ROBUST CONTROL: ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

INPG CNRS INPG-CNRS ENSE3-BP 46 38402 Saint Martin d'Hères Cedex, FRANCE
Olivier.Sename@grenoble-inp.fr

Olivier SENAME GIPSAlab Control Systems department

Why Robust H∞ control MIMO systems Performance specifications linked to control design Analysis of robustness properties Design of robust controllers Advanced optimisation tools for control synthesis Extensions: Gain-scheduling, Linear Parameter Varying systems…

Robust control : analysis and design»

2

© Olivier Sename 2010

1

Bibliography
S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control: analysis and design, John Wiley and Sons, 2005. www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge K. Zhou, Essentials of Robust Control, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1998. www.ece.lsu.edu/kemin J.C. Doyle, B.A. Francis, and A.R. Tannenbaum, Feedback control theory, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1992. www.control.utoronto.ca/~francis G.C. Goodwin, S.F. Graebe, and M.E. Salgado, Control System Design, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2001. http://csd.newcastle.edu.au/ G. Duc et S. Font, Commande Hinf et -analyse: des outils pour la robustesse, Hermès, France, 1999.

commande optimale, Cépadues Editions, 1999.
Robust control : analysis and design»

D. Alazard, C. Cumer, P. Apkarian, M. Gauvrit, et G. Ferreres, Robustesse et
3

© Olivier Sename 2010

OUTLINE
Industrial examples

Motivation
H∞ norm, stability

Performance analysis/specifications H∞ control design Uncertainties and robustness

Performances quantifiers A first robustness criteria Mixed sensitivity problem Representing uncertainties Robust stability Robust performance stability, Robust control design Bode and Poisson sensitivity integral

Performances limitations

Robust control : analysis and design»

4

© Olivier Sename 2010

2

INTRODUCTION
Modern industrial plants have sophisticated control systems crucial to their successful operation: – robotics – aerospace – semiconductor manufacturing industry – nuclear industry – Energy production and distribution – ……... – automotive industry : » SI and Diesel engines » suspension » braking » Global chassis control » intelligent highways g g y » driver supervision » ……….

Robust control : analysis and design»

5

© Olivier Sename 2010

AUTOMOTIVE CONTROL

Some actual important fields of investigation concern:
1. Environmental protection (Limiting of pollutant emissions – Nox; CO; CO2) Engine control Automatic driving Traffic optimisation Energy consumption optimisation Electrical and Hybrid vehicles

2. Road safety and monitoring (decrease the number of accidents) Braking in dangerous situations Detection of critical situations Chassis control Traffic control Driver assistance (stop & start, anti-collision) “by wire” technology Diagnosis of embedded system
Robust control : analysis and design»
6

© Olivier Sename 2010

3

ENGINE CONTROL

injection control (Common Rail) ) idle-speed control air to fuel ratio control cylinder balancing Torque control throttle control EGR + VGT driveline control Post-treatment Energy recovery Downsizing
Robust control : analysis and design»
7

© Olivier Sename 2010

VEHICLE DYNAMICS CONTROL
Topics Active Control for safety and comfort Multi actuators (suspensions, braking, steering)

Methodologies: - Physical and behavioral modelling - H∞ control: LPV, fault-tolerant - On line adaptation of comfort/handling criteria - Global Chassis Control ( suspension, suspension braking, steering)

Robust control : analysis and design»

8

© Olivier Sename 2010

4

Analysis and robustness of frequency synthesizers

– Modelling and optimization of frequency
synthesizer

loops f ll l fully integrated on chip – Analysis of semi-global stability, robustness, b t observation and robust control
Robust control : analysis and design»
9

© Olivier Sename 2010

CONTROL OF GLASS FIBER BUSHING

Process
Objective :enhance product quality i.e., - avoid variations of fiber diameter -less production breaks accounting for disturbances (air, input glass temp.) - Robustness requirements as bushings are changed each year - MIMO system

Control scheme

Robust control : analysis and design»

10

© Olivier Sename 2010

5

DVD PLAYERS CONTROL
Control problem: minimize position error between the laser spot and the real track position, both in the radial and in the vertical direction. Neither the track position nor the true spot position can be measured. Robustness pb: non ideal construction of the device and non perfect location of the hole at the center of the disc

D=120mm d=15mm Disk

Tracking movement in-out Focus movement up-down
System Measurement unit and D/A conv. pickup
Photodiodes
Pre-processing unit A/D Converter Digital controller

Controller

Current Amplifier p

6300 and 6301 Actuation unit and D/A conv Motors
Current Amplifier PWM (PDM) unit

pickup

TDA...

Robust control : analysis and design»

11

© Olivier Sename 2010

OUTLINE
Industrial examples

Motivation
H∞ norm, stability

Performance analysis/specifications H∞ control design Uncertainties and robustness

Performances quantifiers A first robustness criteria Mixed sensitivity problem Representing uncertainties Robust stability Robust performance stability, Robust control design Bode and Poisson sensitivity integral

Performances limitations

Robust control : analysis and design»

12

© Olivier Sename 2010

6

About H∞ norm: MIMO GAIN For a SISO system, y=Gd, the gain at a given frequency is simply

y (ω ) d (ω )

=

G ( jω )d (ω ) d (ω )

= G ( jω )

The gain depends on the frequency, but since the system is linear it is independent of the input magnitude For a MIMO system we may select :

y (ω ) d (ω )

2 2

=

G ( jω )d (ω ) d (ω )
2

2

= G ( jω )

2

Which is « independent » of the input magnitude. But this is not a correct definition. Indeed the input direction is of great importance
Robust control : analysis and design»
13

© Olivier Sename 2010

MIMO GAIN

Five different inputs d1 = 1 0 d2 = 0 1 d3 = 0.7070 0.7070 d4 = 0.7070 -0.7070 d5 = 0.6000 -0.8000

⎡5 4⎤ G=⎢ ⎥ ⎣3 2⎦

How to define and evaluate its gain ??

Input magnitude : norm2= 1 Norm(d1)=norm(d2) =norm(d3)=norm(d4)=norm(d5)=1 Corresponding outputs y1 = 5 3 and gains 5.8310 4.4721 7.2790 0.9998 0.2828 y2 = 4 2 y3 = 6.3630 3.5350 y4 = 0.7070 0.7070 y5 = -0.2000 0.2000

Robust control : analysis and design»

14

© Olivier Sename 2010

7

MIMO GAIN
8 MAXIMUM SINGULAR VALUE = 7.34 7

max
d ≠0

Gd d
2

2

= σ (G )

6 5 4 3 2 1 MINIMUM SINGULAR VALUE = 0.27 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 d20 / d10 1 2 3 4 5

min
d ≠0

Gd d
2

2

= σ (G )

We see that, depending on the ratio d20/d10, the gain varies between 0.27 and 7.34 .
Robust control : analysis and design»
15

|| y ||2 / || d ||2

© Olivier Sename 2010

MIMO GAIN Eigenvalues are a poor measure of gain. Let

⎡0 100⎤ G=⎢ ⎥ ⎣0 0 ⎦
Eigenvalues are 0 and 0 But an input vector ⎢ ⎥ leads to an output vector ⎢ ⎥. ⎣1 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦ Clearly the gain is not zero. Now, the maximal singular value is = 100 It means that any signal can be amplified at most 100 times This is the good gain notion.
⎡0 ⎤ ⎡100⎤

Robust control : analysis and design»

16

© Olivier Sename 2010

8

MIMO GAIN In the case of a transfer matrix G(s) : (m inputs, p outputs) u vector of inputs, y vector of outputs

σ (G ( jω )) ≤

y (ω ) u(ω )

2 2

≤ σ (G ( jω ))

Example of A two-mass/spring/damper system 2 inputs: F1 and F2 2 outputs: x1 and x2

Robust control : analysis and design»

17

© Olivier Sename 2010

MIMO GAIN
A=[0 0 1 0; 0 0 0 1; -k1/m1 k1/m1 -b1/m1 b1/m1; k1/m2 -(k1+k2)/m2 b1/m2 -(b1+b2)/m2]; B=[0 0;0 0;1/m1 0;0 1/m2]; C [ C=[1 0 0 0;0 1 0 0]; ; ]; 30 D=[0 0;0 0];
20

Singular Values Hinf norm: 21.1885 dB

largest singular value

Control system toolbox G1=ss(A,B,C,D) : LTI system Tf(G1) : transfer function normhinf(G1) sigma(G1)

10

Singular Values (dB)

0

-10

-20

smallest singular value

-30 -40 Mu-analysis toolbox G2=pck(A,B,C,D) -50 10 hinfnorm(G2) >> norm between 11.4704 and 11.4819

-1

100

101

Frequency (rad/sec)

Robust control : analysis and design»

18

© Olivier Sename 2010

9

MIMO GAIN

Mathematical backgrounds

Robust control : analysis and design»

19

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Well-posedness
r(t)
+ -

e(t)

K(s)

u(t) +
+

di(t)
G(s)

dy(t )

+

y(t)

+ + +

G=−

s −1 , K =1 s+2

n(t)

Therefore the control input is non proper:

u=

s+2 s −1 di (r − n − d y ) + 3 3

DEF: A closed-loop system is well-posed if all the transfer functions are proper

I + K ( ∞ )G ( ∞ )

is invertible

In the example 1+1x(-1)=0 Note that if G is strictly proper, this always holds.

Robust control : analysis and design»

20

© Olivier Sename 2010

10

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

More important : Internal Stability
DEF: A system is internally stable if all the transfer functions of the closedloop system are stable
di(t)
G(s)

r(t)

+ -

ε(t)

K(s)

u(t) +
+

y(t)

⎛ y ⎞ ⎛ ( I + GK ) −1 GK ⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎜ u ⎟ ⎜ K ( I + GK ) −1 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝
⎛ 1 ⎛ y⎞ ⎜ s + 2 ⎜ ⎟=⎜ ⎜u ⎟ ⎜ s −1 ⎝ ⎠ ⎜ ⎝s+2

( I + GK ) −1 G ⎞⎛ r ⎞ ⎟⎜ ⎟ − K ( I + GK ) −1 G ⎟⎜ d i ⎟ ⎠⎝ ⎠
s +1 ⎞ ⎟ ( s − 1)( s + 2) ⎟⎛ r ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 1 ⎟⎝ d i ⎟ − ⎟ ⎠ s+2 ⎠

For instance :

1 s −1 , K= , G= s −1 s +1

There is one RHP pole (1), which means that this system is not internally stable. This is due here to the pole/zero cancellation (forbidden!!).
Robust control : analysis and design»
21

© Olivier Sename 2010

OUTLINE

Motivation
H∞ norm, stability

Performance analysis/specifications
Sensitivity functions Some criteria and performances quantifiers Example MIMO case A first robustness criteria Performance specification

H∞ control design Uncertainties and robustness Performances limitations

Robust control : analysis and design»

22

© Olivier Sename 2010

11

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Objectives of any control system : shape the response of the system to a given reference and get (or keep) a stable system in closed-loop, with desired performances, while minimising the effects of disturbances and measurement noises, and avoiding actuators saturation, this despite of modelling uncertainties, parameter changes or change of operating point.

Robust control : analysis and design»

23

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Objectives of any control system
Nominal stability (NS): The system is stable with the nominal model (no d l t i t ) model uncertainty) Nominal Performance (NP): The system satisfies the performance specifications with the nominal model (no model uncertainty) Robust stability (RS): The system is stable for all perturbed plants about the nominal model, up to the worst-case model uncertainty ( (including the real plant) g p ) Robust performance (RP): The system satisfies the performance specifications for all perturbed plants about the nominal model, up to the worst-case model uncertainty (including the real plant).
24

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

12

FEEDBACK STRUCTURE

In the following: SISO (Single Input Single Output) and MIMO systems ( (Multi Input Multi Output) are considered p p )

SOME CONTROL STRUCTURES
« Classical » one degree-of-freedom structure Two degree-of-freedom structure RST structure

Robust control : analysis and design»

25

© Olivier Sename 2010

FEEDBACK STRUCTURE

Classical one degree-of-freedom structure
Input disturbance Output disturbance

reference f

r(t) +
-

K(s)

di(t) u(t) + uP(t)
Control + Input Plant Input

dy(t)
G(s) + + +

Output

y(t)

+

n(t)

PLANT = G(s) CONTROLLER = K(s)

FEEDBACK
26

Measurement noise

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

13

FEEDBACK STRUCTURE

Two degree-of-freedom structure

r(t)

di(t)
Kp(s) + +

dy(t)
G(s) + + + +

+

y(t)

K(s) FEEDFORWARD Improves tracking performance FEEDBACK

n(t)

Robust control : analysis and design»

27

© Olivier Sename 2010

FEEDBACK STRUCTURE

RST structure
di(t) r(t) (t)
T + 1/S

dy(t)
G + + + +

u(t) +
+ R

y(t)

n(t)
A two DOF structure with: Kp= T/S and K=R/S

POLYNOMIALS

Robust control : analysis and design»

28

© Olivier Sename 2010

14

FEEDBACK STRUCTURE

GENERAL CONTROL CONFIGURATION
Disturbance and reference w

e
P

Controlled Output p

Control Input

u
K

y

Measured output

P is the generalized plant (contains the plant, the weights, the uncertainties if any) ; K is the controller

Robust control : analysis and design»

29

© Olivier Sename 2010

SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS

reference r(t) ()
+ -

e(t) ()

K(s)

Input disturbance di(t) u(t) +
+

Output disturbance dy(t)
G(s) + + + +

y(t) Output Measurement n(t) noise

Firstly, SISO case

The output & the control input satisfy the following equations :

1 (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i ) 1 + G (s) K (s) 1 u (s) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i ) 1 + K ( s )G ( s ) y( s) =
Robust control : analysis and design»
30

© Olivier Sename 2010

15

SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS

1 (GKr + Gd i + d y − GKn) 1 + G ( s) K ( s) 1 u (s) = ( Kr − KGd i − Kd y − Kn) 1 + K ( s )G ( s) y( s) =

Let us define the well known sensitivity functions: Sensitivity Complementary Sensitivity Loop transfer function
Robust control : analysis and design»

S (s) = T (s) =

1 1 + G (s) K ( s) G (s) K (s) 1 + G (s) K ( s)

L( s ) = K ( s )G ( s)
31

© Olivier Sename 2010

SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS

Input and Output Performance analysis using the Sensitivity functions
reference f r(t)
+ -

e(t)

K(s)

Input disturbance di(t) u(t) +
+

Output disturbance dy(t)
G(s) + + + +

y(t) Output Measurement n(t) noise

The output & the control input performances can be studied through 4 « sensitivity » functions only.

Robust control : analysis and design»

32

© Olivier Sename 2010

16

SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS
1 (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i ) 1 + G (s) K ( s) 1 u ( s) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i ) 1 + K ( s )G ( s ) y (s) =

r(t) di(t) dy(t) n(t)

KS(s) () -T(s) Σ -KS(s) -KS(s) Input performance
Robust control : analysis and design»

r(t) di(t) dy(t) n(t)

T(s) SG(s) Σ S(s) -T(s)

u(t)

y(t)

Output performance
33

© Olivier Sename 2010

SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS

u (s) =

1 ( Kr − KGd i − Kd y − Kn) 1 + K ( s)G ( s )
The transfer function KS(s) should be upper bounded so that u(t) does not reach the physical constraints, even for a large reference r(t)

r(t) di(t) dy(t) n(t)

KS(s) () -T(s) Σ -KS(s) -KS(s) Input performance

u(t)
The effect of the input disturbance di(t) on the plant input u(t)+ di(t) (actuator) can be made « small » by making th sensitivity function S( ) small ki the iti it f ti S(s) ll The effect of the measurement noise n(t) on the plant input u(t) can be made « small » by making the sensitivity function KS(s) small (in High Frequencies)
34

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

17

SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS

y( s) =

1 (GKr + Gd i + d y − GKn) 1 + G( s) K (s)

The plant output y(t) can track the reference r(t) by making the complementary sensitivity function T(s) equal to 1. (servo pb) q ( p )

r(t)

The effect of the output disturbance dy(t) (resp. input disturbance di(t) ) on the plant output y(t) can be made di(t) « small » by making the sensitivity function S(s) (resp. SG(s) ) « small » The effect of the measurement noise n(t) on the plant output y(t) can be made « small » by making the complementary sensitivity function T(s) « small »
dy(t)

T(s)

SG(s) Σ S(s)

y(t)

n(t) () -T(s) Output performance

BUT

S(s) + T(s) = 1

Some trade-offs are to be looked for
Robust control : analysis and design»
35

© Olivier Sename 2010

SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS These trade-offs can be reached if one aims : • to reject the disturbance effects in low frequency • to minimize the noise effects in high frequency We will require: • S and SG to be small in low frequencies to reduce the load (output and input) disturbance effects on the controlled output • T and KS to be small in high frequencies to reduce the effects of measurement noises on the controlled output and on the control input (actuator t ll d t t d th t li t( t t efforts)
r(t) di(t) dy(t) -KS(s) n(t) -KS(s)
r(t) T(s) di(t) SG(s) () dy(t) S(s) n(t) -T(s)
36

KS(s)

-T(s) Σ

u(t

y(t) () Σ

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

18

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA

Time domain performances Classical performance indices
Rise time : the time, usually required to be small, that it takes for the output to first reach 90 % of its final value Settling time : the time after which the output remains within 5 % of its final value, which is also usually required to be small. Overshoot: the peak value divided by the final value : should typically be 1.2 (20 %) or less Decay ratio: the ratio between the second and first peaks, which should typically be 0.3 or less Steady-state offset: the difference between the final value and the desired final value, this offset is usually required to be small.

Robust control : analysis and design»

37

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA

Time domain performances : other criteria ISE (Integral Square Error) ITAE (Integral Time weighted Absolute Error)

J ISE

=

∫ e(t )
0 ∞

2

dt ; e = r − y

J ITAE

=

∫ t e(t ) dt
0

; e=r−y

A better and more advisable index should include the control input effect

J eu

=

∫ (Q e(t )
0

2

+ R u (t ) dt
2

)

Robust control : analysis and design»

38

© Olivier Sename 2010

19

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA

Frequency domain performances: criteria GAIN, PHASE, DELAY and MODULE MARGINS
The gain margin indicates the additional gain that would g g g take the closed loop to the critical stability condition The phase margin quantifies the pure phase delay that should be added to achieve the same critical stability condition The delay margin quantifies the maximal delay that should be added in the loop to achieve the same critical stability condition The module margin quantifies the minimal distance between the curve and the critical point (-1,0j): this is a robustness margin
Robust control : analysis and design»
39

Good value for Gm : >6dB Good value for Φm : > 30/40°

Δτ =

ωΦ

ΦM
M

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA

Frequency domain performances: criteria DELAY MARGIN :

acceptable pure timep p delay before instability

Δτ =

ωΦ

ΦM
M

Robust control : analysis and design»

40

© Olivier Sename 2010

20

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA

MODULE MARGIN

ΔM = min 1 + GK ( jω ) i
ω

Good value ΔM > 0.5

Robust control : analysis and design»

41

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA

Bandwidth
The concept of bandwidth is very important in understanding the benefits and trade-offs involved when applying feedback control. Above we considered peaks of closed-loop transfer functions, which are related to the quality of the response. f l dl f f i hi h l d h li f h However, for performance we must also consider the speed of the response, and this leads to considering the bandwidth frequency of the system. In general, a large bandwidth corresponds to a faster rise time, since high frequency signals are more easily passed on to the outputs. A high bandwidth also indicates a system which is sensitive to noise and to parameter variations. Conversely, if the bandwidth is small, the time response will generally be slow, and the system will usually be more robust.

Robust control : analysis and design»

42

© Olivier Sename 2010

21

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA

Bandwith :
Loosely speaking, bandwidth may be defined as the frequency range [w1, w2] over which control is effective. In most cases we require tight control at steady-state so w1=0, and we then simply call w2 th b d idth t t d t t 0 d th i l ll the bandwidth. The word “effective” may be interpreted in different ways : globally it means benefit in terms of performance. Definition1: The (closed-loop) bandwidth, wS, is the frequency where |S(jw)| crosses –3dB (1/√2) from below. Remark: |S|<0.707, frequency zone, where e/r = -S is reasonably small

Robust control : analysis and design»

43

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA Another interpretation: when it changes the output response. As y=Tr, T must be sufficiently large Definition2: The bandwidth (in term of T), wT, is the frequency where |T(jw)| crosses –3dB (1/√2) f √ from above. Remark: In most cases, the two definitions in terms of S and T yield similar values for the bandwidth. In other cases, the situation is generally as follows. Up to the frequency wS, |S| is less than 0.7, and control is effective in terms of improving performance. In the frequency range [wS, wT] control still affects the response but does not improve response, performance. Finally, at frequencies higher than wT, we have S ≅ 1 and control has no significant effect on the response.

Robust control : analysis and design»

44

© Olivier Sename 2010

22

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA The gain crossover frequency : Definition3: The bandwidth (crossover frequency), wC, is the frequency where |L(jw)| crosses 1 (0dB), for the first time, from above.

Remark:It is easy to compute and usually gives wS < wC < wT

Note that the rise time can often be evaluated as :

t r = 2 .3

ωT
45

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: example Position control of a DC motor, using internal speed feedback

Ve

+ -

+ -

Ω
A 1/kv 1/(τp+1) 1/(np)

x
U0/(2Π)

Vs

RCp/(RCp+1)

1/kv

1/kv

Robust control : analysis and design»

46

© Olivier Sename 2010

23

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: example
S T
5

Good disturbance rejection
20

Singula Values (dB) ar

-20

Singula Values (dB) ar

0

0

-5

-40 40

-10 10

-60

-15

-80 10-2

10-1

100

Frequency (rad/sec) KS
0

WB=15.3 rad/s

101

102

Good noise rejection
-20 10-2 10-1 100 101

102

Frequency (rad/sec) SG
10

WBT=27.1 rad/s

Singular Va alues (dB)

-20

Singular Va alues (dB)

5

0

-40

-5

Bad: control input sensitive to noise
-60 -80 10-2 10-1 100 101

102

Bad: Input disturbance (di) are not rejected
-10 -15 10-2 10-1 100 101 102

Frequency (rad/sec)

Frequency (rad/sec)

Robust control : analysis and design»

47

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: example

2.5 Input disturbance di 2 Output disturbance dy

1.5

1

0.5 05

reference step 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Robust control : analysis and design»

48

© Olivier Sename 2010

24

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: example Bandwith :
WS=15.3 rad/s WT=27.1 rad/s Wc=21 rad/s

And it holds :

wS < wC < wT

>>[Gm,Pm,W180,Wc]=margin(sys) >> MT=hinfnorm(T)MS=hinfnorm(S); Phase margin= 72.4 deg Gain margin = inf Module margin < 1.5 db, MT=0.5db g ,
Bode Diagrams
From: U(1) 100

Nichols Charts
From: U(1)

Phase (d deg); Magnitude (dB)

100

50

0

50

-50

Open n-Loop Gain (dB)

0 To: Y(1)

-100

-80

-50 50

-100 100

-100

To: Y(1)

-120

-140

ωc=27 rad/s
100 101 102

-160

-150 -180

-170

-160

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-180

Open-Loop Phase (deg)
Frequency (rad/sec)

Robust control : analysis and design»

49

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: example Bandwith :
WS=15.3 rad/s WT=27.1 rad/s Wc=21 rad/s
1.2 1.4

1

0.8

It holds :

0.6

wS < wC < wT
and :

0.4 rise time 0.2

0

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

1.45

1.5

t r = 2.3

ωT

= 85ms

Robust control : analysis and design»

50

© Olivier Sename 2010

25

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS : MIMO case

Sensitivity functions: MIMO case
reference r(t)
+ -

ε(t)

K(s)

Input disturbance di(t) u(t) +

Output disturbance dy(t)
+ + + +

m control + inputs

G(s)

y(t) p outputs Measurement n(t) noise

The output & the control input satisfy the following equations :
( I p + G ( s ) K ( s )) y ( s ) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i ) ( I m + K ( s )G ( s ))u( s ) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )

BUT : K(s)G(s) ≠ G(s)K(s)
Robust control : analysis and design»
51

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS : MIMO case

Sensitivity functions
( I p + G ( s) K ( s)) y ( s) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i ) ( I m + K ( s)G ( s))u( s) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )

Output and Output complementary sensitivity functions:
S y = ( I p + GK ) −1 , T y = ( I p + GK ) −1 GK , S y + Ty = I p

Input and Input complementary sensitivity functions:
S u = ( I m + KG ) −1 , Tu = KG ( I m + KG ) −1 , S u + Tu = I m

Properties

Ty = GK ( I p + GK ) −1 Tu = ( I m + KG ) −1 KG S u K = KS y
Robust control : analysis and design»
52

© Olivier Sename 2010

26

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS : MIMO case

r(t) di(t) dy(t) n(t)

KSy(s) -Tu(s) Σ -KSy(s) -KSy(s) Input performance

r(t) di(t) u(t) dy(t) n(t)

Ty(s) SyG(s) () Σ Sy(s) -Ty(s)

y(t) (t)

Output performance f

( I p + G ( s ) K ( s )) y ( s ) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i ) ( I m + K ( s)G ( s ))u( s ) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )
Robust control : analysis and design»
53

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS : MIMO case As MIMO framework is concerned, MIMO gain of the sensitivity functions is considered through Frequency-domain plots of the singular values (sigma using the Control toolbox, and using the Mu toolbox:

The analysis of SISO systems can then be extended, except for stability margins. 5 sensitivity functions have to be studied (Sy, Ty, Tu, Ksy, SyG) The robustness margins are the maximum peak of S and T. These may not be sufficient to ensure robustness properties and should be completed by a robust stability analysis
Robust control : analysis and design»
54

© Olivier Sename 2010

27

A first approach to ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS Introduction: Skegestad & Postlewaite A control system is robust if it is insensitive to differences between the actual system and the model of the system which was used to design the controller How to take into account the difference between the actual system and the model ? A solution: using a model set BUT : very large problem and not exact yet

A method: these differences are referred as model uncertainty. The Th approach h determine the uncertainty set: mathematical representation check Robust Stability check Robust Performance
Robust control : analysis and design»
55

© Olivier Sename 2010

A first approach to ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

Robust control : analysis and design»

56

© Olivier Sename 2010

28

A first approach to ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

MODULE MARGIN/ Maximum Peak criteria

ΔM = min 1 + GK ( jω ) i
ω

Also :

ΔM = 1
ω

MS

M S = max S ( jω ) = S

Good value MS < 2 (6 dB)
57

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

The MODULE MARGIN is a robustness margin.

ΔM = 1

MS

Indeed, the sensitivity function allows to qualify the robustness of the control system, as Closed-loop transfer function Influence of plant modelling errors on the I fl f l t d lli th CL transfer function

TBF =

K ( s )G ( s ) 1 + K ( s )G ( s )

Sensitivity function

ΔTBF 1 ΔG = TBF 1 + K ( s )G ( s ) G

Robust control : analysis and design»

58

© Olivier Sename 2010

29

A first approach to ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

Advantage: good module margin implies good gain and phase margins

GM ≥

MS 1 and PM ≥ M S −1 MS

For MS=2, then GM>2 and PM>30° Last one :

M T = max T ( jω )
ω

Good value MT < 1.5 (3.5 dB)

Robust control : analysis and design»

59

© Olivier Sename 2010

A first approach to ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS Robust Stability analysis: SISO case Let us consider the case :
u yΔ
ΔI(s)


+

+ G(s)

z

The loop transfer function is then: L p = G p K = GK ( I + wI Δ I ) = L + wI LΔ I ; Therefore RS ⇔ System stable ∀ Lp. ⇔ Lp should not encircle the point -1
-1 Im Re

1+ L
L ( jω )
wI L
Robust control : analysis and design»

RS

⇔ ⇔ ⇔

wI L < 1 + L , ∀ω wI L < 1, ∀ω 1+ L wI T < 1 ∀ω

60

© Olivier Sename 2010

30

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

Objective : good performance specifications are important to ensure better control system mean : give some templates on the sensitivity functions For simplicity, presentation for SISO systems first.

Robust control : analysis and design»

61

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

Templates on the sensitivity functions
Robustness and performances in regulation can be specified by imposing frequential templates on the sensitivity functions.
If the sensitivity functions stay within these templates, the control objectives are met. These templates can be used for analysis and/or design. In the latter they

are considered as weights on the sensitivity functions

The shapes of typical templates on the sensitivity functions are given in the following slides

Robust control : analysis and design»

62

© Olivier Sename 2010

31

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

Template on the sensitivity function - Weighted sensitivity
Typical specifications in terms of S include: 1. Minimum bandwidth frequency wS (defined as the frequency where |S(jw)| crosses 0.707 from below). 2. Maximum tracking error at selected frequencies. 3. System type, or the maximum steady-state tracking error, ε 4. Shape of S over selected frequency ranges. 5. Maximum peak magnitude of S, ||S||∞ < MS. The peak specification prevents amplification of noise at high frequencies, and also introduces a margin of robustness; typically we select MS=2.

Robust control : analysis and design»

63

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

Template on the sensitivity function

Weighted sensitivity

Mathematically, Mathematically these specifications may be captured by an upper bound, on the magnitude of S, given by another transfer function :

S ( jω ) ≤

1 , ∀ω ⇔ We S W e ( jω )

≤1

where We(s) is a weight selected by the designer.

Robust control : analysis and design»

64

© Olivier Sename 2010

32

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

s + ω bε 1 = We ( s ) s / MS + ωb

Template on the sensitivity function

S ( s) =

1 1 + K ( s )G ( s )

Generally ε = 0 is considered, MS <2 (6dB) or (3dB - cautious) to ensure sufficient module margin

ωb influences the CL bandwidth : ωb ↑ faster rejection of the disturbance faster CL tracking response better robustness w.r.t. parametric uncertainties
Robust control : analysis and design»
65

ωb ≥ ωS required ωS obtained ≥ ωb fixed

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION Template on the complementary sensitivity function

T (s) =

ε T s + ω BT s + ω BT / M T
Generally εT = 0 is considered, MT <2 (6dB) or (3dB - cautious) to ensure sufficient module margin

K ( s )G ( s ) 1 + K ( s )G ( s )

wBT influences robustness : wBT ↓

better noise effects rejection better filtering of HF modelling errors

Robust control : analysis and design»

66

© Olivier Sename 2010

33

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

Template on the sensitivity function KS(s)

KS ( s ) =

1 ε s + ω BC = 1 Wu ( s ) s + ω BC / Mu
Mu chosen according to LF
behavior of the process (actuator constraints: saturations)

K (s) 1 + K ( s )G ( s )

wBC influences robustness : wBC ↓

better limitation of measurement noises and roll-off starting from wBC to reduce modeling errors effects
Robust control : analysis and design»
67

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION

Template on the sensitivity function SG(s)

SG ( s ) =

G ( s) 1 + K ( s )G ( s )

s MSG s + ωSG
ωSG

MSG

Limitation of input disturbance effects on the output by the choice of wSG zero static error for constant input disturbance

Robust control : analysis and design»

68

© Olivier Sename 2010

34

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION The templates can be defined more accurately by transfer functions of order greater than 1, as

⎛ s / MS + ωb ⎞ We ( s ) = ⎜ ⎜ s +ω ε ⎟ , ⎟ b ⎝ ⎠
if we require a roll-of of –20*k dB per decade is required

k

In the MIMO case the simplest way is to defined the templates as diagonal transfer matrices, i.e. using (Msi, ωbi, εI, ….)

Robust control : analysis and design»

69

© Olivier Sename 2010

THE MIXED SENSITIVITY PROBLEM In terms of control synthesis, all these specifications can be tackled in the following problem: find K(s) s.t.

We S

WT T

Wu KS WSG SG

≤1

which is called a mixed sensitivity problem. Often, the simpler following one is studied:

We S Wu KS

≤1

The latter allows to consider the closed-loop output performance as well as the actuator constraints.

Robust control : analysis and design»

70

© Olivier Sename 2010

35

OUTLINE
Industrial examples

Motivation
H∞ norm, stability

Performance analysis/specifications H∞ control design Uncertainties and robustness

Performances quantifiers A first robustness criteria Mixed sensitivity problem Representing uncertainties Robust stability Robust performance stability, Robust control design Bode and Poisson sensitivity integral

Performances limitations

Robust control : analysis and design»

71

© Olivier Sename 2010

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH

H∞ control is devoted to SISO systems as well as MIMO ones Main advantage: the plant modelling errors as well as the disturbance and noise effects can be specified in the frequency domain. H∞ control is strongly linked to the weighted sensitivity functions. Performance specification i then of great i P f ifi ti is th f t importance i t in H∞ control approach.

Robust control : analysis and design»

72

© Olivier Sename 2010

36

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH This approach has been introduced by Doyle (1983). The formulation makes use of the general control configuration. GENERAL CONTROL CONFIGURATION Disturbance w and reference Control Input u
⎛P P = ⎜ 11 ⎜P ⎝ 21 P12 ⎞ ⎟ P22 ⎟ ⎠

e Controlled Output y
Measured output

K P is the generalized plant (contains the plant, the weights, the g p ( p , g , uncertainties if any) ; K is the controller. The closed-loop transfer function is:

Tew ( s ) = Fl ( P, K ) = P11 + P12 K ( I − P22 K ) −1 P21
Robust control : analysis and design»
73

© Olivier Sename 2010

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH
based on the GENERAL CONTROL CONFIGURATION Disturbance and reference w Control Input u

⎛P P = ⎜ 11 ⎜ ⎝ P21
K

P12 ⎞ ⎟ P22 ⎟ ⎠

e Controlled Output y
Measured output

P is the generalized plant (contains the plant, the weights, the uncertainties if any) ; K is the controller. The closed-loop transfer function is:

Tew ( s ) = P + P K ( I − P22 K ) −1 P21 11 12
H∞ suboptimal control problem : Given γ a pre-specified attenuation level, a H∞ sub-optimal control problem is to design a stabilizing controller that insures :

Tew ( s )

= max σ (Tew ( jω )) ≤ γ
ω
74

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

37

THE MIXED SENSITIVITY PROBLEM Robust Control toolbox (MATLAB R2009)
% Generalized plant P is found with function sysic% systemnames = 'G We Wu'; inputvar = '[ r(1);u(1)]'; i (1) (1)]' outputvar = '[We; Wu; r-G]'; input_to_G = '[u]'; input_to_We = '[r-G]'; input_to_Wu = '[u]'; sysoutname = 'P'; cleanupsysic = 'yes'; sysic; %% Find H-infinity optimal controller% H infinity nmeas=1; nu=1; [K,CL,GAM,INFO] = hinfsyn(P,nmeas,nu,'DISPLAY','ON'); gopt

Robust control : analysis and design»

75

© Olivier Sename 2010

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH

The overall control objective is to minimize some norm of the transfer function from w to e , for example, the H∞ norm. H∞ control problem: Find a controller K(s) which based on the information in y, generates a control signal u which counteracts the influence of w on e, thereby minimizing the closed-loop norm from w to e.

H∞ suboptimal control problem : Given γ a pre-specified attenuation level, a H∞ sub-optimal control problem is to design a stabilizing controller that b ti l t l bl i t d i t bili i t ll th t insures :

Tew ( s )

= max σ (Tew ( jω )) ≤ γ
ω

Robust control : analysis and design»

76

© Olivier Sename 2010

38

THE MIXED SENSITIVITY PROBLEM

In practice the performance specification concerns at least two sensitivity functions (S and KS) in order to take into account the tracking objective as well as the actuator constraints.

How to consider performance specification in H∞ control ?

A simple example :

r(t) +
-

ε(t)

u(t)
K(s) G(s)

y(t)

y = Gu = GK (r − y ) ⇒ tracking error : ε = Sr u = K (r − y ) = K (r − Gu ) ⇒ actuator force : u = KSr
Robust control : analysis and design»
77

© Olivier Sename 2010

THE MIXED SENSITIVITY PROBLEM Objective w.r.t sensitivity functions:

We S

≤ 1,

Wu KS

≤1

New controlled outputs :

e1 = We Sr e2 = Wu KSr

The performance specifications on the tracking error & on the actuator can be given as some weights on the controlled output as follows :
We(s)

e1(t)
Wu(s) ( )

e2(t) y(t)

r(t)

+ -

ε(t)

K(s)

u(t)

G(s)

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

78

39

THE MIXED SENSITIVITY PROBLEM
We(s)

e1(t)
Wu(s)

e2(t) y(t)

r(t)

+ -

ε(t)

K(s)

u(t)

G(s)

The associated general control configuration is :
External inputs

w=r

Control Inputs

u

⎡We ⎢0 ⎢ ⎢ ⎣I

− We G ⎤ Wu ⎥ ⎥ −G ⎥ ⎦
K

e=(e1, e2 )T r-y

Controlled Outputs

Measured outputs

Robust control : analysis and design»

79

© Olivier Sename 2010

THE MIXED SENSITIVITY PROBLEM The corresponding H∞ suboptimal control problem is therefore to find a controller K(s) such that :

Tew ( s )
where

=

We S
Wu KS

≤γ

Tew ( s ) = Fl ( P, K ) = P11 + P12 K ( I − P22 K ) −1 P21 ⎡W ⎤ ⎡− We G ⎤ −1 = ⎢ e⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ K ( I + GK ) I ⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ Wu ⎦ ⎡We S ⎤ =⎢ ⎥ ⎣Wu KS ⎦
Robust control : analysis and design»
80

© Olivier Sename 2010

40

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH

The solution of the H∞ control problem is based on a state space representation of P, the generalized plant, that includes the plant model and the performance weights.

& ⎧ x = Ax + B1w + B2u ⎪ P ⎨e = C1 x + D11w + D12u ⎪y = C x + D w + D u 2 21 22 ⎩
The calculation of the controller, solution of the H∞ control problem , can then be done using the Riccati approach or the LMI approach of the H∞ control problem (see Zhou 98, Skogestad&Postlewaite 96).

Robust control : analysis and design»

81

© Olivier Sename 2010

H∞ CONTROL SOLUTION
& ⎧ x = Ax + B1 w + B2 u ⎡A ⎪ P ⎨e = C1 x + D11 w + D12 u ⇒ P = ⎢ C1 ⎢ ⎪y = C x + D w + D u ⎢C 2 2 21 22 ⎣ ⎩ Assumptions: B1 D11 D21 B2 ⎤ D12 ⎥ ⎥ D22 ⎥ ⎦

(A1) (A B2) stabilizable and (C2,A) d t t bl (A,B t bili bl d A) detectable Necessary for the existence of stabilizing controllers (A2) D12 and D21 have full rank (resp. m2 and p2) Sufficient to ensure the controllers are proper, hence realizable (A3) [A-j ωI, B2; C1 D12] has full column rank n+m2 for all ω (A4) [A-j ωI, B1; C2 D21] has full row rank n+p2 for all ω Both B th ensure th t th optimal controller does not t t cancel that the ti l t ll d t try to l poles or zeros on the imaginary axis which would result in CL instability ⎡B ⎤ T ⎡ 0 ⎤ T D11 = 0, D22 = 0, D12 [C1 D12 ] = [0 I m 2 ], ⎢ 1 ⎥ D21 = ⎢ ⎥ (A5) ⎣ D21 ⎦ ⎣ I p2 ⎦ not necessary but simplify the solution (can be relaxed)
Robust control : analysis and design»
82

© Olivier Sename 2010

41

H∞ CONTROL SOLUTION

Theorem1 : Under the previous assumptions, there exists a controller K such that ||Tew||∞<γ if and only if () ⎢ (i) ⎡
A
T

⎣− C1 C1

T γ −2 B1 B1T − B2 B2 ⎤ has no eigenvalues on the ⎥ − AT ⎦ imaginary axis

T (ii) ∃ X∞>0, X ∞ A + AT X ∞ + X ∞ (γ −2 B1 B1T − B2 B2 )X ∞ + C1T C1 = 0
T (iii) ⎡ A T γ −2C1T C1 − C 2 C 2 ⎤ has no eigenvalues on the

⎢ T ⎣− B1 B1

−A

⎥ ⎦ imaginary axis

(iv) ∃ Y∞>0, (v)

T AY∞ + Y∞ AT + Y∞ γ −2C1T C1 − C 2 C 2 Y∞ + B1 B1T = 0

(

)

ρ ( X ∞ Y∞ ) < γ 2
Robust control : analysis and design» © Olivier Sename 2010
83

