Advertisement

Equivalence of robust stabilization and robust performance via feedback

  • Joseph A. Ball
  • Quanlei Fang
  • Gilbert J. Groenewald
  • Sanne ter Horst
Original Article
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

One approach to robust control for linear plants with structured uncertainty as well as for linear parameter-varying plants (where the controller has on-line access to the varying plant parameters) is through linear-fractional-transformation models. Control issues to be addressed by controller design in this formalism include robust stability and robust performance. Here robust performance is defined as the achievement of a uniform specified L 2-gain tolerance for a disturbance-to-error map combined with robust stability. By setting the disturbance and error channels equal to zero, it is clear that any criterion for robust performance also produces a criterion for robust stability. Counter-intuitively, as a consequence of the so-called Main Loop Theorem, application of a result on robust stability to a feedback configuration with an artificial full-block uncertainty operator added in feedback connection between the error and disturbance signals produces a result on robust performance. The main result here is that this performance-to-stabilization reduction principle must be handled with care for the case of dynamic feedback compensation: casual application of this principle leads to the solution of a physically uninteresting problem, where the controller is assumed to have access to the states in the artificially-added feedback loop. Application of the principle using a known more refined dynamic-control robust stability criterion, where the user is allowed to specify controller partial-state dimensions, leads to correct robust-performance results. These latter results involve rank conditions in addition to linear matrix inequality conditions.

Keywords

Multidimensional linear systems Output feedback Robust stabilization Robust performance Linear fractional transformations Linear matrix inequalities 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apkarian P, Gahinet P (1995) A convex characterization of gain-scheduled H controllers. IEEE Trans Automat Control 40(5): 853–864MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ball JA, Groenewald G, Malakorn T (2006) Bounded real lemma for structured noncommutative multidimensional linear systems and robust control. Multidimensional Syst Signal Process 17: 119–150MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck CL (2001) On formal power series representations for uncertain systems. IEEE Trans Automat Control 46(2): 314–319MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck CL (2006) Coprime factors reduction methods for linear parameter varying and uncertain systems. Syst Control Lett 55: 199–213MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck CL, Doyle JC (1999) A necessary and sufficient minimality condition for uncertain systems. IEEE Trans Automat Control 44(10): 1802–1813MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck CL, Doyle JC, Glover K (1996) Model reduction of multidimensional and uncertain systems. IEEE Trans Automat Control 41(10): 1466–1477MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahleh M, Diaz-Bobillo IJ (1995) Control of uncertain systems: a linear programming approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dullerud GE, Paganini F (2000) A course in robust control theory: a convex approach. Texts in applied mathematics, vol 36. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    El Ghaoui L, Niculescu S-I (eds) (2000) Advances in linear matrix inequality methods in control. SIAM, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gahinet P, Apkarian P (1994) A linear matrix inequality approach to H control. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 4: 421–448MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Givone DD, Roesser RP (1972) Multidimensional linear iterative circuits—general properties. IEEE Trans Comput C-21: 1067–1073CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iwasaki T, Skelton RE (1994) All controllers for the general H control problem: LMI existence conditions and state space formulas. Automatica 30(8): 1307–1317MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li L, Paganini F (2005) Structured coprime factor model reduction based on LMIs. Automatica 41(1): 145–151MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lu W-M, Zhou K, Doyle JC (1991) Stabilization of LFT systems. In: Proceedings of 30th conference on decision and control, Brighton, pp 1239–1244Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu W-M, Zhou K, Doyle JC (1996) Stabilization of uncertain linear systems: an LFT approach. IEEE Trans Automat Control 41(1): 50–65MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Packard A (1994) Gain scheduling via linear fractional transformations. Syst Control Lett 22: 79–92MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paganini F (1996) Sets and Constraints in the Analysis of Uncertain Systems. Thesis submitted to California Institute of Technology, PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhou K, Doyle JC, Glover K (1996) Robust and optimal control. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph A. Ball
    • 1
  • Quanlei Fang
    • 2
  • Gilbert J. Groenewald
    • 3
  • Sanne ter Horst
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsState University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsNorth West UniversityPotchefstroomSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations