sc4026 - Control Systems Design

Q.1, Sem.1, Ac. Yr. 2010/11

Mock Exam, originally given November 5, 2009
Notes:
Please be reminded that only an A4 paper with formulas may be used dur-
ing the exam no other material is to be allowed (in particular, certainly no
programmable calculators). The actual distribution of points for the single ques-
tions of all the exercises is reported right before the questions. You may decide
what exercise to start with depending on that.
1 Design Problem
Consider the following dynamical model:
_
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
0 1
0 0
_ _
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
0
1
_
u,
y =
_
1 0

_
x
1
x
2
_
.
[4 pts.] a) Consider zero initial conditions. Assume that the model has been excited
by a step input u(t): compute the steady-state error in the output y(t).
[5 pts.] b) Consider a direct output feedback controller with the following form:
u(t) = ky(t) + r(t), k > 0 (k positive). Find the range of values for
k with which the closed-loop system is stable. If you think there is no
such k, then explain why. Additionally, can you choose the controller gain
k to make the closed-loop system asymptotically stable?
[5 pts.] c) Assume that the state may be measured precisely. Design a state feedback
controller u(t) =
_
F
1
F
2

_
x
1
(t)
x
2
(t)
_
so that the trajectories of the
closed-loop system dynamics are bounded above on each of their spatial
component, in time, by the function e
4t
. In other words, you have to
select proper distinct eigenvalues for the closed-loop system so that this
happens.
Solution:
The steady state error for a step input is equal to innity. Let us compute the
1
following quantity:
C(sI a)
1
B + D =
_
1 0

_
1
s
1
s
2
0
1
s
_ _
0
1
_
+ 0
=
1
s
2
.
Thus, the steady-state error can be computed as follows:
1
1
s
2

s=0
,
which is not nite.
As a conrmation, the following is the step response of the above model plotted
in MATLAB:
0 500 1000 1500
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
x 10
5
Step Response
Time (sec)
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
Let us consider an output feedback controller of the following kind: u(t) =
ky(t) + r(t), k > 0. This results in the following closed-loop dynamics:
_
x
1
x
2
_
= A
_
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
0
1
_
(k)
_
1 0

_
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
0
1
_
r
=
_
0 1
k 0
_ _
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
0
1
_
r,
y =
_
1 0

_
x
1
x
2
_
.
We then obtain:
det(sI A) = s
2
+ k, k > 0,
which has roots in s
1,2
= j

k. Thus, regardless of the choice of the gain k,

the closed-loop dynamics will be stable, but never asymptotically stable.
2
Let us proceed with the state feedback controller. Considering a control
feedback with the indicated structure, the closed-loop dynamics become:
_
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
0 1
0 0
_ _
x
1
x
2
_

_
0
1
_
_
F
1
F
2

_
x
1
x
2
_
=
_
0 1
F
1
F
2
_ _
x
1
x
2
_
.
The associated characteristic polynomial is
det(sI
_
0 1
F
1
F
2
_
) = s
2
+ F
2
s + F
1
.
The requirement on the convergence speed can be obtained by placing poles
at the left of the s = 4 vertical threshold. For instance, let us select points
4, 4, which obtains:
(s + 4)
2
= s
2
+ 8s + 16.
This can be obtained by choosing
F
1
= 16, F
2
= 8.
Actually, we could be even more precise: the roots of the characteristic polyno-
mial are in
s
1,2
=
F
2

_
F
2
2
4F
1
2
.
If F
1
> F
2
2
/4, the roots are complex conjugate, thus theyre well positioned if
F
2
4. On the contrary, if F
1
F
2
2
/4, the roots are real, thus the condition
is veried if (consider worst case) F
2
+
_
F
2
2
4F
1
4, which is veried if
F
1
2F
2
4.
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
F
2
F
1

3
2 Two-Tanks Process

Consider the system in gure, known as a two-tanks process. It deals with

two tanks, the rst positioned on top of the second, which are communicating
through a small hole at the bottom of the rst. Additionally, the rst tank
is added uid (with rate u) through a hose operated by a pump, whereas the
second is releasing uid through two holes. The rate of one of the two bottom
holes can be controlled by an outow rate of v. We are interested in describing
the dynamics of the uid level in the two tanks, which will be denoted with the
variables x
1
and x
2
.
A non-linear, continuous-time state-space description of the process can be
derived from Bernoullis energy equations and reduces to:
_
x
1
x
2
_
=
_

1

x
1
+
1
u

x
1

x
2

2
v
_
,
where
1
,
2
are characteristic parameters of the two uids, and
1
,
2
are
parameters that describe the top hose and the bottom outow. The quantities
u, v are interpreted as the two control inputs.
[2 pts.] a) Determine the equilibrium point, as a function of the inputs and of the
parameters.
[4 pts.] b) Assume the following parameters:
1
= 1,
2
= 0.5,
1
= 1,
2
= 0.5.
Linearize the model around the corresponding equilibrium point, and the
input ( u, v) = (1, 1).
[5 pts.] c) Assume again the following parameters:
1
= 1,
2
= 0.5,
1
= 1,
2
=
0.5. Your friend from TU Eindhoven suggests you to linearize the model
around the equilibrium point arising from the input choice ( u, v) = (1, 2)?
Can you comment on his/her suggestion?
[4 pts.] d) Consider the linearized model from question two. Assume that you can
select exclusively a single actuator to control your system, and that this
4
can be either the hose u at the top, or the aperture v at the bottom. For
each choice, let the other input be a xed constant reference.
Reasoning in terms of controllability, which of the two inputs would you
choose? Please provide an explanation for this.
[4 pts.] e) Consider the linearized model from question two. Assume that you can
measure the uid level only in one of the two tanks, that is either x
1
, or x
2
.
Which one would you prefer to measure? Please provide an explanation
for this.
[2 pts.] f) Consider the linearized, open-loop model obtained from question two.
Before you test your model in the lab on a real setup, you come up with
the following discretization of the state-space model using sampling time
h = 0.4463 seconds:
=
_
0.8 0
0.189 0.894
_
, =
_
0.4 0
0.045 0.422
_
After a little experimentation you nd out that due to some defect in the
actuator circuitry, your system response suers from = 892.6 msec of
delay. How would you modify your state-space system description (based
on the original and matrices) to have an accurate representation of
the delayed system?
Solution:
Select a nominal value for the inputs, u = u and v = v. Obtain from the two
dynamical relations the following equilibria ( x
1
, x
2
):

x
1
=

1

1
u

x
2
=

1

2
u

2

2
v
The choice of parameters and inputs yields the equilibrium point (1, 1). The
linearization is:
_
x
1
x
2
_
=
_


1
2

x
1
0

1
2

x
1

2
2

x
2
_

(x
1
,x
2
)=(1,1)
_
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
1 0
0 1
_ _
u
v
_
=
_
1/2 0
1/2 1/4
__
x
1
x
2
_
+
_
1 0
0 1
_ _
u
v
_
.
The choice ( u, v) = (1, 2) gives the equilibrium (1, 0). However, for x
2
= 0
the second ODE has no unique solution. This is related to the fact that the
Jacobian of the model is unbounded for that value.
The choice of input u is related to a control matrix B =
_
1
0
_
. This lead
to the following controllability matrix:
_
1 1/2
0 1/2
_
,
which has full rank.
The choice of input v is related to a control matrix B =
_
0
1
_
. This lead to
5
the following controllability matrix:
_
0 0
1 1/2
_
,
which does not have full rank.
Clearly the choice of the top controller is preferable.
The measure of the uid level in the rst tank is associated with a matrix
C =
_
1 0

. This lead to the following controllability matrix:

_
1 0
1/2 0
_
,
which does not have full rank.
The measure of the uid level in the second tank is associated with a matrix
C =
_
0 1

. This lead to the following controllability matrix:

_
0 1
1/2 1/2
_
,
which has full rank.
Clearly the latter choice is preferable.
In order to incorporate the extra time delay in the discrete-time state-space
system description, we need to introduce extra states that will represent delayed
versions of the control input signal. Notice, that the observed time-delay is
exactly twice as large as the sampling time h, thus we can write the delayed
system as
x(k + 1) = x(k) + u(k d)
where d = 2 and u =
_
u
v
_
. This simplies our problem, since we only have
to delay the input signal by two sampling periods. Since we have two control
inputs, we will need to introduce FOUR extra states as follows:
_
_
x(k + 1)
u(k 1)
u(k)
_
_
=
_
_
0
0 0 I
0 0 0
_
_
. .

delayed
_
_
x(k)
u(k 2)
u(k 1)
_
_
+
_
_
0
0
I
_
_
. .

delayed
u(k)
where u(k) =
_
u(k)
v(k)
_
.

6
3 Position control of an electric motor
The gure describes an electric motor: a torque applied to the motor shaft
is controlled by a voltage applied to the motor windings. The variables are:
1. v, the applied voltage;
2. i, the current on the windings;
3. , the motor torque, and
d
a disturbance torque coming from the envi-
ronment;
4. , the shaft angle and =

, its velocity.
The model for the motor follows:
v = Ri + L
di
dt
= i
J
d
dt
=
d
B,
where R is the resistance, L is the inductance, J a moment of inertia, and B a
mechanical damping. Assume for simplicity that the parameters are normalized:
R = L = = J = B = 1.
The objective of the process is to track a reference
r
by acting on the input
voltage v.
[4 pts.] a) Write out a third order state-space model for the process under study with
variables (, , i).
[3 pts.] b) Let us neglect the eect of the inductance L on the dynamics: simplify
the model above into a new second order model by assuming L = 0.
7
[4 pts.] c) Study the controllability of the two models obtained from questions one
and two.
[4 pts.] d) For both models, devise a state-feedback controller to track the reference
signal: v = K(
r
), where K > 0 is a parameter to be determined.
Write out the closed-loop dynamics.
[6 pts.] e) Consider the closed-loop second order (simplied) model from question
two. Study the asymptotic stability of this model for varying values of
the parameter K > 0. If asymptotically stable, nd explicitly a Lyapunov
function for the closed-loop model. (You can determine it by solving the
Lyapunov equation, with a proper choice of a positive denite matrix.)
[4 pts.] f) Now consider the closed-loop third order (original) model from question
one. Study the asymptotic stability of this model for varying values of the
parameter K > 0. (Since nding roots of the characteristic polynomial
may not be straightforward, select a few small integer values for the pa-
rameter K: K = 1, 2, 3, . . ..) What do you conclude about the asymptotic
stability of the closed-loop third-order model? As a consequence, do you
have any comment on the simplication procedure that assumed L = 0?
Solution:
Third order model:
_
_

i
_
_
=
_
_
0 1 0
0 1 1
0 0 1
_
_
_
_

i
_
_
+
_
_
0
0
1
_
_
v +
_
_
0
1
0
_
_

d
.
Second order model:
_

_
=
_
0 1
0 1
_ _

_
+
_
0
1
_
v +
_
0
1
_

d
.
Both models are controllable, since the Kalman rank condition for them is:
rank
_
0 1
1 1
_
= 2,
rank
_
_
0 0 1
0 1 2
1 1 1
_
_
= 3.
State feedback for second order model:
v = K(
r
) =
_
K 0

_
+ K
r

_

_
=
_
0 1
K 1
_ _

_
+
_
0
K
_

r
+
_
0
1
_

d
.
The roots of the characteristic polynomial are:
s
1,2
=
1

1 4K
2
,
8
which have negative real part for any K > 0.
A Lyapunov function can be found by selecting
V (x) = x
T
Px, x =
_

_
, P =
_
p
1
p
2
p
2
p
3
_
,
and by selecting the parameters so that
PA + A
T
P = Q,
where Q =
_
1 0
0 1
_
. We obtain:
_
2Kp
2
p
1
p
2
Kp
3
p
1
p
2
Kp
3
2(p
2
p
3
)
_
=
_
1 0
0 1
_
,
which yields
p
1
=
1
2K
+
1
2
+
K
2
, p
2
=
1
2K
, p
3
=
1
2K
+
1
2
.
This choice makes P positive denite as well.
State feedback for third order model:
v = K(
r
) =
_
K 0 0
_
_
_

i
_
_
+ K
r

_
_

i
_
_
=
_
_
0 1 0
0 1 1
K 0 1
_
_
_
_

i
_
_
+
_
_
0
0
K
_
_

r
+
_
_
0
1
0
_
_

d
.
Characteristic polynomial is
s
3
+ 2s
2
+ s + K.
Try K = 2 to obtain:
(s + 2)(s
2
+ 1),
which has roots
s
1
= 2, s
2,3
= j.
The last two roots indicate lack of asymptotic stability.

9
Root Locus
Real Axis
I
m
a
g
i
n
a
r
y

A
x
i
s
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
System: untitled1
Gain: 1.99
Pole: 0.000541 0.998i
Damping: 0.000542
Overshoot (%): 99.8
Frequency (rad/sec): 0.998
System: untitled1
Gain: 0
Pole: 0
Damping: 1
Overshoot (%): 0
Frequency (rad/sec): 0
10