Advertisement

Robust Constrained Control: Optimization of 1 vs. 2 Closed-Loop Poles

Conference paper
First Online:
  • 773 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 574)

Abstract

This paper presents optimization-based technique to design robust control system in case of control input limitations. The methodology uses the algebraic approach resulting in polynomial equations and a pole-placement problem to be solved. Closed-loop poles are optimized numerically with the help of the MATLAB computing system and its toolboxes for simulation and optimization. Suitable performance criteria and a procedure are suggested for this purpose. The case of 1 and 2 parameters optimization is illustrated on a nonlinear servo-system control design using both simulation and real-time experiments. Presented results prove the proposed methodology.

Keywords

Constrained control Polynomial approach Pole-placement problem Robust control Optimization AMIRA servo-system 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work, as a part of the project “Development and Applications of Advanced Process Control Methods”, was supported by the excellence projects strategy of Tomas Bata University in Zlin. This support is greatly acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Stein, G.: Respect the unstable. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 23(4), 12–25 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saberi, A., Stoorvogel, A.A., Sannuti, P.: Control of Linear Systems with Regulation and Input Constraints. Springer, London (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glattfelder, A.H., Schaufelberger, W.: Control Systems with Input and Output Constraints. Springer, London (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camacho, E.F., Bordons, C.: Model Predictive Control. Springer, London (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Doná, J.A., Goodwin, G.C., Seron, M.M.: Anti-windup and model predictive control: reflections and connections. Eur. J. Control 6(5), 467–477 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campo, P.J., Morari, M.: Robust control of processes subject to saturation nonlinearities. Comput. Chem. Eng. 14(4–5), 343–358 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miyamoto, S., Vinnicombe, G.: Robust control of plants with saturation nonlinearity based on coprime factor representations. In: 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Japan, pp. 2838–2840 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huba, M.: Robust constrained PID control. In: International Conference Cybernetics and Informatics, Vyšná boca, Slovak Republic, pp. 1–18 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vozák, D., Veselý, V.: Stable predictive control with input constraints based on variable gain approach. Int. Rev. Autom. Control 7(2), 131–139 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torchani, B., Sellami, A., Garcia, G.: Robust sliding mode control of class of linear uncertain saturated systems. Int. Rev. Autom. Control 6(2), 134–146 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kučera, V.: Diophantine equations in control – a survey. Automatica 29, 1361–1375 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunt, K.J.: Polynomial Methods in Optimal Control and Filtering. Peter Peregrinus Ltd., London (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson, B.D.O.: From Youla-Kucera to identification, adaptive and nonlinear control. Automatica 34, 1485–1506 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kučera, V.: The pole placement equation. A survey. Kybernetika 30(6), 578–584 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bobál, V., Kubalčík, M., Chalupa, P., Dostál, P.: Self-tuning control of nonlinear servo system: comparison of LQ and predictive approach. In: 17th Mediterranaen Conference on Control and Automation, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 240–245 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roubal, J., Augusta, P., Havlena, V.: A brief introduction to control design demonstrated on laboratory model servo DR300 – AMIRA. Acta Electrotechnica et Informatica 5(4), 1–6 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gazdoš, F., Marholt, J.: Simulation approach to robust constrained control. Int. Rev. Autom. Control 7(5), 578–584 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gazdoš, F., Marholt, J.: Optimization of closed-loop poles for robust constrained control. In: 20th International Conference on Process Control, PC 2015, Strbske Pleso, Slovakia, pp. 158–163 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gazdoš, F.: Optimization of closed-loop poles for limited control action and robustness. In: 2nd International Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement, AECIA 2015, Paris, France, pp. 385–396 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skogestad, S., Postlethwaite, I.: Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design. Wiley, Chichester (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coleman, T.F., Li, Y.: An interior, trust region approach for nonlinear minimization subject to bounds. SIAM J. Optim. 6, 418–445 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Applied Informatics NamTomas Bata University in ZlinZlinCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options