Linear Ultimate Boundedness Control of Uncertain Dynamical Systems

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Aufrufe

Linear Ultimate Boundedness Control of Uncertain Dynamical Systems

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Analog Process Control and Sensors
- MA3005 Topic 1 - Introduction
- Christopher Chatfield, Alexander J. Collins (auth.)-Introduction to Multivariate Analysis-Springer US (1980).pdf
- Pattern Classification
- Linear Algebra Notes
- Control of Two-wheels Inverted Pendulum Mobile Robot Using Full Order Sliding Mode Control
- po-samp-sols
- Andrew Rosenberg- Lecture 2.1: Vector Calculus CSC 84020 - Machine Learning
- MPC
- Simulation and Stability Analysis of Neural Network Based Control Scheme for Switches Linear System
- Outline Een 407
- mm-10
- Robust-Control-based Controller Design for a Mobile Robot
- BluSTL Controller Synthesis From Signal Temporal Logic Specifications
- final project.pdf
- Mottershead J.e_ Active Vibration Suppression by Pole-zero Placement Using Measured Receptances
- Chapter 2 Stability Domain
- Cambridge TEST FOR U
- ForteGiroscopice_evitarea_coliziunii
- Calculation of critical points using a reduction method.pdf

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

00

Printedin Great Britain PergamonPressLtd.

© 1983InternationalFederationof AutomaticControl

Dynamical Systems*

A Liapunov type stabilization theory, developed for linear systems, includes time-varying

parameters which are unknown but bounded in their state variable description.

Key Words--Uncertain systems; stabilization; linear control; ultimate boundedness; Liapunov functions.

Al~traet--Given a state equation whose description includes graphics]. These so-called uncertain dynamical

uncertain parameters, it is often desirable to design a feedback systems are typically described by differential

controller which renders all solutions uniformly and ultimately

bounded. When facing such a problem, one often has available or equations which contain parameters whose values

assumes an upper bound for the excursions of the uncertain are imprecisely known. In contrast to the stochastic

parameters. Within this framework, the objective is to guarantee, control set-up, no assumptions are made concern-

no matter how 'nature' selects the uncertainty, that the state will

eventually end up and remain within some pre-specified region. ing the statistics of the uncertain parameters in

When this region is a small neighborhood about the origin, the question. Instead, only a bound on the parameter

concept of uniform ultimate boundedness is tantamount to variations is taken as given and the objecti.ve is to

'practical' asymptotic stability. The objectives of this paper are

twofold: first and foremost, our goal is to show that a class of design a controller which satisfactorily regulates the

ultimate boundedness problems which have been solved to date system. Often the term 'guaranteed performance' is

via nonlinear control, can in point of fact be solved via linear used to denote the fact that the resulting closed-loop

control. This is the main result and is given in Theorem 4.1.

Secondly, we show that some of the so-called matching system will have certain desirable properties (for

assumptions (which have been required in the earlier literature) example, asymptotic stability) for all admissible

can be weakened somewhat. This enables one to design variations of the uncertainty.

controllers for a larger class of dynamical systems than

previously considered. This paper is concerned with the problem of

ultimate boundedness within the framework de-

1. INTRODUCTION scribed above. Our main objective is to show that a

IN RECENT years, a number of new approaches have linear time-invariant feedback control will suffice

been proposed for synthesizing controllers which for a large class of systems previously stabilized by a

lead to either asymptotic stability or ultimate nonlinear control. That is, instead of accomplishing

boundedness of the state of an uncertain dynamical ultimate boundedness via a controller which

system [see for example Chang and Peng (1972); operates nonlinearly on an inaccurately measured

Leitmann (1978, 1979, 1981); Molander (1979); state, we achieve the same end via a pure gain. This

Gutman (1979); Vinkler and Wood (1980); Corless linearity in the control structure is the marked

and Leitmann (1981); Thorp and Barmish (1981); difference between the results of Leitmann (1978,

Barmish and Leitmann (1982), and their biblio- 1979, 1981); Gutman (1979); Corless and Leitmann

(1981); Barmish and Leitmann (1982) and those

given here. In the case of Chang and Peng (1972);

* Received 16 November 1981 ; revised 24 August 1982; revised Molander (1979); Vinkler and Wood (1980); Thorp

11 February 1983. The original version of this paper was

presented at the 8th IFAC World Congress on Control Science and Barmish (1981), linear controllers are designed

and Technology for the Progress of Society which was held in for-systems without input and/or measurement

Kyoto, Japan during August 1981. The published proceedings of uncertainty. In this paper, both of these types of

this IFAC meeting may be ordered from Pergamon Press Ltd,

Headington Hill Hall, Oxford OX3 0BW, U.K. This paper was uncertainties are included and it is shown that linear

recommended for publication in revised form by associate editor feedback is nevertheless feasible. Before proceeding,

J. Ackermann under the direction of editor H. Kwakernaak. two points are worthy of mention:

t Department of Electrical Engineering, University of

Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, U.S.A. (1) The presence of an additive input uncertainty

:~Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ 07733, U.S.A. in our formulation precludes the possibility of

523

524 B.R. BARMISH, I. R. PETERSEN and A. FEUER

Hence, our theory is centered around the concept of We consider a dynamical system described by the

uniform ultimate boundedness. state and output equations*

(2) There are some special cases when one might

prefer nonlinear control over linear control. For yc(t) = A(q(t))x(t) + B(q(t))u(t) + Cv(t), t>0

example, given a system having only additive input

y(t) = x(t) + w(t) (S)

uncertainty (and no other uncertainties of any type),

one can design a nonlinear controller which is

where x(t)e R" is the state; u(t)e R m is the control;

amplitude bounded (Gutman, 1979). In contrast,

q(t)eQ c R k is the model uncertainty which is

linear control would not have this desirable

restricted to a prescribed bounding set Q;

property. Nonlinear control might also be prefer-

v(t) e V ~ R p is an external disturbance which is also

able when robustness (insensitivity to parameter

restricted to a prescribed bounding set V; and

variations) is of concern (Gutman and Palmor,

finally, w(t) e W c R" is the measurement error which

1982). Other situations where nonlinear control is

lies within a bounding set W. Within this framework,

required are described in Corless and Leitmann

C must be a constant n x p matrix and A(') and B(')

