Today s goals So far Today 2.004

Similar documents
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Department of Mechanical Engineering 2.04A Systems and Controls Spring 2013

Time Response of Systems

Dr Ian R. Manchester Dr Ian R. Manchester AMME 3500 : Review

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Mechanical Engineering Dynamics and Control II Design Project

Dr Ian R. Manchester

2.004 Dynamics and Control II Spring 2008

School of Engineering Faculty of Built Environment, Engineering, Technology & Design

Dr. Ian R. Manchester

Introduction to Controls

20.6. Transfer Functions. Introduction. Prerequisites. Learning Outcomes

ECEN 420 LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS. Lecture 6 Mathematical Representation of Physical Systems II 1/67

sc Control Systems Design Q.1, Sem.1, Ac. Yr. 2010/11

Control Systems I. Lecture 6: Poles and Zeros. Readings: Emilio Frazzoli. Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control D-MAVT ETH Zürich

Last week: analysis of pinion-rack w velocity feedback

Control System. Contents

ECE317 : Feedback and Control

Control of Manufacturing Processes

Laplace Transform Part 1: Introduction (I&N Chap 13)

Raktim Bhattacharya. . AERO 632: Design of Advance Flight Control System. Preliminaries

e st f (t) dt = e st tf(t) dt = L {t f(t)} s

EE C128 / ME C134 Midterm Fall 2014

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Department of Mechanical Engineering Dynamics and Control II Fall 2007

Control Systems I. Lecture 2: Modeling. Suggested Readings: Åström & Murray Ch. 2-3, Guzzella Ch Emilio Frazzoli

Generalized sources (Sect. 6.5). The Dirac delta generalized function. Definition Consider the sequence of functions for n 1, Remarks:

Design of a Lead Compensator

2.004 Dynamics and Control II Spring 2008

Systems Analysis and Control

(Refer Slide Time: 00:01:30 min)

Review: transient and steady-state response; DC gain and the FVT Today s topic: system-modeling diagrams; prototype 2nd-order system

Ultimate State. MEM 355 Performance Enhancement of Dynamical Systems

Lecture 25: Tue Nov 27, 2018

ECEN 420 LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS. Lecture 2 Laplace Transform I 1/52

Topic # Feedback Control Systems

APPPHYS 217 Tuesday 6 April 2010

Control Systems I. Lecture 7: Feedback and the Root Locus method. Readings: Jacopo Tani. Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control D-MAVT ETH Zürich

Lecture 12. Upcoming labs: Final Exam on 12/21/2015 (Monday)10:30-12:30

This homework will not be collected or graded. It is intended to help you practice for the final exam. Solutions will be posted.

Control System Design

6.302 Feedback Systems Recitation 16: Compensation Prof. Joel L. Dawson

Introduction & Laplace Transforms Lectures 1 & 2

Controller Design using Root Locus

Problem Set 3: Solution Due on Mon. 7 th Oct. in class. Fall 2013

AA242B: MECHANICAL VIBRATIONS

Basic Procedures for Common Problems

9.2 The Input-Output Description of a System

EE C128 / ME C134 Fall 2014 HW 6.2 Solutions. HW 6.2 Solutions

Systems Analysis and Control

EE C128 / ME C134 Final Exam Fall 2014

CHBE320 LECTURE V LAPLACE TRANSFORM AND TRANSFER FUNCTION. Professor Dae Ryook Yang

Unit 2: Modeling in the Frequency Domain Part 2: The Laplace Transform. The Laplace Transform. The need for Laplace

Lecture 1 From Continuous-Time to Discrete-Time

EE C128 / ME C134 Fall 2014 HW 8 - Solutions. HW 8 - Solutions

Introduction to Modern Control MT 2016

Control Systems Design

Index. Index. More information. in this web service Cambridge University Press

School of Mechanical Engineering Purdue University. ME375 Dynamic Response - 1

Stepping Motors. Chapter 11 L E L F L D

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science : MULTIVARIABLE CONTROL SYSTEMS by A.

Prüfung Regelungstechnik I (Control Systems I) Übersetzungshilfe / Translation aid (English) To be returned at the end of the exam!

I Laplace transform. I Transfer function. I Conversion between systems in time-, frequency-domain, and transfer

Systems Analysis and Control

Solved Problems. Electric Circuits & Components. 1-1 Write the KVL equation for the circuit shown.

Dr Ian R. Manchester Dr Ian R. Manchester AMME 3500 : Root Locus

Note. Design via State Space

Systems Analysis and Control

Laplace Transforms Chapter 3

EE C128 / ME C134 Fall 2014 HW 9 Solutions. HW 9 Solutions. 10(s + 3) s(s + 2)(s + 5) G(s) =

Modeling and Analysis of Dynamic Systems

Classify a transfer function to see which order or ramp it can follow and with which expected error.

Time Response Analysis (Part II)

20.3. Further Laplace Transforms. Introduction. Prerequisites. Learning Outcomes

Math 308 Exam II Practice Problems

Controls Problems for Qualifying Exam - Spring 2014

Systems Analysis and Control

Systems Analysis and Control

Course roadmap. ME451: Control Systems. Example of Laplace transform. Lecture 2 Laplace transform. Laplace transform

LTI Systems (Continuous & Discrete) - Basics

Control System Design

Topic # /31 Feedback Control Systems

Systems Analysis and Control

Professional Portfolio Selection Techniques: From Markowitz to Innovative Engineering

Control of Manufacturing Processes

EEE 188: Digital Control Systems

Chapter 2 SDOF Vibration Control 2.1 Transfer Function

Modeling and Experimentation: Compound Pendulum

R a) Compare open loop and closed loop control systems. b) Clearly bring out, from basics, Force-current and Force-Voltage analogies.

EE3CL4: Introduction to Linear Control Systems

Video 5.1 Vijay Kumar and Ani Hsieh

Mechatronics Assignment # 1

2.161 Signal Processing: Continuous and Discrete Fall 2008

Linear State Feedback Controller Design

Dynamic Compensation using root locus method

Übersetzungshilfe / Translation aid (English) To be returned at the end of the exam!

Laplace Transforms and use in Automatic Control

2.004 Dynamics and Control II Spring 2008

Raktim Bhattacharya. . AERO 422: Active Controls for Aerospace Vehicles. Dynamic Response

EE451/551: Digital Control. Chapter 3: Modeling of Digital Control Systems

Displacement at very low frequencies produces very low accelerations since:

R10 JNTUWORLD B 1 M 1 K 2 M 2. f(t) Figure 1

General procedure for formulation of robot dynamics STEP 1 STEP 3. Module 9 : Robot Dynamics & controls

Transcription:

Today s goals So far Feedback as a means for specifying the dynamic response of a system Root Locus: from the open-loop poles/zeros to the closed-loop poles Moving the closed-loop poles around Today Proportional control: moving on the original Root Locus Proportional-Derivative control: adding a zero/ speeding up the response/ maintaining constant overshoot Proportional-Integral control: adding a free integrator (pole@origin) and a zero/ fixing steady-state error/ maintaining the speed and overshoot The 2.004 Lab Tower plant Impulse response and how it relates to the step response and the transfer function State space: monitoring more than one dynamical variables at the same time

The need for sway compensation in buildings SWAY Distributed active compensation system WIND www.atcouncil.org Image from Wikimedia Commons, http://commons.wikimedia.org Taipei 0; 0 floors; 448m tall (roof); 508m (spire)

The 2.004 Tower Goals: Model Control Design Implement Test Actuator: Voice Coil Air Bearings Velocity Sensor: Voice Coil Relative Velocity Wind Force: impulse MEMS Accelerometer Spring

Modeling the 2.004 Tower slider mass spring, damper a x 2 slider displacement controller actuator actuator force a(t) sensors sliding direction w k k 2 m 2 b 2 m x building sway b wind force w(t) tower m k b m 2 k 2 b 2 w(t) a(t) tower mass, tower compliance, tower damping (viscous), slider mass, spring on slider, (viscous) damping on slider; wind force (impulse) on tower, actuator force on slider.

Reminder from Lecture 3: the delta (impulse) function Impulse function (aka Dirac function) f(t) F(s) δ(t) u(t) s δ(t) tu(t) t n u(t) e -at u(t) sin ωtu(t) cos ωtu(t) s 2 n! s n + s + a ω s 2 + ω 2 s s 2 + ω 2 t =0 It represents a pulse of infinitessimally small duration; and finite energy. Mathematically, it is defined by the properties t Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare. Z + δ(t) =; (unitenergy)and Nise Table 2. Z + δ(t)f(t) =f(0) (sifting.)

Impulse response Time domain δ(t) Plant or system input: impulse impulse response Laplace domain L{δ(t)} = input: Laplace[impulse] Plant or system G(s) G(s) =G(s) Laplace[impulse response] The Laplace transform of the impulse response is the Laplace transform of the transfer function

Impulse response and step response f(t) δ(t) u(t) F(s) s Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare. δ(t) = u(t) = du(t). dt Z t δ(t 0 )dt 0. 0 Step function: Step response: s s G(s) G (s) Impulse function: Impulse response: G(s) G(s) d Impulse response = (Step response) dt Z t Step response = (Impulse response) (t 0 )dt 0. 0

Controling the tower controller a x 2 slider displacement control dynamical variable input w k k 2 m 2 b 2 x tower sway output dynamical variable m b The objective of control is to minimize the output (tower sway) subject to an impulse input (wind force) The controller s actuation (force) is applied on an intermediate dynamical variable (slider displacement.) Moreover, there is a choice of feedback variables (e.g., tower displacement x, velocity, acceleration ) ẋ ẍ

Let s start with a simpler system x 2 u slider displacement k 2 m 2 w k b 2 m x tower sway b We begin by considering the tower by itself, i.e., without the slider-spring-damper compensation system. Our goal is to see how can access intermediate dynamical variables (such as the tower s velocity) from a single dynamical model

Force balance on the uncompensated tower Wind force w(t) Tower inertia m ẍ (t) Tower damping b ẋ (t) Tower compliance k x (t) w k m ẋ v tower velocity x tower sway b Force balance: w(t) m ẍ (t) b ẋ (t) k x (t) =0 m ẍ (t)+b ẋ (t)+k x (t) =w(t) (equation of motion)

From the equation of motion to the state-space representation Recall: we would like to model two dynamical variables simultaneously: the tower position x (t) and the tower velocity ẋ (t) v (t). Toseeifwecan achieve this goal, let us define a state vector µ µ q (t) x (t) q(t) = =. q 2 (t) v (t) The state vector components q (t), q 2 (t) are called state variables. Now let s try to write a differential equation for this vector that is equivalent to the original system s equation of motion. That is, we need to compute the derivatives q (t), q 2 (t) asfunctionofq (t), q 2 (t). The differential equation that we target should be st order (i.e., involving only the first derivatives of the state variables) and it should involve linearly independent variables. For example, if it turned out that q 2 (t) = (constant) q (t), then our attempt would not have worked. Fortunately, that is not the case with our choice of tower displacement and velocity as state variables. There are formal rules for selecting state variables while avoiding linear dependence between them; we are not yet ready to cover these rules in detail.

From the equation of motion to the state-space representation Taking linear independence as given, we begin from the obvious place, the definition of velocity: ẋ (t) =v (t) q (t) =q 2 (t). We can also re write the equation of motion in terms of the state variables: m ẍ (t)+b ẋ (t)+k x (t) =w(t) m q 2 (t)+b q 2 (t)+k q (t) =w(t). We can solve the above equation for q 2 (t): q 2 (t) = k m q (t) b m q 2 (t)+ m w(t). We have reached our goal, and we can do even better by combining the two st order scalar differential equations into a single st order vector differential µ µ µ µ q (t) 0 q (t) 0 equation: = + w(t). q 2 (t) k /m b /m q 2 (t) /m

From the equation of motion to the state-space representation The equation we have just derived is the state equation of motion which expresses the dynamics of our system in vector matrix notation. More formally, it is written as q(t) =Aq(t)+bw(t), where the matrix A and vector b are µ 0 A = k /m b /m µ 0, b = /m and are called the system matrix and input vector, respectively. (The input vector is also referred to as excitation vector. ) Note that in our uncompensated tower system, there is a single input, which in fact happens to be a disturbance that we intend to cancel in the compensated system. However, the state space formulation allows us to handle multiple inputs as well, by replacing the scalar w(t) by a vector of inputs and the input vector b by an input matrix B. In this class, we will deal with single input single output systems only. [In the compensated tower, the actuation force a(t) will be the input and w(t) will be treated as a disturbance.],

From the equation of motion to the state-space representation Another benefit of the state space approach is that we need not be constrained to a single output. We can define the system output y(t) as a scalar that might be either the tower s position or its velocity, as follows. Let y(t) =cq(t), where c =(c c 2 ). We refer to c as the output vector. For example, by choosing µ q (t) c =( 0) y(t) =( 0) = q q 2 (t) (t) =x (t) we have selected the tower s displacement x (t) to be the output. Or, choosing µ q (t) c =(0 ) y(t) =(0 ) = q q 2 (t) 2 (t) =v (t) so now the output is the tower velocity v (t). We may choose y(t) tobeany linear combination of the state variables, e.g. c =(0. 0.9). We might also opt for more than one variables, in which case y(t) andc would become a vector and matrix, respectively.

From the equation of motion to the state-space representation The combination of equations q(t) = Aq(t)+ bw(t), [dynamics equation of motion] y(t) = cq(t) [output or observation equation] are the state equations or state space representation of our system. If you look this up in Nise s textbook or in the literature, you will probably see a slightly more general form, where the vectors b and c are replaced by matrices (this is to handle multiple input multiple output systems, as we ve pointed out); and the output contains an additional term that is a linear combination of the inputs. These representations are used for full generality in more advanced contexts; for our tower compensation problem and the scope of material that we cover in this class, the reduced single input single output state space representation given here will suffice. In Problem Set 8, we will walk you through the derivation of a state space representation for the compensated 2.004 tower (pages 4 and 8 of these notes) where w(t) is treated as a disturbance and a(t) is the input. While you develop the model in the lab, in the lectures we will learn how to add state space to our existing arsenal of control techniques (root locus, P/PI/PD compensators, etc.)