1

Lesson 1
2
3
4
 5
System model (mathematical description)

Model inversion

 6

Nonlinear systems:

Special case linear systems:

Linearization of nonlinear systems:

7
 8

System: Model:
d
x(t) = f (x(t),u(t), p)
Driver dt
y(t)=g(x(t),u(t), p)
m
*
L

Drosseklappe
u λvK :BOSCH LSU4
(Breitband-Sonde)

Uncertainty:
Saugrohr
Motronic
λ 2P
hK
:BOSCH LSF4
Einspritz-
€
(Zweipunkt-Sonde)
ventile

n
y pi,min ≤ p ≤ pi,max ,

λvK λ 2P
hK
Katalysator (Haupt-)Katalysator
i = 1,…N
λhK , NO, CO, (HC, CO2)

€
9
10
11
12
 13

Feedback: powerful, but dangerous …

• stabilization

• model uncertainty

• not measurable disturbances

• cost reduction

• ……

Feedback is everywhere

• engineering

• biology

• social systems

• ……

14
15
16
17
 18

s
d

19
20
21
 22

Lesson 2
23
24
 25

Example „Water Tank“

26
27
 28

Example „Stirred Tank Reactor“

29
30
31
 32

Example: “cruise control”

disturbance
Störung

error
Fehler
reference
Sollwert e u output
Istwert y
ECU
Regler car
Strecke
r - control
Stellsignal

Te
y
u injectors

throttle
cylinders
33
34
35
36
 37

Example „Loudspeaker“

v(t)

38
39
40
 41

Example „Conveyor Belt“

 42

Lesson 3
43
44
 45

Equilibrium condition

h0 ≠ 0 ≠ 0 ⇒ nominal point

no physical dimension and around 1 if OK

€
Normalized system equation
46
 47

Equilibrium:

Problem: equilibrium point cannot be used for normalization

zg =
Standard:

Choice:
€
 48
f0 (x,u)

xe x
∂f 0 ∂f 0
€ ⋅ δx + ⋅ δu
ue ∂x x e ,ue ∂u x e ,ue

€ €
u
δx
€
δu
€
∂f 0 ∂f 0
f 0 (x e + δx,ue + δu) ≈ f 0 (x€
e ,ue ) + ⋅ δx + ⋅ δu
∂x x e ,ue ∂u x e ,ue

=0
49
50
 51

≈
 52

x(t) = 1+ δx(t) 1
1+ δx(t) = 1+ δx(t) +…
u(t) = 1+ δu(t) 2

Linearized equation:
€ €
 53
Equilibrium condition:

therefore:

or:

with:
54
 55
Equilibrium condition:

therefore:

or:
 56
d
System model: z(t)= f (z(t),v(t)), w(t) = g(z(t),v(t))
dt

Equilibrium Case A Result case A

zi,e , v e , w e zi,e ≠ 0 ⇒ zi,0 = zi,e x i,e = 1, ue = 1, y e = 1
€
defined by ve ≠ 0 ⇒ v0 = ve
Result case B
f (zi,e ,v e ) = 0 we ≠ 0 ⇒ w0 = we
x i,e = 0, ue = 0, y e = 0
w e = g(zi,e ,v e ) Case B
€
zi,0 = ……
Always normalize with
€ v 0 = ……
€ zi,0 , v 0 , w 0
w 0 = ……
and linearize around
Reasonable, but arbitrary choice x i,e , ue , y e
(depends on problem at hand)
€
€
57
58
 v0 59

€ τ (m, γ , v0 )
€ k(m, v0 )
m

€ €
€
60
61
 62
First-order system (n=1, the most simple case):
63
 64

Lesson 4
 65

.
approximated by: δx(t) = A .δx(t) + b .δu(t)
δy(t) = c .δx(t) + d.δu(t)

P
0
δu .
C z(t)=f(z(t),v(t))
u y
v0 v w
w0-1
uu0e
w(t)=g(z(t),v(t)) δy
yy0
e

 66

d
x(t) = A ⋅ x(t) + b ⋅ u(t)
dt
y(t) = c ⋅ x(t) + d ⋅ u(t)

€
 67

Pro memoria scalar exponential:

Main feature:

The derivative of an exponential is a linear function of an

exponential!
 68

Generalization matrix exponential:

Key point:

Verify that!
 69
A few remarks:
Matrix exponentials are not as simple as scalar ones, i.e,

if matrices do not commute, but:

The inverse is well defined because

Proofs see QC
 70

Application of matrix exponentials to the solution of the

initial-value problem:

For a known initial condition

and a known input

what is the state trajectory ?

71
 72

System output

Definition convolution operator (x0=0, d=0)

73
 74

Quantitative solutions to test signals easy.

For the sake of simplicity d=0.
75
76
77
78
79
 80

High-order systems: quantitative solutions to test

signals not easy!

Qualitative “solutions”?
 81
Lyapunov Stability

xn

x(0)

€
x1
€

€
 82
Pro memoria I
A vector v that is mapped by a linear mapping A into
a collinear vector λv is called an Eigenvector
(*)
The scalar “gain” λ is an Eigenvalue of A. In general,
both λ and v are complex-valued objects.