(1981) and Barmish and Leitmann (1982).

are n x n and n x m dimensional matrix functions

Besides the issue of linear versus nonlinear

on the set Q, respectively. Hence for fixed q e Q, A(q)

control, another fundamental question pervades the

and B(q) are the model matrices which result.~"

ultimate boundedness and guaranteed stability

Throughout the remainder of this paper, the

literature. Namely, what are the assumptions that

following assumptions are taken as standard:

must be made, in order to guarantee ultimate

Assumption 1 (continuity): The matrices A(') and

boundedness and/or stability, on the manner in

B(') depend continuously on their arguments.

which the uncertain parameters enter structurally

Assumption 2 (compactness): The bounding sets

into the state equation? In all of the previously cited

Q, v and W are compact sets in Rk, R p and R",

references, the success of the various control

respectively.

schemes proposed depends crucially on the

Assumption 3 (measurability): The uncertainties

satisfaction of additional a priori assumptions.

q('): [0, oo) ~ Q, v('): [0, oo) ~ V and w('): [0, oo)

These assumptions essentially restrict the locations

--* W are required to be Lebesgue measurable.

and/or sizes of the uncertain parameters within the

Assumption 4 (matching conditions): There exist

system matrices. In the case of many of the previous

constant matrices B and F and a continuous matrix

references, these restrictions have been appro-

function ~P('):Q ~ R " × " such that for all q e Q

priately referred to as matching conditions. In Thorp

and Barmish (1981), these matching conditions are

B(q) = BqJ(q);

somewhat generalized leading to a weaker require-

ment on the system structure. In Barmish and ~F(q) + ~'(q) is positive-definite

Leitmann (1982), it is shown that ultimate

boundedness is still possible as long as the matching and

conditions are not violated 'too severely'. Peng

C = BF.

(1972); Chang and Peng (1972); and Vinkler and

Wood (1980), instead of imposing matching

Notation. In the sequel, I will denote the identity

conditions on the state matrix A(.), require that

matrix and IIMII,the norm of a real matrix M, will be

A(q) depends linearly on the uncertainty vector q.

taken to be the square root of the largest eigenvalue

Furthermore, except for one rather special case, the

of M ' M . Also 2mi,(ma~)['] will denote the operation

input matrix B(') cannot be uncertain.

of taking the smallest (largest) eigenvalue (defined

Subsequently, one can guarantee stability if a

for a symmetric matrix). We describe the comp-

certain augmented Riccati equation has a positive-

lement of a set X by XC; i.e., X c = {xeR":xq~X}.

definite solution. Finally, we mention the more

recent work of Molander (1979) where the structure

Remarks about Assumption 4. It can be easily seen

of the uncertainty was constrained by certain

that for the uncertain system (S), the assumptions of

subspace relationships. These relationships essen-

previous authors imply the satisfaction of

tially play the role of matching conditions.

In order to assure that our results apply to

systems in the references above, we shall provide a

* Ultimate boundedness problems can also be formulatedfor

set of assumptions in Section 2 which are sufficiently systems whose state is estimated via an observer (Leitmann,

weak so as to encompass these analyses for the case 1981).Note that we are reallydealingwith an uncertainstate and

when the uncertain system is linear. For these not a general output feedback.

~"Of course, the uncertaintyq(.) is typicallytime-varying.This

uncertain linear systems, we shall deal exclusively fact is reflectedby writing 'A(q(t))'and 'B(q(t))"in the description

with quadratic Liapunov functions. of the system (S).

Linear ultimate boundedness control of uncertain dynamical systems 525

Assumption 4. For example, if B(q)=-Bo is will possess a solution x('): [to, t1 ] ~ R* which is

constant, one can take B = Bo and ~F(q)_-__I. In continuable over [to, oo).

Peng (1972); Chang and Peng (1974); Vinkler and (ii) All possible solutions* x(.): [to, oo) ~ R n of

Wood (1980), it is assumed that one can write (1) are uniformly and ultimately bounded with

B(q) = Bo + qBo where Iq(t)l < (t, 7t > O. For this respect to X.

case, the choice B = Bo, qJ(q) = (q + 1)I will suffice. (iii) Given any admissible uncertainties q('), v(')

Finally in Leitmann (1978, 1979, 1981); Gutman and w(.), the so-called Liapunov derivative

(1979); Corless and Leitmann (1981), it is assumed

that B(q) is a matrix of the form B(q) = Bo + BoE(q)

.~q~(x,t) ~=x' [A'(q(t))P + PA(q(t))]x

where E(') is a continuous m x m matrix function

satisfying liE(q)ll < 1 for all q e (2. In this situation, it + 2x'P[B(q(t))p(x + w(t)) + Cv(t)] (2)

is easy to verify that Assumption 4 is satisfied by

choosing B = Bo and ~F(q) = I + E(q).

admits a bound .~q~(x,t) _< -Co which holds for all

It is also important to note that in this paper we

t >- 0 and all x ~ XC.?

are making no a priori assumptions on the structure

of A(q). Hence, the linearity assumption on A(')

Remarks. Implicit in (1) is the fact that the control

required in Peng (1972); Chang and Peng (1974);

u(') is an output feedback of the form

Vinkler and Wood (1980), the matching conditions

on A(') required in Leitmann (1978, 1979, 1981);

u(t) = p(y(t)). (3)

Gutman (1979); Corless and Leitmann (1981);

Thorp and Barmish (1981), the mismatch limit on

We also note that ifP satisfies condition (2), then the

A(.) required in Barmish and Leitmann (1982) and

function V:R" -, R given by

the subspace inclusion condition on A(') required in

Molander (1979) are all subsumed by the present

formulation. V(x) A=x'Px (4)

Some definitions are required in order to precisely bound~lness of solutions; see for example, Barmish

formulate the problem at hand. and Leitmann (1982).

Our next definition is concerned with the

Definition 3.0 possibility of linear control.

Let P be an n x n positive-definite symmetric

matrix and suppose that fl is a subset of R'. Then fl Definition 3.3

is said to be a P-ellipsoid if ~ = {x ~ R":x'Px <_ k} Suppose that the conditions of Definition 3.2 can

for some k >__0. be satisfied with a control law p(-) which depends

linearly on y; that is, p ( y ) = Ky where K is a

Definition 3.1 constant m x n feedback matrix. Then (S) is said to

A solution x('): [to, oo) --, R", X(to) = Xo of (S) is be u.u.b.q, via linear control,

said to be uniformly and ultimately bounded with The following statement is an immediate con-

respect to a compact set X c R n if there is a non- sequence of Definitions 3.2 and 3.3.

negative constant (time) T(xo, X) < + ~ , possibly Suppose that (S) is u.u.b.q, via linear control. Then

dependent on Xo and X but not on to, such that (S) is u.u.b.q.

x ( t ) ~ X for all t >_ to + T(xo, X). The main objective of this paper is to establish the

converse of the statement above.

Definition 3.2

The uncertain dynamical system (S) is said to be Remarks concerning control synthesis. From the

uniformly and ultimately boundable in a quadratic point of view of linear controller design, one can

manner (henceforth u.u.b.q.) if there exists: ( a ) a proceed as follows: use a design procedure from any

positive constant C o > 0 ; (b) a control law of the previously cited references to obtain a

p(.):R n ~ Rm; and (c) a P-ellipsoid nonlinear controller p(-), Liapunov matrix P and

X = { x E R " : x ' P x <_ ko} such that the following associated constants Co and ko. Taking p(.), P, ko

conditions are satisfied: and Co as known data, one can generate the desired

(i) Given any admissible uncertainties q('), v(')

and w(') and any initial condition X(to)eR',

(to > 0), the closed-loop state equation *Generated by the realized uncertainties and the initial

conditions.

Yc(t) = A(q(t))x(t) + B(q(t))p(x(t) + w(t)) + Cv(t) 1"In fact, (ii) is redundant in view of (iii). Without loss of

generality,however,we retain (ii)so that the definitionlendsitself

(1) to physicalinterpretation.

526 B.R. BARMISH, I. R. PETERSEN and A. FEUER

gain matrix using the results given in Sections 4 and This system is linear and has a bounded Lebesgue

6 of this paper. It is also of interest to note that this measurable input 'BKw(t)+ Cv(t)' (see Assump-

design philosophy can also be applied to systems tions 2 and 3). Note also that the system matrix

other than those satisfying the matching conditions 'A(q(t)) +B(q(t))K' also has bounded Lebesgue

which were discussed in the introductory section. measurable entries (see Assumptions 1-3). Hence,

For example, when A(q) fails to satisfy a matching given any initial condition X(to)=Xo, and ad-

condition, one can often nevertheless generate the missible uncertainties q(.), v(') and w(.), the resulting

input data {p('), P, k0, Co} by considering a certain solution x(.) is continuable over [to,OO)

feasible point problem (Hollot and Barmish, 1980). (Coddington and Levinson, 1955).

As far as this paper is concerned, however, the data

{p('),P, ko, co} (associated with a nonlinear con- Condition (iii). The main thrust of the proof will

troller) is taken as given when we design linear be directed towards the satisfaction of this

controls. condition. We first choose the matrices P and K as

4. M A I N R E S U L T

The proof of the following theorem will be carried

P ~P (5)

out in Section 5. To this end, we shall construct a

and

candidate controller using the known data which

describes the system. Then, it will be shown that this

control does indeed satisfy the conditions of K ~= - 7B'P (6)

Definition 3.3.

where y > 0 is a gain which will be defined in the

Theorem 4,1 sequel. Our task now is reduced to showing that ~,

Suppose that (S) is u.u.b.q. Then (S) is u.u.b.q, via Co, ko > 0 exist so that condition (iii) is satisfied.

linear control. We begin by performing a sequence of sub-

stitutions and simplifying notation. The control

Remarks. Sometimes when a system cannot be p(y) = Ky is substituted into (2). Also making use of

asymptotically stabilized, one can nevertheless the matchiiag conditions (Assumption 4) and

assure 'practical' asymptotic stability by dem- equations (5) and (6), we obtain

onstrating that the ultimate boundedness set X in

Definition 3.1 and 3.2 is 'sufficiently small'. This is .W(x,t) = x' [A'(q(t))P + PA(q(t))]x

shown in Barmish, Corless and Leitmann (1983).

Note that in the theorem above, there are two - ?x'PB [W(q(t)) + W'(q(t))]B'Px (7)

ultimate boundedness sets in question. The first of

these sets X"results from applying nonlinear control - 2~x'PBW(q(t))B'Pw(t) + 2x'PBFv(t)

whereas the second of these sets X corresponds to

the linear control system. From a stabilization point for admissible uncertainties q(.), v(') and w(').

of view, it would be of interest to focus future Next, for notational convenience, we define the

research effort on comparing the 'sizes' of X" and X. quantities

Hence, one could systematically evaluate the

tradeoffs involved in implementing a linear versus

p~ ~ max {x' [A'(q)P + PA(q)]x:q ~ Q, x'Px = 1}

nonlinear control.

(8)

5. P R O O F O F T H E O R E M 4.1

A

Since (S) is known to be u.u.b.q., there is a control Po = max IIFvll (9)

p(-), a positive-definite symmetric matrix P and veV

/x

satisfaction of conditions (i)-(iii) of Definition 3.2. p~ = max IIW(q)B'Pwll (10)

Given these quantities, our claim is that there exist qeQ,w~W

requirements for (S) to be u.u.b.q, via linear control. /x

p~ = ½min '~min[~I'/(q) + ~J'(q)]. (11)

qeQ

Condition (i). If a linear feedback control

u(t) = Ky(t) is applied to (S), the resulting closed- Note that Assumptions 1-4 of Section 2

loop system is described by guarantee that these constants are well defined and

that

Yc(t) = [A(q(t)) + B(q(t))K ]x(t) + B(q(t))Kw(t)

+ Cv(t). pq > O. (12)

Linear ultimate boundedness control of uncertain dynamical systems 527

Using these definitions and (7), we obtain for all x e R" such that x'Px =/~o and

IIB'Pxll < p0~1/2.

Za(x, t) <<_x' [A'(q(t))P + PA(q(t)) ]x - 2?pallB'Pxll 2

+ 2ylIB'PxlI " IIW(t)B'Vw(t))ll Using the given definition of gv('), we can readily

establish the following claim:

+ 211B'Pxll'llFv(t)ll

Claim. Given any 0 < fl < 1, there exists some

which can be re-written more conveniently as

y > 0 such that

..~(x,t) <_x' [A'(q(t))P + PA(q(t)) ] x - ~yPallB'Pxll 2

gv(x) < - flCo (16)

4

+ --llFv(t)ll 2 for all x e R ~ such that x'Px = lco.

YPq

To prove (16), we take 8~ (0, 1) as given, select pp

+ 4?llW(q(t))B'Pw(t)ll2 as in (15) and choose any y > 0 such that

Pq

YPa (17)

where

Iz(x,t) ~= B'PxII - ]lFv(t Now, let x • R" be given such that x'Px = J~0.There

are two cases to consider: If IIB'Pxll <_ p#~l/2, then

(11 4

I2(x,.t) ~= B'PxII - --IlW(q(t))B'Pw(t

P~

)11)2•

we use 'property of go(')' to obtain

Since Ix (x, t) and I2(X , t) are non-negative, we obtain

On the other hand, if IIB'Pxll > PB~/2, then we use

(8), the definition of g~(') and (17) to obtain

.Z(x, t) < x' [A'(q(t))V + PA(q(t))]x

- ~pqllB'exll 2 g,(x) ~ ~oP. - ~ P ~ P ~ o P ,

+ 4_4_p~+ 4yp~,.

(13) . F2(p.[o + 8~'o)7 ^ _2[

YPa P~

opTA

Inequality (13) will be the vehicle by which we define

the desired positive constants ko, co, and y. To this This establishes the claim.

end, we first work with the first two terms in (13).

Hence, for a given y > 0, we are motivated to define Final selection of Co, ko, y. To complete the proof

a function gv(.):R" ~ R by of the theorem, we return to (13) and note that

qsQ a'(x, t) _ g,(x) + : v ~ + 'p~w. (18)

YPq P~

In view of the continuity of A(') and the

compactness of Q, this function is continuous. The Next we select any fie(0, 1) and take p~ > 0

proof to follow will also make use of the fact that satisfying (15). For this pp, ~ is selected to satisfy

(17). Now, for any x # 0, we can use (14) and re-

g~(o~x) = o~2g~(g) (14) write (18) as

for all xeR" and all a > O. When ? = O, one further xtPx / ~01/2 I + 4_4_p~+ 4?p~w

.~(x,t) <--~-o g, l ~ x ]

property of go(') will be used in the sequel; the YPq Pq

existence of the constant pp below is established in

Appendix A. and in view of the preceding claim, the inequality

above becomes

Property of go('). Given any 0 < fl < 1, there

exists a constant pp > 0 such that

[x'Px I ff~o + 4 P~ + "P~w. (19)

go(x) <_ - 8do (15) .~(x,t) <_ - I ~o I ?P~ Pq

528 B.R. BARMISH, I. R. PE'IERSEN and A. FEUER

Clearly, (19) enables us to generate the appropriate Case 1. P q w - P v : 0 (neither measurement un-

constants Co and ko. One can either choose Co > 0 certainty not"input uncertainty). For this situation, (20)

arbitrarily and then reduces to

koco

ko:~o Co + % 2 + (20) ko = - - (23)

YPq Pq l

or, one can choose any Hence, by choosing Co sufficiently small, k0 can be

made arbitrarily small. Therefore, our results are

4,0 (21)

compatible with known results [such as those in

ko > ~ Leitmann (1979); Gutman (1979); Thorp and

Barmish (1981)] on the guaranteed stability

and then take problem.

Co = -60 - - -

Pq +.TP w • (22) this case, it was shown in Thorp and Barmish (1981)

that one can assure a measure of'practical stability'

In either event, it is clear from (19) that Co and ko can at the expense of possibly high gain. This conclusion

be chosen so that can also be drawn from the analysis given here; that

is, with Pqw = 0, (20) reduces to

~(x, t) <_ - Co

/

/" (24)

7 sufficiently large, k0 can be made arbitrarily small.

This completes the proof that condition (iii) of We note, however, that the required gain ~ might

Definition 3.3 holds. have to be 'boosted'; that is, the required gain will

increase as we decrease the ultimate boundedness

Condition (ii). Let q(-), v(') and w(') be admissible ellipsoidal radius ko.

uncertainties and suppose that X(to) = x o e R " is a

given initial condition. Knowing from condition (iii) 6. SYNTHESISOF A CONTROLLER

that 5e(x, t)_< -Co, we can argue exactly as in The proof of Theorem 4.1 as given in the previous

Leitmann (1981) to establish uniform ultimate section cannot be used as it stands to actually

boundedness with respect to X; i.e., if x(t)~ X c, then construct a controller. This stems from the fact that

V(x(t)) decreases and reaches the boundary of X at no method is given for constructing the constant pp

some time t < oc. Since which satisfies (15). In this section, our objective is

to develop a method of computing pa which enables

v(x6))- v(x(to)) <_ - c o 6 - to) one to make the proof of Theorem 4.1 truly

constructive.

we are motivated to define For the system (S), we define the following

I-V(x°) ~ k° ' positive constantt

if Xo ~ X c

T(xo, X) = ~ Co

A

( 0 if x o e X . PN = min {u'B'PBB'PBu:u'B'PBu = 1} (25)

and the non-negative constant

all t -> to + T(xo, X). Hence, all solutions x(-) are

uniformly and ultimately bounded with respect to

X. The proof of Theorem 4.1 is now complete. [] PA = max {Ix' [A'(q)e + PA(q)]xl:

Remarks. From the point of view of practical qeQ, x'Px = 1}. (26)

stability, it would be of interest to know when ko can

be chosen arbitrarily small while still satisfying (20).

Two special cases of interest have been studied in the

earlier literature. We see below that for each of these

? PNmust be positive;otherwisethe minimizingelementu. in

two cases, ko can indeed be chosen as small as we (25) would violate u',B'PBu. = 1. For the trivial case when

desire. B = 0, then the minimizingset in (25) is empty and p• = + or.

Linear ultimate boundedness control of uncertain dynamical systems 529

The following theorem addresses the problem of It should also be noted that from the point of view

construction of the desired constant p#; see of control synthesis, the ratio Co/J~ocan be calculated

Appendix B for proof. without recourse to the structure of the nonlinear

function p('); that is; having the P matrix available,

Theorem 6.1 one can take

Suppose that the u.u.b.q, requirements of

Definition 3.2 are satisfied by the matrix P and the Co

j~-~_< - s u p {x' [A'(q)P + PA(q)]x:x'Px = 1,

constants c0 and J~o.Take 13e (0, 1) as fixed. Then the

constant B'Px = 0}.

((I --_~) ~o

=~ ~ 2pa ~oX/(PN/2)' if r a n k B < n For this example the constraint set {x:x'Px = 1,

P# (27) B'Px = 0} is empty and therefore, Co/ko can be

[6x/pN, if r a n k B = n , ( 0 < 6 < l ) taken to be any arbitrary positive constant. Using

(17) and (20), we obtain

satisfies condition (15). That is

{ ~ 2 ~o l

go(x) = maxx' [A'(q)P + PA(q)]x <_ -flCo (28) y > max u,~--0-~;

tlSQ

and

for all x~R" such that x'Px=ko and

]]B'PxI] < p#k 1/2.

~o

ko = ~ o (4~w2 + Co).

By using p# as above, one can now provide a

'recipe' for construction of a linear controller which

satisfies the u.u.b.q, requirements. This is accom- Given any fie(0,1) and any arbitrary constant

plished as follows: (i) compute ps, p~, P~w and pq A > 0, we take p# = 1/(1 + A) and choose

using (8)-(11). (ii) Select fl ~ (0, 1) and calculate Pa,

PN and p# using (25)-(27). (iii) Choose the gain

~, = j--~p~o (I + A) = (I + A) 3.

constant y satisfying (17). (iv) Select Co and k0

satisfying (20). The desired feedback gain matrix is

then K = - yB'P. Furthermore, all solutions will be This leads to

uniformly and ultimately bounded with respect to

the set X = { x e R " : x ' P x <_ ko}.

ko = ~W2(1 + A) 3 + ~__~o2Co

~o fl"

7. ILLUSTRATIVEEXAMPLES

Example 1. To see that the 'commonsense' It is clear that we can make y arbitrarily small by

solution and the formal solution agree, we consider choice of 13. Furthermore, by choice of Co and A, we

the scalar state and output equations can make ko arbitrarily close to ]~2. This

corresponds to the ultimate boundedness set

g(t) = u(t); y(t) = x(t) + w(t); Iw(t)l _

x =

bound. It is clear? that by applying a feedback of the The discrepancy between this ultimate boundedness

form u(t) = -ky(t), k > 0, all solutions x(') will be set and that obtained using common sense methods

uniformly and ultimately bounded with respect to indicates that the design procedure presented in this

the set X = {x ~ R:lx[ < ~}. This is the so-called paper may be somewhat conservative.

commonsense solution. Proceeding formally, we

can construct the control according to (17) and (20). Example 2. Next, we consider a second order

Since this system has only one state, the Liapunov dynamical system having both input and measure-

matrix P will be a scalar for any nonlinear control ment uncertainty. Namely

used to stabilize the system. Hence, without loss of

generality we may use P = 1. Using Assumption 4 of ~l(t) = Xz(t)

Section 2 and (8)-(11), (25) and (26), we may easily Yc2(t) = - x ~ ( t ) + u(t) + v(t)

calculate ~(q) = 1, Ps = 0, Pv = 0, P~w = w, P~ = 1, yx(t) = xl(t) + Wx(t)

PN = 1 and Pa --- 0. Using formula (27), it is clear

y z ( t ) = x 2 ( t ) + w2(t)

that one is free to select any p# e (0, 1).

with uncertainty bounds Iv(t)l _< 1 and IIw(t)ll ~ 1.

t That is, Ix(t)l will decrease whenever Ix(t)] > ft. We note that this set-up is identical to that

530 B . R . BARMISH, I. R. PETERSEN a n d A. FEUER

observe that the u n c o n t r o l l e d system [set u(t) = 0] a n d compared. A second possible tradeoff involves

is potentially unstable. F o r example, if v(t) = sin t, the so-called control effort. G i v e n a metric which

then one obtains an u n b o u n d e d response measures the size of the controller, it would be of

x~(t) = ½tcos t..Hence, we are m o t i v a t e d to apply a interest to k n o w which controller (linear or

control to eliminate this possible instability. F o r our n o n l i n e a r ) is preferable from a m i n i m u m effort

c o m p u t a t i o n s , we use p o i n t of view.

A= I ° 11

-1 0 ;B= ;C= ;

Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, in part by the U.S.

Department of Energy under contract no. ET-78-S-01-3390and

in part by the National ScienceFoundation under grant no. ECS-

~F(q) = l ; f = 1. 8108804.

REFERENCES

A n o n l i n e a r controller can be f o u n d for this example Barmish, B. R., M. Corless and G. Leitmann (in press). A new

as in L e i t m a n n (1981). I n fact for each k > 0 there class of stabilizingcontrollers for uncertain dynamical systems.

SlAM J. Control & Optimiz.

exists a n o n l i n e a r stabilizing controller with the Barmish, B. R. and G. Leitmann (1982). On ultimate

following L i a p u n o v matrix boundedness control of uncertain systems in the absence of

matching conditions. IEEE Trans Aut. Control, AC-27, 153.

Bellman, R. (1970). Introduction to Matrix Analysis. McGraw-

Hill, New York.

2 k ½ Berge, C. (1963). Topological Spaces. Oliver & Boyd, London.

P = ~1 -1/ " Chang, S. S. L. and T. K. C. Peng (1972). Adaptive guaranteed

cost control of systemswith uncertain parameters. IEEE Trans

Aut. Control, AC-17, 474.

T o further illustrate c o m p u t a t i o n s we take Coddington, E. A. and N. Levinson {19551. Theory of Ordinary

Differential Equations. McGraw-Hill, New York.

k = - 0.2. T h e n from the f o r m u l a e given in Sections Corless, M. and G. Leitmann (1981). Continuous state feedback

5 a n d 6, we c o m p u t e Ps = 0.2, Pv = 1, Pqw = 5.025, guaranteeing uniform ultimate boundedness for uncertain

pq = 1, ~0/ko = 0.2,t PN = 5 a n d PA = 0.2. dynamic systems. IEEE Trans Aut. Control, AC-26, 1139.

Gutman, S. (1979). Uncertain dynamical systems, a Lyapunov

If we choose fl = 0.33 a n d Co = 0.1, s u b s t i t u t i o n rain-max approach. IEEE Trans Aut. Control, AC-24, 437.

of these quantities into (27) yields p# = 0.530. Gutman, S. and G. Leitmann (1976). Stabilizingfeedback control

I n e q u a l i t y (17) n o w leads to the r e q u i r e m e n t for dynamical systems with bounded uncertainty. Proceedings

of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Houston.

7 > 0.632. Hence, by c h o o s i n g ~ = 0.633, inequality Gutman, S. and G. Leitmann (1975). Stabilizingcontrol for linear

(16) will be satisfied a n d e q u a t i o n (20) yields systems with bounded parameter and input uncertainty.

k0 = 1066. U s i n g (6), the vector of feedback gains Proceedings of the 7th IFIP Conference on Optimization

Techniques, Springer, Berlin.

K = [ - 0 . 3 1 6 5 , - 3 . 1 6 5 ] n o w results. T h e smallest Gutman, S. and G. Leitmann (to appear). Invariance property of

sphere c o n t a i n i n g the u l t i m a t e b o u n d e d n e s s set rain-max controllers in uncertain dynamical systems.

{ x : x ' P x <_ 1066} has radius ro = 15.3. This q u a n - Gutman, S. and Z. Palmor (1982). Properties of min-max

controllers in uncertain dynamical systems. SIAM J. Control

tity ro is referred to as the ultimate boundedness & Optimiz., 20, 850.

radius. I n contrast, the n o n l i n e a r controller in Hollot, C. V. and B. R. Barmish (1980). Optimal quadratic

L e i t m a n n (1981) was f o u n d to yield a n ultimate stabilizability of uncertain linear systems. Proceedings of the

18th Allerton Conference on Communications, Control and

b o u n d e d n e s s ~o = 2.9. It is unclear at this p o i n t Computing, University of Illinois, Monticello.

what in general can be said a b o u t the radii of Leitmann, G. (1976). Stabilization of dynamical systems under

ultimate b o u n d e d n e s s resulting from n o n l i n e a r bounded input and parameter uncertainty. Proceedings of the

Second Kingston Conference on Differential Games and Control

versus linear control. Theory. Marcel Dekker, New York.

Leitmann, G. (1978). Guaranteed ultimate boundedness for a

8. CONCLUSIONS class of uncertain linear dynamical systems. IEEE Trans Aut.

Control, AC-23, 1109.

In this p a p e r , it was s h o w n t h a t a linear c o n t r o l Leitmann, G. (1979). Guaranteed asymptotic stability for some

structure will suffice for certain ultimate bounded- linear systems with bounded uncertainties. J. Dynamical

ness problems which were previously solved via Systems, Measurement & Control, 101, 212.

Leitmann, G. (1981). On the efficacy of nonlinear control in

nonlinear control. There are, however, possible uncertain linear systems. J. Dynamical Systems, Measurement

tradeoffs involved when opting for linear in lieu of & Control, 103, 95.

nonlinear control. Namely, it may happen that the Molander, P. (1979). Stabilization of uncertain systems. Report

LUTFD2/(TRFT-1020)/1-111/(1979), Lund Institute of

resulting ultimate boundedness set X may turn out Technology.

to be 'larger' than .~. To this end, future research Monopoli, R. V. (1965). Synthesis techniques employing the

effort might concentrate on comparing the radii ro direct method. IEEE Trans Aut. Control, AC-10, 369.

Monopoli, R. V. (1966). Discussion of two theorems on the

and ~o. For the specific example problems second method. IEEE Trans Aut. Control, AC-11, 625.

Peng, T. K. C. (1972). Invariance and stability for bounded

uncertain systems. SIAM d. Control, 10, 679.

t As in Example 1, note that -co/J~o can be computed by Thorp, J. S. and B. R. Barmish (1981). On guaranteed stability of

finding the maximum value of x' [A'(q)P + PA(q)]x subject to uncertain linear systems via linear control. J. Optimiz. Theory

B'Px = 0.5xx + 5x2 = 0, x'Px = 1 and q~Q. & Applic., 35, 551.

Linear ultimate boundedness control of uncertain dynamical systems 531

Vinkler, A. and I. J. Wood (1979). A comparison of several It will be useful to develop an expression for #(p). Given any

techniques for designing controllers of uncertain dynamic x e R', we can decompose x into two orthogonal components as

systems. Proceedings of the IEEE ConJerence on Decision and follows:

Control, San Diego.

Vinkler, A. and I. J. W o o d (1980). Multistep guaranteed cost X = XA + XB

control of linear systems with uncertain parameters. J.

Guidance & Control, 2, 449. where

A P P E N D I X A. P R O P E R T Y O F go(') A N D EXISTENCE

O F p~ Claim 1. Let r > 0 be given and suppose x ~ R* is such that

To establish (15), let f l > 0 be specified. Proceeding by llxll = r. Furthermore, let x be decomposed as x = xa + xa where

contradiction, suppose that no such p~ > 0 exists. Then, there x,t and xa are defined as above. Then

exists a sequence {X k}k~o= ~ such that x'~Px~ ~o for all k, IlB'Pxkll

--*0 as k - , oo and go(xk)> -ffCo for all k. Since each x~ is d2(g, Dr) = 2r 2 - 2rl[xBll. (A6)

contained in the compact set {xaR":x'Px = ~o}, the sequence

{x~}~= t must have a subsequence, say {~k}~= t which converges to To establish (A6), observe that if y efl,, then YA = 0 and

some vector ~ such that ~'P~ = [o. Now, in view ofthe continuity

of IIB'Pxll with respect to x, it is apparent that IIx - Yll2 = IIxAll2 + Ilxa - yll2.

k~oo

d2(x, Dr) = min Ilx - Yllz = ItxA 2 + min IIx8 - Yll2. (A7)

Also, using the continuity of go(') ~-fl, ),¢D.

k~oo Since any y~D., is on the sphere Ilyll = r, it is clear that the above

m i n i m u m is achieved with y = (rxdllxnll)6fl, provided that

To arrive at the desired contradiction, we make note of the xn # 0. Substitutiag this choice o f y into (A7) and using the fact

following fact: Since (S) is u.u.b.q., condition (2) and the that Ilxll 2 = Ilxall 2 + IIx~ll 2 = r 2, one arrives at (A6). In the case that

matching conditions imply that xa = 0, (A6) becomes

for all x e R" such that x'Px > rio and I[B'Pxll = O. Since ~ is such Therefore, (A6) also holds in this case. This completes the proof of

a vector, it follows that Claim 1.

go(£) < - ~'o- (A2) Claim 2. Suppose that r _> 0 and p >_ 0 are fixed. Then

Since 0 < / / < 1, inequalities (A1) and (A2) are inconsistent. [] max {d2(x, Dr):x ~ dp,.p}

= 2r 2, ifr_<~/pN (A8)

A P P E N D I X B. P R O O F O F T H E O R E M 6.1

We construct p~ for two separate cases.

2r - 2r r2 --- if r > -

Case 1.0 < rank B < n. First we claim in this case that p,~ > 0. ON x/Ps "

This can be seen by contradiction; that is, suppose PA -- 0. Then To establish (A8), we first re-write Ps [see (25)] in terms of the

matrix S. Indeed

A'(q)P + PA(q) = 0

PN = min {y'PBB'Py:y'Py = 1,y = Bu, u e R"}

for all q ~ Q. Furthermore, in view of the assumed rank of B, one

can select a point x* E R* such that x*'Px* > l~o and B'Px* = O. = min {x'SBB'Sx:Ilxtl = 1,x = SBu, u~Rm}. (A9)

It follows from (2) that for any admissible uncertainties q(.), v(')

and w('), 5¢(x*, t) = 0. This contradicts the assumption that the We apply Claim 1 to obtain

system (S) is u.u.b.q. We conclude that p,, > 0.

Since P is positive-definite, there exists a positive-definite m a x {d2(x, Dr):x~ep,.p} = m a x {2r 2 - 2r[Ixsll:x6(h,.p}

symmetric matrix S such that P = S 2. Now, given any non- = 2r 2 - 2rmin{llxBll:xE~P,.p}. (AI0)

negative numbers r and p, we define the family of sets

In view of the fact that IIxA2 + IIxBII2 = r 2 for x~b,,p,

d;,., ~= {xER":x'SBB'Sx <_ p2, Ilxll = r} (A3) minimizing Jlxall is equivalent to maximizing IIxA. Hence, we

consider the following problem:

Find m a x IIxAlt subject to IIxA -< r and x'SBB'Sx < / 9 2, where

and x = xA + xa is decomposed as earlier in the proof. Note that for

all x ~ R', x' SBB'Sx = x~SBB' Sx A. Consequently, it follows that

Dra(#,.o= {xeR":B'Sx=O, Ilxll=r}. (A4) the second constraint in our maximization problem is

t a n t a m o u n t to x'ASBB'SxA _< ,0 2. Furthermore, it follows from

(A9) that given any ~t > 0,

where II'll is the usual euclidean norm. Letting d(x, [L) denote the

distance from the point x to the set Dr,'t one can also define a pN~2 = min {y'SBB'Sy:y = SBu, u e R m, Ilyl[ = ~}. (All)

scalar function #: [0, ~o) ~ [0, oo ] by

#(p) ~=sup{d(x, Dr):r >- 0,x~b,.p}. (A5)

y = SBu, u ~ R m, []yl] = ct and y'SBB'Sy = pN~t 2. Let ct = P/x/PN.

Hence

m a x {Hyll:y = SBu, u ~ R% y'SBB'Sy < p2 } >

_ ~~/Ps" (A12)

instead of 'inf' because Dr is compact.

532 B.R. BARMISH, I. R. PETERSEN a n d A. F E U E R

l f y e R " is such that y = SBu, u e R " and y'SBB'Sy < p2, then it satisfies condition (28). First we rewrite the constant ,','4 in terms

follows from (A11) that p~llyll2 < pZ. Therefore, IlYll < P/x/Pu. of the matrix S. It follows from (26) that

From the analysis above, we conclude that

PA = max{ly'[SA(q)S ~ + S ~A'(q)S]yJ:q~Q, Jb'II-: I',.

max{llYlt:y = SBu, u e R " , y'SBB'Sy <_ p2} _ P

From this expression it is straightforward to verify that

This result implies that finding the desired maximum of IlxAll is PA = max{llSA(q)S -1 + S-IA'(q)SII:qEQJ. (A15)

equivalent to finding the maximum of IIx~ll subject to IIx,dl -< r

and IIx~ll -< p/.,/p~. Hence To show that (28) is satisfied with our selection ofpp, we fix x e R °

such that x'Px = ko and IIB'Pxll < p#K~:2. Let ~ = Sx. Then with r

and

Using the definition of go(') and (A15) with y = S-ly, we have

I0, if r < S s [g0(x) - go(Y)l < max I(x + y)'(A'(q)P + PA(q))(x - y)l

q~Q

qeQ

+ S-'A'(q)SJlY. - ;)l

Substituting this expression into (A10) yields (A8). < 2rpAII.~ -- YII- (AI6)

Now, the inequality

Claim 3. Let p > 0 be fixed and consider/~(.) defined by (A5).

Then

_< q--

2pA

o/I°"l

X/ ~2ko/

P

P(P) = ~/(pN,/2)" (A13)

implies that

To prove this assertion, let

Then using Claim 2, one readily computes Combining this inequality with (A13) and (A16) yields

rlf

~: =

t r 2 _

[4r~/(r 2 -- p2/pN) - 4r 2 + 2p2/pN],

P

if r > ~/--Pu' (AI4)

Using the fact that 3~ef~, (recall r = ko~/2) we conclude that

B'Py = 0 and y'Py = ko. However, since (S) is u.u.b.q., condition

(2) and the matching conditions imply that

go(Z) <- - ? o

for all z e R" such that z'Pz > ~o and HB'Pzll = 0. Since y is such a

vector, it follows that

We are going to prove that the supremum o f f ( r ) is attained as r

tends to P/x/PN. To accomplish this, it suffices to show that go(Y) -< -Co.

df/dr < 0 for the case when r > P/x/PN. Indeed for such r, we first

observe that This, together with inequality (A17) implies that

4r rz-- = 16r'*- 16r 2 p - < 4r z - -

PNIJ Ps PN I " Therefore, p# defined as above is the required constant.

(A5), (A14) and the definition o f f ( r ) , it now follows that Case 2. rank B = n. Let x e R " be given such that x ' P x = 1%.

Recalling the formula for PN given in (A9), it is clear that

#'(p) = sup f(r): f = 22p__. [IB'PxII 2 >- pNko.

,>-o ~VPNI PN

Now, if PB < x/Ps, it is immediate that

This completes the proof of the claim.

We are now prepared to prove that the constant { x ~ R " : x ' P x = ko and Iln'Pxll < p#~/2} = dp.

P.8-- 2f,4 /~oq2 condition (28). This completes the proof of Theorem 6.1. [~

- Analog Process Control and SensorsHochgeladen vonMark Paul Santin Ganzalino
- MA3005 Topic 1 - IntroductionHochgeladen vonFeeling_so_fly
- Christopher Chatfield, Alexander J. Collins (auth.)-Introduction to Multivariate Analysis-Springer US (1980).pdfHochgeladen vonSarai Soto Trejo
- Pattern ClassificationHochgeladen vonShashaank Mattur Aswatha
- Linear Algebra NotesHochgeladen vonMaxwell Chomas
- Control of Two-wheels Inverted Pendulum Mobile Robot Using Full Order Sliding Mode ControlHochgeladen vonc0d3r
- po-samp-solsHochgeladen vonqiratnahraf9074
- Andrew Rosenberg- Lecture 2.1: Vector Calculus CSC 84020 - Machine LearningHochgeladen vonRoots999
- MPCHochgeladen vonAmeya Shinde
- Simulation and Stability Analysis of Neural Network Based Control Scheme for Switches Linear SystemHochgeladen vonidris_ep
- Outline Een 407Hochgeladen vonSadia Sultana Likhan
- mm-10Hochgeladen vonSomasekhar Chowdary Kakarala
- Robust-Control-based Controller Design for a Mobile RobotHochgeladen vonElizaMun
- BluSTL Controller Synthesis From Signal Temporal Logic SpecificationsHochgeladen vonRaghavendra M Bhat
- final project.pdfHochgeladen vonSuvra Pattanayak
- Mottershead J.e_ Active Vibration Suppression by Pole-zero Placement Using Measured ReceptancesHochgeladen vonsumatrablackcoffee453
- Chapter 2 Stability DomainHochgeladen vonHussein Suprême
- Cambridge TEST FOR UHochgeladen vonalhullandi
- ForteGiroscopice_evitarea_coliziuniiHochgeladen vonAna Maria Ponea
- Calculation of critical points using a reduction method.pdfHochgeladen vonmurdanetap957
- Sol-manch5 TH 3rdEDITIONHochgeladen vonAmin Mehdizade
- 4.6 Steady State ProbabilitiesHochgeladen vonŞafak Ekrem Aşık
- DldHochgeladen vonAnonymous mNZKrN
- eks96bokHochgeladen vonAnonymous AFFiZn
- daskomHochgeladen vonalifah
- 23959480f238381a25daa0895dc26e9a4c58.pdfHochgeladen vonRani Jus
- sheet6Hochgeladen vonYasser Bahaa
- nacusse2015Hochgeladen vonGS Productions
- Automatica 2017_Continuous-Time MPC-UnderaActuated SystemsHochgeladen vonbandon11o2
- distribuidoHochgeladen vonPedro Eusebio Alvarado

- [IJCST-V4I4P39]:Sherin Ann Sebi, Divya SunnyHochgeladen vonEighthSenseGroup
- c08s5Hochgeladen vonsteve4775
- 38. M.E.communication & NwHochgeladen vonSANDHYA
- Elmer manualHochgeladen vonjavimm
- 1501.Applied Parameter Estimation for Chemical Engineers (Chemical Industries) by Peter Englezos [Cap18]Hochgeladen voncegarcia
- AHP Project-.pdfHochgeladen vonbniryono788
- Advanced Feedback ControlHochgeladen vonwalid153
- Principal Component Analysis 4 DummiesHochgeladen vonAnubhav Aggarwal
- 2015 2016 Civil Engineering Dept Undergraduate LeafletHochgeladen vonAhmad Thaher
- Iyr_allHochgeladen vonRahul Sakarey
- Ten SoresHochgeladen vonVinicius Luiggi
- Diffi Common FinalsHochgeladen vonAli Al-hamaly
- Noise in Square Law DetectorsHochgeladen vonAsghar Farhadi
- Lecture NotesHochgeladen vonC.W. Wang
- Drunk Dog BoyfriendHochgeladen vonDan Contreras
- Syllabus bHochgeladen vonNelson Ningombam
- Be Ce Syllabus Aug 2010Hochgeladen vonShaunak Patel
- IB Further Math - Linear Algebra SummaryHochgeladen vonTony G
- IntroKeldysh_Kamenev_Capri09Hochgeladen vonvanalexblues
- Effect of Load Modeling on Voltage StabilityHochgeladen voniniran2
- Cloud and PottierHochgeladen vonVaibhav Singh
- JordanHochgeladen vonmarivel77
- chap3.pdfHochgeladen vonEvronia Azer
- Handbook of Thin Plate Buckling and PostbucklingHochgeladen vonReivax50
- Modal Analysis - Solved exampleHochgeladen vonMansoor
- Mod infoHochgeladen vonxjthecool
- 153-04_EHochgeladen vonKristy Coleman
- Normal Modes 2DOFHochgeladen vonkbhattac
- Multivariate Analysis Practice Question and SolutionsHochgeladen vonJanice Txinyi
- IT Syllabus 2004 FullHochgeladen vonSwaran

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.