You are on page 1of 6

Analytical Framework for Gain Scheduling

Wilson J. Rugh
A framework for the design of "idealized" not used for design purposes because of its design problems, the control laws thatmust be
gain-scheduled controllers for nonlinear sys- complexity. scheduled are becoming more complex. As
tems is discussed. Based on this framework complexity increases, scheduling will become
Characteristics of Gain Scheduling
questions are raised, and implications are more difficult to address in a satisfactory man-
A number of characteristics o f gain ner by ad hoc methods.
drawn for 'practical' design situations.
scheduling are more-or-less apparent, even Another aspect of gain scheduling is that it
Introduction from the brief description above. These will is inherently local in nature. The overall per-
be discussed briefly in terms of general ad- formance of the control system must be check-
Realistic models of engineering systems
vantages, and disadvantages. ed by extensive simulation studies. In a sense,
often are nonlinear. One consequence is that
The main advantage of the gain scheduling this is the trade-off that results from the ad-
the dynamical behavior of a system to be
approach is that linear design methods are vantage of using linear design methods. How-
controlled changes with the operating region.
applied to the linearized system at each operat- ever it should be noted that in actual
A typical approach to this situation has been
ing condition, and the wealth of linear control applications most direct nonlinear methods
to apply the notion of gain schedulin<g.The
methods, performance measures, design intui- will be local as well. That is, the assumptions
first step is to linearize the model about one or
tion, and computational tools can be brought required for global application of, say, feed-
more operating points (also called set points,
to bear on control design for general, multi- back linearization seldom will be satisfied by
equilibrium points, or operating conditions).
variable nonlinear systems. For example, fre- complex, practical design problems. In any
Then linear design methods are applied to the q u e n c y - d o m a i n n o t i o n s , or q u a d r a t i c case, application of gain scheduling to com-
linearized model at each operating point in performance indices, can be used in specify- plex design problems can lead to a large
order to arrive at a set of linear feedback ing performance, and output-feedback control simulation burden.
control laws that perform satisfactorily when techniques can be used, while of course these
the closed-loop system is operated near the tools are much less well understood in an Toward a Framework
respective operating points. The final step is explicitly nonlinear setting. Also, modern It should be clear that gain scheduling
the actual gain scheduling, which is intended methods of robust design for linear systems yields a closed-loop system that is nonlinear,
to handle the nonlinear aspects of the design can be applied to counter uncertainty in the at least in the scheduling variables. Interest-
problem. The basic idea involves interpolating plant parameters, with the expectation, or at ingly enough, given the wide application of
the linear control law designs at intermediate least hope, that this robustness will be in- this approach, there has been very little study
operating conditions. That is, a scheme is herited by the final gain-scheduled design. of gain scheduling as a nonlinear control
d e v i sed f o r c han g i ng (scheduling) t h e Other advantages include the fact that a method that derives from certain basic prin-
parameters (gains) in the linear control law gain-scheduled control system has the poten- ciples of nonlinear systems and control theory.
structure based on the monitored operating tial to respond rapidly to changing operating Indeed, there is scant information available in
condition. conditions, and that the real-time computa- the literature on gain scheduling from any
Usually the model is arranged so that the tional burden typically is within modern point of view. An elementary introduction to
operating condition is specified by the values capabilities. However, these significant ad- gain scheduling is provided in [ 1, ch. 91, along
of one or more exogenous signals, or vari- vantages are partly offset by some difficulties. with references to some particular applica-
ables, and the gains are scheduled according One difficulty is the selection of ap- tions. A conceptual viewpoint involving al-
to the instantaneous values of these schedul- propriate scheduling variables. General char- gebraic representations is advanced in [2]. The
ing variables. Of course, this description is acterizations and prescriptions have not been recent doctoral dissertation [3] contains an
simplified - sometimes an internal variable particularly useful, except for rules of thumb analysis of gain scheduling from the perspec-
also is used for scheduling, or perhaps a vari- such as "schedule on a slow variable." In tive of robust, linear stability theory. Gain
able from another 'channel' of the design that practice, scheduling variable selection usually scheduling is discussed from a viewpoint
was decoupled for reasons of simplicity. In is based on the "physics" of the situation, and similar to that here in [4]. However there are
fact, usually the exogenous variables would be on particular characteristics of the model. important differences in the formulation, par-
state variables in a more complete model of Perhaps the major difficulty in gain- ticularly relating to the specification of "trim"
the situation, but the more complete model is scheduling design is the selection of the conditions. Finally, it should be noted that
scheduling procedure, that is, the program by results from research in 'families of linear
which control-law gains are changed as a systems' can have application in a gain-
Presented at the American Control Con- function of the scheduling variables. This scheduling context. See, for example, the sur-
ference. M a y 23 - 25, 1990, San Diego, aspect is seldom discussed in the literature, but vey in [ 5 ] . However, the focus on global
California. Wilson J . Rirgh is with the Depart- it appears that scheduling currently is an art, results, and on the algebraic nature of the
ment of Electrical & Computer Engineering. and simple curve-fitting approaches are used. parameter dependence, are not particularly
The Johns Hopkins University.Baltimore. M D In fact, linear interpolation seems to be the relevant in typical gain-scheduling problems.
21218. This ~ " was 4 sponsosed by the Air standard method. However, with the introduc-
Force Ofice of Scienti5c. Research, Air For-<,e tion, and increasing adoption, of more power- The objective in developing an analytical
Systems Command. USAF. ful techniques for robust, multivariable, linear framework for gain scheduling is to make use

January I99 I 0272-1708/91/0100-0079 $01.00 0 1991 IEEE 79


of modem nonlinear control theory to better constant output given by y ( t ) = y(w). Further- whose coefficients are smooth, real-valued
understand the approach, and to study ways more, the linearized closed-loop system about functions of w .
to alleviate the difficulties outlined above. For each constant operating point should be A number of technicalities are eased by
example, even in the linear design phase there asymptotically stable, with specified eigen- addressing the regulator problem in a local
are features, such as the choice of control law values. To be more specific, the existence of fashion. It is convenient to assume that the
structure, that impact the scheduling phase, such a closed-loop constant operating point plant, output trim, and control law satisfy the
and these features need to be uncovered, and for each w can be stated as the requirement that respective conditions
explained in detail. In any case, at a minimum, there exist smooth functions x ( w ) and u ( w )
an analytical framework should indicate sour- such that f(0.0.0)=0
ces of difficulties when a particular gain- 0 = f ( x ( w ) , u ( w ) ,w )
scheduled design does not work well. h (0,0,O) = 0
The proposed framework for gain schedul- u ( w ) = k ( x ( w ) ,w )
ing will be illustrated in the context of a rela-
tively simple control problem: the regulator y(w) = h ( x ( w ) , u ( w ) , w ) , (3)
problem with state feedback. Space limita- k (0,O) = 0. (9)
tions prevent the consideration of more com- T h e n f o r e a c h w the corresponding
plicated problems, for instance, linearized closed-loop system can be written That is, both the open-loop and closed-loop
reference-input tracking, and disturbance in the form systems have nominal operating points at
rejection, or consideration of output feedback zero. We then impose the requirements of the
control laws. These problems are important, .i-&(r)= A(W).\.b(r) + B ( W ) U ~ +
( / E) ( w ) M * ~ ( / ) regulator problem for all w E r, where l- is an
but it appears that there are lessons to be open neighborhood of the origin in R". Fur-
leamed even in the simplest setting. Also, the ~g(t=
) Ki(W).\.6(t) + K:(W)M.6(t) thermore, it is convenient to retain the same
discussion at the outset will be in terms of what symbol r for various local arguments, in effect
might be called idealized gain scheduling in yg(t)= C(w)s,(r)+ D ( W ) U g ( f ) + F ( W ) M . , ( f ) permitting r to be made smaller without com-
that a linearized design will be performed for ment. Though this local framework is adopted
every constant operating point in a certain for simplicity of general considerations, often
range, rather than at a discrete set of operating Here the deviation variables are given by specific examples can be solved in a nonlocal
points. Less idealized gain scheduling for- fashion.
mulations will be addressed later. X6(/) = X(t) - x ( w ) , 1 4 6 ( / ) = u(r) - u ( w ) The standing assumptions we will make on
Regulator Problem: Static Feedback the plant are easily motivated. In order to
M.*(f) = M'(t) - w , ?.a(/) = y ( / ) -y(w) achieve a specified trim condition, it will be
We consider a plant described by
assumed that
the linearized plant coefficients by
4=f'(.r(t), u ( t ) , M ' ( f ) )

j ( f ) = h ( x ( t ) ,U(/),~ ' ( t ) ) ,t 2 0 (1)


A ( ~=)aji a.r(x(w), W)

B ( w ) = aji d u ( x ( w ) , u ( w ) , w ) That is, the plant linearization at zero has no


where.r(r) is the n-dimensional state, U(/)is the
transmission zeroes at zero. For then applica-
m-dimensional plant input, ~ ( t is ) the p- E ( ~=)aji aM~(x(w), w) tion of the implicit function theorem to
dimensional plant output, and M' ( t ) is the
q-dimensional, exogenous scheduling vari- C ( w )= a h / d S ( X ( W ) , U(W), w)
able. For convenience, the functions f and h ph(x,u,w)
+ 3 w ) ] = [y("-,] (11)
are assumed to be smooth, that is, continuous- D ( w )= ah/ du(x(w),U ( W ) , w )
ly differentiable any number of times.
gives existence of an open neighborhood r of
We assume also that there is a given or4rput F(W)= ah/ dM'(X(W), U ( W ) , W )
the origin in R" and smooth functions x (M')
rrim condirion specified by y(w), a smooth
and U ( w ) such that for WE l-,
function that represents, for each constant and the linearized control law coefficients by
value w of the scheduling variable M f t ) , the
desired, constant operating point valuey(w) of
the output y(f). For example, if the outputs in
( I ) are error variables, then the obvious choice
is y(w) = 0.
The objective in the regulator problem is It is easy to see that in terms of the closed- Indeed, for the sequel it will be assumed that
to compute a control law of the form loop linearization in (4), the stability require- x ( w ) and u ( w ) satisfying (12) on some neigh-
ment is that borhood r have been determined.
In order to achieve eigenvalue placement
in the closed-loop linearization, it will be as-
where k is a smooth function, such that the sumed that the linearization of the plant about
closed-loop system has the following proper- should have desired, negative-real-part eigen- zero is controllable, that is,
ties. At each constant value of the scheduling values for each w . Of course, to avoid
variable, w ( t ) = w , the closed-loop system trivialities it is required that the desired eigen-
should have a constant operating point with values be the roots of a degree-n polynomial

80 /€E€ Control Systems


This implies that there exists an open corresponding to WE r, putting w(t) = w and C ( w ) = [ 1 01
neighborhood r of the origin in @ such that Aft)= x( w ) in the right side of (18) gives U (w).
the linearized plant about any W E l- is control- Also, an obvious differentiation gives D ( w ) = F(w) = 0
lable. Therefore the eigenvalue placement re-
quirement for (8) can be satisfied for each It is straightforward to check that the assump-
W E T by choice of K l ( w ) . tions are satisfied. Choosing to place the
The control law construction for the and evaluation at U'= w gives the first condi- closed-loop linearization eigenvalues both at
regulator problem now proceeds as follows. tion in ( 1 5 ) . Checking the remaining condition - 2, regardless of w , leads to
The first step is to compute a smooth K l ( w ) in (1 5) can become a bit fussy for notational
such that the eigenvalue condition for (8) is reasons, but the differentiation basically goes
satisfied for each value of w . In the single- according to
input case, local existence of a smooth Kl(w) and then (17) gives K2(w)= 3. Thus the gain
scheduled control law (18) in this case is
is clear from standard formulas for eigen-
value-placement gains. Then in the multi-
i n p u t c a s e , l o c a l s m o o t h n e s s of t h e
u(r) = .x,(t) + (-3-e-""')x2(t)
eigenvalue-placement gain can be argued via
Heymann's Lemma.
+ (3+e-""')w(t) + e?"' - I
It now remains to specify K2(w), the de-
Perhaps the most important question to be
pendence of the control law on the scheduling
asked is whether the gain-scheduled control
variable, and then to compute a nonlinear
Evaluating at M' = w , x = x ( w ) , and using (17) law derived above - based as it is on linearized
feedback law (2) such that, from (3) and (7),
gives Kz(w). data - provides stability in any significant
the conditions
At this point it should be emphasized again sense for the nonlinear closed-loop system.
that &(w) is fixed by (17) and the K i ( w ) that That is, can more be said than the obvious
yields the desired eigenvalues. Of course, K2(w) conclusion that the closed-loop system will be
will directly influencethe response of the closed- stable when operated in a sufficiently-small
loop regulator to the scheduling signal, as is clear neighborhood of a fixed operating point? The
from inspection of the linearized closed-loop answer is affirmative, under the natural as-
system (4). Therefore the lack of freedom to sumption that the scheduling variable is slow-
are satisfied for each WE r. It should be clear adjust K2(w) can be a significant constraint on ly varying in a particular average sense.
that K?(w)is not arbitrary. In fact, differentiat- overall regulator behavior. 2. Theorem: Suppose r is bounded and
ing (14) with respect to w gives the relation Next we introduce a simple example that K l ( w )is smooth, and such that the eigenvalues
will be carried through the paper to illustrate ofA(w) + B(w)Kl(w)have real parts less than
calculations. some E < 0 for all WE r. Then given positive
I . Example: Consider the plant given by constants p and Tthere exist positive constants
Since K2(w) is the only free quantity in this 61(p) and &(p,T) for which the following
expression, it is necessary to choose S I =-x - .\-2 + M' holds. If w(rL t 2 0, is continuously differenti-
able and such that
X 2 - -I-e-' +U

in order to be able to satisfy ( 1 4).


v = .Yl
Now that the parameterized linear gains I1 .r(O) - x(w(0)) II < 6,
Ki(w)andK2(w) havebeen fixed, it isnothard
For the output trim condition y(w) = 0, the
to show that there are many nonlinear control
plant's family of operating points is given by
laws of the form (2) that satisfy (14) and (IS).
One of the simplest in form, and the one of
interest here, is then
II s ( t ) - X(M(t))ll < p , f 1 0 (22)
u(t) = k(,r(t),Mq)) and
u(w) =-1 + e-y I1 y ( t ) - y(w(r))ll < p , f 1 0 (23 )
with r taken to be the real line. Then an easy The proof of this result is a straightforward
calculation shows that the coefficients of the cor-
application of the Hoppensteadt-Kelemen
responding plant linearization family are
stability theorem as discussed in [6].
This control law comprises a linear state feed- In addition to providing existence of solu-
back term, and a 'bias' term, each of which is tions for the gain-scheduled closed loop sys-
scheduled by instantaneous values of the tem, this result indicates that for a
scheduling variable. Note that while K 2 ( w ) slowly-varying scheduling variable, the state
does not explicitly appear in ( 1 8). it does play
a role in the verification that (18) satisfies (14)
B(w)= [ :] and output values do not deviate far from their
instantaneous trim values x ( w ( t ) ) and y(w(t)),
a n d ( 1 5 ) . In fact, this verification is - - respectively. Furthermore, an easy corollary to
straightforward. At the operating condition the proof gives that the additional hypothesis

