Exercise 6

We will first discuss handin 4 and left-over problems from exercise 5.

Problem 1

Use the appropriate Riccati equation to prove the Kalman filter identity

LaTeX: R_2 + C_2(sI - A)^{-1}R_1(s_I - A^\top)^{-1} C_2^\top = [I_p + C_2(s_i - A)^{-1}L]R_2[I_p + C_2(-sI - A^\top)^{-1}L]^\topR2+C2(sIA)1R1(sIA)1C2=[Ip+C2(siA)1L]R2[Ip+C2(sIA)1L]

Use duality to deduce the return difference formula

LaTeX: Q_2 + B^\top(-sI - A^\top)^{-1}Q_1(sI - A)^{-1}B = [I_m + K(-sI - A^\top)^{-1}B]^\top Q_2[I_m + K(sI - A)^{-1}B]Q2+B(sIA)1Q1(sIA)1B=[Im+K(sIA)1B]Q2[Im+K(sIA)1B]

Problem 2

Consider the Doyle-Stein LTR example from the LQG lecture

LaTeX: G(s)=\frac{s+2}{(s+1)(s+3)}G(s)=s+2(s+1)(s+3)

See the slides, or their articles, for more details.

  1. Evaluate the LaTeX: \mathcal H_2H2-norm for the system from LaTeX: vv to LaTeX: zz where LaTeX: z^\top z = x^\top Q_1 x + u^\top Q_2 uzz=xQ1x+uQ2u and the maximum sensitivity LaTeX: M_SMS of the closed-loop system for LaTeX: q = 0q=0
  2. Plot the LaTeX: \mathcal H_2H2-norm versus LaTeX: M_SMS for varying values of LaTeX: qq. Is much LaTeX: \mathcal H_2H2-optimality lost to obtain robustness?

Problem 3

Consider the Rosenbrock example from the "Going MIMO" lecture

LaTeX: P(s) = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{1}{s + 1} & \frac{2}{s+3} \\ \frac{1}{s+1} & \frac{1}{s+1}
\end{bmatrix}P(s)=[1s+12s+31s+11s+1],

which has a multivariable zero in LaTeX: s = 1s=1. Design a controller using LQG and try to achieve a gain crossover frequency  LaTeX: \omega_{gc} > 0.5 \textrm{rad/s}ωgc>0.5rad/s and reasonable robustness.

Problem 4

The file quadtank.m Download quadtank.m contains a linear model of a symmetric quadtank. The outputs are the levels of the two lower tanks. The parameter setting LaTeX: \gamma = 0.3γ=0.3 corresponds to a non-minimum phase system that is difficult to control.

Make an LQG design with reasonable performance that has integral action using either:

  1. Explicit integration augmenting the system with integrator states LaTeX: \dot x_9 = y - 3 \in \mathbb R^2˙x9=y3R2 (these two states are directly measured, and should not be estimated by the Kalman filter)
  2. Augmenting the system with a constant input disturbance model, i.e. LaTeX: \dot x = Ax + Bu + Bd˙x=Ax+Bu+Bd where LaTeX: \dot d = 0˙d=0 and LaTeX: u = -K\hat x - \hat du=Kˆxˆd

In both cases, plot the gain (singular values vs frequency) of the resulting controller and the GOF. Also verify that the step responses of the closed loop system look reasonable.

 

Problem 5

Prove the formulas mentioned in the Robust Control lecture:

LaTeX: \text{gain margin} \geq \frac{1 + b_{P, K}}{1 - b_{P, K}}gain margin1+bP,K1bP,K

LaTeX: \text{phase margin} \geq 2 \arcsin(b_{P, K})phase margin2arcsin(bP,K)

 

Problem 6

Find a rational controller LaTeX: C(s)C(s) that stabilizes both LaTeX: P(s) = \frac{1}{s}P(s)=1s and LaTeX: P(s) = -\frac{1}{s}P(s)=1s or prove that it is impossible.

 

Problem 7

Calculate the nu-gap LaTeX: \delta_\nuδν for varying parameters LaTeX: aa between the processes

  1. LaTeX: G_1 = \frac{1}{s + a}G1=1s+a and LaTeX: G_2(s) = \frac{1}{s-a}G2(s)=1sa
  2. LaTeX: G_1 = \frac{1}{s + a}G1=1s+a and LaTeX: G_2(s) = \frac{1}{a-s}G2(s)=1as
  3. LaTeX: G_1 = \frac{1}{s + 1}G1=1s+1 and LaTeX: G_2(s) = \frac{a}{s + a}G2(s)=as+a
  4. LaTeX: G_1 = \frac{1}{s + 1}G1=1s+1 and LaTeX: G_2(s) = \frac{1}{(s + 1)^2}G2(s)=1(s+1)2
  5. LaTeX: G_1(s) = \frac{1}{s - 1}G1(s)=1s1 and LaTeX: G_2(s) = \frac{1}{(s - 1)^2}G2(s)=1(s1)2
  6. LaTeX: G_1(s) = \frac{1}{s - 1}G1(s)=1s1 and LaTeX: \frac{1}{(s-1)(s+1)}1(s1)(s+1)

Hint: Use the matlab command gapmetric.

Problem 8

The solution to the LaTeX: \mathcal H_\inftyH problem presented at the lecture (implemented in the matlab-routine hinfsyn) solves the so-called sub-optimal problem: Given LaTeX: \gammaγ, determine if a controller exists giving a closed loop with

LaTeX: \|T_{zw}\|_\infty < \gammaTzw<γ.

The optimal level, LaTeX: \gamma_\starγ can then be found by decreasing LaTeX: \gammaγ until no solution exists. To study the optimal LaTeX: \mathcal H_\inftyH controller, consider the system given in the matlab-file goldenratioex.m. Download goldenratioex.m.

The system describes the feedforward optimization problem

LaTeX: \begin{aligned}
\dot x_1 & = -x_1 + u \\
\dot x_2 & = -x_2 + x_1 + w \\
z & = \begin{bmatrix}
x_2 / \rho \\ u
\end{bmatrix} \\
y & = w
 
\end{aligned}˙x1=x1+u˙x2=x2+x1+wz=[x2/ρu]y=w

  1. For the case LaTeX: \rho = 1ρ=1, use hinfsyn to find the optimal controller LaTeX: u = K(s) wu=K(s)wwhen LaTeX: \gamma = \gamma_\starγ=γ. Compare with the analytical solution LaTeX: K(s) = \dfrac{(s + 1)}{k(s + 1) + 1}K(s)=(s+1)k(s+1)+1 with LaTeX: k = 1.3953k=1.3953. Hint: the optimal value is LaTeX: \gamma_\star \approx 0.7167γ0.7167
  2. Do the same for LaTeX: \rho = \sqrt{2}ρ=2. What order will the controller given by hinfsyn be now? Hint: The optimal value is LaTeX: \gamma_\star = \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}γ=13.

For the interested, more details can be found in an article by Bernhardsson and Hagander from 1990.

 

Problem 9

Use mixsyn to do control of the motor

LaTeX: G(s) = \frac{20}{s(s + 1)}G(s)=20s(s+1)

achieving LaTeX: |\frac{1}{\omega}S(j\omega)| \leq k_1|1ωS(jω)|k1 and LaTeX: |C(j_\omega)S(j\omega)|_\infty < k_2|C(jω)S(jω)|<k2. Plot the region in the LaTeX: (k_1, k_2)(k1,k2)-plane that you were able to achieve. Hint: you can use the file motorex6.m Download motorex6.m to get started.

Problem 10

Use the file aircglover.m Download aircglover.m to do Glover-MacFarlane design with loopsyn on the aircraft example. in the design, the 3 PI controllers had the same parameters. Redo the design and try to reduce the control peak due to a change of height reference (first input, i.e., the first column in figure 6) while maintaining a settling time of 1 second, good damping and mainly diagonal (noninteracting) response.