208 Parameter Convergence Using Averaging Chapter 4 the convergence rates, even in the nonlinear adaptive control case. These results are useful forthe optimum design of erence input They have the limitation of depending on unknown plant parameters, but an approximation of the complete parameter trajectory i obtained and the understanding of the dynamical behavior of the parameter error is con- siderably increased using averaging. For example, it was found that the trajectory of the parameter error corresponding to the linear error equa- ton could be approximated by an LTI system with teal negative eae nese ee ea (eee alt er etal had Besides requiring stationarity of input signals, averagin required sow parameter adapation. We showed however: tough simulations, that the approximation by the averaged system was good for values of the adaptation gain that were close to I (that is, not necessarily infinitesimal) and for acceptable time constants in tke parameter varia- tions. In fact, it appeared that a basic condition is simply that parame- ters vary more slowly than do other sates and signals of the adaptive system. CHAPTER 5 ROBUSTNESS 5,1 STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTY Ina large number of control system design problems, the designer docs not have a detailed state-space model of the plant to be controlled, either because it is too complex, or because its dynamics are not completely Understood. Even if a detailed high-order model of the plant is avail- able, it is usually desirable to obtain a reduced order controller, so that part of the plant dynamics must be neglected. We begin discussing the Tepresentation of such uncertainties in plant models, in a framework similar to Doyle & Stein (1981). Consider the kind of prior information available to control a stable plant, and obtained for example by performing input-output experi- nents, such as sinusoidal inputs. Typically, Bode diagrams of the form Shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 are obtained. An inspection of the diagrams shows that the data obtained beyond a certain frequency ey is Gnreliable because the measurements are poor, corrupted by noise, and So on, They may also correspond to the high-order dynamics that one ‘wishes to neglect, What is available, then, is essentially no phase infor- mation, and only an “envelope” of the magnitude response beyond wr. ‘The dashed lines in the magnitude and phase response correspond to the approximation of the plant by a finite order model, assuming that there are no dynamics at frequencies beyond w,,, For frequencies below ay, it js easy to guess the presence of a zero near ws, poles in the neighborhood lof w, w, and complex pole pairs in the neighborhood of ws, es 209210 Robustness Chapter 5 soli Figure 5.1: Bode Plot of the Plant (Gain) Ati Figure 5.2: Bode Plot of the Plant (Fhase) To keep the design goal specific and consistent with our previous analysis, we will assume that the designer's goal is model following: the designer is furnished with a desired closed-loop response and selects an appropriate reference model with transfer function 4/(s). The problem is to design a control system to get the plant output y,(t) to track the Section $.1 Structured and Unstructured Uncertainty 2 model output y(t) in response to reference signals r(1) driving the model. This is shown in Figure 5.3. Model conrnouen Figure §.3: Model Following Control System The controller gonerates the input u(t) of the plant, using Y(t), ¥9(0) and (0) so that the error between the plant and mode! output eolt) = Yplt)~ Y(t) tends to 2er0 asymptotically ‘Two options are available to the designer at this point, Non-Adaptive Robust Control. The designer uses as model for the plant ‘the nominal transfer function Ps) PQ) = 5.11 kg(S +01) ¢ ) (Fa) HONG Fra} + (OP HU +95) + (os) ‘The gain ky in (5.1.1) is obtained from the nominal high-frequency asymptote of Figure 5.1 (i.e. the dashed line). The modeling errors due to inaccuracies in the pole-zero locations, and to poor data at high fre- quencies may be taken into account by assuming that the actual plant transfer function is of the form _ PG) = PG) + Fils) (6.12) or Bos) = P%s) (1+ Bn(s)) (5.1.3) where Hg(s) is referred to as the additive uncertainty and Hy(s) as the212 Robustness Chapter $ multiplicative uncertainty. Of course, | Hat jo)| and | Hy(ja)| are unk- nown, but magnitude bounds may be determined from input-output ‘measurements and other available information. A typical bound for | Finis) is shown in Figure 5.4 magnitude Vewuttolt ——_HP ttl Figure 5.4: Typical Plot of Uncertainty | Ma(js)| and Ami Given the desired transfer function A7(s), one attempts to build a linear, time-invariant controller of the form shown in Figure 5.5, with feedforward compensator C(s) and feedback compensator F (s), so that the nominal closed-loop transfer function approximately matches the reference model, that is, Pee) (1+ FOF HCO) '~ se) — 5.14) t Gis Pefigg "8 aw igure 5.5: Non-adaptive Controller Structure over the frequency range of interest (the frequency range of r). Further, C(s) and F(s) are chosen s0 as to at least preserve stability and also reduce sensitivity of the actual closed-loop transfer function to the modeling errors represented by H,, or Hy, within some given bounds. Section 5.1 Structured and Unstructured Uncertainty 213 ‘Adaptive Control. The designer makes a distinction between the two Kinds of uncertainty present in the description of Figures 5.1~5.2: the parametric or structured uncertainty in the pole and zero locations and the inherent or unstructured uncertainty due to additional dynamics beyond w,. Rather than postulate a transfer function for the plant, the designer decides to identify the pole-zero locations on-line, i.e. during the operation of the plant. This on-line “tune-up” is for the purpose of reduction of the structured uncertainty during the course of plant opera- tion. The aim is to obtain a better match between A/(s) and the con- trolled plant for frequencies below wy. A key feature of the on-line tun- ing approach is that the controller is generally nonlinear and time- varying. The added complexity of adaptive control is made worthwhile when the performance achieved by non-adaptive control is inadequate. ‘The plant model for adaptive control is given by Bis) = Bpls) + Hass) (5.1.5) or Bis) = Py) + ArmlS)) (5.1.6) where Pj(s) stands for the plant indexed by the parameters 0° and Figs) and Hiyy(s) ate the additive and_ multiplicative uncertainties respectively. The difference between (5.1.2)-(5.1.3) and (5.1,5)-(5.1.6) lies in the on-line tuning of the parameter 0° to reduce the uncertainty, so that it only consists of the unstructured uncertainty due to high- frequency unmodeled dynamics ‘When the plant is unstable, a frequency response curve as shown in Figures 5.1-5.2 is not available, and a certain amount of off-line identification and detailed modeling needs to be performed. As before, however, the plant model will have both structured and unstructured uncertainty, and the design options will be the same as above, The difference only arises in the representation of uncertainty. Consider, for example, the multiplicative uncertainty in the nonadaptive and adaptive cases. Previously, Ay(s) was stable, However, when the plant is unstable, since the nominal locations of the unstable poles may not be chosen exactly, Aj,(s) may be an unstable transfer function. For adap- tive control, we require merely that all unstable poles of the system be parameterized (of course, their exact location is not essential), so that the description for the uncertainty is still given by (5.1.6), with Aim(s) stable, even though Fy.(s) may not be. ‘A simple example illustrates this: consider a plant with transfer function