T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

MEM 355 P ERFORMANCE E NHANCEMENT OF DYNAMICAL S YSTEMS

E XAMPLES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS Harry G. Kwatny
Department of Mechanical Engineering & Mechanics Drexel University

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

O UTLINE
T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS
Some Typical Problems First Examples The Control Design Process

C RUISE C ONTROL
problem denition modeling and design robustness

W HEELED ROBOT
problem denition control design

P OWER C ONDITIONING
problem denition & solution
MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS S OME T YPICAL P ROBLEMS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

T YPICAL PROBLEMS

Continuous
Stabilization Output regulation Disturbance rejection Command tracking

Discrete event
Startup sequencing Fault accommodation Mode change Obstacle avoidance

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS F IRST E XAMPLES

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

F IRST E XAMPLES
We will consider three motivating examples: Cruise control: a simple linear example.
Taylor linearization. As in this example, the dynamics of most systems near an equilibrium point can be adequately approximated by a linear model derived via

Wheeled robot path tracking: control of nonlinear dynamics. Some systems are nonlinear in a fundamental way so that no linear model gives a
satisfactory characterization of its behavior. This is one very simple example.

Power conditioning: discrete event example.

Many systems involve

mode changes in which the system dynamics are different in each mode. Decisions about mode change are often based on logic leaving a system described mathematically by mixed logic-differential equation models.

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS T HE C ONTROL D ESIGN P ROCESS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

D ESIGN C ONSIDERATIONS
Objectives: What are the goals of control and how do we quantify them? Dynamics: What is the essential natural behavior of the system? Input-Output Structure: Have we posed the problem correctly? For example, Do we have appropriate actuators? Sensors? Does the design problem formulation avoid known obstacles? Implementation: Today controllers are typically implemented in digital microcomputers. There are alternatives e.g., electronic analog computers, pneumatic and hydraulic devices. Design Tools: There are several computational suites that support modeling, simulation, control design, and implementation. MATLAB with Simulink and Real Time Workshop has become a de facto standard.

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

PROBLEM DEFINITION

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL P ROBLEM D EFINITION

mg sin

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

deep s

elcihev

ecrof gnibrutsid

ecrof gnivird

enigne

lortnoc

gm

mg cos

m = F mg sin (t) cv v v + 0.02v = u 9.8

Variable v u Units m/s rad Name speed normalized throttle, 0 u 1 roadway slope

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

PROBLEM DEFINITION

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL P ERFORMANCE C RITERIA

What characteristics do we expect in a good cruise control system? Good speed tracking speed should match commanded speed. Good disturbance rejection speed should track even under varying roadway slope. Smooth ride accelerations should not be excessive. Tolerance of parameter variation such as load mass, engine response time.

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

MODELING AND DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
ERROR RESPONSE FROM DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS

Choose a proportional plus integral controller:

t

u (t) = kp ( (t) v (t)) + ki v

0

( ( ) v ( )) d v

Dene the speed error: e (t) = (t) v (t) v

1 Output:

v + 0.02v = u 9.8 + 0.02 = u + 9.8 + + 0.02 e e v v

t

e speed error 2 Inputs:

u (t) = kp ( v (t)) + ki v
0

( v ( )) d u = kp e + ki e v

speed command v road disturbance

v + (0.02 + kp ) e + ki e = 9.8 + + 0.02 v e E (s) = (s + 0.02) 9.8s V (s) + 2 (s) s2 + (0.02 + kp ) s + ki s + (0.02 + kp ) s + ki

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

MODELING AND DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
ERROR RESPONSE FROM BLOCK DIAGRAMS

(t )
9.8

k p s + ki

1 s + 0.02

e : G = v v

1 1+
kp s+ki 1 s s+0.02

G = v

(s + 0.02) s2 + (0.02 + kp ) s + ki

e: E= 1+

1 kp s + ki (9.8) E s + 0.02 s

kp s + ki 9.8 9.8s E= G = 2 s s + 0.02 s + (0.02 + kp ) s + ki

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

elcihev
v

enigne

rotasnepmoc

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

MODELING AND DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
STEP RESPONSES
e 1 0.8 0.6

kp = 1, ki = 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 6
Response to unit step disturbance:

E (s) =

9.8s (s) , s2 + (0.02 + kp ) s + ki

(s) =

1 s

0.4 0.2 t 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Response to unit step command:

e 1 0.75

(s + 0.02) E (s) = 2 V (s) , s + (0.02 + kp ) s + ki

1 V (s) = s

0.5 0.25 t 2 -0.25 -0.5 4 6 8 10 12 14

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

MODELING AND DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
OBSERVATIONS

Both transfer functions have the same denominator (same poles) but different numerators (different zeros). When ki = 0 (proportional control) the ultimate error is not zero in fact the error in response to command is very small, but to disturbance is quite large. For stability we can look at either transfer function, but for performance we need to consider both. To evaluate kp , ki it is helpful to make the association:
2 s2 + (0.02 + kp )s + ki s2 + 20 s + 0

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

MODELING AND DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
REFINE THE CONTROL

Notice that we can specify , 0 and choose

2 ki = 0 , kp = 20 0.02

Response to unit step disturbance:

e 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 t 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Let us x = 0.707 (considered to be ideal damping) and look at responses with 0 = 1, 2, 2, 3

Response to unit step command:

e 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 t 2 -0.2 4 6 8 10 12 14

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

ROBUSTNESS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
EFFECT OF ENGINE DYNAMICS

FAST CONTROLLER
e

An engine model is assumed of the form: Geng = 1 s + 1

2

= 0.1 sec

1 0.75 0.5 0.25 t 2 -0.25 -0.5 4 6 8 10 12 14

These gures show the error response to a command step using the fastest controller: = 0.707, 0 = 3 Results are shown for two engine time constants: = 0.1, 0.2

-0.75

e 60 40 20

= 0.2 sec

t 2 -20 -40 -60 4 6 8 10 12 14

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

ROBUSTNESS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
EFFECT OF ENGINE DYNAMICS

SLOW CONTROLLER
performance comparison: ideal and slow engine.

Now, we use the slowest controller: = 0.707, 0 = 1 The response degrades when the slow engine is included, but at least it is stable. Pushing for high performance often leads to a non-robust design.
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 2 -0.1 4 6 8 10 12 14

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

ROBUSTNESS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

EFFECT OF DISTURBANCE FEEDFORWARD

Gv (1 Ge ) E= D 1 + Gv Ge Gc
v

Gc

9.8

k p s + ki

slow engine, slow controller

0.6

0.4

0.2

t 2 -0.2 4 6 8 10 12 14

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

elcihev

rosnes tlit
Ge

C RUISE C ONTROL

(t )
9.8
Gv

1 s + 0.02

enigne

rotasnepmoc

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

ROBUSTNESS

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

C RUISE C ONTROL
O BSERVATIONS Any one of the closed loop transfer functions can be used for stability analysis (all have same poles). Performance analysis usually requires considering two or more closed loop transfer functions. Ultimate error depends on controller type, e.g. PI controller resulted in zero error eventually, but P controller left some residual error nontrivial in the case of disturbances. We can choose control parameters to shape transient response (locate closed loop poles) in this special case we used our knowledge of second order system behavior. The system may be sensitive to model accuracy, including neglected dynamics even to the point of instability. Disturbance feedforward is an important tool for disturbance rejection. It does not change the system poles. It changes the zeros from disturbance to error.
MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

PROBLEM DEFINITION

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

W HEELED ROBOT
PROBLEM DEFINITION

x = vx cos y = vx sin = M vx = F
by bx

Goal: Steer along a prescribed track in the x y plane.

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

y,x(

y emarf ecaps

x = 20 cos (2t/ ) , y = 50 sin (2t/ ) x y

emarf dexif ydob

J = T

vx

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

CONTROL DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

W HEELED ROBOT
FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION
1 s

wr ( t )

zc (t )

v
-

1 ( x )

x = f ( x ) + G ( x) u y = h( x )

( x)

z ( x)

z = Ax + Bv y = Cx

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

CONTROL DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

W HEELED ROBOT
SIMULATIONS
Simulation Results 100
Trajectory Truth blue Simulated red
y 40 20 x 0.0002 0.0004 coord 0.10 0.0002 20 40 60 80 100 0.05 0.10 t 20 40 60 80 100 20 10 20 40 10 20 0.05 t 0.02 0.04 0.06 20 40 60 80 100

Trajectory Error X blue Y red

Control Force
F 0.06 0.04 0.02 T

Control Torque

50
Trajectory Truth blue Simulated red
y 40 20 x 20 10 20 40 10 20 coord 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 10 20 30 40 50 0.2 0.4 t 10 20 30 40 50 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 t 10 20 30 40 50 0.2 0.1 t

Trajectory Error X blue Y red

Control Force
F T

Control Torque

25
Trajectory Truth blue Simulated red
y 40 20 x 20 10 20 40 10 20 coord 0.02 0.01 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 t 0.01 0.02 0.03 5 10 15 20 25 0.5 1.0

Trajectory Error X blue Y red

2 1

Control Force
F 1.0 0.5 t 5 T

Control Torque

10

15

20

25

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

CONTROL DESIGN

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

W HEELED ROBOT
O BSERVATIONS

tracking errors are quite small, but as speed increases ( decreases) error in y coordinate increases. Is this the right problem formulation? Look at speed.
V 14 12 10
Out[43]=

8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t

For example:
We could require path tracking at constant speed, or we may want to let speed vary so as to minimize time around the loop while respecting some error bound. How about two robots racing around the track and have to avoid each other?
MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

PROBLEM DEFINITION

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

& SOLUTION

P OWER C ONDITIONING P ROBLEM D EFINITION

Ro iL vo

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2

R pre

Rbleed

High power drives in vehicle applications Modes

Startup (pre-charge) Normal (current regulation) Shutdown (bleed)

T YPES OF C ONTROL P ROBLEMS

PROBLEM DEFINITION

C RUISE C ONTROL

W HEELED ROBOT

P OWER C ONDITIONING

& SOLUTION

K EY I SSUES
If the dynamics are complicated, they may interact with the mode change decisions and produce chattering between two modes. The state chart shown is in the form of a StateFlow diagram and is easily implemented in a microcontroller using the Real Time Workshop. This system is fairly simple example but more complex ones abound. Protection systems, for example. Most controllers involve both logical or discrete event control and continuous dynamic feedback control.

MEM 355 L ECTURE 2