Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DIGITAL CONTROL
r+ e ed ud y
S C(z) H C(z)
J. Webster (ed.), Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
446 DIGITAL CONTROL
Rf
R
u[t]
; ;
+
E
;
2R
;
4R
8R
Figure 2. Quantization converts the slanted straight line (thin) to Figure 4. A D/A converter is constructed with an operational ampli-
the piecewise step zigzag function (thick). fier, switching, and resistors.
reads out the values of e(t) at every time step h called the In the process above, a quantization error occurs in the
sampling period, and produces a discrete-time signal ed[k], A/D conversion. This is a round-off error that occurs when
k 0, 1, 2, . . .. In this process, a quantization error (due to we convert analog values to digital data (often with a fixed
round-off) as shown in Fig. 2 occurs. The sampling operator wordlength), as shown in Fig. 2. This introduces a nonlinear-
S acts on a continuous-time signal w(t), t 0 as ity into the system although other system components may
be linear. A possible effect is that the closed-loop system may
S (w)[k] := w(kh), k = 0, 1, 2, . . . exhibit typical nonlinear behavior, such as limit cycles. Such
phenomena are, however, much less studied compared to the
(The quantization effect is omitted here.) The discretized sig- effect arising from data sampling in time, and one usually
nal is then processed by a discrete-time controller C(z) and assumes that sufficient spatial resolution is guaranteed so
becomes a control input ud. This signal then goes through an- that the effect of quantization is negligible.
other interface H called a hold device or a D/A converter to The term digital control is thus used almost synonymously
become a continuous-time signal. A typical example is the with sampled-data control (that is, the control scheme where
zero-order hold, where H simply keeps the value of a discrete- measurement and control actions occur intermittently with a
time signal w[k] as a constant until the next sampling time: fixed period) and quantization effects are ignored. Usually
one considers single-rate sampled-data control systems where
(H (w[k]))(t) := w[k], for kh t < (k + 1) h sampling and hold actions occur periodically with a fixed pe-
riod in a synchronized way. In practice, however, there are
A typical sample-hold action [with C(z) identity] is shown varied situations in which different sampling rates are em-
in Fig. 3. A simple D/A converter can be constructed with ployed at distributed control stations. Such a situation leads
operational amplifiers, resistors, and switching devices as de- to multirate sampled-data control systems. However, for the
picted in Fig. 4. Because this construction requires high preci- sake of simplicity this article deas with single-rate systems.
sion in resistors, more elaborate circuitry is adopted in
practice.
There are other types of hold devices, for example, a first- z-TRANSFORM
order hold for various reasons. In this article, however, we
confine ourselves to the zero-order hold above. We start with a fundamental description of systems and se-
quences. Let w[k]k0
denote a sequence with values in some
vector space X. Typically, X is the n-dimensional vector space
n, but we will later encounter an example where X is not
finite-dimensional. The z-transform of w w[k]k0
is defined
to be the formal sum (mathematically, this is called a formal
power series):
Z [w](z) := w[k]zk
k=0
It can be readily verified that the z-transform Z [w u] of ues on or outside the unit circle z : z 1. This is equivalent
the discrete convolution to the transfer function being analytic in z : z 1, provided
that there are no hidden poles of (zI A)1 cancelled by the
k
numerator.
(w u)[k] := w[k j]u[ j] Let us now give a sample-point description of the continu-
j=0
ous-time plant P(s). Let (A, B, C) be its (minimal) realization.
For brevity, we assume that the direct feedthrough term of
is given by the product Z [w]Z [u] of the z-transforms of the
P(s) is zero. This means
two sequences, i.e.,
= Ax(t) + Bu(t)
x(t)
Z [w u] = Z [w]Z [u] (4)
y(t) = Cx(t)
As a special case, the multiplication by z1 yields the time-
The first objective is to give a description of this plant at sam-
shift (delay): w[k]k0
w[k 1]k1
. Similarly, the multipli-
pling instants t kh, k 0, 1, 2, . . .. By the zero-order hold,
cation by z yields the time-advance operator: w[k]k0
the input to the plant for kh t (k 1)h is the constant
w[k 1]k0.
