Adaptive Control Theory: Pole-Placement and Indirect STR

NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY
Department of Mechanical Engineering
ADAPTIVE CONTROL
HOMEWORK 5
Instructor:
Ming Shaung Ju
Student:
Nguyen Van Thanh
Student ID:
P96007019
Department:
Inst. of Manufacturing & Information Systems
Class:
1001- N164400 - Adaptive Control
November 25, 2011
Contents
Problem 1 ...................................................................................................................... 2
Problem 2 .................................................................................................................... 13
Problem 3 .................................................................................................................... 37
Adaptive Control Theory HW5
Page 1
Problem 1
Consider a process
Transfer function of the process:

() =
0 + 1
()
=
2 + 1 + 2 ()
Transfer function of the desired closed-loop system:
Where,
() =
0
()
=
2 + 1 + 2 ()
0 = 0.1761
1 = 1.3205
2 = 0.4966
A general linear controller:
() = () ()
Our job is to define three polynomials: R, S and T.
(a) Design a controller in which the stable zero of process model is canceled.
Step 1:
Page 2
We can see that

() = +
1
1
0.08118
1
= 0.6927
0 + = 0 = =
0.1172
0
0
0
|| =
1
<1
0
= + = +
0 0
1
+ = +
= 0
deg() = 2, deg() = 1
Let deg( ) = 2 deg() 1 = 2 2 1 = 3
deg() = deg( ) deg() = 3 2 = 1
deg() deg() , deg() = deg() 1 deg() = 1

deg(0 ) = deg() deg(+ ) 1 = 2 1 1 = 0
Choose 0 () = 1
= + , deg() = deg() = 1 deg( ) = 0 = 1
Step 2:
() = + () = +
1
= + 0.6927
0
The Diophantine equation:

+ = + + + = 0 + + = 0
Page 3
+ 0 =
(2 + 1 + 2 ) + 0 (0 + 1 ) = ( 2 + 1 + 2 )
2 + (1 + 0 0 ) + 2 + 0 1 = 2 + 1 + 2
By comparing coefficients of this equation, we obtain
1 1
= 1.0691
0
2 2
1 =
= 1.4556
0
0 =
Step 3:
=
= 0
0 +
= 0 = 0
The controller:
0
0
0
0
= 0
=1
0
= 1.5026
0
() = () ()
is thus characterized by the polynomials:
() = + 0.6927
() = 1.0691 1.4556
() = 1.5026
Plug these polynomials into the controller:
() = () ()
Page 4
( + 0.6927)() = 1.5026 () (1.0691 1.4556)()
(1 + 0.69271 )() = 1.5026 () (1.0691 1.45561 )()
() + 0.6927( 1) = 1.5026 () 1.0691() + 1.4556( 1)
() = 0.6927( 1) + 1.5026 () 1.0691() + 1.4556( 1)
(b) Design a controller in which no zero of process model is canceled. Choose a proper
delay d0.
Step 1:
No zero of process model is canceled = + = 1 deg(+ ) = 0
= = 0 + 1
=
= (deg( ) = deg() = 1)
=

() =
0 + 1
()
=
2 + 1 + 2 ()
Parameter is chosen such that ( = 1) = 1 =
1+1 +2
deg() = 2, deg() = 1
0 +1
= 0.8877
Let deg( ) = 2 deg() 1 = 2 2 1 = 3
deg() = deg( ) deg() = 3 2 = 1

deg(0 ) = deg() deg(+ ) 1 = 2 0 1 = 1
Choose 0 () = + 0 (|0 | < 1)

Page 5
Poles of the closed-loop system:

