Mixing
What's wrong with this robust control scheme?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm learning how to control a double integrator with $H_infty$.
my model is simply
$ dotr = v $
$ dotv = F/m $
$ r(t_0) = 0$ m, $v(t_0) = 0 $ m/s, $m = 1000 $ kg
so I want to be able to track a step command. I have noise on measurements of position, velocity and force, assumed with a noise having a std of 0.02 m, 0.01 m/s and 0.2 N.
I want to have closed-loop bandwith equal to 0.2 Hz with a steady-state error of 0.1 m, and a sensitivity peak at $f_p = 1$.
The scheme I implemented is the following:
The weigthing functions are the following. Since I want to track low-frequency changing signals, I imposed
$W_ref,r = frac1s/omega_lpt +1 $, with the low-pass tracking function $f_lpt$ equal to $2pi f_lpt$, and $f_lpt$ equal to 0.2.
The noise weighting functions are constants corresponding to the values mentioned above, while there is no feedforward contribution, so $W_ref_F$ is equal to 1, and so does $W_ctrl_inn$ (perfect inner dynamics). If I understand the theory correctly, the functions $W_p_r$ and $W_u$ play a similar role as the matrices $Q$ and $R$ in LQR, except that we can shape them frequency-wise, and that we are minimizing the $infty$ norm instead of the Euclidean one. So, as recommended by Skogestad in his wonderful book I specified
$W_p_r = fracs/M+2pi f_p1+2pi f_p A$ with $A = 0.1$, $f_p = 1$, and the peak for the sensitivity transfer function M equal to 2.
The transfer function for control performance is a high-pass filter needed to penalize high-frequencies such that the controller does not waste efforts in trying to control high-frequency dynamics (in my case > 10 Hz)
$W_u = frac3+ 2 pi f_hpf/21+2 pi f_hpf$, with the high pass frequency $f_hpf$ equal to 10 Hz.
I get this bode plot of the inverses of $W_p_r$ and $W_u$, so at small frequency the sensitivity tf $S$ is small, and at large frequency $KS$ is small, that is, no big control efforts.
If I synthesize the Hinf with matlab I get a $gamma$ equal to 10. I would expect a small value because we want to make the z output small for the expected exogenous inputs. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm getting the generalized plant by using linmod on the above specified Simulink model to get A,B,C,D and I transform it into P by doing
P = ss(A,B,C,D)
P = minreal(P)
P.P.S. The step response also diverges.
control-theory optimal-control linear-control
asked Aug 2 at 20:07
venom
296
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm learning how to control a double integrator with $H_infty$.
my model is simply
$ dotr = v $
$ dotv = F/m $
$ r(t_0) = 0$ m, $v(t_0) = 0 $ m/s, $m = 1000 $ kg
so I want to be able to track a step command. I have noise on measurements of position, velocity and force, assumed with a noise having a std of 0.02 m, 0.01 m/s and 0.2 N.
I want to have closed-loop bandwith equal to 0.2 Hz with a steady-state error of 0.1 m, and a sensitivity peak at $f_p = 1$.
The scheme I implemented is the following:
The weigthing functions are the following. Since I want to track low-frequency changing signals, I imposed
$W_ref,r = frac1s/omega_lpt +1 $, with the low-pass tracking function $f_lpt$ equal to $2pi f_lpt$, and $f_lpt$ equal to 0.2.
The noise weighting functions are constants corresponding to the values mentioned above, while there is no feedforward contribution, so $W_ref_F$ is equal to 1, and so does $W_ctrl_inn$ (perfect inner dynamics). If I understand the theory correctly, the functions $W_p_r$ and $W_u$ play a similar role as the matrices $Q$ and $R$ in LQR, except that we can shape them frequency-wise, and that we are minimizing the $infty$ norm instead of the Euclidean one. So, as recommended by Skogestad in his wonderful book I specified
$W_p_r = fracs/M+2pi f_p1+2pi f_p A$ with $A = 0.1$, $f_p = 1$, and the peak for the sensitivity transfer function M equal to 2.
The transfer function for control performance is a high-pass filter needed to penalize high-frequencies such that the controller does not waste efforts in trying to control high-frequency dynamics (in my case > 10 Hz)
$W_u = frac3+ 2 pi f_hpf/21+2 pi f_hpf$, with the high pass frequency $f_hpf$ equal to 10 Hz.
I get this bode plot of the inverses of $W_p_r$ and $W_u$, so at small frequency the sensitivity tf $S$ is small, and at large frequency $KS$ is small, that is, no big control efforts.
If I synthesize the Hinf with matlab I get a $gamma$ equal to 10. I would expect a small value because we want to make the z output small for the expected exogenous inputs. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm getting the generalized plant by using linmod on the above specified Simulink model to get A,B,C,D and I transform it into P by doing
P = ss(A,B,C,D)
P = minreal(P)
P.P.S. The step response also diverges.
control-theory optimal-control linear-control
asked Aug 2 at 20:07
venom
296
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I'm learning how to control a double integrator with $H_infty$.
my model is simply
$ dotr = v $
$ dotv = F/m $
$ r(t_0) = 0$ m, $v(t_0) = 0 $ m/s, $m = 1000 $ kg
so I want to be able to track a step command. I have noise on measurements of position, velocity and force, assumed with a noise having a std of 0.02 m, 0.01 m/s and 0.2 N.
I want to have closed-loop bandwith equal to 0.2 Hz with a steady-state error of 0.1 m, and a sensitivity peak at $f_p = 1$.
The scheme I implemented is the following:
The weigthing functions are the following. Since I want to track low-frequency changing signals, I imposed
$W_ref,r = frac1s/omega_lpt +1 $, with the low-pass tracking function $f_lpt$ equal to $2pi f_lpt$, and $f_lpt$ equal to 0.2.
The noise weighting functions are constants corresponding to the values mentioned above, while there is no feedforward contribution, so $W_ref_F$ is equal to 1, and so does $W_ctrl_inn$ (perfect inner dynamics). If I understand the theory correctly, the functions $W_p_r$ and $W_u$ play a similar role as the matrices $Q$ and $R$ in LQR, except that we can shape them frequency-wise, and that we are minimizing the $infty$ norm instead of the Euclidean one. So, as recommended by Skogestad in his wonderful book I specified
$W_p_r = fracs/M+2pi f_p1+2pi f_p A$ with $A = 0.1$, $f_p = 1$, and the peak for the sensitivity transfer function M equal to 2.
The transfer function for control performance is a high-pass filter needed to penalize high-frequencies such that the controller does not waste efforts in trying to control high-frequency dynamics (in my case > 10 Hz)
$W_u = frac3+ 2 pi f_hpf/21+2 pi f_hpf$, with the high pass frequency $f_hpf$ equal to 10 Hz.
I get this bode plot of the inverses of $W_p_r$ and $W_u$, so at small frequency the sensitivity tf $S$ is small, and at large frequency $KS$ is small, that is, no big control efforts.
If I synthesize the Hinf with matlab I get a $gamma$ equal to 10. I would expect a small value because we want to make the z output small for the expected exogenous inputs. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm getting the generalized plant by using linmod on the above specified Simulink model to get A,B,C,D and I transform it into P by doing
P = ss(A,B,C,D)
P = minreal(P)
P.P.S. The step response also diverges.
control-theory optimal-control linear-control
asked Aug 2 at 20:07
venom
296
I'm learning how to control a double integrator with $H_infty$.
my model is simply
$ dotr = v $
$ dotv = F/m $
$ r(t_0) = 0$ m, $v(t_0) = 0 $ m/s, $m = 1000 $ kg
so I want to be able to track a step command. I have noise on measurements of position, velocity and force, assumed with a noise having a std of 0.02 m, 0.01 m/s and 0.2 N.
I want to have closed-loop bandwith equal to 0.2 Hz with a steady-state error of 0.1 m, and a sensitivity peak at $f_p = 1$.
The scheme I implemented is the following:
The weigthing functions are the following. Since I want to track low-frequency changing signals, I imposed
$W_ref,r = frac1s/omega_lpt +1 $, with the low-pass tracking function $f_lpt$ equal to $2pi f_lpt$, and $f_lpt$ equal to 0.2.
The noise weighting functions are constants corresponding to the values mentioned above, while there is no feedforward contribution, so $W_ref_F$ is equal to 1, and so does $W_ctrl_inn$ (perfect inner dynamics). If I understand the theory correctly, the functions $W_p_r$ and $W_u$ play a similar role as the matrices $Q$ and $R$ in LQR, except that we can shape them frequency-wise, and that we are minimizing the $infty$ norm instead of the Euclidean one. So, as recommended by Skogestad in his wonderful book I specified
$W_p_r = fracs/M+2pi f_p1+2pi f_p A$ with $A = 0.1$, $f_p = 1$, and the peak for the sensitivity transfer function M equal to 2.
The transfer function for control performance is a high-pass filter needed to penalize high-frequencies such that the controller does not waste efforts in trying to control high-frequency dynamics (in my case > 10 Hz)
$W_u = frac3+ 2 pi f_hpf/21+2 pi f_hpf$, with the high pass frequency $f_hpf$ equal to 10 Hz.
I get this bode plot of the inverses of $W_p_r$ and $W_u$, so at small frequency the sensitivity tf $S$ is small, and at large frequency $KS$ is small, that is, no big control efforts.
If I synthesize the Hinf with matlab I get a $gamma$ equal to 10. I would expect a small value because we want to make the z output small for the expected exogenous inputs. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?
Thanks!
P.S. I'm getting the generalized plant by using linmod on the above specified Simulink model to get A,B,C,D and I transform it into P by doing
P = ss(A,B,C,D)
P = minreal(P)
P.P.S. The step response also diverges.
control-theory optimal-control linear-control
asked Aug 2 at 20:07
venom
296
asked Aug 2 at 20:07
venom
296
asked Aug 2 at 20:07
venom
296
asked Aug 2 at 20:07
venom
296
296
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2870448%2fwhats-wrong-with-this-robust-control-scheme%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password