Task 8: Linear State Feedback [12 Points]

We first consider the system

   
d 3 −1 1
x(t) = x(t) + u(t),
dt 1 3 0
 
y(t) = 0 1 x(t).

a) Explain why it seems reasonable to set up linear state feedback for this system from a practical
point of view. Also show that shifting the eigenvalues for the given system is possible.

b) Set the feedback gain so that the eigenvalues of the closed-loop system are λ∗1,2 = {−1, −1}.
Check your result by calculating the eigenvalues of the closed-loop system after designing the
feedback.

c) Discuss the choice of desired eigenvalues λ∗ . What are the advantages and disadvantages
in terms of (practical) control engineering applications if the desired eigenvalues are shifted
further to the left or right?

d) Can the designed state feedback directly be integrated into the above system? If not, why and
how to solve that issue?

e) Now, the system is slightly modified since the a second actuator is installed:
   
d 3 −1 1 0
x(t) = x(t) + u(t),
dt 1 3 0 1
 
y(t) = 0 1 x(t).

Design a modified linear state feedback for this system still targeting λ∗1,2 = {−1, −1}. If
required, make reasonable choices for other design degrees of freedom.

23
Solution to Task 8
a) [2 Points]
The open-loop eigenvalues of A are λ1,2 = 3 ± j1, i.e., the system has oscillating behavior
and is unstable. The linear state feedback can be used to shift the eigenvalues such that the
resulting closed-loop system is stable and free of oscillations.

Moreover, shifting the eigenvalues is possible for the given system since it is fully control-
lable:  
1 3
rank(C) = rank = 2.
0 1

b) [3 Points]
Since we have a single input system one can utilize Ackermann’s formula. The char. polynomial
for λ∗1,2 = {−1, −1} is αd = A2 + 2A + I while the controllability matrix is already known
from a). Hence, we obtain

 1 3 −1
   2    !
 3 −1 3 −1 1 0  
F =− 0 1 +2 + = −8 −15 .
0 1 1 3 1 3 0 1

By direct calculus one can proof that the eigenvalues A + BF fit the desired ones.

c) [3 Points]
When shifting the eigenvalues more to the left:
– Pro: If the external input r is some reference signal, e.g., for state tracking, the closed-loop
controller becomes more dynamic (i.e., reference changes can be better followed).
– Con: Any noise (e.g., on the measurements) is amplified since the absolute values of F
increase if the desired eigenvalues move left. Moreover, in a real system the actuator has
limited input power and, therefore, a nonlinear input saturation will prevent shifting the
eigenvalues arbitrarily far to the left.
When shifting the eigenvalues more to the right:
– Pro: The controller requires less input power which is good for controllers with limited
actuators while also noise is not amplified too much.
– Con: The closed-loop behavior is less dynamic and stability becomes (again) an issue if
the eigenvalues cross the real axis.

d) [2 Points]
The feedback cannot be directly integrated since not both states are directly measured. Only
the second state is directly known by observing y. Hence, an observer must be added to
estimate also x1 . This is possible for the given system since
 
0 1
rank(O) = rank = 2.
1 3

e) [3 Points]
Due to the additional input signal, assigning only eigenvalues to the closed-loop system results

24
in an overdetermined equation system. To find a unique solution one can also assign the
∗ utilizing
eigenvectors v1,2

BF v1∗ v2∗ = (λ∗1 I − A)v1∗ (λ∗2 I − A)v2∗ .

   

Since B is square and invertible, the solution to the above equation can be directly found by
−1
F = B −1 (λ∗1 I − A)v1∗ (λ∗2 I − A)v2∗ v1∗ v2∗
 

assuming that the desired eigenvectors are linearly independent. A reasonable choice could be
v1∗ = [1 0]T and v1∗ = [0 1]T resulting in
     
1 0 −4 1 1 0 −4 1
F = = .
0 1 −1 −4 0 1 −1 −4

25