() = 0 2 + 1 + 2 = 0
1 = 0.6603 + 0.2463
2 = 0.6603 0.2463
|1 | = |2 | = 0.7047
0.7047 |0 | < 1
Again, 0 () = + 0 (0.7047 |0 | < 1)
= + = 1 = = + 1 ( )
= 0 + 1
Step 2:
+ = + + + = 0 + + = 0
( 2 + 1 + 2 )( + 1 ) + (0 + 1 )(0 + 1 ) = ( + 0 )(2 + 1 + 2 )
3 + (1 + 1 + 0 0 ) 2 + (1 1 + 2 + 0 1 + 1 0 ) + (2 1 + 1 1 )
= 3 + (0 + 1 ) 2 + (2 + 1 0 ) + 2 0
1 + 1 + 0 0 = 0 + 1
1 1 + 2 + 0 1 + 1 0 = 2 + 1 0
2 1 + 1 1 = 2 0
1 + 0 0 = 0 1 + 1
1 1 + 1 0 + 0 1 = 2 + 2 + 1 0
2 1 + 1 1 = 2 0
Page 6
1 = 0.88020 + 0.0830
= 1.02220 + 0.3611
0
1 = 1.11690 0.6820
0.7047 |0 | < 1
Step 3:
() = 0 = ( + 0 ) = 0.8877 + 0.88770 (0.7047 |0 | < 1)
The controller:
() = () ()
() = + 1
() = 0 + 1
Where
() = ( + 0 ) = + 0
1 = 0.88020 + 0.0830
= 1.0222 + 0.3611
0
0
1 = 1.11690 0.6820
0.7047 |0 | < 1
= 0.8877
() = () ()
( + 1 )() = ( + 0 ) () (0 + 1 )()
(1 + 1 1 )() = ( + 0 1 ) () (0 + 1 1 )()
() + 1 ( 1) = () + 0 ( 1) 0 () 1 ( 1)
Page 7
() = 1 ( 1) + () + 0 ( 1) 0 () 1 ( 1)
(c) Simulate above designs when command is a square wave of amplitude 1 and period
of 25 sampling periods. Test the effect of step disturbance on the tracking
performance. You may try step with different magnitude. (for simulating let a0 = 0.8)
1
Out1
Disturbance
Clock
MATLAB
Function
t0.z
b0.z+b1
z+r1
z2 +a1.z+a2
Command
T/R
B/A
Cmd & Opt
s0.z+s1
z+r1
S/R
Figure 1. Block diagram of sys with stable cancellation
Figure 2. Command & output, with stable zero cancellation
Page 8
Figure 3. Command & output, with stable zero cancellation, and step disturbance
Figure 4. Command & output, with no zero cancellation
Page 9
Figure 5. Command & output, with no zero cancellation, and step disturbance
(d) Compare the tracking performance, ringing of input and disturbance rejection of the
two designs. Discuss on the effect of time delay on the performance of the adaptive
controller. Plot y(t), uc(t) vs. t and u(t), e(t) vs. t.
Plot y(t), uc(t): we can see through Fig. 2 to Fig. 5. Two controllers have very same
performance (tracking and disturbance).
Discuss on the effect of time delay on the performance of the adaptive controller: we
should choose the time delay as small as possible. When the time delay is large that
means the output signal lags phase to the command signal. Hence, the performance of
the system is not good.
From Fig. 6 and Fig.8, the control input signal with stable zero cancellation design has a
severe oscillation (ringing) compare to that of no zero cancellation design
Page 10
Figure 6. Control input signal with stable zero cancellation design
Figure 7. Error between uc(t) and y(t), with stable zero cancellation design
Page 11
Figure 8. Control input signal with no zero cancellation design
Figure 9. Error between uc(t) and y(t), with no zero cancellation design
Page 12
Problem 2
Consider a process
(a) Design an indirect STR in which the stable zero of process model is canceled.
Transfer function of the process:
() =
()
0 + 1
=
2 + 1 + 2 ()
Where, parameters {a1, a2, b0, b1} are unknown constants.

Where,
() =
0
()
=
2 + 1 + 2 ()
0 = 0.1761
1 = 1.3205
2 = 0.4966
A general linear controller:
() = () ()
Page 13
Step 1: Estimate the coefficients of the polynomials A and B i.e. {a1, a2, b0, b1}, by
using the RLS:
() = 1 ( 1) 2 ( 2) + 0 ( 1) + 1 ( 2) = ( 1)
( 1) = [( 1) ( 2) ( 1) ( 2)]
= [1
The RLS with exponential forgetting is given by
1 ]
() = ( 1) + ()()
() = () ( 1)( 1)
() = ( 1)( 1) + ( 1)( 1)( 1)

Step 2:
() = ( () ( 1))( 1)/
With the stable zero of process model is canceled (this step for only define the degree of
the polynomials)
() = +
1
1
1
0 + = 0 =
0
0
0
|| =
1
< 1 |1 | < |0 |
0
= + = +
0 0
1
+ = +
= 0
Page 14
deg() = 2, deg() = 1
Let deg( ) = 2 deg() 1 = 2 2 1 = 3
deg() = deg( ) deg() = 3 2 = 1

deg(0 ) = deg() deg(+ ) 1 = 2 1 1 = 0
Choose 0 () = 1
= + , deg() = deg() = 1 deg( ) = 0 = 1

() = + () = +
1
= + 1
0
+ = + + + = 0 + + = 0
+ 0 =
(2 + 1 + 2 ) + 0 (0 + 1 ) = ( 2 + 1 + 2 )
2 + (1 + 0 0 ) + 2 + 0 1 = 2 + 1 + 2

1 1
0 =
0
2 2
1 =
0
=
= 0
+
Page 15
= 0 = 0
0
0
0
0
= 0
=1
0
= 0
0
() = + () = +
Step 3: Calculate the control law
1
= + 1
0
() = () ()
() + 1 ( 1) = 0 () 0 () 1 ( 1)
() = 1 ( 1) + 0 () 0 () 1 ( 1)
Repeat steps 1, 2 and 3 at each sampling period.
(b) Design an indirect STR in which no zero of process model is canceled. Choose a
proper delay d0.
Step 1: Estimate the coefficients of the polynomials A and B i.e. {a1, a2, b0, b1}, by
using the RLS:
() = 1 ( 1) 2 ( 2) + 0 ( 1) + 1 ( 2) = ( 1)
( 1) = [( 1) ( 2) ( 1) ( 2)]
= [1
The RLS with exponential forgetting is given by
1 ]
() = ( 1) + ()()
() = () ( 1)( 1)
Page 16
() = ( 1)( 1) + ( 1)( 1)( 1)

Step 2:
() = ( () ( 1))( 1)/
No zero of process model is canceled = + = 1 deg(+ ) = 0

= = 0 + 1
=
= (deg( ) = deg() = 1)
=

() =
0 + 1
()
=
2 + 1 + 2 ()
Parameter is chosen such that ( = 1) = 1 =
1+1 +2
deg() = 2, deg() = 1
0 +1
Let deg( ) = 2 deg() 1 = 2 2 1 = 3
deg() = deg( ) deg() = 3 2 = 1

deg(0 ) = deg() deg(+ ) 1 = 2 0 1 = 1
Choose 0 () = + 0 (|0 | < 1)

Poles of the closed-loop system:
() = 0 2 + 1 + 2 = 0
1 = 0.6603 + 0.2463
2 = 0.6603 0.2463
|1 | = |2 | = 0.7047
Page 17
0.7047 |0 | < 1
Again, 0 () = + 0 (0.7047 |0 | < 1)
= + = 1 = = + 1 ( )
= 0 + 1
+ = + + + = 0 + + = 0
( 2 + 1 + 2 )( + 1 ) + (0 + 1 )(0 + 1 ) = ( + 0 )(2 + 1 + 2 )
3 + (1 + 1 + 0 0 ) 2 + (1 1 + 2 + 0 1 + 1 0 ) + (2 1 + 1 1 )
= 3 + (0 + 1 ) 2 + (2 + 1 0 ) + 2 0
1 + 1 + 0 0 = 0 + 1
1 1 + 2 + 0 1 + 1 0 = 2 + 1 0
2 1 + 1 1 = 2 0
1 + 0 0 = 0 1 + 1
1 1 + 1 0 + 0 1 = 2 + 2 + 1 0
2 1 + 1 1 = 2 0
1
0
1
0.7047 |0 | < 1
Step 3:
() = 0 = ( + 0 ) (0.7047 |0 | < 1)
The controller:
() = () ()
Page 18

() = + 1
() = 0 + 1
() = ( + 0 ) = + 0
() = () ()
( + 1 )() = ( + 0 ) () (0 + 1 )()
(1 + 1 1 )() = ( + 0 1 ) () (0 + 1 1 )()
() + 1 ( 1) = () + 0 ( 1) 0 () 1 ( 1)
() = 1 ( 1) + () + 0 ( 1) 0 () 1 ( 1)
Repeat step 1, 2 and 3 at each sampling period.
(c) Simulate above designs using following process parameters [a1, a2, b0, b1] = [1.3735, 0.7006, 0.1231, 0.07712] and initial guess of above parameter vector [0, 0,
0.01, 0.2]. The command is a square wave of amplitude 1 and period of 25 sampling
periods. You may test the effect of disturbance on the tracking performance. Either
stochastic or deterministic disturbance can be used.
c.1. Stable zero cancellation:
From the true model, we can find the true R, S and T.
1 1
= 0.4305
0
2 2
1 =
= 1.6572
0
0 =
Page 19

= 0
=1
0
= 0 = 1.4305
0
() = + () = +
1
= + 1 = + 0.6265
0
() = 1 ( 1) + 0 () 0 () 1 ( 1)
() = 0.6265( 1) + 1.4305 () 0.4305() + 1.6572( 1)
A function is written in Matlab can solve this problem:
function [estmtd_theta,yhat,ue,e,re1,se0,se1,te0] =
adtvCtrolHw5_STR1(uc,u,y,lambda)
am1 = -1.3205; am2 = 0.4966;

bm0 = 0.1761;
numOfCoeffs = 4;
% number of coefficents
alpha = 100;
t = length(y);
j=1;
phi_1(:,j)=[0;u(1:t-1,j)];
phi_2(:,j)=[0;0;u(1:t-2,j)];
phi_3(:,j)=[0;-y(1:t-1,j)];
phi_4(:,j)=[0;0;-y(1:t-2,j)];
phi = [phi_1(:,j) phi_2(:,j) phi_3(:,j) phi_4(:,j)];
[M,N] = size(phi);
P = alpha*eye(N);
% initial condition for projection matrix
estmtd_theta(1,:) = [0.01 0.2 0 0]; % inital condition for [b0 b1 a1

a2]
yhat = zeros(1,t);
% estimated value
re1 = zeros(1,N);
Page 20
se0 = zeros(1,N);
se1 = zeros(1,N);
te0 = zeros(1,N);
% initial conditions for three polynomials
re1(1) = estmtd_theta(1,2)/estmtd_theta(1,1);
se0(1) = (am1 - estmtd_theta(1,3))/estmtd_theta(1,1);
se1(1) = (am2 - estmtd_theta(1,4))/estmtd_theta(1,1);
te0(1) = bm0/estmtd_theta(1,1);
e = zeros(1,t);
ue(1) = 0;
for i = 2:M-numOfCoeffs+1;
z = P*phi(i,:)';
K = z/(lambda + phi(i,:)*z);
yhat(i) = phi(i,:)*estmtd_theta(i-1,:).';
e(i) = y(i) - phi(i,:)*estmtd_theta(i-1,:).';
estmtd_theta(i,:) = estmtd_theta(i - 1,:) + e(i)*K.';
P = (P - K*z.')/lambda;
re1(i) = estmtd_theta(i,2)/estmtd_theta(i,1);
se0(i) = (am1 - estmtd_theta(i,3))/estmtd_theta(i,1);
se1(i) = (am2 - estmtd_theta(i,4))/estmtd_theta(i,1);
te0(i) = bm0/estmtd_theta(i,1);
ue(i) = - re1(i)*ue(i-1) + te0(i)*uc(i) - se0(i)*yhat(i) se1(i)*yhat(i-1);
end
end
Page 21
Figure 10. Output
Figure 11. Error between process output and estimated output
Page 22
Figure 12. Output with step disturbance
Page 23
c.2. No zero cancellation:

0 () = + 0 (0.7047 |0 | < 1)
1 + 1 + 0 0 = 0 + 1
1 1 + 2 + 0 1 + 1 0 = 2 + 1 0
2 1 + 1 1 = 2 0
1 + 0 0 = 0 1 + 1
1 1 + 1 0 + 0 1 = 2 + 2 + 1 0
2 1 + 1 1 = 2 0
Controller:
() = 0 = ( + 0 ) ( = 0.8795, 0.7047 |0 | < 1)

() = () ()
() = 1 ( 1) + () + 0 ( 1) 0 () 1 ( 1)
A function in Matlab can solve this problem:
function [estmtd_theta,yhat,ue,e,re1,se0,se1,te0] =
adtvCtrolHw5_STR2(uc,u,y,lambda)
numOfCoeffs = 4;
% number of coefficents
beta = 0.8795;
a0 = 0.8;
am1 = -1.3205; am2 = 0.4966;
t = length(y);
j=1;
phi_1(:,j)=[0;u(1:t-1,j)];
phi_2(:,j)=[0;0;u(1:t-2,j)];
phi_3(:,j)=[0;-y(1:t-1,j)];
phi_4(:,j)=[0;0;-y(1:t-2,j)];
Page 24
phi = [phi_1(:,j) phi_2(:,j) phi_3(:,j) phi_4(:,j)];
[M,N] = size(phi);
alpha = 100;
P = alpha*eye(N);
% initial condition for projection matrix
estmtd_theta(1,:) = [0.01 0.2 0 0]; % inital condition for [b0 b1 a1

a2]
yhat = zeros(1,t);
% estimated value
re1 = zeros(1,N);
se0 = zeros(1,N);
se1 = zeros(1,N);
te0 = zeros(1,N);
te1 = zeros(1,N);
% initial conditions for three polynomials
re1(1) = estmtd_theta(1,2)/estmtd_theta(1,1) - ((estmtd_theta(1,2) a0*estmtd_theta(1,1))*(am2*estmtd_theta(1,1)^2 am1*estmtd_theta(1,1)*estmtd_theta(1,2) + estmtd_theta(1,2)^2))/...
(estmtd_theta(1,1)*(estmtd_theta(1,4)*estmtd_theta(1,1)^2 estmtd_theta(1,3)*estmtd_theta(1,1)*estmtd_theta(1,2) +
estmtd_theta(1,2)^2));
se0(1) = (estmtd_theta(1,1)*(a0*estmtd_theta(1,4) estmtd_theta(1,3)*estmtd_theta(1,4) - a0*am2 + estmtd_theta(1,4)*am1)
- estmtd_theta(1,2)*...
(estmtd_theta(1,4) - am2 + a0*estmtd_theta(1,3) - a0*am1 +
estmtd_theta(1,3)*am1 estmtd_theta(1,3)^2))/(estmtd_theta(1,4)*estmtd_theta(1,1)^2 estmtd_theta(1,3)*estmtd_theta(1,1)*estmtd_theta(1,2) +
estmtd_theta(1,2)^2);
se1(1) = (estmtd_theta(1,1)*(estmtd_theta(1,4)*am2 estmtd_theta(1,4)^2 - a0*estmtd_theta(1,3)*am2 +
a0*estmtd_theta(1,4)*am1)...
- estmtd_theta(1,2)*(a0*estmtd_theta(1,4) estmtd_theta(1,3)*estmtd_theta(1,4) - a0*am2 +
Page 25
estmtd_theta(1,4)*am1))/(estmtd_theta(1,4)*estmtd_theta(1,1)^2 estmtd_theta(1,3)*estmtd_theta(1,1)*estmtd_theta(1,2) +
estmtd_theta(1,2)^2);
te0(1) = beta;
te1(1) = beta*a0;
e = zeros(1,t);
ue(1) = 0;
for i = 2:M-numOfCoeffs+1;
z = P*phi(i,:)';
K = z/(lambda + phi(i,:)*z);
yhat(i) = phi(i,:)*estmtd_theta(i-1,:).';
e(i) = y(i) - phi(i,:)*estmtd_theta(i-1,:).';
estmtd_theta(i,:) = estmtd_theta(i - 1,:) + e(i)*K.';
P = (P - K*z.')/lambda;
re1(i) = estmtd_theta(i,2)/estmtd_theta(i,1) ((estmtd_theta(i,2) - a0*estmtd_theta(i,1))*(am2*estmtd_theta(i,1)^2

- am1*estmtd_theta(i,1)*estmtd_theta(i,2) + estmtd_theta(i,2)^2))/...
(estmtd_theta(i,1)*(estmtd_theta(i,4)*estmtd_theta(i,1)^2 estmtd_theta(i,3)*estmtd_theta(i,1)*estmtd_theta(i,2) +
estmtd_theta(i,2)^2));
se0(i) = (estmtd_theta(i,1)*(a0*estmtd_theta(i,4) estmtd_theta(i,3)*estmtd_theta(i,4) - a0*am2 + estmtd_theta(i,4)*am1)
- estmtd_theta(i,2)*...
(estmtd_theta(i,4) - am2 + a0*estmtd_theta(i,3) - a0*am1 +
estmtd_theta(i,3)*am1 estmtd_theta(i,3)^2))/(estmtd_theta(i,4)*estmtd_theta(i,1)^2 estmtd_theta(i,3)*estmtd_theta(i,1)*estmtd_theta(i,2) +
estmtd_theta(i,2)^2);
Page 26
se1(i) = (estmtd_theta(i,1)*(estmtd_theta(i,4)*am2 estmtd_theta(i,4)^2 - a0*estmtd_theta(i,3)*am2 +

a0*estmtd_theta(i,4)*am1)...
- estmtd_theta(i,2)*(a0*estmtd_theta(i,4) estmtd_theta(i,3)*estmtd_theta(i,4) - a0*am2 +
estmtd_theta(i,4)*am1))/(estmtd_theta(i,4)*estmtd_theta(i,1)^2 estmtd_theta(i,3)*estmtd_theta(i,1)*estmtd_theta(i,2) +
estmtd_theta(i,2)^2);
te0(i) = beta;
te1(i) = beta*a0;
ue(i) = - re1(i)*ue(i-1) + te0(i)*uc(i)+ te1(i)*uc(t-1) se0(i)*yhat(i) - se1(i)*yhat(i-1);
end
end
Figure 14. Output
Page 27
Figure 16. Output with step disturbance
Page 28
Figure 17. Error between process output and estimated output with step disturbance
(d) Plot y and uc vs. t, u vs. t and estimated process parameters vs. t. Compare the
tracking performance, ringing of input and disturbance rejection of the two designs.
Discuss on the effect of time delay on the performance of the adaptive controller.
d.1. Stable zero cancellation:
Page 29
Figure 18. uc and y_estimated vs time
Figure 19. u (control input is computed from controller law) vs time
Page 30
Figure 20. Estimated process parameters
Page 31
Figure 21. uc and y_estimated vs time with step disturbance
Figure 22. u (control input is computed from controller law) vs time with step
disturbance
Page 32

d.2. No zero cancellation:
Figure 24. uc and y_estimated vs time

Page 33
Figure 25. u (control input is computed from controller law) vs time

Page 34
Figure 27. uc and y_estimated vs time with step disturbance
Figure 28. u (control input is computed from controller law) vs time with step
disturbance
Page 35
Figure 29. Estimated process parameters with step disturbance

