrixK canbegivenbyAckermann's
formula:
(23)
where
Method4:Diagonalization Method
Ifthedesiredeigenvalues 1,2,...,n aredistinct,thenthedesired
statefeedbackgainmatrixK canbegivenasfollows:
(24)
wherevectors1, 2,..., n satisfytheequation
Notethatthei 'sareeigenvectorsofmatrixG HK;thatis,i satis

fies theequation
2.3.3 Deadbeat Control
Indeadbeatcontrol,anynonzeroerrorvectorwillbedriventozeroin
atmostn samplingperiodsifthemagnitudeofthescalarcontrolu(k) is
unboundedwheren istheorderofthesystem.
Thedeadbeatresponseisachievedbyassigningalleigenvaluesofthe
closedlooptobezero.
Theconceptofdeadbeatresponseisuniquetodiscretetimecontrol
systems.Thereisnosuchthingasdeadbeatresponseincontinuous
timecontrolsystems.
Thesettlingtimedependsonthesamplingperiod,sincetheresponse
settlesdowninatmostn samplingperiods.
If the sampling period T is chosen very small, the settling time will also
be very small, which implies that the control signal must have an
extremely large magnitude. Otherwise, it will not be possible to bring
the error response to zero in a short time period.
Deadbeat Control (cont.)
Indeadbeatcontrol,thesamplingperiodistheonlydesignparameter.
Thus,ifthedeadbeatresponseisdesired,thedesignermustchoose
thesamplingperiodcarefullysothatanextremelylargecontrolmagni
tude isnotrequiredinnormaloperationofthesystem.
Notethatitisnotphysicallypossibletoincreasethemagnitudeofthe
controlsignalwithoutbound.
Ifthemagnitudeisincreasedsufficiently,thesaturationphenomenon
alwaystakesplace.Ifsaturationoccursinthemagnitudeofthecontrol
signal,thentheresponsecannolongerbedeadbeat.Thesettlingtime
willbemorethann samplingperiods.
Intheactualdesignofdeadbeatcontrolsystems,thedesignermustbe
awareofthetradeoffthatmustbemadebetweenthemagnitudeof
thecontrolsignalandtheresponsespeed.
Deadbeat design
Considerthecompletelystatecontrollablesystemdefinedby
(25)
Withstatefeedback ,thestateequationbecomes
Thesolutionofthislastequationisgivenby
(26)
Iftheeigenvaluesi ofmatrixG HK lieinsidetheunitcircle,then
thesystemisasymptoticallystable.
Inwhatfollows,weshallshowthat,bychoosingalleigenvaluesof
G HK tobezero,itispossibletogetthedeadbeatresponse,or
Deadbeat design (cont.)
Indiscussingdeadbeatresponse,
thenilpotentmatrix
playsanimportantrole.
Consider,forexample,a4x4nilpotentmatrix:
Noticethat
Similarly,forannxnnilpotentmatrixN,wehave
Letuschoosethedesiredpolelocationstobeattheorigin,orchoose
thedesiredeigenvaluestobezero:1 = 2 = = n = 0.
Thenweshallshowthattheresponsetoanyinitialstatex(0)is
deadbeat.
Sincethecharacteristicequationwiththedesiredeigenvaluescanbe
givenby
weobtain
andmatrixK givenbyeq.(21),canbesimplifiedtothefollowing:
(27)
ByusingthetransformationmatrixT,presentedbefore, givenby
where
Define
Definealso
Thenthestateequation(25)canbewritteninacontrollableformas
Ifweusethestatefeedback ,thenthis
lastequationbecomes
(28)
Referringtoeq.(28),wehavetheclosedloopstatematrix
Thus, -KT isanilpotentmatrix.Therefore,wehave
Intermsoftheoriginalstatex(k),wehavethesystemresponse
Thus,wehaveshownthatifthedesiredeigenvaluesareallzerosthen
anyinitialstatex(0) canbebroughttotheorigininatmostn sampling
periodsandtheresponseisdeadbeat,providedthecontrolsignalu(k)
isunbounded.
Example
Considerthesystemgivenby
(29)
DeterminethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK suchthatwhenthecontrol
signalisgivenbyu(k) = Kx(k) theclosedloopsystem(regulator
system)exhibitsthedeadbeatresponsetoaninitialstatex(0).
Assumethatthecontrolsignalu(k) isunbounded.
Resolution
Referringtoeq.(27),forthedeadbeatresponsewehave
(30)
Thesystemgivenbyeq.(29)isalreadyinthecontrollablecanonical
form.Therefore,T = I.
Thecharacteristicequationofthesystemgivenbyeq.(29)is
Thus,
Consequently,eq.(30)becomes
ThisgivesthedesiredstatefeedbackgainmatrixK tohavedeadbeat
response.
Letusverifythattheresponseofthissystemtoanarbitraryinitialstate
x(0) isindeedthedeadbeatresponse.
Sincetheclosedloopstateequationbecomes
Iftheinitialstateisgivenby
wherea andb arearbitraryconstants

Thenwehave
Thus,thestatex(k) fork = 2, 3, 4, becomeszeroandtheresponseis

indeeddeadbeat.
Summary
2.4SolvingpoleplacingwithMATLAB
2.4.1Continuoustimesystems
2.4.2Discretetimesystems
2.4.3Deadbeatdesign
Poleplacement problems can be solved easily with MATLAB for the
continuous and discrete time cases for both the SISO and MIMO cases.
The commands for the SISO and MIMO cases will be explain as well
but the design for MIMO systems itself will be dealt latter since for a
specified set of closedloop poles the statefeedback gain matrix K is
not unique and we have an additional freedom (or freedoms) to
choose K.
There are many approaches to constructively utilize this additional
freedom to determine K but most of them will require knowledge of
MIMO analysis in the frequency domain that we will address later.
For example, one common choice is to maximize the stability margin.
The pole placement based on this approach is called the robust pole
placement.
This technique can be applied to both SISO and MIMO systems but in
the MIMO case drives the pole placement design to have a unique
solution.
2.4.1 Continuous time case
MATLABhastwocommands acker andplace forthecomputation
offeedbackgainmatrixK.
Thecommandacker isbasedonAckermann'sformula:
Thiscommandappliestosingleinputsystemsonly.
Thedesiredclosedlooppolescanincludemultiplepoles(poleslocatedat
thesameplace).
Thecommandplace maximizethestabilitymargin(robustpoleplace
ment):
Thiscommandappliestosingleandmultipleinputsystems.
Requiresthatthemultiplicityofpolesinthedesiredclosedlooppolesbeno
greaterthantherankofB.
Requiresthattherebenomultiplepolesinthesetofdesiredclosedloop
poles.
Forsingleinputsystems,thecommandsacker andplace yieldthesameK.
Continuous time case (cont.)
Notedthatwhenthesingleinputsystemisbarelycontrollable,some
computationalproblemmayoccurifthecommandackerisused.
Insuchacasetheuseoftheplacecommandispreferred,provided
thatnomultiplepolesareinvolvedinthedesiredsetofclosedloop
poles.
Useofcommandacker orplace
Tousethesecommandsweneedfirsttointroducethematricesinthe
program:
A matrix, B matrix, J matrix
whereJ matrixisthematrixconsistingofthedesiredclosedloop
polessuchthat
Continuous time case (cont.)
Thecommandsyntaxare
or
Notethatwecancrosschecktheresultwiththecommand
eig(AB*K)
toverifythatK thusobtainedgivesthedesiredeigenvalues.
Example
Considertheregulatorsystemtreatedinthepreviousexample.
Thesystemequationsis
= Ax + Bu
where
Example(cont.)
Byusingstatefeedbackcontrol u = Kx ,itisdesiredtohavethe
closedlooppolesats = i, (i = 1, 2, 3) ,where
1 = 2 + j4, 2 = 2 j4, 3 = 10
DeterminethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK withMATLABandobtain
theresponsetotheinitialcondition: xT (0) 1 0 0 T

Resolution
Commandacker Commandplace
Example(cont.)
Toobtaintheclosedloopresponsetothegiveninitialcondition
x(0),wesubstituteu = Kx intotheplantequationtoget

T
= (A BK)x , x T
(0) 1 0 0
Toplottheresponsecurves(x1 versust,x2 versust,andx3 versust),we
mayusethecommandinitial.
Wefirstdefinethestatespaceequationsforthesystemasfollows:
= (A BK)x + Iu
y = Ix + Iu
whereweincludeu (athreedimensionalinputvector).
Thisu vectorisconsidered0 inthecomputationoftheresponsetothe
initialcondition.
Thenwedefine
Example(cont.)
andusetheinitialcommandasfollows
wheret isthetimedurationwewanttouse,suchas
Thenobtainx1,x2,andx3 asfollows:
andusetheplotcommandtoobtaintheresultingresponsecurves.
Example(cont.)
Theprogram
inMATLABis
Example(cont.)
Theresultingresponsecurvesare
2.4.2 Discrete time case
Considerthesystem
where
Notethat
Hence
DetermineasuitablestatefeedbackgainmatrixK suchthatthesystem
hastheclosedlooppolesat
Discrete time case (cont.)
Letusfirstexaminetherankofthecontrollabilitymatrix.Therankof
is2.Thusthesystemiscompletelystatecontrollable,andtherefore
arbitrarypoleplacementispossible.
Thecharacteristicequationforthedesiredsystemis
Hence
Method1:TransformationmatrixT
Noticethestateequationisalreadyinthecontrollableform,and
thereforethetransformationmatrixT becomesI:
Hence
Method2:Ackermannsformula
where
Thus
2.4.3 Example of deadbeat control
Considerthesystemgivenby
DeterminethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK suchthatwhenthecontrol
signalisgivenby u = Kx theclosedloopsystem(regulatorsystem)
exhibitsthedeadbeatresponsetoaninitialstatex(0).
Assumethatthecontrolsignalu(k)isunbounded.
Resolution
Forthedeadbeatresponse,thedesiredcharacteristicequationis
where1 = 0 and2 = 0.
Example of deadbeat control (cont.)
Forthedeadbeatresponse,thestatefeedbackgainmatrixK canbe
givenby
where
AMATLABprogramforthedeterminationofstatefeedbackgainmatrix
K isgivenby
2.4PoleplacementProblems
Problem 1
Considerthesystem d3y d2y dy
3
+ 5 2
+ 3 + 2y = u
dt dt dt
DeterminethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK tohavearapidresponsewitha
lowovershootfortheclosedloopsystem.
Problema 2
1
Considerthesystem G (s) =
s2
Determinethestatefeedbackgain,usingtheAckermannsformula,toplace
theclosedlooppolesats =1 j.
2.4PoleplacementProblems
Problem 3
Considerthediscretetimemodelofasystem
where
a)DeterminethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK suchthatthesystemwillexhibit
adeadbeatresponsetoanyinitialstate.
b)Assumingthatthestateiscompletelymeasurablesothattheactualstate
x(k)canbefedbackforcontrol,determinetheresponseofthesystemtothe
initialstate wherea,b,andc arearbitraryconstants.
Summary
2.5DesignofServoSystemsbyPolePlacement
2.5.1Continuoustimecase
2.5.1.1Plantwithintegrator
2.5.1.2Plantwithoutintegrator
2.5.2Discretetimecase
2.5DesignofServoSystemsbyPolePlacementCT
2.5.1 ContinuousTime
Uptoknowweaddressthepoleplacementdesignforregulator
systems,i.e.systemwherethereferenceinputisalwayszeroora
nonzeroconstant.Thatis:
Openloop = Ax+Bu, y = Cx + Du, r=0
Controlaction: u = Kx
Closedloop: = (A BK)x, y = Cx + Du, r = 0
Designproblem:
FindthegainmatrixK
whichguaranteesthat
theclosedloopspoles
areinaprespecified
place.
2.5.1DesignofServoSystemsbyPolePlacementCT
2.5.1.1DesignofServoSystemwhenthePlanthasanintegrator
Assumethattheplanthasanintegrator(type1plant)andisdefinedby
= Ax+Bu (u scalar) (31)
y = Cx (scalar) (32)
r = r(t) referenceinput(scalar)
Figureshowsageneralfeedbackconfigurationoftheservosystem
whentheplanthasan
integrator.
Hereweassumedthat
y = x1.
Inthepresentanalysis
weassumethatthere
ference inputr isastep
function.
Design of Servo System when the Plant has an integrator (cont.)
where
(33)
and
Assumethatthereferenceinput(stepfunction)isappliedatt = 0.
Then,fort > 0,thesystemdynamicscanbedescribedbyequations
(31)and(33),or
(34)
Weshalldesigntheservosystemsuchthattheclosedlooppolesare
locatedatdesiredpositions.
Thedesignedsystemwillbeanasymptoticallystablesystem,y() will
approachtheconstantvaluer,andu() willapproachzero.
Noticethatatsteadystatewehave
(35)
Notingthatr(t) isastepinput,wehaver() = r(t) = (constant)fort > 0.
Bysubtractingeq.(35)fromeq.(34),weobtain
(36)
Define
Theneq.(36)becomes
(37)
whichdescribestheerrordynamics.
Thedesignoftheservosystemhereisconvertedtothedesignofan
asymptoticallystableregulatorsystemsuchthate(t) approacheszero,
givenanyinitialconditione(0).
Ifthesystemdefinedbyeq.(37)iscompletelystatecontrollable,then,
byspecifyingthedesiredeigenvalues1 ,2,...,n forthematrix
A - BK,matrixK canbedeterminedbythepoleplacementtechnique
presentedbeforefortheregulatorsystem.
Thesteadystatevaluesofx(t) andu(t) canbefoundasfollows:
Atsteadystate(t = ),wehave,fromeq.(34),
SincethedesiredeigenvaluesofA - BK areallinthelefthalfs plane,
theinverseofmatrixA - BK exists.
Consequently,x() canbedeterminedas
Also,u() canbeobtainedas
Example
Designaservosystemwhentheplanttransferfunctionhasan
integrator.Assumethattheplanttransferfunctionisgivenby
Thedesiredclosedlooppolesare 2 2 3 and 10.
Assumethatthesystemconfigurationisthesameasthatshowninthe
previousFigureandthereferenceinputr isastepfunction.
Obtaintheunitstepresponseofthedesignedsystem.
Resolution
Definestatevariablesx1,x2,andx3 asfollows:
x1 =y, x2 =1 and x3 = 2
Thenthestatespacerepresentationofthesystembecomes
= Ax+Bu, y = Cx
where
ReferringtoServosystemFigure(slide92)andnotingthatn = 3,the
controlsignalu isgivenby
where
ThestatefeedbackgainmatrixK canbeobtainedeasilywithMATLAB
withthefollowingprogram
ThestatefeedbackgainmatrixK isthus
UnitStepResponseoftheDesignedSystem:
Theunitstepresponseofthedesignedsystemcanbeobtainedas
follows:
Since
fromeq.(34)thestateequationforthedesignedsystemis
(38)
andtheoutputequationis
(39)
Solving Equations (38) and (39) for y(t) when r is a unitstep function
gives the unitstep response curve y(t) versus t.
Other way to obtain numerically the unitstep response curve is
through a MATLAB Program like:

Theresultingunitstepresponsecurveisshownbelow


Notethatsince
wehave
Atsteadystatethecontrolsignalu becomeszero.

2.5.1.2 Design of Servo System when the Plant has no integrator
Iftheplanthasnointegrator(type0plant),thebasicprincipleofthe
designofatype1servosystemistoinsertanintegratorinthe
feedforward pathbetweentheerrorcomparatorandtheplant,as
showninFigurebelow.
TheblockdiagramshownintheFigureaboveisabasicformofthe
type1servosystemwheretheplanthasnointegrator.

Design of Servo System when the Plant has no integrator (cont.)
From the diagram, we obtain
(40)
(41)
(42)
(43)
where isoutputoftheintegrator(statevariableofthesystem,scalar)
Weassumethattheplantgivenbyeq.(40)iscompletelystatecontrol
lable.
Thetransferfunctionoftheplantcanbegivenby
(44)

Toavoidthepossibilityoftheinsertedintegratorbeingcanceledbythe
zeroattheoriginoftheplant,weassumethatGp(s) hasnozeroatthe
origin.
Assumethatthereferenceinput(stepfunction)isappliedatt = 0.
Then,fort > 0,thesystemdynamicscanbedescribedbyanequation
thatisacombinationofEquations(40)and(43):
(45)
Weshalldesignanasymptoticallystablesystemsuchthatx(), (),
andu() approachconstantvalues,respectively.
Then,atsteadystate, (t) = 0,andwegety() = r.

Noticethatatsteadystatewehave
(46)
Notingthatr(t) isastepinput,wehaver() = r(t) = r (constant)fort > 0.

Bysubtractingeq.(46)fromeq.(45),weobtain
(47)
Define

ThenEquation(47)canbewrittenas
(48)
where
(49)
Defineanew(n+1)thordererrorvectore(t) by
ThenEquation(48)becomes
(50)

where
andeq.(49)becomes
(51)
where
Thestateerrorequationcanbeobtainedbysubstitutingeq.(51)into
eq.(50):
Ifthedesiredeigenvaluesofmatrix - (thatis,thedesiredclosed
looppoles)arespecifiedas1 ,2,...,n+1 ,thenthestatefeedback
gainmatrixK andtheintegralgainconstantkI,canbedeterminedby
thepoleplacementtechniquepresentedfortheregulatorsystem,
providedthatthesystemdefinedbyEquation(50)iscompletelystate
controllable.
Notethatifthematrix
hasrankn+1,thenthesystemdefinedbyeq.(50)iscompletelystate
controllable.

Example
Considertheinvertedpendulum
controlsystemshowninFigure.
Weareconcernedonlywiththemotion
ofthependulumandmotionofthecart
intheplaneofthepage.
Itisdesiredtokeeptheinvertedpendu
lumuprightasmuchaspossibleandyet
controlthepositionofthecart,forinstan
ce,movethecartinastepfashion.
Tocontrolthepositionofthecart,weneedtobuildatype1servo
system.
Theinvertedpendulumsystemmountedonacartdoesnothavean
integrator.

Example (cont.)
Therefore,wefeedthepositionsignaly (whichindicatesthepositionof
thecart)backtotheinputandinsertanintegratorinthefeedforward
path,asshowninFigurebelow.

Example (cont.)
Thelineartimeinvariant equationsfortheinvertedpendulumsystem
are
If
Thenequationsoftheinvertedpendulumsystembecome
(52)
(53)
Letusdefinethestatevariables

Example (cont.)
Then,referringtoeq.s (52)and(53)andthepreviousFigureand
consideringthecartpositionx astheoutputofthesystem,weobtain
theequationsforthesystemasfollows:
where

Example (cont.)
Forthetype1servosystem,wehavethestateerrorequationasgiven
byeq.(50):
(54)
where
andthecontrolsignalisgivenbyeq.(51)
where

Example (cont.)
Toobtainareasonablespeedanddampingintheresponseofthe
designedsystem(forexample,thesettlingtimeofapproximately4 ~ 5
secandthemaximumovershootof15% ~ 16% inthestepresponseof
thecart),letuschoosethedesiredclosedlooppolesats = i
Beforeweproceedfurther,wemustexaminetherankofmatrixP,
where
Therankofthismatrixcanbefoundtobe5.

Example (cont.)
Therefore,thesystemdefinedbyEquation(54)iscompletelystate
controllable,andarbitrarypoleplacementispossible.
UsingMATLABwecomputethestatefeedbackgainmatrixK,i.e.

Example (cont.)
Thatis
and
UnitStepResponseCharacteristicsoftheDesignedSystem:
Thestepresponseinthecartpositioncanbeobtainedbysolvingthe
followingequation:
Theoutputofthesystemisx3(t),or

2.5DesignofServoSystemsbyPolePlacementCT
Example (cont.)
ByusingMATLABweobtainthestepresponsecurvesofthedesigned
system

Example (cont.)
Noticethat,toobtaintheunitstepresponse,weenteredthe
command

Example (cont.)
where

Example (cont.)
Noticethat(t) [= x3(t)] hasapproximately15%overshootandthe
settlingtimeisapproximately4.5sec.(t) [= x5(t)] approaches1.1.
Thisresultcanbederivedasfollows:
Since
or
weget
Sinceu() = 0,wehave,

Example (cont.)
andso
Hence,forr = 1,wehave
Itisnotedthat,asinanydesignproblem,ifthespeedanddampingare
notquitesatisfactory,thenwemustmodifythedesiredcharacteristic
equationanddetermineanewmatrix .
Computersimulationsmustberepeateduntilasatisfactoryresultis
obtained.
2.5.2DesignofServoSystemsbyPolePlacementDT
2.5.2 DiscreteTime case
Like the case of design of discrete regulator systems by pole placement
the design of discrete servo systems follows the steps of the
continuoustime case design.
In the servo system it is generally required that the system have
one or more integrators within the closed loop. Unless the plant to be
controlled has an integrating property, it is necessary to add one or
more integrators within the loop to eliminate steadystate error to
step inputs.
Like in the continuoustime case one way to introduce an integrator in
the mathematical model of a closedloop system is to introduce a new
state vector that integrates the difference between the command
vector r and the output vector y.
The integrator can be included as part of the pole placement
formulation that was presented before.

Discrete Time case (cont.)
ConsidertheservosystemshownintheFigurebelow,wherethe plantis
assumedtobecompletelystatecontrollableandcompletelyobservable
andthattheplantdoesnothaveanintegrator.
Theplantstateequationandoutputequationare
x(k+1) = Gx(k) +Hu(k) (55)
y(k) = Cx(k) (56)
Theintegratorstateequationis
(57)
where
Eq.(57)canberewrittenasfollows:
(58)
Thecontrolu(k) isgivenby
(59)
OurdesignparametersarematricesK1 andK2.
ProcedurefordeterminingmatricesK1 andK2
FromEquations(55),(58),and(59),weobtain
(60)
Notingthatu(k) isalinearcombinationofstatevectorsx(k) andv(k),
defineanewstatevectorconsistingofx(k) andu(k),ratherthanx(k)
andv(k).Thenweobtainfromeqs.(55)and(60)thefollowingstate
eq:
(61)

ProcedurefordeterminingmatricesK1 andK2 (cont.)
Theoutputequation,eq.(56),canbewrittenasfollows:
(62)
Toapplythepoleplacementtechniquedirectlytothedesignofthe
presentservosystem,considerthecasewherethecommandvector
r(k) isaconstantvector(stepinput)atk = 0,sothat
Theneq.(61)becomes
(63)

Fromeq.(57),forthestepinput,weobtain:
or
Thereisnosteadystateerrorintheoutputwhenthecommandinputis
astepvector.
Also,atsteadystateeq.(63)becomes
(64)
Letusdefinetheerrorvectorsby

Then,subtractingeq.(64)fromeq.(63),weobtain
(65)
Thedynamicsofthesystemaredeterminedbytheeigenvaluesofthe
statematrixappearingineq.(65).
Eq.(65)canbemodifiedtoread
(66)
where
(67)

Ifwedefine
(68)
theneqs.(66)and(67)become,respectively,
(69)
and
(70)
Thecontrollabilitymatrixcanbewrittenasfollows:
(71)
whichisrankn + m, sincetheplant(55)iscompletelystatecontrol
lable.Thus,thesystem(69)iscompletelystatecontrollable.Therefore,
thepoleplacementtechniqueappliestothiscase.
Oncethedesiredclosedlooppolesarespecified,matrixK canbe
determinedbythepoleplacementtechnique.
UsingmatrixK thusdetermined,wecanobtainmatricesK1 andK2 as
follows.First,notethat
(72)

Then,fromEquations(68)and(72),wehave
Hence,weobtain
(73)
ThedesiredgainmatricesK1 andK2 maybedeterminedfromeq.

(73).
NotethatintheMIMOcasethematrixK isnotunique.

Example
Considerthedigitalcontrolofaplantbyuseofstatefeedbackand
integralcontrol.Assumethatthesystemconfigurationisthesameas
thatshowninFigure.
Assumealsothatthepulse
transferfunctionofthe
plantis
DetermineanintegralgainconstantK1,andastatefeedbackgain
matrixK2,suchthattheresponsetoaunitstepcommandinputis
deadbeat.

Example (cont.)
Resolution
Weshallfirstobtainastatespacerepresentationfortheplantpulsetransfer
function.Bycomparingthegivenpulsetransferfunctionwiththestandard
form
we find
Then,wecanobtainthefollowingstatespaceequations forthe plant:
x(k+1) = Gx(k) +Hu(k) (74)

y(k) = Cx(k) (75)

Example (cont.)
where
Notethatthisplantiscompletelystatecontrollableandcompletely
observable.Thereforepoleplacementapplies.
WeshallnowdeterminetheintegralgainconstantK1 andthestatefeedback
gainmatrixK2.
Inthepresentsystemwerequiretheresponsetothestepcommandinputto
bedeadbeat.Thus,wemustplacetheclosedlooppolesofthesystem at the
origin.
Referringtoeqs.(69)and(70),wehave

Example (cont.)
where
and
OurproblemhereistodeterminematrixK sothattheclosedlooppolesof
thesystemareattheorigin,orthedesiredcharacteristicequationis
Byusingthepoleplacementtechnique,K matrix canbedeterminedeasily.

ReferringtoAckermann'sformula,weobtain
where

Example (cont.)
Thus,thegainmatrixK isgivenby
(76)
ThedesiredintegralgainconstantK1,andthestatefeedbackgainmatrixK2,
areobtainedfromeq.(73).

Example (cont.)
Notingthat
isnonsingularweobtain

Example (cont.)
(77)
Fromeq.(77)weobtaintheintegralgainconstantK1
(78)
ThestatefeedbackgainmatrixK2,isgivenby
(79)

Example (cont.)
Next,letusdeterminetheoutputy(k).Fromeq.(75)wehave
Toobtainoutputy(k),weshallfirstdeterminethestatevectorx(k) and
signalv(k).FromthepreviousFigure,wehave
(80)
(81)
(82)
(83)

Example (cont.)
Hence,fromeqs.(80)and(83)weobtain
(84)
Also,fromeqs.(81),(82),and(84)weget
(85)

Example (cont.)
Combiningeqs.(84)and(85),weget
(86)
whichcanberewrittenas
(87)
Sincethecommandinputr(k) isaunitstepinput,wehave

Example (cont.)
Letusassumethattheinitialstateis

Example (cont.)
Similarly,
and
Theoutputy(k) isobtainedasfollows:

Example (cont.)
Similarly,
Deadbeatbehaviour
Noticethat
wherek = 4, 5, 6... Sinceu(t) fort 4T (whereT isthesampling

period)isconstant,thereisnointersampling oscillationintheoutput.
Thus,theresponseofthesystemisdeadbeat.

Example (cont.)
Note that the output y(k) reaches unity in at most four sampling
periods and will stay there in the absence of disturbances or new
command inputs.
See for example the sample unitstep response sequence shown in
next Figure.

Example (cont.)
Underspecialinitialconditions,forexample,a = b = c = 0 andd = 1,
theoutputreachesunityinthreesamplingperiodsandstaysthere,or
y(k) = 1 fork = 3, 4, 5, ...

Summmary
Tobeaddlatter

Pole Placement When the Control Signal Is a Vector
Thusfar,wehaveconsideredthepoleplacementdesignproblemwhen
thecontrolsignalisascalar.Ifthecontrolsignalisavectorquantity(r
vector),theresponsecanbespeededup,becausewehavemore
freedomtochoosecontrolsignalsu1(k),u2(k),..,,u,(k)tospeedupthe
response.Forexample,inthecaseofthenthordersystemwitha
scalarcontrol,thedeadbeatresponsecanbeachievedinatmost11
samplingperiods.Inthecaseofthevectorcontrolu(k),thedeadbeat
responsecanbeachievedinlessthannsamplingperiods.Inthecase
ofthevectorcontrol,however,thedeterminationofthestatefeedback
gainmatrixKbecomesmorecomplex.Weshallpresentsuchacasein
AppendixC.

Summary
Tobeaddlatter

Ch2-Design of Control Systems in State Space - MIMO

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ch2-Design of Control Systems in State Space - MIMO

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

OPTIMALCONTROL

2012/2013 JosSdaCosta Chapter2

whereIq isaqdimensionalidentitymatrixandInq,isan(n q)dimen

determinethevaluesofa1, a2, .. . , an.

Hence,1 = 14, 2 = 60, 3 = 200

Thus,6 + k3 = 14,5 + k2 = 60,1 + k1 = 200 fromwhichweobtain

wherevectors1, 2,..., n satisfytheequation

Notethatthei 'sareeigenvectorsofmatrixG HK;thatis,i satis

wherea andb arearbitraryconstants

Thus,thestatex(k) fork = 2, 3, 4, becomeszeroandtheresponseis

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 100

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 101

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 102

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 103

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 104

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 105

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 106

Notingthatr(t) isastepinput,wehaver() = r(t) = r (constant)fort > 0.

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 107

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 108

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 110

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 111

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 112

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 113

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 114

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 115

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 116

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 117

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 118

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 119

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 120

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 121

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 122

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 124

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 127

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 128

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 129

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 130

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 132

ThedesiredgainmatricesK1 andK2 maybedeterminedfromeq.

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 133

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 134

Then,wecanobtainthefollowingstatespaceequations forthe plant:

x(k+1) = Gx(k) +Hu(k) (74)

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 135

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 136

Byusingthepoleplacementtechnique,K matrix canbedeterminedeasily.

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 137

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 138

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 139

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 140

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 141

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 142

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 143

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 144

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 145

wherek = 4, 5, 6... Sinceu(t) fort 4T (whereT isthesampling

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 146

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 147

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 148

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 149

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 150

JosSdaCosta DesignofControlSystemsinStateSpace 151