ud[k]. Suppose that the state of the plant at t kh is x[k]
The z-transformation plays the role of the Laplace trans-
x(kh). Then by integrating Eq. (4) from kh to (k 1)h, we
formation in the continuous-time case. As with Laplace trans-
obtain
forms, it is useful to consider the substitution of a complex
number to the variable z. For example, the geometric se- h
quence kvk0
has the z-transform x[k + 1] = x((k + 1)h) = e Ah
x[k] + e A(h ) Bud [k] d
0
zv
h
k zk v = (1) = e Ah x[k] + e A( ) Bd ud [k] =: Ad x[k] + Bd u[k]
k=0
z 0
y[k] = y(kh) = Cx[k] =: Cd x[k]
We can consider this as a function with complex variable z. (5)
The sequence kv tends to zero if and only if 1; this is
equivalent to its z-transform being analytic in z : z 1. In other words, the behavior of P(s) at the sampling instants
For a fixed sampling period h, the z-transform of a continu- can be described by a time-invariant discrete-time system
ous-time signal x(t) is understood to be the z-transform of its (Ad, Bd, Cd). This is the formula due to Kalman and Bertram
sampled sequence: (1). Its transfer function
h
Z [x](z) := x(kh)zk Pd (z) := C(zI e Ah )1 eA Bd
0
k=0
Much of the classical theory for sampled-data control is x(t), its modified z-transform Z [x](z, m), 0 m 1 is defined
devoted to the computation of the pulse transfer function from as
a given continuous-time transfer function. Note that this pre-
cedes the advent of the modern state space theory, and elabo-
Z [x](z, m) := x(kh + mh)zk (9)
rate formulas in the z and Laplace transform domains have k=0
been found. For example, the following theorem is well
known (2,3): As in Theorem 2, the following result holds.
Theorem 2. Let P(s) be a rational function such that it is Theorem 4. Assuming the same conditions as in Theorem 2,
analytic for s : s R for some R 0 and sP(s) as s the following formulas for the modified z-transform holds:
for some real . Then
1 P(s)emhs
1 P(s) Z [P](z, m) = ds
Z [P](z) = ds 2 j C 1 emhs z1
2 j 1 ehs z1
(6) P(s)emhs
P(s) = Res
= Res poles of P(s)
1 emhs z1
poles of P(s)
1 ehs z1
where denotes a contour that travels from c j to c The modified z-transform has a close connection with lifted
j [c: abscissa of convergence of P(s); the coordinate to the transfer functions in the modern approach (see the section
right of which the Laplace integral defining P(s) converges] entitled Modern Approach).
and goes around a semcircle on the left half-plane that encir-
cles all poles of P(s).
CLASSICAL DESIGN METHODS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS
Once the sample-point behavior is specified by the proce-
dure above, it is easy to give a description of the intersample We briefly review the classical design methods and their limi-
behavior of the output or the state. Suppose, for example, that tations. The first is a design method based on the continuous-
the state of the plant P(s) takes values x[k] at t kh, k 0, time design.
1, 2, . . .. By integrating Eq. (4) from t kh to t kh
(0 h), we get Continuous-Time Design
A simple, straightforward method is to employ a continuous-
A( ) time design, obtain a continuous-time controller, and then
x(kh + ) = e A
x[k] + e Bud [k] d (7)
0 convert the controller to a discrete-time system via some kind
of discretization. Let Cc(s) be a continuous-time controller.
and Typical discretization methods are the following:
on. To discuss such properties, frequency domain considera- Let us consider the stabilization by state feedback. If we em-
tions are highly desirable. ploy a sampled state feedback
However, the notion of frequency response is not readily
available. To see the situation, let C(z) be a discrete-time ud [k] = Kx[k]
transfer function. Suppose that a sinusoid ejt is applied after
sampling. Then the actual input to C(z) is ekjhk0
with z-
then by Theorem 3 the stability of the closed-loop system is
transform z/(z ejh) given by Eq. (2). The steady-state re-
determined by the spectrum of
sponse of C(z) against this input is then given by
ekjhC(ejh)k0
. It appears that we can discuss the frequency
domain properties via C(ejh). For example, one might attempt A d Bd K (10)
to employ phase lead/lag compensation based on this quan-
tity. However, due to sampling, this frequency response does Thus this is a purely discrete-time pole-placement problem.
