Scribd
Upload
111 views7 pages

Review On Robust Control For SISO Systems

This document summarizes the methodology for designing a robust controller for a single-input single-output (SISO) system to meet performance and stability requirements despite plant variations and uncertainties. It considers both a nominal plant model and a real plant model that differs from the nominal one. The controller must ensure reference tracking, disturbance rejection, insensitivity to plant variations, and measurement error rejection for the real system, while maintaining stability. Performance and stability requirements place opposing demands on the controller gain. Robustness conditions are derived to ensure the real plant meets specifications and remains stable for all uncertainty.

Uploaded by

rodrigo_trentini
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
111 views7 pages

Review On Robust Control For SISO Systems

This document summarizes the methodology for designing a robust controller for a single-input single-output (SISO) system to meet performance and stability requirements despite plant variations and uncertainties. It considers both a nominal plant model and a real plant model that differs from the nominal one. The controller must ensure reference tracking, disturbance rejection, insensitivity to plant variations, and measurement error rejection for the real system, while maintaining stability. Performance and stability requirements place opposing demands on the controller gain. Robustness conditions are derived to ensure the real plant meets specifications and remains stable for all uncertainty.

Uploaded by

rodrigo_trentini
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

Review on Robust Control for SISO systems

Rodrigo Trentini Preuss


December 13, 2013
1 Introduction
The proposal of this text is to present a methodology that allows the design of
a controller, to be located in the direct branch of the control loop, in order to
attend the performance and stability requirements.
We are will consider two plants: the nominal and the real ones. Both are
considered SISO, linear and time-invariant, but distinct.
Regarding the performance, the following topics must be attended by the
real system:
reference tracking;
external disturbance rejection;
plant variations insensitivity;
measurement error rejection.
Concerning the stability, the controller must be design so that the real system
is always stable.
2 The nominal system
Figure 1 shows the nominal system.
r(s)
+

e(s)
k(s) g
N
(s)
+
+
u(s)
d(s)
y(s)
+
+
n(s)
Figure 1: Nominal system
The closed-loop system is
c
N
(s) =
g
N
(s)k(s)
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
. (1)
For the system to be stable, the poles of Eq. 1 must be located in the left
half s-plane.
1
2.1 Performance
For the performance analysis we consider:
y(s) =
g
N
(s)k(s)
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
r(s) +
1
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
d(s)
g
N
(s)k(s)
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
n(s) (2)
and
e(s) =
1
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
r(s)
1
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
d(s)
1
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
n(s) (3)
2.1.1 Reference tracking
Considering only the contribution of r(j) to e(j):
e(j) =
1
1 + g
N
(j)k(j)
r(j) (4)
and being
r
the set where r(j) has its energy most signicant part. Generally,

r
is given by

r
= { :
r
}, (5)
where
r
is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant)
r
() 1
(
r
) is used as design specication. Thus,
|e(j)|
|r(j)|

r
(). (6)
So, it is possible to state that
|1 + g
N
(j)k(j)|
1

r
1 (7)
resulting in
y(j) r(j). (8)
So, the gain of the transfer function must be high where the reference signal
has its energy most signicant part.
2.1.2 External disturbance rejection
Considering only the contribution of d(j) to e(j):
e(j) =
1
1 + g
N
(j)k(j)
d(j) (9)
and being
d
the set where d(j) has its energy most signicant part. Generally,

d
is given by

d
= { :
d
}, (10)
where
d
is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant)
d
() 1
(
d
) is used as design specication. Thus,
2
|e(j)|
|d(j)|

d
(). (11)
So, it is possible to state that
|1 + g
N
(j)k(j)|
1

d
1 (12)
So, the gain of the transfer function must be high where the disturbances
have its energy most signicant part.
2.1.3 Plant variations insensitivity
For the nominal system
y(s) =
g
N
(s)k(s)
1 + g
N
(s)k(s)
r(s), (13)
consider a transfer function variation g(s), so that the output is y(j)+y(j):
y(j) + y(j) =
[g
N
(j) + g(j)]k(j)
1 + [g
N
(j) + g(j)]k(j)
r(j) (14)
Using Taylor series for the linearization,
y(j) =
k(j)
[1 + g
N
(j)k(j)]
2
g(j)r(j). (15)
Dividing Eq. 15 by Eq. 13,
y(j)
y(j)
=
1
1 + g
N
(j)k(j)
g(j)
g
N
(j)
(16)
Suppose that g(j)\g
N
(j) is signicant to

, being

= { :

}, (17)
where

is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant)

