Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
the product control structure on L is also locally definable. Let s 2 L, conflict with each other. We also applied this result to the framework
we derive the control technology 6c by Theorem 3 as established in [2]. It demonstrated that the uncontrollable event set of
6c (s) = f[6 0 (61 0 1 ) [ (62 0 2 )] \ EligL (s) j
the composed system is just the union of the uncontrollable event sets
of two local sysems.
i 6ic ; i 2 f1; 2g; 1 \ (62 0 2 ) \ EligL (s) = ; There still remain some problems in the research of hierarchical and
2 \ (61 0 1 ) \ EligL (s) = ;g: decentralized DES control theory. For example, in [1], a hierarchical
Fig. 1. Linear feedback control system. Fig. 2. Reset control of an integrator using a first-order reset element.
the rationale for improved feedback performance came from this ele- Example: Consider the linear feedback system in Fig. 1 where the
ments favorable describing function. Krishnan and Horowitz [2] in- plant P (s) is simply an integrator. In addition to closed-loop stability,
corporated the Clegg integrator into a quantitative design procedure. In suppose the design objectives are the following:
[3], these ideas were advanced by resetting a first-order lag filter, the
i) steady-state error no greater than one when tracking a unit-ramp
so-called first-order reset element. Recently, there has been renewed at-
input;
tention to this topic from both a theoretic and applications viewpoint;
ii) rise time greater than 2 s when tracking a unit-step;
e.g., see [4][11]. One missing element in this work is a concrete ex-
iii) no overshoot in the step response.
ample showing that reset control meets control system objectives that
To meet the error specification on the ramp response, this linear feed-
back system must have velocity error constant Kv 1. Since tr >
are unattainable over all linear controllers. This paper provides such
2 (2=Kv ), the Proposition indicates that no stabilizing C (s) exists
an example. We note that switching control, a nonlinear scheme analo-
gous to reset, exhibits similar advantage as claimed in [12]. The paper
to meet all the above objectives. In the next section we show that a reset
is organized as follows: In the next section, we introduce an overshoot
control system can meet these specifications.
limitation on linear feedback systems arising when the loop contains
an integrator. While new, this result is an immediate consequence of
the time-domain limitations introduced in [13]. In Section III, we give III. RESET CONTROL MEETS EXAMPLEs SPECIFICATIONS
an example showing that reset control does not suffer this limitation. We reconsider the previous example using reset control (see Fig. 2)
In Section IV, we conclude. and use a first-order reset element, see [3], described by
II. OVERSHOOT IN A LINEAR FEEDBACK SYSTEM CONTAINING u_ (t) = 0u(t) + e(t); e(t) 6= 0
INTEGRATOR u(t+ ) = 0; e(t) = 0:
Consider the standard linear feedback control system in Fig. 1 where In the following, we let base-linear system refer to the reset control
the plant P (s) contains an integrator. Assume that C (s) stabilizes. In system in the absence of resetting. To address the preceding design
[13] it was shown that the tracking error e due to a unit-step input sat- objectives we first compute the tracking error of this base-linear system
isfies to a unit-ramp
1 1 p p
e(t) dt = 2 3 00:5t 3
0 Kv eramp (t) = 1 + e sin t0 :
3 2 3
1
where the velocity constant Kv is defined by Kv = Since eramp (t) 6= 0, the reset control system never resets and its
lims!0 sP (s)C (s). Alone, this constraint does not imply overshoot response is equivalent to the base-linear response. Kv = 1 for the
in the step response y ; i.e., y (t) 1 for some t > 0. However, base-linear system guarantees a steady-state error less than 1. The error
introduction of an additional, sufficiently stringent time-domain of the base-linear control system to a unit-step input is
bandwidth constraint will. To see this, consider the notion of rise time p p p
tr introduced in [13]: 2 3 00:5t 3 3
estep (t) =
3
e sin
2
t 0 sin 2
t0
3
:
t p
tr = sup T : y(t) ; t 2 [0; T ] :
T T This error first goes to zero at t = (4 3=9) 2:42 s. Thus, the first
The following result is immediate. reset time is approximately 2.42 s. The error of the reset control system
Proposition: If tr > (2=Kv ); i.e., the rise time is sufficiently slow, remains zero therafter since its response is deadbeat. This occurs since
the unit-step response y (t) overshoots. (u; y ) = (0; r) is an equilibrium point. The rise time tr is determined
1
from the tangency of y (t) = 1 0 estep (t) with y(t) = mt. Indeed,
Proof: Clearly
1 if (1=m) < 2:42 and these curves are tangent, then tr = (1=m). We
1 thus seek a pair (t; m) satisfying
= e(t) dt
Kv 0
t
t 1 y(t) = y(t)
10
tr
dt + e(t) dt
0 and
1
t
Thus tr = 2:35 s. This reset control system thus satisfies the second de-
1 1
0 t2 :
sign constraint. The overshoot objective is met since the step response
e(t) dt r
REFERENCES
Manuscript received November 30, 1999; revised July 25, 2000 and February
[1] J. C. Clegg, A nonlinear integrator for servomechanisms, Trans. AIEE, 26, 2001. Recommended by Associate Editor S. Hara. This work was supported
Part II, Appl. Ind., vol. 77, pp. 4142, 1958. in part an ARC research grant, a HKU CRCG grant, and the William Mong
[2] K. R. Krishnan and I. M. Horowitz, Synthesis of a nonlinear feedback Visiting Fellowship.
system with significant plant-ignorance for predescribed system toler- W.-Y. Yan is with the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Curtin
ances, Int. J. Control, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 689706, 1974. University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
[3] I. Horowitz and P. Rosenbaum, Non-linear design for cost of feedback J. Lam is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of
reduction in systems with large parameter uncertainty, Int. J. Control, Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong.
vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 9771001, 1975. Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9286(01)10356-9.