From Fig. 19 and Fig.25, the control input signal with stable zero cancellation design
has a severe oscillation (ringing) compare to that of no zero cancellation design
Two controllers have very same performance (tracking and disturbance).
Discuss on the effect of time delay on the performance of the adaptive controller: we
should choose the time delay as small as possible. When the time delay is large that
means the output signal lags phase to the command signal. Hence, the performance of
the system is not good.
Page 36
Problem 3
Solution:
I will take only one case in P2: the stable zero of the process model is canceled
Matlab code:
clear all; close all; clc;
% define command signal

Ts = 0.5;
Tuc = 25*Ts;
fuc = 1/Tuc;
t = 0:Ts:100;
uc = square(2*pi*fuc*t);
w = 1; % frequency
% variations
delta_a1 = 0.13735;
delta_a2 = 0.07006;
delta_b0 = 0.01231;
delta_b1 = 0.007712;
Page 37
% define a1, a2, b0, b1

a1 = -1.3735 + delta_a1*sin(w*t);
a2 = 0.7006 + delta_a2*sin(w*t);
b0 = 0.1231 + delta_b0*sin(w*t);
b1 = 0.07712 + delta_b1*sin(w*t);
% parameters of the desired closed-loop system

am1 = -1.3205; am2 = 0.4966;
bm0 = 0.1761;
% Rq = q + r1
r1 = b1./b0;
% S(q) = s0*q + s1
s0 = (am1 - a1)./b0;
s1 = (am2 - a2)./b0;
% T(q) = t0*q
t0 = bm0./b0;
% define input u(t) and process output y(t)

u(1) = 0; u(2) = 0;
y(1) = 0; y(2) = 0;
n = length(t);
for i = 3:n
y(i) = -a1(i)*y(i-1) - a2(i)*y(i-2) + b0(i)*u(i-1) + b1(i)*u(i2);
u(i) = -r1(i)*u(i-1) + t0(i)*uc(i) - s0(i)*y(i) - s1(i)*y(i-1);
end;
% call function
lambda = 1;
[estmtd_theta,yhat,ue,e,re1,se0,se1,te0]...
= adtvCtrolHw5_STR1(uc',u',y',lambda);
Page 38
figure(1);
plot(t(1:198),y(1:198),t(1:198),yhat(1:198));
xlabel('Time, sec');
ylabel('Output');
legend('Process output', 'Estimated output');
figure(2);
plot(e); grid on;
ylabel('Error');
figure(3);
plot(t(1:198),uc(1:198),'--',t(1:198),yhat(1:198));
ylabel('uc(t) & y-estimated(t)');
legend('uc(t)', 'y-estimated(t)');
figure(4);
plot(ue);
ylabel('Control input signal');
figure(5);
plot(t(1:198),estmtd_theta(:,1),t(1:198),b0(1:198),'--',...
t(1:198),estmtd_theta(:,2),t(1:198),b1(1:198),'--',...
t(1:198),estmtd_theta(:,3),t(1:198),a1(1:198),'--',...
t(1:198),estmtd_theta(:,4),t(1:198),a2(1:198),'--');
grid on;
ylabel('Process parameters');
legend('b0-estimated','b0','b1-estimated','b1','a1estimated','a1',...
'a2-estimated','a2');
Page 39
Figure 30. Output (delta = 10% of true value, w = 1 rad/sec)
Figure 31. Error between process and estimated output (delta = 10% of true value, w =
1 rad/sec)
Page 40
Figure 32. Command signal and estimated output (delta = 10% of true value, w = 1
rad/sec)
Figure 33. Control input signal (delta = 10% of true value, w = 1 rad/sec)
Page 41
Figure 34. True and estimated parameters (delta = 10% of true value, w = 1 rad/sec)
Figure 35. Output (delta = 15% of true value, w = 2 rad/sec)

