## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

You've reached the end of this preview. Sign up to read more!

Page 1 of 1

**Digital Control Systems Implementation Techniques, 70 **

First Edition

C.T. Leondes

*School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California *

Academic Press

San Diego New York Boston London Sydney Tokyo Toronto

**Cover image **

**Title page **

**Copyright page **

**Contributors **

**Preface **

**Techniques In Multirate Digital Control **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**II SYSTEM FORMULATION **

**II CONTROLLABILITY AND STABILIZABILITY **

**III MULTIRATE LQG DESIGN **

**IV CONTROL OF RESONANCE: A DESIGN PROBLEM **

**The Design of Digital Pole Placement Controllers **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**II UNIFIED POLE PLACEMENT CONTROL **

**III PREREQUISITES **

**IV ASSISTED POLE PLACEMENT CONTROL **

**IV ANTI-WINDUP COMPENSATOR **

**VI CONTROLLER VALIDATION **

**VII NUMERICAL EXAMPLES **

**VIII CONCLUSIONS **

**ACKNOWLEDGEMENT **

**Linearization Techniques for Pulse Width Control of Linear Systems **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**II LINEAR SYSTEMS AND PWM CONTROL **

**III LINEAR EQUIVALENT OF A PWM CONTROL **

**IV EXAMPLES **

**V CONCLUDING REMARKS **

**APPENDIX A COULOMB FRICTION MODULATORS **

**Algorithms for Discretization and Continualization of MIMO State Space Representations **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**II PROBLEM FORMULATION **

**III NUMERICAL EXAMPLES **

**IV CONCLUSIONS **

**V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS **

**APPENDICES **

**A1 Algorithm E-Ad {Calculation of matrices E and Ad, Eq.(9)} **

**A2 Algorithm F-E-Ad {Calculation of F, E, Ad in Eqs.(16) and (20)} **

**A3 Algorithm R5R4 {Transformation from a non-standard five-matrix representation to an equivalent (standard) four-matrix representation.} **

**A4 Algorithm R4R5 {Transformation from a standard four-matrix representation to an equivalent five-matrix representation.} **

**A5 Algorithm Ln {Calculation of the natural log of an n × n matrix Ad.} **

**A6 Algorithm C-H-T {Efficient calculation of truncated power series.} **

**A7 Sequence of Algorithms Used for Example 3 **

**A8 L-A-S Software Implementation of Example 3 **

**A9 Deterministic Identification of D-T Models from Input/Output Data **

**A9.1 MIMO Structure Determination **

**A9.2 MIMO System Parameterization **

**A9.3 MIMO System Parameter Determination **

**A9.4 Algorithm **

**Discrete-Time Control Systems Design via Loop Transfer Recovery **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**II DISCRETE-TIME LQG/LTR METHOD **

**III INTEGRAL CONTROLLER DESIGN **

**IV NUMERICAL EXAMPLES **

**V CONCLUSIONS **

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS **

**Appendix; Proof of Lemma 2 **

**The Study of Discrete Singularly Perturbed Linear-Quadratic Control Systems **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**II RECURSIVE METHODS FOR SINGULARLY PERTURBED LINEAR DISCRETE SYSTEMS **

**III PARALLEL REDUCED-ORDER CONTROLLER FOR STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS **

**IV NEW METHODS FOR OPTIMAL CONTROL AND FILTERING **

**APPENDIX A **

**Modeling Techniques and Control Architectures for Machining Intelligence **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**II MACHINING PROCESS AUTOMATION **

**III MACHINING MODELS **

**IV MODELING AND CONTROL INTEGRATION **

**V CONTINUING RESEARCH **

**VI SUMMARY **

**Techniques in Discrete–Time Position Control of Flexible One Arm Robots **

**I INTRODUCTION **

**A LITERATURE REVIEW **

**II DYNAMICS MODEL OF A FLEXIBLE ONE ARM ROBOT **

**III IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LATTICE FILTER PARAMETER IDENTIFIER **

**IV THE PREDICTIVE ADAPTIVE CONTROL ALGORITHM **

**V CONCLUSIONS **

**Pole assignment by memoryless periodic output feedback **

**1 Introduction **

**2 Memoryless periodic output feedback control for time invariant systems **

**3 Memoryless periodic output feedback control for periodic linear systems **

**Acknowledgments **

**4 Appendices **

**Index **

**Copyright **

**Contributors **

Effective control concepts and applications date back over millennia. One very familiar example of this is the windmill. It was designed to derive maximum benefit from windflow, a simple but highly effective optimization technique. Harold Hazen’s 1932 paper in *the Journal of the Franklin Institute *was one of the earlier reference points wherein an analytical framework for modem control theory was established. There were many other notable landmarks along the way, including the MIT Radiation Laboratory Series volume on servomechanisms, the Brown and Campbell book, *Principles of Servomechanisms*, and Bode’s book entitled *Network Analysis and Synthesis Techniques*, all published shortly after mid-1945. However, it remained for Kalman’s papers of the late 1950s (wherein a foundation for modem state space techniques was established) and the tremendous evolution of digital computer technology (which was underpinned by the continuous giant advances in integrated electronics) for truly powerful control systems techniques for increasingly complex systems to be developed. Today we can look forward to a future that is rich in possibilities in many areas of major significance, including manufacturing systems, electric power systems, robotics, and aerospace systems, as well as many other systems with significant economic, safety, cost, and reliability implications. Thus, this volume is devoted to the most timely theme of Digital Control Systems Implementation Techniques.

The first contribution to this volume is Techniques in Multivariate Digital Control,

by Hamed M. A1-Rahmani and Gene F. Franklin. One of the most significant areas of implementation techniques in digital control systems is that of multivariate digital control system techniques. This contribution presents and illustrates techniques in this broad area, and, as such, this is a most appropriate contribution with which to begin this volume.

The next contribution is The Design of Digital Pole Placement Controllers,

by Michel Kinnaert and Youbin Peng. The basic idea of pole placement is to assign the closed-loop poles at desired locations with respect to achieving desired design specifications. This contribution is an in-depth treatment of a comprehensive set of design rules to develop an assisted pole placement control with a number of essential design features. A number of illustrative examples clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the techniques presented in this contribution.

The next contribution is Linearization Techniques for Pulse Width Control of Linear Systems,

by F. Bernelli-Zazzera and P. Mantegazza. Pulse width control techniques are an important means of implementing digital control systems. However, such types of control implementations are intrinsically nonlinear and discrete in time and fall into the broader class of pulse modulated systems. This contribution presents linearization design techniques for pulse width modulated control of linear systems and demonstrates their viability and substantive effectiveness through a number of illustrative examples.

The next contribution is Algorithms for Discretization and Continualization of MIMO State Space Representations,

by Stanoje Bingulac and Hugh F. VanLandingham. The modeling of digital control system implementations requires algorithms for the problems of discretization of continuoustime models as well as the inverse problem of recreating a continuous-time model from a given discrete-time model. This contribution presents and illustrates seven robust algorithms for dealing with these problems. With these algorithms, the system design engineer has complete flexibility to move between the continuous and discrete model domains. As such, this contribution is an essential element of this volume.

The next contribution is Discrete-Time Control Systems Design via Loop Transfer Recovery,

by Tadashi Ishihara. Most theoretical results on Loop Transfer Recovery (LTR) techniques, i.e., the system open-loop transfer function which produces the required closed-loop transfer function, have been given in the case of continuous-time system formulations. This contribution presents LTR techniques for designing discrete-time controls, taking into account the inherent limitations of digital control systems. A number of illustrative examples exemplify the effectiveness of the techniques presented in this contribution.

The next contribution is The Study of Discrete Singularly Perturbed Linear-Quadratic Control Systems,

by Zoran Gajic, Myotaeg Lim, and Xuemin Shen. The main goal in the control theory of singular perturbations is to deal with the system design problem by decomposition into slow and fast system time scales. This has been a fruitful control engineering research and design area for the past 25 years, and has been investigated for digital control systems since the early 1980s. This contribution is an in-depth treatment of this area of discrete-time systems with numerous illustrative examples which demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques.

The next contribution is Modeling Techniques and Control Architectures for Machining Intelligence,

by Allan D. Spence and Yusuf Altintas. Certainly among the very many implementations of digital control systems in practice is that of Digital Numerical Control (DNC) of machine tools, which dates back to the early 1960s. This contribution is an in-depth treatment of the modern techniques and technology of DNC of machine tools and is a most appropriate element of this volume.

The next contribution is Techniques in Discrete-Time Position Control of Flexible One Arm Robots,

by Sijun Wu and Sabri Cetinkunt. Whereas DNC of machine tools was among the first implementations of digital control systems, robot systems are among the most recent implementations of digital control systems, particularly over the past decade. This contribution is an indepth treatment of the techniques for a broad class of robot systems, and is also a most appropriate contribution for this volume.

The final contribution to this volume is Pole Assignment by Memory-less Output Feedback,

by Dirk Aeyels and Jacques L. Willems. The design requirement to achieve desired or specialized discrete-time dynamic systems is inherently related to the position of the closed-loop system poles. This contribution is an in-depth treatment of general techniques for achieving the required closed-loop pole positions for a digital control system implementation.

The contributors to this volume are all to be highly commended for their contributions to this unique and rather comprehensive treatment of implementation techniques in digital control systems, which should provide a unique reference on the international scene of this broad subject for many individuals in diverse areas of activity for many years to come.

**Techniques In Multirate Digital Control **

*Hamed M. Al-Rahmani Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kuwait University *

*Gene F. Franklin Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University *

When a digital or a sampled-data system possesses different sampling rates at different locations, it is called a multirate system. Due to their importance, multirate systems have received a great deal of attention in the past years [**1-16]. Unlike single-rate systems, multirate sampling provides more freedom in selecting the sampling rates than does single-rate sampling. For example, in a single-rate system, the sampling rate can be limited by the sensor speed or the A/D converter speed. A slow output sampling results in slow input updates which, in turn, may result in poor performance. On the other hand, with multirate sampling, a higher performance might be achieved by a higher control update rate. A typical example can be seen in robotics systems that utilize video cameras as sensors. Here, the accurate tracking requires a high control update rate as compared to the relatively slow rate at which the pictures are taken. Notice that a fast video camera together with the required large buffers and high-speed A/D’s can prove very costly. **

A novel multirate scheme for the control design of linear periodic systems was introduced in **[4]. It has been shown that such a scheme produces the near high performance of complex multirate methods while maintaining the design simplicity of single-rate systems. In what follows, we study that multirate design for the case when only the output is available for measurements. In particular, a multirate LQG design algorithm is formulated in Section 4, while a complete design example for the control of resonance in disk-drive systems is considered in Section 5. But first, a description of the multirate scheme together with a theoretical background on its controllability and stabilizability properties are provided in Sections 2 and 3. **

The following notation will be used throughout: Given *n* × *m *matrix *L*, *L*′ is the transpose of *L*; if *n* = *m*, then *L *> 0 [*L *≥ 0] implies that *L *is a real symmetric (*L* = *L*is the expected value of *L. *. *I n* × *n *(or simply *I*, when dimensions are clear) is the *n* × *n *identity matrix. The samples of an analog signal *f *(*t*) at the points *t* = *kT*, *k *= 0, 1,…, are denoted by *f *(*k*), i.e., *f *(*k*) = *f *(*kT*).

Consider the following linear time-invariant plant

**(1) **

and the measurements

**(2) **

. *A*, *B*, *C*, and *G *are real matrices with appropriate dimensions. The disturbances *w*c (*t*) and *v *(*k*) are stationary zero-mean Gaussian noise and are independent of the initial conditions. Here, *w*c(*t*while *v *(*k*) is discrete and its covariance is

Assume that the input vector *u *(*t*) is partitioned into *m *, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m *with *p*1 + *p* + *pm* = *p. *A block diagram of the open-loop multirate system is shown in **Figure 1. The gains Ψ and θi (li), li = 0, 1,…,ri − 1, and i = 1, 2,…, m, are defined in Eqs. (12) and (6) below, respectively. Here the sequence {θi(li)} is periodic with period ri, i.e., θi(li + ri) = θi (li). Notice that the plant output is sampled every T seconds, while, the input to the ith channel is updated every T / ri seconds, where ri are positive integers and li = 0, 1,…, ri − 1. Also, notice that the input ui (t) is constrained to the following piecewise constant signal **

**(3) **

**Figure 1 **A block diagram of the open-loop multirate system.

for *t *∈ [*kT* + *liT*/*ri*, *kT* + (*li *+ 1) *T */ *ri*), *k *= 0, 1,…, and *li *= 0, 1,…, *ri *is an arbitrary input updated every *T *seconds.