January I99 I 81
w(t) -+ W E r as t 4 00 yields x(f) -+ x ( w ) and In fact, we can choose an arbitrary, smooth (27) that K 3 ( w ) # 0 for WE^. Therefore, in
y ( t ) --i, y ( w ) as t 4 w. function z ( w ) , and let this choice fix K 2 ( w ) as addition to the eigenvalue placement, K ~ ( w )
per (29). Then a natural solution is provided can be chosen to improve regulator response
Regulator Problem: to the scheduling signal.
by the gain scheduled control law
Dynamic Feedback Example 3: For the plant in Example 1, the
It tums out that even in the simple regulator scalar, integral-error compensator takes the
problem there are advantages to using form
dynamic state feedback. It is natural to con-
sider smooth feedback control laws of the Z(f) = y(t)
form
Placing the three linearized, closed-loop
u ( f ) = k ( x ( t ) , w(t), z ( f ) ) system eigenvalues at - 2, regardless of W ,
leads to
(Verification of (25) and (26) is quite similar
to the static feedback case.) Again, this control
Obviously ; ( f ) is thep-dimensional state of
law includes terms linear in the plant and
an integral-error compensator.
compensator states, with a rather complicated-
In this setting, the requirement that the
looking bias term (though there is no reason,
closed-loop system ( I ) , (24) has an operating
at this point, to pick a nonzero function z(w).
point with operating-point output y ( w ) for
Each of these terms is scheduled by the instan-
each w(t) = W E r reduces to the existence of
taneous value of the scheduling variable,
a smooth function z ( w ) such that
while the compensator simply integrates the
error between the actual output and the instan-
taneous trim value.
Also, the requirement that the correspond- Theorem 2 can be applied to show that the
ing closed-loop linearization has specified, closed-loop system (I), (30) has stability
negative-real-part eigenvalues, for each W E r, properties of the same type as in the static
can be described as follows. Let feedback case. The interest here is on the
additional properties provided by the dynamic
Kl(W) = ak/ax(x(w),w , z ( w ) ) control law, and one is a basic robustness
property that can be described as follows.
Suppose the plant (1) undergoes a local
perturbation. resulting in a perturbation of the
operating point functions x ( w ) and u ( w ) , as
well as a perturbation of the linearized plant
Then the eigenvalues of the closed-loop coefficients A ( w ) , B(w). and so on. Assuming
linearized system are the eigenvalues of the that these perturbations are such that (27)
(n+ p) x (n+ p ) matrix retains negative-real-part eigenvalues for W E r,
the perturbed closed-loop operating point
family will remain asymptotically stable. At
such an operating point, corresponding to a
particular value of w , :(t) has a constant value,
For each WE^, these eigenvalues can be though a value that is perturbed from the
placed as desired, by choice of (smooth) K , ( w ) original z(w). In any case, from (24). since z ( t )
and K l ( w ) , since one consequence of the is constant and ~ f t =j w , the corresponding
standing assumptions is that operating point output is forced to be the con-
stant y ( w ) . This argument shows that the
integral-error compensator provides robust-
ness of the output trim in the face of small
plant perturbat ions.
is a controllable pair. Another advantage of a dynamic control
It remains todefineK2(w) andz(w), and then law is that the constraint that ties K 2 ( w ) to
compute a smooth k (x, MI, -7) such that (25) and K l ( w ) in the case of static control laws some-
(26) are satisfied. As in the static feedback case, times can be relaxed. While more detailed .Y,,(t)
the key to this is to note that differentiation of study is needed, it is clear that the integral-
(25) implies, upon using (26). error compensator (24) permits this in certain .?(I) = '
(31)
cases. For example, if m = q = 1 (scalar plant
K,(w)dx(w)l a w + Kz(w)+ Ki(w)az(w)/aw input and scheduling variable), then (29) can X!,,(t)
be satisfied for independently specified K i ( w ) ,
K2(w), and K 3 ( w ) by choice of : ( w ) since it
follows from the eigenvalue requirement on

