eece 460 - decentralized control of mimo systems...ubclogo eece 460 decentralized control of mimo...

32
ubclogo EECE 460 Decentralized Control of MIMO Systems Guy A. Dumont Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of British Columbia January 2012 Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 1 / 32

Upload: others

Post on 19-Jan-2020

16 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

ubclogo

EECE 460Decentralized Control of MIMO Systems

Guy A. Dumont

Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of British Columbia

January 2012

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 1 / 32

ubclogo

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Decentralized ControlExample

3 Pairing of Inputs and OutputsRelative Gain ArrayRobustness Issues

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 2 / 32

ubclogo

Introduction

Introduction

In the case of SISO control, we found that one could use a wide varietyof synthesis methods. Some of these carry may over directly to theMIMO case.

However, there are several complexities that arise in MIMO situations.For this reason, it is often desirable to use synthesis procedures that arein some sense automated.

Full MIMO control design is the topic of advanced control courses.

In this course we investigate when, if ever, SISO techniques can beapplied to MIMO problems directly.We will study

Decentralized control as a mechanism for directly exploiting SISOmethods in a MIMO settingRobustness issues associated with decentralized control.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 3 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control

Completely Decentralized Control

Before proceeding to a fully interacting multivariable design, it is oftenuseful to check on whether a completely decentralized design canachieve the desired performance objectives.When applicable, the advantage of a completely decentralized controller,compared to a full MIMO controller, is that it

is often simpler to understandis often easier to maintaincan be enhanced in a straightforward fashion in case of a plant upgrade.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 4 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control

Decentralized Control

Exposure to practical control reveals that a substantial proportion ofreal-world systems utilize decentralized architectures.

Thus, one is led to ask the question, is there ever a situation in whichdecentralized control will not yield a satisfactory solution?

In Chapter 22 of the textbook several real-world examples that requireMIMO thinking to get a satisfactory solution are presented.

As a textbook example of where decentralized control can break down,consider the following MIMO example.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 5 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control Example

Example

Consider a two-input, two-output plant having the transfer function

G0(s) =[

G011(s) G0

12(s)G0

21(s) G022(s)

]

G011(s) =

2s2 +3s+2

G012(s) =

k12

s+1

G021(s) =

k21

s2 +2s+1G0

22(s) =6

s2 +5s+6

Assume that k12 and k21 depend on the operating point (a commonsituation, in practice).

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 6 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control Example

Example

Operating point 1 (k12 = k21 = 0)

Clearly, there is no interaction at this operating point.Thus, we can safely design two SISO controllers. To be specific, say weaim for the following complementary sensitivities:

T01(s) = T02(s) =9

s2 +4s+9

The corresponding controller transfer functions are C1(s) and C2(s),where

C1(s) =4.5(s2 +3s+2

)s(s+4)

; C2(s) =1.5(s2 +5s+6

)s(s+4)

The two independent loops perform as predicted by the choice ofcomplementary sensitivities.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 7 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control Example

Example

Operating point 2 (k12 = k21 = 0.1)

We leave the controller as previously designed for operating point 1. Weapply a unit step in the reference for output 1 at t = 1 and a unit step inthe reference for output 2 at t = 10.

The closed-loop response is shown on the next slide.

The results would probably be considered very acceptable, even thoughthe effects of coupling are now evident in the response.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 8 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control Example

Example

Figure: Effects of weak interaction in control loops with SISO design.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 9 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control Example

Example

Operating point 3 (k12 =−1,k21 = 0.5)

With the same controllers and for the same test as used at operating point2, we obtain the results on the next slide.

We see that a change in the reference in one loop now affects the outputin the other loop significantly.

In a real application, those results would probably not be acceptable.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 10 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control Example

Example

Figure: Effects of strong interaction in control loops with SISO design.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 11 / 32

ubclogo

Decentralized Control Example

Example

Operating point 4 (k12 =−2,k21 =−1)

Now a simulation with the same reference signals indicates that thewhole system becomes unstable.

We see that the original SISO design has become unacceptable at thisfinal operating point.

The strong interactions need to be accounted for in the control design

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 12 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs

If one is to use a decentralized architecture, then one needs to pair theinputs and outputs in the best possible way.

In the case of an m×m plant transfer function, there are m! possiblepairings.

However, physical insight can often be used to suggest sensible pairings.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 13 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

RGA: A Simple Example

One method that can be used to suggest pairings is a quantity known asthe Relative Gain Array (RGA).

Consider a simple 2×2 system

y1 = K11u1 +K12u2

y2 = K21u1 +K22u2

Assume we want to control y1 with u1.

When the other loop is open, i.e. u2 = 0, we have y1 = K11u1

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 14 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Now consider the situation when the other loop provides perfect control,i.e. y2 = 0. This happens when

u2 =−K21u1

K22

We then have

y1 =

[K11−

K21

K22K12

]u1

This means that closing the other loop has changed the gain between y1and u1. The gain change is characterized by the ratio

λ11 =1

1− K12K21K11K22

Intuitively, for decentralized control, we prefer to pair variables uj and yi

so that λij is close to 1, because this means that the gain from uj to yi isunaffected by closing the other loops.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 15 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Relative Gain Array

For a system with matrix transfer function G0(s), the RGA is defined asa matrix Λ with the ijth element

λij = [G0(0)]ij[G−1

0 (0)]

ji

where [G0(0)]ij and[G−1

0 (0)]

ji denote the ijth element of the plant d.c.gain and the jith element of the inverse of the d.c. gain matrixrespectively.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 16 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

RGA

Note that [G0(0)]ij corresponds to the d.c. gain from the ith input, ui, tothe jth output, yj, while the rest of the inputs, u1 for1 ∈ {1, 2, . . . , i−1, i+1, . . . , m} are kept constant.

Also[G−1

0

]ij is the reciprocal of the d.c. gain from the ith input, ui, to the

jth output, yj, while the rest of the outputs, y1 for1 ∈ {1, 2, . . . , j−1, j+1, . . . , m} are kept constant.

Thus, the parameter λij provides an indication of how sensible it is to pairthe ith input with the jth output.

One usually aims to pick pairings such that the diagonal entries of Λ arelarge. One also tries to avoid pairings that result in negative diagonalentries in Λ.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 17 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

RGA Example

Consider again the system

G0(s) =

2s2+3s+2

k12s+1

k21s2+2s+1

6s2+5s+6

The RGA is then

Λ =

11−k12k21

−k12k211−k12k21

−k12k211−k12k21

11−k12k21

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 18 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

RGA Example

For 1 > k12 > 0, 1 > k21 > 0, the RGA suggests the pairing (u1, y1),(u2, y2).

We recall from our earlier study of this example that this pairing workedvery well for k12 = k21 = 0.1 and quite acceptably fork12 =−1, k21 = 0.5.

In the latter case, the RGA is

Λ =13

[2 11 2

]

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 19 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

RGA Example

However, for k12 =−2, k21 =−1 we found that the centralizedcontroller based on the pairing (u1, y1), (u2, y2) was actually unstable.

The corresponding RGA in this case is

Λ =

[−1 22 −1

]which indicates that we probably should have changed to the pairing(u1, y2), (u2, y1).

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 20 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Frequency-Dependent RGA

The frequency-dependent RGA Λ(s) is defined as

λij(s) = [G0(s)]ij[G−1

0 (s)]

ji

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 21 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Frequency-Dependent RGA

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 22 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Quadruple-tank Apparatus

Consider the quadruple-tank apparatus shown below.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 23 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Quadruple-tank Apparatus

Recall that this system has an approximate transfer function,

G(s) =

3.71γ162s+1

3.7(1−γ2)(23s+1)(62s+1)

4.7(1−γ1)(30s+1)(90s+1)

4.7γ290s+1

The RGA for this system is

Λ =

[λ 1−λ

1−λ λ

]where λ =

γ1γ2

γ1γ2−1

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 24 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Quadruple-tank Apparatus

For 1 < γ1 + γ2 < 2, we recall from a previous lecture that the system isminimum phase. If we take, for example, γ1 = 0.7 and γ2 = 0.6, then theRGA is

Λ =

[1.4 −0.4−0.4 1.4

]This suggests that we can pair (u1, y1) and (u2, y2).Because the system is of minimum phase, the design of a decentralizedcontroller is relatively easy in this case. For example, the followingdecentralized controller gives the results shown on the next slide.

C1(s) = 3(

1+1

10s

); C2(s) = 2.7

(1+

120s

)Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 25 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Quadruple-tank Apparatus

Figure: Decentralized control of a minimum-phase four-tank system.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 26 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Quadruple-tank Apparatus

For 0 < γ1 + γ2 < 1, we recall from a previous lecture that the system isnonminimum phase. If we take, for example γ1 = 0.43 and γ2 = 0.34,then the system has a NMP zero at s = 0.0229, and the relative gain arraybecomes

Λ =

[−0.64 1.641.64 −0.64

]This suggests that (y1, y2) should be commuted for the purposes ofdecentralized control. This is physically reasonable, given the flowpatterns produced in this case. This leads to a new RGA of

Λ =

[1.64 −0.64−0.64 1.64

]

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 27 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Relative Gain Array

Quadruple-tank Apparatus

Note, however, that control will still be much harder than in theminimum-phase case. For example, the following decentralized controllersgive the results below.

C1(s) = 0.5(

1+1

30s

); C2(s) = 0.3

(1+

150s

)

Figure: Decentralized control of a nonminimum-phase four-tank system.Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 28 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Robustness Issues

Robustness Issues in Decentralized Control

One way to carry out a decentralized control design is to use a diagonalnominal model. The off-diagonal terms then represent under-modelling.Thus, we say we have a model G0(s), then the nominal model fordecentralized control could be chosen as

Gd0(s) = diag

{g0

11, . . . , g0mm(s)

}and the additive model error would be

G∈(s) = G0(s)−Gd0(s); G∆I(s) = G∈(s)

[Gd

0(s)]−1

A sufficient condition for robust stability is

σ (G∆1 (jω)T0 (jω))< 1 ∀ω ∈ R

where σ (G∆1 (jω)T0 (jω)) is the maximum singular value ofG∆1 (jω)T0 (jω).

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 29 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Robustness Issues

Example

Consider a MIMO system with

G(s) =

1

s+1 0.25 10s+1(s+1)(s+2)

0.25 10s+1(s+1)(s+2)

2s+2

; G0(s) =

1s+1 0

0 2s+2

We first observe that the RGA for the nominal model G0(s) is given by

Λ

[1.0159 −0.0159−0.0159 1.0159

]

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 30 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Robustness Issues

This value of the RGA might lead to the hypothesis that a correct pairingof inputs and outputs has been made and that the interaction is weak.

We thus proceed to do a decentralized design leading to a diagonalcontroller C(s) to achieve a complementary sensitivity T0(s), where

T0(s) =9

s2 +4s+9

[1 00 1

]; C(s) =

[ 9(s+1)s(s+4) 0

0 9(s+2)2s(s+4)

]

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 31 / 32

ubclogo

Pairing of Inputs and Outputs Robustness Issues

However, this controller, when applied to control the full plant G(s),leads to closed-loop poles located at −6.00, −2.49± j4.69, 0.23± j1.36,and −0.50 – an unstable closed loop!

The lack of robustness in this example can be traced to the fact that therequired closed-loop bandwidth includes a frequency range where theoff-diagonal frequency response is significant.

More sophisticated techniques are required to adequately control thissystem.

Guy A. Dumont (UBC EECE) EECE 460 - Decentralized Control January 2012 32 / 32