DR Lee Peng Hin: EE6203 Computer Control Systems 1 DR Lee Peng Hin: EE6203 Computer Control Systems 2

Dr Lee Peng Hin : EE6203 Computer Control Systems 1 Dr Lee Peng Hin : EE6203 Computer Control Systems 2
EE6203 Computer Control Systems References
• Digital Control Systems : Theory,

State Space Design Methods and
hardware and software.
Optimal Control
Constantine H. Houpis and Gary B
(15 hours)
Lamont; McGraw Hill, 1992.
• Digital Control Systems.

Dr Lee Peng Hin
Benjamin C. Kuo; Saunders College
Associate Professor
Publishing, 1992.
EEE - S1 - B1a - 09
Tel : 67904474 • Computer Controlled Systems : The-
E-mail : ephlee@ntu.edu.sg ory and Design.
Karl J. Astrom and Bjorn Witten-

mark; Prentice Hall, 1997.
• Digital Control System Analysis and

Design.
Charles L. Philips and H. Troy Na- 1 State variables analysis

gle; Prentice Hall, 1995.
Objectives :
• Digital Control of Dynamic Systems.
Design an algorithm for the computer
Franklin G.F., Powell J.D. and Work- such that a sequence u(kT ) can be gen-
man M; Prentice Hall, 1998. erated to control the process and the
output y(t) vary according to some pre-
specified criteria (see Figure 1).
Typical specifications :
• Steady state tracking accuracy :

lim t→∞ r(t) − y(t).
• Transient accuracy (dyn. response).
– rise time.
– overshoot.
– settling time.
• Control effort required.
– maximum magnitude of u(kT ).

2
– energy of u (kT ).
Figure 1: A Digital Control System
Design approaches :
1. Frequency domain design (classical

approach).
2. State space design (modern approach).
Adv. of state-space approach :
• Natural and convenient for computer

applications.
• Allows a unified repn. of single-variable

and multi-variables systems and var-
ious types of sampling schemes.
• Can be applied to nonlinear and time-

varying systems.
Scalar and matrix differential equation of an RLC circuit

d2iL
R diL 1
⇒ + + iL = 0
dt2 L dt LC
Solving gives iL. What about Vc ?
1. Not adequately reflect behavious of

circuit.
2. time consuming in finding solutions.
Two variables of prime importance :

VC (t) and iL(t).
Knowledge of these two variables al-
lows one to compute all other voltages
Kirchoff ’s voltage law gives and currents in the circuit.
Define
VL + VR + VC = 0
VC (t) V̇C (t)
x(t) = ⇒ ẋ(t) =
diL(t) 1 t iL(t) i̇L(t)
⇒L + iL(t)R + iL(τ )dτ
dt C 0 From
+ VC (0) = 0 dVC (t)
iL(t) = iC (t) = C = C V̇C (t)
dt
1 1.1 Review of continuous time state space

⇒ V̇C (t) = iL(t)
C repns
Also,
1 1
i̇L(t) = (−VC (t) − VR(t))
VL(t) =
L L
1 R
⇒ i̇L(t) = − VC (t) − iL(t)
L L
Hence,

0 1
V̇C (t) C VC (t)
= 1 R
i̇L(t) − − iL(t)
L L
1. A first order matrix differential eqn
of the RLC circuit.
2. It identifies the physical bahaviour

of the circuit (theory later).
Figure 2: A LTI MIMO continuous time system with n state variables, r inputs and p
outputs.
• The state variables x1(t), x2(t), . . . , Together with the output equation,
xn(t) repn the modes of the physical a LTI continuous time system can be
plant. represented in state space as,
•
• The initial values xi(to), i = 1, 2, . . . , x(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t) (1.1)
n, and the input variables uj (t), j = y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t) (1.2)
1, 2, . . . , r, are sufficient to describe
where
uniquely the system’s future output ⎡⎤ ⎡
⎤
x1(t) u1(t)
response yq (t), q = 1, 2, . . . , p for t ≥ ⎢ x (t) ⎥ ⎢ u (t) ⎥
x(t) = ⎣ 2.. ⎦ ; u(t) = ⎣ 2.. ⎦ ;
to . xn(t) ur (t)
⎡ ⎤
y1(t)
• A continuous time system can be mod- ⎢ y (t) ⎥
y(t) = ⎣ 2.. ⎦
eled using these states by a set of yp(t)
first-order differential equations, called
state equations.
1.1.1 An example on a state space de- If we take the output to be y = x1,

