0% found this document useful (0 votes)
100 views18 pages

16.323 Principles of Optimal Control: Mit Opencourseware

MIT OPT CON13
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
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
100 views18 pages

16.323 Principles of Optimal Control: Mit Opencourseware

MIT OPT CON13
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/ 18

MIT OpenCourseWare

http://ocw.mit.edu

16.323 Principles of Optimal Control


Spring 2008

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.
16.323 Lecture 13

LQG Robustness

• Stengel Chapter 6
• Question: how well do the large gain and phase margins discussed for LQR (6–29)
map over to LQG?
Spr 2008 16.323 13–1
LQG

• When we use the combination of an optimal estimator and an optimal


regulator to design the controller, the compensator is called
Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG)
– Special case of the controllers that can be designed using the sep­
aration principle.

• The great news about an LQG design is that stability of the closed-loop
system is guaranteed.
– The designer is freed from having to perform any detailed mechanics
- the entire process is fast and can be automated.

• So the designer can focus on the “performance” related issues, being


confident that the LQG design will produce a controller that stabilizes
the system.
– How to specify the state cost function (i.e. selecting z = Cz x) and
what values of Rzz, Ruu to use.
– Determine how the process and sensor noise enter into the system
and what their relative sizes are (i.e. select Rww & Rvv )

• This sounds great – so what is the catch??

• The remaining issue is that sometimes the controllers designed using


these state-space tools are very sensitive to errors in the knowledge of
the model.
– i.e., the compensator might work very well if the plant gain α = 1,
but be unstable if it is α = 0.9 or α = 1.1.
– LQG is also prone to plant–pole/compensator–zero cancelation,
which tends to be sensitive to modeling errors.
– J. Doyle, ”Guaranteed Margins for LQG Regulators”, IEEE Trans­
actions on Automatic Control, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 756-757, 1978.

June 18, 2008


T,(s)if

Spr 2008
if and 16.323 13–2

Excerpt from document by John Doyle. Removed due to copyright restrictions.

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–3

• The good news is that the state-space techniques will give you a con­
troller very easily.
– You should use the time saved to verify that the one you
designed is a “good” controller.

• There are, of course, different definitions of what makes a controller


good, but one important criterion is whether there is a reasonable
chance that it would work on the real system as well as it
does in Matlab. ⇒ Robustness.
– The controller must be able to tolerate some modeling error, be­
cause our models in Matlab are typically inaccurate.
� Linearized model
� Some parameters poorly known
� Ignores some higher frequency dynamics

• Need to develop tools that will give us some insight on how well a
controller can tolerate modeling errors.

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 LQG Example 16.323 13–4

• Consider the “cart on a stick” system, with the dynamics as given in


the following pages. Define
� � � �
θ q
q= , x=
x q̇
Then with y = x
ẋ = Ax + Buu
y = Cy x

• For the parameters given in the notes, the system has an unstable pole
at +5.6 and one at s = 0. There are plant zeros at ±5.

• Very simple LQG design - main result is fairly independent of the choice
of the weighting matrices.

• The resulting compensator is unstable (+23!!)


– This is somewhat expected. (why?)
4
10
Plant G
Compensator Gc
2
10
Mag

0
10

−2
10

−4
10
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Freq (rad/sec)

200
Plant G
Compensator Gc
150
Phase (deg)

100

50

0
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Freq (rad/sec)

Figure 13.1: Plant and Controller

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13-5

Example: cart with an inverted pendulum.

m, l • Nonlinear equations of motion can be developed for


θ large angle motion (see 30-32)
L
F

M
• Force actuator, θ sensor
x

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Linearize for small θ


(I+mL2) - mgL θ = mL

(M+m) +g -mL =F

⎡ ( I + mL2 ) s 2 − mgL −mLs 2 ⎤ ⎡Θ( s ) ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤


⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
⎣ − mLs 2
( M + m) s + Gs ⎦ ⎣ x( s ) ⎦ ⎣ F ( s ) ⎦
2

Θ mLs 2
=
F ⎡⎣( I + mL2 ) s 2 − mgL ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣(M + m)s 2 + Gs ⎦⎤ − (mLs 2 ) 2

Cannot say too much more

Let M= 0.5, m=0.2, G=0.1, I=0.006, L=0.3

Θ 4.54s 2
Î gives =
F s 4 + 0.1818s 3 − 31.18s 2 − 4.45s

therefore has an unstable pole (as expected)


s= ± 5.6,-0.14,0

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13-6

10

8 Near Origin

2
Imag Axis

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Real Axis

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–7

2
10
Loop L
1
10
Mag

0
10

−1
10

−2
10
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Freq (rad/sec)

−50

−100
Phase (deg)

−150

−200

−250

−300
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Freq (rad/sec)
Figure 13.2: Loop and Margins

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–8

Root Locus

10
10
0.64 0.5 0.34 0.16

0.76 8
8

6
6 0.86

4
4
0.94

2
2
Imaginary Axis

0.985

0.985
−2
2

0.94
−4
4

0.86
−6
6

−8
0.76 8

0.64 0.5 0.34 0.16


−10
−10 −8 −6 −4 −2 100 2 4 6 8 10
Real Axis

Figure 13.3: Root Locus with frozen compensator dynamics. Shows sensi­

tivity to overall gain – symbols are a gain of [0.995:.0001:1.005].


Root Locus

2
2 0.64 0.5 0.34 0.16
1.75
0.76
1.5
1.5
1.25
0.86
1
1
0.75
0.94
0.5
0.5
Imaginary Axis

0.985 0.25

0.985 0.25
−0.5
0.5
0.94
0.75
−1
1
0.86
1.25
−1.5
1.5
0.76
1.75
−2 0.64 0.5 0.34 0.16
2
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Real Axis

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–9

• Looking at both the Loop TF plots and the root locus, it is clear this
system is stable with a gain of 1, but
– Unstable for a gain of 1 ± � and/or a slight change in the system
phase (possibly due to some unmodeled delays)
– Very limited chance that this would work on the real system.

• Of course, this is an extreme example and not all systems are like this,
but you must analyze to determine what robustness margins your
controller really has.

• Question: what analysis tools should we use?

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–10
Analysis Tools to Use?
• Eigenvalues give a definite answer on the stability (or not) of the
closed-loop system.
– Problem is that it is very hard to predict where the closed-loop poles
will go as a function of errors in the plant model.

• Consider the case were the model of the system is


ẋ = A0x + Bu
– Controller
� also based on A0�, so nominal
� closed-loop dynamics:

A0 −BK A0 − BK BK

LC A0 − BK − LC 0 A0 − LC

• But what if the actual system has dynamics


ẋ = (A0 + ΔA)x + Bu
– Then perturbed closed-loop�system
� � dynamics are: �
A0 + ΔA −BK A0 + ΔA − BK BK

LC A0 − BK − LC ΔA A0 − LC

• Transformed A¯cl not upper-block triangular, so perturbed closed-loop


eigenvalues are NOT the union of regulator & estimator poles.
– Can find the closed-loop poles for a specific ΔA, but
– Hard to predict change in location of closed-loop poles for a range
of possible modeling errors.

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008
Frequency Domain Tests 16.323 13–11
• Frequency domain stability tests provide further insights on the sta­
bility margins.

• Recall from the Nyquist Stability Theorem:


– If the loop transfer function L(s) has P poles in the RHP s-plane
(and lims→∞ L(s) is a constant), then for closed-loop stability, the
locus of L(jω) for ω ∈ (−∞, ∞) must encircle the critical point
(−1, 0) P times in the counterclockwise direction [Ogata 528].
– This provides a binary measure of stability, or not.

• Can use “closeness” of L(s) to the critical point as a measure of


“closeness” to changing the number of encirclements.
– Premise is that the system is stable for the nominal system
⇒ has the right number of encirclements.

• Goal of the robustness test is to see if the possible perturbations to


our system model (due to modeling errors) can change the number
of encirclements
– In this case, say that the perturbations can destabilize the system.

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–12

stable OL
1.5

0.5 LA(jω)
Imag Part

ω
0
2

−0.5 ω1 LN(jω)

−1

−1.5

−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

Real Part
Figure 13.4: Plot of Loop TF LN (jω) = GN (jω)Gc (jω) and perturbation (ω1 → ω2 )
that changes the number of encirclements.

• Model error in frequency range ω1 ≤ ω ≤ ω2 causes a change in the


number of encirclements of the critical point (−1, 0)
– Nominal closed-loop system stable LN (s) = GN (s)Gc(s)
– Actual closed-loop system unstable LA(s) = GA(s)Gc(s)

• Bottom line: Large model errors when LN ≈ −1 are very dangerous.

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–13

Nichols: Unstable Open−loop System


1
10
Mag

0
10

−1
10
−260 −240 −220 −200 −180 −160 −140 −120 −100
Phase (deg)

Nichols: Unstable Open−loop System


1.05
1
0.99
1.04 1.01

1.03

1.02

1.01
Mag

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.95
−180.5 −180 −179.5 −179 −178.5
Phase (deg)

Figure 13.5: Nichols Plot (|L((jω))| vs. arg L((jω))) for the cart example
which clearly shows the sensitivity to the overall gain and/or phase lag.
June 18, 2008
Spr 2008 16.323 13–14
Frequency Domain Test
stable OL

0.5
Imag Part

|d(jω)|
|LN(jω)|
−0.5

−1

−1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1

Real Part
Figure 13.6: Geometric interpretation from Nyquist Plot of Loop TF.

• |d(jω)| measures distance of nominal Nyquist locus to critical point.

• But vector addition gives −1 + d(jω) = LN (jω)

⇒ d(jω) = 1 + LN (jω)

• Actually more convenient to plot


1 1
= � |S(jω)|
|d(jω)| |1 + LN (jω)|
the magnitude of the sensitivity transfer function S(s).
June 18, 2008
Spr 2008 16.323 13–15

• So high sensitivity corresponds to LN (jω) being very close to the


critical point.
Sensitivity Plot
3
10
|S|
|L|

2
10

1
10
Mag

0
10

−1
10

−2
10
−2 −1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10
Freq (rad/sec)

Figure 13.7: Sensitivity plot of the cart problem.

• Ideally you would want the sensitivity to be much lower than this.
– Same as saying that you want L(jω) to be far from the critical
point.
– Difficulty in this example is that the open-loop system is unstable,
so L(jω) must encircle the critical point ⇒ hard for L(jω) to get
too far away from the critical point.

June 18, 2008


Spr 2008 16.323 13–16
Summary
• LQG gives you a great way to design a controller for the nominal
system.

• But there are no guarantees about the stability/performance if the


actual system is slightly different.
– Basic analysis tool is the Sensitivity Plot

• No obvious ways to tailor the specification of the LQG controller to


improve any lack of robustness
– Apart from the obvious “lower the controller bandwidth” approach.
– And sometimes you need the bandwidth just to stabilize the system.

• Very hard to include additional robustness constraints into LQG


– See my Ph.D. thesis in 1992.

• Other tools have been developed that allow you to directly shape the
sensitivity plot |S(jω)|
– Called H∞ and µ

• Good news: Lack of robustness is something you should look for,


but it is not always an issue.

June 18, 2008

You might also like