Robust Control Analysis and Design

ROBUST CONTROL:
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Olivier SENAME
GIPSAlab Control Systems department
INPG-CNRS
INPG CNRS
ENSE3-BP 46
38402 Saint Martin d'Hères Cedex, FRANCE
Olivier.Sename@grenoble-inp.fr
Why Robust H∞ control

MIMO systems
Performance specifications linked to control design
Analysis of robustness properties
Design of robust controllers
Advanced optimisation tools for control synthesis
Extensions: Gain-scheduling, Linear Parameter Varying
systems…
2
Robust control : analysis and design» © Olivier Sename 2010
1
Bibliography
S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control: analysis
and design, John Wiley and Sons, 2005.
www.nt.ntnu.no/users/skoge
K. Zhou, Essentials of Robust Control, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1998.

www.ece.lsu.edu/kemin
J.C. Doyle, B.A. Francis, and A.R. Tannenbaum, Feedback control theory,
Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, 1992.
www.control.utoronto.ca/~francis
G.C. Goodwin, S.F. Graebe, and M.E. Salgado, Control System Design,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2001.
http://csd.newcastle.edu.au/
G. Duc et S. Font, Commande Hinf et -analyse: des outils pour la robustesse,

Hermès, France, 1999.
D. Alazard, C. Cumer, P. Apkarian, M. Gauvrit, et G. Ferreres, Robustesse et

commande optimale, Cépadues Editions, 1999.
3
OUTLINE
Motivation Industrial examples
H∞ norm, stability
Performance analysis/specifications Performances quantifiers

A first robustness criteria
H∞ control design Mixed sensitivity problem
Uncertainties and robustness Representing uncertainties

Robust stability
stability, Robust performance
Robust control design
Performances limitations Bode and Poisson sensitivity integral
4
2
INTRODUCTION
Modern industrial plants have sophisticated control systems crucial to their successful
operation:
– robotics
– aerospace
– semiconductor manufacturing industry
– nuclear industry
– Energy production and distribution
– ……...
– automotive industry :
» SI and Diesel engines
» suspension
» braking
» Global chassis control
» intelligent
g highways
g y
» driver supervision
» ……….
5
AUTOMOTIVE CONTROL
Some actual important fields of investigation concern:
1. Environmental protection (Limiting of pollutant emissions –
Nox; CO; CO2) Engine control
Automatic driving
Traffic optimisation
Energy consumption optimisation
Electrical and Hybrid vehicles
2. Road safety and monitoring (decrease the number of

accidents)
Braking in dangerous situations
Detection of critical situations
Chassis control
Traffic control
Driver assistance (stop & start, anti-collision)
“by wire” technology
Diagnosis of embedded system
6
3
ENGINE CONTROL
injection control (Common

Rail))
idle-speed control
air to fuel ratio control
cylinder balancing
Torque control
throttle control
EGR + VGT
driveline control
Post-treatment
Energy recovery
Downsizing
7
VEHICLE DYNAMICS CONTROL
Topics
Active Control for safety and comfort
Multi actuators (suspensions, braking, steering)
Methodologies:
- Physical and behavioral modelling
- H∞ control: LPV, fault-tolerant
- On line adaptation of
comfort/handling criteria
- Global Chassis Control ( suspension,
suspension
braking, steering)
Robust control : analysis and design» 8 © Olivier Sename 2010
4
Analysis and robustness of frequency synthesizers
– Modelling and
optimization of
frequency
synthesizer
lloops ffully
ll
integrated on
chip
– Analysis of
semi-global
stability,
robustness,
b t
observation
and robust
control
9
CONTROL OF GLASS FIBER BUSHING
Process
Objective :enhance product

quality i.e.,
- avoid variations of fiber
diameter
-less production breaks
accounting for disturbances
(air, input glass temp.)
- Robustness requirements
as bushings are changed
Control scheme each year
- MIMO system
10
5
DVD PLAYERS CONTROL
Control problem: minimize

position error between the
D=120mm
laser spot and the real track
Disk
d=15mm position, both in the radial and
in the vertical direction.
Tracking movement
Neither the track position nor
in-out
the true spot position can be
Focus movement
up-down
measured.
Robustness pb: non ideal

System Controller
Measurement unit and D/A conv.
construction of the device and
Photodiodes
pickup A/D
non perfect location of the hole
Pre-processing Digital
Current
unit Converter controller
Amplifier
p
at the center of the disc
6300 and 6301
Actuation unit and D/A conv

Motors PWM
Current
(PDM)
Amplifier unit
pickup TDA...
11
OUTLINE


Robust stability
12
6
About H∞ norm: MIMO GAIN
For a SISO system, y=Gd, the gain at a given frequency is simply
y (ω ) G ( jω )d (ω )
= = G ( jω )
d (ω ) d (ω )
The gain depends on the frequency, but since the system is linear it is
independent of the input magnitude
For a MIMO system we may select :
y (ω ) G ( jω )d (ω )
2
= 2
= G ( jω )
d (ω ) 2
d (ω ) 2
2
Which is « independent » of the input magnitude. But this is not a correct

definition. Indeed the input direction is of great importance
13
MIMO GAIN
⎡5 4⎤
G=⎢ ⎥ How to define and evaluate its gain ??
⎣3 2⎦
Five different inputs
d1 = 1 d2 = 0 d3 = 0.7070 d4 = 0.7070 d5 = 0.6000

0 1 0.7070 -0.7070 -0.8000
Input magnitude : norm2= 1
Norm(d1)=norm(d2) =norm(d3)=norm(d4)=norm(d5)=1
Corresponding outputs
y1 = 5 y2 = 4 y3 = 6.3630 y4 = 0.7070 y5 = -0.2000

3 2 3.5350 0.7070 0.2000
and gains
5.8310 4.4721 7.2790 0.9998 0.2828
14
7
MIMO GAIN
MAXIMUM SINGULAR VALUE = 7.34

7
Gd
max 2
= σ (G ) 6
d ≠0 d 2
5
|| y ||2 / || d ||2
4
Gd 3
min 2
= σ (G )
d ≠0 d 2
2
MINIMUM SINGULAR VALUE = 0.27

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
d20 / d10
We see that, depending on the ratio d20/d10, the gain varies between
0.27 and 7.34 .
15
MIMO GAIN
Eigenvalues are a poor measure of gain. Let

⎡0 100⎤
G=⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 ⎦
Eigenvalues are 0 and 0
⎡0 ⎤ ⎡100⎤
But an input vector ⎢ ⎥ leads to an output vector ⎢ ⎥.
⎣1 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
Clearly the gain is not zero.
Now, the maximal singular value is = 100
It means that any signal can be amplified at most 100 times
This is the good gain notion.
16
8
MIMO GAIN
In the case of a transfer matrix G(s) : (m inputs, p outputs)

u vector of inputs, y vector of outputs
y (ω )
σ (G ( jω )) ≤ 2
≤ σ (G ( jω ))
u(ω ) 2
Example of
A two-mass/spring/damper system
2 inputs: F1 and F2
2 outputs: x1 and x2
17
MIMO GAIN
A=[0 0 1 0;
0 0 0 1;
-k1/m1 k1/m1 -b1/m1 b1/m1;
k1/m2 -(k1+k2)/m2 b1/m2 -(b1+b2)/m2];
B=[0 0;0 0;1/m1 0;0 1/m2];
Singular Values
C=[1
C [ 0 0 0;0
; 1 0 0];
];
30
D=[0 0;0 0]; Hinf norm: 21.1885 dB
20
largest singular value