scription of a dynamical system then
x
1
y= 10
Consider the Newton’s Law, x2
•• Thus, the dynamical system can be rep-
M x =F
resented by the following state space
where
model :
M = mass, x = displacement, F = force •
x1 x1 01 0 F
• = +
If we define the state variables as x2 x2 00 1 M

x1 = x displacement x
1
• y = 1 0
x2 = x velocity x2
Then,
•
x1 = x2
• F
x2 =
M
Equation (1.1.1) can be rewritten as
•
x1 0 1 x1 0 F
• = +
x2 0 0 x2 1 M
1.1.2 Transfer function from SS model • The denominator of the transfer func-
tion is det(sI − A). Hence, the poles
Take Laplace transform of the SS model
of the system is identical to the eigen-
in (1.1) and (1.2), with x(0) = 0,
values of the matrix A.
sX(s) = AX(s) + BU(s)
• For single-input single-output systems,
⇒ X(s) = [sI − A]−1BU(s) (1.3)
r = 1; p=1
and
Y(s) = CX(s) + DU(s) (1.4)

= [C[sI − A]−1B + D]U(s)
Hence, the transfer function,

Y(s)
G(s) =
U(s)
= C[sI − A]−1B + D (1.5)
C adj[sI − A]B
= + D (1.6)
det[sI − A]
The adjoint of a matrix is the transpose
of the cofactors matrix.
Example 1.1. Obtain a state space model The motor back e.m.f. is
of the servomotor system shown in Fig- d θ(t)
em(t) = Kbω(t) = Kb (1.7)
dt
ure 3.
where
θ(t) − motor shaft position

ω(t) − shaft angular velocity
Kb − a motor-dependent constant
The torque τ (t) developed by the mo-

tor is
τ (t) = KT i(t)
d2 θ(t) d θ(t)
= J + B (1.8)
d t2 dt
J − total moment of inertia

Figure 3: Servomotor system.
connected to shaft
B − total viscous friction
Also, from KVL, we have (assume La ∼

= If the output is taken to be the shaft
0) position θ(t), then the output equation
e(t) = i(t) Ra + em(t) (1.9) is
x (t)
1
Let the state variables of the system be y(t) = 1 0 (1.12)
x2(t)
x1(t) = θ(t) The transfer function of the servomo-
d θ(t) •
x2(t) = = x1(t) tor using (1.5) is
dt
Θ(s) KT / JRa
Then, G(s) = =
E(s) BRa+KT Kb
• d2 θ(t) s s+ JR
x2(t) = (1.10) a
d t2
BRa + KT Kb KT
= − e(t) x2(t) +
JRa JRa
Hence, the state space model of the
servomotor
• in matrix form is
x1(t) 0 1 x1(t)
• = BRa +KT Kb
x2(t) 0− x2(t)
J Ra
0
+ KT e(t) (1.11)
J Ra
1.1.3 Solution of the state vector x(t)
The Laplace transform of the state equa-

tion (1.1) gives
sX(s) − x(0)
= AX(s) + BU(s) (1.13)
⇒ X(s) = (sI − A)−1x(0)

+ (sI − A)−1BU(s) (1.14)
Taking the inverse Laplace transform

of (1.14),
x(t) = Φ(t)x(0) +
t
Φ(t − τ )Bu(τ ) d τ (1.15)
0
= Φ(t)x(0) + γ(t), t ≥ 0(1.16)
t
4. Φ−1(t) = Φ(−t).
γ(t) ≡ Φ(t − τ )Bu(τ ) d τ (1.17)
0
≡ L−1{Γ(s)} 5. Φk(t) = Φ(kT ), k = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
= L−1{[sI − A]−1BU(s)}(1.18) Assuming t = t0 > 0, substitute t =

t0 into (1.15) and solve for x(0). The
where
resulting x(0) is then substituted into
Γ(s) = [sI − A]−1BU(s) (1.19)
(1.15) to yield
The state transition matrix Φ(t) is de-
x(t) = Φ(t − t0)x(t0)
fined by t
+ Φ(t − τ )Bu(τ ) d τ, t ≥ t0
Φ(t) ≡ L−1{[sI − A]−1} = eAt (1.20) t0
(1.21)
Some properties of the state transition
(1.21) is known as the state transition
matrix :
equation of the system (1.1).
1. Φ(t) is nonsingular.
2. Φ(0) = I.
3. Φ(t2 − t1)Φ(t1 − t0) = Φ(t2 − t0).

