H-Optimal Control of Singularly Perturbed Systems with Sampled-State Measurement

  • Zigang Pan
  • Tamer Başar
Part of the Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games book series (AISDG, volume 1)

Abstract

One of the important recent developments in control theory has been the recognition of the close relationship that exists between H -optimal control problems, (originally formulated in the frequency domain [1] [2], and then extended to state space formulations [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]) and a class of linear-quadratic differential games [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], which has not only led to simpler derivations of existing results on the former, but also enabled us to develop worst-case (H -optimal) controllers under various information patterns, such as (in addition to perfect and imperfect state measurements) delayed state and sampled state measurements [14] [15]. An up-to-date coverage of this relationship and the derivation of H -optimal controllers under different information patterns can be found in the recent book [16], which also contains an extensive list of references on the topic.

Keywords

Attenuation Doyle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    G. Zames, “Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference transformation, multiplicative seminorms and approximate inverses,” IEEE Trans. Automat Control, vol. AC-26, pp. 301–320, 1981.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    B. A. Francis, A Course in H Control Theory, vol. 88 of Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Doyle, K. Glover, P. Khargonekar, and B. Francis, “State-space solutions to standard H2 and H∞ control problems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. AC-34, no. 8, pp. 831–847, 1989.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    K. Glover and J. C. Doyle, “State-space formulae for all stabilizing controllers that satisfy an H∞-norm bound and relations to risk sensitivity,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 11, pp. 167–172, 1988.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. P. Khargonekar, I. R. Petersen, and M. A. Rotea, “H∞-optimal control with state-feedback,” IEEE Trans. Automat Control, vol. AC-33, no. 8, pp. 786–788, 1988.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. P. Khargonekar, K. N. Nagpal, and K. R. Poolla, “H∞ control with transients,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 29, pp. 1373–1393, November 1991.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Ravi, K. M. Nagpal, and P. P. Khargonekar, “H∞ control for linear time varying systems: a state-space approach,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 29, pp. 1394–1413, November 1991.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. A. Stoorvogel, The H∞ Control Problem: A State Space Approach. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    T. Başar, “A dynamic games approach to controller design: Disturbance rejection in discrete time,” in Proc. IEEE 29th Conf. on Decision and Control, (Tampa, FL), pp. 407–414, December 13–15, 1989. Also appeared in the IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 936–952, August 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. Başar, “Game theory and H∞-optimal control: The continuous-time case,” in Differential Games: Developments in Modelling and Computation, Springer-Verlag, August 1991. R. P. Hamalainen and H. K. Ehtamo, eds. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 156, pp. 171–186.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    K. Uchida and M. Fujita, “On the central controller: Characterizations via differential games and LEQG control problems,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 9–13, 1989.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Limebeer, B. Anderson, P. Khargonekar, and M. Green, “A game theoretic approach to H∞ control for time varying systems,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    I. Rhee and J. L. Speyer, “A game theoretic controller and its relationship to H∞ and linear-exponential Gaussian synthesis,” in Proc. IEEE 29th Conf. on Decision and Control, (Tampa, FL), pp. 909–915, December 13–15, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Başar, “Optimum H∞ designs under sampled state measurements,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 16, pp. 399–409, June 1991.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    H. T. Toivonen, “Sampled-data H∞ optimal control of time-varying systems,” Automatica, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 823–826, 1992.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    T. Başar and P. Bernhard, H∞-Optimal Control and Related Minimax Design Problems: A Dynamic Game Approach. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    P. V. Kokotović, H. K. Khalil, and J. O’Reilly, Singular Perturbation Methods in Control: Analysis and Design. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1986.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Z. Pan and T. Başar, “H∞-optimal control for singularly perturbed systems. Part I: Perfect state measurements,” Automatica, vol. 29, March 1993.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Z. Pan and T. Başar, “H∞-optimal control for singularly perturbed systems. Part II: Imperfect state measurements,” in Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, (Tucson, AZ), pp. 943–948, December 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    F. Garofalo and G. Leitmann, “A composite controller ensuring ultimate boundedness for a class of singularly perturbed uncertain systems,” Dynamics and Stability of Systems, vol. 3, no. 3 & 4, pp. 135–145, 1988.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Corless, G. Leitmann, and E. P. Ryan, “Control of uncertain systems with neglected dynamics,” in Deterministic Control of Uncertain Systems (A. S. I. Zinober, ed.), ch. 12, pp. 252–268, London: IEE Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    F. Garofalo and G. Leitmann, “Nonlinear composite control of a class of nominally linear singularly perturbed uncertain systems,” in Deterministic Control of Uncertain Systems (A. S. I. Zinober, ed.), ch. 13, pp. 269–288, London: IEE Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    D. W. Luse and J. A. Ball, “Frequency-scale decomposition of H∞-disk problems,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 27, pp. 814–835, July 1989.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    T. Chen and B. Francis, “On the L2 induced norm of a sampled-data system,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 15, pp. 211–219, 1990.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    B. Bamieh and J. B. Pearson, “A general framework for linear periodic systems with application to H sampled-data control,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 37, pp. 418–435, April 1992.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    J. H. Chow and P. V. Kokotović, “A decomposition of near-optimum regulators for systems with slow and fast modes,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. AC-21, pp. 701–705, October 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    T. Başar and G. J. Olsder, Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory. London/New York: Academic Press, 1982. Second printing 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Z. Pan and T. Başar, “A tight bound for the H∞ performance of singularly perturbed systems,” CSL Report, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, March 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zigang Pan
    • 1
  • Tamer Başar
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision and Control Laboratory, Coordinated Science Laboratory and the Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations