98

CHAPTER 4

DESIGN OF STATE FEEDBACK CONTROLLERS AND

STATE OBSERVERS USING REDUCED ORDER MODEL

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The design of systems using state space model for the design is
called as modern control design and its is having an advantage of providing a
complete (internal) description of the system. The power of state variable
method is the design can be done with more than one control input and also
the inner variables (state variables) are used for feedback for satisfying the
desired performance.

Darouach et al (1996) dealt with a method based on the generalized

constrained Sylvester equation for the design of reduced order observer for
descriptor systems with unknown inputs. New conditions for the existence of
reduced-order linear functional state observers for linear systems with
unknown inputs were presented by Trinh et al (2004). Systematic procedures
for the synthesis of reduced-order functional observers were given. It is stated
that the attractive feature of the proposed observer was the simplicity with
which the design process can be accomplished. Illustrative examples had been
given to illustrate the attractiveness and simplicity of the design procedures.

Weiwen and Zhigiang (2003) presented a comparison study of

performances and characteristics of three advanced state observers, including
the high-gain observers, the sliding-mode observers and the extended state
 99

observers. These observers were originally proposed to address the

dependence of the classical observers, such as the Kalman filter and the
Luenberger observer, on the accurate mathematical representation of the
plant. It was observed that, the extended state observer was much superior in
dealing with dynamic uncertainties, disturbances and sensor noise. Several
novel nonlinear gain functions were proposed to address the difficulty in
dealing with unknown initial conditions with simulation and experimental
results.

In this chapter, state controller and observer are designed using the
reduced second order model obtained using the suggested technique.
Examples from chapter 2 are considered for the design of state controller and
state observer.

4.1.1 State Feedback Controller

The main objective in the design of state feedback control is to

yield desirable closed loop response in terms of both transient and steady state
characteristics. For the design of state feedback controllers, pole placement is
the technique which is used to place the closed loop poles of the system in pre
determined locations. The location of poles corresponds directly to the Eigen
value of the system, which can control the characteristics of the system. If the
open loop system is state controllable in nature, then an arbitrary closed loop
eigen value using the state feedback can be easily achieved.

4.1.2 State Observer

In the control system design, state feedback requires all the state
variables for all the time. In most of the practical situations, the availability of
all the state variables for the measurement is not possible and for such cases,
 100

if the system is completely observable with a given set of outputs, then it is

possible to determine the states. These states are not directly measured and
their Eigen values can be arbitrarily assigned using state feedback. State
observer is a device, which provides an estimate of the unknown internal state
of the system from the input and output of the corresponding system.

4.2 DESIGN OF STATE FEEDBACK CONTROLLER FOR

LTICS

Consider an nth order stable linear time invariant system described

by the transfer function given in Equation (4.1):

b m s m  b m  1 s m  1  b m  2 s m  2  ........  b 0
s n  a n  1 s n  1  a n  2 s n  2  .......... ....  a 0
G (s) (4.1)

where, ai (0 ” i ” n) and bi (0 ” i ” m) are scalar constants and m”n.

The state model of Equation (4.1) in controllable canonical form is

given as in Equations (4.2) and (4.3)

Ax  Bu
.
x (4.2)

y Cx  Du (4.3)

where,

u is the input

y is the output

x is the state vector.

 101

ª 0 0 º
« 0 0 »»
1 0 . . .

«
0 1 . . .
« . . »
« »
. . . . .
A is the state vector A « . . »
« . . »
. . . . .

« »
. . . . .
« 0 1 »
« a  a n 1 »¼
0 0 . . .
¬ 0  a1  a2 . . .

ª0º
«0»
« »
«.»
« »
B is the input vector B «.»
«.»
« »
«.»
«1 »
¬ ¼

C is the output vector.

Assuming that the pair (A, B) is controllable there exist a feedback

matrix K such that closed loop system Eigen values can be placed in arbitrary
locations. The representation of the system with state feedback is represented
in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Representation of System with state feedback

 102

The control law is given in Equation (4.4).

u  Kx (4.4)

where,

Gain matrix K >k 0 k1 . . . . k n1 @

The closed loop dynamics of the system i. e. the system with state
feedback controller is represented in Equations (4.5) and (4.6):

sI  ( A  BK ) 0 (4.5)

ª º
« »
0 1 0 . . . 0

« »
0 0 1 . . . 0
« »
« »
. . . . . . .
( A  BK ) « » (4.6)
« »
. . . . . . .

« »
. . . . . . .
« »
«(  a  k ) (  a  k ) (  a  k ) ( a n1  k n1 )»¼
0 0 0 . . . 1
¬ 0 0 1 1 2 2 . . .

Thus the problem is to find K so that the desired characteristic

polynomial of (A-BK) matches the desired characteristic polynomial.

Therefore the transfer function of system given in Equation (4.1)

with state feedback controller is as in Equation (4.7).

b m s m  b m  1 s m  1  b m  2 s m  2  ........  b 0
 ( a n  1  k n  1 ) s n  1  ( a n  2  k n  2 ) s n  2  ......  ( a 0  k 0 )
G contr ( s )
sn

(4.7)
 103

4.2.1 Pseudo Code for the Design of State Feedback Controller for
LTICS

Get the higher order original system in state space model as in

Equations (4.2) and (4.3).

If (system is controllable)

{ If(order of the system>2)

Convert the state space model into transfer function

Reduce into second order system using algorithm explained in

chapter 2.

Convert the transfer function into controllable canonical state

model.

1. Calculate the value of the state feedback controller gain

matrix K by comparing the desired and characteristic
polynomials.

2. Tune the values of K using PSO.

3. Construct the transfer function for the reduced system with

state feedback controller.

4. From step3, derive the transfer function of original system

with controller.

5. Verify the response of the system with and without controller.

Endif
 104

4.2.2 Algorithm to Design State Feedback Controller for LTICS

Step 1: Get the higher order original system in state space model as in
Equations (4.2) and (4.3).

Step 2: Check for the controllability of the given system.

Step 3: Convert the state space model into transfer function model using the
Equation (4.8):

G (s) C ( sI  A )  1 B (4.8)

Step 4: Using the proposed method of model reduction explained in chapter

2, convert the higher order transfer function given in (4.8) into
second order model.

Step 5: Obtain the controllable canonical form (phase variable form) of the
second order reduced model as written in Equations (4.2) and (4.3).

Step 6: Using the state model of reduced system, obtain the characteristic
polynomial of the given system using the Equation (4.9)

sI  A 0 (4.9)

s2+a1s+ a2 =0 (4.10)

where a1 and a2 are the coefficients of the polynomial.

Step 7: Get the desired specifications settling time and percentage

overshoot. Using the specifications, calculate the desired damping
ratio (į) and natural frequency of oscillation (Ȧn).

Step 8: Using Equation (4.11), the desired characteristic polynomial is

obtained as in Equation (4.12).
 105

s2+2 įȦns+ Ȧn2=0 (4.11)

where į is the damping ratio and

Ȧn is the natural frequency of oscillation.

S2Į1s+ Į2 =0 (4.12)

where, Į1 and Į2 are the coefficients of the polynomial.

Step 9: The state feedback gain matrix is calculated using Equations (4.10)
and (4.12) as:

K=[( Į2-a2) ( Į1-a1)] (4.13)

Step 10: The values of gain matrix K are tuned using PSO in such a way that
the desired specifications are met.

Step 11: Using the calculated gain matrix K in Equation (4.13), the
controllable canonical form of the reduced model with state
feedback controller R contr s  is constructed and the corresponding
transfer function is also calculated.

Step 12: From the transfer function of reduced model with state feedback
controller obtained in step 11, the transfer function of the original
system with state feedback controller G contr s  is constructed by
reversing the procedure of model reduction.

Step 13: By comparing original higher order system shown in Equation (4.1)
and G contr s  , controller gain matrix is calculated.

Step 14: Verify the step response of the G contr s  , for the desired

specifications.
 106

4.3 DESIGN OF STATE FEEDBACK CONTROLLER FOR

LTIDS

The state model for the discrete system is given in Equation (4.14)
and Equation (4.15).

x( k  1) Ax (k )  Bu( k ) (4.14)

y ( k ) Cx(k )  Du (k ) (4.15)

where,

x is the state vector

A is the state vector of size nxn

B is the input vector of size nx1

C is the output vector of size 1xn

D is the state vector of size nxn

For the system to be completely controllable, the control law is

given in Equation (4.16).

u (k )  Kx (4.16)

where,

Gain matrix K >k 0 k1 . . . . k n1 @

The closed loop dynamics of the system i. e. the system with state
feedback controller is shown in Equations (4.5) and (4.6)
 107

4.3.1 Pseudo Code for the Design of State Feedback Controller for
LTIDS
Get the higher order original system in state space model as in
Equations (4.14) and (4.15)

If (system is controllable)

{ If (order of the system>2)

Convert the state space model into transfer function.

Reduce into second order system using algorithm given in Chapter 2.

Convert the transfer function into controllable canonical state

model

1. Calculate the value of the state feedback controller gain

matrix K by comparing the desired and characteristic
polynomials.

2. Tune the values of K using PSO.

3. Construct the transfer function for the reduced system with

state feedback controller.

4. From above step derive the transfer function of original

system with controller.

5. Verify the response of the system with and without controller.

Endif
 108

4.3.2 Algorithm to Design State Feedback Controller for LTIDS

Step 1: Get the higher order original system in state space model as in
Equations (4.14) and (4.15).

Step 2: Check for the controllability of the given system using Ackerman’s
formula.

Step 3: Obtain the transfer function model of the given discrete system using
(4.17) and check for the specifications.

G (z) C ( zI  A )  1 B (4.17)

Step 4: If the specifications are not met, convert into continuous domain
using transformation technique and obtain the reduced model in
continuous domain.

Step 5: Using the algorithm explained in section 4.2.1, design state feedback
controller and obtain the gain matrix K for reduced model. The
values are tuned using PSO in such a way that the required
specifications are met.

Step 6: Convert the continuous model into discrete model using inverse
transformation technique.

Step 7: Construct the higher order discrete time transfer function using the
inverse procedure of model reduction.

Step 8: Verify the desired specifications.

 109

4.4 ILLUSTRATIONS

Example 4.1

Consider a higher order system in the context of Palaniswami et al

(2000) shown in state space as:

ª 0 0 º
« 0 0 »»
1 0 0 0 0 0
« 0 1 0 0 0 0
« 0 0 »
« »
0 0 1 0 0 0
« 0 0 »
« 0 0 »
0 0 0 1 0 0
A ;
« »
0 0 0 0 1 0
« 0 0 »
« 0 1 »
0 0 0 0 0 1

« »
0 0 0 0 0 0
¬« 17760  45952  46350  24469  7669  1558  220  21¼»
ª0º
«0»
« »
«0»
« »
«0»
«0»
B
« »
«0»
«0»
« »
«¬1 »¼

C >194480 482964 511812 278376 82402 13285 1086 35@ ;

D >0@

The transfer function of the given system is obtained using

Equation (4.8) as:

35 s 7  1086 s 6  13285 s 5  82402 s 4  278376 s 3  511812 s 2  482964 s  194480

s 8  21s 7  220 s 6  1558 s 5  7669 s 4  24469 s 3  46350 s 2  45952 s  17760
G(S )
 110

The second order model using the proposed method of model

reduction explained in Chapter 2 section 2.5 is:

19655s  194480
499s 2  910s  17760
R2 ( s)