Example 1.2. Determine the response of Then

the system Φ(t) ≡ L−1 −1
{[sI − A] }
•
x(t) =
Ax(t) + Bu(t) 1 0.5(1 − e−2t )
=
0 1 0 0 e−2t
= x(t) + u(t)
0 −2 2 and γ(t) obtained from (1.18) is

y(t) = Cx(t) 0.5(2t + e−2t − 1)
γ(t) =
= 1 0 x(t) 1 − e−2t
Then x(t) in (1.16) is given by
to a unit step input, i.e. u(t) = 1, t ≥ 0
T −2t
t+e
and x(0) = 1 −1 . x(t) =
1 − 2e−2t
We have,
The output response is
s+2 1
−1
s −1 0 s y(t) = t + e−2t
[sI − A]−1 = =
0 s+2 s(s + 2)
1 1

s s(s+2)
= 1
0 s+2
2 Discrete time models with sample and The outputs of the ZOH are
hold ui (t) = ui (kT ) (2.1)
To discretise a continuous time system = ei(kT ) kT ≤ t < (k + 1)T
to be controlled, i.e. to obtain the dis- for k = 0, 1, 2, . . . and i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , p.

crete state equations of a sampled-data Let the dynamics of the linear system
system (Figure 4) directly from the con- be given by
tinuous state equations: •
x(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t)
and whose state transition equation is
x(t) = Φ(t − t0)x(t0)

t
+ Φ(t − τ )Bu(τ ) d τ (2.2)
t0
u(τ ) = u(kT ) for kT ≤ τ < (k+1)T
Figure 4: A LTI discrete time system with ZOH

Hence, Then
x(t) = Φ(t − t0)x(t0) x(t) = Φ(t − kT )x(kT )

t
+ Φ(t − τ )B d τ u(kT ) (2.3) + Θ(t − kT )u(kT ) (2.6)
t0
The values of x(t) at successive sam-
valid for the period kT ≤ t ≤ (k + 1)T .
pling instants can be derived by setting
Set t0 = kT ,
t = (k + 1)T as in the case of numerical
x(t) = Φ(t − kT )x(kT )
t iterations. Then
+ Φ(t − τ )B d τ u(kT ) (2.4)
kT x[(k + 1)T ] = Φ(T )x(kT )
for kT ≤ t ≤ (k + 1)T . (2.4) descibes + Θ(T )u(kT ) (2.7)
x(t) at all times between the sampling
where
instants kT and (k+1)T, k = 0, 1, 2, . . . .
Φ(T ) = L−1{[sI − A]−1} (2.8)
Let t=T
t
From (2.5),
Θ(t − kT ) = Φ(t − τ )B d τ (2.5) (k+1)T
kT
Θ(T ) = Φ((k + 1)T − τ )B d τ
kT
(2.9)
Set η = kT + T − τ , then dη = −dτ , Example 2.1. A servomotor is modeled as

0
• 0 1 0
Θ(T ) = Φ(η) (−d η) B x(t) = x(t) + u(t)
T
T 0 −1 1

= Φ(η) d η B y(t) = 1 0 x(t)
0
(2.7) repns a set of first-order differ- Sample the system with sampling pe-
ence eqns, referred to as the discrete riod T = 0.1 sec. Obtain the discrete
state equns of the discrete time system time state space model of the motor.
of Figure 4.
1 1

Similarly, the output eqn in (1.1) is dis-
[sI − A]−1 = s s(s+1)
1
cretized by setting t = kT . 0 s+1
Then
y(kT ) = Cx(kT ) + Du(kT ) (2.10)
Φ(t) ≡ L−1 −1
{[sI − A] }
Note : 1 1 − e−t
=
Conventionally, we shall sometimes 0 e−t
dropped T from the above models (2.7)
and (2.10) for ease of presentations.
Thus, 3 Discrete time transfer function and

1 1 − e−T SS models.
Φ(T ) =
0 e−T

1 0.0952 Consider the general discrete-time SS
=
0 0.905 model,
and Θ(T ) is x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) (3.1)
T
0 y(k) = Cx(k) + Du(k) (3.2)
Θ(T ) = Φ(τ ) d τ
0 1
Taking z-transform, with x(0) = 0,
0.00484
=
0.0952 zX(z) = AX(z) + BU(z)
Hence the discrete-time SS model is, ⇒ X(z) = (zI − A)−1BU(z) (3.3)

1 0.0952
x(k + 1) = x(k) Y(z) = CX(z) + DU(z)
0 0.905
= [C[zI − A]−1B + D]U(z)(3.4)
0.00484
+ u(k)(2.11)
0.0952 Hence, the system transfer function,

Y(z)
y(k) = 1 0 x(k) (2.12) G(z) = (3.5)
U(z)
= C[zI − A]−1B + D (3.6)
3.1 Discrete time poles 3.2 Discrete time zeros
A pole is a value of z such that (3.1) has A system zero is a value of z such that
a nontrivial solution when the forcing the system output is zero even with a
input is zero. From (3.3), this implies nonzero state-and-input combination.
that That is, if we are able to find a nontriv-
[zI − A]X(z) = 0 ial solution for X(zo) and U(zo) such
has a nontrivial solution. This means that Y(zo) is zero, then zo is a zero of
that the system. Combining (3.3) and (3.4),
det [zI − A] = 0 we have

zoI − A −B X(zo)
i.e. poles of the transfer function is =0
C D U(zo)
identical to the eigenvalues of the ma- which implies that the condition for
trix A. the existence of nontrivial solutions is
that
zoI − A −B
det =0
C D
Example 3.1. Consider, • zeros polynomial :

1.35 0.55 zI − A −B
x(k + 1) = x(k) det
−0.45 0.35 C D
⎡ ⎤
0.5 z − 1.35 −0.55 −0.5
+ u(k) ⎢ ⎥
0.5 = det ⎣ 0.45 z − 0.35 −0.5 ⎦

y(k) = 1 −1 x(k) 1 −1 0
= 1
Now,
• poles polynomial :
z − 1.35 −0.55
[zI − A] =
0.45 z − 0.35 det [zI − A]
[zI − A]−1 = z 2 − 1.7z + 0.72

1 z − 0.35 0.55
=
z 2 − 1.7z + 0.72 −0.45 z − 1.35
From (3.6),
G(z) = C[zI − A]−1B

1
= 2
z − 1.7z + 0.72
Eg. A digital control system is repre- 4 The state transition equation.

sented by the 4-tuple (A, B, C, D) where
The most straightforward way of solv-
−1 0 1
A= , B= ing
0 −2 2

C = −1 1 ; D = 0 x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) (4.1)
Find the poles and zeros of the system. is by recursion.

Soln : k = 0,
zeros : x(1) = Ax(0) + Bu(0) (4.2)
z + 1 0 −1
(zI − A) −B
k = 1,
= 0 z + 2 −2 = z
C D
−1 1 0 x(2) = Ax(1) + Bu(1)
poles : = A2x(0) + ABu(0) + Bu(1)

z +1 0

det(zI − A) = Thus the general solution is
0 z +2
= (z + 1)(z + 2) x(k) = Akx(0)
k−1

Hence,
+ A(k−i−1)Bu(i) (4.3)
zero at z = 0, poles at z = −1, −2. i=0
which is the solution of (4.1) given the Example 4.1. Consider a discrete time model
initial state x(0) and the input u(i), for given by,

i = 0, 1, . . . , k − 1. 0 1
x(k + 1) = x(k)
(4.3) is defined as the state transition −2 −3

0
equation of the discrete-time system de- + u(k) (4.4)
1
scribed by (4.1).
y(k) = 3 1 x(k) (4.5)
Assume x(0) = 0 and u(k) = 1, k =