82 /E€
Control Systems
- Kz(P'($(t)))3'($(t)) a set of state feedback gains such that each A
(w,, ) + B ( w f )Ki(wf ) , p = 1 ,..., P, has the
- K,(:~'($(t)))z(:~'(~:(r),)] desired eigenvalues. Then, in terms of devia-
tion variables, near the operating condition
i ( t )= v(t) -y(:-'($(f))) (34) specified by w,, the linear state feedback con-
trol law
for which the function $ ( w ) is invertible. Then In contrast to (30)this control law is linear in
at any operating point, knowledge of the con- w ( t ) and z(t), though typically a complicated,
stant state value i(~) is equivalent to nonlinear function of x ( t ) .
knowledge of the constant value of the Sometimes more can be done. For ex- is to be used. Using the relations ug(f)= u(t) -
scheduling variable w . Since gain scheduling ample, in the case of a single input, single U ( w , ) a n d a s ( t ) = . u ( t ) - x ( w , ) , thecontrol law
is based solely on operating point considera- output, and a single scheduling variable, m = in terms of the original plant variables has the
tions, it follows that the instantaneous values p = 4 = 1, (29) can be satisfied by setting form of a linear state feedback component and
of $ ( f ) can be used for scheduling. a constant bias:
Pursuit of this notion can lead to many K?(w ) = 0
different nonlinear control laws that satisfy the
requisite operating-point and linearization re-
quirements. Again, the most natural choice Of course (37) is simply an evaluation of (18)
from a scheduling viewpoint can be written as at the appropriate, constant value of the
scheduling variable, which is the reason that
(18) was chosen in the first place.
u(t) = K l ( 2 ( $ ( t ) ) X ( f ) + K&2(t))M.(t) r (35)
For intermediate operating conditions, the
Then the surrogate-scheduled control law set of control laws in (37) is scheduled (inter-
(34) is independent of the scheduling variable, polated). That is, functions k l ( w ) and & w )
(33) and appears as simply a nonlinear, dynamic are computed - often by linear interpolation -
state feedback control law! In other words, the such that
where again there are linear gains that place gain scheduling is completely implicit, and kI(,,
= K,(w,)
the linearized closed-loop eigenvalues, and a measurements of the scheduling variables are
bias term, all depending on the instantaneous not required. &wJ = u(w,) - Kl(w,)x(w,)
value of the components of ,?(t). Note, in com-
parison with ( 1 8), that this control law is linear 5.€.iumple: With K i ( w ) and K3(w) as in p = 1 , ... , P (38)
in the scheduling variable, but typically is a Example 3, ( 3 5 )gives
rather complicated, nonlinear function of the and then the gain-scheduled control law
state. Verification of (14) and (15) in this case K2(W) = 0 . z ( w ) = swig
takes a little more work. While (14) and the
second part of (15) are easy (since at the The corresponding control law (34) is
is used. Notice that at intermediate operating
o p e r a t i n g p o i n t w , :-'($(t)) becomes
A A conditions neither the output trim nor the
x-'(x(w)) = w ) , the verification of the first part
linearized closed-loop eigenvalues will be
of (15) is a lengthy exercise in the chain rule.
:(t) = J ( t ) correct in the typical case.
One approach to improving the situation is
4. E.uample: Returning to Example 1, since Less-Idealized Gain Scheduling
to make use of additional plant information. In
x2(w) = w , an obvious choice for surrogate, In a realistic design setting, the informa- many settings it is not difficult to obtain the
internal-variable scheduling is 2?(f)=.vl(t). tion available about the plant often is much operating point functions U ( w ) and x ( w ) in
Then ;-'($(r)) = x2(t), and substituting the more limited than that assumed so far. For consonance with the giveny ( w ) .Then it clear-
various computed quantities from Example 1 example, suppose that from the given trim ly makes sense to interpolate the state feed-
into (33) with this argument change gives the conditiony ( w ) . only a set of distinct operating back gain values only. For having determined
control law points is computed - perhaps from experi- k i ( w ) , the control law
ments on a simulation. Furthermore, suppose
that the only additional plant information is U ( ? ) = kI(M'(t))X(t)
the set of plant linearization coefficient
Exactly the same considerations can be matrices at these distinct operating p i n t s . We + [U(Mft)) - kx(Mff))x(Nf))] (40)
applied in the dynamic control law case, where assume, of course, that the standing assump-
the general form for a surrogate-scheduled tions are satisfied at these operating condi- will provide the correct output trim at both the
control becomes tions. design and intermediate operating conditions.
To be specific, suppose that corresponding (Simplyevaluate(40)atw(t)=w , s ( t ) = x ( w ) . )
to the distinct values w l , . . . . w p of t h e However, the eigenvalue locations at inter-
scheduling variable, the available information mediate operating conditions remain incor-
is the set of coefficient matrices A(w,, ), B(w,,). rect, in general.
E(w,, A C(wP ), D ( w p 1, and F(wP )for p = Another course of action, one that does not
1 ,.... P. and the valuesx (w,, )and U (w,, ).p = require more plant information, is to use an
1 ,..., P. This information suffices to compute integral-error compensator to correct the output

