Worked Problems Ch13
Worked Problems Ch13
Worked Problems Ch13
Solved Problem 13.1. Consider a continuous-time system having nominal model given by
2
Go (s) = (1)
(s + 1)(s + 2)
Assume that this system is under digital control using a zero-order sample and hold device, with sam-
pling period ∆. Is there a sampling period such that the sampling zero is located at z = −1?
Solutions to Solved Problem 13.1
Solved Problem 13.2. Use the pole assignment methodology to establish expression (13.6.32) in the book
for the minimum-time dead-beat controller, Cq (z).
Solutions to Solved Problem 13.2
e−0.2s
Go (s) = (2)
s+1
13.3.1 Design a minimum time dead-beat controller, assuming a sampling period ∆ = 0.1.
13.3.2 Determine the closed-loop polynomial, Aclq (z).
Solved Problem 13.4. Consider a continuous-time system having a sampled transfer function given by
0.1(z + 0.8)
Goq (z) = (3)
(z − 1.5)(z − 0.6)
Design a minimum time dead-beat controller for step references
Solutions to Solved Problem 13.4
1
Chapter 13 - Solutions to Solved Problems
Solution 13.1. The plant is a second-order system, hence the general form of the sampled transfer func-
tion is
4 z−β
Goq (z) = [Go Gh0 ]q (z) = K (5)
(z − α1 )(z − α2 )
One way to answer this question is to first compute Goq (z) using the standard procedure (see section
§12.13 of the book). However, for this plant it is possible to follow a more intuitive approach, paying
attention to some particular features:
1−β
Goq (1) = K = Go (0) = 1 (6)
(1 − α1 )(1 − α2 )
c) If we denote by h[k] the response of Goq (z) to a Kronecker delta, δK [k], and by g(t) the response of
Go (s) to a unit step, µ[k], where
2 1 2 1
g(t) = L−1 = L−1 − + = 1 − 2e−t + e−2t (7)
(s + 1)(s + 2)s s s+1 s+2
β = −e−∆ (9)
We thus conclude that β approaches −1 when ∆ = 0, i.e., for an infinite sampling frequency. (See
also Solved Problem 14.1)
Finally, this computation can also be carried out using a symbolic math package such as MAPLE.
This can be done using the following code
2
This MAPLE code yields
ze∆ − 2ze2∆ + 1 + ze3∆ − 2e∆ + e2∆ ze∆ (1 − 2e∆ + e2∆ ) + (1 − 2e∆ + e2∆ )
Goq (z) = = (10)
(ze∆ − 1)(ze2∆ − 1) (ze∆ − 1)(ze2∆ − 1)
Solution 13.2. We first assume that the pulse transfer function is given by
Boq (z)
Goq (z) = (11)
Aoq (z)
where Aoq (z) is a stable nth order monic polynomial1 , and Boq (z) is a mth order polynomial, with m < n.
Also, we assume that the controller is expressed as
Pq (z)
Cq (z) = (12)
Lq (z)
We next require that this is zero steady state error for step references and disturbances. To achieve
this we put an integrator (a pole at z = 1) in the controller. Hence the associated Diophantine equation
becomes
Aoq (z) (z − 1)L̃q (z) +Boq (z)Pq (z) = Aclq (z) (13)
| {z }
Lq (z)
Where the closed-loop polynomial, Aclq (z) has degree greater or equal to 2n (see section §7.2 of the
book). Now, say we choose Aclq (z) = z n Aoq (z), i.e., we force the cancellation of the nominal model
denominator. Then, the Diophantine equation becomes
Aoq (z) (z − 1)L̃q (z) +Boq (z) pn Aoq (z) = z n Aoq (z) (14)
| {z } | {z }
Lq (z) Pq (z)
1
pn = (16)
Boq (1)
3
This concludes the proof, since then
αAoq (z)
Cq (z) = where α ≡ pn (18)
zn − αBoq (z)
Solution 13.3. We firstly need to compute the sampled transfer function. We observe that the pure time
delay generates two poles at the origin, i.e., at z = 0, hence
13.3.1 To compute the dead-beat controller one can use equation (13.6.32) from the book, with n = 3 and
α = Boq (1)−1 = 10.51. We thus have
13.3.2 The closed-loop polynomial, Aclq (z), corresponds to the sensitivity denominator times the can-
celled factors. In this case, the sensitivity denominator is z 3 , and the cancelled factor is the plant
denominator Aoq (z) = z 2 (z − 0.9048). Thus
This expression shows that the closed loop has a slow pole which is not evident from the loop response
to changes in reference and/or output disturbances. (Recall that this response depends on the com-
plementary sensitivity and sensitivity respectively, and they have only poles at the origin.) However,
for input disturbances, the loop response will include a mode (0.9048)k , since the pole at z = 0.9048
will appear in the input sensitivity.
Solution 13.4. If we apply expression (13.6.32) from the book to calculate the controller, we realize that
an unstable pole-zero cancellation will arise. Thus the solution given in (13.6.32) from the book is not
useful for this particular case. The correct solution requires that, when choosing the closed-loop polynomial,
we avoid cancelling the plant unstable pole (see the solution to Solved Problem 13.2). Let us choose
In this case, the closed-loop polynomial, Aclq (z) cancels the stable factor A− (z). On the other hand,
we know that the closed-loop poles can be arbitrarily chosen2 if Aclq (z) has a degree at least equal to 2n,
where n is the number of plant poles. Hence, for this particular plant, the minimum degree of Aclq (z) is
4. We thus choose
4
The corresponding Diophantine equation becomes
A+ (z)A− (z) (z − 1)L̃q (z) + A− (z)(pa z + pb ) Boq (z) = z 3 A− (z) = z 3 (z − 0.6) (24)
| {z }| {z } | {z }
Aoq (z) Lq (z) Pq (z)
Solution 13.5.
13.5.1 Due to the specified dominance condition, we choose the closed-loop polynomial Acl (s) as the
following fourth-order polynomial 3
Acl (s) = (s + 2 + j)(s + 2 − j)(s + 5)(s + 30) = s4 + 15s3 + 79s2 + 175s + 150 (30)
where the dominant poles s = −2 ± j are accompanied by faster poles located at s = −5 and s = −30.
The corresponding Diophantine equation is
To solve equation 31, we use the MATLAB routine paq (in the book CDROM), this yields
5
1.5
continuous time
discrete ∆=0.05
0.5
discrete ∆=0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time [s]
13.5.2 To find a discrete-time controller in delta form, we now use equation (13.5.1) in the book,
This can be transformed to Z-form for each of the specified sampling periods (use the routine del2z
on the book’s CDROM), this yields:
The performance of both digital controllers and that of the continuous-time controller are next studied
using SIMULINK. A unit-step reference at t = 1 is applied to the three loops. The results are shown
in Figure 1.
From Figure 1 one can see that for ∆ = 0.05 [s] the performance of the digital-control loop is
very close to that of the original continuous-time design. This is a consequence of the fact that, in
this case, the sampling rate which is much higher than the (continuous-time) closed-loop bandwidth.
However, for the much slower sampling, i.e., ∆ = 0.2, the corresponding digital loop is unstable.