Page 42
2 rad/sec)
rad/sec)
Page 43
Figure 38. Control input signal (delta = 15% of true value, w = 2 rad/sec)
Figure 39. True and estimated parameters (delta = 15% of true value, w = 2 rad/sec)
Page 44
Figure 40. Output (delta = 10% of true value, w = 1 rad/sec, lambda = 0.98)
1 rad/sec, lambda = 0.98)
Page 45
rad/sec, lamda)
Figure 43. Control input signal (delta = 10% of true value, w = 1 rad/sec, lambda = 1)
Page 46
Figure 44. True and estimated parameters (delta = 10% of true value, w = 1 rad/sec,
lambda = 0.98)
From all of figures above, we can see, it is very similar between weighted and unweighted design in this case. Because, the process parameters change as a sine function.
When frequency and variation increase the performance of the system is not good, even
maybe not stable.
Page 47

Adaptive Control Theory: Pole-Placement and Indirect STR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adaptive Control Theory: Pole-Placement and Indirect STR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Nguyen Van Thanh

Inst. of Manufacturing & Information Systems

1001- N164400 - Adaptive Control

November 25, 2011

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

Transfer function of the process:

Transfer function of the desired closed-loop system:

A general linear controller:

Our job is to define three polynomials: R, S and T.

We can see that

Let deg( ) = 2 deg() 1 = 2 2 1 = 3

deg() = deg( ) deg() = 3 2 = 1

deg() deg() , deg() = deg() 1 deg() = 1

= + , deg() = deg() = 1 deg( ) = 0 = 1

The Diophantine equation:

By comparing coefficients of this equation, we obtain

is thus characterized by the polynomials:

Plug these polynomials into the controller:

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

( + 0.6927)() = 1.5026 () (1.0691 1.4556)()

(1 + 0.69271 )() = 1.5026 () (1.0691 1.45561 )()

() + 0.6927( 1) = 1.5026 () 1.0691() + 1.4556( 1)

() = 0.6927( 1) + 1.5026 () 1.0691() + 1.4556( 1)

Transfer function of the desired closed-loop system:

Parameter is chosen such that ( = 1) = 1 =

Let deg( ) = 2 deg() 1 = 2 2 1 = 3

deg() = deg( ) deg() = 3 2 = 1

deg() deg() , deg() = deg() 1 deg() = 1

Choose 0 () = + 0 (|0 | < 1)

Poles of the closed-loop system:

Again, 0 () = + 0 (0.7047 |0 | < 1)

By comparing coefficients of this equation, we obtain

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

() = 0 = ( + 0 ) = 0.8877 + 0.88770 (0.7047 |0 | < 1)

is thus characterized by the polynomials:

Plug these polynomials into the controller:

Cmd & Opt

Figure 1. Block diagram of sys with stable cancellation

Figure 2. Command & output, with stable zero cancellation

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

Figure 4. Command & output, with no zero cancellation

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

Figure 6. Control input signal with stable zero cancellation design

Figure 8. Control input signal with no zero cancellation design

Where, parameters {a1, a2, b0, b1} are unknown constants.

A general linear controller:

The RLS with exponential forgetting is given by

() = ( 1)( 1) + ( 1)( 1)( 1)

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

Let deg( ) = 2 deg() 1 = 2 2 1 = 3

deg() = deg( ) deg() = 3 2 = 1

deg() deg() , deg() = deg() 1 deg() = 1

= + , deg() = deg() = 1 deg( ) = 0 = 1

The Diophantine equation:

By comparing coefficients of this equation, we obtain

Adaptive Control Theory HW5

Step 3: Calculate the control law

Repeat steps 1, 2 and 3 at each sampling period.

The RLS with exponential forgetting is given by

re1(i) = estmtd_theta(i,2)/estmtd_theta(i,1) ((estmtd_theta(i,2) - a0estmtd_theta(i,1))(am2*estmtd_theta(i,1)^2

se1(i) = (estmtd_theta(i,1)(estmtd_theta(i,4)am2 estmtd_theta(i,4)^2 - a0estmtd_theta(i,3)am2 +