10
Control system toolbox
Singular Values (dB)
G1=ss(A,B,C,D) : LTI system 0
Tf(G1) : transfer function -10
normhinf(G1) smallest singular value

-20
sigma(G1)
-30
Mu-analysis toolbox -40
G2=pck(A,B,C,D) -50
-1
10 100 101
hinfnorm(G2) Frequency (rad/sec)
>> norm between 11.4704 and 11.4819
18
9
MIMO GAIN
Mathematical backgrounds
19
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
Well-posedness
dy(t
di(t) ) s −1
r(t)
+
e(t)
K(s) u(t) + G(s) + y(t) G=− , K =1
+ + s+2
-
+
+ n(t)
s+2 s −1
Therefore the control input is non proper: u= (r − n − d y ) + di
3 3
DEF: A closed-loop system is well-posed if all the transfer functions are proper
⇔ I + K ( ∞ )G ( ∞ ) is invertible
In the example 1+1x(-1)=0

Note that if G is strictly proper, this always holds.
20
10
More important : Internal Stability

DEF: A system is internally stable if all the transfer functions of the closed-
loop system are stable
di(t)
r(t) ε(t) u(t) + ⎛ y ⎞ ⎛ ( I + GK ) −1 GK ( I + GK ) −1 G ⎞⎛ r ⎞
+ K(s) G(s) y(t)
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟
- +
⎝ u ⎠ ⎝ K ( I + GK )
−1
− K ( I + GK ) −1 G ⎟⎠⎜⎝ d i ⎟⎠
⎛ 1 s +1 ⎞
1 s −1 ⎛ y ⎞ ⎜⎜ s + 2 ⎟
( s − 1)( s + 2) ⎟⎛⎜ r ⎞⎟
For instance : G= , K= , ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ =
s −1 s +1 ⎝ u ⎠ ⎜⎜ s − 1 1 ⎟⎝⎜ d i ⎟⎠
− ⎟
⎝s+2 s+2 ⎠
There is one RHP pole (1), which means that this system is not internally
stable.
This is due here to the pole/zero cancellation (forbidden!!).
21
OUTLINE
Motivation
Performance analysis/specifications
Sensitivity functions
Some criteria and performances quantifiers
Example
MIMO case
H∞ control design Performance specification
Uncertainties and robustness

Performances limitations
22
11
Objectives of any control system :
shape the response of the system to a given reference and

get (or keep) a stable system in closed-loop, with desired
performances, while minimising the effects of disturbances
and measurement noises, and avoiding actuators
saturation, this despite of modelling uncertainties,
parameter changes or change of operating point.
23
Objectives of any control system
Nominal stability (NS): The system is stable with the nominal model (no
d l uncertainty)
model t i t )
Nominal Performance (NP): The system satisfies the performance

specifications with the nominal model (no model uncertainty)
Robust stability (RS): The system is stable for all perturbed plants about
the nominal model, up to the worst-case model uncertainty
((including
g the real plant)
p )
Robust performance (RP): The system satisfies the performance

specifications for all perturbed plants about the nominal model, up to the
worst-case model uncertainty (including the real plant).
24
12
FEEDBACK STRUCTURE
In the following:
SISO (Single Input Single Output) and MIMO systems
((Multi Input
p Multi Output)
p ) are considered
SOME CONTROL STRUCTURES
« Classical » one degree-of-freedom structure
Two degree-of-freedom structure
RST structure
25
FEEDBACK STRUCTURE
Classical one degree-of-freedom structure
Input Output
disturbance disturbance
reference
f
di(t) dy(t) Output
r(t) + u(t) + uP(t) + y(t)
K(s) G(s) +
Control + Plant
- Input Input
+
+ n(t)
PLANT = G(s) Measurement
CONTROLLER = K(s) FEEDBACK noise
26
13
FEEDBACK STRUCTURE
Two degree-of-freedom structure
di(t) dy(t)
r(t) + + + y(t)
Kp(s) G(s) +
+
-
+
+
K(s)
n(t)
FEEDFORWARD
FEEDBACK
Improves tracking performance
27
FEEDBACK STRUCTURE
RST structure
di(t) dy(t)
r(t)
(t) u(t) + + y(t)
+
T 1/S G +
+
-
+
+
R
n(t)
A two DOF structure with:
POLYNOMIALS Kp= T/S and K=R/S
28
14
FEEDBACK STRUCTURE
GENERAL CONTROL CONFIGURATION
Disturbance
and reference w e Controlled Output
p
P
Control Input u y Measured output
P is the generalized plant (contains the plant, the weights,

the uncertainties if any) ; K is the controller
29
SENSITIVITY FUNCTIONS
Input Output
reference dy(t)
di(t)
r(t)
() e(t)
() u(t) + + y(t) Output
+ K(s) G(s)
+ +
-
+
+ Measurement
n(t) noise
Firstly, SISO case
The output & the control input satisfy the following equations :
1
y( s) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i )
1 + G (s) K (s)
1
u (s) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )
1 + K ( s )G ( s )
30
15
1
y( s) = (GKr + Gd i + d y − GKn)
1 + G ( s) K ( s)
1
u (s) = ( Kr − KGd i − Kd y − Kn)
1 + K ( s )G ( s)
Let us define the well known sensitivity functions:
1
Sensitivity S (s) =
1 + G (s) K ( s)
Complementary T (s) =
G (s) K (s)
Sensitivity 1 + G (s) K ( s)
Loop transfer function L( s ) = K ( s )G ( s)
31
Input and Output Performance analysis

using the Sensitivity functions
Input Output
reference
f dy(t)
di(t)
r(t) e(t) u(t) + + y(t) Output
+ K(s) G(s)
+ +
-
+
+ Measurement
n(t) noise
The output & the control input performances can be

studied through 4 « sensitivity » functions only.
32
16
1
y (s) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i )
1 + G (s) K ( s)
1
u ( s) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )
r(t) 1 + K ( s )G ( s )
KS(s)
() r(t)
T(s)
di(t)
-T(s) di(t)
u(t) SG(s)
dy(t) Σ y(t)
dy(t) Σ
-KS(s)
S(s)
n(t)
-KS(s) n(t)
-T(s)
Input performance Output performance

33
1
u (s) = ( Kr − KGd i − Kd y − Kn)
1 + K ( s)G ( s )
r(t) The transfer function KS(s) should be upper bounded

KS(s)
() so that u(t) does not reach the physical constraints,
even for a large reference r(t)
di(t)
-T(s)
u(t)
dy(t) Σ
-KS(s) The effect of the input disturbance di(t) on the plant
input u(t)+ di(t) (actuator) can be made « small » by
n(t) making
ki the
th sensitivity
iti it function
f ti S(s)S( ) smallll
-KS(s)
The effect of the measurement noise n(t) on the plant
input u(t) can be made « small » by making the
sensitivity function KS(s) small (in High Frequencies)
Input performance
34
17
1
y( s) = (GKr + Gd i + d y − GKn)
1 + G( s) K (s)
The plant output y(t) can track the reference r(t) by
making the complementary sensitivity function T(s)
equal
q to 1. (servo
( pb)
p ) r(t)
T(s)
The effect of the output disturbance dy(t) (resp. input
disturbance di(t) ) on the plant output y(t) can be made di(t)
« small » by making the sensitivity function S(s) (resp. SG(s)
y(t)
SG(s) ) « small »
dy(t) Σ
The effect of the measurement noise n(t) on the plant S(s)
output y(t) can be made « small » by making the
complementary sensitivity function T(s) « small » n(t)
()
-T(s)
BUT S(s) + T(s) = 1
Output performance
Some trade-offs are to be looked for
35
r(t)
These trade-offs can be reached if one aims : KS(s)
• to reject the disturbance effects in low frequency di(t)
• to minimize the noise effects in high frequency -T(s)
u(t
dy(t) Σ
We will require: -KS(s)
• S and SG to be small in low frequencies to reduce n(t)

the load (output and input) disturbance effects on -KS(s)
the controlled output
r(t)
T(s)
• T and KS to be small in high frequencies to
reduce the effects of measurement noises on the di(t)
SG(s)
()
controlled
t ll d output
t t andd on the
th control
t l input
i t (actuator
( t t y(t)
()
Σ
efforts) dy(t)
S(s)
n(t)
-T(s)
36
18
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: CRITERIA
Time domain performances

Classical performance indices
Rise time : the time, usually required to be small, that it takes for the output to
first reach 90 % of its final value
Settling time : the time after which the output remains within 5 % of its final value,
which is also usually required to be small.
Overshoot: the peak value divided by the final value : should typically be 1.2 (20
%) or less
Decay ratio: the ratio between the second and first peaks, which should typically
be 0.3 or less
Steady-state offset: the difference between the final value and the desired final value,
this offset is usually required to be small.
37
Time domain performances : other criteria

∞
ISE (Integral Square Error) = ∫ e(t ) dt ; e = r − y
2
J ISE
0
∞
ITAE (Integral Time
weighted Absolute Error)
J ITAE = ∫ t e(t ) dt
0
; e=r−y
A better and more advisable index should

include the control input effect
∫ (Q e(t ) )
∞
= + R u (t ) dt
2 2
J eu
0
38
19
Frequency domain performances: criteria
GAIN, PHASE, DELAY and MODULE MARGINS

The g
gain margin
g indicates the additional g gain that would Good value for
take the closed loop to the critical stability condition Gm : >6dB
The phase margin quantifies the pure phase delay that Good value for
should be added to achieve the same critical stability Φm : > 30/40°
condition
The delay margin quantifies the maximal delay that should ΦM
Δτ =
be added in the loop to achieve the same critical stability ωΦ
condition M
The module margin quantifies the minimal distance

between the curve and the critical point (-1,0j): this is a
robustness margin
39
Frequency domain performances: criteria
DELAY MARGIN :
acceptable
p pure
p time-
delay before instability
ΦM
Δτ =
ωΦ M
40
20
MODULE MARGIN
i 1 + GK ( jω )
ΔM = min
ω
Good value ΔM > 0.5
41
Bandwidth
The concept of bandwidth is very important in understanding the benefits and
trade-offs involved when applying feedback control. Above we considered peaks
off closed-loop
l dl transfer
f functions,
f i which
hi h are related
l d to the
h quality
li off the
h response.
However, for performance we must also consider the speed of the response, and
this leads to considering the bandwidth frequency of the system.
In general, a large bandwidth corresponds to a faster rise time, since high

frequency signals are more easily passed on to the outputs. A high bandwidth also
indicates a system which is sensitive to noise and to parameter variations.
Conversely, if the bandwidth is small, the time response will generally be slow,
and the system will usually be more robust.
42
21
Bandwith :
Loosely speaking, bandwidth may be defined as the frequency range [w1,
w2] over which control is effective. In most cases we require tight control
att steady-state
t d t t so w1=0,
0 and
d we then
th simply
i l callll w2 the
th bbandwidth.
d idth
The word “effective” may be interpreted in different ways : globally it
means benefit in terms of performance.
Definition1: The (closed-loop) bandwidth, wS, is the frequency where

|S(jw)| crosses –3dB (1/√2) from below.
Remark: |S|<0.707, frequency zone, where e/r = -S is reasonably small
43
Another interpretation: when it changes the output response.

As y=Tr, T must be sufficiently large
Definition2: The bandwidth (in term of T), wT, is the frequency where
√ from
|T(jw)| crosses –3dB (1/√2) f above.
Remark: In most cases, the two definitions in terms of S and T yield

similar values for the bandwidth. In other cases, the situation is
generally as follows. Up to the frequency wS, |S| is less than 0.7, and
control is effective in terms of improving performance. In the frequency
range [wS, wT] control still affects the response
response, but does not improve
performance. Finally, at frequencies higher than wT, we have S ≅ 1 and
control has no significant effect on the response.
44
22
The gain crossover frequency :
Definition3: The bandwidth (crossover frequency), wC, is the frequency

where |L(jw)| crosses 1 (0dB), for the first time, from above.
Remark:It is easy to compute and usually gives
wS < wC < wT
Note that the rise time can often be evaluated as :
t r = 2 .3
ωT
45
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS: example
Position control of a DC motor, using internal speed feedback
Ω x Vs
Ve + +
A 1/kv 1/(τp+1) 1/(np) U0/(2Π)
-
-
RCp/(RCp+1) 1/kv 1/kv
46
23
S T
Good disturbance rejection

20 5
0 0
ar Values (dB)
ar Values (dB)
-20 -5
Singula
Singula
-40
40 -10
10
-60 -15
-80
10-2 10-1 100 101 102
Good noise rejection
-20
10-2 10-1 100 101 102
Frequency (rad/sec)WB=15.3 rad/s Frequency (rad/sec)

WBT=27.1 rad/s
KS SG
0 10
5
alues (dB)
alues (dB)
-20
0
Singular Va
Singular Va
-40
-5
Bad: control input sensitive

-60
Bad: Input disturbance (di)

-10
to noise -80
10-2 10-1 100 101 102
are not rejected
-15
10-2 10-1 100 101 102
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)
47
2.5
Input disturbance di
2
Output disturbance dy
1.5
05
0.5
reference step
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
48
24
Bandwith : And it holds : >>[Gm,Pm,W180,Wc]=margin(sys)

WS=15.3 rad/s >> MT=hinfnorm(T)MS=hinfnorm(S);
wS < wC < wT
WT=27.1 rad/s Phase margin= 72.4 deg
Wc=21 rad/s Gain margin = inf
Module margin
g < 1.5 db,, MT=0.5db
Bode Diagrams
From: U(1)
100
Nichols Charts
From: U(1)
100 50
deg); Magnitude (dB)

0
50
-50
n-Loop Gain (dB)
0 -100
To: Y(1)
-80
-50
50
Open
Phase (d
-100
100
-120
To: Y(1)
-100
ωc=27 rad/s
-140
-160
-150
-180 -170 -160 -150 -140 -130 -120 -110 -100 -90 -180
100 101 102
Open-Loop Phase (deg)
Frequency (rad/sec)
49
Bandwith : 1.4
WS=15.3 rad/s
1.2
WT=27.1 rad/s
1
Wc=21 rad/s 0.8
It holds : 0.6
wS < wC < wT 0.4

rise time
0.2
and :
0
1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5
t r = 2.3 = 85ms
ωT
50
25
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS : MIMO case
Sensitivity functions: MIMO case

Input Output
reference dy(t)
di(t)
r(t) ε(t) u(t) + + y(t) p outputs
+ K(s) G(s)
+
m control +
-
inputs +
+ Measurement
n(t) noise
The output & the control input satisfy the following equations :
( I p + G ( s ) K ( s )) y ( s ) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i )
( I m + K ( s )G ( s ))u( s ) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )
BUT : K(s)G(s) ≠ G(s)K(s)
51
Sensitivity functions
( I p + G ( s) K ( s)) y ( s) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i )
( I m + K ( s)G ( s))u( s) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )
Output and Output complementary sensitivity functions:

S y = ( I p + GK ) −1 , T y = ( I p + GK ) −1 GK , S y + Ty = I p
Input and Input complementary sensitivity functions:

S u = ( I m + KG ) −1 , Tu = KG ( I m + KG ) −1 , S u + Tu = I m
Properties Ty = GK ( I p + GK ) −1
Tu = ( I m + KG ) −1 KG
S u K = KS y
52
26
r(t) r(t)
KSy(s) Ty(s)
di(t) di(t)
-Tu(s) SyG(s)
()
u(t) y(t)
(t)
dy(t) Σ Σ
dy(t)
-KSy(s) Sy(s)
n(t) n(t)
-KSy(s) -Ty(s)
Input performance Output performance

f
( I p + G ( s ) K ( s )) y ( s ) = (GKr + d y − GKn + Gd i )
( I m + K ( s)G ( s ))u( s ) = ( Kr − Kd y − Kn − KGd i )
53
As MIMO framework is concerned, MIMO gain of the sensitivity

functions is considered through Frequency-domain plots of the singular
values (sigma using the Control toolbox, and using the Mu toolbox:
The analysis of SISO systems can then be extended, except for

stability margins.
5 sensitivity functions have to be studied (Sy, Ty, Tu, Ksy, SyG)
The robustness margins are the maximum peak of S and T. These
may not be sufficient to ensure robustness properties and should be
completed by a robust stability analysis
54
27
A first approach to ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS
Introduction: Skegestad & Postlewaite

A control system is robust if it is insensitive to differences between the
actual system and the model of the system which was used to design the
controller
How to take into account the difference between the actual system and
the model ?
A solution: using a model set BUT : very large problem and not
exact yet
A method: these differences are referred as model uncertainty.
Th approach
The h
determine the uncertainty set: mathematical representation
check Robust Stability
check Robust Performance
55
56
28
MODULE MARGIN/
Maximum Peak criteria
i 1 + GK ( jω )
ΔM = min
ω
Also :
ΔM = 1
MS
M S = max S ( jω ) = S ∞
ω
Good value MS < 2 (6 dB)
57
The MODULE MARGIN is a robustness margin.
ΔM = 1
MS
Indeed, the sensitivity function allows to qualify the robustness of the

control system, as
K ( s )G ( s )
Closed-loop transfer function TBF =
1 + K ( s )G ( s )
IInfluence
fl off plant
l t modelling
d lli errors on the
th ΔTBF 1 ΔG
CL transfer function
=
TBF 1 + K ( s )G ( s ) G
Sensitivity function
58
29
Advantage: good module margin implies

good gain and phase margins
MS 1
GM ≥ and PM ≥
M S −1 MS
For MS=2, then GM>2 and PM>30°
Last one : M T = max T ( jω )

ω
Good value MT < 1.5 (3.5 dB)
59
Robust Stability analysis: SISO case

yΔ uΔ
Let us consider the case : ΔI(s) +
u z
+ G(s)
The loop transfer function is then: L p = G p K = GK ( I + wI Δ I ) = L + wI LΔ I ;

Therefore RS ⇔ System stable ∀ Lp. ⇔ Lp should not encircle the point -1
Im
-1
Re
⇔ wI L < 1 + L , ∀ω
1+ L RS
wI L
⇔ < 1, ∀ω
1+ L
L ( jω )
⇔ wI T < 1 ∀ω
wI L
60
30
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION
Objective : good performance specifications are

important to ensure better control system
mean : give some templates on the sensitivity

functions
For simplicity, presentation for SISO systems first.
61
Templates on the sensitivity functions

Robustness and performances in regulation can be specified by imposing
frequential templates on the sensitivity functions.
If the sensitivity functions stay within these templates, the control

objectives are met.
These templates can be used for analysis and/or design. In the latter they
are considered as weights on the sensitivity functions
The shapes of typical templates on the sensitivity functions are given in the
following slides
62
31
Template on the sensitivity function - Weighted sensitivity
Typical specifications in terms of S include:

1. Minimum bandwidth frequency wS (defined as the frequency where
|S(jw)| crosses 0.707 from below).
2. Maximum tracking error at selected frequencies.
3. System type, or the maximum steady-state tracking error, ε
4. Shape of S over selected frequency ranges.
5. Maximum peak magnitude of S, ||S||∞ < MS.
The peak specification prevents amplification of noise at high

frequencies, and also introduces a margin of robustness; typically we
select MS=2.
63
Template on the sensitivity function

Weighted sensitivity
Mathematically, these specifications may be captured by an

Mathematically
upper bound, on the magnitude of S, given by another
transfer function :
1
S ( jω ) ≤ , ∀ω ⇔ We S ≤1
W e ( jω ) ∞
where We(s) is a weight selected by the designer.
64
32
Template on the sensitivity function S ( s) =

1
1 + K ( s )G ( s )
1 s + ω bε
=
We ( s ) s / MS + ωb
Generally ε = 0 is considered,
MS <2 (6dB) or (3dB - cautious) to
ensure sufficient module margin
ωb ≥ ωS required
ωS obtained ≥ ωb fixed
ωb influences the CL bandwidth : ωb ↑
¾ faster rejection of the disturbance
¾ faster CL tracking response
¾ better robustness w.r.t. parametric uncertainties
65
K ( s )G ( s )
Template on the complementary sensitivity function T (s) =
1 + K ( s )G ( s )
ε T s + ω BT
s + ω BT / M T
Generally εT = 0 is considered,
MT <2 (6dB) or (3dB - cautious) to
ensure sufficient module margin
wBT influences robustness : wBT ↓

¾ better noise effects rejection
¾better filtering of HF modelling errors
66
33
K (s)
Template on the sensitivity function KS(s) KS ( s ) =
1 + K ( s )G ( s )
1 ε s + ω BC
= 1
Wu ( s ) s + ω BC / Mu
Mu chosen according to LF
behavior of the process
(actuator constraints:
saturations)
wBC influences robustness : wBC ↓

¾ better limitation of measurement noises
and roll-off starting from wBC to reduce modeling errors effects
67
G ( s)
Template on the sensitivity function SG(s) SG ( s ) =
1 + K ( s )G ( s )
s MSG
s + ωSG MSG
ωSG
Limitation of input disturbance effects
on the output by the choice of wSG
zero static error for constant input
disturbance
68
34
The templates can be defined more accurately by transfer

functions of order greater than 1, as
k
⎛ s / MS + ωb ⎞
We ( s ) = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ,
⎝ s + ω b ε ⎠
if we require a roll-of of –20*k dB per
decade is required
In the MIMO case the simplest way is to defined the templates as

diagonal transfer matrices, i.e. using (Msi, ωbi, εI, ….)
69
THE MIXED SENSITIVITY PROBLEM
In terms of control synthesis, all these specifications can be tackled in

the following problem: find K(s) s.t.
We S WT T
≤1
Wu KS WSG SG ∞
which is called a mixed sensitivity problem. Often, the simpler following

one is studied:
We S
≤1
Wu KS ∞
The latter allows to consider the closed-loop output performance as well

as the actuator constraints.
70
35
OUTLINE


Robust stability
71
H∞ CONTROL APPROACH
H∞ control is devoted to SISO systems as well as MIMO ones
Main advantage: the plant modelling errors as well as

the disturbance and noise effects can be specified in the
frequency domain.
H∞ control is strongly linked to the weighted sensitivity

functions.
P f
Performance specification
ifi ti iis then
th off greatt iimportance
t iin
H∞ control approach.
72
36
This approach has been introduced by Doyle (1983). The formulation

makes use of the general control configuration.
GENERAL CONTROL CONFIGURATION

Disturbance
w ⎛P P12 ⎞ e Controlled Output
and reference
P = ⎜⎜ 11 ⎟
⎝ P21 P22 ⎟⎠
P is the g
generalized plant
p (contains
( the plant,
p , the weights,
g , the
uncertainties if any) ; K is the controller. The closed-loop transfer
function is:
Tew ( s ) = Fl ( P, K ) = P11 + P12 K ( I − P22 K ) −1 P21
73
based on the GENERAL CONTROL CONFIGURATION
Disturbance
and reference w ⎛P P12 ⎞ e Controlled Output
P = ⎜⎜ 11 ⎟
⎝ P21 P22 ⎟⎠
P is the generalized plant (contains the plant, the weights, the uncertainties if
any) ; K is the controller. The closed-loop transfer function is:
Tew ( s ) = P11 + P12 K ( I − P22 K ) −1 P21
H∞ suboptimal control problem : Given γ a pre-specified attenuation level, a H∞

sub-optimal control problem is to design a stabilizing controller that insures :
Tew ( s ) ∞
= max σ (Tew ( jω )) ≤ γ
ω
74
37
Robust Control toolbox (MATLAB R2009)
% Generalized plant P is found with function sysic%

systemnames = 'G We Wu';
i
inputvar = '[ r(1);u(1)]';
(1) (1)]'
outputvar = '[We; Wu; r-G]';
input_to_G = '[u]';
input_to_We = '[r-G]';
input_to_Wu = '[u]';
sysoutname = 'P';
cleanupsysic = 'yes';
sysic;
%% Find H-infinity
H infinity optimal controller%
nmeas=1; nu=1;
[K,CL,GAM,INFO] = hinfsyn(P,nmeas,nu,'DISPLAY','ON');
gopt
75
The overall control objective is to minimize some norm of the transfer

function from w to e , for example, the H∞ norm.
H∞ control problem: Find a controller K(s) which based on the information

in y, generates a control signal u which counteracts the influence of w on e,
thereby minimizing the closed-loop norm from w to e.
H∞ suboptimal control problem : Given γ a pre-specified attenuation level,

a H∞ sub-optimal
b ti l control
t l problem
bl is
i to
t design
d i a stabilizing
t bili i controller
t ll that
th t
insures :
Tew ( s ) ∞
= max σ (Tew ( jω )) ≤ γ
ω
76
38
How to consider performance specification in H∞ control ?

In practice the performance specification concerns at least two
sensitivity functions (S and KS) in order to take into account the
tracking objective as well as the actuator constraints.
A simple example :
r(t) + ε(t) u(t) y(t)

K(s) G(s)
-
y = Gu = GK (r − y ) ⇒ tracking error : ε = Sr
u = K (r − y ) = K (r − Gu ) ⇒ actuator force : u = KSr
77
Objective w.r.t sensitivity functions: We S ∞

≤ 1, Wu KS ∞
≤1
e1 = We Sr
New controlled outputs :
e2 = Wu KSr
The performance specifications on the tracking error & on the actuator can
be given as some weights on the controlled output as follows :
e1(t)
We(s)
e2(t)
Wu((s))
r(t) + y(t)
K(s) G(s)
ε(t) u(t)
-
78
39
e1(t)
We(s)
e2(t)
Wu(s)
r(t) + y(t)
K(s) G(s)
ε(t) u(t)
-
The associated general control configuration is :

External ⎡We − We G ⎤
w=r
inputs ⎢0 Wu ⎥⎥
e=(e1, e2 )T Controlled
⎢ Outputs
Control Inputs u ⎣⎢ I − G ⎥⎦
r-y
Measured outputs
K
79
The corresponding H∞ suboptimal control problem is therefore to find a

controller K(s) such that :
We S
Tew ( s ) ∞
= ≤γ
Wu KS ∞
where Tew ( s ) = Fl ( P, K ) = P11 + P12 K ( I − P22 K ) −1 P21

⎡W ⎤ ⎡− We G ⎤
= ⎢ e⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ K ( I + GK ) −1 I
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ Wu ⎦
⎡We S ⎤
=⎢ ⎥
⎣Wu KS ⎦
80
40
The solution of the H∞ control problem is based on a state

space representation of P, the generalized plant, that
includes the plant model and the performance weights.
⎧ x& = Ax + B1w + B2u
⎪
P ⎨e = C1 x + D11w + D12u
⎪y = C x + D w + D u
⎩ 2 21 22
The calculation of the controller, solution of the H∞

control problem , can then be done using the Riccati
approach or the LMI approach of the H∞ control
problem (see Zhou 98, Skogestad&Postlewaite 96).
81
H∞ CONTROL SOLUTION
⎧ x& = Ax + B1 w + B2 u ⎡A B1 B2 ⎤
⎪
P ⎨e = C1 x + D11 w + D12 u ⇒ P = ⎢⎢ C1 D11 D12 ⎥⎥
⎪y = C x + D w + D u ⎢⎣C 2 D22 ⎥⎦
⎩ 2 21 22 D21
Assumptions:
(A1) (A,B
(A B2) stabilizable
t bili bl and
d (C2,A)
A) detectable
d t t bl
Necessary for the existence of stabilizing controllers
(A2) D12 and D21 have full rank (resp. m2 and p2)
Sufficient to ensure the controllers are proper, hence realizable
(A3) [A-j ωI, B2; C1 D12] has full column rank n+m2 for all ω
(A4) [A-j ωI, B1; C2 D21] has full row rank n+p2 for all ω
B th ensure th
Both thatt th
the optimal
ti l controller
t ll does
d nott ttry tto cancell
poles or zeros on the imaginary axis which would result in CL instability
⎡B ⎤ T ⎡ 0 ⎤
D11 = 0, D22 = 0, D12 [C1 D12 ] = [0 I m 2 ], ⎢ 1 ⎥ D21 = ⎢ ⎥
T
(A5)
⎣ D21 ⎦ ⎣ I p2 ⎦
not necessary but simplify the solution (can be relaxed)
82
41
Theorem1 : Under the previous assumptions, there exists a

controller K such that ||Tew||∞<γ if and only if
((i)) ⎡⎢ A γ −2 B1 B1T − B2 B2T ⎤ has no eigenvalues on the

⎥
⎣− C1 C1 − AT ⎦ imaginary axis
T
(ii) ∃ X∞>0, X ∞ A + AT X ∞ + X ∞ (γ −2 B1 B1T − B2 B2T )X ∞ + C1T C1 = 0
(iii) ⎡ A γ −2C1T C1 − C 2T C 2 ⎤ has no eigenvalues on the

T
⎢ ⎥
⎣− B1 B1 −A ⎦ imaginary axis
T
(iv) ∃ Y∞>0, (
AY∞ + Y∞ AT + Y∞ γ −2C1T C1 − C 2T C 2 Y∞ + B1 B1T = 0 )
(v) ρ ( X ∞ Y∞ ) < γ 2
83
Theorem2 : If the necessary and sufficient conditions of theorem 1 are

satisfied, then the so-called central controller is:
Aˆ = A + γ −2 B B T X + B F + Z L C
⎡ Aˆ − Z ∞ L∞ ⎤ ∞ 1 1 ∞ 2 ∞ ∞ ∞ 2
K sub ( s ) = ⎢ ∞ ⎥ F∞ = − B2T X ∞ , L∞ = −Y∞ C 2T
⎣ F∞ 0 ⎦
(
Z ∞ = I − γ − 2Y∞ X ∞ )−1
Controller structure = observer-based state feedback control law

xˆ& = Axˆ + B1 wˆ + B2 u + Z ∞ L∞ (C 2 xˆ − y )
u = F∞ xˆ , wˆ = γ − 2 B1T X ∞ xˆ
1) ŵ is an extimation of the worst case disturbance

2) Z∞ L∞ is the filter gain for the OE problem of estimating F∞ xˆ
in the presence of the worst case disturbance
84
42
Advantage : if We and Wu are chosen according to the previous

templates on the sensitivity functions, and if a solution does exist, the
control objectives are met.
This procedure can be easily performed by solving two Riccati equations or

two LMIs.
Using the Riccati formulation, the minimal value of γ can be approached by
g-iteration (dichotomy).
Using LMI formulation, the minimal value of γ is solved as an optimization
problem
It iis also
l available
il bl in
i classical
l i l control
t l software,
ft e.g.
MATLAB®.
This can be completed by robust analysis and/or design according to

model uncertainties.
85
LMI solution :
Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMIs) are powerful design tools in control
engineering, system identification and structural design.
Main advantages :
• Many design specifications and constraints can be expressed as LMIs.
• Once formulated in terms of LMIs, a problem can be solved exactly by
efficient convex optimization algorithms.
• While most problems with multiple constraints or objectives lack
analytical solutions in terms of matrix equations, they often remain
tractable in the LMI framework.
86
43
The Bounded Real Lemma (Scherer) :

Let M(s)=C(sI-A)-1B with A stable. Then ||M||∞<1 holds iff
AT X + XA + XBB T X + C T C = 0
has a stabilizing solution. This is equivalent to the fact that
AT X + XA + XBB T X + C T C < 0
has a solution.
This is rewritten as a Linear Matrix Inequality (Schur complement)
⎡ AT X + XA XB C T ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ * −I 0 ⎥<0
⎢ * * − I ⎥⎦
⎣
87
Design Method:
Only assumption A1) is required
Application of the BRL on the closed-loop system (with P and K)
⎡ AclT X + XAcl XBcl C clT ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ * − γI DclT ⎥<0
⎢ * * − γI ⎥⎦
⎣
where Acl, Bcl, Ccl and Dcl are the state space matrices of the closed-
loop system.
It leads to a non convex problem as it includes the state space
matrices of the controller and some matrices X to be determined
(coupling)
Then we have to use of some linearization method to get LMIs: for
instance the projection lemma. It leads to a set of LMIs.
Therefore it can be solved using convex optimization algorithms.
88
44
OUTLINE


Robust stability
89
UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUSTNESS
Introduction: Skegestad & Postlewaite

A control system is robust if it is insensitive to differences between the
actual system and the model of the system which was used to design the
controller
How to take into account the difference between the actual system and
the model ?
A solution: using a model set BUT : very large problem and not
exact yet
A method: these differences are referred as model uncertainty.
Th approach
The h
determine the uncertainty set: mathematical representation
check Robust Stability
check Robust Performance
90
45
Lots of forms can be derived according to both our knowledge of the

physical mechanism that cause the uncertainties and our ability to
represent these mechanisms in a way that facilitates convenient
manipulation.
Several origins :
Approximate knowledge and variations of some parameters
Measruement imperfections (due to sensor)
At hign frequencies, even the structure and the model order is
unknown (100% is possible)
Choice of simpler models for control synthesis
Controller implementation
Two classes: parametric uncertainties / neglected or unmodelled

dynamics
91
Example (Skogestad-Postlewaite, 96):
k
G p (s) = e − sh , 2 ≤ k , h, τ ≤ 3
1 + τs
Nominal model: parameters h=k=τ=2.5
3.5s + 0.25
G p ( s) = G ( s )( I + Wm Δ ); Wm ( s ) =
s +1
Multiplicative uncertainties :
92
46
Relative uncertainties (Gp-G)/G
Wm(s)
0
10
Magnitude
Parametric
variations
-1
10
-2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10
Frequency
93
94
47
A simple example of unmodelled dynamcis
G ( s ) = G0 ( s )
1
, τ ≤ τ max G ( s) τ max jω
Then : −1 ≤ ; ∀ω
1 + τs G0 ( s ) 1 + τ max jω
The neglected dynamics can therefore be modelled as :
G(s) τ max s
− 1 = w( s )Δ( s ) avec w(s) = et Δ <1
G0 ( s ) 1 + τ max s ∞
This corresponds to multiplicative uncertainty
yΔ uΔ
Δ( )
Δ(s) w(s)
( )
+ z
w
G0(s)
+
N
95
From the previous example, let us define the

Linear Fractional Transformation (LFT)
Which is a general representation for uncertainty analysis
Δ
Δ includes all possible
yΔ
uncertainties, and is uΔ
assumed to be
External N z Controlled
normalized : Δ <1 inputs
w
ouputs
∞
NΔ structure
The upper LFT is then the transfer matrix from w to z
Fu ( N , Δ) = N 22 + N 21Δ( I − N11 Δ) −1 N 12
This LFT exists and is well- (I--N11Δ)-1 is invertible
well-posed if (I
96
48
A simple example of parametric uncertaities

1
G ( s) =
, a0 − b < a < a0 + b
s+a
Let a=a0+δb, 1<δ<1.
b -1< <1 Then 1 1 1 δb −1
= = (1 + )
s + a s + a 0 + δb s + a 0 s + a0
This corresponds to multiplicative inverse uncertainty

uΔ yΔ
δ Δ=δ
b yΔ
uΔ
- ⎛ −b 1 ⎞
z ⎜ ⎟
w + G0(s) N =⎜
s + a0 s + a0 ⎟ z
⎜ −b 1 ⎟
w ⎜s+a
1 ⎝ s + a0 ⎟⎠
z = yΔ = ( w − bu Δ )
0
s + a0
97
As seen before, in a general way, the uncertainty matrix will have the
following diagonal form
{
Δ ( s ) = diag Δ 1 ( s ) L Δ q ( s ) δ 1 I n1 L δ r I nr }
Where Δi is a weight function and
δi is a real parametric uncertainty
Such that: Δi ∞
≤ 1; δi ≤1
98
49
Now there is two ways to tackle the control problem under

uncertainties:
UNSTRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES: we ignore the structure of Δ,

considered as a full complex perturbation matrix, such that ||Δ||∞<1.
We then look at the maximal admissible norm for Δ, to have Robust
Stability and Performance. This may lead to conservative results.
STRUCTURED UNCERTAINTIES: we take into account the structure of

Δ (always such that ||Δ||∞<1). This leads to introduce a new tool: the
structured
t t d singular
i l value.
l We
W then
th can obtain
bt i more fine
fi results
lt but
b t
using more complex tools.
99
For control design the following general control configuration is used:
Δ
uΔ yΔ
External w e
inputs P
Controlled outputs
u y Measured outputs
Control input
K
N
And N is such that N = Fl ( P, K )

100
50
Now the transfer matrix from w to z
z = Fu ( N , Δ) w,
where Fu ( N , Δ) = N 22 + N 21Δ( I − N11Δ) −1 N12
NS ⇔ N is internally stable
NP ⇔ N 22 ∞
< 1; and NS
Objectives:
RS ⇔ Fu ( N , Δ) is stable ∀Δ, Δ ∞
< 1; and NS
RP ⇔ Fu ( N , Δ) ∞
< 1 ∀Δ, Δ ∞
< 1; andd NS
101
Robust Stability analysis
Robust Stability: with a given controller K, we determine wether the system

remains stable for all plants in the uncertainty set
Δ
It is equivalent to study the uΔ
MΔ structure yΔ
M=N11
Robust Performance: If RS is satisfied we determine how « large

g » the
transfer function from exogeneous inputs w to outputs z may be for all
plants in the uncertainty set
For Robust Performance analysis it is necessary to consider the NΔ structure
102
51
ROBUST STABILITY :
SMALL GAIN THEOREM
uΔ
yΔ
M=N11
Small Gain Theorem: Suppose

pp M∈ RH ∞ . Then the closed-loopp system
y is
well-posed and internally stable for all Δ ∈ RH ∞ such that :
a) Δ ∞
≤δ if and only if M ( s) ∞
< 1/ δ
b) Δ ∞
<δ if and only if M ( s) ∞ ≤ 1 / δ
Robust control : analysis and design» © Olivier Sename 2010 103

6 uncertainty types
Additive uncertainty Additive inverse uncertainty
yΔ uΔ uΔ yΔ
ΔA(s) + ΔiA(s)
z - z
u
G(s) + G( )
G(s)
+
Output Multiplicative uncertainty Input Multiplicative uncertainty

yΔ uΔ
yΔ uΔ
+
ΔO(s) ΔI(s) +
+ z
u z u G(s)
G(s) + +
Output Inverse Multiplicative case Input Inverse Multiplicative case

uΔ yΔ uΔ yΔ
ΔiO(s) - ΔiI(s)
u - z u z
G(s) + G(s)
+
104
52
Robust Stability analysis for unstructured uncertainties
Application of the small gain theorem to the different uncertainty types.
G p = G + w A Δ A ; ∀Δ A s.t . ΔA ∞
≤ 1 ; CNS : w A KS y ≤1
∞
G p = ( I + wO Δ O )G; ∀Δ O s.t . ΔO ∞
≤ 1 ; CNS : wOT y ≤1
∞
G p = G ( I + w I Δ I ); ∀Δ I s.t . ΔI ∞
≤ 1 ; CNS : w I Tu ∞
≤1
G p = ( I + w iO Δ iO ) −1 G; ∀Δ iO s.t . Δ iO ∞
≤ 1 ; CNS : w iO S y ≤1
∞
G p = G ( I + w iI Δ iI ) −1 ; ∀Δ iI s.t . Δ iI ∞
≤ 1 ; CNS : w iI S u ∞
≤1
This gives some robustness templates for the sensitivity functions.

However this may be conservative.
105

Robust Stability analysis: SISO case
yΔ uΔ
Let us consider the case : ΔI(s) +
u z
+ G(s)
The loop transfer function is then: L p = G p K = GK ( I + wI Δ I ) = L + wI LΔ I ;

Therefore RS ⇔ System stable ∀ Lp. ⇔ Lp should not encircle the point -1
Im
-1
Re
⇔ wI L < 1 + L , ∀ω
1+ L RS
wI L
⇔ < 1, ∀ω
1+ L
L ( jω )
⇔ wI T < 1 ∀ω
wI L
106
53
Robust Performance analysis for unstructured uncertainties
107

Robust Performance analysis: SISO case
yΔ uΔ
ΔI(s) + L p = G p K = GK ( I + wI Δ I ) = L + wI LΔ I ;
u z
+ G(s)
First : NP ⇔ we S < 1 ∀ω , ⇔ we < 1 + L , ∀ω

RP if NP is true for all plants:.
Im
we ( jω )
-1 RP ⇔ we S p < 1, ∀S p , ∀ω
Re
⇔ we < 1 + L p , ∀L p , ∀ω
⇐ we + wI L < 1 + L , ∀ω
1+ L
L( jω ) ⇐ maxω ( we S + wI T ) < 1
wI L See previous slide (Zhou)
108
54
Often, for SISO systems, when we have NP and RS we get RP. This is not
a « big issue » for SISO systems.
For MIMO, systems, this approach may lead to very conservative results.
Further analysis will require the use of structured uncertainties
uncertainties, which
needs to consider the structured singular value. It is defined as :
Find the smallest structured Δ which makes det(I-MΔ)=0.
109
Robust Stability analysis:

structured uncertainties case
110
55
6. ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS
Fictive uncertainties: full

complex matrix representing
the H∞ norm specifications uncertainties
Δ
Δf Real
uncertainties:
Δr block diagonal
matrix
Disturbances
w G e
& references Wi Wo
Controlled outputs
p
P y Measured output
Control input u K
111
Δ
Δf
Δr
Uncertainties inputs v z Uncertainties outputs
⎡N N zw ⎤
N= ⎢ zv
Disturbances w ⎣ N ev N ew ⎥⎦ e Controlled outputs
& references
1. Definition of the real uncertainties Δr and of the transfer templates

e/w thanks to Wi et Wo
2. Evaluation of μ (New ) Δ f , μ (N zv ) Δ r and μ (N) Δ
3. Computation of the admissible intervals for each parameter
112
56
μ-analysis principle : Stable system for all uncertainties Δ
Δ 1
such that : Δ <
∞
μ
M μ (M ) Δ ≤ μ
If and only if :
⎧⎪Δ = diag {Δ1 ,..., Δq , δ1I r 1 ,..., δ1I r 1 , ε1I c 1 ,..., ε1I c 1 }⎫⎪
Δ=⎨ ⎬
⎪⎩Δ i ∈ C i i , δ i ∈ R , ε i ∈ C
k ×k
⎭⎪
Robust control : analysis and design» © Olivier Sename 2010 113
Δ
Δf
Δr
Uncertainties inputs v z Uncertainties outputs
⎡N N zw ⎤
Disturbances w N= ⎢ zv
⎣ N ev N ew ⎥⎦ e Controlled outputs
& references
Nominal Stability. (NS) : N stable
Nom. Performances (NP) : NS and σ (New ) = μ Δf (New ) ≤ 1, ∀ω

Robust Stability (RS): NS and μ Δr (Nzv ) ≤ 1, ∀ω
Robust Performance (RP):

⎡Δ 0⎤
NS and μ Δ (N) ≤ 1, ∀ω , Δ = ⎢ f
⎣0 Δ r ⎥⎦
114
57
OUTLINE


Robust stability
115
PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS
Main extracts of this part : Goodwin et al 2001.
“Performance limitations in control are not only inherently interesting,

but also have a major impact on real world problems.”
Objective : take into account the limitations inherent to the system

or due to actuators constraints, before designing the controller
Understanding what is not possible is as

important
p as understanding
g what is p
possible !
116
58
Mean : sensitivity functions analysis
Previous templates are partly obtained through the performance

specifications
ifi ti off the
th control
t l system.
t
They derive in fact from some trades-off including:

• sensors
• actuators
• uncertainties
• communication network (real-time scheduling)
•aarchitecture
c tectu e
• structural issues, as time-delays, RHP poles/zeroes….
117
CONSTRAINTS ON THE CONTROL SYSTEMS
Structural: S + T = 1 and
(KS = T/G)
|S|+|T|≥1 We cannot have, for any frequency w0,

|S(jw0)|<1 and |T(jw0)|<1
This implies that, disturbance and

noise rejection cannot be achieved in
the same frequency
q y range.
g
frequency splitting of specifications

• disturbances rejection (|S|<1) in LF
• noise reduction (|T|<1) in HF
118
59
Interpolation constraints
If p is an RHP pole of L(s), then:

T(p)=1 and S(p)=0
If z is an RHP zero of L(s), then:

T(z)=0 and S(z)=1
119
PERFORMANCE LIMITATIONS Goodwin et al
SENSITIVITY INTEGRALS
120
60
121
122
61
The
Waterbed
effect
123
Comment: to a reduction zone corresponds an enlargment zone

• peaks on |S| and |T| (robustness ↓)
124
62
Bode sensitivity integral (the case of RHP poles)

Consider a plant with Np RHP poles pi. Then :
∞ Np
∫ ln det S ( jω ) dω = Π ∑ Re( p )
0 i =1
i
Therefore,, in the presence

p of RHP poles,
p , the control effort necessaryy
to stabilize the system is paid in terms of amplification of the
sensitivity magnitude.
125
Peak sensitivity theorems

Theorem1 : Let G(s) a MIMO plant with one RHP zero at s=z,
and Wp(s) be a scalar weight.
Then closed
Then, closed-loop
loop stability is ensured only if:
W p ( s) S ( s) ≥ W p ( z)
∞
Theorem2 : Let G(s) a MIMO plant with one RHP pole at s=p,
and WT(s) be a scalar weight.
Then,, closed-loop
p stabilityy is ensured onlyy if:
WT ( s )T ( s ) ∞
≥ WT ( p )
126
63
Peak sensitivity theorems (SISO case)

Theorem3 : Let G(s) a SISO plant with Np RHP pole pi and
Nz RHP zero zj.
Then, closed
closed-loop
loop stability is ensured only if:
Np
z j + pi
W p (s) S ( s) ≥ c1 j W p ( z j ) , c1 j = ∏ ≥1
∞
i =1 z j − pi
Nz z j + pi
WT ( s )T ( s ) ∞ ≥ c2i WT ( pi ) , c2i = ∏ ≥1
j =1 z j − pi
127
Peak sensitivity theorems: illustration

Let G(s) a MIMO plant with one RHP zero at s=z
s / MS + ω b
Let us choose Wp(s) as a performance specification weight WP ( s ) =
s + ω bε
For the design problem, if the controller meets the

requirements, then: W p ( s ) S ( s ) ≤ 1
∞
z / MS + ω b
Therefore a necessary condition is : W p ( s ) S ( s ) ≥ W p ( z ) , i.e ≤1
∞ z + ω bε
If z is real, and if the performance specifications are such that : Ms=2

and ε=0, then a necessary condition is : z
ωb ≤
2
128
64
It will turn out that to avoid large frequency domain sensitivity

peaks, it is necessary to limit the range of sensitivity
reduction to be :
1. Less than any right half plane open loop zero
2. Greater than anyy right

g half plane
p open
p loop
p pole
p
129
EXAMPLE using MATLAB
System definition
%Sample MATLAB program to synthesize H-infinity controller
%USE OF ROBUST CONTROL TOOLBOX FOR MATLAB R2009
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% plant
l t is
i G
N=[-1 20];
D=conv([1 0.01],[1 20]);
G=ss(tf(N,D)); % plant is G
%%%%%%%
% definition of the weighting function
%%%%%%%
Ms=2;wb=3;epsi=0 01;
Ms=2;wb=3;epsi=0.01;
Mu=3;wbc=50;epsi1=0.01;
We=ss(tf([1/Ms wb],[1 wb*epsi]));
Wu=ss(tf([1 wbc/Mu],[epsi1 wbc]));
130
65
EXAMPLE using MATLAB
Problem solution
% Generalized plant P is found with function sysic%
systemnames = 'G We Wu';
inputvar
p = '[
[ r(1);
( ) d; u(1)]';
( )]
outputvar = '[We; Wu; r-G]';
input_to_G = '[u+d]';
input_to_We = '[r-G]';
input_to_Wu = '[u]';
sysoutname = 'P';
cleanupsysic = 'yes';
sysic;
%% Fi
Find
d H
H-infinity
i fi it optimal
ti l controller%
t ll %
%
nmeas=1; ncon=1;
[Khinf,CL,GAM,INFO] = hinfsyn(P,nmeas,ncon,'DISPLAY','on')
131
EXAMPLE using MATLAB Plots
% Determination of the sensitivity fucntions

L=series(G,Khinf) % Loop transfer function L=GK
S=inv(1+L); % S= 1/(1+L)
poleS=pole(S)
T= feedback(L,1)
poleT=pole(T)
p p ( )
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Essayer avec
%Tverif = G*Khinf/(1+G*Khinf)
% et comparer l'ordre des fonctions de transfert obtenues.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
SG=S*G;;
poleSG=pole(SG)
KS=Khinf*S;
poleKS=pole(KS)
%%%%
w=logspace(-2,2,500);
subplot(2,2,1), sigma(S,1/We,w), title('Sensitivity function')
subplot(2,2,2), sigma(T,w), title('Complementary sensitivity function')
subplot(2,2,3), sigma(SG,w), title('Sensitivity*Plant')
subplot(2,2,4), sigma(KS,1/Wu,w), title('Controller*Sensitivity')
132
66
EXAMPLE : First test
Resetting value of Gamma min based on D_11, D_12, D_21 terms
Test bounds: 0.5000 < gamma <= 2.6337
gamma
g hamx_eig
g xinf_eig
g hamyy_eig
g yinf
y _eig g nrho_xyy p/
p/f
2.765 2.2e+000 8.0e-007 3.0e-002 0.0e+000 0.1708 p
1.633 2.1e+000 8.6e-007 3.0e-002 0.0e+000 1.1068# f
2.199 2.1e+000 8.2e-007 3.0e-002 0.0e+000 0.3240 p
1.916 2.1e+000 8.3e-007 3.0e-002 -9.5e-013 0.5193 p
1.774 2.1e+000 8.4e-007 3.0e-002 -9.5e-013 0.7152 p
1.703 2.1e+000 8.5e-007 3.0e-002 0.0e+000 0.8719 p
1.668 2.1e+000 8.5e-007 3.0e-002 0.0e+000 0.9763 p
1.650 2.1e+000 8.6e-007 3.0e-002 0.0e+000 1.0378# f
1.659 2.1e+000 8.5e-007 3.0e-002 0.0e+000 1.0062# f
Gamma value achieved: 1.6681
133
EXAMPLE
Sensitivity f unction Complementary sensitivity function

10
0
0
We
-10 -10
-20
ar Values (dB)
ar Values (dB)
-20
-30
Complementary
-40 Sensitivityy -30
Sensitivity
Singula
Singula
-50
function function
-40
S T
-60
-50
-70
-80 -60
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Sensitivity*Plant Controller*Sensitivity
-5 15
10
-10
5
-15
0
Wu
-20 -5
-10
-25
-15
Sensitivity Sensitivity
-30 -20
function function
-35 SG -25
KS
-30
-40
-35
-45 -40
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
134
67

Robust Control Analysis and Design

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Robust Control Analysis and Design

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ROBUST CONTROL:

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

Why Robust H∞ control

K. Zhou, Essentials of Robust Control, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1998.

G. Duc et S. Font, Commande Hinf et -analyse: des outils pour la robustesse,

D. Alazard, C. Cumer, P. Apkarian, M. Gauvrit, et G. Ferreres, Robustesse et

 Motivation Industrial examples

 Performance analysis/specifications Performances quantifiers

 H∞ control design Mixed sensitivity problem

 Uncertainties and robustness Representing uncertainties

 Performances limitations Bode and Poisson sensitivity integral

2. Road safety and monitoring (decrease the number of

 injection control (Common

VEHICLE DYNAMICS CONTROL