Affine Parameterisation 1

The University of Newcastle
ELEC4410
Control System Design
Lecture 6: Afne Parameterisation - Open Loop Unstable
Model. Anti-windup Schemes
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Lecture 6: Afne Parameterisation - Open Loop Unstable Model. Anti-windup Schemes p. 1/36
Outline
Afne Parameterisation - Open Loop Unstable Model.
Outline
Saturation and Slew Rate Limitations.
Outline
Anti-windup Schemes.
Outline
Anti-windup Schemes.
Reference: Control System Design, Goodwin, Graebe & Salgado.
Afne Parameterisation - Open Loop Unstable
Model
Recall for afne parameterisation for the stable case:
C(s) =
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G
o
(s)
G
o
(s)
Plant Q(s)
R(s)
U(s) Y(s)
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
D
i
(s) D
o
(s)
Model
If the plant contains unstable poles then its output could increase
exponentially.
Model
exponentially.
Likewise the nominal model, G
o
(s), will also contain unstable poles,
hence its output can also increase exponentially.
Model
exponentially.
o
This could result in the difference between the plant and nominal
model outputs being zero and hence no control action being taken.
Model
exponentially.
o
This could result in the difference between the plant and nominal
model outputs being zero and hence no control action being taken.
G
o
(s)
Plant Q(s)
R(s)
U(s) Y(s)
+
+
-
-
'0'
Model
Now in the unstable case,
C(s) =
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G
o
(s)
,
is still okay! But, we have to make some further points regarding
stability of the sensitivity functions.
Model
C(s) =
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G
o
(s)
,
Essentially we need to add more interpolation constraints.
Model
C(s) =
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G
o
(s)
,
To ensure T
o
(s), S
o
(s), S
io
(s) and S
uo
(s) are stable, we still need Q(s)
stable and proper. In addition, we add further interpolation constraints:
Model
C(s) =
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G
o
(s)
,
To ensure T
o
(s), S
o
(s), S
io
(s) and S
uo
Q(s)G
o
(s) stable.
[Unstable poles of G
o
(s) Zeros of Q(s)]
Model
C(s) =
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G
o
(s)
,
To ensure T
o
(s), S
o
(s), S
io
(s) and S
uo
Q(s)G
o
(s) stable.
o
(s) Zeros of Q(s)]
(1 Q(s)G
o
(s))G
o
(s) stable.
o
(s) Zeros of 1 Q(s)G
o
(s)]
Model
Recall from last lecture, that unstable pole-zero cancellations should
be performed analytically.
Model
To begin, we express the nominal model in its fractional form
G
o
(s) =
B
o
(s)
A
o
(s)
and assume all the poles of A
o
(s) are unstable.
Model
To begin, we express the nominal model in its fractional form
G
o
(s) =
B
o
(s)
A
o
(s)
and assume all the poles of A
o
(s) are unstable.
Next we choose
Q(s) =
P(s)
E(s)
where

E(s) is stable. In particular the zeros of

E(s) lie in a desirable
region of the complex plane.
Model
As we need unstable poles of G
o
(s) to be zeros in Q(s), we can write
Q(s) =
A
o
(s)
P(s)
E(s)
;

P(s) = A
o
(s)
P(s)
Model
As we need unstable poles of G
o
(s) to be zeros in Q(s), we can write
Q(s) =
A
o
(s)
P(s)
E(s)
;

P(s) = A
o
(s)
P(s)
Then Q(s) is stable and has zeros to cancel unstable poles of G
o
(s).
Model
What about S
io
(s) = (1 Q(s)G
o
(s))G
o
(s)?
Model
What about S
io
(s) = (1 Q(s)G
o
(s))G
o
(s)?
We require the unstable poles of G
o
(s) to be zeros in S
o
(s).
1 Q(s)G
o
(s) = 1
P(s)B
o
(s)
E(s)A
o
(s)
= 1
P(s)B
o
(s)
E(s)
=
E(s)

P(s)B
o
(s)
E(s)
Model
What about S
io
(s) = (1 Q(s)G
o
(s))G
o
(s)?
We require the unstable poles of G
o
(s) to be zeros in S
o
(s).
1 Q(s)G
o
(s) = 1
P(s)B
o
(s)
E(s)A
o
(s)
= 1
P(s)B
o
(s)
E(s)
=
E(s)

P(s)B
o
(s)
E(s)
We thus require A
o
(s) to be a factor of

E(s)

P(s)B
o
(s).
Model
Which we can write as
E(s)

P(s)B
o
(s) =

L(s)A
o
(s)
or
L(s)A
o
(s) +

P(s)B
o
(s) =

E(s) (1)
This is a standard pole assignment problem and choosing a desired
E(s) and the orders of

L(s),

P(s) will result in a unique solution.
Model
Which we can write as
E(s)

P(s)B
o
(s) =

L(s)A
o
(s)
or
L(s)A
o
(s) +

P(s)B
o
(s) =

E(s) (2)
This is a standard pole assignment problem and choosing a desired
E(s) and the orders of

L(s),

P(s) will result in a unique solution.
Note: We set

E(s) = E(s)F(s).
Model
Now we have
Q(s) =
P(s)
E(s)
then
C(s) =
Q(s)
1 Q(s)G
o
(s)
=
P(s)A
o
(s)
E(s)A
o
(s)

P(s)B
o
(s)
=
P(s)
L(s)
(3)
Model
The method to design a controller for the unstable open loop case
outlined above is then:
Model
Step 1 Choose

E(s). (closed loop poles)
Model
Step 1 Choose

Step 2 Given A
o
(s), B
o
(s) &

E(s) solve

L(s)A
o
(s) +

P(s)B
o
(s) =

E(s)
for a unique

L(s) and

P(s) that we denote as L(s) and P(s).
Model
Step 1 Choose

Step 2 Given A
o
(s), B
o
(s) &

E(s) solve

L(s)A
o
(s) +

P(s)B
o
(s) =

E(s)
for a unique

L(s) and

P(s) that we denote as L(s) and P(s).
Step 3
C(s) =
P(s)
L(s)
Model
Given a solution to equation (1), standard results in algebra state that
any other solution can be expressed as
L(s)
E(s)
=
L(s)
E(s)
Q
u
(s)
B
o
(s)
E(s)
(4)
P(s)
E(s)
=
P(s)
E(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
A
o
(s)
E(s)
(5)
where Q
u
(s) is any stable proper transfer function having no
undesirable poles.
Model
Given a solution to equation (1), standard results in algebra state that
any other solution can be expressed as
L(s)
E(s)
=
L(s)
E(s)
Q
u
(s)
B
o
(s)
E(s)
(6)
P(s)
E(s)
=
P(s)
E(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
A
o
(s)
E(s)
(7)
where Q
u
(s) is any stable proper transfer function having no
undesirable poles.
Substitute (4) and (5) into (3) and we get
C(s) =
P(s)
E(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
A
o
(s)
E(s)
L(s)
E(s)
Q
u
(s)
B
o
(s)
E(s)
Model
Now say A
o
(s) contains both desirable and undesirable poles,
A
o
(s) = A
d
(s)A
u
(s)
then we can write E(s) = A
d
(s)

E(s) giving the pole assignment
problem of
A
d
(s)A
u
(s)
L(s) + B
o
(s)
P(s) = A
d
(s)
E(s)F(s)
clearly this requires

P(s) =

P(s)A
d
(s).
Model
Now say A
o
A
o
(s) = A
d
(s)A
u
(s)
d
(s)

problem of
A
d
(s)A
u
(s)
L(s) + B
o
(s)
P(s) = A
d
(s)
E(s)F(s)

P(s) =

P(s)A
d
(s).
Therefore we have cancellations hence,
A
u
(s)
L(s) + B
o
(s)
P(s) =

E(s)F(s) (9)
Model
Now say A
o
A
o
(s) = A
d
(s)A
u
(s)
d
(s)

problem of
A
d
(s)A
u
(s)
L(s) + B
o
(s)
P(s) = A
d
(s)
E(s)F(s)

P(s) =

P(s)A
d
(s).
Therefore we have cancellations hence,
A
u
(s)
L(s) + B
o
(s)
P(s) =

E(s)F(s) (10)
For the unstable open loop case where the plant possesses some
desirable poles then the same method as stated above applies except
the pole assignment problem becomes equation (8).
Model
The nominal complementary sensitivity for the class of stabilising
controllers is,
T
o
(s) =
B
o
(s)
P(s)
A
o
(s)
L(s) + B
o
(s)
P(s)
=
B
o
(s)
P(s)
E(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
A
o
(s)
E(s)
A
o
(s)
L(s)
E(s)
Q
u
(s)
B
o
(s)
E(s)
+ B
o
(s)
P(s)
E(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
A
o
(s)
E(s)
=
B
o
(s)P(s)
E(s)
+
Q
u
(s)B
o
(s)A
o
(s)
E(s)
A
o
(s)L(s)
E(s)
+
B
o
(s)P(s)
E(s)
=
B
o
(s)P(s) + Q
u
(s)B
o
(s)A
o
(s)
E(s)F(s)
Model
Given the controller parameterisation for unstable plants as
C(s) =
P(s)
E(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
A
o
(s)
E(s)
L(s)
E(s)
Q
u
(s)
B
o
(s)
E(s)
and that u = Ce where e is the error signal we can write (note the
argument s has been dropped)
u = Ce
=
,
P
E
+ Q
u
A
o
E
L
E
Q
u
B
o
E
e
=
E
L
,
P
E
e + Q
u
A
o
E
e + Q
u
B
o
E
u
Model
Afne Parameterisation: Unstable Open Loop Case
Plant
Q
u
(s)
R(s)
U(s) Y(s)
+
+
-
+
+ +
P(s)
E(s)
E(s)
L(s)
A
o
(s)
E(s)
B
o
(s)
E(s)
Pre-stabilising Controller
Model
The parametrisation as discussed above leads to the following
parameterised version of the nominal sensitivities:
S
o
(s) =
A
o
(s)L(s)
E(s)F(s)
Q
u
(s)
B
o
(s)A
o
(s)
E(s)F(s)
T
o
(s) =
B
o
(s)P(s)
E(s)F(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
B
o
(s)A
o
(s)
E(s)F(s)
S
io
(s) =
B
o
(s)L(s)
E(s)F(s)
Q
u
(s)
(B
o
(s))
2
E(s)F(s)
S
uo
(s) =
A
o
(s)P(s)
E(s)F(s)
+ Q
u
(s)
(A
o
(s))
2
E(s)F(s)
Saturation, Slew Rate Limitations and Anti-
windup Schemes
What is Saturation?
windup Schemes
What is Saturation?
FACT: All actuators saturate!
windup Schemes
What is Saturation?
FACT: All actuators saturate!
Objective: How do we deal with the nonlinear affects of Saturation
and Slew Rate Limitation? {u(t ) and u(t ) are limited}
Control System with Saturation on the Plant Input
d
o
Plant C
r
u
y
+ +
-
+
u
Linear Plant with Input Saturation
windup Schemes
Saturation
u = sat { u} =
u
min
if u < u
min
,
u if u
min
u u
max
,
u
max
if u > u
max
.
d
o
Plant C
r
u
y
+ +
-
+
u
Linear Plant with Input Saturation
windup Schemes
Ignoring the presence of saturations can cause long undesirable
transients in the closed loop.
windup Schemes
The transients are due to the controller states having wound up to
large values.
windup Schemes
large values.
In a PID controller, there is only one state that is subject to wind-up -
the integrator state!
windup Schemes
large values.
In a PID controller, there is only one state that is subject to wind-up -
the integrator state!
Therefore in a PID controller, an anti-windup scheme involves limiting
the integrator state in the some way.
windup Schemes
Anti-windup scheme for a PI controller
K
p
e
u +
1
(1/K
i
)s + 1
+
When the controller is in the linear region of the saturation
u
e
= K
p
(1 +
K
i
s
).
Thus the state of the controller is updated only with the actual plant input u.
windup Schemes
The key properties of an anti-windup scheme are:
windup Schemes
The state of the controller should be driven by the actual (i.e.
constrained) plant input.
windup Schemes
The state of the controller should be driven by the actual (i.e.
constrained) plant input.
The states of the controller should have a stable realisation when
driven by the actual plant input.
windup Schemes
The Problem of Windup in IMC
We consider here open loop stable plants.
windup Schemes
The Problem of Windup in IMC
We consider here open loop stable plants.
The block diagram shows an IMC structure where saturation is