not fully represent the nature of continuous-time inputs. For Furthermore, if we can set the eigenvalues of Eq. (10) all to
example, not only ejt but also ej(2n/h)t, n 1, 2, . . . give zero, then x[k] becomes zero after a finitely number of steps
exactly the same sampled values ekjhk0
. The response is if there is no external input. Also with Eqs. (7) and (8), not
then governed by the same C(ejh). This means that sampling only x[k] but also the intersampling trajectory will settle to
does not have enough resolution to distinguish all these sinu- zero. This clearly shows the advantage of the state space the-
soids, and the notion of phase, which depends on the response ory, which was introduced around that time.
against sinusoids, is unclear in such a sampled-data control The problem is thus reduced to the pole allocation for the
setup. Another way of seeing this is to note that ejh ejh discrete-time system (Ad, Bd) and the feasibility of this is re-
and hence C(ej(2/h)h) C(ejh). This means that beyond the duced to the problem of determining the controllability and
frequency /h, the same gain characteristic repeats periodi- stabilizability of this pair. Naturally, we may as well assume
cally and C(ejh) cannot be treated as the same frequency re- that the continuous-time plant (A, B, C) is stabilizable or con-
sponse concept as in the continuous-time case. This is related trollable. Otherwise, it is not possible to stabilize the plant
to the notion of aliasing, which we examine in more detail in even with continuous-time controllers.
the section Modern Approach. For brevity, let us consider controllability. The following
It may be still possible to execute an elaborate continuous- result is well known (4):
time design that also works well in the sampled-data setting
by looking more closely into the nature of the Tustin transfor- Theorem 5. Let 1, . . ., n be eigenvalues of A. Suppose that
mation. However, in such a method, a systematic design for no pair i, j (i j), i j is an integer multiple of 2/h.
method such as H design theory is difficult to apply. Further- Then (Ad, Bd) is controllable if and only if (A, B) is control-
more, one needs a more concrete understanding of the phe- lable.
nomena above, and this is much better done in the modern
approach treated in the subsequent sections.
The proof is an easy consequence of the fact that the eigenval-
ues of Ad eAh are e1, . . ., en. This is a variant of the spec-
Discrete-Time Design
tral mapping theorem, but we skip the details here (4,5).
Yet another classical approach is based on the pulse transfer By the discussions above, it may appear that sampled-data
function Pd(z). As far as stability is concerned, one can deal control systems can be safely designed via discrete-time de-
only with Pd(z). It was also recognized that sampled-data con- sign methods. Note that, at least for the deadbeat control via
trol can achieve performance that is not possible with linear, state space, we can also settle the intersample behavior iden-
time-invariant, continuous-time controller. For example, the tically to zero after a finite number of steps. However, this is
so-called deadbeat control achieves the property that the out- valid only for regulation problems, and the issue of the inter-
put (or state) settles exactly to zero after a finite time period. sample behavior for tracking (servo control) problems, where
This is done by placing all poles of the closed-loop system to exogenous signals are present, is quite different. To see this,
zero; the output, at least at sampled instants, then becomes consider the example depicted in Fig. 5. Here the continuous-
zero after a finite timea performance not possible with con- time plant is 1/(s2 1) whose natural frequency is 1 rad/s.
tinuous-time controllers. On the other hand, the tracking signal is sin (1 2/0.1)t
It should be, however, noted that such a classical treat- where the sampling period h is 0.1 s. It so happens that, at
ment also shares the weakness of the classical transfer func- sampling instants t kh, k 0, 1, 2, . . ., this signal is iden-
tion approach. Namely, it did not take account of hidden tical with sin t because (2/0.1)kh 2k. Therefore, for the
polezero configurations. In particular, it was observed that discrete-time controller the tracking signal is no different
merely settling the output might sometimes induce very large
intersample ripples.
It was Kalman and Bertram (1) who introduced the state
r+ e ed ud y
space approach for sampled-data systems. As we have already sin(1 + 20 )t e2h1 1
S H
seen, the sample-time inputoutput relation is described by z e2h s2 +1
h
x[k + 1] = Ad x[k] + Bd ud [k] = e Ah x[k] + e A Bd ud [k] Figure 5. A unity feedback system with tracking reference signal
0 sin(1 20)t.
