To appear in Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.

2004

Economic sensor/actuator selection and its application to

flexible structure control
Robert E. Skeltona and Faming Lia
a Department

of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,

University of California, San Diego
9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, California, USA
1. ABSTRACT

A systematic design method is proposed for the selecting of actuators and sensors in the structural control in order
to minimize the instrumental cost. With actuators and sensors placed at all the admissible locations initially, an
iterative minimization algorithm is carried out to identify the sensor/actuator that requires the least precision.
By deleting the roughest sensor/actuator each time till loss of feasibility, one can conclude simultaneously the
necessary number and type of sensor/actuator, and the location and precision for each sensor/actuator. A
tensegrity structure example has been solved as an application of the proposed algorithm.
Keywords: Sensor/actuator selection(SAS), maximal accuracy, economic design, tensegrity structure

2. THE VECTOR SECOND-ORDER SYSTEM MODEL

We consider a flexible structure with n degrees of freedoms which is defined as
M
q + Dq + Kq = Bu

(1)

In the above equation, q = [q1 , q2 , . . . qn ]T is the displacement vector, u = [u1 , . . . unu ]T is the input vector. The
matrices M and K are n n mass and stiffness matrices. The state space representation of the control system
is:
x = Ax + B(u + w) + De

(2a)

y = Cx
z = Mx + v

(2b)
(2c)

where y is the output that we are interested; z is measurement. A IR2n2n . Matrices B and M are 2n nu and
ny 2n matrices. e is the external perturbation such as wind. It is assumed e is white noise with covariance E.
w and v are actuator noise and sensor noise. Conventionally w and v are modelled as white noise with covariance
W , V respectively.

W 0
w( )
w(t)
w
(t )
=
= 0,
E
E
0 V
v( )
v(t)
v
Assume all these white noises are independent, then W and V are diagonal matrices, with the ith diagonal entry
equivalent to the inequality constrained problem stated as corresponding to the ith component precision.

3. MOTIVATION OF THE SAS ALGORITHM

The technique that we shall employ to determine the location, type and precision of each sensor/actuator is
called economic design 1 . The economic design problem minimizes the total required precision, while satisfying
the system performance constraints. It is reasonable to assume that the price of a component is proportional to
its precision2 . Hence the instrumental cost can be expressed in term of the noise covariance matrix W and V .
Email: bobskelton@ucsd.edu, faming@ucsd.edu.


W 1
0
. In the sequel we shall use pT p as the instrumental cost, where p is a coefficient
Define =
0
V 1
vector indicating the relative cost.

Given the total cost and output variance requirement, it is desired to find the most economic strategy to
select sensor/actuator1 . In other words, seek the selection of sensor/actuator such that the control energy is
minimized. This problem can be stated as
min U = EuT u
(3)
W,V,G

subject to
[Y]i,i i ,

$ $.

i = 1, 2 . . . ny

where U denotes the control energy. Y is the closed-loop output covariance. $ = p T p stands for the instrument
cost. $ is a given upper bound of the cost. G is an output feedback controller. (3) is a typical optimization
problem in the form of given performance and cost A, minimize cost B. Its permuted counterparts given
performance and cost B, minimize cost A or given cost A B, seek the best performance can be stated in a
similar fashion. In the sequel, we shall call (3) the economic OVC problem.
The output variance constrained (OVC) problem3 is to design a dynamic output feedback controller such
that the control energy is minimized while each output variance constrain is satisfied. (3) reduces to an OVC
problem if sensor/actuator are fixed, which can be solved iteratively by using the weight selection algorithm.
But when W and V are involved to be optimized, this presents a difficult problem(3). This paper intends to
shed some light on this problem.
In the output feedback control design, the actuator and measurement noises will deteriorate the output performance no matter how large the control effort is. For instance, in a regulator problem, there exists steady state
output error due to the actuator and measurement noises. Maximal accuracy characterizes the best performance
one can attain with the existence of actuator and measurement noises 3 . The rougher the sensor/actuator,
the worse the performance. Hence the maximal accuracy of an output feedback system can be related to the
instrument cost.
Algorithm 1 Given the total instrument cost $ and the desired output variance upper bound i , solve the twostep optimization problem:
(i) Denote Y as the maximal accuracy of the system. Solve the maximal accuracy minimization problem with
fixed instrument cost
$.
min tr[Y ]
(4)
P,W,V

subject to

AP + P A P M V

pT p $

(5)