Januaw I99 I 83
trim. First compute Ki(w,)andK~(w,)toplace servations can be extracted in summary form, References
the eigenvalues of (27) at desired locations for and put into the gap. I, I .I K.J. Astrom. B. Wittenmark. Adontire Control.
the operating points wi ,...,w p Then these two Potentially the most important observation is Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading. MA,
sets of gains can be interpolated to obtain kl(w) that dependent gains should not be scheduled Chapter 9. 1989.
and k3(w). Also the bias term in ( 3 0 ) can be independently. For example the bias term 121 M.K. Sain. S. Yurkovtch, "Controller Scheduling:
interpolated to obtain &w) such that should be scheduled in terms of the scheduled A Possible Algebraic Viewpoint," A-oceedin,qrofthe
eigenvalue-placement gain, and the functions Americuii Control Confereiic.e, pp. 261 - 269. 1982.
&wp) = u(w,) - Kdw,)x(w,) - K4wp)z(w,) describing the operating point variation. . 131 J.S. Shamma, "Analysis and Design of Gain-
Even for the simple state-feedback regulator Scheduled Control Systems," PhD Thesis, Depar-
problem. the use of integral-error feedback in ment of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts
nstitute of Technology, May, 1988.
the linear control law designs at fixed operat-
ing points can provide usehl performance 14)W.T. Baumann. "Discrete-Time Control of Con-
The corresponding control law, based on (30). tinuous-Time Nonlinear Systems," Proceedinp of
properties when incorporated into the gain
the Coiifrrriir.e on lrformution Sciences urid Sys-
scheduling. These include robustness proper-
tenis, Baltimore. MD, pp. 119 - 124, 1989.
ties. and also freedom to independently
[SI E.D. Sontag, "An Introduction to the Stabiliza-
specify various terms in the control law.
~ ( r =) y ( r ) - y ( M ' ( r ) ) (42) tion Problem for Parameterized Families of Linear
In some cases - see Example 4 - a nonlinear Systems." ContemporuryMathematics, Vol. 47, pp.
again will supply the correct output trim value control law can be found that satisfies the re- 369 - 399. 19x5.
at intermediate operating coriditions. How- quirements of a gain scheduled control law, but 161 D.A. Lawrence, W.J. Rugh, "On a Stability
ever the eigenvalue locations of the linearized that does not depend explicitly on the scheduling Theorem for Nonlinear Systems with Slowly-Vary-
closed-loop system at intermediate operating variable. This issue of so-called surrogate ing Inputs,'' IEEE Trcrrisactionson Automatic Con-
conditions typically remain incorrect. In any scheduling isone thing that makes gain schedul- trol, Vol. 35,No. 7. pp. 860 - 864, 1990.
case, trim correction at intermediate operating ing difficult to pin down from a theoretical [71 W.T. Baumann, W.J. Rugh, "Feedback Control
conditions again provides an important reason perspective. On the other hand, implementing a of Nonlinear Systems by Extended Linearization."
to consider dynamic feedback. gain-scheduled control law in part by sut~ogate IEEE Tr-umac~rioiis oii Automatic Control, Vol. AC-

scheduling may be advantageous. 31.No. I . p p . 4 0 - 4 6 . 1986.


6. Remark: Of c o m e there is another ap-
proach: interpolate the plant data to obtain As indicated by Theorem 2, it can be shown [ X I J. Wang, W.J. Rugh. "Feedback Linearization
approximate linearized plant coefficients that the instantaneous output error of the Families for Nonlinear Systems." IEEE Tran.suc.-
a(,), &w). i(w),and i(w).From this infor- closed-loop. gain-scheduled system is tiotis o,lAirtomati~.CoIitr(~/.
935 - 940. 1987.
Vol. AC-32, NO. IO, pp.

mation a parameterized gain Rl(w) can be driven by the time-derivative of the


scheduling variable. i f f ) . This raises the 191J. Huang, W.J. Rugh, "On a Nonlinear Multivar-
computed as in idealized gain scheduling, and
able Servomechanism Problem," Auromatic,o.
the control law issue of choosing feedback gains both for
November, 1990.
stability and for rejection of the
u(r) = RI(M'(t))X(t) 'disturbance' M f f ) in order to preserve per-
Wilson J. Rugh received
formance under scheduling-variable varia-
the B.S. degree in electri-
+p ( r ) ) - Rl(N4r))i(M~(r))] (43) tion. However. it should be noted that this cal engineering from The
is a disturbance rejection problem for a Pennsylvania State Uni-
applied. The inaccuracy in the plant data at time-varying system. versity in 1965, and the
intermediate operating conditions implies that From a theoretical viewpoint it is not clear that M.S. and Ph.D.degrees in
neither the trim nor the eigenvalue objectives scheduling (interpolating) a control law from electrical engineering
will be satisfied. Therefore it seems desirable individual linear control laws at isolated from Northwestern Uni-
operating conditions always is superior to versity in 1967 and 1969,
to use the dynamic feedback law, which re-
respectively.
quires the interpolated plant coefficients w ) & interpolating the plant data and computing the
Since 1969 he has been on the faculty of The Johns
and b(w). In any case, the trade-offs between corresponding, continuously-parameterized Hopkin? University. where currently he is Professor
plant interpolation and control law interpola- control law in idealized gain scheduling. in the Department of Electrical and Computer En-
tion are unclear at this point, and deserve study. gineering. Professor Rugh has held visiting posi-
Finally. it is worth noting that design by tions at Princeton University. and Beijing Institute
Conclusions gain scheduling does not fit neatly into any of of Technology. He has verved as an associate editor
What is most striking about gain schedul- the standard categories of control-theoretic of the IEEE Trunsoc,tinnson Automatic,Control. and
ing is that, while it is ever-more widely used problems The exogenous scheduling signal currently is an associate editor of Mat/iniatic,s atid
in practice, it has been largely ignored from a must be attended to - either directly. or in- Coiiti-ol.Si,qiiu/s, und S\.stenis. For several years he
theoretical perspective. I n particular. it directly - but it is not to be estimated, tracked. has scrved on the Board of Govemors of the IEEE
Control Systems Society. and currently is Secretary-
remains unstudied as an explicitly nonlinear decoupled. or rejected. Perspectives and tech-
Administrator of the Society. He is the author of
control approach. So, i t seems that gain niques from standard control problems clearly
numerous research ankles, and the books Marhe-
scheduling is another example of the lamented can be applied in the gain scheduling context, mutic.ul Desc~ri~ltori ofLliiear Swenis (Marcel Dek-
theory/application gap - but in this case ap- yet there is something different about the over- ker. New York, 1975). Noiilinecrr Sysrem Thenry:
plication is ahead of theory! In the context of all design problem. Ofcourse, this observation Thp VolrerizriWierier Approuc./i (Johns Hopkins
the framework proposed in this paper for the is merely philosophical. and useful implica- Press. Baltimore. 1981). His research interests are
basic regulator problem. a few theoretical ob- tions remain to be demonstrated. in nonlinear control and system theory.

84 /€€E Control Systems

You might also like