2 views

Uploaded by nim1987

Constraint

save

- M.Tech_CS_2014.pdf
- Mathcad-Functions.pdf
- Step FOPDT Lengkap
- Contol Sytem Design Assignment - Alicja Wasik - REVISED
- Midterm
- Doa Whitepaper
- Flexible Link Workbook
- Inverted pendulum
- Nonlinear - Local Controllability
- Ms221 Speciman Paper
- Paper 29-Recognition of Facial Expression Using Eigenvector Based Distributed Features and Euclidean Distance Based Decision Making Technique
- doc2feeen
- Vibrations Part One
- Apo Ppds Tcodes
- Built in Function in Matlab
- PID Controller based DC Motor Speed Control
- Probability Impact Analysis
- Integration Using the Gauss Quadrature Rule - Method 8
- NFEM.ch01.Slides
- ICAE UNIT01 W00 Preliminaries
- Appendix a Sample ABAQUS Input File
- fasle 6
- Integration of MATLAB and ANSYS for Advanced Analysis of Vehicle Structures.pdf
- Structural Analysis in ANSYS.pdf
- Coupled Structural-Thermal Analysis ANSYS [Uni of Alberta].pdf
- Protection From Space Radiation
- api 6d spec

You are on page 1of 5

**a. The matrix A has dimensions 2 $ 2, so there are 2 states. The matrix B has
**

two columns, so there are 2 inputs. The matrix C has two rows, so there

are 2 outputs.

b. The poles are given by the eigenvalues λ of the A-matrix, computed as

det(λ I − A) = 0

which gives us

det(λ I − A) = det

λ +1

−1

λ +1

0

= (λ + 1)2 = 0.

The system has a double pole in s = −1.

**The zeros of the system are given by det G (s) = 0, where
**

G (s) = C(sI − A)−1 B + D =

We have

det G (s) =

1

s+ 1

1

s+ 1

1

(s+1)2

s+ 2

(s+1)2

!

.

s+2

1

1

−

=

,

(s + 1)3 (s + 1)3

(s + 1)2

**and we can see that the system does not have any zeros.
**

c. The controllability matrix is defined as

Wc = ( B

AB ) =

1

0

0 α

−1 α

0 −α

**For α ,= 0 the two rows of Wc are linearly independent which implies that
**

the system is controllable. For α = 0, the system is not controllable.

2.

a. The constraint can be rewritten as

p S(iω ) F −1 (iω )p ≤ 1 ∀ω

i.e.

sup p F −1 (iω ) S(iω )p ≤ 1

ω

so we have W (s) =

F −1 (s)

=

s+ 2

2s .

**b. A constraint of the type
**

sup p Wa (iω ) S(iω )p ≤ 1

ω

+a

where Wa (s) = s2s

is impossible to satisfy unless p Wa ( z)p ≤ 1 for all unstable

zeros s = z of the process, i.e. a ≤ z for all such zeros. Here we have a = 2,

and there is an unstable zero at s = 1. Therefore, it is not possible to satisfy

the constraint on S(s) with any stabilizing controller.

1

3.

a. Step responses A and B have static errors in the load disturbance response,

which is caused by not having an integrator in the controller. If there is no

integrator, the low-frequency phase of L(s) should be the same as that for

P(s), i.e. −90○ as in controller 2 and 6. Step response B is faster than A,

which corresponds to a higher cross-over frequency as in controller 6.

Thus, B → 6, A → 2.

Step response D is unstable, which corresponds to a negative phase margin.

The phase of the open-loop system for controller 1 is below −180○ at the

cross-over frequency, so the closed-loop system cannot be stable.

Thus, D → 1.

Step response F has a slow response to the load disturbance, which corresponds to a small low-frequency gain. Of the remaining controllers 3, 4, 5,

the low-frequency gain is smallest for controller 5.

Thus, F → 5.

The remaining controllers 3 and 4 have cross-over frequencies at approximately ω c3 = 2.5 and ω c4 = 5.5. Higher cross-over frequency gives a faster

response, so controller 4 corresponds to step response E and controller 3 to

step response C.

Thus, E → 4, C → 3.

b. A pre-filter F (s) (typically a low-pass filter) applied to the reference signal could reduce the over-shoot. The pre-filter has no effect on the load

disturbance response.

c. Low values of the observability or controllability Gramians of a balanced

realization means that the corresponding states have little effect on the

input-output behavior of the system. We can see that some states have

very little effect compared to other states so it is likely that we could do

model-reduction on the controller to get a simpler lower-order controller

with almost the same properties.

4.

**This system has two inputs and two outputs. A common approach to control
**

such systems is to pair each input to one of the outputs. All the three given

controllers use this approach. To determine a suitable input-output-pairing

the Relative Gain Array RG A( P(s)) is computed.

T

0.01

4

(

s

+

2

)(

s

+

4

)

s

+

1

s

+

2

=

.∗

−

8

32

0

s+ 4

s

+

4

32

0

0 1

(s + 2)(s + 4)

(s+2)(s+4)

=

32

32

1

0

0

(s+2)(s+4)

0

RG A( P(s)) = P. ∗ ( P−1 )T =

8

−4

s+ 2

0.01

s+ 1

**From the anti-diagonal structure of RG A( P(s)) we can conclude that we
**

should use u1 to control y2 and u2 to control y1 . The controller should then

have the structure represented in C2 and C3 .

To determine which of the two controllers C2 and C3 to use, we can examine

the poles of the closed-loop system. The closed-loop transfer function from

r to y is given by

G (s) = ( I + PC)−1 PC

2

**The poles of this transfer function are given by the zeros of the matrix
**

I + PC, i.e. the values of s where this matrix looses rank. These values are

most easily determined from the equation

det( I + PC) = 0

Using C2 we obtain

det( I + P(s) C2 ) =

(s − 2)(s + 12)

(s + 2)(s + 4)

**This equation has a zero for s = 2, i.e. if we use this controller G (s) will
**

have a pole in s = 2 and the system will become unstable.

Using C3 we obtain

det( I + P(s) C3 ) =

(s + 6)(s + 12)

(s + 2)(s + 4)

**We see that the closed-loop system will have its poles at s = −6 and s = −12,
**

and it will then be stable. C3 is therefore the most suitable controller for

this process.

5.

a. In the first simulation, y1 and y2 are close to the point (3, 1), and in the

second simulation to (4, −1). Relating these points to the level curve plot,

we see that (4, −1) corresponds to lower cost. Thus, simulation 2 results in

lower emissions.

b. The system is given on the form

x˙ = Ax + Bu

y = Cx

**and the cost function can be rewritten as
**

Z ∞

Z ∞

T

T

J=

y Q y y + u Qu udt =

x T C T Q y C x + uT Qu udt.

|{z}

| {z }

0

0

Q1

Q2

**The optimal feedback gain L is found by finding the positive definite solution S to the Riccati equation
**

AT S + SA + C T Q y C − SB Qu−1 B T S = 0

and computing L as

L = Qu−1 B T S.

3

6.

a. We have

r

w = Tout u = ( h ) z =

n

e

e

y=

h

Tout

**b. We need to express all elements of the vectors z and y in terms of elements
**

of the vectors w and u.

e = r − Tin = r − n − G p h − G p Gv Tout = ( 1

Tout = Tout = ( 0

h = h = (0

0

1

r

− G p Gv

r

−1 ) Tout − G p h

n

0 ) Tout + 0 ⋅ h

r

n

0 ) Tout + 1 ⋅ h

n

We can now write z and y as

e

1 − G p Gv − 1

−Gp

z=

=

w+

u

h

0

0

0

1

1 − G p Gv − 1

e

−Gp

=

y=

w+

u

0

1

0

0

Tout

and we have

− G p Gv

Pzw =

0

0

−Gp

Pzu =

1

1 − G p Gv

Pyw =

0

1

−Gp

Pyu =

0

1

−1

0

−1

0

7.

a. The optimal filter gain K is given by

1

K = ( PC T + N R12 ) R−

2

**where P is the positive definite solution to the Riccati equation
**

1

T

T

T

AP + PAT − ( PC T + N R12 ) R−

2 ( PC + N R 12 ) + N R 1 N = 0.

4

**We have A = −1, C = 1, N = 1, R1 = 10, R2 = 1, R12 = 0, which gives the
**

equation in P

P2 + 2P − 10 = 0

with solutions

P = −1 ±

√

11

√

with the unique positive solution P = −1 + 11 ( 2.32.

**Thus, K = P = 2.32. The variance of the estimation error for the optimal
**

Kalman filter is equal to P, so var( x˜ ) = 2.32.

y1

b. With y =

, the system can be written as

y2

x˙ = − x + u + v1

1

v21

y=

+

1

v22

1 0

1

The difference from the system in (a) is that C =

, R2 =

.A

1

0 1

standard Kalman filter can be used to estimate x from y, and the optimal

gain K is computed as in (a) with the modified C and R2 matrices.

c. Option 1:

With R2 = 0.5, the Riccati equation in P becomes

P2 /0.5 + 2P − 10 = 0,

which gives P1 = 1.79.

Option 2:

1

1 0

With C =

, R2 =

, the Riccati equation in P becomes

1

0 1

2P2 + 2P − 10 = 0,

which is the same equation as in Option 1, thus giving P2 = P1 = 1.79.

**Since the estimation error variance is equal to P it is the same for the two
**

options. Option 2 is much cheaper than option 1 and is probably the best

choice.

5

- M.Tech_CS_2014.pdfUploaded byraa2010
- Mathcad-Functions.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 4bUl7jzGq
- Step FOPDT LengkapUploaded byRio Ananda Putra
- Contol Sytem Design Assignment - Alicja Wasik - REVISEDUploaded byAla Wasik
- MidtermUploaded byJay Kay
- Doa WhitepaperUploaded byUfuk Tamer
- Flexible Link WorkbookUploaded byialvarez75
- Inverted pendulumUploaded byShruti
- Nonlinear - Local ControllabilityUploaded byrsrtnj
- Ms221 Speciman PaperUploaded byDocMaths
- Paper 29-Recognition of Facial Expression Using Eigenvector Based Distributed Features and Euclidean Distance Based Decision Making TechniqueUploaded byEditor IJACSA
- doc2feeenUploaded byJean-nette Barlisan
- Vibrations Part OneUploaded byRicardo Colosimo
- Apo Ppds TcodesUploaded byvijay_apo
- Built in Function in MatlabUploaded byJitul Rajbongshi
- PID Controller based DC Motor Speed ControlUploaded byEditor IJRITCC
- Probability Impact AnalysisUploaded byMatthew Lynch

- Integration Using the Gauss Quadrature Rule - Method 8Uploaded bynim1987
- NFEM.ch01.SlidesUploaded bynim1987
- ICAE UNIT01 W00 PreliminariesUploaded bynim1987
- Appendix a Sample ABAQUS Input FileUploaded bynim1987
- fasle 6Uploaded bynim1987
- Integration of MATLAB and ANSYS for Advanced Analysis of Vehicle Structures.pdfUploaded bynim1987
- Structural Analysis in ANSYS.pdfUploaded bynim1987
- Coupled Structural-Thermal Analysis ANSYS [Uni of Alberta].pdfUploaded bynim1987
- Protection From Space RadiationUploaded bynim1987
- api 6d specUploaded bynim1987