CP C = Y

(6)

(7)

M P + BW B + DED = 0

(ii) Fix W and V generated from (i), solve the OVC problem
min U = EuT u
G

(8)

subject to
[Y]i,i i ,

i = 1, 2 . . . ny

Algorithm 1 is a sequential optimization problem. Either (i) or (ii) is tractable with existing methods. Unlike
minimizing the maximal accuracy, sometimes an economic sensor/actuator selection is desirable, which can be
stated as follows:

Algorithm 2 Given the total maximal accuracy requirement Y and the output variance upper bound i ,
(i) Minimize the instrument cost $.
min $ = pT p
P,W,V

(9)

subject to (6) and (7).

(ii) Fix W , V and $ resulted from (i), solve the OVC problem (8).
Algorithm 2 minimizes the cost given performance requirement. The economic OVC problem (3) is proposed
to be approximated by algorithm 2.

4. THE SAS ALGORITHM

In sensor/actuator selection, one has to decide where to place sensor/actuator, how many sensor/actuator are
required, what is the precision for each sensor/actuator. In this section, a systematic design method is proposed
for the selection of actuators and sensors in the structural control aiming to minimize the instrument cost. With
actuators and sensors located at all the possible locations initially, the minimization algorithm (9) is carried out
to identify the sensor/actuator that requires the least precision. By deleting the roughest sensor/actuator each
time till loss of feasibility, one can conclude simultaneously how many sensor/actuator are necessary, and the
location and precision for each sensor/actuator.
The equation constrained optimization (9) is equivalent to the inequality constrained problem stated as
follows:
min $ = pT p
(10)
P,W,V

where Y is the specified upper bound of the maximal accuracy. We shall let Y = I for simplicity. That is, we
assume the price ratio between each actuator and sensor is . (10) can be transferred to an LMI optimization by
= W 1 , V = V 1 , E
= E 1 , P = P 1 . Then
using Schur complements and change of variables4 . Denote W
(10) can be rewritten as
min $ = pT p
(11)
,V
P ,W

subject to

Y
CT

C
P

0,

P > 0,

AT P + P A M T V M
B T P
DT P

V > 0

P B P D

W
0 <0

0
E

, V and P . Hence (11) can be solve by any linear

Now all the constraints in (11) are linear with respect to W

matrix inequalities (LMI) solvers. List the diagonal of W and V given by the minimization in descent sequence,
one can see that the last entry requires the least precision. We now know where to spend money, making the
components corresponding to large entries reliable, because performance is critical to these components. The
components corresponding to the least entries might be taken off the shelf, or even deleted. In our algorithm,
we shall delete the least demanding sensor/actuator each time and repeat the minimization till loss of feasibility.
And for each selection of sensor/actuator, an output variance constrained (OVC) control design is carried out.
Compare the sensor/actuator cost and control energy for each selection of sensor/actuator, we choice the selection which requires the least total cost. This selection gives the economic solution while satisfies the performance
requirements. In conclusion, we state the SAS algorithm as follows:
Algorithm 3: The SAS algorithm
Step 1. Place sensor/actuator at all admissible locations. Set i = N a + N s, where N a and N s stand for the
number of actuators and sensors respectively. Fix maximal accuracy Y and the output variance upper
bound Y.