H∞ CONTROL SOLUTION Theorem2 : If the necessary and sufficient conditions of theorem 1 are satisfied, then the so-called central controller is: ˆ A = A + γ −2 B B T X + B F + Z L C

ˆ ⎡A K sub ( s ) = ⎢ ∞ ⎣ F∞

− Z ∞ L∞ ⎤ ⎥ 0 ⎦

1

1

2

2

T T F∞ = − B2 X ∞ , L∞ = −Y∞ C 2

Z ∞ = I − γ − 2Y∞ X ∞

(

)

−1

Controller structure = observer-based state feedback control law

& ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ x = Ax + B1 w + B2 u + Z ∞ L∞ (C 2 x − y ) ˆ ˆ ˆ u = F∞ x, w = γ − 2 B1T X ∞ x
1) ŵ is an extimation of the worst case disturbance ˆ 2) Z∞ L∞ is the filter gain for the OE problem of estimating F∞ x in the presence of the worst case disturbance

Robust control : analysis and design»

84

© Olivier Sename 2010

42

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH Advantage : if We and Wu are chosen according to the previous templates on the sensitivity functions, and if a solution does exist, the control objectives are met. This procedure can be easily performed by solving two Riccati equations or two LMIs. Using the Riccati formulation, the minimal value of γ can be approached by g-iteration (dichotomy). Using LMI formulation, the minimal value of γ is solved as an optimization problem It i also available in classical control software, e.g. is l il bl i l i l t l ft MATLAB®. This can be completed by robust analysis and/or design according to model uncertainties.
Robust control : analysis and design»
85

© Olivier Sename 2010

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH LMI solution : Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMIs) are powerful design tools in control engineering, system identification and structural design. Main advantages : • Many design specifications and constraints can be expressed as LMIs. • Once formulated in terms of LMIs, a problem can be solved exactly by efficient convex optimization algorithms. • While most problems with multiple constraints or objectives lack analytical solutions in terms of matrix equations, they often remain tractable in the LMI framework.

Robust control : analysis and design»

86

© Olivier Sename 2010

43

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH The Bounded Real Lemma (Scherer) : Let M(s)=C(sI-A)-1B with A stable. Then ||M||∞<1 holds iff

AT X + XA + XBB T X + C T C = 0
has a stabilizing solution. This is equivalent to the fact that

AT X + XA + XBB T X + C T C < 0
has a solution. This is rewritten as a Linear Matrix Inequality (Schur complement)

⎡ AT X + XA ⎢ * ⎢ ⎢ * ⎣
Robust control : analysis and design»

XB C T ⎤ ⎥ 0 ⎥<0 −I * − I⎥ ⎦
© Olivier Sename 2010
87

H∞ CONTROL APPROACH Design Method: Only assumption A1) is required Application of the BRL on the closed-loop system (with P and K)
T ⎡ Acl X + XAcl ⎢ * ⎢ ⎢ * ⎣

XBcl − γI *

⎤ ⎥ ⎥<0 − γI ⎥ ⎦
T C cl T Dcl

where Acl, Bcl, Ccl and Dcl are the state space matrices of the closedloop system. It leads to a non convex problem as it includes the state space matrices of the controller and some matrices X to be determined (coupling) Then we have to use of some linearization method to get LMIs: for instance the projection lemma. It leads to a set of LMIs. Therefore it can be solved using convex optimization algorithms.
Robust control : analysis and design» © Olivier Sename 2010
88

44

OUTLINE
Industrial examples

Motivation
H∞ norm, stability

Performance analysis/specifications H∞ control design Uncertainties and robustness

Performances quantifiers A first robustness criteria Mixed sensitivity problem Representing uncertainties Robust stability Robust performance stability, Robust control design Bode and Poisson sensitivity integral

Performances limitations

Robust control : analysis and design»

89

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Introduction: Skegestad & Postlewaite A control system is robust if it is insensitive to differences between the actual system and the model of the system which was used to design the controller How to take into account the difference between the actual system and the model ? A solution: using a model set BUT : very large problem and not exact yet

A method: these differences are referred as model uncertainty. The Th approach h determine the uncertainty set: mathematical representation check Robust Stability check Robust Performance
Robust control : analysis and design»
90

© Olivier Sename 2010

45

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Lots of forms can be derived according to both our knowledge of the physical mechanism that cause the uncertainties and our ability to represent these mechanisms in a way that facilitates convenient manipulation. Several origins : Approximate knowledge and variations of some parameters Measruement imperfections (due to sensor) At hign frequencies, even the structure and the model order is unknown (100% is possible) Choice of simpler models for control synthesis Controller implementation Two classes: parametric uncertainties / neglected or unmodelled dynamics
Robust control : analysis and design»
91

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS

Example (Skogestad-Postlewaite, 96):

G p (s) =

k e − sh , 2 ≤ k , h, τ ≤ 3 1 + τs

Nominal model: parameters h=k=τ=2.5

G p ( s) = G ( s )( I + Wm Δ ); Wm ( s ) =
Multiplicative uncertainties :

3.5s + 0.25 s +1

Robust control : analysis and design»

92

© Olivier Sename 2010

46

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Relative uncertainties (Gp-G)/G Wm(s)

10 Magnitude

0

Parametric variations
10
-1 -2 -1 0 1

10

10

10 Frequency

10

Robust control : analysis and design»

93

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS

Robust control : analysis and design»

94

© Olivier Sename 2010

47

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS A simple example of unmodelled dynamcis

G ( s ) = G0 ( s )

1 , τ ≤ τ max 1 + τs

Then :

τ max jω G ( s) −1 ≤ ; ∀ω G0 ( s ) 1 + τ max jω

The neglected dynamics can therefore be modelled as :

G(s) − 1 = w( s )Δ( s ) G0 ( s )

avec

w(s) =

τ max s et Δ 1 + τ max s

<1

This corresponds to multiplicative uncertainty
yΔ w

Δ(s) Δ( )

w(s) ( ) +

+ G0(s)

z

N
Robust control : analysis and design»
95

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS From the previous example, let us define the Linear Fractional Transformation (LFT) Which is a general representation for uncertainty analysis

Δ includes all possible uncertainties, and is assumed to be normalized : Δ <1

Δ

External inputs

w

N

z Controlled
ouputs

NΔ structure The upper LFT is then the transfer matrix from w to z

Fu ( N , Δ) = N 22 + N 21Δ( I − N11 Δ) −1 N 12
This LFT exists and is well-posed if (I-N11Δ)-1 is invertible well(I-

Robust control : analysis and design»

96

© Olivier Sename 2010

48

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS A simple example of parametric uncertaities

1 , a0 − b < a < a0 + b s+a 1 1 1 δb −1 Let a=a0+δb -1<δ<1 Then b, 1< <1. = = (1 + ) s + a s + a 0 + δb s + a 0 s + a0 G ( s) =
This corresponds to multiplicative inverse uncertainty
uΔ yΔ

δ

Δ=δ
uΔ yΔ z w

b
w

+

G0(s)

1 z = yΔ = ( w − bu Δ ) s + a0
Robust control : analysis and design»
97

⎛ −b ⎜ s + a0 N =⎜ ⎜ −b ⎜s+a 0 ⎝

1 ⎞ ⎟ s + a0 ⎟ 1 ⎟ s + a0 ⎟ ⎠

z

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS As seen before, in a general way, the uncertainty matrix will have the following diagonal form

Δ ( s ) = diag Δ 1 ( s ) L Δ q ( s ) δ 1 I n1
Where Δi is a weight function and δi is a real parametric uncertainty Such that:

{

L δ r I nr

}

Δi

≤ 1;

δi ≤1

Robust control : analysis and design»

98

© Olivier Sename 2010

49

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Now there is two ways to tackle the control problem under uncertainties: UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES: we ignore the structure of Δ, considered as a full complex perturbation matrix, such that ||Δ||∞<1. We then look at the maximal admissible norm for Δ, to have Robust Stability and Performance. This may lead to conservative results. STRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES: we take into account the structure of Δ (always such that ||Δ||∞<1). This leads to introduce a new tool: the structured singular value. We then can obtain more fine results but t t d i l l W th bt i fi lt b t using more complex tools.