() 1
(
d
) is used as design specication. Thus,
|y(j)\y(j)|
|g(j)\g
N
(j)|

(). (18)
So, it is possible to state that
|1 + g
N
(j)k(j)|
1

1 (19)
So, the gain of the transfer function must be high where the variation
g(j)\g
N
(j) is more signicant.
3
2.1.4 Measurement error rejection
Considering only the contribution of n(j) to y(j):
y(j) =
g
N
(j)k(j)
1 + g
N
(j)k(j)
n(j) (20)
and being
n
the set where n(j) has its energy most signicant part. Generally,

n
is given by

n
= { :
n
}, (21)
where
n
is known. Suppose that a function (usually constant)
n
() 1
(
n
) is used as design specication. Thus,
|y(j)|
|n(j)|

n
(). (22)
In order to guarantee the measurement error rejection, assume:
|g
N
(j)k(j)| 1 (23)
So, it is possible to state that
|g
N
(j)k(j)|
n
1 (24)
So, the gain of the transfer function must be small where the measurement
error is high.
2.2 Conclusion
It can be observed that the requirements for reference tracking, external distur-
bance rejection and plant variations insensitivity (which high gains are required)
are contradictory to the measurement error rejection one (where small gains are
required).
Fortunately, in most of practical problems
r
,
d
and

depict low fre-


quency regions, whereas
n
corresponds to a high frequency region.
Thus, the Bode Diagram of the open-loop gain must be situated within the
boundaries of low and high frequencies, according to Fig. 2.
3 The real system
Figure 3 shows the real system. It is important to notice that the controller
k(s) is the same for both real and nominal ones.
The multiplicative modeling error is given by

M
(s) =
g
R
(s) g
N
(s)
g
N
(s)
(25)
so
g
R
(s) = [1 +
M
(s)]g
N
(s). (26)
It is assumed that the designer is able to establish a upper bound to |
M
(j)|,
being:
4
dB

0
g
N
(j)k(j)
- Ref. tracking
- Dist. rejection
- Var. insensibility
- Meas. error
rejection
Figure 2: Low and high frequencies boundaries for the nominal system
r(s)
+

e(s)
k(s) g
R
(s)
+
+
u(s)
d(s)
y(s)
+
+
n(s)
Figure 3: Real system
|
M
(j)| e
M
(). (27)
Typically, e
M
() is small in low frequencies and big in high frequencies, as
it is shown in Fig. 4.

e
M
()
1
Figure 4: Function e
M
()
5
3.1 Stability
The system
c
R
(s) =
g
R
(s)k(s)
1 + g
R
(s)k(s)
(28)
must be stable for all
M
(j).
At this point, it is required to assume that the number of unstable poles
of g
R
(s) is equal than g
N
(s). This assumption is ensured i, by deforming the
Nyquist diagram from g
N
(j)k(j) up to g
R
(j)k(j), there is no crossing
through the point 1 + j0.
1
The condition for the no crossing on this point is
expressed by:
[1 +
M
(j)]g
N
(j)k(j) = 1 + j0. (29)
As g
N
(j) is supposed asymptotically stable, 1 + g
N
(j)k(j) = 0, Eq. 29
can be re-written as
1 +
M
(j)
g
N
(j)k(j)
1 + g
N
(j)k(j)
= 0. (30)
Or in other words
1 +
M
(j)c
N
(j) = 0, (31)
being equivalent to
|c
N
(j)| <
1
e
M
()
, (32)
which is denominated as Stability Robustness Condition.
3.2 Performance
According to Section 2.1, the performance of the nominal system is depict by
Eq. 7, 12 and 19. Changing to the real system:
|g
R
(j)k(j)| p() (33)
in which p() can be
r
(),
d
() or

(), depending on the case.


Considering Eq. 26, the real system performance will meet the specications
if
|g
N
(j)k(j)||1 +
M
()| p(). (34)
At these frequencies it is possible to suppose that e
M
() < 1, so
|1 +
M
()| 1 |
M
()| 1 e
M
() > 0 (35)
and then it is sucient to impose that
|g
N
(j)k(j)|
p(
1 e
M
()
(36)
The last expression is known as Performance Robustness Condition.
1
for more about this assumption, please refer to topics on the Nyquist criteria applied to
robust controllers.
6
3.3 Conclusion
Again, it can be seen that stability and performance requirements are conicting.
While the rst requires higher gains, the second demands smaller ones. Also,
it is important to notice that the stability robustness boundary lies below the
measurement error rejection one so that it is possible to consider just the rst.
Figure 5 shows the real system Bode diagram with its boundaries (
c
is the
cuto frequency).
dB

0
g
N
(j)k(j)
Performance Stability

c
Figure 5: Low and high boundaries for the real system
7

You might also like