Review on Robust Control for SISO systems

Rodrigo Trentini Preuss

December 13, 2013

Introduction

The proposal of this text is to present a methodology that allows the design of
a controller, to be located in the direct branch of the control loop, in order to
attend the performance and stability requirements.
We are will consider two plants: the nominal and the real ones. Both are
considered SISO, linear and time-invariant, but distinct.
Regarding the performance, the following topics must be attended by the
real system:
reference tracking;
external disturbance rejection;
plant variations insensitivity;
measurement error rejection.
Concerning the stability, the controller must be design so that the real system
is always stable.

The nominal system

Figure 1 shows the nominal system.

d(s)
r(s)

e(s)

k(s)

u(s)

gN (s)

y(s)
+

n(s)

Figure 1: Nominal system

The closed-loop system is
cN (s) =

gN (s)k(s)
.
1 + gN (s)k(s)

(1)

For the system to be stable, the poles of Eq. 1 must be located in the left
half s-plane.
1

2.1

Performance

For the performance analysis we consider:

y(s) =

gN (s)k(s)
1
gN (s)k(s)
r(s) +
d(s)
n(s)
1 + gN (s)k(s)
1 + gN (s)k(s)
1 + gN (s)k(s)

(2)

e(s) =

1
1
1
r(s)
d(s)
n(s)
1 + gN (s)k(s)
1 + gN (s)k(s)
1 + gN (s)k(s)

(3)

and

2.1.1

Reference tracking

Considering only the contribution of r(j) to e(j):

e(j) =

1
r(j)
1 + gN (j)k(j)

(4)

and being r the set where r(j) has its energy most significant part. Generally,
r is given by
r = { : r },

(5)

where r is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant) r ()  1

( r ) is used as design specification. Thus,
|e(j)|
r ().
|r(j)|

(6)

So, it is possible to state that

|1 + gN (j)k(j)|

1
1
r

(7)

resulting in
y(j) r(j).

(8)

So, the gain of the transfer function must be high where the reference signal
has its energy most significant part.
2.1.2

External disturbance rejection

Considering only the contribution of d(j) to e(j):

e(j) =

1
d(j)
1 + gN (j)k(j)

(9)

and being d the set where d(j) has its energy most significant part. Generally,
d is given by
d = { : d },

(10)

where d is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant) d ()  1

( d ) is used as design specification. Thus,

|e(j)|
d ().
|d(j)|

(11)

So, it is possible to state that

|1 + gN (j)k(j)|

1
1
d

(12)

So, the gain of the transfer function must be high where the disturbances
have its energy most significant part.
2.1.3

Plant variations insensitivity

For the nominal system

y(s) =

gN (s)k(s)
r(s),
1 + gN (s)k(s)

(13)

consider a transfer function variation g(s), so that the output is y(j)+y(j):

y(j) + y(j) =

[gN (j) + g(j)]k(j)

r(j)
1 + [gN (j) + g(j)]k(j)

(14)

Using Taylor series for the linearization,

y(j) =

k(j)
g(j)r(j).
[1 + gN (j)k(j)]2

(15)

Dividing Eq. 15 by Eq. 13,

1
g(j)
y(j)
=
y(j)
1 + gN (j)k(j) gN (j)

(16)

Suppose that g(j)\gN (j) is significant to , being

= { : },

(17)

where is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant) ()  1

( d ) is used as design specification. Thus,
|y(j)\y(j)|
().
|g(j)\gN (j)|

(18)

So, it is possible to state that

|1 + gN (j)k(j)|

1
1

(19)

So, the gain of the transfer function must be high where the variation
g(j)\gN (j) is more significant.

2.1.4

Measurement error rejection

Considering only the contribution of n(j) to y(j):

y(j) =

gN (j)k(j)
n(j)
1 + gN (j)k(j)

(20)

and being n the set where n(j) has its energy most significant part. Generally,
n is given by
n = { : n },

(21)

where n is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant) n () 1

( n ) is used as design specification. Thus,
|y(j)|
n ().
|n(j)|

(22)

|gN (j)k(j)|  1

(23)

In order to guarantee the measurement error rejection, assume:

So, it is possible to state that

|gN (j)k(j)| n  1

(24)

So, the gain of the transfer function must be small where the measurement
error is high.

2.2

Conclusion

It can be observed that the requirements for reference tracking, external disturbance rejection and plant variations insensitivity (which high gains are required)
are contradictory to the measurement error rejection one (where small gains are
required).
Fortunately, in most of practical problems r , d and depict low frequency regions, whereas n corresponds to a high frequency region.
Thus, the Bode Diagram of the open-loop gain must be situated within the
boundaries of low and high frequencies, according to Fig. 2.

The real system

Figure 3 shows the real system. It is important to notice that the controller
k(s) is the same for both real and nominal ones.
The multiplicative modeling error is given by
M (s) =

gR (s) gN (s)
gN (s)

(25)

so
gR (s) = [1 + M (s)]gN (s).

(26)

It is assumed that the designer is able to establish a upper bound to |M (j)|,

being:

dB

gN (j)k(j)
- Meas. error
rejection

- Ref. tracking
- Dist. rejection
- Var. insensibility

Figure 2: Low and high frequencies boundaries for the nominal system

d(s)
r(s)

e(s)

k(s)

u(s)

gR (s)

y(s)
+

n(s)

Figure 3: Real system

|M (j)| eM ().

(27)

Typically, eM () is small in low frequencies and big in high frequencies, as

it is shown in Fig. 4.
eM ()

Figure 4: Function eM ()

3.1

Stability

The system
cR (s) =

gR (s)k(s)
1 + gR (s)k(s)

(28)

must be stable for all M (j).

At this point, it is required to assume that the number of unstable poles
of gR (s) is equal than gN (s). This assumption is ensured iff, by deforming the
Nyquist diagram from gN (j)k(j) up to gR (j)k(j), there is no crossing
through the point 1 + j0.1 The condition for the no crossing on this point is
expressed by:
[1 + M (j)]gN (j)k(j) 6= 1 + j0.

(29)

As gN (j) is supposed asymptotically stable, 1 + gN (j)k(j) 6= 0, Eq. 29

can be re-written as
1 + M (j)

gN (j)k(j)
6= 0.
1 + gN (j)k(j)

(30)

Or in other words
1 + M (j)cN (j) 6= 0,

being equivalent to

|cN (j)| <

1
,
eM ()

(31)
(32)

which is denominated as Stability Robustness Condition.

3.2

Performance

According to Section 2.1, the performance of the nominal system is depict by

Eq. 7, 12 and 19. Changing to the real system:
|gR (j)k(j)| p()

(33)

|gN (j)k(j)||1 + M ()| p().

(34)

|1 + M ()| 1 |M ()| 1 eM () > 0

(35)

in which p() can be r (), d () or (), depending on the case.

Considering Eq. 26, the real system performance will meet the specifications
if

At these frequencies it is possible to suppose that eM () < 1, so

and then it is sufficient to impose that

|gN (j)k(j)|

p(
1 eM ()

(36)

The last expression is known as Performance Robustness Condition.

1 for more about this assumption, please refer to topics on the Nyquist criteria applied to
robust controllers.

3.3

Conclusion

Again, it can be seen that stability and performance requirements are conflicting.
While the first requires higher gains, the second demands smaller ones. Also,
it is important to notice that the stability robustness boundary lies below the
measurement error rejection one so that it is possible to consider just the first.
Figure 5 shows the real system Bode diagram with its boundaries (c is the
cutoff frequency).
dB

gN (j)k(j)
Performance

Stability

Figure 5: Low and high boundaries for the real system