Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
EQUIVALENT MODELS
By
FAHAD MUMTAZ MALIK
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
National University of Sciences and Technology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Supervised by
DR MOHAMMAD BILAL MALIK
In the name of Allah, the most Merciful and the most Beneficent
ii
ABSTRACT
SAMPLED-DATA CONTROL BASED ON DISCRETE-TIME
EQUIVALENT MODELS
By
FAHAD MUMTAZ MALIK
This thesis focuses on the design and performance of sampled-data control of
continuous-time systems. The philosophy of the control law design is based on
stabilization of discrete-time equivalent models of the continuous-time system. The
development in the thesis can be broadly classified into sampled-data stabilization of a
class of underactuated linear systems and sampled-data stabilization of locally Lipschitz
nonlinear systems.
The class of underactuated linear systems considered in the thesis has time
varying actuation characteristics. The system can be actuated with a short duration pulse
during a fixed interval of time. The system is unactuated otherwise in the interval. Based
on these actuation characteristics, a discrete-time equivalent model can be developed by
integrating the continuous-time model. The equivalent model is time invariant and fully
actuated thus discrete-time control law design for sampled-data control is facilitated.
The closed form exact discrete-time equivalent model (obtained by integrating the
continuous-time model over the sampling interval) cannot be obtained for nonlinear
systems in general. As an alternative, the continuous-time model is discretized using the
Euler method. Discretization using the Euler method has an associated discretization
iii
error. This error may become unbounded in certain cases for nonlinear systems. This
provides the motivation for analysis of discretization error bounds for nonlinear systems.
Analyses show that locally Lipschitz nonlinear systems discretized using the Euler
method have bounded discretization error for sampling time less than the guaranteed
interval of existence. The error bound is a function of Lipschitz constant and sampling
time.
The discrete-time control law is designed on the basis of system model discretized
using the Euler method. The sampled-data closed loop performance of locally Lipschitz
nonlinear systems is analyzed using discretization error bounds and Lyapunov method.
Locally Lipschitz nonlinear systems with state feedback control are analyzed in general
whereas performance of output feedback control using discrete-time observers is
investigated
for
sub-class
of
locally
Lipschitz
nonlinear
systems.
iv
To my beloved
Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
All praises and thanks are due to, Allah Almighty, the Lord of the Universe, for
His merciful and divine direction throughout my study. Afterwards, I would like to
acknowledge the guidance and cooperation of all my teachers whose earnest efforts have
made possible the successful completion of this work. In particular, my MS and PhD
supervisor Dr Mohammad Bilal Malik, who not only extensively guided me throughout
the course of my postgraduate studies but also provided tremendous moral support and
inspiration.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my GEC member Dr Mohammad
Ali Maud, Dr Ejaz Muhammad and Dr Khalid Munawar for their precious time and
guidance that I have received from them. In particular Dr. Khalid Munawar who always
gave me his gentle and kind attention whenever I desired so. I would address special
thanks to Dr Muhammad Salman Masaud who as a senior always selflessly helped and
supported me. I would also thank my colleagues Muhammad Asim Ajaz, Aamir Hussain,
Usman Ali and Saqib Mehmood for their cooperation and beneficial academic
discussions I have had with them.
I am grateful to my father Muhammad Mumtaz Khan, my mother and my elder
brother Shahid Mumtaz Malik who always supported and encouraged me throughout my
life. I would also like to thank my dear friends Syed Khurram Mehmood and Anees
Mumtaz Abbasi for motivating me and keeping me in a positive state of mind. I am
vi
indebted to my wife who has been very supportive and has shown extraordinary patience
towards the later half of this work.
I would also like to gratefully acknowledge National University of Sciences and
Technology, Pakistan for the financial support it provided for my studies and research.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
CHAPTER 2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Summary.. .......................................................................................38
CHAPTER 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
Examples.........................................................................................62
3.6
Summary.. .......................................................................................68
CHAPTER 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Examples.........................................................................................99
4.6
Summary.. .....................................................................................104
CHAPTER 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
Convergence Analyses......................................................................................112
5.4
Examples.......................................................................................140
5.5
Summary.. .....................................................................................145
CHAPTER 6
6.1
Conclusions.......................................................................................146
ix
6.2
Future Suggestions............................................................................148
References............................................................................................................... 150
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
Figure 5-5. Estimated States of Manipulator with Flexible Joints Using Discrete-Time
Observer.................................................................................................................. 144
xii
LIST OF TABLES
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Sampled-Data Control
Control of a continuous-time system by a digital controller is termed as sampled-
data control [13], [21], [32], [34], [38]. The digital controller (typically a microcontroller)
is fed with discretized states or output of the continuous-time system. The states or output
is discretized using a sample and hold circuit. The controller determines the input for the
continuous-time system using the states/output according to a discrete-time control law.
This discrete control input is then applied to the continuous-time system via a zero-orderhold circuit [33]. The concept of sampled-data control is illustrated in Figure 1-1 ([60],
[61]).
Discrete-time
control input
Discrete
Reference
Digital
Controller
D/A
Converter
Continuous-time
System
States
/Output
A/D
Converter
system that describes its dynamical behavior. The mathematical model for a continuoustime system is typically a set of differential equations. A large class of physical systems
can be modeled using state space representation, which is a set of first order differential
equations. The emphasis of modern development in the area of control systems is on state
space representation.
The mathematical model of a continuous-time system written in state space is
x = f ( x, u ) ,
(1.2.1)
T . In order to design a discrete-time control law for this purpose, a discrete-time model
of (1.2.1) with sampling time T is required. An exact discrete-time equivalent model will
be the solution of set of differential equations (1.2.1) over the interval t [kT , (k + 1)T ] ,
where k is an arbitrary integer. Let the state of (1.2.1) at time t = kT be x(kT ) , then the
state at time t = (k + 1)T using fundamental theorem of calculus [35] is
( k +1)T
f ( x( ), u ( ))d .
(1.2.2)
kT
(1.2.3)
f ( x( ), u (kT ))d .
(1.2.4)
kT
The discrete-time model (1.2.4) is termed as exact discrete-time model ([3], [12]) for the
system (1.2.1) with zero-order-held input. The discrete-time control law for the sampleddata control of continuous-time system (1.2.1) is designed on the basis of exact discretetime model (1.2.4).
1.2.1
The closed form exact discrete-time model with zero-order-held input can be
easily obtained for linear time invariant systems using integration. To illustrate this
concept consider the following LTI system
x = Ax + Bu ,
(1.2.5)
where A and B are time invariant matrices that represent the map of states and input
respectively to the derivative of states. The exact discrete-time model for (1.2.5) with
sampling time T is given by
kT +T
x ( kT + T ) = exp( A( kT + T kT )) x ( kT ) +
exp ( A( kT + T ) ) Bu( kT )d
kT
kT +T
= exp( AT ) x ( kT ) +
(1.2.6)
exp ( A( kT + T ) ) d Bu( kT )
kT
(1.2.7)
(1.2.8)
The discrete-time control law that stabilizes (1.2.8) can be easily designed.
In this thesis a discrete-time control scheme is proposed for a class of
underactuated linear systems based on the corresponding exact discrete-time model.
1.2.2
Nonlinear Systems
In the case of nonlinear systems, the closed form exact discrete-time model
(1.2.4) cannot be obtained in general. To overcome this problem the following two
logical approaches have been adopted by researchers to design discrete-time control law
for the stabilization of nonlinear systems in sampled-data form.
1. Continuous-time control law is designed that stabilizes the continuous-time nonlinear
system model. This control law is then discretized according to the sampling time and
implemented in sampled-data form.
2. The continuous-time system model is discretized according to the sampling time
using numerical techniques. The resulting discrete-time model is termed as
approximate discrete-time model. Discrete-time control law is then designed that
stabilizes the approximate discrete-time model.
The first approach for control law design is well established and is widely
practiced by control engineers [56], [79], [83]. Many researchers have investigated the
performance of closed loop sampled-data nonlinear systems with control law designed
using this approach. A few pertinent contributions are [19], [22], [25] and [82].
The second approach for control law design is relatively new and less recognized.
However this approach has certain advantages over the first one, for example, the
resulting closed loop system has a larger region of attraction with this design approach as
compared with the first one for equal sampling time. The superiority of this approach is
attributed to the fact that the approximate discrete-time model is better at approximating
the exact discrete-time model as compared to the continuous-time system [70].
In this thesis, the performance of state and output feedback discrete-time control
law designed for a class of nonlinear systems using the second approach is analyzed.
1.3
simple words the actuation characteristics are time varying, i.e the system is fully
actuated for a short duration and unactuated otherwise. The special underactuation of the
class of systems longs for the development of a novel control scheme.
1.4
f ( x, u ) f ( y, u ) L1 x y
x, y Bx ,
(1.4.1)
where
Bx = {x
x xo rx }
(1.4.2)
The conventional discretization error bound analyses can be classified into two
categories based on Lipschitz properties of nonlinear systems. For globally Lipschitz
nonlinear systems having bounded second order derivative over the interval of interest,
the discretization error bound is derived using the Taylor series expansion. These
analyses can be found in numerous numerical analysis text books such as [7], [11], [17],
[40], [54], [68] and references therein. However the global Lipschitz condition and
bounded second order derivative requirements restrict the application of these analyses.
Discretization error bounds for locally Lipschitz nonlinear systems can be found
in [37] (section 1.7). The same has also been discussed by Nesic, Teel and Kokotovic in
[70] as single and multi-step modeling consistency and included locally Lipschitz
systems as a special case. The analyses presented in these contributions are based on
certain system properties which results in loose discretization error bounds. For instance,
discretization error bound derived in [37] requires a bound on the nonlinear function in a
neighborhood of the solution.
The stability analysis of discrete-time nonlinear systems has been discussed in
[46], [85] and [86]. The performance of the control law designed on the basis of
approximate discrete-time model for nonlinear systems in general has been analyzed by
Nesic and Teel in their contributions [69], [70], [73] and [74]. In these papers, they have
established that if the discrete-time control law asymptotically stabilizes (states tend to
zero as time tends to infinity) the approximate discrete-time model, then under sufficient
conditions, the exact discrete-time model is practically asymptotically stabilized. The
concept of practical stability is that the states of exact discrete-time model remain
9
bounded, where they decreases asymptotically but remains nonzero even as time tends to
infinity. The sufficient conditions are
(1.4.3)
where x R n is the state u R is the input and y R is the output. The function (.,.)
is nonlinear and locally Lipschitz in its arguments. The canonical matrices Ac , Bc and
Cc are defined as follows
10
0
0
Ac =
#
0
Cc = [1
0 %
# "
0 "
0 ...
0
0
0
#
, Bc =
#
1
0
1
... 0]
(1.4.4)
high gain observer is designed for the continuous-time model (1.4.3) to achieve
disturbance rejection caused by modeling uncertainty. This high gain observer is then
discretized using numerical techniques. The closed loop performance is analyzed using
discrete-time, two time scale analyses for singularity perturbed systems.
1.5
Analyses of the performance of the state feedback control law designed on the
basis of the Euler discretized system model for locally Lipschitz nonlinear
12
1.6
1.7
14
15
CHAPTER 2
SAMPLED-DATA STABILIZATION OF UNDERACTUATED
LINEAR SYSTEMS
model based predicted states for the determination of phase of actuation pulse.
Stabilization of the machine is established by simulations.
2.1
(2.1.1)
where x R n is the state, u R p is the input and y R q is the output. x(0) = xo is the
initial state of the system.
The time varying input matrix B (t ) defines the underactuation of (2.1.1). The
mathematical definition of B (t ) follows from the actuation topology of (2.1.1) which is
illustrated in Figure 2-1. The system can be actuated once, with a pulse of duration T
seconds in a fixed interval of time L. The interval L is termed as actuation cycle. The
system remains unactuated for the remaining time L-T during the actuation cycle.
Furthermore the actuation cycle is periodic. The actuation pulse starts after a time delay
of length (termed as actuation delay) in the actuation cycle shown in Figure 2-1.
17
Input
u(t)
kL
(k + 1) L
time t
The phase (starting point) of the actuation pulse depends upon r R q , which is
the desired reference for stabilization of the output y (t ) . The amplitude of actuation
pulse is fixed in a given actuation cycle, i.e it is zero-order-held. In light of the above
discussion, the input matrix B (t ) is defined as
B kL + t kL + + T
B (t ) =
otherwise
0
(2.1.2)
The actuation characteristics of the system (2.1.1) discussed in section 2.1 provide
basis for the development of a discrete-time equivalent model for this system. The
resultant model facilitates discrete-time control law design.
The discrete-time equivalent model is developed for a complete actuation cycle
from t = kL + to t = kL + + L .The equivalent model is developed in two stages. In
18
the first stage, the time interval [kL + , kL + + T ] is considered during which the
system (2.1.1) is actuated with zero-order-held input. In the second stage, the interval
[kL + + T , kL + + L] is considered, for which system (2.1.1) is unactuated.
The state of (2.1.1) at t = kL + is x(kL + ) . The state of this system at
t = kL + + T in terms of x(kL + ) is given by
kL ++T
x ( kL + + T ) = exp( AT ) x (kL + ) +
kL+
Using change of variables for the integrand, the equation (2.2.1) can be written as
T
(2.2.2)
= Ad 1 x (kL + ) + Bd 1u(kL + )
T
(2.2.3)
(2.2.4)
where Ad = Ad 2 Ad 1 and Bd = Ad 2 Bd 1 . The equation (2.2.4) is transformed into discretetime domain by replacing kL + by m, and kL + + L by m + 1 ,
19
(2.2.5)
The conventional bracket notation is adopted for discrete-time representation. The model
(2.2.5) is the discrete-time equivalent model of (2.1.1) for a single actuation cycle.
2.3
Discrete-time Controller
(2.3.1)
where the matrix K is chosen so that the eigenvalues of ( Ad Bd K ) are inside the unit
circle. The factor G is known as pre-scalar in control system literature and is given by
the following expression ([30], [76])
G=
1
.
C ( Ad Bd K I ) 1 Bd
(2.3.2)
An important point that should be noted here is that the discrete-time controller
has to determine the phase of actuation pulse ( t = kL + ) as well. The phase of actuation
pulse depends upon the reference for stabilization r and the system state. The discrete-
20
time controller decides about the point of actuation during the actuation cycle on the basis
of sampled state x[i ] , sampled after every T seconds.
Remark 2.1: The discrete-time equivalent model considers a complete actuation cycle of
duration L seconds as a single discrete step, represented by discrete index m, whereas the
sampling time for the discrete-time controller is T seconds represented by discrete index
i . The controller sampling rate is usually a fraction of L . Alternately speaking, the
system is two time scale: one scale for the model and the other for the controller.
The controllability (reachability) of ( Ad , Bd ) pair is guaranteed by the following
Lemma
Lemma 2.1
(2.3.3)
21
(2.3.4)
Since Ad = exp( AL) , all its powers are full rank because of exponential function being
T
nonsingular, Similar argument is valid for the term exp( AT ). exp ( A(T ) ) d .
0
Consequently
T
Thus ( Ad , Bd ) is controllable.
,,,
2.4
In this section a control law design procedure is presented for the stabilization of
the underactuated system under discussion, with input delay. In the case of input delay,
the dynamics of the system respond to the applied input after certain interval of time. In
recent past, a transformation was presented in [89], termed as linear predictor, that
transforms a discrete-time system with input delay into an equivalent discrete-time
system without input delay. This process facilitates control law design.
The analyses in [89] are for a single time scale discrete-time system, however as
already mentioned, the underactuated systems discussed in this thesis become two time
scale when controlled by a discrete-time controller. Thus modifications have to be done
in the transformation presented in [89] to make it applicable for two time scale systems.
The transformation of [89] is briefly presented here for the convenience of readers.
22
(2.4.1)
To transform the system into an equivalent model with no input delay, the following
change of variables is performed
z[k ] = x[k ] + A1Bu[k N ] + A2 Bu[ k N + 1] + .... + A N Bu[k 1]
= x[k ] +
k 1
A( j k + N +1) Bu[ j ]
(2.4.2)
j =k N
k 1
A( j k + N +1) Bu[ j + 1] .
(2.4.3)
j =k N
(2.4.4)
The discrete-time model (2.4.4) has no input delay. Thus the transformation (2.4.2)
converts a discrete-time system with input delays into an equivalent system without any
input delay.
2.4.1
Consider that the class of underactuated linear systems under discussion has input
delay of NT seconds. It is assumed that NT < L . The continuous-time model then
becomes
x (t ) = Ax(t ) + B(t )u (t NT )
y (t ) = Cx(t )
23
(2.4.5)
(2.4.6)
(2.4.7)
The discrete-time system (2.4.7) can be transformed into an equivalent system without
input delay by the following change of variables
z[i ] = x[i ] +
i 1
j =i N
(2.4.8)
i 1
j =i N
(2.4.9)
24
(2.4.10)
(2.4.11)
(2.4.12)
(2.4.13)
25
(2.4.14)
Since u[i N 1] = 0 ,
u[i N ] = Kx[i N ] + Gr .
2.5
(2.4.15)
2.5.1
The underactuated drill machine used for multi-axis drilling of soft nonmagnetic
materials has customized construction. This special construction enables the use of a
single pair of electromagnetic poles to control two degrees of freedom, i.e pitch and yaw,
of the bit. For clarity of presentation, construction of the orientation control mechanism is
explained only.
The rotor of the machine is a ring shaped permanent magnet as shown in Figure
2-2. The rotor is connected to the base of the machine by a universal joint which provides
the roll, pitch and yaw freedoms. It may be noted here that the base of the machine may
be mounted on a manipulator for enhancement of the workspace as desired. The stator of
the machine has a single coil wound over it as shown in Figure 2-2. Excitation of this coil
produces the orientation control field which is always aligned with the z axis of the fixed
frame of reference (x,y,z). Interaction of the orientation control magnetic field with the
field of the rotor permanent magnet results in torque that changes the orientation of the
bit.
It is assumed that the drill bit is rotating about the z ' axis of the rotating frame of
reference ( x ' , y ' , z ' ) at constant rpm . In Figure 2-2, only z ' axis is shown for simplicity
which is aligned with the z axis. This is also the reference position for measurement of
the angular displacement of the bit about x and y axes. The roll actuation and speed
stabilization are handled separately. However the roll actuation mechanism can also be
integrated on the same stator.
27
Stator Winding
x
N
z
z'
Actuation Mechanism
Consider that the bit is spinning about z ' axis at constant rpm thus the
dynamical behavior of the bit is that of spinning gyroscope. To explain the actuation
mechanism suppose that the bit is at the reference position ( z and z ' axes aligned) and it
is to be rotated by 1 and 2 radians about x and y axes of the fixed reference frame
respectively. P is the unit vector of the projection of the final position of the bit in the xy
plane as indicated in Figure 2-3. To achieve the desired orientation, the stator
electromagnet is energized when the field of the permanent rotor magnet is perpendicular
to the vector P as shown in Figure 2-3. Similar poles experience repulsive force while
opposite poles experience attractive force in the z axis direction. This results in torque
aligned to the vector P . Since the bit is spinning about z ' axis, it rotates about the axis
perpendicular to the axis of spin and applied torque according to law of conservation of
28
29
Continuous-time Model
As it has been mentioned in section 2.5.2 that the drill bit can be treated as a
spinning gyroscope, the dynamical model of a gyroscope is used here for representing the
bit. The simplified dynamical model of a spinning gyroscope is given by the following
equations
Jx + bx + Hy = Ki x
Jy + by Hx = Ki y
(2.5.1)
where x and y represent the angular positions of the bit in radians about x and y
axes respectively, x and y are the torques applied about x and y axes respectively, J is
the moment of inertia, b is the coefficient of friction, Ki is the torque constant. H is
30
frequency of the bit about z ' axis) and J z is the moment of inertia of the bit about z '
axis.
The model (2.5.1) is represented in state space form by defining x and y as
states x1 and x3 respectively. The derivates of angular positions i.e x and y are
represented by states x2 and x4 respectively and the applied torques x and y are
considered as inputs u1 and u2 respectively. The state space representation of (2.5.1) is
given by
x1 = x2
x2 =
K
b
H
x2 x4 + i u1
J
J
J
x3 = x4
x4 =
(2.5.2)
K
b
H
x3 + x2 + i u2
J
J
J
The states x1 and x3 are considered as output y of the system since these states have to
be stabilized at desired reference r . The model (2.5.2) can be written in the convenient
matrix form as
x = Ax + Bu
y = Cx
31
(2.5.3)
where
0
0
0
K / J
0 H / J
,B = i
0
0
1
0 b / J
0
1 0 0 0
C=
0 0 1 0
1
0
0 b / J
A=
0
0
0 H / J
0
0
0
Ki / J
(2.5.4)
The drill bit can be actuated for a short duration when the desired projection
vector and permanent magnet are approximately perpendicular. The bit is unactuated
otherwise during the roll. The underactuation of the bit is introduced in the model (2.5.3)
as
x = Ax + B(t )u
y = Cx
(2.5.5)
where B(t ) is as defined in (2.1.2) with B given in (2.5.4), L is equal to the time period
of roll and T is the duration during which the desired projection vector and permanent
magnet are considered approximately perpendicular.
2.5.4
Discrete-time Controller
The control objective is the stabilization of the drill bit at the desired reference
using a discrete-time controller. For this purpose, it is assumed that feedback of all the
system states is available to the controller. Moreover, feedback of the position of the rotor
is also available. The discrete-time controller has the following two objectives
A:
control law.
32
B:
Determination of the point of actuation during the roll of the bit. The point of
(2.5.6)
The second task of the discrete-time controller is the determination of the point of
actuation t = kL + during roll of the bit. To determine the phase of actuation pulse it is
assumed that state feedback x[i ] and angular position feedback of the permanent rotor
magnet [i ] is available to the controller after every T seconds which is indicated by
discrete index i .
It should be noted here that the feedback control input (2.5.6) gives the required
torque vector whose phase will always by perpendicular to the desired projection unit
vector P described in section 2.5.2. In order to determine the centre of actuation pulse,
the controller computes a feedback control input u[i ] after every T seconds on the basis
of the sampled state feedback x[i ] . The center of actuation pulse is at the discrete index i
at which the following condition is satisfied
u2 [i ]
+ ,
u1[i ] 2
[i ] = tan 1
33
(2.5.7)
The condition (2.5.7) marks the centre of actuation pulse for the system as shown
in Figure 2-1. The actuation of the system has to start T / 2 seconds prior to the point in
time when this condition is satisfied. This makes the system actuation non-causal. To
overcome this non-causality, model prediction based determination of point of actuation
is suggested in which case the system states at the next discrete step are estimated. Based
on these estimates a decision is taken whether or not the next discrete index would be the
centre of actuation pulse. In case the next sample marks the centre of actuation pulse,
actuation starts T / 2 seconds after the current sample.
The states of the system at the next discrete step can be estimated using the
following expression
x[i + 1] = Ad1 x[i ] + Bd1u[i ] .
(2.5.8)
The estimated state x[i + 1] is then used by the controller in deciding about actuation or
otherwise at t = iT +
T
. Mathematically,
2
1 u2 [i + 1]
Kx[i + 1] + Gr if [i ] = tan
+
u (t ) =
u1[i + 1] 2
otherwise
0
t [iT + T / 2, (i + 1)T + T / 2]
(2.5.9)
2.5.5
Simulations
34
also considered for simulation [62]. The input delay is assumed to be of a single sampling
interval. The control law is designed using the procedure presented in section 2.4.
The various parameters of the drill machine used for simulation are J = 4 Kg-m 2 ,
J z = 5 Kg-m 2 , = 400 rad/sec, Ki = 1 and b=100 . The drill machine is assumed to be
at rest initially and the desired reference for stabilization is r = [0.4, 0.3]T . The time
duration of a single revolution about z ' -axis is L = 0.05s . The sampling time and
duration of actuation is T = L / 16 . The matrices Ad and Bd of the discrete-time
equivalent model as described in section 2.2 are
1
0
Ad =
0
0.0036
0.4289
0.0014
0.4289
0 -0.0014
0.0028 -0.0010
0.3486 -0.3318
0 -0.4289
104
, Bd =
0.0010 0.0028
1 0.0036
0 0.4289
0.3318 0.3486
(2.5.10)
The matrix K is chosen for the control law (2.3.1) so that the eigenvalues of
Ad Bd K are inside the unit circle. The results of simulation are presented in Figure 2-4,
which shows that the continuous-time system is stabilized at the desired reference.
Stabilization of the drill bit at the desired reference with delayed input of a single
sample is shown in Figure 2-5 . In case of delayed system Ad' = Ad and
0.0026 -0.0009
0.3760 -0.3243
'
104 .
Bd =
0.0009 0.0026
0.3243 0.3760
(2.5.11)
The matrix K is chosen for the control law (2.4.13) so that the eigenvalues of Ad' Bd' K
are inside the unit circle.
35
36
Figure 2-5. Stabilization of the Drill Bit with Input Delay of a Single Sample
37
2.6
Summary
38
CHAPTER 3
DISCRETIZATION ERROR BOUNDS FOR NONLINEAR SYSTEMS
In this chapter discretization error bounds are determined for locally Lipschitz
nonlinear systems discretized using the Euler method. Characteristics of the discretization
error effect the performance of the control law designed on the basis of the discretized
system model. The need for new development arises from the fact that the discretization
error bounds derived for locally Lipschitz nonlinear systems in literature are quite
abstract and loose.
The discussion starts with the revisit of the Lipschitz condition followed by the
review of local existence and uniqueness theorem for locally Lipschitz nonlinear systems.
This theorem guarantees that a unique solution exists for a specific time interval. It is
shown that the discretization error remains bounded for a single sampling interval with
sampling time less than the time interval of guaranteed existence of solution. Afterwards,
discretization error bounds are established for more than one sampling interval.
The analyses are illustrated by two examples. In the first example a locally
Lipschitz nonlinear system with finite escape time is considered. For a specified sampling
time, discretization error bound is calculated and it is shown that the actual error remains
within calculated bounds. The alternate application of the error bound analysis is the
determination of variable step-size for specified error bounds in numerical solvers. In the
second example a nonlinear system which is not continuously differentiable, is
considered. In this case also, the actual discretization error remains within bounds.
39
3.1
(3.1.1)
Assumption 1
x, y Bx ,
(3.1.2)
where
Bx = {x
x xo rx } ,
(3.1.3)
and
f ( x, u ) f ( x, v ) L2 u v
u , v Bu ,
(3.1.4)
where
Bu = {u u ru } .
(3.1.5)
,,,
Remark 3.1: Definition (3.1.5) also specifies the bound on input u (t ) . It should be noted
here that the ball defined in (3.1.5) is independent of uo which is the initial value of the
input. The reason is that the signal u (t ) is not evolving as a result of solution of a
differential equation as opposed to x(t ) . Thus u (t ) can be assumed independent of uo .