Step 2. Run the cost minimization algorithm (11) with initial point Pj , j = 1, 2, 2n + 1. Yield [Wj i, Vj i, $j i].
If (11) is infeasible, go to step 4. Otherwise, run the OVC control design algorithm (8) for each set
[Wj i, Vj i, $j i]. Yield Uj i, j = 1, 2, 2n + 1. Choose the minimal Uj i, denoted as Ui , and the corresponding
[Wj i, Vj i, $j i], denoted as [Wi , Vi , $i ].
Step 3. If there is no solution to the OVC problem, either loose the performance constraint or go to step 4.
Otherwise, delete the actuator that requires the least precision. If Ui < Ui1 , set i = i 1, go to step 2,
Otherwise, go to step 4.
go to step 2. Otherwise, stop. Put back the last deleted
Step 4. Delete sensor with smallest precision. If Y < Y,
sensor or actuator, then go to step 5.
Step 5. Consider both the instrument cost and control energy cost, choose the most economic scheme as the
final selection of sensor/actuator.

5. THE TENSEGRITY STRUCTURE EXAMPLE

The tensegrity structure is under development at the structural systems and control laboratory at UCSD. 5
Figure 1 shows a deployable tensegrity boom. The bottom nodes P 1, P 3 and P 5 are fixed. There are 6 free

350

2
1

300
11

17

16

12
18

250

10
4

200
19

20

150
9

21
13

100

15

1
14

50
5
1

0
50

3
50

50

50

100

Figure 1. A tensegrity deployable boom

nodes (middle nodes: P2,P4,P6; top nodes: P7,P8,P9), 6 bars and 21 strings (including the knuckle strings).
The structure has 18 degrees of freedom (DOF). The control objective is to keep the top and bottom surface
parallel. The potential locations for actuator/sensor are all the strings, i.e., we shall collocate 21 sensors and 21
actuators initially. A finite element linearized model of this structure is given in the form of (2). In the state

representation, A IR3636 ; When actuators/sensors are located on each string, B IR3621 , M = B T . To keep
the top and bottom surfaces parallel is equivalent to keep the following output zero.

P 7z P 8 z
(12)
y=
P 8z P 9 z
where P nz , n = 7, 8, 9 stands for the z coordinate of node P n with respect to the origin of the universal coordinate
system, which is located at the center of the bottom surface. The nodes P 7, P 8 and P 9 determine the top surface.
The top and bottom surfaces are parallel if and only if y = 0.
The strings are numbered from 1 to 21 as shown in figure 1. 1, 2, 3 are the top surface strings; 4, 5, 6 are
the middle surface strings. 7, 8, 9 are diagonal strings of the 1st stage; 10, 11, 12 are the diagonal strings of the
2nd stage. 13, 14, 15 are the knuckle strings of the 1st stage. 16, 17, 18 are the knuckle strings of the 2nd stage.
19, 20, 21 are the reach strings. Similarly, the numbering of the sensor/actuator coincides with the numbering
of the strings they are attached. Choose = 0.001, that is, specify the upper bound of the maximal accuracy
Y = 0.001I; Let = 1, namely, the price ratio between actuators and sensors is 1. Apply algorithm 3, keep
deleting the least important sensor/actuator till 4 sensor/actuator left, the total sensor/actuator cost vs. the
number of sensor/actuator is shown as in Figure 2.
Number of Actuatos/Sensors vs. Cost ,alpha = 0.001; mu=1
2.2

1.8

cost ($)

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

10

15

20
25
30
Number of actuators and sensors

35

40

45

Figure 2. When = 0.001, = 1

The deleting sequence is shown in table 1. It can be seen that when = 1, the sensors are more prone to
be deleted. And among the 21 sensors, those located at the top surface are of the least importance, followed by
those located on the knuckle strings in the 1st stage, then those on the strings in the middle surface. Among the
actuators, those located at top surface are least relevant to the performance, then those at the middle surface.
The sensors/actuators on the reach strings require significantly greater precision than the rest sensors/actuators,
thus are most sensitive to the output performance.
Table 1. When = 0.001, = 1

Sen. #
Act. #
Sen. #
Act. #

14

15

13

Deleting sequence (1-21)