The matrix *B *can be partitioned according to the partition of the input vector *u*(*t*), that is

**(4) **

, define the matrix

**(5) **

where *ji *, and where

**(6) **

Since *A *and *B *are constant matrices, one can write

**(7) **

where

**(8) **

, **Eq. (5) defines the generalized reachability Gramian of the pair { A, Bi} of order ri on [0, T] [17] **

**(9) **

by

**(10) **

and let Λ be an *n* × *ν *full rank matrix such that

**(11) **

where *ν *. Let Ψ be the right pseudo inverse of Λ′, that is,

**(12) **

Moreover, define the matrix

**(13) **

One can show that the state at any time *t *∈ [*kT*, *kT* + *T*] can be determined by the following equations:

In particular, when *t* = *kT* + *T*, we have

where Φ = e*AT *and

**(16) **

is a stationary white Gaussian noise with zero mean and covariance

where

**(17) **

**to the output y (k) given by **

**(18) **

This system is in the form of a single-rate multi-input discrete system with *ν* ≤ *n *inputs. In fact, the discrete system described by **Eqs. (15) can be viewed as a generalization of the single-rate sampled-data system. Assume that the matrix B has a full column rank. Then, when r1 = r2 = … = rm = 1, the multirate Gramian of Eq. (10) is reduced to **

where

, one can directly choose

and the system of **Eqs. (15) is essentially the standard single-rate system. **

In considering any control scheme, it is of a great importance that we study the controllability aspects of that scheme. In this section we study the controllability and stabilizability properties of the multirate system and discuss the conditions under which controllability is preserved with sampling. For the sake of completion, some of the results in this section are adapted from **[4]. **

We use the standard Kalman definition of controllability **[18]. The following definition is useful in the sequel. **

*An eigenvalue λ of A is said to be uncontrollable in the pair *{*A, B*} *if there exists a left eigenvector z*′ ≠ 0 *of A associated with λ such that z*′*A* = *λA and z*′*B *= 0. *Otherwise, λ is said to be controllable in *{*A, B*}. *Furthermore, the pair *{*A, B*} *is said to be controllable if all eigenvalues of A are controllable in *{*A, B*}.

The controllability of the multirate system is considered in **Theorem 1 below. First we have the following definition. **

*The numbers T *> 0 *and *, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*, *are said to be proper if, for any two eigenvalues λ and **of A*, *either of the following is satisfied: *

*for i *= 1,…, *m and κ* = ± 1, ± 2,…, *or *

*and κ* = ± 1, ± 2,…

We will use the two statements *"T *, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*, are proper and

the sampling rates are proper" interchangeably.

*Assume that T >* 0 *and *, *i *= 1, 2,…,*m*, *are proper. Then the pair *{Φ, Λ} *is controllable if and only if the pair *{*A*, *B**} *is controllable. *

**Proof **

(i) Assume that for some *T *, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*, the pair {Φ, Λ} is controllable but {*A*, *B*} is not. Then there is an eigenvalue *λ *of *A *with an associated left0 eigenvector *z*′ *≠* 0 such that *z*′*A* = *λz′ *and *z′B *= 0. Thus, *z*′*Bi *= 0, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*. It follows then from **Eqs. (6), (9), (10), and (11) that z′Λ = 0 (note that z′ eAt = eλt z′ ). Since eλT is an eigenvalue of Φ with an associated left eigenvector z′, eλT is uncontrollable in {Φ, Λ}, which is a contradiction. **

(ii) Next, assume that *T *and *ri*, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*, are proper, and that {*A*, *B*is not controllable. Then there exists an eigenvalue *λ *of Φ with a left eigenvector *z*′ *≠* 0 such that *z′*Φ *= λz′ *. It follows from **Eqs. (9) and (10) that, for all i, z′θi(li) = 0, li = 0, 1,…, ri , for li = 0, 1,…, ri – 1. Furthermore, forany ki ≥ riand some li ∈{0, 1,…, ri – 1}. **

Hence,

Therefore, for all *ki *, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*. Thus,

Since *T */ *ri*, satisfies **Eq. (19) (if Eq. (20) is satisfied then so is Eq. (19)), one can use an argument similar to that of [19, proof of Theorem 12] to show that **

for *i *= 1, 2,…, *m. *That is,

contradicting the assumption that {*A*, *B*} is controllable. This completes the proof.

**Theorem 1 gives necessary and sufficient conditions for the controllability of the multirate system. It also gives sufficient conditions for choosing T and ri, i = 1,…, m, such that controllability is preserved with sampling. We notice from Definition 2 that if Eq. (20) is satisfied, then Eq. (19) is satisfied as well. Therefore, one can choose T > 0 according to Eq. (20) and controllability is preserved for any , i = 1,…, m. On the other hand, for any T > 0, one can choose the ri’s such that Eq. (19) is met. In other words, if the plant is controllable, the multirate system can be made controllable whatever the measurement rate is. In contrast, single-rate sampled-data systems may lose controllability if the sampling period T does not satisfy Eq. (20) [19]. **

According to **such that the closed-loop matrix of the overall system, Φ + Λ K, has any desired set of self-conjugate eigenvalues. In the case when Λ is nonsingular, we can assign the whole closed-loop matrix by choosing **

where Φ*cl *is the desired closed-loop matrix.