0, 1, 2, . . . Then (4.3) becomes
k−1

x(k) = A(k−i−1)B (4.6)
i=0
We have,

0
x(1) = B =
1
y(1) = Cx(1) = 1

1
1
x(2) = A(1−i)B = AB + B =
−2
i=0
y(2) = Cx(2) = 1
Hence, the states and output can be

determined at successive time instants.
5 Similarity transformations Sub (5.3) into (5.1) and (5.2),
Given one state space model of a sys- w(k + 1) = P−1APw(k)
tem, we can derive another state space +P−1Bu(k) (5.4)
model, through similarity transforma- y(k) = CPw(k) + Du(k) (5.5)
tions. Consider or
x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) (5.1) w(k + 1) = Aw w(k) + Bwu(k) (5.6)

y(k) = Cx(k) + Du(k) (5.2) y(k) = Cw w(k) + Dwu(k) (5.7)
We can apply the linear transformation where
x(k) = Pw(k) or w(k) = P−1x(k) Aw = P−1AP, Bw = P−1B (5.8)

(5.3) Cw = CP, Dw = D (5.9)
P is a constant nonsingular n x n ma-
trix and w(k) is the new state vector.
• The characteristic polynomial of the 6 Canonical forms

system matrix is unchanged through
6.1 Controllable canonical form (CCF)
the similarity transformation, because
Consider
|λI − Aw| = |λI − P−1AP|
= |λP−1IP − P−1AP| x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) (6.1)
= |P−1| |λI − A| |P| y(k) = Cx(k) + Du(k) (6.2)
= |λI − A| The characteristic polynomial is,
• Transfer function of a system is in- |λI − A| = λn + an−1λn−1 +

variant under a similarity transfor- · · · + a1λ + a0 (6.3)
mation (proof it yourself ), i.e. Suppose that the matrix

C[zI − A]−1B + D 2
Wc = B AB A B . . . A n−1 B (6.4)
= Cw [zI − Aw]−1Bw + Dw
is non-singular. Then, there exists a
nonsingular transformation matrix
w(k) = P−1x(k) (6.5)

which transform (6.1) into the control- Notes :

lable canonical form • The matrix Wc in (6.4) is called the
w(k + 1) = Acw(k) + Bcu(k) (6.6) controllability matrix.
y(k) = Ccw(k) + Du(k) (6.7) • The transformation matrix P in (6.5)
where to obtain the controllable canonical

⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 0 ... 0 form is
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 1 0 ... 0 ⎥ P = WcW̃c−1 (6.10)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 1 ... 0 ⎥
Ac = ⎢ . .. .. .. .. (6.8)
⎥ where W̃c is the controllability ma-
⎢ . ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 ... 1 ⎥ trix for the representation (6.6).
⎣ ⎦
−a0 −a1 −a2 −a3 . . . −an−1
⎡ ⎤
0
⎢ ⎥
⎢0⎥
⎢ ⎥
Bc = ⎢ .⎥
⎢.⎥ (6.9)
⎢ ⎥
⎣0⎦
1
6.2 Observable canonical form (OCF) where

⎡ ⎤
0 0 ... 0 −a0
Assume that the characteristic polyno- ⎢ ⎥
⎢1 0 ... 0 −a1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
mial of the system matrix is given by Ao = ⎢
⎢0 1 ... 0 −a2 ⎥ ⎥ (6.14)
⎢ . . ... .. .. ⎥
(6.3) and that the matrix, ⎣. . ⎦
⎡ ⎤ 0 0 ... 1 −an−1
C
⎢ ⎥ Co = 0 0 . . . 0 1 (6.15)
⎢ CA ⎥
Wo = ⎢⎢ ..
⎥
⎥ (6.11)
⎣ ⎦ Notes :
CA n−1
• The matrix Wo in (6.11) is called the
is nonsingular. Then there exists a non-
observability matrix.
singular matrix that transforms (6.1)
and (6.2) into the observable canonical • The transformation matrix Q to ob-
form, tain the observable canonical form is
w(k + 1) = Aow(k) + Bou(k)(6.12) Q = Wo−1W̃o (6.16)
y(k) = Cow(k) + Du(k) (6.13) where W̃o is the observability matrix

for the representation (6.12) and (6.13).
• A process having a transfer function
G(z)
bn−1z n−1 + · · · + b1z + b0
=
z n + · · · + a1z + a0
can have the state space model in
either the controllable or observable
canonical form written directly by
inspection.
Cc is given by

Cc = b0 b1 . . . bn−2 bn−1
and Bo by
T
Bo = b0 b1 . . . bn−2 bn−1
• The forms are also called companion

forms.
Example 6.1. A SISO transfer function is

given by
−2z 3 + 2z 2 − z + 2
G(z) =
z 3 + z 2 − z − 34

4z 2 − 3z + 12
= −2
z 3 + z 2 − z − 34
Then, a state space model in control-
lable canonical form is
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Ac = ⎣ 0 0 1 ⎦ , Bc = ⎣ 0 ⎦(6.17)
3
1 −1 1
4
Cc = 12 −3 4 , D = −2 (6.18)

DR Lee Peng Hin: EE6203 Computer Control Systems 1 DR Lee Peng Hin: EE6203 Computer Control Systems 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DR Lee Peng Hin: EE6203 Computer Control Systems 1 DR Lee Peng Hin: EE6203 Computer Control Systems 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dr Lee Peng Hin : EE6203 Computer Control Systems 1 Dr Lee Peng Hin : EE6203 Computer Control Systems 2

EE6203 Computer Control Systems References

• Digital Control Systems : Theory,

• Digital Control Systems.

E-mail : ephlee@ntu.edu.sg ory and Design.

Karl J. Astrom and Bjorn Witten-

• Digital Control System Analysis and

Charles L. Philips and H. Troy Na- 1 State variables analysis

• Steady state tracking accuracy :

• Transient accuracy (dyn. response).

• Control eﬀort required.

– maximum magnitude of u(kT ).

1. Frequency domain design (classical

2. State space design (modern approach).

Adv. of state-space approach :

• Natural and convenient for computer

• Allows a uniﬁed repn. of single-variable

• Can be applied to nonlinear and time-

Scalar and matrix diﬀerential equation of an RLC circuit

1. Not adequately reﬂect behavious of

2. time consuming in ﬁnding solutions.

Two variables of prime importance :

1 1.1 Review of continuous time state space

2. It identiﬁes the physical bahaviour

1.1.1 An example on a state space de- If we take the output to be y = x1,

Y(s) = CX(s) + DU(s) (1.4)

Hence, the transfer function,

θ(t) − motor shaft position

The torque τ (t) developed by the mo-

J − total moment of inertia

Also, from KVL, we have (assume La ∼

1.1.3 Solution of the state vector x(t)

The Laplace transform of the state equa-

⇒ X(s) = (sI − A)−1x(0)

Taking the inverse Laplace transform

= L−1{[sI − A]−1BU(s)}(1.18) Assuming t = t0 > 0, substitute t =

3. Φ(t2 − t1)Φ(t1 − t0) = Φ(t2 − t0).

Example 1.2. Determine the response of Then

To discretise a continuous time system = ei(kT ) kT ≤ t < (k + 1)T

to be controlled, i.e. to obtain the dis- for k = 0, 1, 2, . . . and i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , p.

and whose state transition equation is

x(t) = Φ(t − t0)x(t0)

Figure 4: A LTI discrete time system with ZOH

x(t) = Φ(t − t0)x(t0) x(t) = Φ(t − kT )x(kT )

Set η = kT + T − τ , then dη = −dτ , Example 2.1. A servomotor is modeled as

Thus, 3 Discrete time transfer function and

3.1 Discrete time poles 3.2 Discrete time zeros

that the system. Combining (3.3) and (3.4),

det [zI − A] = 0 we have

Example 3.1. Consider, • zeros polynomial :

[zI − A]−1 = z 2 − 1.7z + 0.72

G(z) = C[zI − A]−1B

Eg. A digital control system is repre- 4 The state transition equation.

Find the poles and zeros of the system. is by recursion.

Assume x(0) = 0 and u(k) = 1, k =

Hence, the states and output can be

5 Similarity transformations Sub (5.3) into (5.1) and (5.2),

Given one state space model of a sys- w(k + 1) = P−1APw(k)

tem, we can derive another state space +P−1Bu(k) (5.4)

model, through similarity transforma- y(k) = CPw(k) + Du(k) (5.5)

x(k + 1) = Ax(k) + Bu(k) (5.1) w(k + 1) = Aw w(k) + Bwu(k) (5.6)

We can apply the linear transformation where