On rearranging the above equation,

39.39s  389.7395
s  1.8236s  35.5912
R2 (s) (4.18)
2

The controllable canonical form of the reduced model is derived in

Equation (4.19) using Equations (4.2) and (4.3):

ª
A «
0 1 º
» ; B
ª0º
«1» ; C >389.7395 39.388]@ ; D >0@
¬ 35.5912  1.8236¼ ¬ ¼
(4.19)

For a choice of designer’s specification shown in section 3.2.3, the

characteristic polynomial in Equation (4.20) is obtained using Equation (4.11)
as:

s2+1.8236s+35.5912=0 (4.20)

with settling time ts”1 sec

percentage overshoot”2%

damping ratio į =0.779 and

natural frequency of oscillation Ȧn = 6.418.

The desired characteristic polynomial in Equation (4.21) is

obtained using Equation (4.11).

s2+10s+41.19=0 (4.21)
 111

Therefore, the gain matrix K is calculated as:

K=[5.5988 8.1764]

The values of the K matrix are tuned using PSO and the tuned
values of K are obtained as: K= [0 8.44].

The transfer function of reduced model with state feedback

controller is given in Equation 4.22.

39.39s  389.7395
s 2  10.26s  35.59
Rcontr ( s) (4.22)

By reversing the procedure of model reduction, the transfer

function of the original system with state controller is calculated as in
Equation (4.23):

35 s 7  1086 s 6  13285 s 5  82402 s 4  278376 s 3  511812 s 2 

482964 s  194480
0 .7489 s  24 .7731 s  345 .52 s 6  2657 .143 s 5  12192 . 058 s 4 
G contr ( S ) 8 7

33750 .915 s 3  54317 . 396 s 2  47890 . 04 s  17760

(4.23)
The gain of the original system is,

K= [0 1938.04 7967.396 9281.915 4253.58 1099.142 125.52 3.7731].

The step responses of the original system and reduced system with
the designed state feedback controller are shown in Figures 4.2 and 4.3.
 112

Step Response of Original System without and with State Controller

20
Original system
18 Original system with State Controller

16

14

12
Output

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (seconds)

Figure 4.2 Comparison of step responses of original system with and

without state controller of Example 4.1

Step Response of Reduced System without and with State Controller

20
Reduced system
18 Reduced system with State Controller

16

14

12
Output

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (seconds)

Figure 4.3 Comparison of step responses of reduced system with and

without state controller of Example 4.1
 113

From Figures 4.2 and 4.3, it is observed that proposed reduced

system with state feedback controller follows the original system with state
feedback controller. Both the responses indicate that the overshoot present in
the original system is completely eliminated. Here the design complexity is
reduced by using the second order model.

Example 4.2

Consider the given third order system:

ª 0 0 º
« 0 1 »;
1
« »
A 0
«¬ 13  33  13»¼

ª 0º
« 0»
« »
B
«¬1»¼

C >13 46 0@

D 0

The transfer function model for the given system in Equation 4.24
is obtained using Equation (4.8).

46s  13
s  13s 2  33s  13
G( s) 3
(4.24)

By using the proposed method of model reduction, the reduced

model of Equation (4.24) is obtained as in Equation (4.25).

42.4154 s  13
12.528 s 2  12.5803s  13
R2 ( s ) (4.25)
 114

On rearranging the above equation,

3.3856s  1.03767
s 2  2.361s  1.03767
R2 (s) (4.26)

The characteristic polynomial from Equation (4.26) is written as in

Equation (4.27).

s2+2.361s+1.03767=0 (4.27)

By comparing Equation (4.27) with desired characteristic

polynomial represented in Equation (4.21), the gain matrix is calculated as:
K= [40.1523 7.639]

The values are tuned using PSO and the tuned values are: K= [0 1.3077]

With the state feedback controller, the transfer function of the

reduced system is obtained as in Equation (4.28):

3.3856s  1.03767
s 2  3.6687s  1.03767
Rcontr ( s) (4.28)