In previous subsection, we studied the case of completely controllable systems. Next, we will consider the case of stabilizable plants. The notion of stabilizability was first introduced by Wonham **[20]. We say that a pair { F, G} (continuous or discrete) is stabilizable if and only if there exist a real matrix K such that the closed-loop matrix F + GK has stable eigenvalues (i.e., those with negative real parts, if the plant is continuous, or with magnitudes less than unity, if the plant is discrete). Using Definition 1, one can also say that the pair {F, G} is stabilizable if all uncontrollable eigenvalues of F are stable. **

The next theorem gives necessary and sufficient conditions for the stabilizability of the multirate system.

*Assume that T *> 0 *and **, i *= 1,…, *m*, *are proper. Then the pair *{Φ, Λ} *is stabilizable if and only if the pair *{*A*, *B*} *is stabilizable. *

**Proof**:

(i) The necessity part (only if

) can be proved in a similar manner as in part (i) of the proof of **Theorem 1 with each of the words controllable and eigenvalue to be replaced by stabilizable and unstable eigenvalue, respectively. **

(ii) Next, assume that *T *and *ri*, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*, are proper, and that {*A*, *B*is not stabilizable. Without loss of generality, we assume that *A *and *B *are in the controllable-uncontrollable form:

**(21) **

,{*Ac*, *Bc*is stable. Here, *nc < n *with *nc = n *if and only if {*A*, *B*, be the *ith *partition of *Bc*are decomposed into

**(22) **

and

**(23) **

with

**(24) **

where

is uncontrollable. Therefore, there exists an eigenvalue *λ *of Φ*c *with a left eigenvector *z′ ≠* 0 such that *z′*Φ*c =* λ*z′ *. It follows then from **Eqs. (23) and (24) that, for all i, li = 0, 1, …, ri , for li = 0,1,…, ri – 1. Furthermore, for any ki ≥ riand some li ∈ {0, 1,…, ri – 1}. Hence, **

Therefore, for all *ki *, *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*. thus,

Since *T*/*ri *satisfies **Eq. (19) (if Eq. (20) is satisfied then so is Eq. (19)), once again we can use an argument similar to that of [19, proof of Theorem 12] to show that **

for *i *= 1, 2,…, *m*. that is,

and the pair {*Ac*, *Bc*} is uncontrollable. A contradiction.

Thus, if the sampling rates are proper and the continuous plant is stabilizable, the multirate system can be made stable by the proper choice of the feedback gain matrix *K. *as in **, where νc i.e νc = ν). Then **

as

is such that the matrix Φ*c +* Λ*c kc *has any desired set of self-conjugate eigenvalues.

We discussed, in the previous section, the conditions under which the poles of the multirate system can be arbitrarily assigned. However, since, in general, the discrete pair {Φ, Λ} represents a multi-input system, there can be many feedback gain solutions for any given set of desired poles. Such freedom can be utilized in an optimal design based on solving the continuous-time LQG problem.

Consider the open-loop multirate system of **Figure 1. The optimization problem is defined by the cost function **

**(26) **

and the dynamic constraints given by **Eqs. (15) with the initial state x . We assume that Q ≥ 0 and R > 0 are real symmetric n × n and p × p matrices, respectively. Furthermore, for simplicity, we assume that R = block-diag {R1,…, Rm. One can show that **

where

**(28) **

**(29) **

The optimization problem can then be solved using the Separation Theorem **[21]. Thus, the optimal control is obtained by solving the deterministic LQR problem (neglecting the disturbance effects and dealing with the state x (kis obtained, using any of the classical estimation techniques, to substitute the actual state in updating the control. **

Now, the optimal solution of the LQR is well-known and is given by

**(31) **

where

is determined by the algebraic discrete Riccati equation

The existance of a positive-definite solution of **Eq. (33) and the asymptotic stability of the system are guaranteed by the next theorem. **

*Assume that controllability is preserved with sampling. Then, there exists a unique positive-definite solution **of Eq. (33) if {A, B} is controllable and {A, Q} is observable. The corresponding closed-loop system is asymptotically stable. *

To simplify the proof of **Theorem 3, we transform J of Eq. (27) into an uncoupled cost function. Define **

**(34) **

and

**(35) **

to obtain the equivalent discrete LQR problem defined by the uncoupled cost function

and the dynamic constraints

**(37) **

that minimizes *J *is given by

**(38) **

is the solution of the discrete algebraic Riccati

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading