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
R2+C2(sI−A)−1R1(sI−A⊤)−1C⊤2=[Ip+C2(si−A)−1L]R2[Ip+C2(−sI−A⊤)−1L]⊤
Use duality to deduce the return difference formula
Q2+B⊤(−sI−A⊤)−1Q1(sI−A)−1B=[Im+K(−sI−A⊤)−1B]⊤Q2[Im+K(sI−A)−1B]
Problem 2
Consider the Doyle-Stein LTR example from the LQG lecture
G(s)=s+2(s+1)(s+3)
See the slides, or their articles, for more details.
- Evaluate the
H2-norm for the system from
v to
z where
z⊤z=x⊤Q1x+u⊤Q2u and the maximum sensitivity
MS of the closed-loop system for
q=0
- Plot the
H2-norm versus
MS for varying values of
q. Is much
H2-optimality lost to obtain robustness?
Problem 3
Consider the Rosenbrock example from the "Going MIMO" lecture
P(s)=[1s+12s+31s+11s+1],
which has a multivariable zero in s=1. Design a controller using LQG and try to achieve a gain crossover frequency
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 γ=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:
- Explicit integration augmenting the system with integrator states
˙x9=y−3∈R2 (these two states are directly measured, and should not be estimated by the Kalman filter)
- Augmenting the system with a constant input disturbance model, i.e.
˙x=Ax+Bu+Bd where
˙d=0 and
u=−Kˆx−ˆd
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:
gain margin≥1+bP,K1−bP,K
phase margin≥2arcsin(bP,K)
Problem 6
Find a rational controller C(s) that stabilizes both
P(s)=1s and
P(s)=−1s or prove that it is impossible.
Problem 7
Calculate the nu-gap δν for varying parameters
a between the processes
G1=1s+a and
G2(s)=1s−a
G1=1s+a and
G2(s)=1a−s
G1=1s+1 and
G2(s)=as+a
G1=1s+1 and
G2(s)=1(s+1)2
G1(s)=1s−1 and
G2(s)=1(s−1)2
G1(s)=1s−1 and
1(s−1)(s+1)
Hint: Use the matlab command gapmetric.
Problem 8
The solution to the H∞ problem presented at the lecture (implemented in the matlab-routine hinfsyn) solves the so-called sub-optimal problem: Given
γ, determine if a controller exists giving a closed loop with
‖Tzw‖∞<γ.
The optimal level, γ⋆ can then be found by decreasing
γ until no solution exists. To study the optimal
H∞ controller, consider the system given in the matlab-file goldenratioex.m.
Download goldenratioex.m.
The system describes the feedforward optimization problem
˙x1=−x1+u˙x2=−x2+x1+wz=[x2/ρu]y=w
- For the case
ρ=1, use hinfsyn to find the optimal controller
u=K(s)wwhen
γ=γ⋆. Compare with the analytical solution
K(s)=(s+1)k(s+1)+1 with
k=1.3953. Hint: the optimal value is
γ⋆≈0.7167
- Do the same for
ρ=√2. What order will the controller given by hinfsyn be now? Hint: The optimal value is
γ⋆=1√3.
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
G(s)=20s(s+1)
achieving |1ωS(jω)|≤k1 and
|C(jω)S(jω)|∞<k2. Plot the region in the
(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.