CORRESPONDENCE 209

Suppose that (2) can be solved for t in the

form
6 =T +h ( U , (6)
where 9; is a transport lead function cor-
responding to the transport lag function ~ i .
For example, in the case of a linearly varying
delay
T(1) Ut f b (7)
where Q and b are constants, i t follows that
T + b
1--a 1--a
t =- 9 +( T) =-. (8)
Note that for the particular case of a con-
stant delay (a =O), (8) becomes
t =T +- b, +(T) =b (9)
which coincides with the form obtained by
Ragg. However, this is practically the only
case in which his work leads to an exact
result, thus invalidating the main purpose of
his otherwise excellent paper.
With the proper change of variable speci-
fied by (j ), Raggs necessary conditions (21)
to (24) should now be relvritten as
t o I t < - ~ ( ~ + k ) f (I la)
Fa,: =0, tr - T ( ~ ~ : ) J I t I t j (I lb)
for k=l , 2, e . . , Y.
tween formulations, consider the system
I n order to illustrate the difference be-
k(1) - X ( t ) +2l(t - T) (12)
where the transport l a g is given by
~ ( t ) =0.951 (13)
and the performance functional
10
P =s, tU*(t)dt. (14)
I t is desired to drive the system under a
continuous control from the initial state
x(0) =0 to the terminal state s(10) =1 with
a minimum cost.
The necessary conditions are found from
the function F where, i n this example,
F ( X , x,, i, ZI, x,, A) = ~ 2 r ~ + X( i + z - 2 c 5 ) . (15)
Since F is not a function of x;, (loa) and
(lob) become
d
- F; =F,, 0 I f 5 10 (16a)
dt
or
i ( t ) =h(t), 0 5 t 5 10. (16b)
Equati ons (l l a) and (l l b) become
Fu =0, 0.5 5 t 5 10. (l i b)
The superscript s has been purposely
used in (17a) to point out the similarity in
the form of the equations arrived at by both
methods, and indicates the time at which
these expressions are to be evaluated.
Using Raggs solution,
s =t +~ ( f ) =1.93. (184
Thus, (17a) and (17b) become
.z~(f ) - - =0, 0 5 t <0.5 (18b)
A(1.93)
1 - 0.95
z ~ ( t ) =0, 0.5 5 t 5 10 (18c)
which leads to the optimal control
and a minimum cost P=O.133.
iXe propose instead
s =t ++(t) =206 (204
to find that (17a) and (l i b) become
.zr(t) - ___ =
A (201)
1 - 0.95
0, 0 5 6 <0.5 (20b)
u( t ) =0, 0.5 5 t 5 10 (204
and the optimal control
with a minimum cost P =0.050, which is con-
siderably smaller.
I t can be noticed that since (2) requires a
solution in the form of (6) instead of (4), the
solution of problems of optimal control of
systems with time-varying transport lags
generally becomes very complicated. Fur-
thermore, it can be expected that the prob-
lem would become even more complex if the
time lags are of the general form given in (I ).
I n such a case, additional difficulties would
arise in the solution (6) of (2), which leads
us to doubt that the proposed general prob-
lem could be easily solved for any but the
most trivial cases, such as that of the above
example in which the T? are simple functions
of time only.
J AMES F. RaN.%s
A 4 ~ ~ ~ 6 G. VACROUX
Dept. of Elec. Engrg.
Illinois I nstitute of Technology
Chicago, Ill.
Authors Reply2
I wish to thank Banas and Vacroux for
their comments on my paper and for point-
ing out an error, Correction of this error,
when the lags are functions of time only,
makes quantitative changes to the limits on
(21) and (23) of the paper. However, it does
not invalidate the approach to the problem
or the general nature of the results. Since
publication of the paper, I have become
aware that the derivation needs modification
when the lags are functions of the states and
derivatives of the states, and some further
attention has been given to this. I agree that
problems with time-varying transport lags
are difficult to solve, but knowing some nec-
2 Manuscript received December 28, 1967.
essary conditions for optimality is an im-
portant step towards a greater understand-
ing of such systems.
In addition, on page 739, (16) should
read
0; 5 Ti 5 &+I, j =0, . . . ~ Q - 1. (16)
E. C. ~ G G
Dept. of Control Engrg.
The University of Sew South Wales
Kensington, New South \t:ales, Australia
A Practical Chart for an Optimal
Control of a Second-Order Under-
damped System
Recentll- i t has become common practice
to use an optimal control in a second-order
control system. Simple alternative methods
and charts are given in the literature. I n this
correspondence, the emphasis is on using a
new chart when a minimum-time optimal
control for a second-order control system
with respect to a step input is required.
Let us consider a second-order control
system described by the equation
2 +2Cw,k f wn?x =w,l u (1)
for O<T <l , where 3c is the system output
and u is an optimal control signal defined by
the relation
I
m for 0 <f <t1
-m ior t l <d <bl +t n (2)
z f ( f ) I 1 for t >61 +t2.
The control signal u brings the system out-
put from 0 to 1.
The methods used to determine the times
tl and t n as a function of amplitude ?I? and a
damping ratio j- are well known from the
theory of optimal control systems.? There-
fore, this calculation is not given here. I t is
rather difficult to present the results in an-
alytical form and therefore, i n this paper, a
charted representation, shown in Fig. 1, is
preferred. The settling time versus ampli-
tude w 7 when r=const (see Fig. 2) can be
deduced from the chart in Fig. 1.
When a second-order system is given,
the charts of Figs. 1 and 2 might be used i n
the following cases:
1) I n choosing the optimal control signal
-the amplitude wz and the times tl and bz-
when a settling time is specified. I n this case,
the value of the amplitude PI? is determined
from Fig. 2, and the times tl and t 2 are de-
termined from Fig. l by intersecting the
curve of II? =const by the curve of r=const.
2) I n establishing the settling time and
the times tl and tn for a given control signal
( 2) , even if only its amplitude PZ is given.
For values of ~ l t and {given, the times t~
and t n are determined from Fig. 1 and the
settling time from Fig. 2.
ber 21, 1967.
Manuscript received J une 7, 1967; revised Decem-
1 P. I. Cinaev. Samonastraivaurxiesia sistemi.?
hloszhiz. hfoscoG, 1963.
Yorork: McGran-HiU. 1958.
2 0. J . M. Smith, Feedback Corrfiol Systems. Kew
210
IEEE TRANTSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, APRI L 1968
Fig. 1. A chart of times t~ and t ? as a function of the amplitude m and the damping ratio r.
Fig. 2. The settling time versus the amplitude 7n when r is constant.
CORRESPONDENCE
21 1
3) I n choosing the optimal control signal
(2) when the ratio of the values tl and t? is
specified, i.e., t : =kh. I n this case, the
straight line
w,tn =kwJ1
intersects the curves of [=const shown in
Fig. 1, and thus the amplitude m is deter-
mined. Practically, it is sometimes much
easier to deal with the case in which tl=t?.
L. LUPAS
I nstitute for &Automation
Bucharest, R.S. Romania
An Extension to "Simultaneous
Generation of the Second-Order
Sensitivity Functions"
INTRODUCTION
Bi ng~l ac[~I proposed a method for the
simultaneous generation of second-order
sensitivity functions for a class of linear sys-
tems. The purpose of this correspondence is
to extend the method to a more general case
and to provide an example.
The second-order sensitivity functions
are required when we formulate performance
criteria so as to minimize ~ensi ti vi ty:[~]
where p =weighting factor
.& __ =
ay ) sensitivity of output y
a In qm to parameter qm
and
e(t , 41, - - . , q.v) =.(t, 41, . * . , q,v) - yo(t) (2)
where y o ( t ) is the desired response.
Minimization of J by a choice of qt using
a gradient procedure requires generation of
the components
Bingulac's methodl11 was proposed for
linear multiloop control systems with one
direct path (Fig. 1): with the restriction
W ; ( S , Si ) =qi G;(~). (9
This restriction is removed in the following
derivation.
METHOD
Consider the transfer function
of the system in Fig. 1. P( s ) is the product of
transfer functions in the fonvard path, and
l ( 5 ) is the determinant of the system graph.
From Kokotoui ~,[~]
+ + 4
Fig. 1. System considered.
"13
Fig. 2. Results for m =l. (a) Extension. (b) Bingulac's result.
Manuscript received October 17. 1967.