• No results found

MODERN CONTROL SYSTEMS

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "MODERN CONTROL SYSTEMS"

Copied!
25
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

MODERN CONTROL SYSTEMS

Emam Fathy

Department of Electrical and Control Engineering

email: [email protected]

http://www.aast.edu/cv.php?disp_unit=346&ser=68525

Lecture 11 Pole Placement

(2)

Pole Placement

 In this lecture we will discuss a design method commonly called the pole-placement or pole-assignment

technique.

 We assume that all state variables are measurable and are available for feedback.

 If the system considered is completely state controllable, then poles of the closed-loop system may be placed at any desired locations by means of state feedback through an appropriate state feedback gain matrix.

(3)

Pole Placement

• The present design technique begins with a determination of the desired closed-loop poles based on the transient-response and/or frequency-response requirements, such as speed, damping ratio, or bandwidth, as well as steady-state requirements.

• By choosing an appropriate gain matrix for state feedback, it is possible to force the system to have closed-loop poles at the desired locations, provided that the original system is completely state controllable.

(4)

Topology of Pole Placement

 Consider a plant represented in state space by ሶ𝒙 = 𝑨𝒙 + 𝑩𝑢

(5)

Topology of Pole Placement

• In a typical feedback control system, the output, y, is fed back to the summing junction.

• It is now that the topology of the design changes. Instead of feeding back y, we feed back all of the state variables.

• If each state variable is fed back to the control, u, through a gain, ki, there would be n gains, ki, that could be adjusted to yield the required closed-loop pole values.

(6)

Topology of Pole Placement

 The feedback through the gains, ki, is represented in following figure by the feedback vector K.

ሶ𝒙 = 𝑨𝒙 + 𝑩(𝑟 − 𝑲𝒙) ሶ𝒙 = 𝑨𝒙 + 𝑩𝑟 − 𝑩𝑲𝒙

ሶ𝒙 = (𝑨 − 𝑩𝑲)𝒙 + 𝑩𝑟

(7)

Pole Placement

• We will limit our discussions to input, single-output systems (i.e. we will assume that the control signal u(t) and output signal y(t) to be scalars).

• We will also assume that the reference input r(t) is zero.

𝑦

ሶ𝒙 = (𝑨 − 𝑩𝑲)𝒙 𝑢 = −𝑲𝒙

(8)

Pole Placement

 The stability and transient response characteristics are determined by the eigenvalues of matrix A-BK.

 If matrix K is chosen properly Eigenvalues of the system can be placed at desired location.

 And the problem of placing the regulator poles (closed-loop poles) at the desired location is called a pole-placement problem.

(9)

Pole Placement

There are three approaches that can be used to

determine the gain matrix

K

to place the poles at

desired location.

– Direct Substitution Method. – Ackermann’s formula.

– Using Transformation Matrix P.

(10)

Direct Substitution Method

(11)

Pole Placement

(Direct Substitution Method)

 Following are the steps to be followed in this particular method.

1. Check the state controllability of the system 𝐶𝑀 = 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 ⋯ 𝐴𝑛−1𝐵

(12)

Pole Placement

(Direct Substitution Method)  Steps:

1. Check the state controllability of the system.

2. Define the state feedback gain matrix as

– And equating 𝑠𝐼 − 𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾 with desired characteristic equation.

𝑲 = 𝑘1 𝑘2 𝑘3⋯ 𝑘𝑛

(𝑠 − 𝜇1)( 𝑠 − 𝜇2) ⋯ 𝑠 − 𝜇𝑛 = 𝑠𝑛 + 𝛼1𝑠𝑛−1 + 𝛼2𝑠𝑛−2 + ⋯ + 𝛼𝑛−1s+𝛼𝑛 𝐶𝑇 = 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 ⋯ 𝐴𝑛−1𝐵

(13)

Example

 Consider the regulator system shown in following figure. The plant is given by 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 + 0 0 1 𝑢(𝑡)

 The system uses the state feedback control u=-Kx. The desired eigenvalues are 𝜇1 = −2 + 𝑗4, 𝜇2 = −2 − 𝑗4 ,𝜇3 = −1. Determine

(14)

Example

 Step-1

 First, we need to check the controllability matrix of the system. Since the controllability matrix 𝐶𝑇 is given by

 We find that rank(𝐶𝑇)=3. Thus, the system is completely state controllable and arbitrary pole placement is possible.

𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 + 0 0 1 𝑢(𝑡) 𝐶𝑇 = 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 = 0 0 1 0 1 −6 1 −6 31

(15)

Step-2:

Let K be

 Desired characteristic polynomial is obtained as

 Comparing the coefficients of powers of s

𝑲 = 𝑘1 𝑘2 𝑘3 𝑠𝐼 − 𝐴 + 𝐵𝐾 = 𝑠 0 0 0 𝑠 0 0 0 𝑠 − 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 + 0 0 1 𝑘1 𝑘2 𝑘3 = 𝑠3 + 6 + 𝑘3 𝑠2 + 5 + 𝑘2 𝑠 + 1 + 𝑘1 𝑠 + 2 − 4𝑗 𝑠 + 2 + 4𝑗 𝑠 + 10 = 𝑠3 + 14𝑠2 + 60𝑠 + 200 14 = 6 + 𝑘3 60 = 5 + 𝑘2 200 = 1 + 𝑘1 𝑘3 = 8 𝑘2 = 55 𝑘1 = 199

(16)
(17)

Pole Placement

(Ackermann’s Formula)

• Following are the steps to be followed in this particular method.

1. Check the state controllability of the system 𝐶𝑀 = 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 ⋯ 𝐴𝑛−1𝐵

(18)

Pole Placement

(Ackermann’s Formula)

• Following are the steps to be followed in this particular method.

2. Use Ackermann’s formula to calculate K

𝐾 = 0 0 ⋯ 0 1 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 ⋯ 𝐴𝑛−1𝐵 −1∅(𝐴)

(19)

Pole Placement

(Ackermann’s Formula)

• Example-1: Consider the regulator system shown in following figure. The plant is given by

𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 + 0 0 1 𝑢(𝑡)

• The system uses the state feedback control u=-Kx. The desired eigenvalues are 𝜇1 = −2 + 𝑗4, 𝜇2 = −2 − 𝑗4 ,𝜇3 = −1. Determine the state feedback gain matrix K.

(20)

Pole Placement

(Using Transformation Matrix P)

• Example-1: Step-1

• First, we need to check the controllability matrix of the system. Since the controllability matrix CM is given by

• We find that rank(CM)=3. Thus, the system is completely state controllable and arbitrary pole placement is possible.

𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 + 0 0 1 𝑢(𝑡) 𝐶𝑀 = 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 = 0 0 1 0 1 −6 1 −6 31

(21)

Pole Placement

(Ackermann’s Formula)

• Following are the steps to be followed in this particular method.

2. Use Ackermann’s formula to calculate K

𝐾 = 0 0 1 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 −1∅(𝐴) ∅ 𝐴 = 𝐴3 + 𝛼1𝐴2 + 𝛼2𝐴 + 𝛼3𝐼

• 𝛼𝑖 are the coefficients of the desired characteristic polynomial.

𝛼1 = 14, 𝛼2= 60, 𝛼3= 200

(22)

Pole Placement

(Ackermann’s Formula) ∅ 𝐴 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 3 + 14 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 2 + 60 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 + 200 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 = 0 1 0 0 0 1 −1 −5 −6 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 + 0 0 1 𝑢(𝑡) ∅ 𝐴 = 𝐴3 + 14𝐴2 + 60𝐴 + 200𝐼 ∅ 𝐴 = 199 55 8 −8 159 7 −7 −34 117

(23)

Pole Placement

(Ackermann’s Formula) ∅ 𝐴 = 199 55 8 −8 159 7 −7 −34 117 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2𝐵 = 0 0 1 0 1 −6 1 −6 31 𝐾 = 0 0 1 𝐵 𝐴𝐵 𝐴2 −1∅(𝐴) 𝐾 = 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 −6 1 −6 31 −1 199 55 8 −8 159 7 −7 −34 117 𝐾 = 199 55 8

(24)

Pole Placement

• Example-2: Consider the regulator system shown in following figure. The plant is given by

• Determine the state feedback gain for each state variable to place the poles at -1+j, -1-j,-3. (Apply all methods)

𝑑 𝑑𝑡 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 = 1 2 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥3 + 1 0 1 𝑢(𝑡)

(25)

End of Lec

References

Related documents

Dr; Yeo, Michelle; and Manarin, Karen (2018) "Challenges to Disciplinary Knowing and Identity: Experiences of Scholars in a SoTL Development Program," International Journal

A more stable leave-one-out procedure for a random- ized algorithm would be to fix r and to apply the leave-one-out method only on the sampling of the training set – a

However, although there have been a large number of studies about network design and fleet deployment for container transportation in shipping, most of these studies found are

Wilder RB et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.. Bendamustine plus Rituximab compared to CHOP plus Rituximab in Advanced. Untreated

This short article considers what surveillance and privacy mean to women experiencing violence and examines the extent to which such concepts have been overlaid with

All of the strategies as described in the book have entry and exit rules for trading at the market close using signals that are calculated at the market close.. A common way

As is highlighted by Hamilton-Smith and Kent (2005) the long term efficacy of alley-gating depends largely upon the co-operation of local residents. Gating will not work if

TECH: Resource Pro, a Teacher’s Resource Planner CD-ROM; Interactive Math: Lessons and Tools CD-ROM; MathSURF Web Site; The Know Zone  Web Site; Math Blaster  Pre- Algebra