The transfer function of original system with controller is obtained

by reversing the procedure of model reduction. The transfer function is
obtained as in Equation (4.29)

46s  13
s 3  10.5495 2  49.554s  13
G contr ( s) (4.29)

The step responses of original and reduced systems with and

without state feedback controller are given in Figures (4.4) and (4.5).
 115

Step Response of Original System without and with State Controller

1.5
Original system
Original system with State Controller

1
Output

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (seconds)

Figure 4.4 Comparison of step responses of original system with and

without state controller of Example 4.2

Step Response of Reduced System without and with State Controller

1.5
Reduced system
Reduced system with State Controller

1
Output

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (seconds)

Figure 4.5 Comparison of step responses of reduced system with and

without state controller of Example 4.2
 116

From the step responses of proposed reduced system with state

feedback controller and original system with state feedback controller shown
in Figures 4.4 and 4.5, it is observed that it is possible to design a state
feedback controller only with the reduced second order model to satisfy the
designer’s specification. Both the responses indicate that the maximum peak
overshoot present in the original system is minimised.

Example 4.3

Consider eighth order discrete system from Ravichandran et al

(2007),

ª 0 º
« 0 »»
0 1 0 0 0 0 0
« 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
« 0 »
« »
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
« 0 »
« 0 »
0 0 0 0 1 0 0
A ;
« »
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
« 0 »
« 1 »
0 0 0 0 0 0 1

« »
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
«¬ 0.0022 0.0165  0.0983  0.1935 0.0570  0.0788 0.4185 0.6308»¼

ª0º
«0»
« »
«0»
« »
«0»
«0»
B
« »
«0»
«0»
« »
¬«1 ¼»

C > 0.0022 0.0055  0.0328  0.0645 0.0190  0.0262 0.1395 0.2102@ ;

 117

The transfer function of the given system is obtained as:

1.682 z 7  1.116 z 6  0.21z 5  0.152 z 4  0.516 z 3  0.262 z 2  0.044 z  0.018

8 z 8  5.046 z 7  3.348 z 6  0.63 z 5  0.456 z 4  1.548 z 3  0.786 z 2  0.132 z  0.018
G( z)

(4.30)

The eighth order original system is transformed into G (s) as in

Equation (4.31) by using Bilinear transformation, z 1  s .

1 s

 0.0015s 8  1.196 s 7  11.66 s 6  25.6 s 5  17.78 s 4  66.37 s 3  223.4 s 2  257.5 s  63.62

s 8  19.66 s 7  146.5s 6  526.8 s 5  1168s 4  1601s 3  1114 s 2  256 s  64
G (S )

(4.31)

Using the proposed algorithm of model reduction, the reduced

model is obtained as in Equation (4.32):

117.9429s  63.62
772.8146s 2  117.4470s  64
R2 ( s ) (4.32)

On rearranging the above Equation (4.32)

0.1526s  0.08232
s  0.15197 s  0.083
R2 ( s )
2
(4.33)

The controllable form state model of Equation (4.33) is given in

Equation (4.34).

ª 0 º ª0 º
A « » ; B « »;
1
¬ 0.083  0.15197¼ ¬1 ¼

C >0.08232 0.152 @ ; D >0@ (4.34)

 118

The characteristic polynomial of Equation (4.33) is given in

Equation 4.35.

s2+0.15197s+0.083=0 (4.35)

For the choice of performance specification given in section 3.2.3, the desired
characteristic polynomial is obtained as in Equation (4.36).

s2+10s+41.19=0 (4.36)

Therefore the gain matrix K is calculated using Equations (4.35)

and (4.36) as: K=[41.1070 9.8480].

Using PSO, the values of the K matrix are tuned and the tuned
values of controller gain matrix K are

K= [0 0.4]

Therefore, the transfer function of reduced system with state

feedback controller is given in Equation 4.37.

0.1526s  0.08232
s 2  0.552s  0.083
Rcontr ( s ) (4.37)

By applying the inverse transformation technique, the reduced ‘s’

domain model of Equation (4.37) is converted into discrete model as in
Equation (4.38).

0.1526 z  0.07028
z 2  1.448z  0.531
Rcontr ( z ) (4.38)

The controller gain matrix in discrete domain is:

K= [-0.339 0.4]
 119

The transfer function of given higher order discrete system

Equation (4.39) is obtained by applying inverse reduction procedure to
Equation (4.38).

1.682 z 7  1.116 z 6  0.21z 5  0.152 z 4  0.516 z 3  0.262 z 2  0.044 z  0.018

8 z 8  5.046 z 7  3.348 z 6  0.63 z 5  0.456 z 4  1.548 z 3  0.786 z 2  0.132 z  0.018
Gcontr ( z )

(4.39)
The comparison of step responses of original and reduced systems
with state controller is shown in Figures (4.6) and (4.7). It is depicted that the
system with state feedback controller produces minimum rise time, settling
time and peak overshoot.

Comparison of Step Responses of Original System with and without state controller
1.8

1.6
Original system
1.4 Original system with state controller

1.2

1
Output

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sampling instant

Figure 4.6 Comparison of step responses of reduced system with and

without state controller of Example 4.3
 120

Comparison of Step Responses of Reduced System with and without state controller
1.8

1.6
Reduced system
1.4
Reduced system with state controller

1.2

1
Output

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Sampling instant

Figure 4.7 Comparison of step responses of reduced system with and

without state controller of Example 4.3

4.5 DESIGN OF STATE OBSERVER

In the design of state observer, the observer gain G is selected in

such a way that the continuous error dynamics converges to zero
asymptotically.

Consider linear time invariant system shown in Equation (4.2) and

Equation (4.3). The error dynamics is given by (A - GC). If this is stable in
nature, the error vector will converge to zero for any initial error i. e. the
estimated value reaches the original value, where G is the observer gain
matrix.
 121

4.5.1 Pseudo Code for State Observer Design

Get the higher order original system in state space model as in

Equation (4.2) and Equation (4.3).

If ( system is LTIDS)

{If (system is Observable)

{If(order of the system>2)

Convert the state space model into transfer function.

Reduce into second order system using the proposed algorithm

explained in chapter 2 section 2.5

Convert the transfer function into observable form of state model.

1. Calculate the value of the state observer gain matrix by

comparing the desired and characteristic polynomials.

2. Tune the values of Observer gain matrix using PSO and obtain
optimized values.

3. Construct the transfer function for the reduced system with

state observer.

4. Derive the transfer function of original system with observer.

5. Convert LTICS into LTIDS.

6. Verify the response of the system with and without observer.

Endif

Endif
 122

4.5.2 Algorithm for State observer Design

Step 1: Get the higher order system.

Step 2: Check for the observability of the system.

Step 3: If the system is observable, convert the state model into transfer
function model by using Equation (4.8).

Step 4: Check for the desired specifications. If the specifications are not
met, derive the reduced model for the given system using the
proposed method of model reduction as in Equation (2.2) and
obtain the observable phase variable form of it.

Step 5: Obtain the characteristic polynomial of reduced system as in

Equation (4.10).

Step 6: From the desired characteristics, derive the desired polynomial as

in Equation (4.12).

Step 7: From Equations (4.10) and (4.12) determine the observer gain
matrix as:

ªD 2  a 2 º
«D  a »
¬ 1 1¼
G

Step 8: The values of G are tuned using PSO to get the desired
specifications.

Step 9: Using the tunes values of G, obtain the state space model of
reduced system with observer.

Step 10: The transfer function of reduced system with state observer is
obtained from state space model.

