You are on page 1of 54

# Multivariable Control Systems

Chapter 6

Chapter 6

## Topics to be covered include:

Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller D Decoupling by State F db k li b St t Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
2
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Introduction
& x = Ax + Bu y = Cx
G ( s ) = C ( sI A) 1 B

y1 ( s ) = g11 ( s )u1 ( s ) + g12 ( s )u 2 ( s ) + ..... + g1 p ( s )u p ( s ) y 2 ( s ) = g 21 ( s )u1 ( s ) + g 22 ( s )u 2 ( s ) + ..... + g 2 p ( s )u p ( s ) .................................................................................... .................................................................................... y p ( s ) = g p1 ( s )u1 ( s ) + g p 2 ( s )u 2 ( s ) + ..... + g pp ( s )u p ( s )

We see that every input controls more than one output and that every output is controlled by more than one input. Because of this phenomenon which is called interaction it is generally phenomenon, interaction, very difficult to control a multivariable system.
3
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Topics to be covered
Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller Decoupling by State Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
4
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Decoupling
Definition 6-1 A multivariable system is said to be decoupled if its transfer-function matrix is diagonal and nonsingular.

A conceptually simple approach to multivariable control is given by a two-steps procedure in which 1. We first design a compensator to deal with the interactions in G(s) and

G s ( s ) = G ( s )Ws ( s )

Decoupling

2. 2 Then design a diagonal controller using methods similar to those for SISO systems. systems

K s (s )

K ( s ) = Ws ( s ) K s ( s )

5
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Decoupling
1. We first design a compensator to deal with the interactions in G(s) and
G s ( s ) = G ( s )Ws ( s )
Decoupling p g

Dynamic decoupling

## Then by K s ( s ) = l ( s ) I we have K(s) = G -1(s)l(s) It usually refers to an inverse-based controller. y

Gs (0) is diagonal.

This may be obtained by selecting a constant pre compensator Approximate decoupling at frequency 0
G0 is a real approximation of Gs ( j0 )

Ws = G 1 (0)

Gs ( j0 ) is as diagonal as possible.
W s = G 01
Ali Karimpour July 2012

## BW frequency is a good selection 6 0 for

Chapter 6

Decoupling
The idea of using a decoupling controller is appealing, but there are several difficulties. a. We cannot in general choose Gs freely. For example, Ws(s) must not cancel any

RHP-zeros and RHP poles in G(s) b. As we might expect, decoupling may be very sensitive to modeling errors and

uncertainties. c. The requirement of decoupling may not be desirable for disturbance rejection. One popular design method, which essentially yields a decoupling controller, is the internal model control (IMC) approach (Morari and Zafiriou). Another A h common strategy, which avoids most of the problems just mentioned, is to hi h id f h bl j i d i use partial (one-way) decoupling where Gs(s) is upper or lower triangular. 7
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Topics to be covered
Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller Decoupling by State Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
8
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller

The pre compensator approach may be extended by introducing a post compensator

Gs ( s ) = Wsp ( s )G ( s )Ws ( s )
The overall controller is then

K ( s ) = Ws ( s ) K s ( s )Wsp ( s )

9
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Topics to be covered
Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller Decoupling by State Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
10
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Decoupling by State Feedback

In this section we consider the decoupling of a control system in state space representation. Let
& x = Ax + Bu y = Cx + Du
Suppose G ( s ) = C ( sI A) 1 B + D
Then if | D | 0

G ( s )G ( s ) 1 diagonal
G ( s ) 1 = C ( sI A) 1 B + D

= D 1C ( sI A + BD 1C ) 1 BD 1 + D 1

But i th B t in the case of |D|=0 f |D| 0 Static state feedback Static t t f db k St ti output feedback Dynamic output feedback
u (t ) = Kx (t ) + Tr (t ) u (t ) = K ( t ) + T (t ) Ky Tr
11
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Decoupling by State Feedback

Decoupling through state feedback Let
& x = Ax + Bu & x = ( A BE 1 F ) x + BE 1r 1 Suppose u (t ) = E (Fx (t ) r (t ) ) Then we have y = Cx y = Cx

## The transfer function matrix is

) G ( s ) = C ( sI A + BE 1 F ) 1 BE 1

We h ll d i i h f ll i W shall derive in the following the condition on G( ) under which the system can be h di i G(s) d hi h h b decoupled by state feedback.

12
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Decoupling by State Feedback

Theorem 6-1 A system represented by
& x = Ax + Bu y = Cx

with the transfer function matrix G(s) can be decoupled by state feedback of the form
u (t ) = E 1 (Fx (t ) r (t ) )

if and only if the constant matrix E is nonsingular. Furthermore the new system is in the form:

s d1 Gnew ( s ) = 0

E1 s d1 E2 0 E = . = lim O G ( s ) s d 0 . s p E p Proof: See Linear system theory and design Chi-Tsong Chen

0 O d m s C1 A d1 d2 C 2 A F= . . dp C p A

13

Chapter 6

## Decoupling by State Feedback

Example 6-1 Use state feedback to decouple the following system.
1 0 1 0 & x = 0 0 1 x + 0 6 11 6 0 0 1 u 0 1 y= 0 0 1 0 x 1

## Solution: S l i Transfer function of the system is f f i f h i

s 2 + 6s + 11 3 s + 6s 2 + 11s + 6 1 G ( s) = C ( sI A) B = 6 s 2 + 5s + 6

s+6 s 3 + 6s 2 + 11s + 6 s6 s 2 + 5s + 6

The differences in degree of the first row of G(s) are 1 and 2, hence d1=1 and s 2 + 6s + 11 s+6 E1 = lim s 3 = [1 0] 2 3 2 s s + 6s + 11s + 6 s + 6s + 11s + 6 The differences in degree of the second row of G(s) are 2 and 1, hence d2=1 and g () , 6 s6 E 2 = lim s 2 = [0 1] 14 s s + 5s + 6 s 2 + 5s + 6

Chapter 6

## Decoupling by State Feedback

Solution (continue):
1 0 E= 0 1 Now is i N E i unitary matrix and clearly nonsingular so decoupling by state feedback is i d l l i l d li b f db k i possible and C1 Ad1 0 1 0 = F = d2 C2 A 6 11 5
1

0 1 r 0

## Exercise 1: Derive the corresponding decoupled transfer function matrix.

15
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Property of Decoupling by State Feedback

12All poles of decoupled are on origin. Decoupled system is:
Gdecouple ( s ) = diag s d1 , ..., s d n

34-

No transmission zero in decoupled system. i i i d l d Transmission zero of the system are deleted .

## 5- Unstable transmission zero is the main limitation of method.

16
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Decoupling by State Feedback

Exercise 2: Decouple following system and find the decoupled transfer function. p g y p
0 1 & x= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 x + 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 u 1 0

0 1 0 0 y= x 0 0 0 1

Exercise 3: Use state feedback to decouple the following system and put the poles of new system on s=-3.
1 0 1 0 & x = 0 0 1 x + 0 6 11 6 0 0 1 u 0 1 y= 0 0 1 0 x 1
17
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Topics to be covered
Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller Decoupling by State Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
18
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Another simple approach to multivariable controller design is to use a diagonal or block diagonal controller K(s) This is often referred to as decentralized control. K(s). control

Clearly, this works well if G(s) is close to diagonal, because then the plant to be controlled is essentially a collection of independent sub plants and each element in plants, K(s) may be designed independently. , g () g , performance with However, if off diagonal elements in G(s) are large, then the p decentralized diagonal control may be poor because no attempt is made to counteract the interactions.
19
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

The d i Th design of decentralized control systems involves two steps: fd t li d t l t i l t t 1_ 1 2_ The choice of pairings (control configuration selection) The design (tuning) of each controller ki(s)
20
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Input-Output Pairing
Definition of RGA (Relative Gain Array)
Physical Meaning of RGA: Let Relative gain?

## y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 y2 = g 21u1 + g 22u2

ij = g ij / hij
uk =0, k j yk =0, k i

g ij hij

yi relation between yi and u j if other inputs = 0 or u j yi relation between yi and u j if other outputs = 0 or u j

## y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 0 = g 21u1 + g 22u2

u2 =

g 21 u1 g 22

g 21 ) u1 y1 = g11 + g12 ( g 22
21
Ali Karimpour July 2012

(G ) = RGA(G ) = G G T

Chapter 6

Input-Output Pairing
Example: Let
y1 = g11u1 + g12u2 y2 = g 21u1 + g 22u2
(G ) = G G
T

1 = 1

=1 Open loop and closed loop gains are the same, so interactions has no effect. =0 g11=0 so u1 has no effect on y1. 0< Closing second loop leads to change the gain between y1 and u1. <0 Closing second loop leads to changing the sign of the gain between y1 and u1.(Very Bad) In this section we provide two useful rules for pairing inputs and outputs. outputs
1_ To avoid instability caused by interactions in the crossover region one should prefer pairings for which the RGA matrix in this frequency range is close to identity. 2_ To avoid instability caused by interactions at low frequencies one should avoid 22 pairings with negative steady state RGA elements.
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Input-Output Pairing
RGA property: 11 It is independent of input and output scaling. scaling 2- Its rows and columns sum to 1. 3- The RGA is identity matrix if G is upper or lower triangular. 4- Plant with large RGA elements are ill conditioned. 5- Suppose G(s) has no zeros or poles at s=0. If ij() (0) exist and have different signs then one of the following must be true. * G(s) has an RHP zeros. * Gij(s) has an RHP zeros. * gij(s) has an RHP zeros. 6- If gij gij(1-1/ij) then the perturbed system is singular. 7- Changing two columns/rows of G leads to same changes to Karimpour July 2012 Ali its RGA
23

Chapter 6

## Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Example 6-2 Select suitable pairing for the following plant
10.2 G (0) = 15.5 18.1 5.6 8.4 0.4 1.4 0.7 1.8

## Solution: RGA of the system is

1.45 0.96 (0) = 0.94 0.37 0.9 0.07 1.41 0.43 1.98

24
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

The RGA based techniques have many important advantages, such as very simple in calculation as it only uses process steady-state gain matrix and scaling independent. Moreover, using steady-state gain alone may result in incorrect interaction measures and consequently loop pairing decisions, since no dynamic information of the process is taken into consideration. Many improved approaches, RGA-like, have been proposed and described in all process control textbooks, for defining different measures of dynamic loop interactions. interactions Relative Omega Array (ROmA),
[1] D.Q. Mayne, The design of linear multivariable systems, Automatica, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 201 207, Mar. 1973. 201207 Mar 1973

Absolute Relative Gain Array (ARGA), Relative Normalized Gain Array (RNGA), (RNGA)
[2] ARGA Loop Pairing Criteria for Multivariable Systems A. Balestrino, E. Crisostomi, A. Landi, and A. Menicagli ,2008 [3] RNGA based control system configuration for multivariable processes Mao-Jun He, Wen-Jian Cai *, Wei Ni, Li-Hua Xie Journal of Process Control 19 (2009) 10361042

25
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

Next example, for which the RGA based loop pairing criterion gives an inaccurate interaction assessment, are employed to demonstrate the effectiveness of th proposed i t ff ti f the d interaction measure and l ti d loop pairing criterion. ii it i Example 6-3: Consider the two-input two-output process: RGA=Diagonal pairing RNGA =Off-diagonal pairing Off di l ii To illustrate the validity of above results, decentralized controllers for both diagonal and off-diagonal pairings are designed respectively based on g g p g g p y the IMC-PID controller tuning rules. To evaluate the output control performance, we consider a unit step set-point Change of all control loops one-by-one and the integral square error (ISE) is used to evaluate the control performance.
26
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Diagonal controller (decentralized control)

The simulation results and ISE values are given in Fig. 3. The results show that the off-diagonal pairing gives better overall control system performance.

off-diagonal

diagonal

27
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

Topics to be covered
Decoupling Pre and post compensators and the SVD controller Decoupling by State Feedback Diagonal controller (decentralized control) Uncertainty in MIMO Systems
28
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

LQG Control: Optimal state feedback
J r = z T Qz + u T Ru dt
0

## The optimal solution for any initial state is

u (t ) = K r x(t )

where
K r = R 1 B T X

Where X=XT 0 is the unique positive-semidefinite solution of the algebraic Riccati equation

AT X + XA XBR 1 B T X + M T QM = 0

29
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Robustness Properties
For an LQR-controlled system if the weight R is chosen to be diagonal, then Q y g g ,

S = I + K r (sI A) B
1

satisfies

(S ( j ) ) 1,
Nyquist plot in MIMO case

## i = 0 and 0.5 k i < , i = 1, 2 , ... , m

k i = 1 and i 60 o , i = 1, 2 , ... , m
This was brought starkly to the attention of the control g y community by Doyle (1978 ) (in a paper entitled Guaranteed Margins for LQR Regulators with a very compact abstract which simply states There are none).
-1 1 -1

30
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Example 6-4: LQR design of a first order process. 2s + 3 G(s) = 2 s + 3s + 2 The cost function to be minimized is
Jr =
0

1 0 1 & x= x + 1u 0 2 y = [1 1]x

(y

+ Ru 2 dt

Let R = 0.0001

K r = R 1 B T X = [86.7008 - 75.3816]

( A bk ) = 7.1596 6.9828i

## i = 0 and 0.5 k i < , i = 1, 2 , ... , m

( A bk ) stable for all 0
1 0.83 unstable for uncertainty b = or b = 1.19 1
31
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Example 6-5: Decoupling controller
G ( s) = 56 s 2 47 s 1 s 2 + 3s + 2 42 s 50 s + 2

The pre compensator approach may be extended by introducing a post compensator 1 0 7 8 7 8 s + 1 Gs ( s ) = Wsp ( s )G ( s )Ws ( s ) = Gd ( s ) G(s) = 6 7 2 6 7 0 s + 2 The overall controller is then h ll ll i h

K ( s ) = Ws ( s ) K s ( s )Wsp ( s )

7 8 k 0 7 8 k 0 K (s) = 0 k 6 7 = 0 k 6 7

## We have good stability margin in both channel.

k Exercise 4 D i stability margin for different value of if K ( s ) = E i 4: Derive t bilit i f diff t l f 0 For k=1 so find the smallest that lead to instability. Repeat for k=2. 0 k +
32

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Type of uncertainty
Parametric (real) uncertainty. structured uncertainty uncertainty structured uncertainty
Model structure and order are known, but (some) pa a e e va ues a e u ce a . parameter values are uncertain.
G (s) = k s( s + a)

## Dynamic (frequency-dependent) uncertainty or nonparametric uncertainty. unstructured uncertainty

There exists (some) erroneous or missing dynamics. Usually unmodeled dynamics is in high frequencies.
33
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Type of unstructured uncertainty

34
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Parametric uncertainty Nonparametric uncertainty

## Example 6_6: Consider a plant with parametric uncertainty

Now let

1 G p ( s) = G0 ( s ) min p max ps +1

p = (1 r )

= ( min + max )

G0 ( s ) G0 ( s ) r s 1 G p ( s) = w2 ( s ) = = , w1 ( s ) = 1 1 + s r s 1 + s 1 w2 ( s )w1 ( s ) 1+ s
G p ( s ) = G ( s )(1 w2 ( s ) w1 ( s ) ) 1
Nonparametric uncertainty has more conservativeness.
35
Ali Karimpour July 2012

1 2

rt =

( min max ) / 2

, <1

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

Parametric uncertainty Nonparametric uncertainty

## Example 6_7: Consider a plant with two parametric uncertainty

G p ( s) =

k e s 2 k , , 3 s +1

36
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

G p ( s) = k e s 2 k , , 3 s +1

G p ( s ) = G ( s ) + wA ( s ) ( s ); ( j ) 1,

## Additive uncertainty can be represent By multiplicative one:

G p ( s ) = G ( s )(1 + wM ( s ) ( s ) ); ( j ) 1, w A ( j ) wM ( j ) = G ( j )

37
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

System without uncertainty

z P = 11 P21

P w 12 P22 u

u = K

z = P + P K ( I P22 K ) 1 P21 w = Nw 11 12

N = Fl ( P, K )
System with uncertainty y y

N structure
Pull t P ll out uncertainty Suitable for robust performance analysis
38

Chapter 6

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

System without uncertainty

z P = 11 P21

P w 12 P22 u

u = K

z = P + P K ( I P22 K ) 1 P21 w = Nw 11 12

N = Fl ( P, K )
System with uncertainty N structure y y

y N11 z = N 21

N12 u N 22 w

u = y

z = N 22 + N 21 ( I N11 ) 1 N12 w = Fw
F = Fu ( N , )
39
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Parametric Uncertain Systems

Robust stability in parametric uncertainty MIMO case Robust stability in parametric uncertainty

40
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty System with uncertainty

N structure

## Suitable for nominal performance analysis

z = P + P K ( I P22 K ) 1 P21 w = Nw 11 12

## Suitable for robust performance analysis

z = N 22 + N 21 ( I N11 ) 1 N12 = Fw

## Checking robust stability?

Suitable for controller design
41
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty System with uncertainty

N structure

Suitable for nominal performance analysis Suitable for robust performance analysis

## z = N 22 + N 21 ( I N11 ) 1 N12 = Fw w M structure

If there is no uncertainty we have nominal stability so:

N11, N12, N21 and N22 are stable Suitable for controller design Suitable for robust stability analysis42
Ali Karimpour July 2012

M = N11

Chapter 6

M structure

## RS: NS and F=F u(N,) is stable for any ||||1

Theorem: RS for unstructured(full) perturbation. Assume that the nominal system M(s) is stable (NS) and that the perturbations (s) are stable. Then The M-structure is stable M < 1/ (M ( j)) < 1/ for all satisfying |||| The M-structure is stable
M

<1

## (( j)) < 1/ (M ( j)) 43

Ali Karimpour July 2012

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty
Suitable for robust stability analysis

Gp = G + w2w1

y = Mu

M = w1K (I + GK)1 w2
Robust stability condition: In obust stab ty co d t o : the case of |||| 1
M

## In the case of free

(K (I + GK)1 )< 1

= w1K (I + GK)1 w2

<1
44

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty
Suitable for robust stability analysis

Gp = G(I + w2w1 )
System with multiplicative input uncertainty

y = Mu

M = w1K (I + GK)1G 2 Gw
Robust stability condition: In the case of |||| 1
M = w1K (I + GK)1Gw2
45

## In the case of free

(K (I + GK)1G)< 1

<1

## Uncertainty in MIMO Systems

System without uncertainty

M structure

Chapter 6

## Suitable for robust stability analysis

Gp = (I + w2w1 )G
System with multiplicative output uncertainty t t t i t

y = Mu
M = w1GK ( I + GK ) 1 w2

M

## (GK(I + GK)1 )< 1

= w1GK(I + GK)1 w2
46

<1

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty
Suitable for robust stability analysis

Gp = G(I w2w1G)1

y = Mu

M = w1G(I + KG)1 w2
Robust stability condition: In the case of |||| 1
M = w1G(I + KG)1 w2

<1

47

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty
Suitable for robust stability analysis

Gp = G(I w2w1 )1
System with inverse multiplicative input uncertainty

w2w1 < 1

y = Mu
M = w1 ( I + KG ) 1 w2

## Robust stability condition: In the case of |||| 1

M = w1 (I + KG)1 w2

<1

48

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System without uncertainty
Suitable for robust stability analysis

Gp = (I w2w1 )1G
System with inverse multiplicative output uncertainty

w2w1 < 1

M = w1 ( I + GK ) 1 w2

## Robust stability condition: In the case of |||| 1

M = w1 (I + GK)1 w2

<1

49

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

Suitable for robust stability analysis

Uncertainty
Additive uncertainty Multiplicative input uncertainty Multiplicative output uncertainty Inverse additive uncertainty y

Perturbed Plant

M in M-structure

Gp = G + w2w1

M = w1 K ( I + GK ) 1 w2
M = w1K (I + GK)1Gw2 M = w1GK(I + GK)1 w2
1

## Gp = G(I + w2w1 ) Gp = (I + w2w1)G

Gp = G(I w2w1G)

M = w1G ( I + KG ) 1 w2

Inverse multiplicative input uncertainty Gp = G(I w2w1 )1 Inverse multiplicative output uncertainty Gp = (I w2w1 )1G

M = w1 ( I + KG ) 1 w2 M = w1 ( I + GK ) 1 w2
50
Ali Karimpour July 2012

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

System with coprime factor uncertainty
Suitable for robust stability analysis

G = Ml Nl Gp = (Ml + M )1( Nl + N ) = [ N M ]

K M = ( I + GK ) 1 M l1 I

## Since there is no weight for uncertainty so the theorem is

RS : N

< 1/
51
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

Remind Example 6-5: Decoupling controller
7 8 k 0 7 8 k 0 K (s) = = 6 7 0 k 6 7 0 k 0 k Exercise 4: Derive stability margin for different value of if K ( s ) = 0 k + For k=1 so find the smallest that lead to instability. 56 s 2 47 s 1 G ( s) = 2 s + 3s + 2 42 s 50 s + 2

Gp = G(I + )

## (K (I + GK)1G)< 1 () < 1/ (K (I + GK)1G)

52
Ali Karimpour July 2012

M structure

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

() < 1/ (K (I + GK)1G)

## () < 1/ 15.85 = 0.0631 (

53
Ali Karimpour July 2012

Chapter 6

## Robust Stability of Unstructured Uncertain Systems

Exercise 5: Consider following block diagram. We have both input and output uncertainty. a) Find the set of possible plants(Gp) ) p p ( b) Find M and derive robust stability condition. ( o

1, and i

1 )

## Exercise 6: Assume we have derived the following detailed model:

Suppose we chose G(s)=3/(2s+1) with multiplicative uncertainty. Derive suitable scaling 54 Matrix.
Ali Karimpour July 2012