40
Remark 3.2: The notation . indicates vector norm. The choice of norm in the analyses
Under Assumption 1, there exists > 0 such that the state equation (3.1.1) has a
unique solution over the time interval
[0, ] .
follows [49].
rx
, ,
L1rx + h1 L1
min
(3.1.6)
where
h1 = max f ( xo , u ) ,
uBu
(3.1.7)
and is a positive number satisfying < 1 . It may also be noted that under the stated
conditions, the state x(t ) remains inside the ball of radius rx for all t [0, ] ,[49].
,,,
3.1.2
Consider an approximation of the system (3.1.1) when the input is held constant
for time t [ 0, T ] , where T . This new system can be expressed as follows
z = f ( z , uo ),
z (0) = xo ,
u (0) = uo
(3.1.8)
where z is the state and uo is the held input. Existence and uniqueness of (3.1.8) is
guaranteed by Theorem 2.1, where (3.1.7) simplifies into
41
h = f ( xo , uo ) .
(3.1.9)
The difference between the states of (3.1.1) and (3.1.8) is defined as input
discretization error. Mathematically,
eu (t ) = x(t ) z (t ), t [0, T ] ,
(3.1.10)
which gives
eu (t ) = f ( x, u ) f ( z , uo ),
e(to ) = 0
.
u (to ) = uo
(3.1.11)
Theorem 3.2
Under the stated conditions of Theorem 3.1, the norm of the input discretization
error (3.1.10) at time T * satisfies the following inequality
eu (T ) 2TL1r ' + 2TL2 ru' ,
(3.1.12)
(3.1.13)
rx' = max x( ) xo ,
(3.1.14)
(3.1.15)
ru' = max u ( ) ,
(3.1.16)
* = min( , 1 ) ,
(3.1.17)
where
[0,T ]
[0,T ]
[0,T ]
and
42
with 1 <
1
.
L1
,,,
Proof
eu (t ) = f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( z ( ), uo ) d
t [ 0, T ] .
(3.1.18)
f ( x( ), u( ) ) f ( z ( ), u ) d
eu (t ) =
t [ 0, T ]
(3.1.19)
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( z ( ), uo ) d
t [ 0, T ]
Adding and subtracting f ( z ( ), u ( )) inside the integrand and subsequently using the
triangle inequality of vector norms
( a+b
a + b
) results in
eu (t ) f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( z ( ), u ( )) + f ( z ( ), u ( )) f ( z ( ), uo ) d
0
(3.1.20)
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( z ( ), u ( )) + f ( z ( ), u ( )) f ( z ( ), uo ) d
0
eu (t ) L1 x( ) z ( ) d + L2 u ( ) uo d .
(3.1.21)
Adding and subtracting xo inside the vector norm of the first integrand of (3.1.21)
43
eu (t ) L1 x( ) xo z ( ) + xo d + L2 u ( ) + uo d
t
(3.1.22)
L1 ( x( ) xo ) ( z ( ) xo ) d + L2 u ( ) + uo d
Using triangular inequality of vector norms again gives
t
eu (t ) L1 x( ) xo + z ( ) xo d + L2 u ( ) + uo d .
(3.1.23)
Using definitions of rx' , rz' and ru' as given in (3.1.14)-(3.1.16), the inequality (3.1.19)
transforms into
t
0
0
'
'
'
L1rxt + L1rz t + 2 L2 ru t
eu (t ) L1 x( ) xo d + L1 z ( ) xo d + L2 u ( ) d + L2 uo d
(3.1.24)
(3.1.25)
Thus the norm of a single-step input discretization error satisfies the following inequality
eu (T ) 2TL1r ' + 2TL2 ru' .
(3.1.26)
Remark 3.3: The existence and uniqueness of solutions of (3.1.1) and (3.1.8) (as
guaranteed by Theorem 2.1), ensures validity of (3.1.14) and (3.1.15) which are bounds
for the trajectories of nonlinear systems (3.1.1) and (3.1.8) respectively for time interval
44
3.1.3
x ( t ) = xo + f ( x( ), u ( ) ) d t [0, T ] .
(3.1.27)
Rearranging (3.1.27)
t
x ( t ) xo = f ( x( ), u ( ) ) d t [0, T ] .
(3.1.28)
x ( t ) xo f ( x( ), u ( ) d .
(3.1.29)
x ( t ) xo f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( xo , u ( ) ) + f ( xo , u ( ) ) d
0
t
(3.1.30)
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( xo , u ( ) ) + f ( xo , u ( ) ) d
0
x ( t ) xo [ L1 x( ) xo + h1 ]d
t [0, T ] .
(3.1.31)
Since the inequality (3.1.31) holds for all t [0, T ] , then it holds for the time instant
where the maximum value x ( t ) xo occurs. Thus the following expression can be
written
rx' L1rx' + h1 T .
45
(3.1.32)
x(t ) xo rx'
The condition that 1 <
3.1.4
t [0, T ] .
(3.1.33)
1
ensures that (3.1.33) is positive semi definite.
L1
Bound for equation (3.1.15) can be obtained in a manner similar to which the
bound for rx' is obtained. Integrating (3.1.8)
t
z ( t ) = z (0) + f ( z ( ), u0 ) d t [0, T ] .
(3.1.34)
z ( t ) xo f ( z ( ), uo ) d
t [0, T ] .
(3.1.35)
z ( t ) xo f ( z ( ), uo ) f ( xo , uo ) + f ( xo , uo ) d .
(3.1.36)
z ( t ) xo [ L1 z ( ) xo + h]d
t [0, T ] .
(3.1.37)
As in case of (3.1.31), the inequality (3.1.37) holds for all t [0, T ] , therefore
rz' L1rz' + h T .
46
(3.1.38)
hT
. t [0, T ] .
1 L1T
(3.1.39)
,,,
3.2
3.2.1
x[k + 1] x[k ]
,
T
(3.2.1)
where T is the sampling time and x[k ] = x(kT ) is the sampled state at time t = kT . The
conventional bracket notation and discrete indexing is used for discrete entities
throughout the Thesis. Input to the system is discretized by holding it constant during the
sampling interval, (zero-order-hold [33]). Since the same has already been treated in
Section 3.1.2, only the Euler method needs to be applied here to get a discrete system as
follows
xa [k + 1] = xa [k ] + Tf ( xa [k ], u[k ]) xa [0] = xo .
(3.2.2)
Remark 3.4: Throughout this thesis, the subscript a with state x indicates that xa [k ] is
47
(3.2.3)
As a first step, the difference between the state of the nonlinear system (3.1.8) at
time t = T that is z (T ) , and the state xa [1] of the approximate system (3.2.2) is
considered, when z (0) = xa [0] = xo . The input u (t ) = uo remains constant in the interval
[0, T ] . Mathematically the single-step model discretization error is defined as
ed [1] = z (T ) xa [1] .
(3.2.4)
In this section, it shown that the single-step model discretization error (3.2.4)
is
Under the stated conditions of Theorem 3.1, there exists a sampling time T *
such that the norm of the discretization error satisfies the following inequality
ed [1]
T 2 L1h
,
1 L1T
48
(3.2.5)
Proof
Taking T * ensures that the system remains inside the ball of radius rx as
defined in (3.1.3). The state of the nonlinear system with zero-order-held input at time T
is obtained by integrating (3.1.8) over [ 0,T ]
T
z (T ) = z (0) + f ( z ( ), u0 ) d ,
(3.2.6)
The discrete-time approximation using the Euler method at time T is given by the
following equation
xa [1] = xo + Tf ( xo , uo ) .
(3.2.7)
ed [1] = f ( z ( ), uo ) d Tf ( xo , uo ) .
(3.2.8)
ed [1] f ( z ( ), uo ) f ( xo , uo ) d .
(3.2.9)
ed [1] L1 z ( ) xo d .
(3.2.10)
Since
z (t ) xo rz'
the inequality (3.2.10) can be written as
49
t [0, T ] ,
(3.2.11)
ed [1] TL1rz' .
(3.2.12)
Using the bound on rz' determined in section 3.1.4 and given by inequality (3.1.39), the
inequality (3.2.12) can be alternatively written as
T 2 L1h
ed [1]
.
1 L1T
(3.2.13)
,,,
3.2.3
(3.2.14)
= x(kT ) xa [k ]
(3.2.15)
The bound on (3.2.15) is obtained by replacing rz' by r in (3.2.12) and using it along
with (3.1.26) in (3.2.15)
3.3
(3.2.16)
it is quite natural to imagine that as the number of steps increase, the corresponding
discretization error increases accordingly.
As for the case of a single-step discretization error, the multi-step input
discretization error is investigated first, which is the difference between the state of
nonlinear plant (3.1.1) and its approximation with zero-order-held input for sampling
interval T (3.1.8), after N sampling intervals. Mathematically the multi-step input
discretization error is defined as
eu ( NT ) = x( NT ) z ( NT ) .
(3.3.1)
Under the stated conditions of Theorem 3.1, the norm of input discretization error
after N sampling intervals ( NT * ) satisfies the following inequality
eu ( NT ) 2TL1r '' + 2TL2 ru'' + (1 + TL1 ) eu (( N 1)T ) ,
where
r '' = max[rx'' , rz'' ] ,
rx'' =
rz'' =
max
x( ) x(kT )
k [0, N 1] ,
max
z ( ) z (kT )
k [0, N 1] ,
[ kT ,( k +1)T ]
[ kT ,( k +1)T ]
ru'' = max
[0, NT ]
u ( ) .
51
(3.3.2)
e NTL1 1
''
''
eu ( NT )
2 L1r + 2 L2 ru .
L1
(3.3.3)
,,,
Proof
The discretization error at time t = (k + 1)T with reference to state x(kT ) of the
nonlinear system (3.1.1) and z (kT ) of the approximate nonlinear system (with zeroorder-held input for the sampling interval) (3.1.8) is explored. The index k is any positive
integer and belongs to the interval [0, N 1] . The state x of the nonlinear system (3.1.1)
in the interval t [kT , (k + 1)T ] is given by
t
x ( t ) = x(kT ) +
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) d
t [kT , (k + 1)T ] .
(3.3.4)
kT
The state z of the approximate nonlinear system with zero-order-held input in the
interval t [kT , (k + 1)T ] is given by
z ( t ) = z (kT ) +
f ( z ( ), u(kT ) ) d
t [kT , (k + 1)T ] .
(3.3.5)
kT
The input discretization error in the interval t [kT , (k + 1)T ] can be written as
eu (t ) = x(kT ) z (kT ) +
kT
kT
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) d f ( z ( ), u(kT ) ) d
eu (t ) = eu (kT ) +
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( z( ), u(kT ) ) d
kT
eu (t ) = eu (kT ) +
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( z ( ), u( ) ) + f ( z ( ), u( ) ) f ( z( ), u(kT ) ) d
kT
t [kT , (k + 1)T ]
(3.3.8)
Taking norm of both sides and applying Lipschitz conditions results in
t
eu (t ) eu (kT ) + L1 x( ) z ( ) d + L2
kT
kT
u ( ) u (kT ) d
Now adding and subtracting x(kT ) and z ( kT ) in the second term on the right hand side
of (3.3.9)
t
+ L2
kT
u ( ) d + L2
(3.3.10)
u (kT ) d
t [kT , (k + 1)T ]
kT
eu (kT ) + L1
T
Using definition of eu (kT ) , r '' , rx'' , and rz'' , transforms (3.3.11) into
53
(3.3.12)
(3.3.13)
The bound (3.3.13) shows that multi-step input discretization error is a function of
sampling time, Lipschitz constants L1 , L2 and input discretization error at the previous
stage.
Recursive application of (3.3.13) results in ([11])
}(
(3.3.14)
(1 + TL1 ) N 1
''
''
eu ( NT )
2TL1r + 2TL2 ru
1
+
TL
(1 + TL1 ) N 1
''
''
2 L1r + 2 L2 ru
L1
)
(3.3.15)
(3.3.16)
Remark 3.5: The existence of rx'' and rz'' is guaranteed from the fact that a unique
solution of (3.1.1) and (3.1.8) exists for NT * . The bounds for rx'' and rz'' can be
derived in a manner analogous to the one used for the derivation of bounds for rx' and rz' .
54
3.3.1
x ( t ) x(kT ) =
f ( x( ), u( ) ) d
t [kT , (k + 1)T ] .
(3.3.17)
kT
x ( t ) x(kT )
f ( x( ), u( ) ) d
t [kT , (k + 1)T ] .
(3.3.18)
kT
(3.3.19)
f ( x( ), u ( ) ) f ( x(kT ), u ( ) ) + f ( x(kT ), u ( ) ) d
0
(3.3.20)
Since the right hand side holds for all t [kT , (k + 1)T ] , then it would also hold for the
time instant corresponding to the maximum of the difference
max
t[ kT ,( k +1)T ]
h1,k T
1 L1T
t [kT , (k + 1)T ] ,
(3.3.21)
rx''
h1'T
,
1 L1T
(3.3.22)
3.3.2
The bound for rz'' is derived by proceeding in a similar manner to the one in
section 3.3.1, Rearranging (3.3.5)
z ( t ) z (kT ) =
f ( z ( ), u(kT ) ) d
t [kT , (k + 1)T ] .
(3.3.23)
kT
Taking norm of both sides, applying Gram Schmidt inequality and adding and
subtracting f ( z (kT ), u (kT ) ) results in
t
(3.3.24)
(3.3.25)
Since the right hand side holds for all t [kT , (k + 1)T ] , it would also hold for the time
instant corresponding to the maximum of the difference z (t ) z (kT ) . The inequality
(3.3.25) can be written as
z (t ) z (kT ) rz' ,k
hk T
1 L1T
56
t [kT , (k + 1)T ] ,
(3.3.26)
where rz' ,k =
max
t[ kT ,( k +1)T ]
k[0, N 1]
h'T
,
1 L1T
(3.3.27)
f ( z (kT ), u (kT )) .