Robust control : analysis and design»

99

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS For control design the following general control configuration is used:

Δ

External w inputs Control input

P
u

e
Controlled outputs

K N

y Measured outputs

And N is such that

N = Fl ( P, K )
100

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

50

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Now the transfer matrix from w to z

z = Fu ( N , Δ) w, where Fu ( N , Δ) = N 22 + N 21Δ( I − N11Δ) −1 N12

NS ⇔ N is internally stable NP ⇔ N 22
Objectives:

< 1; and NS

RS ⇔ Fu ( N , Δ) is stable ∀Δ, Δ RP ⇔ Fu ( N , Δ)

< 1; and NS

< 1 ∀Δ, Δ

< 1; and NS d

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

101

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Robust Stability analysis Robust Stability: with a given controller K, we determine wether the system remains stable for all plants in the uncertainty set

Δ
It is equivalent to study the MΔ structure
yΔ uΔ

M=N11
Robust Performance: If RS is satisfied we determine how « large » the g transfer function from exogeneous inputs w to outputs z may be for all plants in the uncertainty set
For Robust Performance analysis it is necessary to consider the NΔ structure

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

102

51

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS ROBUST STABILITY : SMALL GAIN THEOREM

Δ


M=N11

Small Gain Theorem: Suppose M∈ RH ∞ . Then the closed-loop system is pp p y well-posed and internally stable for all Δ ∈ RH ∞ such that :
a) b) Δ Δ
∞ ∞

≤δ <δ

if and only if if and only if

M ( s)

< 1/ δ

M ( s) ∞ ≤ 1 / δ
© Olivier Sename 2010 103

Robust control : analysis and design»

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS 6 uncertainty types

Additive uncertainty
ΔA(s)

Additive inverse uncertainty
uΔ u
+ ΔiA(s) G(s) G( )

+

G(s) +

z

z

Output Multiplicative uncertainty
yΔ u
G(s) + O(s) Δ

Input Multiplicative uncertainty
yΔ u
ΔI(s)


+

+

+ G(s)

z

+

z

Output Inverse Multiplicative case
u
G(s) +

Input Inverse Multiplicative case
z u
+
104

ΔiO(s)

ΔiI(s)


G(s)

z

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

52

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Robust Stability analysis for unstructured uncertainties Application of the small gain theorem to the different uncertainty types.

G p = G + w A Δ A ; ∀Δ A s.t . G p = ( I + wO Δ O )G; ∀Δ O s.t . G p = G ( I + w I Δ I ); ∀Δ I s.t .

ΔA

≤ 1 ; CNS : w A KS y
∞ ∞

∞ ∞ ∞

≤1 ≤1 ≤1
∞ ∞

ΔO ΔI

≤ 1 ; CNS : wOT y ≤ 1 ; CNS : w I Tu

G p = ( I + w iO Δ iO ) −1 G; ∀Δ iO s.t . G p = G ( I + w iI Δ iI ) −1 ; ∀Δ iI s.t .

Δ iO Δ iI

≤ 1 ; CNS : w iO S y ≤ 1 ; CNS : w iI S u

≤1

≤1

This gives some robustness templates for the sensitivity functions. However this may be conservative.

Robust control : analysis and design»

105

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Robust Stability analysis: SISO case Let us consider the case :
u yΔ
ΔI(s)


+

+ G(s)

z

The loop transfer function is then: L p = G p K = GK ( I + wI Δ I ) = L + wI LΔ I ; Therefore RS ⇔ System stable ∀ Lp. ⇔ Lp should not encircle the point -1
-1 Im Re

1+ L
L ( jω )
wI L
Robust control : analysis and design»

RS

⇔ ⇔ ⇔

wI L < 1 + L , ∀ω wI L < 1, ∀ω 1+ L wI T < 1 ∀ω

106

© Olivier Sename 2010

53

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Robust Performance analysis for unstructured uncertainties

Robust control : analysis and design»

107

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Robust Performance analysis: SISO case
yΔ u
ΔI(s)


+

+ G(s)

z

L p = G p K = GK ( I + wI Δ I ) = L + wI LΔ I ;

First : NP ⇔
we ( jω )
-1

we S < 1 ∀ω , ⇔
Im

we < 1 + L , ∀ω
we S p < 1, ∀S p , ∀ω we < 1 + L p , ∀L p , ∀ω we + wI L < 1 + L , ∀ω

RP if NP is true for all plants:.
Re

RP ⇔ ⇔ ⇐

1+ L
wI L

L( jω ) ⇐ maxω ( we S + wI T ) < 1
See previous slide (Zhou)
108

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

54

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Often, for SISO systems, when we have NP and RS we get RP. This is not a « big issue » for SISO systems. For MIMO, systems, this approach may lead to very conservative results. Further analysis will require the use of structured uncertainties which uncertainties, needs to consider the structured singular value. It is defined as : Find the smallest structured Δ which makes det(I-MΔ)=0.

Robust control : analysis and design»

109

© Olivier Sename 2010

UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS Robust Stability analysis: structured uncertainties case

Robust control : analysis and design»

110

© Olivier Sename 2010

55

6.

ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

Fictive uncertainties: full complex matrix representing the H∞ norm specifications

Δ Δf Δr

uncertainties
Real uncertainties: block diagonal matrix

Disturbances w & references

Wi
Control input u

G K

Wo

e
Controlled outputs p

P

y Measured output

N
Robust control : analysis and design» © Olivier Sename 2010
111

6.

ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

Δ Δf
Uncertainties inputs Disturbances & references

Δr
N zw ⎤ N ew ⎥ ⎦
z Uncertainties outputs e Controlled outputs

v

w

⎡N N= ⎢ zv ⎣ N ev

1.

Definition of the real uncertainties Δr and of the transfer templates e/w thanks to Wi et Wo Evaluation of

2. 3.

μ (New ) Δ f , μ (N zv ) Δ r and μ (N) Δ

Computation of the admissible intervals for each parameter

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

112

56

6.

ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

μ-analysis principle :

Stable system for all uncertainties Δ such that :

Δ M

Δ

<

1

μ

If and only if :

μ (M ) Δ ≤ μ

⎧Δ = diag {Δ1 ,..., Δq , δ1I r 1 ,..., δ1I r 1 , ε1I c 1 ,..., ε1I c 1 }⎫ ⎪ ⎪ Δ=⎨ ⎬ k ×k ⎪Δi ∈ C i i , δ i ∈ R , ε i ∈ C ⎪ ⎩ ⎭
Robust control : analysis and design» © Olivier Sename 2010 113

6.

ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS

Δ Δf Δr
Uncertainties inputs Disturbances & references

v w

⎡N N= ⎢ zv ⎣ N ev

N zw ⎤ N ew ⎥ ⎦

z

Uncertainties outputs

e

Controlled outputs

Nominal Stability. (NS) : Nom. Performances (NP) : Robust Stability (RS): Robust Performance (RP):

N stable

NS and σ (New ) = μ Δf (New ) ≤ 1, ∀ω
NS and μ Δr (Nzv ) ≤ 1, ∀ω
⎡Δ NS and μ Δ (N) ≤ 1, ∀ω , Δ = ⎢ f ⎣0
© Olivier Sename 2010

0⎤ Δr ⎥ ⎦
114

Robust control : analysis and design»

57

OUTLINE
Industrial examples

Motivation
H∞ norm, stability

Performance analysis/specifications H∞ control design Uncertainties and robustness

Performances quantifiers A first robustness criteria Mixed sensitivity problem Representing uncertainties Robust stability Robust performance stability, Robust control design Bode and Poisson sensitivity integral

Performances limitations

Robust control : analysis and design»

115

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS Main extracts of this part : Goodwin et al 2001. “Performance limitations in control are not only inherently interesting, but also have a major impact on real world problems.” Objective : take into account the limitations inherent to the system or due to actuators constraints, before designing the controller

Understanding what is not possible is as important as understanding what is possible ! p g p

Robust control : analysis and design»

116

© Olivier Sename 2010

58

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS

Mean : sensitivity functions analysis Previous templates are partly obtained through the performance specifications of the control system. ifi ti f th t l t They derive in fact from some trades-off including: • sensors • actuators • uncertainties • communication network (real-time scheduling) • architecture a c tectu e • structural issues, as time-delays, RHP poles/zeroes….