450 DIGITAL CONTROL
SAMPLING THEOREM
0
Let f(t) be a given continuous-time signal on (, ). To
make the sampling well defined, we assume that f is a contin-
uous function. The sampled sequence is f(kh)k
. As it is,
0.5
this is just a sequence defined on the set of integers. The
question here is how we should represent this sequence in the
continuous-time domain.
1 Recall that the z-transform of f(kh)k
is
43 43.2 43.4 43.6 43.8 44
Time (sec)
f (kh)zk
Figure 6. The simulation of Figure 5 shows that the input sin(1 k=
20)t does not yield a sinusoid at the same frequency, and large inter-
sample ripples result.
We have extended the definition in a natural way to the nega-
tive ks. We also recall that the multiplication by z1 is the
right shift operator. Since the kth signal value f(kh) is placed
from sin t. The simulation result is shown in Fig. 6. The plant at t kh, this right shift corresponds to the right shift by
output is shown by the solid curve while the reference input time length h in the continuous-time domain. It is also well
is shown by the dashed curve. The output tracks sin t rather known that in the Laplace transform domain the right shift
than sin(1 2/0.1)t, and there is a large amount of inter- operator by h is represented by the multiplication by ehs.
sample ripples due to the difference between sin(1 2/0.1)t Therefore, it is natural to represent the Laplace transform of
and sin t. the sequence f(kh)k
by
This example shows the following:
cally zero outside the interval (/h , /h ) for some to n f( 2n/h). Then only the spectrum f() in the
0. Then fundamental frequency range (/h, /h) remains. Applying
the inverse Fourier transform, we obtain
sin (t/h n)
f (t) = f (nh) (13)
n= (t/h n)
f (t) = F [f()] =F () 2n/h)
f(
1
2n based on the assumption that the original signal f(t) is band
= f t limited. This assumption, which appears quite innocent, is
h n= h
1
2n
seldom satisfied in practice. In fact, if f is band limited, it
must be an entire function; that is, it is analytic on the whole
= f
h n= h complex plane. We can hardly expect real signals to be ana-
lytic functions. Therefore, the assumption for Eq. (13) can be
In other words, we get infinitely many copies of the shifted satisfied only in an approximate sense. The second drawback
image of f() as shown in Fig. 7. This is because a sinusoid is that Eq. (13) is not causal. In other words, it makes use of
sin t behaves precisely the same as sin( 2m/h)t at sam- future sampled values f(nh) to reconstruct the current value
pled points t nh, n 0, 1, 2, . . .. Such higher frequency f(t). It is therefore not physically realizable. To remedy this,
signals that arise from sampling are called alias components. one should be content with approximation, and a large por-
It is clearly not possible to recover the original signal f(t) from tion of digital signal processing is devoted to the various solu-
such data contaminated by aliasing. In particular, there is in tions of this problem.
general an overlapping of f( 2n/h). (The period s : Theorem 6 also yields the following observations:
2/h of these spectra is called the sampling frequency and its
half /h the Nyquist frequency.) By sampling, intersampling information is generally lost.
However, it is possible to recover f(t) if such an overlapping In particular, sinusoids sin( 2n/h)t, n 0, 1, 2,
does not occur. Indeed, it will be clear from Fig. 7 that if the . . . cannot be mutually distinguished.
original spectrum f is zero outside the interval (/h, /h),
However, this is about the maximum uncertainty intro-
then there is no overlapping among those copies. The band-
duced by sampling. After sampling, all the components
limited hypothesis that f is zero outside (/h , /h )
that arise in the output are combinations of all such alias
guarantees this. To eliminate all unnecessary alias compo-
components sin( 2n/h)tn
.
nents, multiply the function
1 (|| /h) The last statement still needs to be clarified. The basic
() := (15) idea is the following: When a sinusoid sin t is sampled, it is
0 (|| > /h)
converted to a modulated train of impulses as shown in
Eq. (12). In other words, infinitely many alias components
sin( 2n/h)t are excited by sampling. To avoid an unde-
sirable effect arising from such aliased components, it is gen-
^
f( )
erally necessary to place an analog low-pass filter (usually
^
f( 2 /h)
called an anti-aliasing filter) in front of the sampler. Since
this cannot cancel the alias components completely, how
much such alias components affect the overall performance is
/h /h
a concern. Such a question has been studied in the literature
Figure 7. The spectrum of f repeats periodically with period 2/h. (2,3,7). However, its general structure is better understood in
452 DIGITAL CONTROL
the scope of the modern approach, which we describe in the t kh. As in Eq. (5), the state x[k 1] at time (k 1)h is
subsequent sections. given by
h
MODERN APPROACH x[k + 1] = e Ah
x[k] + e A(h ) Bu[k]( ) d (17)
0
We now turn our attention to the foundation of the modern
treatment of sampled-data systems. From what we have pre- The difference here is that the lifted input u[k]( ) need not
sented up to this section, it is clear that the fundamental dif- be a constant on (kh, (k 1)h), and the right-hand side inte-
ficulty in sampled-data control systems lies in the fact that gral gives an operator
they involve two different time sets: one is discrete (arising
h
from the digital controller) and the other is continuous (aris-
L2 [0, h) Rn : u() e A(h ) Bu( ) d
ing from the continuous-time plant). This difficulty has been 0
successfully circumvented in the modern approach.
While state-transition is described in the discrete timing as
A New Model with Intersample BehaviorLifting above, the system keeps producing an output. If we consider
While it is possible to recover intersample behavior via the lifting of x(t), it is easily seen to be described by
modified z-transform, it implicitly assumes sampling inputs
in its formulation. It is therefore not adequate for describing
x[k]( ) = e A x[k] + e A( ) Bu[k]( ) d
correspondence from the exogenous continuous-time inputs to 0
continuous-time outputs.
A new solution was introduced in 19901991 (812). The Then the lifted output y[k]( ) is given by
new idea, currently called lifting, makes it possible to de-
scribe sampled-data systems via a time-invariant, discrete-
time model while maintaining the intersample behavior. y[k]( ) = Ce A x[k] + Ce A( ) Bu[k]( ) d (18)
0
The idea is very simple. Let f(t) be a given continuous-time
signal. Sampling surely results in a loss of intersample infor-
Observe that Eqs. (17) and (18) take the form
mation. Then, instead of sampling f(t), we will represent it as
a sequence of functions. Namely, we set up the correspondence x[k + 1] = A x[k] + Bu[k]
(Fig. 8):
y[k] = C x[k] + Du[k]
L : f { f [k]( )}
k=0, f [k]( ) = f (kh + ), 0 <h
and the operators A , B , C , D do not depend on k. In other
This idea makes it possible to view (time-invariant or even words, it is possible to describe this continuous-time system
periodically time-varying) continuous-time systems as linear, with discrete-timing, once we adopt the lifting point of view.
time-invariant discrete-time systems. (Basically the same To be more precise, the operators A , B , C , D are defined as
idea that converts periodically time-varying discrete-time sys- follows:
tems to time-invariant systems were encountered and redis-
covered many times in the literature. It appears to date back A : Rn Rn : x e Ah x
at least to Ref. 13. Such a discrete-time lifting is also fre- h
quently used in signal processing, especially in multirate sig- B: L2 [0, h) Rn : u e A(h ) Bu( ) d
nal processing, and is called blocking.) 0
(19)
The basic idea is the following: Let C : Rn L2 [0, h) : x Ce A x
= Ax(t) + Bu(t)
x(t) D: L2 [0, h) L2 [0, h) : u Ce A( ) Bu( ) d
(16)
y(t) = Cx(t) 0
be a given continuous-time plant. Then we lift the input u(t) Thus the continuous-time plant in Eq. (16) can be de-
to obtain u[k]( ). We consider that this lifted input is applied scribed by a time-invariant discrete-time model. Once this is
at the timing t kh (h is a prespecified sampling rate), and done, it is entirely routine to connect this expression with a
observe how it affects the system. Let x[k] be the state at time discrete-time controller, and hence sampled-data systems (for
example, see Fig. 1) can be fully described by time-invariant
discrete-time equations, this time without sacrificing the in-
tersampling information. We will also denote this overall
f(t)
equation abstractly as
present situation without any change. For example, the trans- Since ej(ns)t is lifted to be ejkhej(ns)k0
, such aliasing
fer function is defined as high-frequency signals are in the form ejkhv(). Thus the
definition above takes all the aliasing components into ac-
G(z) := D + C (zI A )1 B count, and takes the largest magnitude of enlargement
among them.
When an input u(z) is applied to system in Eq. (20), its zero-
initial state output is given by G(z)u(z). Note also that opera-
tor A in Eq. (19) is a matrix, and hence A in Eq. (20) is also Frequency Response via Sequence Spaces
a matrix. This means that the stability of Eq. (20) can be The observation above clearly shows that the gain of the fre-
tested by the poles of G(z). It is stable if G(z) is analytic for quency response takes all aliasing effects into account. It is
z : z 1. however unclear that aliasing exhausts all the freedom in
v L2[0, h). In other words, is it true that if we consider the
Steady State and Frequency Response largest gain imposed by considering all aliased components,
The time-invariance of the lifted model Eq. (20) naturally does this give the same gain as Eq. (23)?
yields a definition of stead-state and frequency responses. This is indeed true; its proof is based on the following
Let G(z) be a stable transfer function as defined above. lemma which guarantees that the family ejn / hn
(n
Take a sinusoid ejt as an input. Its lifted image is ns) forms an orthonormal basis of L [0, h), and hence
2
According to Eq. (1), the z-transform of this sequence is Lemma 1. Fix any [0, s). Then every L2[0, h) can
be expanded in terms of ejnn
as
ze j
z e jh
( ) = an e j n (24)
Since G(z) is stable, expand it in a neighborhood of z ejh: n=
G(z) = G(e jh ) + (z e jh )G(z) with
with some G (z) that is also analytic in z 1 (by the stability h
1 1
of G). It follows that an = e j n ( ) d = (
jn ) (25)
h 0 h
zej
zG(e )e jh j
G(z) = + G(z)e j
z e jh z e jh where denotes the Laplace transform of when extended
to L2[0, ) as 0 outside [0, h). Furthermore, the L2 norm
The second term on the right tends to zero as k by the is given by
analyticity of G , and hence the output approaches
zG(e )e /(z e ). Therefore, the lifted output y[k]( ) as-
jh j jh
Since ej(ns)h ejh, this is the kth step response of where R (I D *D ). The important point to be noted
here is that all the operators appearing here are actually ma-
trices. For example, by checking the domain and range
g
n e j n t v
= n=
spaces, we easily see that B R1 B * is a linear operator from
n into itself, i.e., a matrix. Therefore, in principle, one can
where t kh . Interchanging the order of summation, this solve the singular value Eq. (29) by finding a nontrivial solu-
is equal to tion for Eq. (30) (provided R is invertible) (17,18).
!
g
n ()v
e j n t (28) H /H 2 CONTROL PROBLEMS
n=
=
A significant consequence of the modern approach to sampled-
This means that the response against vejt is again ex- data control is that various robust control problems such as
pressible as an infinite sum of all such aliased signals. It H /H2 control problems are now completely solved. The prob-
should be intuitively clear that the largest gain among them lem was initiated by Chen and Francis (19) and later solved
again gives the gain of the frequency response, when such in Refs. 9, 10, and 2022 in more complete forms; see Ref. 5
signals are equipped with norm (nv2)1/2. This isometric cor- for the pertinent historical accounts.
respondence is guaranteed by the Parseval identity Eq. (26). To state the problem more precisely, let us introduce the
This is the viewpoint adopted in Refs. 14 and 15 to discuss notion of generalized plants. Suppose that a continuous-time
the frequency response of sampled-data systems; see also Ref. plant is given in the following form:
16. It is also closer to the classical treatment based on the
impulse modulation (3,7). xc (t) = Axc (t) + B1 w(t) + B2 u(t)
z(t) = C1 xc (t) + D11 w(t) + D12 u(t)
Gain Computation
y(t) = C2 xc (t)
The gain function G(ejh) is given as the operator norm at each
frequency, and its computation is primarily an infinite-dimen- Here w is the exogenous input, u(t) is the control input, y(t)
sional problem. However, for most of the practical purposes, is the measured output, and z(t) is the controlled output. The
it can be computed as the maximal singular value (17). controller is of the following form:
Our problem is thus reduced to that of solving the singular
value equation xd [k + 1] = Ad xd [k] + Bd S y[k]
e jh
x = A x + Bw
p = e jh A p + C (C x + Dw)
( 2 D D)w = e jh B p + D C x S H( )
where Tzw denotes the closed-loop transfer function from w to Initial condition results ( = 0.1)
z. This is the H control problem for sampled-data systems. 2
The H2 control problem is obtained by replacing the H norm
above by the H2 norm. 1.5
The difficulty here is that both w and z are continuous-
time variables, and hence their lifted variables are infinite- 1
dimensional. A remarkable fact here is that the H problem
(and H2 problem as well) [Eq. (31)] can be equivalently trans- 0.5
Amplitude
formed to the H problem for a finite-dimensional discrete-
time system. While we skip the details here [see the refer- 0
ences above and (5)], we remark that this norm-equivalent
discrete-time system is entirely different from the one given 0.5
in the section on Discrete-Time Design in that it fully takes
intersampling behavior into account. The difference will be 1
exhibited by the design examples in the next section.
1.5
SOME EXAMPLES
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
To see the power of the modern design methods, let us con-
Time (s)
sider two design examples. We start with the H design.
Figure 11. Time responses for h 0.1 by sampled-data (solid) and
H Design continuous-time (dash) H designs do not show much difference.
0.5
Amplitude
Q1/2
E 0
zc
R1/2 wc 0.5
N 1
1.5
Frequencygain response 2
50
40 1
30
0
20
Gain (dB)
10
1
0
10 2
0 1 2 3 4 5
20 Time
Figure 15. Time responses for sampled-data (solid) and discrete-
30 time (dash) design show a clear difference.
101 100 101
Frequency (rad/s)
Figure 13. Frequency response plots for h 0.55 support the obser-
vation in Fig. 11. Consider a simple second-order plant P(s) 1/(s2 2s 1).
For h 0.2, we execute
crete-time design methods and other related topics, the terization of H-norm of sampled-data systems, Syst. Control
reader is also referred to the handbook (26). For Shannons Lett., 21: 163172, 1993.
sampling theorem, consult Ref. 27 for various extensions and 19. T. Chen and B. A. Francis, On the L 2-induced norm of a sampled-
some historical accounts. data system, Syst. Control Lett., 15: 211219, 1990.
As noted in the main text, discrete-time lifting has been 20. B. Bamieh and J. B. Pearson, A general framework for linear
introduced and rediscovered by several authors (see, for ex- periodic systems with applications to H sampled-data control,
ample, Refs. 13, 28, and 29). Aside from the H design, the IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-37: 418435, 1992.
H2 control problem has also been studied extensively (3033). 21. P. T. Kabamba and S. Hara, Worst case analysis and design of
L1-norm problems are studied in Refs. 3436. In relation to sampled data control systems, IEEE Trans. Auto. Control, AC-
38: 13371357, 1993.
the H control problem, various robust stability problems
have been studied (see, for example, Refs. 15 and 37). 22. N. Sivashankar and P. P. Khargonekar, Characterization and
computation of the L 2-induced norm of sampled-data systems,
The treatment of frequency response given here is based
SIAM J. Control. Optim., 32: 11281150, 1994.
on Refs. 16 and 17. Some computational aspects are discussed
23. S. Hara, Y. Yamamoto, and H. Fujioka, Modern and classical
in Ref. 38. For other approaches not dealt with here, see also
analysis/synthesis methods in sampled-data controla brief
Refs. 39 and 40. overview with numerical examples, Proc. 35th IEEE CDC, 1996,
pp. 12511256.
24. K. J. A strom and B. Wittenmark, Computer Controlled Systems
BIBLIOGRAPHY Theory and Design, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996,
3rd ed.
1. R. E. Kalman and J. E. Bertram, A unified approach to the theory 25. D. Williamson, Digital Control and Implementation, New York:
of sampling systems, J. Franklin Inst., 267: 405436, 1959. Prentice-Hall, 1991.
2. E. I. Jury, Sampled-Data Control Systems, New York: Wiley, 26. W. S. Levine (ed.), The Control Handbook, Boca Raton, FL: CRC
1958. Press, 1996.
3. J. R. Ragazzini and G. F. Franklin, Sampled-Data Control Sys- 27. A. I. Zayed, Advances in Shannons Sampling Theory, Boca Raton,
tems, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958. FL: CRC Press, 1993.
4. R. E. Kalman, Y. C. Ho, and K. Narendra, Controllability of lin- 28. J. H. Davis, Stability conditions deried from spectral theory: Dis-
ear dynamical systems, Contrib. Differ. Equations, 1: 189213, crete systems with periodic feedback, SIAM J. Control, 10: 1
1963. 13, 1972.
5. T. Chen and B. A. Francis, Optimal Sampled-Data Control Sys- 29. P. P. Khargonekar, K. Poolla, and A. Tannenbaum, Robust con-
tems, New York: Springer, 1995. trol of linear time-invariant plants using periodic compensation,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-30: 10881096, 1985.
6. A. H. Zemanian, Distribution Theory and Transform Analysis,
New York: Dover, 1987. 30. T. Chen and B. A. Francis, H 2-optimal sampled-data control,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-36: 387397, 1991.
7. J. T. Tou, Digital and Sampled-Data Control Systems, New York:
31. P. P. Khargonekar and N. Sivashankar, H 2 optimal control for
McGraw-Hill, 1959.
sampled-data systems, Syst. Control Lett., 17: 425436, 1991.
8. B. Bamieh et al., A lifting technique for linear periodic systems
32. B. Bamieh and J. B. Pearson, The H 2 problem for sampled-data
with applications to sampled-data control systems, Syst. Control
systems, Syst. Control Lett., 19: 112, 1992.
Lett., 17: 7988, 1991.
33. S. Hara, H. Fujioka, and P. T. Kabamba, A hybrid state-space
9. G. Tadmor, Optimal H sampled-data control in continuous time approach to sampled-data feedback control, Linear Algebra Its
systems, Proc. ACC, 1991, pp. 16581663. Appl., 205206: 675712, 1994.
10. H. T. Toivonen, Sampled-data control of continuous-time systems 34. G. Dullerud and B. A. Francis, L 1 performance in sampled-data
with an H optimality criterion, Automatica, 28: 4554, 1992. systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-37: 436446, 1992.
11. Y. Yamamoto, New approach to sampled-data systems: A func- 35. N. Sivashankar and P. P. Khargonekar, Induced norms for sam-
tion space method, Proc. 29th CDC, 1990, pp. 18821887. pled-data systems, Automatica, 28: 12671272, 1992.
12. Y. Yamamoto, A function space approach to sampled-data control 36. B. Bamieh, M. A. Dahleh, and J. B. Pearson, Minimization of the
systems and tracking problems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC- L-induced norm for sampled-data systems, IEEE Trans. Autom.
39: 703712, 1994. Control, AC-38: 717732, 1993.
13. B. Friedland, Sampled-data control systems containing periodi- 37. N. Sivashankar and P. P. Khargonekar, Robust stability and per-
cally time varying members, Proc. 1st IFAC Congr., 1961, pp. formance analysis of sampled-data systems, IEEE Trans. Autom.
361367. Control, AC-38: 5869, 1993.
14. M. Araki, Y. Ito, and T. Hagiwara, Frequency response of sam- 38. S. Hara et al., Computational aspects of gain-frequency response
pled-data systems, Automatica, 32: 483497, 1996. for sampled-data systems, Proc. 34th IEEE CDC, 1995, pp. 1784
1789.
15. G. Dullerud and K. Glover, Robust stabilization of sampled-data
39. A. Feuer and G. C. Goodwin, Generalized sample hold func-
systems to structured LTI perturbations, IEEE Trans. Autom.
tionsfrequency domain analysis of robustness, sensitivity and
Control, AC-38: 14971508, 1993.
intersample difficulties, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-39:
16. Y. Yamamoto and M. Araki, Frequency responses for sampled- 10421047, 1994.
data systemstheir equivalence and relationships, Linear Alge-
40. J. S. Freudenberg, R. H. Middleton, and J. H. Braslavsky, Inher-
bra Its Appl., 205206: 13191339, 1994.
ent design limitations for linear sampled-data feedback systems,
17. Y. Yamamoto and P. P. Khargonekar, Frequency response of Int. J. Control, 61: 13871421, 1995.
sampled-data systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, AC-41: 166
176, 1996. YUTAKA YAMAMOTO
18. Y. Yamamoto, On the state space and frequency domain charac- Kyoto University
458 DIGITAL FILTERS