5
4
12
8
16
7

10

11

18

17
2

19
3

12

15

Deleting sequence (22-42)

21
11
9
17 14 18

16

13

Number of Actuatos/Sensors vs. Cost; alpha=0.001, mu=100

24

22

20

18

cost ($)

16

14

12

10

10

15

20
25
30
Number of actuators and sensors

35

40

45

Figure 3. When = 0.001, = 100

Choose = 0.001; = 100, namely, the price ratio between actuators and sensors is 100. Apply algorithm
1, the total sensor/actuator cost vs. the number of sensor/actuator is shown as in Figure 3.
In table 2, as = 100, the actuators located at the top and middle surfaces turn out to be costly but
marginally relevant to the performance. And it can be seen that the existence of actuators have effects on the
sensitivity of the sensors. In this case, the sensors on the knuckle strings and the middle surface, rather than the
top surface, are among those that require the least precision. Again the sensor/actuator on the reach strings are
most critical to the output performance.
Table 2. When = 0.001, = 100

Sen. #
Act. #
Sen. #
Act. #

14
2

13

18

Deleting sequence (1-21)

7
8
6
5
4
7
Deleting sequence (22-42)

15

12

17

14

21

10

17

16

11

21

15

12

10

18

16

11

13

Choose = 0.001, = 1000. Apply algorithm 1, the total sensor/actuator cost vs. the number of sensor/actuator
is shown as in Figure 4.
When = 1000, the unit price of the actuator is assumed to be much higher than that of the sensor. To
minimize the cost, most of the actuators are thrown away before sensors to be deleted. However, at least 2
actuators that on the reach strings stand firm till the end. See table 3.
Table 3. When = 0.001, = 1000
Deleting sequence (1-21)
Sen. #
Act. #
Sen. #
Act. #

7
2

15

14

15

12
4
10 18
9
16
Deleting sequence (22-42)
9
21 11 16 12 18

11

10

6
13

13

17

5
14

17

21

Next we illustrate the effect of the performance constraint on the instrumental cost. It is observed from the
previous simulations that the economical selection of sensor/actuator is with sensors and actuators only on the
reach strings, that is, there are 3 sensors and 3 actuators collocated on the reach strings. We shall study the

Number of Actuatos/Sensors vs. Cost ; alpha = 0.001; mu=1000

80

70

60

cost ($)

50

40

30

20

10

10

15

20
25
30
Number of actuators and sensors

35

40

45

Figure 4. When = 0.001, = 1000

relationship between the cost and performance based on this configuration. Fix mu = 50, when changes from
105 to 100, the cost changes as in Figure 5. It can be seen that when the performance constraint is strict, the
financial cost on sensor/actuator increases accordingly.
Cost vs. Performance

10

10

Cost: tr(Vinv)+ mu tr(Winv)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10
10
10
Performance: alpha is from 1e5 to 100

10

10

Figure 5. When changes from 105 to 100

6. CONCLUSION
This paper presents a novel method on sensor/actuator selection. The objective is to minimize the instrument
cost while preserve control performance. As maximal accuracy depends on the sensor/actuator precisions, and
is relevant to the control performance, it is employed in this sensor/actuator selection for control design. A
tensegrity structure example is studied to show the effectiveness of this method.

REFERENCES
1. R. E. Skelton, System design: The grand challenge of system theory, in plenary lecture of the American
Control Conference, 1999.

2. J. . Lu and R. E. Skelton, Integrating instrumentation and control design, International journal of control
72(9), pp. 799814, 1999.
3. R. E. Skelton, Dynamic systems control: linear systems analysis and synthesis, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1988.
4. S. Boyd, L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakerishnan, Linear matrix inequalities in system and control
theory, SIAM, PA, 1994.
5. D. M. R. E. Skelton, JP Pinaud, Dynamics of the shell class of tensegrity structures, Journal of the franklin
institute-engineering and applied mathematics (338), pp. 255320, 2001.