Equation (*) can be written as

and a nontrivial solution exists iff

 83
Pro memoria II
If n linearly independent Eigenvectors vi exist (this is
often the case, for instance if all Eigenvalues are
distinct) then they can be used to define a coordinate
transformation with

T= det(T ) ≠ 0

with the following property

⎡λ1 0 …
€ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
−1 ⎢ 0 λ2 … …⎥
T ⋅ A⋅T =
⎢… … … …⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 … 0 λn ⎦
 84
Back to Stability Problem – General solution

det(T ) ≠ 0
T ⋅ x˜ (t)= e A⋅t ⋅T ⋅ x˜ (0)
⇒ x˜ (t)= T −1 ⋅ e A⋅t ⋅T ⋅ x˜ (0) €
−1 ⎛ 1 2 2 ⎞
⇒ x˜ (t)= T ⋅ ⎜ I + A ⋅ t + A ⋅ t +…⎟ ⋅T ⋅ x˜ (0)
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ −1 −1 1 −1 −1 2 ⎞
⇒ x˜ (t)= ⎜T ⋅T + T ⋅ A ⋅T ⋅ t + T ⋅ A ⋅T ⋅T ⋅ A ⋅T ⋅ t +…⎟ ⋅ x˜ (0)
⎝ 2 ⎠
⎛ ˜ 1 ˜2 2 ⎞ A˜ ⋅t T −1 ⋅A⋅T⋅t
⇒ x˜ (t)= ⎜ I + A ⋅ t + A ⋅ t +…⎟ ⋅ x˜ (0) = e ⋅ x˜ (0) = e ⋅ x˜ (0)
⎝ 2 ⎠
 85

Assume that transformation T can be chosen such that

⎡λ1 0 … 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
0 λ … …
T ⋅ A ⋅ T = ⎢
−1 2 ⎥
⎢… … … …⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 … 0 λn ⎦

In this case is diagonal as well (Ã2, Ã3, … diagonal) with

€
 86

λi ⋅t σ i ⋅t jω i ⋅t
λi = σ i + jωi ⇒ e =e ⋅e
σ i ⋅t
=e ⋅ [cos(ωi ⋅ t ) + j sin(ωi ⋅ t )]
 87

Solution in the new coordinates

real part imaginary part

 88

For therefore x = 0 ⇔ x˜ = 0
det(T ) ≠ 0 x = ∞ ⇔ x˜ = ∞
[T ]ij < ∞ x < ∞ ⇔ x˜ < ∞

Therefore
€ €
 89
What if A is not diagonalizable?

More details subsequent lectures.

 90

region of attraction
 91
Example:
“pendulum on a cart”
 92

nominal
position
 93

nominal
position
 94

Lesson 5
 95

A = [ 0 1 0
0 0 1
-1 -2 -1]
c = [ 1 1 1]
x0 = [ 1
1
1 ]
t=0:0.01:10;
y=[];
for i=1:max(length(t));
y = [y;c*expm(A*t(i))*x0];
end;
plot(t,y)
96
 97

xn

x2

x1

 98

xn

x2

x1

 99

xn

x2

x1

 100

therefore, analyze
 101

Definition:

Yields:
 102

xn

rr

r1

x2

x1

 103
Problem:

Solution:
Pro memoria: characteristic polynomial of A:

Therefore:
 104

Main result:
The system {A,b} is completely controllable iff

the matrix defined by

has full rank n. If its rank r<n then only an

r-dimensional (linear) subspace is reachable.
This subspace is spanned by the linearly
independent columns of .
 105

For linear time-invariant systems the reachable

and the controllable subspace are identical.

The system is stabilizable only if the state variables

of the non-reachable subspace are all asymp-
totically stable.

+
106
107
 108

Tangential thruster only:

Rank?
 109

Radial thruster only:

Rank?
110
 111

When can two different I.C. yield the same output?

Only when the difference

is in the kernel of

The system is completely observable iff the kernel

is empty, i.e., if the rank of is full.
112
113
 114

Can the pendulum be stabilized in its upper position?

bu =

Controllability OK
 115

Measuring pendulum angle is not OK

It is not possible to stabilize the system with

this information!
 116

Measuring tip position is OK

i.e., it is possible to stabilize the system using this

information in a feedback loop.
 117

Surprisingly, measuring the cart position is OK too!

Later we‘ll see that it is possible, but more difficult

to stabilize the system using only this signal.
 118

yes no
yes
no
 119

R
O

u y
R R
O O

R
O
 120

2

~ ~ ~ ~

1

4

~ ~

~

Ã
b

~

c

 121

Block diagram representations I

d
x1 (t) = −2 ⋅ x1 (t) + 3⋅ u(t)
dt
y(t) = 4 ⋅ x1 (t) + 1⋅ u(t)

€
 122

d Block diagram representations II

x1 (t) = x 2 (t)
dt
d y(t) = x1 (t)
x 2 (t) = x 3 (t)
dt
d
x 3 (t) = −x1 (t) − 2 ⋅ x 2 (t) − 3⋅ x 3 (t) + u(t)
dt
€
 123

d Input/Output Forms
x1 (t) = x 2 (t)
dt
d y(t) = x1 (t)
x 2 (t) = x 3 (t)
dt
d
x 3 (t) = −x1 (t) − 2 ⋅ x 2 (t) − 3⋅ x 3 (t) + u(t)
dt
€
 124

Internal description {A,b,c}

Physical coordinates!

I/O description

No coordinates!
 125

without coordinates “realization”

using
canonical
coordinates
with coordinates
later
 126

Linear Systems – Superposition Principle

u
Σ
y

Σ(α u1 + β u2) = α Σ(u1) + β Σ(u2)

u1, u2 : signals

α, β : real numbers

 127
Controller Canonical Form, Example n=3 and m=1
Known IO description of system:
y (3) (t) + a2 ⋅ y (2) (t) + a1 ⋅ y (1) (t) + a0 ⋅ y(t) = b1 ⋅ u (1) (t) + b0 ⋅ u(t)

Define auxiliary variable ξ(t):

ξ (3) (t) + a2 ⋅ ξ (2) (t) + a1 ⋅ ξ (1) (t) + a0 ⋅ ξ (t) = u(t)

Define auxiliary variable ζ(t):

ζ (3) (t) + a2 ⋅ ζ (2) (t) + a1 ⋅ ζ (1) (t) + a0 ⋅ ζ (t) = u (1) (t)
€

Find y(t) using superposition principle:

(i) dix
€ y(t) = b1 ⋅ ζ (t) + b0 ⋅ ξ (t) x (t) = i (t)
dt
y(0) = y (1) (0) = y (2) (0) = 0
 128

Realization of ξ(t):

(3) (2)
u ξ ξ ξ (1) ξ
+ ∫ ∫ ∫
- a2

- a1

- a0
 129
u d u (1) ζ (3) ζ (2) ζ (1) ζ
dt + ∫ ∫ ∫

- a2

1. - a1 Realization of ζ(t):
- a0

u ξ (3) ξ (2)
ξ (1) ξ d ζ
+ ∫ ∫ ∫ dt

- a2
2.
- a1

- a0
ζ

u ξ (3) ξ (2) ξ (1) ξ

+ ∫ ∫ ∫

- a2
3. a1
-

- a0
 130
Superposition principle and coordinates
ζ
b1 +
x3 x2 x1
u ξ (3)
ξ (2)
ξ (1)
ξ y
+ ∫ ∫ ∫ b0 +

- a2

- a1

- a0

State-space description in ⎡ x˙1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 1 0 ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡0⎤

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
canonical coordinates ⎢ x˙2 ⎥ = ⎢ 0 0 1 ⎥ ⋅ ⎢ x 2 ⎥ + ⎢0⎥ ⋅ u
(arbitrary but convenient ⎢⎣ x˙ 3 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣−a0 −a1 −a2 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ x 3 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣1⎥⎦
choice): ⎡ x1 ⎤
x1=ξ, x2=ξ(1), x3= ξ(2) ⎢ ⎥
y = [ b0 b1 0 ] ⋅ ⎢ x 2 ⎥ + [0] ⋅ u
⎢⎣ x 3 ⎥⎦
131
132
133
134
135
 136

Lesson 6
 137
So far, focus on internal description

obtained either from physical first principles or as a realization with

canonical coordinates from given input-output description.

Main points:

Solution

Asymp. Stability
Re{λi(A)} < 0 ?

Controllability

Range{ } is the controllable subspace

Observability
Kernel{ } is the not observable

subspace

 138

General solution powerful, but difficult, in 

particular if u(t)=u(x(t)) (feedback):

Is there a “shortcut”? 

Yes, there is Laplace transformation!

139
 140
Definition of Laplace transformation for a signal
x(t) ∈ ℜ

€
s = σ + jω
Function x:

Function X:

Transformation is reversible, no €
“information” is lost.

 141

If the limit exists!

 142
Proof:

∞ ∞
d
∫ dt
x(t) ⋅ e dt = x(t) ⋅ e |0 − ∫ x(t) ⋅ (−s) ⋅ e dt
−st −st ∞ −st

0 0
∞
= −x(0) + s ⋅ ∫ x(t) ⋅ e dt
−st

= −x(0) + s ⋅ X(s)

Generalization:

 143
The Laplace transforms of the

most important signals

Note: all signals = 0 for t<0!

In this class existence and 

convergence always assumed to
be guaranteed

Mathematically strict treatment

in “Analysis III”

 144

Structure of Σ(s)

Ratio of two (real-coefficient) polynomials

Strictly proper, i.e., m < n

 145
The transfer function is the Laplace transform of the

impulse response

Therefore:

Using internal description (d=0)

Therefore:

(c and b are constant rank-1 vectors)

 146

Laplace transforms and IO system description

Assume all initial conditions = 0 (makes sense in an IO setting)

s n ⋅ Y (s) + an−1 ⋅ s n−1 ⋅ Y (s) +…+ a1 ⋅ s ⋅ Y (s) + a0 ⋅ Y (s) =

bm ⋅ s m ⋅U(s) +…+ b1 ⋅ s ⋅U(s) + b0 ⋅U(s)

[ s n + an−1 ⋅ s n−1 +…+ a1 ⋅ s + a0 ⋅ Y (s) = bm ⋅ s m +…+ b1 ⋅ s + b0 ⋅U(s)

] [ ]

bm ⋅ s m +…+ b1 ⋅ s + b0
Y (s) = n n−1
⋅U(s) = Σ(s)⋅U(s)
s + an−1 ⋅ s +…+ a1 ⋅ s + a0
 147
Relationship between IO and internal description

Same system, two descriptions of IO dynamics

derived using internal

description

b ⋅ s m˜
+ … + b ⋅ s + b ˜ (s)
b derived using IO
Σ˜ (s) = n˜ m n˜ −1
1 0
=
s + an−1 ⋅ s + … + a1 ⋅ s + a0 a˜ (s) measurements only

Σ˜ (s) = Σ(s) iff the system is minimal, i.e., completely 

controllable and completely observable

Otherwise pole/zero cancellations must occur. These cancellations 
remove the not controllable and/or not observable modes.

 148
Dealing with delays

There is no finite dimensional state-space description of that system

d
x˜ (t) = A˜ ⋅ x˜ (t) + b˜ ⋅ u(t), y(t) = c˜ ⋅ x˜ (t)
dt
… but with Laplace transform (use “shift” law of Table 6.1)

Note that Σ(s) is not rational anymore …

 149
Fr (t)
Example Geostationary Satellite
m

Fϕ (t)
R r(t)
⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 1 0 0 ⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡0⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤ ϕ(t)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
d ⎢ x2 ⎥ ⎢3ω0 0 0 2ω0 r0 ⎥ ⎢ x2 ⎥ ⎢1⎥ 0
= ⋅ + ⋅ u1 + ⎢ ⎥ ⋅ u M
dt ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 ⎥ ⎢ x3 ⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ 2
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣x4 ⎦ ⎣ 0 −2ω0 r0 0 0 ⎦ ⎣ x4 ⎦ ⎣0⎦ ⎣1/ r0 ⎦ measure azimuth

y =[ 0 0 1 0 ]⋅ x

Transfer function from tangential thruster to azimuth angle:

u2 → y

Two zeros at
ζ1/2 = ± 3ω0
Four poles at
π1/2 = ± jω0 , π 3/ 4 = 0

€
 150
Transfer Function from radial thruster to azimuth angle:

u1 → y

Pole-zero cancellation (one pole and one zero at s=0)

What is the system-theoretic explanation for that? The system is

not completely controllable with radial thruster only:

Therefore minimal realization has order < 4 (here 3) and one 
mode does not influence the transfer function.

 151
Quick Check: For a system defined by its internal description

⎡ x˙1 ⎤ ⎡+1 3⎤ ⎡ x1 ⎤ ⎡1⎤
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ ⋅ ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ ⋅ u
⎣x˙2 ⎦ ⎣ 0 −1⎦ ⎣x2 ⎦ ⎣1⎦
⎡ x1 ⎤
y = [ 0 1] ⋅ ⎢ ⎥
⎣x2 ⎦
Compute its transfer function Σ(s).

Is the system minimal?

€
Eigenvalues and poles?

Is the system stabilizable?

 152
Transfer function as ratio of polynomials

m
bm ⋅ s +…+ b1 ⋅ s + b0 b(s)
Σ(s) = n n−1
=
s + an−1 ⋅ s +…+ a1 ⋅ s + a0 a(s)
Same transfer function using linear-factors

€
Zeros and poles of Σ(s)

If the system {A,b,c} is completely controllable and observable the

poles of Σ(s) and the eigenvalues of the matrix A are identical.

 153

Application of Laplace transformation

Two systems

Interconnected as follows

u
u1 y1 u2 y2 y

Σ1 Σ2
-

€ € € €
€ €
IO description of new system?

 154
Transfer functions (use superposition principle)

Σ1
y1 = Σ1 ⋅ (u − Σ 2 ⋅ y1 ) ⇒ y1 = ⋅u
1+ Σ 2 ⋅ Σ1
Σ 2 ⋅ Σ1
y 2 = Σ 2 ⋅ Σ1 ⋅ (u − y 2 ) ⇒ y2 = ⋅u
1+ Σ 2 ⋅ Σ1
(1+ Σ 2 ) ⋅ Σ1 (1+ Σ 2 ) ⋅ Σ1
y = y1 + y 2 ⇒ y= ⋅u ⇒ Σ=
1+ Σ 2 ⋅ Σ1 1+ Σ 2 ⋅ Σ1
Laplace transformations

€
 155

Lesson 7
156
 157
Application of Laplace transformation

System equations

Laplace:

Laplace transformation (for each element in x(t))

Solution

 158

For the design of feedback control systems the

transfer function

is the most important object.

Using Cramer’s rule

159
160
 161

The “DC-Gain” of a System

u(t)=h(t)
y(t) = ? for lim t → ∞

y(∞) = lim s ⋅ Y (s) = lim s ⋅ Σ(s) ⋅ U(s)

s→0 + s→0 +

1
= lim s ⋅ Σ(s) ⋅ = lim Σ(s) = Σ(0)
s→0 + s s→0 +
 162

QC:
2s + 3
DC gain of Σ(s) = 2
s + 3s + 2

s+3
DC
€ gain of Σ(s) =
−s + 7

€
 163

Test for BIBO stability:

Main result (LTI systems):

164
165
 166

The „Tent-Pole Theorem“

s+2

Example: Σ(s)=
2
(s +2s+5)(s+4)
|Σ(s)|

ζ = -2

π = -4, -1±j2

Map: s |Σ(s)|

 167

Linearity, Laplace Table

 168

s 3 ⋅Y (s) + 7 ⋅ s 2 ⋅Y (s) +15 ⋅ s ⋅Y (s) + 9 ⋅Y (s) = s ⋅U(s) + 2 ⋅U(s)

1
U(s) = 2
s +1

€ ϕ3 = 1 ϕ4 = 1
ϕ1 = 1 ϕ2 = 2

Poles: s=-1 s=-j, s=+j (simple) and s=-3 (double)

€ € € €
 169
Computation residuum

Example: i=1, πi=-1, ϕi=1

1 ⎡ d (1−1) ⎧ s+2 ⎫⎤
ρ1,1 = lim ⎢ ⎨ (s +1)⎬⎥
s→−1 (1−1)! ds (1−1) ⎩ (s +1)(s + 3)2 (s 2 +1) ⎭⎦
⎣
1 −1+ 2 1 1
= ⋅ 2 2
= =
1 (−1+ 3) ((−1) +1) 4 ⋅ 2 8

Contribution of this part to u(t)

1 1 (1−1) (−1⋅t ) 1 −t
⋅ ⋅t ⋅e = ⋅e
8 (1−1)! 8
170
 171

Poles:

Parameters:
172
 173

Step Response

Y(s)

Substitution:
 174

Y(s)

(linearity, table 6.2, and “damping” law)

 175

Y(s)

(linearity, table 6.2, and “damping” law)

176
177
178
179
 180

QC
 181

If the real part of all zeros is negative then the system

is minimum phase. If the real part of at least one zero
is positive the system is non-minimum phase.
 182
The zeros ζ are those frequencies for which a non-zero
input u*(t) and initial conditions x*(0) exist that produce
a zero output y*(t)=0.

Μ(s)

-1
Adj(M)

M
(s)
c Adj(sI-A) b

 183
b1s + b0
Σ(s) = 2
s + a1s + a0

⇒ €

⇒
€

€
⇒
 184

Result:
 185

−∞ < k < +∞

| k |≈ ∞ case “no finite zero”

| k |≈ 0 case€
“worst finite zero”
 186

k=

 187

l α

M d

u
<< C
r
 188

Lesson 8
 189
Computation of output signals for low-order systems:

(partial fraction expansion)

(plus linearity of Laplace transf.)

(for complex poles use

Euler theorem)

 190

Example:

˙y˙˙(t) + 4 y˙˙(t ) + 6 y˙(t) + 4y(t) = 3u˙˙(t) + 6u˙ (t ) + 4u(t)

u(t) = h(t)
2
3s + 6s + 4 1
Y (s) = 3 2
⋅
s + 4s + 6s + 4 s (all i.c. zero)

1 1 1
Y (s) = − +
s s + 2 (s +1)2 +1 (p.f.d.)

y(t) = h(t ) ⋅ [1− e−2t + e−t ⋅ sin(t)] (linearity & damping law)
 191

Y(s)

(linearity, table 6.2, and “damping” law)

192
 193

k=

 194

70o

20o

40o

15o

10o

 195

2 −1
Σ(s) = +
s + 1 0.2s + 1
2 ⋅ (0.2s + 1) − (s + 1)
=
(s + 1) ⋅ (0.2s + 1)
0.4s + 2 − s −1
=
(s + 1) ⋅ (0.2s + 1)
−0.6s + 1
=
(s + 1) ⋅ (0.2s + 1)

⇒ ζ + = 1.66… NMP zero!

 196

Example: non-minimumphase system

"no slip"
 197
momentary d x(t)=v(t).cos(z(t))
center of model ODE: dt
rotation
d v(t)=u (t)
dt 1

w(t) d y(t)=v(t).sin(z(t))
dt
d z(t)= v(t) . tan(w(t))
dt l
l v(t) d w(t)=u (t)
dt 2
tan(w(t))

z(t) w(t)
y(t)

x(t)
 198
Linearization around: Inputs: Output (y-position of front axis):
x0 =v0 . t u1(t) q(t)=y(t)+l. sin(z(t))

v 0 ≠0 (const.) u2(t)

y0 =0
Linearization:
z0 =0
d δx(t)=δv(t)
. Transfer function: δu2(t) δq(t)
dt
w 0 =0 d δv(t)=δu (t) s.l+v0 . v0
1 P(s)=
dt s3 l
A=[0 1 0 0 0 d δy(t)=v .δz(t) • Plant is unstable (5 eigenvalues at 0,
0 0 0 0 0 dt 0
0 0 0 v0 0 partial Jordan form)
0 0 0 0 v0 /l d δz(t)= v0 . δw(t)
0 0 0 0 0 ];
dt l • Plant is not minimal (5 state variables
B=[0 0
d δw(t)=δu (t) but TF third order)
1 0
0 0 dt 2
0 0 • In forward driving 1 minimum phase
0 1];
zero, in backward driving 1 non-
c=[0 0 1 l 0 ]; minimumphase zero
δq(t)=δy(t)+l. δz(t)
d=[0 0];
 199

“Experiment”

astab

Σ(s)
 200

Explanation

Input:

Output:
 201
System astab <=>

therefore

where
 202

m cos(ωt + ϕ ) = m[cos(ωt)cos(ϕ ) − sin(ωt)sin(ϕ )]

= m cos(ωt)cos(ϕ ) − m sin(ωt)sin(ϕ )
= α cos(ωt) + β sin(ωt)
⇒ α = m cos(ϕ ), β = −m sin(ϕ )
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
⇒ α + β = m cos (ϕ ) + m sin (ϕ ) = m
β −m sin(ϕ )
= = − tan(ϕ )
α m cos(ϕ )
 203

Connection α and β, or m and ϕ with Σ(s)?

Therefore
 204
Therefore

or, with

the final result

 205

Main result

astab

Σ(s)
 206
Nyquist Diagram, example

frequency is an
implicit parameter
 207

ω 02 ω 02
Σ( jω ) = = 2
( jω ) + 2δjω + ω 0 (ω 0 − ω 2 ) + j(2δω )
2 2

2 2
(ω − ω ) − j(2δω )
2 0
=ω 0 2 22 2 2
= re(ω ) + j ⋅ im(ω )
(ω − ω ) + 4δ ω
0

ω ⋅ [ω − ω
2
0
2
0
2
] −ω 02 2δω
re(ω ) = 2 2 2 2 2
, im(ω ) = 2
(ω 0 − ω ) + 4δ ω (ω 0 − ω 2 ) 2 + 4δ 2ω 2
 208
Bode Diagram, example

frequency is an
explicit parameter
 209

omega_0=1; !
delta=0.2;!
omega=logspace(-1,1,1000);!
num=omega_0^2;!
den=[1,2*delta*omega_0,omega_0^2];!
[m,phi]=bode(num,den,omega);!
subplot(211);!
semilogx(omega,20*log10(m));!
subplot(212);!
semilogx(omega,phi)!
210
211
212
213
 214

s +1 1 1
s2 s(s + 3) s 2 + s +1

€ € €
215
 216
Relative Degree

−s + 2 s+3 0.05s 2 + 0.1s + 0.2 1

s 2 + 3s + 3 s 2 + 3s + 3 s 2 + 0.2s + 0.2 s 2 + s +1

€ € € €
217
218
219
220
221
 222
1
Σ(s) =
τ zs + 1

€
 223

τ zs + 1
Σ(s) =
1

€
 224

Lesson 9
225
226
227
 228
Physical interpretation (for a mechanical system, similar for all
other areas of system dynamics)

 229

Remark: small damping added in all subsequent plots/calculations 

to avoid numerical problem; this has no influence on the results

230
231
232
233
234
 235

Nominal model described by TF

“True” plant described by unknown TF

Set of possible TF

Uncertainty “generator”

Uncertainty bound
 236

Quick Check:

100 ± 1 mm

What is the nominal model?

What is the uncertainty generator?
What is the uncertainty bound?
Is this family equivalent to the family
 237

Several approaches, e.g. using many measurement

 238
Step 1: fit a nominal model:

Step 2: “true” plant

satisfies

therefore
 239
Step 3: find a low-order bound
 240

Where are we now?

 241

plant (Strecke)

controller (Regler)

 242

Definitions
loop gain

return diference

sensitivity

complementary
sensitivity
243
 244

If plant and/or controller unstable then CL

system astab iff all following 9 (4) TF astab:

If both P(s) and C(s) are astab then it is sufficient

to check that S(s) or T(s) are astab

 245

Closed-loop system T(s) astab iff

open-loop gain L(jω)=C(jω)P(jω)

satisfies the Nyquist Theorem

246
 247

Case n+=n0=0

L(jω)

T(jω) astab?

 248
Case n+=n0=0

L(jω)

T(jω) astab?

 249

1
Im

kp
s

-

-1

n+=
Re

n0=

L(jω)=

250
 251

First principle of system theory:

All models are wrong.

Errors must be included. Simple approach:

252
 253

return difference

Im

-1

Re

254
 255

|…|

log ω

256
 257

Lesson 10
 258

0
259
260
261
 262

|L(jω)|

0
log ω

dominant NMP zero

Test plant:

astab and MP plant, dominant unstable pole

but uncertain
 263

Robust stability Theorem:

Therefore
 264

Interpretation:

upper limit for

 265

Example:

k n(s)

T(s)=

π(s)
 266

Poles of the CL system for Im

varying k:

Re

OL poles (k=0)

OL zeros (k=0)
 267

Generalization

|L(jω)|

0
log ω

rule of thumb:
 268

Interpretation
 269

Time delays are similar to NMP zeros.

-sT

e
≈1/T

-sT
e

k
p

 270

Simplest case:

L(jω) = k/(a-jω) = k(a+jω)/(a2+ω2)

n+ = 1, n0 = 0

 271

k < 0 can be OK

k > 0 not OK

272
 273

Generalization

|L(jω)|

0
log ω

rule of thumb:
 274

Maximum-Modulus Theorem:

Robst Stability Theorem:

Therefore:

Interpretation:
 275

Both NMP zeros and unstable poles:

276
 277

Lesson 11
 278

“Good Design”
 279

Why Not?
100 dB

|L(jω)|

log(ω)

-100 dB

log(ω)

-45°

Arg{L(jω)}

 280

If:

Then:
 281

1.  Static errors

2.  Specs based on 2nd-order systems

3.  Frequency-domain specs (first ideas)

 282

r(t), … = h(t)

 283

r e u y
C P
-

CL step response

Rise time t90

Max overshoot ^

ε

time
284
 285
Step1: CL TD -> CL FD

€ ⇒
 286

Step2: CL FD -> OL FD

=>

2
ω 0
L( jω ) =
jω ⋅ ( jω + 2 ⋅ δ ⋅ ω0 )

€
 287

insert
cross-over frequency

phase margin
288
 289

r e u y
C P
-
 290

Specs:

=>

Controller has only 1 DOF =>

 291

Phase P(jω) = Phase L(jω)

ωc=0.65 rad/s

 292

|L(jω)|

|P(jω)|

 293

= 0.53

294
 295
Frequency-Domain Closed-Loop Specs

Definition:
 296

Im
1/S
Smaxmax

L(jω )
Re
-1
€

1+L(jω)
 297

There is more …
 298

Lesson 12
 299
Recap:

Easy to communicate with non-experts using closed-loop 

and time-domain quantifiers, e.g.:

t
• rise time
90

• max. overshoot
εˆ
 300

Step 1:

Approximate closed-loop system

by a second-order system Y(s)≈

R(s)

because the exact solution y(t) of the latter is known.

time-domain -> frequency domain

{t 90 , εˆ} → {ω0 , δ}
 301

Step 2:

Transform closed-loop specs to open-loop specs

!!

{ω0 , δ} → {ωc , ϕ }
Plot results and derive approximations

€
 302
“Recipe”
1.  Choose desired rise time and maximum
overshoot of the CL system
2.  Compute cross-over frequency and phase
margin of the OL system using

3.  Check if these specs are realizable

4.  Find a controller C(s) that, for a given plant P(s),
realizes these specs (Chapter 11, 12, and 13)
5.  Check nominal and robust stability of CL system
 303

An Old Exam Question

304
 305
1 1 −10 ⋅ s + 1 +
P(s) = ⋅ ⋅ (1−10 ⋅ s) = ⇒ ζ = 0.1
s s + 10 s ⋅ (s + 10)

a) Since plant is type = 1

C(s) = k p

b) NMP zero limits crossover frequency!

ω c < 0.1 ⇒ t 90 > 1.7 /0.1 = 17
€
c) No overshoot requires ϕ ≈ 70 

€Arg{L( jω c )} = Arg{P( jω c )} = −110 ⇒ ω c ≈ 0.03

€
 306
| P( jω c ) | ≈ 10 dB
⇒ k p ≈ −10 dB ≈ 0.3

€

Arg{P( jω c )} = −110

ω c ≈ 0.03
€
⇒ t 90 ≈ 1.7 /0.03 ≈ 56 s
 307

(finally …)

First approach: choose a suitable controller structure

and optimize the parameter of that controller.
 308

90-95% of all controllers are PI(D) controllers

309
 310

Why is PI(D) so common?

dB

log( ω)
0

|P(jω)|
 311

-20 dB/dec

ωc

|L(jω)|
 312

|C(jω)|
 313

Performance OK

Stability?
Robustness?
 314

• simple rules to choose parameters 

of PID controllers

• if no plant model is available, experimental data

measured at the real plant is sufficient

• if a model is available, the rules can be used in

combination with that model

 315

Main assumptions:

• Real plant is well approximated by

• Ratio of time constants

must be small (below 0.3)

 316

Test scenario
 317

Interpretation
 318

1: Set
= „small“

2:

“measure”

3: Choose

319
 320

1 − j⋅arctan {ω }⋅5
P( jω ) = 5 ⋅e
( 1+ ω )
2

€
 321

kp*|P(jω)|

|P(jω)|

Arg{P(jω)}

 322

d 

y
C(s) P(s)
-
323
 324

Limits of Ziegler-Nichols Approach

> 0.3

Badly damped resonances, NMP zeros, …

Iterate

Objective: improve shape of loop gain

 325

Numerical solution:
 326

y(t)

LS

1 2 t

ZN
 327

Performance and Robustness

T ±10%
 328

Lesson 13
 329

Lead
Lag
 330

Lead
 331

Lag
332
 333
Recap: How to Design a PID-Controller?

Ziegler-Nichols

Parametric loop shaping

{k p ,Ti ,Td , τ }

Lead/Lag loop shaping

€
 334

Plant:

Specs:
 335

In a second step, a 2nd-order Lead is “added”

C2(s)=Cl2(s).C(s)

l2

with

336
 337

There is much more in RT II:

… and in the subsequent lessons

 338

Starting point: {P(s), W2(s)}

Objective: find a C(s) that takes into account both

the nominal plant and the uncertainty

 339

Possible Model-Error Structures

340
 341

Dangerous!

Rule #1: never cancel unstable poles or non-

minimumphase zeros!

Rule #2: never apply these methods if the nominal

and the “true” plant have not the same
number of unstable poles or NMP zeros!

Rule #3: use plant inversion methods with caution.

 342
Case 1:
Known: W 2 (s) with |W 2 ( jω ) | < 1, ∀ω < ω 2

€
 343

Plant

Desired loop gain

Resulting controller
344
345
346
347
348
349
 350

Case 2:

Why not? Example:

(s +1) s −1 1
L(s) = C(s) ⋅ P(s) = ⋅ =
(s −1) ⋅ s (s +1) s

What is wrong?

Loop shaping using PID/Lead/Lag/… valid approach

 351

€
2 (not restricting)
 352

First iteration

Choose such
that cross-over frequency is ω c ≈ 0.2 and
loop rolls off with -20 dB/dec around crossover

Problem: phase reserve is not OK, therefore

€
353
354
355
 356

d 

y
C(s) P(s)
-
 357

trade-off robustness versus performance

|1+ L2 ( jω ) |
|1+ L1 ( jω ) |

€ | W2 ( jω ) ⋅ L2 ( jω ) |
€

|W 2 ( jω€) ⋅ L1 ( jω ) |
 358
Case 3:

u
<<
 359

−g −g
P( jω ) = =
−ω ⋅ (−l ⋅ M ⋅ ω − g ⋅ ( m + M )) l ⋅ M ⋅ ω 4 + ω 2 ⋅ g ⋅ ( m + M )
2 2

Im

ω=
P(jω) Re
+

⇒ ω=0+
-1

C(0) ∈ ℜ + or C(0) ∈ ℑ not feasible

C(0) ∈ ℜ− feasible, but phase shift must be >180°
(plant has -180°, controller has -180° at ω=0, loop
must reach at least -179°, …)
€
 360

|P(jω)|

|C(jω)|

|L(jω)|

 361

Therefore to reach more than

+180° phase shift

to make controller
realizable

first high-pass than low-pass bevior

 362

L(jω)
C(jω)

ω=1 ω=1
P(jω)
ω=1
 363

Lesson 14
 364

1. Extension:

2. Extension:

Design of C(s) in the OL/FD

design of C(s) in the CL/”TD”

 365

1.  Design inner (”fast”) loop without considering

outer loop. Main objective: “speed”
2.  Design outer (“slow”) loop with inner loop active
(closed). Main objective: “accuracy”
366
 367

Case 1: “output-feedback design”

output-feedback controller (“aggressive”!)

368
 369

Case 2: “cascaded-feedback design,” part 1

inner feedback (“fast”) controller

370
 371

Case 2: “cascaded-feedback design,” part 2

outer transfer function with inner loop closed

outer feedback (“accurate”) controller

372
373
374
375
 376

• Bridge between “classical” and “modern” methods

• Works in the time domain and closed loop

• MUST be accompanied by a post-design frequency

domain check

 377
Basic Idea

Plot poles of CLOSED-LOOP system as a function

of STATIC loop gain

Main assumption: L(s) asymptotically stable

=> poles = solution of

(if L(s) unstable see Section 9.3)

 378
Pro Memoria:

Poles closed loop defined by rational equation:

Characteristic polynomial:

Poles

 379
Main Rules
1.  The root locus is a set of curves in the complex plane
2.  The curves start (k=0) at the poles of the OL system
3.  For k approaching infinity, m of the curves approach
the m finite zeros of the OL system
4.  The n-m=r other curves go to infinity approaching
straight asymptotes
5.  The center of these asymptotes is at σa + j 0
6.  The angle of the asymptotes is δi
7.  A point in the complex plane is part of the root locus
iff it satisfies the phase condition
 380

Rules for asymptotes

Center of asymptotes (r straight lines)

Angle of asymptotes

i = 1,…,n − m > 0
 381

Example:
b(s) s +1
L(s) = =
a(s) (s + 2) ⋅ ( s + 2s + 3)
2

Root locus = curve of solutions of

Why is this a one-dimensional curve?

Can we choose any point in the complex plane to be 

on the root locus?

 382

Im

a(s) = 0

b(s) = 0
Re

€
Number of asymptotes =

π1 =
ζ1 =
π2 =
1
π3 = σa = ⋅[ − ]
383
 384

Phase condition (most useful!)

A point z is part of the root locus iff:

zeros of L(s)
poles of L(s)

i = … −1,0,1,…

€
 385

b(s) bm ⋅ (s − ζ1 ) ⋅ (s − ζ 2 )…
L(s) = =
a(s) (s − π 1 ) ⋅ (s − π 2 ) ⋅ (s − π 3 )…
⇒ arg{L(s)} = arg{b(s)} − arg{a(s)}
= [arg{s − ζ1} + …] − [arg{s − π 1} + …]
 Im 386

Illustration:

z

z-ζ1
z-π2

γ α
β Re

zero
ζ1
poles π1, π2

γ − (α + β ) = −π
387
 388

Plant:

Specs:

3
 389

Controller:

⇒ spec 1 OK

spec 2 and 3 to be satisfied by appropriate 
choice of the poles of the CL system

2
ω 0
T (s) = 2 2 where (Sect. 10.3)
s + 2δω0 s + ω0
−log(0.02)
δ = δ (εˆ ) = 2 2
≈ 0.78
π + log(0.02)
2π
ω0 = ω0 (δ,t 90 ) = [0.14 + 0.4 ⋅ δ ] ⋅ ≈ 2.2 rad / s
1.3
 390

⇒
391
 392

C1 (s) = k p = 1 C2 (s) = k p ⋅ (s + ζ ) = s + ζ
 393

C1 (s) Im
6
C1 (s) = k p = 1
open-loop pole
k=0 → ∞ 4

open-loop zero
2
€
closed-loop pole

0 desired pole

-2

n-m=2

-4

=0.5(-1-3)=-2

-6

-5 0 Re
 394
Im

C2 (s) open-loop pole

4

γ − (α + β ) = −π open-loop zero
2
closed-loop pole
γ α
β 0 desired pole

-2

-4

-6

-10 -5 0 Re

⇒
⇒
 395

Outlook:

• Better control system design methods, in 
particular for MIMO and nonlinear systems

• Realization aspects (SW and HW, sensors,

actuators, …, COST)

• System modeling and experimental validation

• Applications

 396

State Feedback
397
 398

Reset (Integrator) Windup

 399

Gain Scheduling
(… how to cope with real-life problems …)

 400

Hardware I
 401

Hardware II