,,,
3.4
After determining the multi-step input discretization error bound, the second stage
of the multi-step discretization error is considered, that is, multi-step model discretization
error. The multi-step model discretization error is defined as the difference between the
state of continuous nonlinear system with zero-order-held input (3.1.8) and the state of
approximate system obtained using Euler method (3.2.2) after N sampling intervals
( NT * ). Mathematically,
ed [ N ] = z ( NT ) xa [ N ] .
(3.4.1)
57
Lemma 3.1
If NT * , then the system (3.2.2) remains inside the ball of radius rx provided
the following condition holds
f max
where f max =
max
i[0,( N 1)]
rx
,
NT
(3.4.2)
f ( xa [i ], u[i ]) .
,,,
Proof
(3.4.3)
(3.4.4)
(3.4.7)
(3.4.8)
Alternatively,
58
(3.4.9)
[37]. In that case a bound on the nonlinear function over the entire domain (ball) is
required whereas in (3.4.2) the maximum value of the nonlinear function at the sampling
instants is required, thus Lemma 7.1 of [37] presents comparatively more abstract
analysis.
,,,
Theorem 3.5
Under the stated conditions of Theorem 3.1, and Lemma 3.1, the norm of the
discretization error after N sampling intervals is bounded as follows
ed [ N ] TL1rz'' + (1 + TL1 ) ed [ N 1] ,
(3.4.10)
ed [ N ] e NTL1 1 rz'' ,
(3.4.11)
max
[ kT ,( k +1)T ]
,,,
59
k [0, N 1] .
(3.4.12)
Proof
As in case of section 3.3, the proof starts with the determination of the
discretization error at sampling index k + 1 with reference to sampling index k , where
k is any arbitrary positive integer and belongs to the set [0, N 1] .
At time t = (k + 1)T , the state of the nonlinear system (3.1.8) (system with zeroorder-held input for sampling interval) using z ( kT ) as the initial condition is;
z (( k + 1) T ) = z (kT ) +
( k +1)T
f ( z ( ), u (kT ) ) d .
(3.4.13)
kT
The approximate state of this nonlinear system obtained using Euler method at sampling
instant k + 1 is given by (3.2.2). Using (3.4.13) and (3.2.2), discretization error at k + 1
becomes
( k +1)T
ed [k + 1] = z (kT ) xa [k ] +
f ( z ( ), u (kT ) ) d Tf ( xa [k ], u[k ]) .
(3.4.14)
kT
ed [k + 1] = ed [k ] +
kT
(3.4.15)
ed [k + 1] ed [k ] +
f ( z ( ), u( kT )) f ( z ( kT ), u ( kT )) d
kT
+ T f ( z ( kT ), u (kT )) f ( xa [k ], u[k ])
60
(3.4.16)
Under the conditions of Lemma 3.1, the system (3.2.2) remains inside the ball of radius
rx . Consequently the Lipschitz condition (3.1.2) holds for the third term on the right side
of inequality (3.4.16), thus (3.4.16) can be written as
( k +1)T
ed [k + 1] ed [k ] +
L1 z ( ) z (kT ) d
kT
(3.4.17)
+ TL1 z (kT ) xa [k ] .
The system (3.1.8) remains inside the ball of radius rz'' defined in (3.4.12) for sampling
interval. Using definition of rz'' and ed [k ] results in the following inequality
ed [k + 1] TL1rz'' + (1 + TL1 ) ed [k ] .
(3.4.18)
(3.4.19)
Error bounds derived in (3.4.19) show that the error at the Nth step of
discretization is a function of sampling time T, Lipschitz constant L1 and the
discretization error at the previous stage.
Proceeding in a manner similar to section 3.3, (3.4.19) can be written as
(1 + TL1 ) N 1
''
ed [ N ]
TL1rz
1 + TL1 1
(3.4.20)
(1 + TL1 ) N 1 rz''
Alternatively
ed [ N ] e NTL1 1 rz'' .
,,,
61
(3.4.21)
3.5
3.5.1
Examples
Example 1
x(0) = 1 .
(3.5.1)
1
.
t 1
(3.5.2)
It is evident from (3.5.2) that the system has an escape time tesp = 1sec .The discrete
equivalent of the system obtained using the Euler method is
xa [k + 1] = xa [k ] Tx 2 [k ]
xa [0] = 1 .
(3.5.3)
Using various sampling times, a series of simulations was performed and the following
estimates of escape times were obtained
Table 3-1. Escape Time Corresponding to Different Sampling Times
0.1
22
2.2
0.025
53
1.325
0.01
114
1.14
0.001
1017
1.017
The results in Table 3.1 clearly show the discrepancy between the actual escape
time of the continuous system and that of its Euler discrete equivalent. As the sampling
62
It is also noted here that ed [k ] is bounded over t [0, t f ] with t f < 1 . Thus for any t f
sampling time can be selected that ensures ed [k ] is less than the bound given by (3.4.20)
3.5.1.1
f
=2x. As L1 increases
x
satisfied for any x inside this ball with L1 = 4 . h (as mentioned in (3.3.27)) is obtained
at the boundary of this ball and becomes h = 4 . The sampling time is specified as
T = 0.03 . For these values of L1 , h and T , the corresponding bound on rz'' calculated
from (3.3.27) is 0.136. Using the conditions of Lemma 5.1, the maximum value of N for
which the approximate discrete time system (3.2.2) remains inside the ball of unit radius
is obtained using N
rx
which turns out to be N = 8 .
Tf max
For the above mentioned specifications, simulation of the system was performed.
The discretization error and its calculated bound using (3.4.18) is plotted in Figure 3-1.
63
It can be seen that for T = 0.03 , the actual discretization error is less than its
bound derived in section 4 for the above mentioned specifications when N = 8 , which
corresponds to t = 0.24 sec. But as the number of samples increase, the actual
discretization error approaches the error bound and exceeds it after N = 32 which
corresponds to t = 0.96 sec. The reason for this phenomenon is that the system leaves the
ball of unit radius at t = 0.5 and thus the Lipschitz constant L1 and h become invalid.
3.5.1.2
An alternative application of the error bounds derived in section 3.2 and section
3.4 is the calculation of the sampling time for a specified discretization error bound. This
64
is a typical case of a numerical solver which adapts its step size (sampling time) to ensure
that the discretization error remains within specified bounds.
Consider the nonlinear system (3.5.1), discretization error bounds are specified by
ed [k ] (0.01)k .
(3.5.4)
The objective is to calculate sampling time at each step using (3.4.18) so that the
discretization error bound (3.5.4) is satisfied. Since the upper bound for rz'' is specified by
(3.3.27), using this upper bound in (3.4.18) and L1 = h = 4 , at each step the sampling time
is calculated by rearranging (3.4.18) which results in
h'T
TL1
+ (1 + TL1 ) ed [k 1] ed [k ] 0 .
1 L1T
(3.5.5)
(3.5.6)
Further rearrangement results in the following quadratic inequality. The solution of this
quadratic inequality gives the required sampling time
L1h L12 ed [k 1] T 2 + L1 ed [k ] T + ed [k 1] ed [k ] 0 .
(3.5.7)
Solution of (3.5.7) gives the sampling time which ensures that the discretization error
remains within its specified bounds. The actual discretization error for the calculated
variable sampling times is plotted in comparison with the specified bound in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2 shows that the actual discretization error is within its specified bounds
for variable sampling time calculated using (3.5.7) which represents the utility of the
analysis for numerical solvers of locally Lipschitz nonlinear differential equations.
65
Figure 3-2. Discretization Error and its Specified Bound for Variable Sampling
Time
3.5.2
Example 2
(3.5.8)
1 if x > 1
sat ( x) = x if x 1 .
1 if x < 1
(3.5.9)
where
The system is not differentiable at x = 1 and thus Taylor series expansion cannot be
used to calculate error bounds. On the other hand the system is globally Lipschitz with
66
L1 = 1 and since the system is asymptotically stable (approaches the origin), the value
of h = 1.2 . The continuous-time solution of the system is
x(t ) = t
if x(t ) > 1
x(t ) = e t
if x(t ) 1
(3.5.10)
For sampling time T = 0.1 the actual discretization error and its bounds are shown in
Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3. Discretization Error and its Bounds for Saturation Function
67
3.6
Summary
68
CHAPTER 4
SAMPLED-DATA STATE FEEDBACK STABILIZATION OF
NONLINEAR SYSTEMS
In this chapter, the performance of discrete-time control laws for locally Lipschitz
nonlinear systems is analyzed. The control laws are designed on the basis of discretized
system model. The discretization of the continuous-time nonlinear system is carried out
using the Euler method. The discrete-time state feedback control law is designed so that
the approximate discrete-time model is asymptotically (in certain cases exponentially)
stable. The performance of exact discrete-time model is analyzed on the basis of
discretization error bounds derived in CHAPTER 3 using Lyapunov function for the
closed loop approximate discrete-time model.
It is shown that the difference between the states of closed loop exact and
approximate discrete-time models can be reduced arbitrarily by reducing the sampling
time. It is further shown that if the Lyapunov function for the approximate model satisfies
certain conditions, the exact discrete-time model can be asymptotically (exponentially)
stabilized with nonzero sampling time. An elaborate analysis of feedback linearizable
systems is also carried.
The mathematical analyses are illustrated by the exponential stabilization of
Inverted pendulum and a Single link manipulator with flexible joints.
69
4.1
4.1.1
(4.1.1)
where x(t ) R n is the state and u (t ) R m is the input, which is assumed to be bounded.
x(0) = xo is the initial state of the system. .The input u (t ) is assumed to be applied to
(4.1.1) via zero-order-hold [33]. Mathematically,
u (t ) = u (kT ) t [ kT , (k + 1)T ) .
4.1.2
(4.1.2)
Assumption 2
,,,
Remark 4.1: A function is locally Lipschitz on a domain (open and connected set) D , if
each point of D has a neighborhood Do such that the function satisfies the Lipschitz
condition (3.1.2) for all points in Do with some Lipschitz constant Lo .
4.1.3
As it has already been stated in section 1.2.2, the exact discrete-time model of the
continuous-time nonlinear system (4.1.1) with zero-order-held input (4.1.2) is obtained
by integrating (4.1.1) as follows
70
( k +1)T
x[k + 1] = x[k ] +
f ( x( ), u (kT ))d ,
(4.1.3)
kT
where T is the sampling time, x[k ] and x[k + 1] are the states of nonlinear system (4.1.1)
at time kT and (k + 1)T respectively. The conventional bracket notation is adopted here
to show that (4.1.3) is discrete-time model.
The closed form exact discrete-time model (4.1.3) for nonlinear systems is
difficult to obtain in general [72]. Therefore the continuous-time system (4.1.1) is
discretized using the Euler method as follow
xa [k + 1] = xa [k ] + Tf ( xa [k ], u[k ]) .
(4.1.4).
x[k + 1] = x[k ] +
kT
( k +1)T
= x[k ] +
(4.1.5)
kT
ed [k + 1] =
(4.1.6)
kT
71
(4.1.7)
where ed [k + 1] is the single step model discretization error as discussed in section 3.2.2.
The performance of control law designed on the basis of approximate discrete-time
model (4.1.4) is analyzed using the alternate representation of exact discrete-time model
(4.1.7) on the basis of single step model discretization error bound analysis.
The local existence and uniqueness theorem [49] guarantees that the nonlinear
system (4.1.1) remains inside the ball Bx (with the centre of ball at x(kT ) ) for time
t [kT , kT + ] , where
rx
.
L0 rx + f ( x(kT ), u (kT ))
(4.1.8)
Following the analysis in section 3.2, it can be shown that for sampling
time T * and zero order held input; the norm of single-step discretization error is
bounded. The bound is expressed as
ed [k + 1]
T 2 L0 f ( x[k ], u[k ])
.
1 L0T
(4.1.9)
The equivalent model (4.1.7) shows that the exact discrete-time model of the
continuous-time nonlinear system is a perturbed version of the approximate discrete-time
model, with discretization error appearing as perturbation [39].
4.2
72
(4.2.1)
The control law (4.2.1) is considered parametrically dependent on the sampling timeT .
However, the overall structure of the control law remains the same. The parametric
changes in control law (4.2.1) are represented by subscript ' T ' [72].
4.2.1
Assumption 3
T (.) is locally Lipschitz in its arguments over the domain of interest and
T (0) = 0 .
,,,
The closed loop approximate discrete-time model with the control law (4.2.1) is
represented by
xa [k + 1] = xa [k ] + Tf ( xa [k ], T ( xa [k ])) fT ,a ( xa [k ]) .
(4.2.2)
It is assumed that (4.2.2) is asymptotically stable with region of attraction RT. For some
of the results, exponential stability of (4.2.2) will be assumed.
The discrete-time control law (4.2.1) is applied to the continuous-time system
(4.1.1) via zero-order-hold. The closed loop exact DT model is represented by
( k +1)T
x[k + 1] = x[k ] +
f ( x( ), T ( x(kT )))d .
(4.2.3)
kT
73
(4.2.4)
4.3
Convergence Analyses
In this section the performance of the closed loop exact discrete-time equivalent
model (4.2.4) is analyzed. In the introduction of the thesis it was discussed that the
stability analysis of exact discrete-time model of nonlinear systems with control law
designed on the basis of approximate DT model was carried out by Nesic and Teel in the
series of their research papers [69]-[72]. In these results practical asymptotic stability of
the exact discrete-time model was established. The notion of practical asymptotic
stability establishes bounds on the states of exact discrete-time model.
The mathematical analyses carried out in this chapter are aimed at establishing
superior closed loop performance of the closed loop exact discrete-time model (4.2.4) as
compared to practical asymptotic stability. Superior closed loop performance is achieved
if trajectory convergence with arbitrarily small sampling time and asymptotic/exponential
stability with nonzero sampling time of the closed loop exact discrete-time model (4.2.4)
can be proved.
Asymptotic and exponential stability are quite well known concepts in control
system literature. However, trajectory convergence is a slightly unfamiliar concept and
needs to be elaborated. It is important to note here that trajectory convergence is closely
linked with ultimate boundedness therefore, prior to proceeding for the illustration of
trajectory convergence; time domain and set theoretic concept of ultimate boundedness
are explained.
74
4.3.1
The philosophy of ultimate boundedness is that the system states enter a nonzero
bound after certain time and remain inside thereafter. The time taken by the system
trajectories to enter the bound is generally inversely proportional to the size of the bound.
The time domain concept of ultimate boundedness is illustrated in Figure 4-1. The
ultimate bound of 0.1 for the system is indicated with the dashed line. It is shown that the
system enters this bound after 2.9 seconds and remains inside thereafter.
75
the origin and is much smaller in size as compared to as shown in Figure 4-2. Another
and contains
.
set is defined that is slightly larger than
times. In other words, is the ultimate bound for the system trajectories. The sets are
geometrically illustrated in Figure 4-2.
76
trajectories cannot leave it. To understand this phenomenon, consider that system
because of attraction towards the origin in the set
trajectories have reached inside
provided by the control law. Inside the set
, behavior of systems varies from
states reach the boundary, the attraction towards the origin becomes guaranteed and thus
.
trajectories become trapped inside
The idea of trajectory convergence is that the difference between the states of
closed loop approximate discrete-time model (4.2.2) and the states of closed loop exact
discrete-time model (4.2.4) can be reduced arbitrarily by reducing the sampling time. The
77
approach zero as time tends to infinity. As a consequence, if the bound for the difference
of states of the two models is considered the ultimate bound for the exact model, then the
states of approximate model would be inside this bound before the states of exact model
enter it, thus implying trajectory convergence.
This link between trajectory convergence and ultimate boundedness facilitates
mathematical analysis in the sense that once ultimate boundedness is established, then
trajectory convergence is required to be proved in a finite interval of time only up to the
instant the states of exact discrete-time model become ultimately bounded.
4.3.3
Ultimate Boundedness
The first part of closed loop analyses is aimed at proving ultimate boundedness of
the states of the exact discrete-time model as discussed in section 4.3.1. It is shown that if
the initial state of the exact discrete-time model x[0] belongs to a compact set which
is a subset of the region of attraction RT, then its trajectories are ultimately bounded for
sufficiently small sampling time. Mathematically stating,
Theorem 4.1
Under the stated Assumptions 2 and 3, if the origin of closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (4.2.2) is asymptotically stable, then for any given > 0 there exists
T1* > 0 such that for sampling time 0 < T T1*
x[k ]
where k is dependent on .
,,,
79
k k ,
(4.3.1)
Proof
(4.3.2)
(4.3.3)
trajectories starting inside = {1 VT ( x) m} , reach
= {V ( x[k ]) } ,
T
1
in finite number of steps k = k * , where 1 is an arbitrarily small positive constant.
B:
80
(4.3.4)
Consider that x[k ] , then the following inequality holds for all x[k ] since (4.3.2)
holds for arbitrary xa [k ] in the region of attraction RT.
VT ( x[k ] + Tf ( x[k ], T ( x[k ]))) VT ( x[k ]) UT ( x[k ]) .
(4.3.5)
(4.3.7)
(4.3.8)
(4.3.9)
(4.3.10)
where LT ,V is the Lipschitz constant for VT ( x) in . From (4.3.10) the following result
is obtained
81
VT ( x[k ]) UT ( x[k ]) + LT ,V ed [k + 1] .
(4.3.11)
The discretization error bound given in (4.1.9) when used in inequality (4.3.11) gives
VT ( x[k ]) UT ( x[k ]) +
(4.3.12)
x ,
(4.3.13)
Remark 4.3: The constant KT can be defined using Lipschitz condition with respect to
the origin.
Defining KT ,2 = L1LT ,V KT and T ,1 =
min
1 VT ( x ) m
into
VT ( x[k + 1]) VT ( x[k ]) T ,1 +
Remark 4.4: The minimum T ,1 =
min
1 VT ( x ) m
T2
KT ,2 .
1 L1T
(4.3.14)
T2
K 2' ,
1 L1T
(4.3.15)
0<T <T
(T1* ) 2
1 L1T1*
1
. Thus for sampling time
L1
<
1'
K 2'
be written as
VT ( x[k + 1]) VT ( x[k ]) K3 (T ) ,
where K3 (T ) = 1'
(4.3.16)
T2
K 2' . and K3 (T ) > 0 for 0 < T T1* .
1 L1T
remains
Remark 4.5: The inequality (4.3.16) ensures that any trajectory starting in
for sampling time 0 < T T * .
inside
1
Recursive application of (4.3.16) up to V ( x[0]) gives
k
VT ( x[0]) K3 (T )(1 + k )
(4.3.17)
< m K3 (T )(1 + k )
The right hand side of inequality (4.3.17) is decreasing linearly, thus there exists a finite
discrete index k * so that VT ( x[k * 1]) > 1 and VT ( x[k * ]) VT ( x[k * 1]) K3 (T ) 1 .
Remark 4.6: The bound that VT ( x[k * ]) 0 follows from the fact that
VT ( xa [k ]) UT ( xa [k ]) 0 ,
(4.3.18)
inside since RT, and VT (.) is positive definite in . The attractive force 1' is
hence the bound on V ( x[k * ]) cannot become negative.
minimum in the set
T
83
T2
K 2'
1 L1T
VT ( x[k * + 1]) 1 +
T2
K 2' 2 (T ) ,
1 L1T
(4.3.19)
T2
K 2'
Else if WT ( x[k ])
1 L1T
*
VT ( x[k * + 1]) 1 .
(4.3.20)
Remark 4.7: The expression (4.3.19) shows that x[k * + 1] belongs to , as a result
after finite
inequality (4.3.16) becomes valid and the trajectories re-enter the set
discrete steps, hence it is concluded that trajectories remain in the set for all k k * .
The ultimate boundedness of (4.2.4) with ultimate bound 2 (T ) (where
lim 2 (T ) = 1 for arbitrarily small 1 ) is guaranteed for sampling time 0 < T T1 from
T 0
the above discussion. Consequently, for arbitrarily small , there exists T1* so that
condition (4.3.22) is satisfied for sampling time 0 < T T1* .
,,,
84
4.3.4
Trajectory Convergence
The analysis for ultimate boundedness is followed by the analysis for trajectory
convergence of the closed loop exact discrete-time model. The proof of ultimate
boundedness facilitates the trajectory convergence analysis as discussed in section 4.3.1.
The results are mathematically formulated in the following Theorem,
Theorem 4.2
Under the stated Assumptions 2 and 3, if the closed loop approximate discretetime model (4.2.2) is asymptotically stable, then for any given > 0 there exists T2* > 0
such that for sampling time 0 < T T2* the following inequality holds
x[k ] xa [ k ]
k 0 .
(4.3.21)
,,,
Proof
The asymptotic stability of the closed loop approximate discrete-time model and
the ultimate boundedness of the trajectories of the exact discrete-time system guarantees
trajectory convergence defined in section 4.3.2 for all k k , where k is dependent on .
Mathematically stating,
x[k ] xa [k ]
k k .
(4.3.22)
85
Defining the difference between the states of the approximate and the exact
discrete-time model as
x[k ] xa [k ] = [k ] .
(4.3.23)
T2
K 2' , the discretization error bound can be written in compact
1 L1T
where K 4 =
K 2'
1 L1T *
1
as
L1
ed [k + 1] < K 4T 2 ,
(4.3.26)
[k + 1] (1 + TLT ,2 ) [k ] + K 4T 2 ,
(4.3.27)
(
l =0
[k ] 1 + TL'2
k l 1
K 4T 2 .
(4.3.28)
Extending the limits of summation from 0 to and introducing L'2 = max * LT ,2 results
o<T <T
in
86
[k ]
'
r =0 1 + TL2
K1 / T K T
4
1 + TL'2
'
L2
k
1 + TL'2
K1 / T
=e
r +1
K 4T
(4.3.29)
K1 / L'T ,2
k [0, K1 / T ] ,
(4.3.30)
for sampling time 0 < T T2 . Based on (4.3.19) and (4.3.30), it is concluded that for any
given , there exists T2* = min(T1* , T2 ) such that (4.3.1) is valid for sampling time
0 < T T2* .
,,,
4.3.5
Asymptotic Stability
The analyses of the closed loop exact discrete-time model are extended to show
that the exact discrete-time model can be asymptotically stabilized with non-zero
sampling time if the closed loop approximate discrete-time model (4.2.2) is
asymptotically stable and admits a Lyapunov function that satisfies certain conditions.
Mathematically,
87
Theorem 4.3
T ,2 = min
(4.3.31)
then there exists T3* , such that for sampling time 0 < T T3* , the origin of closed loop
exact discrete-time model (4.2.4) is asymptotically stable if x[0] .
,,,
Proof
ed [k + 1]
1 L1T
1 L1T
x ,
(4.3.32)
where T =
T 2 L1LT ,2 LT ,V
1 L1T
(4.3.33)
T T ,2 ,
88
(4.3.34)
Remark 4.8: The relation (4.3.34) can be interpreted as the magnitude of perturbation
term which is positive definite should be less than the magnitude of the minimum
attractive force T ,2 which is negative definite. In that case the Lyapunov function will
become decreasing for all x {0} .
Hence it is inferred that for sampling time 0 < T T3* T * such that T3* is a valid
solution of
T3*2
1 L1T3*
2'
K3'
0<T T
,,,
4.3.6
Exponential Stability
The final part of closed loop analyses deals with exponential stability of the exact
discrete-time model with nonzero sampling time. For this section, exponentially stability
of the closed loop approximate discrete-time model (4.2.2) is assumed. The analysis also
requires the existence of a quadratic Lyapunov function for the closed loop approximate
model that satisfies certain conditions [49]. The results are summarized in the following
Theorem.
Theorem 4.4
Under the stated Assumptions 2 and 3, if the origin of closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (4.2.2) is exponentially stable and there exist a quadratic Lyapunov
function VT ( x) = xT PT x (where PT is a positive definite matrix) that satisfies the
following condition
89
VT ( xa [k + 1]) VT ( xa [k ]) T xa [k ] ,
(4.3.35)
where T is a positive constant, then there exists T4* , such that for sampling time
0 < T T4* the origin of (4.2.4) is exponentially if x[0] .
,,,
Proof
Following the procedure of previous theorems, the closed loop exact discrete-time
model is analyzed using the Lyapunov function for the approximate model VT ( x) .
Rearranging inequality (4.3.35) as in case of (4.3.7) leads to
2
(4.3.36)
(4.3.37)
90
(4.3.39)
(4.3.40)
(4.3.42)
0<T T
2
2 '
T 3 L1 ( L'2 ) 2 T 2 L1L'2
T L1L2
+2
+
(T ) = P 2
.
L
T
L
T
L
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
Thus for sampling time 0 < T T4* where T4* is the solution of c ' (T4* ) > 0 , the exact
discrete-time model is exponentially stabilized.
,,,
4.3.6.1
A pre-condition for the exponential stability of the closed loop exact discrete-time
model is that the closed loop approximate discrete-time model admits a quadratic
Lyapunov function as discussed in Theorem 4.3. The existence of a quadratic Lyapunov
function for the exponentially stable approximate discrete-time model is guaranteed
under certain conditions. These conditions are presented in the following theorem which
91
Let the origin be an exponentially stable equilibrium point for the following
discrete-time nonlinear system
x[k + 1] = f d ( x[k ]) ,
(4.3.43)
f
where f d : R n R n is continuously differentiable and the Jacobian matrix d is
x
bounded and Lipschitz over the region of attraction R, then there exists a quadratic
Lyapunov function V ( x) = xT Px which satisfies
2
(4.3.44)
and
2
(4.3.45)
,,,
Proof
x[k + 1] = Ax[k ] ,
with A =
f d
x
(4.3.46)
92
Exponential stability of (4.3.46) implies that all the eigenvalues of matrix A will
be inside the unit circle. Moreover, the matrix A will satisfy the following discrete
algebraic Lyapunov equation [76]
AT PA P = Q ,
(4.3.47)
where P and Q are positive definite matrices. The linearized system (4.3.46) admits the
quadratic Lyapunov function V ( x) = xT Px that satisfies inequalities (4.3.44) and (4.3.45)
with 1 = min ( P) , 2 = max ( P) and 3 = min (Q) .
Since the region of attraction R contains the origin, a set ' can be defined as
follows
' = {x R x m*} ,
(4.3.48)
where m* > 0 .
The discrete-time nonlinear system (4.3.43) can be written as (Theorem 4.13 of
[49])
f d ( x) = Ax + g ( x) ,
(4.3.49)
( zi )
(0) x , and zi is a point on the line connecting x to the origin.
gi ( x ) =
x
x
f
Since the Jacobian d is Lipschitz, the norm of g ( x ) satisfies the following
x
inequality
2
g ( x) Lg x .
93
(4.3.50)
(4.3.51)
(4.3.52)
T
T
= x [k ] A PA P x[k ] + 2 xT [k ]Pg ( x[k ]) + g T ( x[k ]) g ( x[k ])
3 x + 1 x + 2 x
(4.3.53)
where = x = min m , n
*
)} , where n
<
1 + 12 + 4 2c3
2 2
Theorem 4.4 and Theorem 4.5 are combined to formulate the following Corollary
that establishes exponential stability of the exact discrete-time model (4.2.4) with
nonzero sampling time. The following assumption explicitly states the conditions of
Theorem 4.5.
,,,
94
4.3.7
Assumption 4
f
differentiable and has bounded and Lipschitz Jacobian matrix a over the domain of
x
interest.
,,,
Corollary 4.1 (of Theorem 4.4)
Under the stated Assumption 4, if the origin of the closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (4.2.2) is exponentially stable, then there exists T5* > 0 , such that for
a sampling time 0 < T T5* the origin of (4.2.4) is exponentially stable if x[0] * .
,,,
Proof
fT ,a ( xa [k ])
(4.3.54)
(4.3.55)
Proceeding in a similar manner to the proof of Theorem 4.3, the following result can be
obtained
2
Analogous to expression (4.3.32), the norm of discretization error for x[k ] * can be
expressed as
ed [k + 1]
x[k ] * ,
(4.3.57)
where L '1 is the Lipschitz constant for f ( x, u ) in x for all x ' and LT , ' 2 is the
Lipschitz constant for f ( x, T ( x)) in x for all x ' ( ' is defined in (4.3.48) and is a
subset of RT).
Remark 4.8: Continuous differentiability of the closed loop approximate DT model
(4.3.58)
'
0<T T
'
2
2
'
3
'
2 2
'
T
L
T
L
T
L
'L
'
' (L
' )
'L
'
1,
2,
1,
2,
1,
2,
.
+2
+
(T ) = P ' 2
1 L1,' T
1 L1, ' T
1 L1,' T
Thus for sampling time 0 < T T5* where T5* = min(T5' , T*' ) , T*' <
1
and T5' is the
L1 '
solution of 5' (T5' ) > 0 , the exact discrete-time model is exponentially stabilized.
96
Remark 4.9: The ultimate boundedness of the closed loop exact discrete-time model
guarantees that any trajectory starting inside , enters * for sufficiently small sampling
time. Thus the region of attraction for the exponentially stable exact discrete-time model
is for sufficiently small sampling time.
,,,
4.4
In this section, the closed loop performance of the exact discrete-time model with
control law design based on the approximate discrete-time model for a class of
continuous-time nonlinear systems is studied. The class of continuous-time systems can
be linearized using state feedback.
Consider the following nth order, single input, single output, full state feedback
linearizable system expressed in normal form [49]
x = Ac x + Bc
[ u ( x ) ] ,
( x)
(4.4.1)
where Ac and Bc are canonical matrices [49] ( x) and ( x) are scalar functions of x
such that ( x) 0 in the domain of interest. It is assumed that ( x) and ( x) are
locally Lipschitz in their arguments over the domain of interest.
The approximate discrete-time model for (4.4.1) using forward difference method
is given by
1
xa [k + 1] = AT ,d xa [k ] + BT ,d
[u[k ] ( xa [k ])] ,
( xa [k ])
where AT ,d = I + TAc and BT ,d = TBc . The exact discrete-time model for (4.4.1) is
97
(4.4.2)
x[k + 1] = AT ,d x[k ] + BT ,d
[u[k ] ( x[k ])] + ed [k + 1] .
( x[k ])
(4.4.3)
u[k ] = ( xa [k ]) + ( xa [k ]){ KT xa [ k ]} ,
(4.4.4)
where vector KT is chosen so that the eigenvalues of AT ,d BT ,d KT are inside the unit
circle. The control law (4.4.4) exponentially stabilizes (4.4.2).
Corollary 4.2 (of Theorem 4.4)
,,,
Proof
VT ( x) = xT PT x ,
(4.4.5)
(4.4.6)
VT ( xa [k + 1]) VT ( xa [k ]) T xa [k ] ,
98
(4.4.7)
Since all the conditions of Theorem 3 are satisfied, it is concluded that there exists
T6* > 0 such that for sampling time 0 < T T6* the exact discrete-time model of feedback
linearizable is exponentially stabilized by discrete-time linearizing control law that
exponentially stabilizes the approximate discrete-time model.
,,,
4.5
Examples
The performance of control law designed on the basis of the approximate discrete
time model is illustrated by the sampled-data control of two nonlinear systems. In the
first example stabilization of Inverted pendulum is presented and in the second example,
a Single-link manipulator with flexible joints is stabilized.
4.5.1
+ a sin + b = cu ,
where is the angle of the pendulum with the vertical axis in radians, a =
c=
(4.5.1)
g
j
,b =
and
l
m
1
, g being the acceleration due to gravity, l and m are the length and mass of the
ml 2
99
x1 = x2
x2 = a sin( x1 + ) bx2 + cu
(4.5.2)
Rearranging (4.5.2)
x1 = x2
b
a
x2 = c u sin( x1 + ) x2
c
c
(4.5.3)
(4.5.4)
where AT ,d = I + TAc and BT ,d = TBc . The discrete-time linearizing control law designed
on the basis of (4.5.4) is
a
b
1
u[k ] = { sin( x1[k ] + ) + x2 [k ]} + { KT x[k ]} ,
c
c
c
(4.5.5)
where KT is designed such that the eigenvalues of AT ,d BT ,d KT are inside the unit
circle. The control law (4.5.5) exponentially stabilizes the origin of the approximate
discrete-time model (4.5.4).
Simulation of the inverted pendulum is performed by choosing parameters
a = c = 10 , and b = 2 . The sampling time for the controller is T = 10ms . The initial
conditions for the pendulum are [1, 0]T . The vector KT is [90;19]T which corresponds to
eigenvalues location [0.91, 0.9]T for AT ,d BT ,d KT . The results of simulation are shown
in Figure 4-4, which show that the inverted pendulum is exponentially stabilized with
nonzero sampling time.
100
(4.5.6)
where q1 and q2 are angular positions, I and J are momenta of inertia, k is the spring
constant, M is the total mass, L is a distance and is the applied torque. The state space
model of (4.5.1) represented in normal form [49] is given by
101
x1 = x2
x2 = x3
(4.5.7)
x3 = x4
x4 = (a cos x1 + b + c) x3 + a( x22 c) sin x1 + bdu
where a =
MgL
k
k
1
, b = , c = , d = and u = .
I
I
J
J
The control objective is the stabilization of the origin of (4.5.7) with discrete-time
state feedback linearizing control law designed on the basis of discretized system model.
The discrete-time approximate model of the continuous-time system (4.5.7) obtained
using Euler method is
1
a 2
xa [k + 1] = AT ,d xa [k ] + BT ,d bd u[k ]
(a cos x1a [k ] + b + c) x3a [k ] +
( x2a [k ] c) sin x1a [k ]
bd
bd
(4.5.8)
where the matrices AT ,d and BT ,d are
AT ,d
1
0
=
0
T 0 0
0
0
1 T 0
, BT ,d = .
0
0 1 T
0 0 1
T
(4.5.9)
1
a 2
1
(a cos xa1[k ] + b + c) x3a
( x2 [k ] c) sin x1a [k ] + { Kx[k ]} (4.5.10)
bd
bd
bd
the vector KT is chosen so that the eigenvalues of AT ,d BT ,d KT are inside the unit
circle.
102
The simulation of manipulator with flexible joints was performed with system
parameters [a, b, c, d ]T = [2,1.4, 0.2, 0.5]T . The sampling time is taken as T = 10ms . The
initial state of the system is assumed to be [1, 0, 1.9, 0]T .The location for eigenvalues of
AT ,d BT ,d KT
is
chosen
as
which
results
in
103
4.6
Summary
104
CHAPTER 5
SAMPLED-DATA OUTPUT FEEDBACK STABILIZATION OF
NONLINEAR SYSTEMS
In this chapter, the sub-class of continuous-time single input, single output locally
Lipschitz nonlinear systems discussed in section 1.4 is considered. Systems belonging to
105
the said class are modeled by equation (1.4.3). The modeling equation is presented here
again for convenience of readers
x = Ac x + Bc ( x, u ) f ( x, u )
y = Cc x
(5.1.1)
where x R n is the state u R is the input and y R is the output, The canonical
matrices Ac , Bc and Cc are defined as follows
0
0
Ac =
#
0
Cc = [1
0 %
# "
0 "
0 ...
0
0
0
#
, Bc =
#
1
0
1
... 0]
(5.1.2)
The input u is applied to the continuous-time system (5.1.1) via zero-order-hold (4.1.2).
5.1.2
Assumption 5
The approximate discrete-time model for nonlinear system (5.1.1) obtained using
Euler method is given by
xa [k + 1] = xa [k ] + TAc xa [k ] + TBc ( xa [k ], u[k ]) xa [k ] + Tf ( xa [k ], u[k ])) . (5.1.3)
The approximate discrete-time model (5.1.3) can be written compactly as
xa [k + 1] = AT ,d xa [k ] + BT ,d ( xa [k ], u[k ]) ,
106
(5.1.4)
where AT ,d = I + TAc and BT ,d = TBc The subscript T denotes that the matrices are
parametrically dependent upon sampling time.
5.1.4
(5.1.5)
As already discussed in section 4.1.3, the discretization error satisfies the following
bound under Assumption 4 for the nonlinear system (5.1.1) with zero order held input
ed [k + 1]
T 2 L0 f ( x[k ], u[k ])
1 L0T
(5.1.6)
The first step of the two stage design procedure is presented as follows
5.2.1
(5.2.1)
The state feedback control law (5.2.1) is considered to satisfy Assumption 3 presented in
section 4.2.1, that is T (.) is locally Lipschitz in its arguments over the domain of
interest and T (0) = 0 . The closed loop approximate discrete-time model (5.2.3) is
assumed to be asymptotically stable with region of attraction RT. For certain results, the
condition of asymptotic stability is strengthened to exponential stability.
The subscript T here again indicates that the control law and the region of
attraction depend parametrically on the sampling time however the overall structure of
the control law remains unchanged [72].
The closed loop approximate DT model can be written as
xa [k + 1] = xa [k ] + Tf ( xa [k ], T ( xa [k ])) .
(5.2.2)
xa [k + 1] = AT ,d xa [k ] + BT ,d ( xa [k ], T ( xa [k ])) fT ,a ( xa [k ]) .
(5.2.3)
Alternately,
5.2.2
Discrete-time Observer
In the second stage, the following discrete-time observer is designed. The design
is based on the approximate discrete-time model for state estimation.
x[k + 1] = AT ,d x[k ] + BT ,d o ( x[k ], u[k ]) + HT (Cc xa [k ] Cc x[k ]) ,
108
(5.2.4)
where o (.,.) is the nominal model for (.,.) . The vector HT is chosen so that the
eigenvalues of AT ,d HT Cc are inside the unit circle.
5.2.3
Assumption 6
The difference between the approximate states of (5.1.4) and the estimated states
of (5.2.4) is termed as approximate state estimation error. The approximate state
estimation error is mathematically defined as
ea [k ] = xa [ k ] x[k ] .
(5.2.5)
The dynamics of approximate state estimation error (5.2.5) are obtained by subtracting
(5.2.4) from (5.1.4)
ea [k + 1] = AT ,d ( xa [k ] x[k ]) + BT ,d { ( xa [k ], T ( xa [k ])) o ( x[k ], u[k ])}
HT Cc ( xa [k ] x[ x])
(5.2.6)
(5.2.7)
109
(5.2.8)
adj( zI ( AT ,d HT CC ))
det( zI ( AT ,d HT CC ))
.TBC
(5.2.9)
The remarkable feature of (5.2.9) is that the perturbation term (.,.) is mapped to
approximate state estimation error ea [k ] via sampling time T . Consequently,
H ( z ) 0 as T 0 .
(5.2.10)
and the estimated state x[k ] . The dynamics of this difference are thus of paramount
importance. This difference is defined as exact state estimation error. For convenience of
presentation the exact state estimation error will be shortly termed as estimation error for
the rest of the thesis. Before expressing the dynamics of the estimation error it should be
noted here that there is a slight difference between the dynamics of observer (5.2.4) and
the observer that is used for state estimation using actual output feedback. The dynamics
of observer using sampled output are modeled by the following equation
x[k + 1] = AT ,d x[k ] + BT ,d o ( x[k ], u[k ]) + HT ( y[k ] Cc x[ x])
= AT ,d x[k ] + BT ,d o ( x[k ], u[k ]) + HT (Cc x[k ] Cc x[ x])
(5.2.11)
The closed loop exact discrete-time model using control law (5.2.1) with
estimated states can be written as
x[k + 1] = x[k ] + Tf ( x[k ], ( x[k ])) + ed [k + 1] .
(5.2.12)
The model (5.2.12) will be shortly referred to as closed loop exact discrete-time model
for convenience of presentation. This model can also be written as
x[k + 1] = AT ,d x[k ] + BT ,d ( x[ k ], T ( x[k ])) + ed [k + 1] ,
(5.2.13)
111
5.3
Convergence Analyses
112
5.3.1
Concept of Boundedness
O is based on the fact that observer dynamics are very fast and
estimation error decreases very rapidly to an arbitrarily small value. The concept of
boundedness is pictorially represented in Figure 5-1.
113
System Dynamics
Boundedness
initial state of the discrete-time observer belongs to Q R n , then the states of exact
discrete-time model and the observer remain bounded for sufficiently small sampling
time. Mathematically stating,
Theorem 5.1
Under the stated Assumptions 3, 5 and 6, if the origin of closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (5.2.3) is asymptotically stable, then there exists a T1* > 0 , such that
for sampling time 0 < T T1* the trajectories of closed loop exact discrete-time model
(5.2.13) and the estimation error (5.2.14), with ( x[0], x[0]) starting inside S Q , remain
bounded for all k 0 .
,,,
Proof
(5.3.1)
Analysis of the closed loop exact discrete-time model (5.2.13) is carried out using VT (.)
and UT (.) .
The convergence of the estimation error e[k ] , is established using the following
Lyapunov function
115
WT (e) = eT PT e ,
(5.3.2)
(5.3.3)
(5.3.4)
(5.3.5)
(5.3.6)
where m1 and c1 are positive constants, furthermore, S {VT ( x) m1} RT. . The reason
for choosing S larger than S has been explained in section 5.3.1. Boundedness of the
states of exact discrete-time model and estimation error is guaranteed if it is shown that
any trajectory starting in S Q enters in finite discrete steps for sufficiently small
sampling time and remains inside thereafter. Mathematically speaking is positively
invariant. The first step is thus the establishment of positive invariance of .
116
Consider the state of closed loop exact discrete-time model (5.2.13). Define
VT ( x[k + 1]) VT ( x[k ]) VT ( x[k ]) .
(5.3.7)
(5.3.8)
(5.3.9)
Using (5.3.1) that describes the difference of Lyapunov function for the dynamics of
approximate discrete-time model, the inequality (5.3.9) can be written as
VT ( x[k ]) UT ( x[k ]) + VT ( x[k ] + Tf ( x[k ], T ( x[k ])) + ed [k + 1])
VT ( x[k ] + Tf ( x[k ], T ( x[k ])))
(5.3.10)
Since VT (.) is smooth, i.e all of its higher order derivatives exist, it satisfies the following
Lipschitz condition,
VT (a ) VT (b) LT a b ,
(5.3.11)
(5.3.12)
117
By Assumptions 5 the nonlinear function f (.,.) is locally Lipschitz in its argument. Thus
the following condition holds
f ( x[k ], T ( x[k ])) f ( x[ k ], T ( x[ k ])) L2 T ( x[ k ])) T ( x[k ])) ,
(5.3.14)
where L2 is the local Lipschitz constant for f ( x, u ) is u. Since the control law is also
locally Lipschitz by Assumption 3, (5.3.14) can be written as
f ( x[k ], T ( x[k ])) f ( x[k ], T ( x[k ])) L2 LT , x[k ] x[k ]
LT ,e e[k ]
(5.3.15)
T 2 LT ,V L1
1 L1T
(5.3.17)
thus
e[k ]
c1
T.
min ( PT )
118
(5.3.18)
T 2 LT ,V L1
1 L1T
c1
min ( PT )
(5.3.19)
f ( x[k ], T ( x[k ])
(5.3.20)
for all ( x, e) .
The inequality (5.3.19) can be transformed into
VT ( x[k + 1]) VT ( x[k ]) UT ( x[k ]) + T 2 KT ,2 +
where KT ,2 = LT ,V LT ,e
T2
KT ,3 ,
1 L1T
(5.3.21)
c1
and KT ,3 = L1LT ,V KT ,1 . Furthermore (5.3.21) can be
min ( PT )
written as
VT ( x[k + 1]) VT ( x[k ]) UT ( x[k ]) + T
o<T T
{V ( x) mo } ,
K 2'
T2
+
K3' ,
1 L1T
(5.3.22)
1
.
L1
119
T2
K3' m1 .
1 L1T
(5.3.23)
and =
1
1 LT *
{VT ( x) mo }
m1 mo
'
KT ,2 + KT' ,3
{VT ( x) m1} .
Next consider a trajectory starting outside the set
{V ( x) mo }
but inside
{VT ( x) m1}
min
mo VT ( x ) m1
T2
K3' ,
1 L1T
(5.3.24)
remain inside {VT ( x) m1} for sampling time 0 < T < T2 where T2 is a
1'
, where 1' = min T ,1 .
valid solution of T2 =
'
'
0<T <T
KT ,2 + KT ,3
*
Remark 5.1: The reason for carrying out positive invariance analyses of the exact DT
model in two stages is because if the set {V ( x) m1} is considered, then the minimum
attractive force 1' = min * T ,1 will be zero since origin is contained in the set. In that
0<T <T
case it becomes impossible to show that any trajectory starting inside remains inside. As
an alternative, the set {VT ( x) mo } is introduced. Any trajectory inside {VT ( x) mo }
will have to cover the distance of m1 mo and inside this distance it can be trapped even
when there is no attractive force since {VT ( x) mo } contains the origin. On the other
120
hand any trajectory outside {VT ( x) mo } will have a nonzero minimum attractive force
that will be used to contain the trajectories inside {VT ( x) m1} .
Now the positive invariance of is established for estimation error dynamics. For
simplicity of presentation, the estimation error dynamics (5.2.14) is written as
e[k + 1] = AT , f e[k ] + TBcT ( x[k ], e[k ]) + ed [k + 1] ,
(5.3.25)
where AT , f = ( AT ,d HT Cc ) and
T ( x[k ], e[k ]) = ( x[k ], T ( x[k ] + e[k ]) o ( x[k ] + e[ k ], T ( x[k ] + e[k ])) . (5.3.26)
The subscript T is introduced in because of T (.) . Equation (5.3.25) can be further
simplified as
e[k + 1] = AT , f e[k ] + T ( x[k ], e[k ], T ) ,
(5.3.27)
(5.3.28)
PT AT , f e[k ] + T ( x[k ], e[ k ], T )
eT [k ]PT e[k ]
= AT , f e[k ]
PT AT , f e[k ] + AT , f e[k ]
PT T ( x[k ], e[k ], T )
(5.3.29)
Using the inequality ( xT y x y ) for the second and third term of the second part of
equation (5.3.29) results in the following inequality
121
PT T ( x[k ], e[k ], T )
(5.3.30)
TLT ,V L1
1 L1T
f ( x, T ( x + e) K 4' ,
(5.3.31)
PT K 4' + T P K 4' 2 .
e[k ]
(5.3.32)
which implies
WT (e[k ])
W (e[k ])
,
> WT (e[k ]) > T
max ( PT )
PT
(5.3.33)
WT (e[k ])
+ T 2 e[k ] AT , f
PT
c1T 2
+ T 2 e[k ] A'f
P
'
122
(5.3.35)
that negative definite second term would dominate the positive definite third term and
then WT (e[k + 1]) c1T 2 . This completes the positive invariance of the set for both the
system trajectories and estimation error trajectories.
After establishing positive invariance of , it is shown that every trajectory
starting in the set S Q enters in finite time. Since S {VT ( x) m1} , it has to be
shown for estimation error dynamics only that any trajectory inside Q enters .
As the initial states { x[0], x[0]} S Q , a bound l can be established for the initial
estimation error so that e[0] l , where l depends upon S Q . Before proceeding further,
the expression for closed loop exact discrete-time model (5.2.12) is simplified for clarity
of presentation .The equation (5.2.12) is written as
x[k + 1] = x[k ] + T T ( x[k ], e[k ], T ) ,
(5.3.36)
where
T ( x[k ], e[k ], T ) = f ( x[k ], T ( x[k ] + e[k ]) +
1
ed [k + 1] .
T
(5.3.37)
1
ed [k + 1]
T
(5.3.38)
TL1
f ( x[k ], T ( x[k ] + e[k ]) +
f ( x[k ], T ( x[k ] + e[k ])
1 L1T
Under Assumption 3, 5 and 6, (5.3.38) can be bounded by a positive constant K5' so that
the following inequality holds
123
(5.3.39)
(5.3.40)
K6
.
T
Remark 5.2: Starting inside S, there is some distance for the system trajectories to cover
{W (e) c1T 2 } .
Defining
(5.3.41)
Revisiting inequality (5.3.34) and splitting the negative definite term into two part results
in the following expression
1
W (e[k + 1])
2 P '
1
+ 1
2 P'
W (e[k ])
'
K 4'
+T
'
K 4' 2
(5.3.42)
During the interval [0, ko ] the estimation error trajectories satisfy the condition
WT (e[k ]) > c1T 2 . The least possible value of the negative definite term in this interval
124
1
would be
2 P'
T
1
WT (e[k + 1]) 1
2 P'
1
Let = 1
2 P'
W (e[k ]) .
T
(5.3.43)
(5.3.43) results in W (e[k + 1]) kW (e[0]) . Since W (e[k ]) < P ' e[k ] , the inequality
(5.3.43) can be written as
WT (e[k + 1]) k P ' l 2 .
From
(5.3.44),
lim k W (e[k ]) = 0 ,
consequently
(5.3.44)
e[k ]
must
enter
the
set
The estimation error trajectories e[k ] will be inside WT (e) c1T 2 for k satisfying
k P l 2 c1T 2 .
(5.3.45)
Manipulating (5.3.45)
c1T 2
P' l 2
T2
K7
125
(5.3.46)
where K 7 =
c1
P' l 2
K7
T
T2
K7
(5.3.47)
T
K
ln 27
k T
1
ln
(5.3.48)
The estimation error e[k ] enters before x[k ] leaves provided the following
condition is satisfied
ln(k7 / T 2 ) K 6
<
1.
ln(1/ )
T
(5.3.49)
ln(k7 / T 2 ) + ln(1/ ) K 6
.
<
ln(1/ )
T
(5.3.50)
(5.3.51)
Alternatively
The term T ln(k7 / T 2 ) + T ln(1/ ) can be reduced arbitrarily by reducing sampling time.
Remark 5.3: The term ln(k7 / T 2 ) will increase logarithmically and not linearly with
It can thus be concluded that there exists T3 such that for sampling time
0 < T T3 , estimation error e[k ] enters before the states of exact discrete-time model
x[k ] leave .
Choosing T1* = min(T1 , T2 , T3 , T * ) ensures that for sampling time 0 < T T1* ,
trajectories
staring
inside
S Q
enter
in
finite
number
of
steps
ln(k7 / T 2 )
K
2 (T )
+ 1 < 6 and remain inside for all k > 2 (T ) .
T
ln(1/ )
,,,
5.3.3
Ultimate Boundedness
127
Theorem 5.2
Under the stated Assumptions 3, 5 and 6, if the origin of closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (5.2.3) is asymptotically stable and ( x[0], x[0]) start inside S Q ,
then there exists a T2* > 0 such that for any given > 0 and sampling time 0 < T T2* the
following inequality holds
x[k ]
k k1
e[k ]
k k2
(5.3.52)
,,,
Proof
The proof of Theorem 5.1 shows that the trajectories of closed loop exact
discrete-time model and estimation error are bounded in for sufficiently small
sampling time. The set is arbitrarily small in the direction of estimation error therefore
ultimate boundedness of states of exact discrete-time model for sufficiently small
sampling time needs to be established only.
Ultimate boundedness of the discrete-time output feedback closed loop system is
guaranteed if:
= { V ( x[k ]) m } {W (e[k ]) c T 2 } reach
A: trajectories starting inside
1
1
1
T
T
= {V ( x[k ]) } {W (e[k ]) c T 2 } ,
1
1
T
T
128
for all k k * + 1 .
Considering the inequality (5.3.21) and the facts that the function UT (.) is
continuous
T ,2 =
and
min
VT ( x ) m1
the
set
is
compact,
there
exist
positive
constant
UT ( x) such that
T2
VT ( x[k + 1]) VT ( x[k ]) T ,2 + T KT ,2 +
KT ,3 .
1 L1T
2
(5.3.53)
T2
V ( x[k + 1]) V ( x[k ]) 2' + T 2 K 2' +
K3' ,
1 L1T
(5.3.54)
where 2' = min * T ,2 . It is implied from (5.3.54) that for sampling time 0 < T < T2* ,
0<T <T
where
T2* is
a valid solution of
T2*
2'
<
, the inequality (5.3.54) can be written as
K 2' + K3'
where K8 (T ) =
2'
K 2'
(5.3.55)
T2
129
(5.3.56)
VT ( x[0]) K8 (T )(1 + k )
,
Since x[0] belongs to
VT ( x[k + 1]) m1 K8 (T )(1 + k ) .
(5.3.57)
The right hand side of inequality (5.3.56) is decreasing linearly, thus there exists a finite
discrete index k * so that VT ( x[k * 1]) > 1 and VT ( x[k * ]) VT ( x[k * 1]) K8 (T ) 1 .
in a
Thus trajectories of closed loop exact discrete-time model (5.2.12) enter the set
VT ( xa [k ]) UT ( xa [k ]) 0 ,
(5.3.58)
inside , since RT, and VT (.) is positive definite in . The attractive force 2' is
hence the bound on V ( x[k * ]) cannot become negative.
minimum in the set
T
Now the discrete index k * is used as the starting point. Consider the following
possible scenarios
2 '
T2
K3'
If UT ( x[k ]) < T K 2 +
1 L1T
T2
V ( x[k * + 1]) 1 + T 2 K 2' +
K3' 2 .
1 L1T
T2
K3'
Else if UT ( x[k * ]) T 2 K 2' +
1 L1T
130
(5.3.59)
V ( x[k * + 1]) 1 .