included on the input to the plant. The initial states of the system are
depicted as x(t
0
) and x(t
0
). We also assume G
o
(s) = G(s).
Internal Model Control with Saturation on Plant Input
G
o
(s)
G(s) Q(s)
r
u y
+
+
-
-
+
+
u e
x(t
0
)
x(t
0
)
d
o
windup Schemes
When u is in the linear region of the saturation,
y = Q(s)G
o
(s)r + (1 Q(s)G
o
(s))d
o
+ IC(x x)
where IC is a transfer function relating the initial conditions to the
output.
windup Schemes
When u is in the linear region of the saturation,
y = Q(s)G
o
(s)r + (1 Q(s)G
o
(s))d
o
+ IC(x x)
where IC is a transfer function relating the initial conditions to the
output.
Once the initial transient has decayed we see that the output is what
we would expect, i.e. only a function of the reference and disturbance.
windup Schemes
During saturation (i.e. u < u
min
or u > u
max
)
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
the loop is nonlinear
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
G is driven by u
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
G is driven by u
Now, if saturation ends at time t
0
,
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
G is driven by u
0
,
the loop is once again linear
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
G is driven by u
0
,
G and G
o
are both driven by u
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
G is driven by u
0
,
G and G
o
But x(t
0
) x(t
0
) since we had u u
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
G is driven by u
0
,
G and G
o
But x(t
0
) x(t
0
) since we had u u
Hence we will again see a transient in the output.
windup Schemes
min
or u > u
max
)
G
o
is driven by u
G is driven by u
0
,
G and G
o
But x(t
0
) x(t
0
) since we had u u
Hence we will again see a transient in the output.
This transient is due to the mismatched states in the plant and the
controller, i.e. x(t
0
) x(t
0
), and is called windup.
windup Schemes
Anti-windup for IMC
Strategies aimed at reducing the effects of windup are, of course,
called anti-windup.
windup Schemes
Anti-windup for IMC
called anti-windup.
An initial idea for anti-windup - Saturate the model input as well!
G
o
(s)
G(s) Q(s)
r
u y
+
+
-
-
+
+
u e
x(t
0
)
x(t
0
)
d
o
u
windup Schemes
Anti-windup for IMC
called anti-windup.
An initial idea for anti-windup - Saturate the model input as well!
G
o
(s)
G(s) Q(s)
r
u y
+
+
-
-
+
+
u e
x(t
0
)
x(t
0
)
d
o
u
Now x(t
0
) = x(t
0
) during and after saturation.
windup Schemes
The problems with this are:
windup Schemes
1. The total system from u to y is nonlinear, so a linear compensator
Q is no longer an inverse of the process.
windup Schemes
2. e and u are completely independent of the saturation.
windup Schemes
2. e and u are completely independent of the saturation.
For further insight into this problem, we digress slightly, and examine a
feedback realisation of Q(s).
windup Schemes
Assume, for simplicity, that G
o
(s) is minimum phase. Then
G
i
o
= G
1
o
and Q(s) = F
q
(s)G
i
o
(s).
windup Schemes
o
G
i
o
= G
1
o
and Q(s) = F
q
(s)G
i
o
(s).
Lets also assume here that F
q
(s) is chosen to make Q(s) bi-proper
Q(s) =
n
n
s
n
+ + n
1
s + n
0
m
n
s
n
+ + m
1
s + m
0
where n
n
0 and m
n
0.
windup Schemes
o
G
i
o
= G
1
o
and Q(s) = F
q
(s)G
i
o
(s).
q
Q(s) =
n
n
s
n
+ + n
1
s + n
0
m
n
s
n
+ + m
1
s + m
0
where n
n
0 and m
n
0.
The high frequency gain of Q(s) is
q
= lim
s
Q(s) =
n
n
m
n
0.
windup Schemes
o
G
i
o
= G
1
o
and Q(s) = F
q
(s)G
i
o
(s).
q
Q(s) =
n
n
s
n
+ + n
1
s + n
0
m
n
s
n
+ + m
1
s + m
0
where n
n
0 and m
n
0.
The high frequency gain of Q(s) is
q
= lim
s
Q(s) =
n
n
m
n
0.
We can then write
Q(s) = q
+

