See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225075468

Feedback Control Of Dynamic Systems

Chapter January 1994

CITATIONS

READS

1,950

7,135

3 authors, including:
J.D. Powell

Abbas Emami-Naeini

Stanford University

SC Solutions Inc.

133 PUBLICATIONS 6,294 CITATIONS

29 PUBLICATIONS 2,083 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by J.D. Powell on 10 July 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


PME 3208

625
403

Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems.

by
G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, &
A. Emami-Naeini

B. C. Kuo, Automatic Control Systems, 7th

Ed.Prentice-Hall Inc., 1995.
1

Key issues in this course

Control (I) considers the design of a controller K(s) for
a given plant P(s) using three approaches
(A) PID controller
(B) Root locus
(C) Bode plot
r(t)

K(s)

u(t)

P(s)

y(t)

Yet, before we can really solve real problems, some

other issues have to be addressed
z What if there is plant uncertainty or model uncertainty,
in terms of robust stability and robust performance?
r(t)

K(s)

P0(s)
(s)

where P( s ) = P0 ( s) + ( s )
2

y(t)

z What if there are disturbances and/or sensor noise?

d(t)
r(t)

K(s)

P0(s)

y(t)
n(t)

Indeed, in a real control system, at least three inputs and

two outputs should be carefully examined, i.e.,
y ( s) = TYR ( s )r ( s ) + TYD ( s )d ( s ) + TYN ( s )n( s )

And
u ( s ) = TUR ( s )r ( s ) + TUD ( s )d ( s ) + TUN ( s )n( s )
= P ( s ) 1 {TYR ( s )r ( s ) + TYD ( s )d ( s ) + TYN ( s )n( s )}

To achieve the required performance, it requires a

sufficient control action (control effort) u(t) to regulate the
plant. For instance, to achieved the required command
following, a control effort uR ( s ) = TUR ( s )r ( s) is required.
Similarly, uD ( s ) = TUD ( s)d ( s ) is required to achieve the
required disturbance rejection, while u N ( s ) = TUN ( s )n( s ) will
be consumed by the noise.
If the required total control effort exceeds the
3

saturation limit of the plant, the performance will be

deteriorated.
r(t)

K(s)

uC

P(s)

y(t)

z What if there is nonlinearity in the plant?

Will the linear theory fail and become useless? Or
is there a way to accommodate the difference between
linear theory and nonlinear reality?
4

z What if it is difficult to find a controller that stabilize the

given plant? Neither using root locus, nor Bode
plot/Nyquist stability criterion?
Is there a new way to design a controller that
ensures stability, such as the modern controller?
This course addresses the above questions, and bridges
the gap between linear control theory and real industrial
problems.

Overview of the Course

(1) Review of root locus and design on Bode plot
(2) Feedback properties and feedback designs
(3) Nonlinear system and Robust design on Bode plot
1/6
(4) State space representation of a system
1/3
(5) Analysis of state equation
(6) Controllability and observability
(7) Pole assignment of control system design
(8) State estimator design
1/3
(9) Smith filter and nonlinear systems
1/6

Credit
Two mid term tests, each accounts for 1/3 of the credit,
two term report, each accounts for 1/6 of the credit
6

Chapter 1. Review
1.1Objective of feedback control
r(t)

K(s)

u(t)

P(s)

y(t)

Fig. 1
Given a plant P(s), design a controller K(s) such that
the overall transfer function

y( s )

r (s)  T (s )

meet design

requirements such as rising time tr, settling time ts,

maximum percentage overshoot PO, phase margin m and
gain margin, etc. Where, the overall transfer function of the
system is given by

T ( s) 

Y (s)
P( s ) K ( s)
=
R( s ) 1 + P( s ) K ( s )

The above equation reveals the fact that each controller is

specifically design for a given plant to yield a satisfactory
performance.

To

maintain

the

same

performance

requirements, the controller has to change with respect to

7

the change in plant dynamics. That is, if the plant model is

not obtained with sufficient accuracy, it is impossible to
acutely meet the required performance requirement.
However, the above block diagram is a representative
of a wider class of feedback systems, such as the one shown
below
r(t)

K(s)

P(s)

y(t)

Fig. 2

using block diagram reduction, it can be shown that its

overall transfer function is

y( s )

P(s )K (s )
r (s )  T (s ) = H 1 + P(s )K (s )H
P(s )K (s )
H
=H
H 1 + P(s )K (s )H
1 P(s )K (s )H
=H
H 1 + P(s )K (s )H

That is, the system shown in Fig. 2 has an overall transfer

function between r(t) and y(t) equivalent to the following
8

r(t)

K(s)

P(s)

y
(t)

Fig. 3
with an augmented plant P(s)H.
We shall come back to this issue with more details
later on.
The first issue to be addressed is: how is it possible to
obtain an accurate model of the plant? In general, we have
three types of plant models: ODE, transfer function and
Bode plot. They are closely related. First we shall examined
modeling by using O.D.E
1.2Modeling a dynamic system

Consider a car driven by a torque of the engine. It can

be modeled as a mass m and an equivalent force u(t)
where

u bx = mx

or

or

x+

b
u
x =
m
m

Example 2: Consider a more complicated example

m2
tire
ks/2

m1

ks/2

10

b( y x ) + k s ( y x) k w ( x r ) = m1 
x
b( y x ) ks ( y x) = m2 
y

x+

k
k
k
b
( y x ) + s ( y x) + w x = w r
m1
m1
m1
m1


y+

k
b
( y x ) + s ( y x) = 0
m2
m2

Example 2.4 Flexible R/W for a Disk Driver

11

I11 + b(1 2 ) + k (1 2 ) = M c + M d
I  + b(  ) + k ( ) = 0
2 2

Example 2.14
z In this type of motors, the magnetic field is held at
constant by applying a constant voltage, while the
voltage applied to the armature circuit
varies to drive the motor.

Mechanical dynamic:
J + b = T = K i
t

Circuit dynamic:
L di + Ri = va e = va K e
dt
input: va

12

Taking Laplace transform of the above equation, it gives

( Js

+ bs ) ( s) = Kt I ( s)

( Ls + R ) I (s) = va (s) Ke(s)

That is

1
1
I ( s) =
[va (s) Ke(s)] = ( Js2 + bs ) (s)
Kt
( Ls + R )
or

Js2 + bs
Ke
1
+
va (s) =
(s)
( Ls + R )
( Ls + R )
Kt
Hence
1

Ke
(s) Js2 + bs
1
=
+

Ls
R
va (s) Kt
+
(
) ( Ls + R )
Kt ( Ls + R )
1
 2
( Js + bs ) ( Ls + R) + Kt Ke ( Ls + R)
Kt
= 2
( Js + bs ) ( Ls + R) + Kt Ke
z There are three approaches to determine the model
13

parameters J, b, L, R, Kt, Ke
(1) A series of direct measurements of model parameters.
For instance, J can be estimated from its geometric
shape, b can be measured from quasi-static experiment,
and so on.
(2) Curve fitting to the step responses (or other response
in the time domain) of the motor

z In the other type of motors (magnetic field driven

motors), the magnetic field varies by applying a varying
voltage to drive the motor, while the voltage applied to
the armature circuitis held at a constant. In
such cases, the dynamic model becomes

Kt
(s)
= 2
va (s) ( Js + bs ) ( Lf s + R f )
14

 In such cases the plant is of type I, and the step

response will be unbounded because

Kt
(s)
(s)
= 2
=
because
va (s) ( Js + bs) ( Ls + R)
va (s) S=0
Hence model parameters have to be estimated in
closed-loop as shown below
r(t)

u(t)

P(s)

y(t)

where the constant gain K is adjusted to stabilize the

plant, while input u(t) and y(t) are measured for
curve fitting in the time domain (i.e., using system
parameter identification techniques).
This approach has two major drawback: (1) plant
models with significant differences in model
parameters may have very close step responses.
Therefore, this approach may leads to poor
estimation of model parameters. (2)S/N ratio is
worse than frequency response method using Bode
15

plot
(3) Curve fitting to the Bode plot of the motor

In this approach, phase plot usually results in a

larger error, corresponding to model inaccuracy.
In theory, to obtain the Bode plot, u(t) and y(t) can
be any time function, which can be decomposed
into a series of harmonic functions

u (t ) =
N

u sin ( t + )
i =0

y (t ) =

P(s)
i

y sin ( t + )

i =0

However, such a treatment will lead to poor S/N ratio.

16

z Handling higher order dynamics on Bode plot

Higher order dynamics and close pole-zero pairs can be

neglected as long as the gain-phase plot the plant model
shows good agreement with experimental data near the
specified crossover frequency C .

17

z It is inevitable that model inaccuracy exists due to sensor

noises,

neglected

higher

order

dynamics

and

nonlinearities, hence it is essential that a feedback

control system must be able to handle model
inaccuracy/uncertainty in terms of robust stability and
robust performance.
z Uncertainty/model inaccuracy can be estimated from the
Bode plot, but NOT from time domain parameter
estimation.
Gain uncertainty

phase uncertainty

18

z Handling model uncertainty for robust stability

Unit circle

z However, there has no effective techniques to model

plant inaccuracy in time domain approaches (root locus,
modern control)

19

1.3Design Requirement/performance specifications

Some of the primary design requirements can be
transcribed into properties of the dominant poles of T(z) in
the time domain, such as
(A-1) Transient performance tr, ts, PO (i.e., and N)
(B) Stability margin (in terms of )
(C) Steady state error (KP, KV, Ka)
(D) Noise attenuation
(E) Disturbance rejection/ sensitivity reduction (often
equivalent to tracking)
z Transient performances can be transcribed into
(1) overshoot

0.6(1 PO /100)

(2) Rise time tr

N 1.8
tr

(3) settling time tS

wn 4.6 / ts

That is, the locations of the pair of dominant poles are

allowed to appear only in the following region

20

j
n

= wn

= wn

with the step responses of a second order system (dominant

poles) shown below

21

where

z Stability margin measured by

=0 j
1>>0
<0

= wn

22

z Steady state error (KP, KV, Ka)

KP measures the capability of a system to follow a
constant step command (polynomial of zero degree), and
the steady state error following a step command is
eSS

1
KP

For system type zero,

K PL( s) S =0 = P( s) K ( S ) H

S =0

For system type I, there is a pure integrator in L(s), hence

1l
K PL( s) S =0 = L
(s)
= eSS 1 = 0
,
s
KP
S =0
For system type II, there are 2 pure integrators, hence

K PL( s) S =0 =

1 l
L( s)
= eSS 1 = 0
2
,
s
KP
S =0

KV measures the capability of a system to follow a

ramp command (polynomial of first degree), and the steady
state error following a ramp command is
eSS =
23

1
KV

For system type zero,

1
e
=
=
KV0 hence SS
KV

For system type I, there is a pure integrator in L(s), and

K VsL( s) S =0 = sP( s) K ( S ) H

S =0

For system type II, there are 2 pure integrators, hence

K PsL( s) S =0 =

s l
L( s)
= eSS 1 = 0
2
,
s
KP
S =0

Ka measures the capability of a system to follow a

parabolic command (polynomial of 2nd degree), and the
steady state error following a ramp command is
eSS =

1
Ka

For system type zero and , system type I

1
e
=
=
K a0 hence SS
Ka

For system type II, there are 2 pure integrators, hence

2

K as L( s)

S =0

s2 l
= 2 L( s)
= constant
,
s
S =0
24

eSS

1
= limited > 0
Ka

Steady state error

system
Type 0

Type I

Type II

Step command

Ramp command

Parabolic commnad

KP

KV

0
1

Ka

z Unfortunately, there is no quantitative rules to measure

noise attenuation and disturbance rejection in the time
domain except a rough concept that the larger the input
control effort u(t) (or the larger the dc gain of the
controller), the larger the noise amplification rate.
Therefore it has been taken as a rule that the dc gain of
the controller should be kept as small as possible.

25

1.4Classifications of systems and ODE

y(t)+ a2(y , y )y(t)+ a1(y , y )y(t)= u(t)

(1.1)

is nonlinear ODE (system)


y (t)+ a2(t)y(t)+ a1(t)y(t)= u(t)

(1.2)

is a linear, time varying ODE (system)


y (t)+ a2y(t)+ a1y (t)= b1u (t)+ u(t)

(1.3)

is a linear, time invariant ODE (system)

Superposition principleLet u(t)= u (t)+ u (t) , y1(t)
1

and y2(t) be responses due to u1(t) & u2(t), respectively, then

y(t)= y1(t)+ y2(t)

(1.4)

In a linear system output is proportional to input.

Superposition fails for nonlinear systems

Transfer function
Applying Laplace transform to Eq. (1), it gives

s3Y(s)s2y(0)sy (0) y(0) + a2 s2Y(s)sy(0) y (0)

+ a1 sY(s) y(0) = b1 sU(s)u(0) +U(s)

26

Assuming zero initial condition

y(0)= y (0)= y(0)= u(0)= 0 ,

one obtained

3
2

s + a2s + a1sY(s)= b1s+ 1U(s)

That is

b s+ 1
P(s) = Y(s) = 3 1 2
U(s) s + a2s + a1s

(1.5)

Zero polynomial
(1.6)

Pole polyno.
A transfer function description can be obtained from the
ODE by assuming zero initial conditions
Zero polynomial represents differential operators on the
input, while pole polynomial represents differential
operators on the output
To obtain an ODE from a transfer function, convert (6)
into (5), then convert (5) into (3).
However, a transfer function does not exist for a linear
time varying system since Laplace transform is not
applicable.

27

1.5Transfer function and ODE

Consider a general linear, time-invariant ODE

y(n)(t)+ a1y(n1)(t)+ a2y(n2)(t)+...+ any(t)=

b0u(m)(t)+ b1u(m1)(t)+ b2u(m2)(t)+...+ bmu(t)

(1.7)

Applying Laplace transform to the ODE, one obtains

snY(s)sn1y(0)sn2y (0)...sy(n2)(0) y(n1)(0)

+a

sn1Y(s)sn2 y(0)...sy(n3)(0) y(n2)(0)

+a

sn2Y(s)sn3y(0)...sy(n4)(0) y(n5)(0)

+a3 ... + a4 ... +...+ an1 sY(s) y(0) + an Y(s)

=b

+b

smU(s)sm1u(0)...su(m2)(0)u(m1)(0)

(8)

sm1U(s)sm2u(0)...su(m3)(0)u(m2)(0)

+b

sm2U(s)sm3u(0)...su(m4)(0)u(m5)(0)

m1

+b ... + b ... +...+ b

sU(s)u(0) + b U(s)

Collecting similar terms

28

snY(s)+ a1sn1Y(s)+ a2sn2Y(s)+...+ an1sY(s)+ anY(s)

+C(ai , y(i)(0), si )

(10)

= b0smU(s)+b1sm1U(s)+...+bm1sU(s)+bmU(s)
+D(bi , u( j)(0), s j )

Under zero initial conditions, (8) and (9) reduces to

sn + a1sn1 + a2sn2 +...+ an1s+ an Y(s)

+0

= b0sm + b1sm1 +...+ bm1s+ bm U(s)

(1.11)

+0

Therefore,

b0sm +b1sm1 +...+bm1s+bm

Y
(
s
)
P(s)=
= n
[ 0, 1] (1.12)
n

1
U(s) s + a s +...+ a s+ an
1
n1
To solve for the non-zero initial response,
(i) Convert (12) into (11),
(ii) then convert (11) into (7)
(iii)

Solve for (7) with non-zero initial conditions

Transfer function description = ODE description.

29

1.6: Multivariable (MIMO) system

z A system is called a Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output if
consists of more than one inputs and/or more than one
outputs.
z For instance, consider a mill plant rolling papers or
steels as depicted below
u2 = P
u1 = T
y1 = t
y2 = v
where
u1 = Tpulling force, 1st input
u2 = Prolling pressure, 2nd input
y1 = tproduction speed, 1st output
y2 = vthickness of the plate or paper, 2nd output
Let the dynamics between u1 and y1 be captured by the
30

transfer function P11(s) so that

P11 ( s ) 

Y1 ( s )
U1 ( s )

or Y1 ( s ) = P11 ( s )U1 ( s )

(1.25)

Y2 ( s )
U 2 ( s)

or Y2 ( s ) = P22 ( s )U 2 ( s )

(1.26)

Similarly,

P22 ( s ) 

However, when the pulling force u1 = T increases to

speed up the process, it inevitably leads to a reduction in
the thickness y2 = t as a side effect. That is, the 2nd output is
also affected by the 1st input. This is called the coupling
effect.
Similarly, when the rolling pressure u2 = P increase to
reduce the thickness y2 = t, it also increases the friction
force between the rollers and the plate and thereby slow
down the process (i.e., decreases production speed y1 = v).
That is, the 1st output is also affected by the 2nd input.
Let the coupling effect be captured by

P12 ( s ) 

Y1 ( s )
U 2 ( s)

or Y1 ( s ) = P12 ( s )U 2 ( s )
31

(1.27)

P21 ( s ) 

Y2 ( s )
U1 ( s )

or Y2 ( s ) = P21 ( s )U1 ( s )

(1.28)

Then the complete dynamical relationships between the

inputs and outputs described by Eqs. (1.25)~(1.28) can be
rewritten in a matrix form as shown below

Y1 ( s ) P11 ( s ) P12 ( s ) U1 ( s )
Y ( s ) = P ( s ) P ( s ) U ( s )
22
2 21
2
U 1 ( s )
 P( s)

U
(
s
)
2

(1.29)

where P(s) is called the transfer function matrix of the

multivariable process.
z Other multivariable processes
Space vehicles
Control-configured flights
High purity chemical process

32

View publication stats