(5.3.60)
Remark 5.5; The expression (5.3.59) shows that x[k * + 1] belongs to , as a result
after finite
inequality (5.3.55) becomes valid and the trajectories re-enter the set
discrete steps, thus trajectories remain in the set for all k k * . Consequently, ultimate
boundedness of (5.2.12) with ultimate bound 2 (T ) (where lim 2 (T ) = 1 for arbitrarily
T 0
small 1 ) is guaranteed for sampling time 0 < T < T2* . It can be concluded that for
arbitrarily small , there exists T2* so that condition (5.3.52) is satisfied for sampling
time 0 < T T2* .
,,,
5.3.4
Trajectory Convergence
As in case of section 4.3, after the proof of ultimate boundedness, it is shown that
the difference between the trajectories of closed loop exact discrete-time model (5.2.13)
and the closed loop approximate discrete-time model (5.2.3) can be reduced arbitrarily by
reducing sampling time arbitrarily. Mathematically stating,
131
Theorem 5.3
Under the stated Assumptions 3, 5 and 6, if the origin of closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (5.2.3) is asymptotically stable and ( x[0], x[0]) start inside S Q ,
then there exists a T3* > 0 such that for any given > 0 and sampling time 0 < T T3* the
following inequality holds
x[k ] xa [ k ]
k 0 ,
(5.3.61)
where xa [k ] represents the state of closed loop approximate discrete-time model (5.2.3).
,,,
Proof
Following the discussion in section 4.3.2, the ultimate boundedness of the states
of the exact discrete-time model and the asymptotic convergence of states of the
approximate discrete-time model guarantees the existence of kt = kt ( ) so that
x[k ] xa [k ] <
k kt .
(5.3.62)
(5.3.63)
from (5.3.40). Since the nonlinear function f (., T (.)) is bounded by KT ,1 for all x .
Recursive application of (5.2.2) results in
xa [k ] x[0] TkK1' .
(5.3.64)
where K1' = max KT ,1 . From (5.3.63) and (5.3.64), the norm of difference between the
0<T <T *
(5.3.65)
Tk ( K1' + K5' )
(k ) = O(T 2 (T ))
The next step is the determination of trajectory error in the interval
[ 2 (T ), K / T ] , when the estimation error has reduced arbitrarily. The trajectory error
dynamics are defined using (5.2.2) and (5.2.12) as,
x[k + 1] xa [k + 1] = x[k ] + Tf ( x[k ], ( x[ k ])) + ed [ k + 1] xa [ k ] Tf ( xa [k ], ( xa [k ])) (5.3.66)
(5.3.67)
[k + 1] [k ] + T
[k ] + TLT ,2 x[k ] xa [k ] + ed [k + 1]
[k + 1] [k ] + TLT ,2 [k ] + O(T 2 ) ,
133
+ ed [k + 1]
(5.3.68)
(5.3.69)
where LT ,2 is the Lipschitz constant for f (., T (.)) in . The inequality (5.3.69) can be
written as
[k + 1] 1 + TL'2 [k ] + O(T 2 ) ,
(5.3.70)
T2
K3'
1 LT
T2
1 LT
K3'
1 LT
K3'
(5.3.71)
(T 2 )
[k ]
k 2 (T )
1 + TL'2
O(T 2 (T )) +
l = 2 (T )
(1 + TL )
' k l 1
O(T 2 ) .
2
(5.3.72)
[k ]
k 2 (T )
1 + TL'2
O
T
T
(
(
)
r =0 1 + TL'
134
O(T ) .
r +1
(5.3.73)
O(T 2 (T ) + 1
[k ]
1 + TL'2
k 2 (T )
1
1 + TL'2
O(T 2 (T ) +
1 + TL'2
1
2
1 + TL' O(T )
r =0
2
1 + TL'2
2
O
T
(
)
'
TL2
k 2 (T )
1 + TL'2
1 + TL'2
K / T
(5.3.74)
[O(T 2 (T ) + O(T )]
Since
lim T 2 (T ) = 0
T 0
'
lim (1 + TL'2 ) K / T = e L2 K ,
T 0
(5.3.75)
for any given , there exists a T3* , such that for sampling time 0 < T T3* trajectory
convergence is guaranteed.
,,,
5.3.5
Exponential Stability
The following part of the closed loop analyses shows the closed loop exact
discrete-time model (5.2.12) can be exponentially stabilized with nonzero sampling time
if the state feedback closed loop exact discrete-time model is exponentially stabilized by
control law (5.2.1).
135
Under the stated Assumptions 3, 4 and 6, if the origin of closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (5.2.3) is exponentially stable and there exist a quadratic Lyapunov
function VT ( x) = xT PT x (where PT is a positive definite matrix) that satisfies the
following condition
2
VT ( xa [k + 1]) VT ( xa [k ]) T ,3 xa [k ] ,
(5.3.76)
where T ,3 is a positive constant, then there exists a T4* > 0 such that for sampling time
0 < T T4* , the closed loop output feedback system (5.2.13), (5.2.14) is exponentially
stable with ( x[0], x[0]) starting inside S Q .
,,,
Proof
(5.3.77)
Using (5.3.36)
2
136
(5.3.80)
Since (.,.,.) is locally Lipschitz in its arguments, L3 and L4 can be defined so that
( x[k ], e[k ], T ) L3 x[k ] + L4 e[k ] ,
(5.3.81)
}{
' = x m* e r * ,
(5.3.82)
where m* and r * are positive constants.. ' is a subset of region of attraction Using
(5.3.81), the inequality (5.3.80) can be written as
VT ( x[k + 1]) VT ( x[k ]) VT ( x[k ]) T ,3 x[k ]
(5.3.83)
where L'3 = max * L3 and L'4 = max * L4 . The inequality (5.3.83) can be written as
0<T T
0<T T
(5.3.84)
The result (5.3.85) has been obtained by using the following relation
137
(5.3.86)
T 7
(5.3.87)
x[k ]
and [k ] =
.
[
]
e
k
1 + T 5 + T 2 6 + T 2 4
T 3
The matrix becomes negative definite for sufficiently small sampling time. Thus the
discrete-time output feedback closed loop system is exponentially stable for sufficiently
small nonzero sampling time in the neighborhood of the origin ' . Ultimate boundedness
of the closed loop exact discrete-time model guarantees that any trajectory starting inside
S Q shall enter ' for sufficiently small sampling time. Thus S Q becomes the region
of attraction.
,,,
5.3.5.1
138
Under the stated Assumptions 4 and 5, if the origin of closed loop approximate
discrete-time model (5.2.3) is exponentially stable, then there exists a T5* such that for
sampling time 0 < T T5* , the output feedback closed loop system (5.2.13), (5.2.14) is
exponentially stable if trajectories start inside S Q .
,,,
Proof
(5.3.88)
where L3 ' and L4 ' are the Lipschitz constants for (.,.,.) in ( x, e) for the compact set
' which defines a neighborhood of origin. The set ' is defined as
}{
' = x m* e r * ,
(5.3.89)
)} {
* = x = min m* , n* e r * .
139
(5.3.90)
where n* is a positive constant. Following from the proof of Theorem 5.4, it is concluded
that there exist T5* such that for sampling time 0 < T T5* , the discrete-time output
feedback closed loop system is exponentially stable for all ( x, e) starting inside ' . The
ultimate boundedness of the closed loop system guarantees that any trajectory inside
S Q shall enter * for sufficiently small sampling time.
,,,
5.4
5.4.1
Examples
Stabilization of Inverted Pendulum
Consider the pendulum model (4.5.1). This model is written in state space form as
(4.5.3) where x1 = and x2 = since the control objective is the stabilization of the
pendulum at = . The approximate discrete-time model of the pendulum is given by
(4.5.4) which is rewritten here for the convenience of readers
a
b
xa [k + 1] = AT ,d xa [k ] + BT ,d c{u[k ] sin( x1a [k ] + ) x2a [k ]} .
c
c
(5.4.1)
ao
b
sin( x1[k ] + ) o x2 [k ]} HT (Cc x[k ] Cc x[k ]) (5.4.2)
co
co
where ao , bo and co are the nominal values for system parameters. The vector HT is
chosen so that the eigenvalues of AT ,d HT Cc are inside the unit circle. The discrete-time
linearizing control law with estimated states is
u[k ] = {
ao
b
1
sin( x1[k ] + ) + o x2 [k ]} + { KT x[k ]} ,
co
co
co
140
(5.4.3)
sampling time for simulation is T = 10ms . The initial states of the pendulum are
[1, 0]T whereas the observer is initially at rest. The vector KT = [90,19]T places the
141
(5.4.4)
HT (Cc x[k ] Cc xa [k ])
where [ao , bo , co , do ]T are the nominal system parameters and the vector HT is chosen so
that the eigenvalues of AT ,d HT Cc are inside the unit circle. The discrete-time
linearizing control law using estimated states is
142
u[k ] =
a
1
1
(ao cos x1[k ] + bo + co ) x3[k ] o ( x22 [k ] co ) sin x1[k ] +
{ Kx[k ]} (5.4.5)
bo do
bo do
bo do
The manipulator is simulated with parameters [a, b, c, d ]T = [2,1.4, 0.2, 0.5]T and nominal
parameters [ao , bo , co , do ]T = [2.1,1.45, 0.19, 0.48]T . The eigenvalues location for the
controller and observer are respectively chosen as [0.96, 0.98, 0.975, 0.985]T and
[0.97, 0.975, 0.98, 0.94]T
which
correspond
to
KT = [30,54.5,35.75,10]T
and
simulation is 10ms . The system and observer states are shown in Figure 5-4 and Figure
5-5 respectively.
143
Figure 5-5. Estimated States of Manipulator with Flexible Joints Using DiscreteTime Observer
144
5.5
Summary
145
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE SUGGESTIONS
6.1
Conclusions
sampling time, Lipschitz constant and the value of nonlinear function at the sampling
instants. The standard analyses establish error bound that depend upon the maximum
value of nonlinear function over the entire domain of interest. Thus the analyses in the
thesis result in less conservative. The analyses are illustrated by two examples. In the first
example a system with finite escape time is considered. In the second example a
nonlinear system which is not continuously differentiable, is considered. The validity of
error bounds is illustrated through simulations.
Based on the discretization error bounds analyses, the performance of sampleddata nonlinear systems with control law design based on discretized system model is
analyzed. It is shown that the discretization error appears as vanishing perturbation for
the exact discrete-time model. Consequently, analyses of the closed loop exact discretetime model show that arbitrarily small difference between the states of the exact and the
approximate discrete-time models is guaranteed for sufficiently small sampling time.
Moreover, if Lyapunov function for the closed loop approximate discrete-time model
satisfies certain conditions, the control law asymptotically/exponentially stabilizes the
exact discrete-time model as well with nonzero sampling time. The performance of
discrete-time linearizing controller for feedback linearizable systems is also investigated.
Analyses show that the closed loop exact discrete-time model is exponentially stabilized
with nonzero sampling time. Simulation of Inverted pendulum and Single-link robotic
manipulator with flexible joints verifies the analyses.
Following the analyses of state feedback control law, output feedback control for
a sub-class of locally Lipschitz nonlinear systems is analyzed. The control law and
observer are designed on the basis of discretized system model. Discretization of the
147
system model is again carried out using the Euler method. The observer is designed for
the discretized model by pole placement procedure. The observer exhibits robustness of
estimation error to modeling uncertainty for small sampling time. The closed loop
analysis of the exact discrete-time model is carried out on the basis of discretization error
analyses. The discretization error appears as a vanishing perturbation for the exact
discrete-time model. The analyses show that by reducing the sampling time, the
difference between the states of the approximate and the exact discrete-time model can be
made arbitrarily small. Exponentially stability of the closed loop exact discrete-time
model with output feedback control and a sufficiently small nonzero sampling time is
also established. Exponential stabilization of an Inverted pendulum and a Single-link
robotic manipulator with flexible joints using output feedback control is presented as
examples.
6.2
Future Suggestions
The developments in this thesis give rise to a number of new ideas, thus setting
future directions. The sampled-data output feedback and tracking control of the class of
underactuated linear systems discussed in CHAPTER 2 is a very important area of future
research. The investigation of the performance of the control law suggested in
CHAPTER 2 with states replaced by their estimates is an interesting proposition. The
sampled-data tracking problem for these systems appears to be very challenging. In case
of tracking the phase of actuation pulse would become time varying according to the
reference trajectory. In this case the control law becomes nontrivial thus making it an
interesting research problem.
148
149
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
151
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
152
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
R. E. Kalman andJ. E. Bertram, Control Systems Analysis and Design via the
Second Method of Lyapunov: Discrete-time Systems, ASME. Trans, vol. 82, pp.
394-400, 1960.
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
Z. Lin and A. Saberi, Robust Semi-global Stabilization of Minimum-phase InputOutput Linearizable Systems via Partial State and Output Feedback, IEEE Trans.
Automat. Contr, vol. 40, pp. 1029-1041, June 1995.
[57]
[58]
M. B. Malik, State Space Recursive Least Squares, PhD DissertationDepartment of Electrical Engineering, National University of Sciences and
Technology Pakistan, 2004.
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
E. Sontag, A Concept of Local Observability, Syst. Contr. Letters, vol. 5, pp. 4147, 1984.
[80]
[81]
155
[82]
A. R. Teel and L. Praly, Tools for Semiglobal Stabilization by Partial State and
Output Feedback, SIAM. J. Contr. Optim, vol. 33, pp. 1443-1488, 1995.
[83]
[84]
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
Y. Xia, G. P. Liu, P. Shi, J. Chen, D. Rees and J. Liang, Sliding Mode Control of
Uncertain Linear Discrete-time Systems with Input Delay, IET, Contr, Thry,
Appl, vol. 1, No 4, July 2007.
[90]
156