Q(s)
where

Q(s) is strictly proper.
windup Schemes
Now
u = Q(s)e
then e = Q(s)
1
u
=
q
1
+

Q
1
(s)
u
u =
1
q
1
e

Q
1
(s) u
windup Schemes
Now
u = Q(s)e
then e = Q(s)
1
u
=
q
1
+

Q
1
(s)
u
u =
1
q
1
e

Q
1
(s) u
Then,
Q
1
(s) = Q
1
(s) q
1
then u =
1
q
1
Q
1
(s) q
1
which is a feedback representation of Q(s).

windup Schemes
Now
u = Q(s)e
then e = Q(s)
1
u
=
q
1
+

Q
1
(s)
u
u =
1
q
1
e

Q
1
(s) u
Then,
Q
1
(s) = Q
1
(s) q
1
then u =
1
q
1
Q
1
(s) q
1
which is a feedback representation of Q(s).

windup Schemes
Feedback Representation of Q(s)
q
oo
Q
-1
(s) - q
-1
oo
e
-
+
Q(s)
u
Check:
u = q
Q
1
(s) q
1
u
e
=
q
1 + q
Q
1
(s) 1
=
1
Q
1
(s)
= Q(s)
windup Schemes
Now how can we use this to improve the anti-windup scheme for IMC.
Anti-windup scheme utilising the feedback representation of Q(s)
G
o
(s)
G(s)
Q
-1
(s) - q
-1
oo
r y
+
+
-
-
+
+
d
o
-
+
q
oo
windup Schemes
G
o
(s)
G(s)
Q
-1
(s) - q
-1
oo
r y
+
+
-
-
+
+
d
o
-
+
q
oo
In this scheme the controller state is updated based on the controller
action which is effectively applied to the linear plant.
windup Schemes
G
o
(s)
G(s)
Q
-1
(s) - q
-1
oo
r y
+
+
-
-
+
+
d
o
-
+
q
oo
In this scheme the controller state is updated based on the controller
action which is effectively applied to the linear plant.
NOTE: For this to be feasible, we require Q(s) to be stable and
bi-proper.
windup Schemes
It is easily seen that the saturation appearing in series with the
nominal model, G
o
(s), is no longer required.
windup Schemes
nominal model, G
o
The scheme can be generalised (including unstable plants).
windup Schemes
nominal model, G
o
The scheme can be generalised (including unstable plants).
Let C(s) be a bi-proper controller, then
C(s) = C
+

C(s)
Anti-windup scheme for bi-proper C(s)
G(s)
C
-1
(s) - C
-1
oo
r y
+
-
+
+
d
o
-
+
C
oo
windup Schemes
Slew Rate Limitation
Actuators may also be slew rate limited,
u(t ) = sat {
u(t )} =
min
if

u(t ) <
min
,
u(t ) if
min

u(t )
max
,
max
if

u(t ) >
max
.
windup Schemes
Slew Rate Limitation
Actuators may also be slew rate limited,
u(t ) = sat {
u(t )} =
min
if

u(t ) <
min
,
u(t ) if
min

u(t )
max
,
max
if

u(t ) >
max
.
We can approximate the derivative using Eulers Method
u(t )
u(t ) u(t )
windup Schemes
This leads to a Slew Rate Limiter (SRL)
Model of Slew Rate Limiter
u(t)
-
+
o
max
o
min
+
+
e
-s
u(t) - u(t- )
u(t)
windup Schemes
The previous idea for the anti-windup scheme can be applied to
windup due to slew rate limitations.
Anti-windup Scheme for Slew Rate Limitation
G
o
(s)
G(s)
Q
-1
(s) - q
-1
oo
r y
+
+
-
-
+
+
d
o
-
+
q
oo
S.R.L.
S.R.L. S.R.L.
windup Schemes
Saturation and Slew Rate Limitation
Saturation can be added to the slew rate limiter model.
Saturation and Slew Rate Limiter Model
u(t)
-
+
o
max
o
min
+
+
e
-s
u(t)
Rate Saturation Actuator Saturation
u
max
u
min
windup Schemes
Saturation and Slew Rate Limitation
Saturation can be added to the slew rate limiter model.
Saturation and Slew Rate Limiter Model
u(t)
-
+
o
max
o
min
+
+
e
-s
u(t)
Rate Saturation Actuator Saturation
u
max
u
min
This model, which includes both saturation and slew rate limitation,
can be incorporated in the same anti windup scheme as shown in the
previous examples.

Affine Parameterisation 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Affine Parameterisation 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The University of Newcastle

E(s) and the orders of

E(s) and the orders of

which is a feedback representation of Q(s).

which is a feedback representation of Q(s).

You might also like