Step 11: The transfer function of the original system with state observer is
obtained from reduced system with state observer by applying
inverse procedure of model reduction.
 123

4.6 ILLUSTRATIONS

Example 4.4

Consider the eighth order system function from Palaniswami et al

(2000):

35 s 7  1086 s 6  13285 s 5  82402 s 4  278376 s 3  511812 s 2  482964 s  194480

s 8  21s 7  220 s 6  1558 s 5  7669 s 4  24469 s 3  46350 s 2  45952 s  17760
G(S )

Using the proposed method explained in Chapter 2 section 2.5, the

second order model is obtained as:

19655s  194480
499s 2  910s  17760
R2 ( s )

On rearranging the above equation,

39.39s  389.7395
s 2  1.8236s  35.5912
R2 (s) (4.40)

By considering the desired characteristic polynomial given in

Equation (4.21) and characteristic polynomial from Equation (4.40), the
observer gain matrix is obtained as:

ª0.0166º
«0.0437»
¬ ¼
G

The values are tuned using Particle Swarm Optimisation. The

parameters for the tuning process are selected from section 2.4.1 to get the
desired performance. The Gain matrix with tuned values is,

ª0.040º
«0.023»
¬ ¼
G
 124

Therefore the transfer function of reduced system with state

observer is obtained in Equation (4.41).

39.39s  389.74
s  12.36s  35.28
Robs ( s ) 2
(4.41)

By applying the reverse procedure of model reduction, the transfer

function of original system with state observer is obtained in Equation (4.41).

35s7  1086s6  13285s5  82402s4  278376s3  511812s2  482964s  194480

0.888s8  29.762s7  414.919s6  3127.962s5  13873.177s4  36879.49s 3 
G obs (S)

57282.07s2  48105.56s  17604

(4.42)
The comparison of step responses is given in Figures 4.8
and 4.9. The state observer designed using the proposed second order system
satisfies satisfying the desired specification of response without overshoot.
Hence the design complexity is reduced in the process designing state
observer for a higher order system.
Step Response of Original System without and With state observer
20
Original system
18 Original system with state observer

16

14

12
Output

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time

Figure 4.8 Comparison of step responses of original system with and

without state observer of Example 4.4
 125

Step Response of Reduced System without and With state observer

20
Reduced system
18 Reduced system with state observer

16

14

12

Output
10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time

Figure 4.9 Comparison of step responses of reduced system with and

without state observer of Example 4.4

Design of State controller from State observer:

The characteristic polynomial is obtained from Equation (4.41) as:

s 2  12.36 s  35.28 0

The value of Gain matrix is obtained as:

K=[5.91 -2.36]

The values are tuned using PSO and the tuned values are:

K=[0 -2.7838]

Using the tuned gain matrix the transfer function of the reduced order
system with state controller is given in Equation (4.43)

39.39s  389.74
s  9.576s  35.28
Rcon ( s ) 2
(4.43)

By applying the reverse procedure of model reduction, the transfer

function of original system with state controller is obtained as in Equation
(4.44).
 126

35s 7  1086 s 6  13285 s 5  82402 s 4  278376 s 3  511812 s 2  482964 s  194480 (4.44)

0.5558 s 8  27.288 s 7  362.66 s 6  2706.388 s 5  12223 .23s 4  3354.3s 3
G (S )

 54665 .86 s 2  39928 .53s  17760

The Figure (4.10) shows the comparison of step responses of original

system with and without state controller.

Step Response of original Syst em without and With state Controller

20
Original system
18 original syst em with stat e controller

16

14

12
Output

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
T ime (seconds)

Figure 4.10 Comparison of step responses of original system with and

without state controller of Example 4.4

4.7 SUMMARY

The design of state feedback controller and observer using

proposed second order model is explained through illustrative examples
selected from Chapter 2. From the step responses of the proposed reduced
system with state feedback controller and original system with state feedback
controller for various Examples, it is observed that the design complexity can
be reduced by using simple second order model. The state observer designed
using the proposed second order system also satisfies the desired specification
of response without overshoots. Hence the design complexity is reduced in
the process designing state observer for a higher order system.