Robust control : analysis and design»

117

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS CONSTRAINTS ON THE CONTROL SYSTEMS

Structural: S + T = 1 and (KS = T/G)
|S|+|T|≥1 We cannot have, for any frequency w0, |S(jw0)|<1 and |T(jw0)|<1 This implies that, disturbance and noise rejection cannot be achieved in the same frequency range. q y g frequency splitting of specifications • disturbances rejection (|S|<1) in LF • noise reduction (|T|<1) in HF
Robust control : analysis and design»
118

© Olivier Sename 2010

59

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS

Interpolation constraints
If p is an RHP pole of L(s), then: T(p)=1 and S(p)=0

If z is an RHP zero of L(s), then: T(z)=0 and S(z)=1

Robust control : analysis and design»

119

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS Goodwin et al

SENSITIVITY INTEGRALS

Robust control : analysis and design»

120

© Olivier Sename 2010

60

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS Goodwin et al

Robust control : analysis and design»

121

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS Goodwin et al

Robust control : analysis and design»

122

© Olivier Sename 2010

61

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS Goodwin et al

The Waterbed effect

Robust control : analysis and design»

123

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS Goodwin et al
Comment: to a reduction zone corresponds an enlargment zone • peaks on |S| and |T| (robustness ↓)

Robust control : analysis and design»

124

© Olivier Sename 2010

62

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS

Bode sensitivity integral (the case of RHP poles)
Consider a plant with Np RHP poles pi. Then :

∫ ln det S ( jω ) dω = Π ∑ Re( p )
0 i =1 i

Np

Therefore, in the presence of RHP poles, the control effort necessary , p p , y to stabilize the system is paid in terms of amplification of the sensitivity magnitude.

Robust control : analysis and design»

125

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS

Peak sensitivity theorems
Theorem1 : Let G(s) a MIMO plant with one RHP zero at s=z, and Wp(s) be a scalar weight. Then, closed-loop Then closed loop stability is ensured only if:

W p ( s) S ( s)

≥ W p ( z)

Theorem2 : Let G(s) a MIMO plant with one RHP pole at s=p, and WT(s) be a scalar weight. Then, closed-loop stability is ensured only if: , p y y

WT ( s )T ( s )

≥ WT ( p )

Robust control : analysis and design»

126

© Olivier Sename 2010

63

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS

Peak sensitivity theorems (SISO case)
Theorem3 : Let G(s) a SISO plant with Np RHP pole pi and Nz RHP zero zj. Then, closed loop stability is ensured only if: closed-loop
Np

W p (s) S ( s)

≥ c1 j W p ( z j ) , c1 j = ∏
i =1 Nz

z j + pi z j − pi z j + pi z j − pi

≥1 ≥1

WT ( s )T ( s ) ∞ ≥ c2i WT ( pi ) , c2i = ∏
j =1

Robust control : analysis and design»

127

© Olivier Sename 2010

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS

Peak sensitivity theorems: illustration
Let G(s) a MIMO plant with one RHP zero at s=z Let us choose Wp(s) as a performance specification weight WP ( s ) = For the design problem, if the controller meets the requirements, then: W p ( s ) S ( s ) ≤ 1

s / MS + ω b s + ω bε

Therefore a necessary condition is : W p ( s ) S ( s )

≥ W p ( z ) , i.e

z / MS + ω b ≤1 z + ω bε

If z is real, and if the performance specifications are such that : Ms=2 z and ε=0, then a necessary condition is :

ωb ≤
128

2
© Olivier Sename 2010

Robust control : analysis and design»

64

PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS

It will turn out that to avoid large frequency domain sensitivity peaks, it is necessary to limit the range of sensitivity reduction to be : 1. Less than any right half plane open loop zero y g p p pp 2. Greater than any right half plane open loop pole

Robust control : analysis and design»

129

© Olivier Sename 2010

EXAMPLE using MATLAB System definition
%Sample MATLAB program to synthesize H-infinity controller %USE OF ROBUST CONTROL TOOLBOX FOR MATLAB R2009 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % plant i G l t is N=[-1 20]; D=conv([1 0.01],[1 20]); G=ss(tf(N,D)); % plant is G %%%%%%% % definition of the weighting function %%%%%%% Ms=2;wb=3;epsi=0.01; Ms=2;wb=3;epsi=0 01; Mu=3;wbc=50;epsi1=0.01; We=ss(tf([1/Ms wb],[1 wb*epsi])); Wu=ss(tf([1 wbc/Mu],[epsi1 wbc]));

Robust control : analysis and design»

130

© Olivier Sename 2010

65

EXAMPLE using MATLAB Problem solution % Generalized plant P is found with function sysic% systemnames = 'G We Wu'; inputvar = '[ r(1); d; u(1)]'; p [ ( ) ( )] outputvar = '[We; Wu; r-G]'; input_to_G = '[u+d]'; input_to_We = '[r-G]'; input_to_Wu = '[u]'; sysoutname = 'P'; cleanupsysic = 'yes'; sysic; %% Fi d H i fi it optimal controller% Find H-infinity ti l t ll %
% nmeas=1; ncon=1; [Khinf,CL,GAM,INFO] = hinfsyn(P,nmeas,ncon,'DISPLAY','on')

Robust control : analysis and design»

131

© Olivier Sename 2010

EXAMPLE using MATLAB

Plots

% Determination of the sensitivity fucntions L=series(G,Khinf) % Loop transfer function L=GK S=inv(1+L); % S= 1/(1+L) poleS=pole(S) T= feedback(L,1) p poleT=pole(T) p ( ) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% Essayer avec %Tverif = G*Khinf/(1+G*Khinf) % et comparer l'ordre des fonctions de transfert obtenues. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SG=S*G;; poleSG=pole(SG) KS=Khinf*S; poleKS=pole(KS) %%%% w=logspace(-2,2,500); subplot(2,2,1), sigma(S,1/We,w), title('Sensitivity function') subplot(2,2,2), sigma(T,w), title('Complementary sensitivity function') subplot(2,2,3), sigma(SG,w), title('Sensitivity*Plant') subplot(2,2,4), sigma(KS,1/Wu,w), title('Controller*Sensitivity')
132

Robust control : analysis and design»

© Olivier Sename 2010

66

EXAMPLE : First test
Resetting value of Gamma min based on D_11, D_12, D_21 terms Test bounds: g gamma 2.765 1.633 2.199 1.916 1.774 1.703 1.668 1.650 1.659 0.5000 < gamma <= xinf_eig hamy eig g y_ g 8.0e-007 3.0e-002 8.6e-007 3.0e-002 8.2e-007 3.0e-002 8.3e-007 3.0e-002 8.4e-007 3.0e-002 8.5e-007 3.0e-002 8.5e-007 3.0e-002 8.6e-007 3.0e-002 8.5e-007 3.0e-002 1.6681 2.6337 yinf_eig nrho_xy p/ y g y p/f 0.0e+000 0.1708 p 0.0e+000 1.1068# f 0.0e+000 0.3240 p -9.5e-013 0.5193 p -9.5e-013 0.7152 p 0.0e+000 0.8719 p 0.0e+000 0.9763 p 0.0e+000 1.0378# f 0.0e+000 1.0062# f

hamx_eig g 2.2e+000 2.1e+000 2.1e+000 2.1e+000 2.1e+000 2.1e+000 2.1e+000 2.1e+000 2.1e+000

Gamma value achieved:

Robust control : analysis and design»

133

© Olivier Sename 2010

EXAMPLE

Sensitivity f unction 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -50 -70 -80 -2 10 -60 -2 10 0

Complementary sensitivity function

We
-10 Singula Values (dB) ar -20

Singula Values (dB) ar

Sensitivity y function S

-30

-40

Complementary Sensitivity function T

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

Frequency (rad/sec)

Frequency (rad/sec)

Sensitivity*Plant -5 -10 -15 Singular Values (dB) Singular Values (dB) -20 -25 -30 -35 -40 -45 -2 10 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35
-1 0 1 2

Controller*Sensitivity

Wu Sensitivity function KS

Sensitivity function SG

10

10

10

10

-40 -2 10

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

Frequency (rad/sec)

Frequency (rad/sec)

Robust control : analysis and design»

134

© Olivier Sename 2010

67

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful