Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design of Optimal Controllers For A Ball
Design of Optimal Controllers For A Ball
Design of Optimal Controllers For A Ball
Abstract
One of the bench mark problem used by many researchers in the area of control engineering is the Ball and Beam system (BBS)
which possess severe nonlinearity and instability characteristics. The BBS connected with servo motor results in an open loop
unstable system due to the presence of multiple poles at the origin. This process has the difficulty in controller design because of
assumed nonlinear relation between beam angle and ball displacement. This paper deals with design methodology of full state
feedback (FSFB) controller with pre compensator and the performance of which is compared with linear quadratic controller
(LQC). The state feedback controller with pre compensator yields better performance in terms of transient response
specifications compared with linear quadratic controller. A simulation is carried out using MATLAB to evaluate the proposed
control algorithm on the modelled Ball and Beam system.
Keyword- BBS, State-Space model, full state feedback controller, linear quadratic controller
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
In order to understand the concepts of modern control theory the BBS connected with servo motor is considered as an illustrative
example. The two degrees of freedom of the proposed system are namely, the rolling of the ball back along the beam, and the
beam rotation. The controller design for an unstable system is a difficult task for control engineers and researchers.
The mathematical modelling of the system becomes simpler when the beam deflects a small angle from the horizontal
position which leads to insignificant nonlinear property. Appreciable research work had been done on this laboratory test bench.
A feedback linearization controller is proposed by Hauser et al. A Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) for stabilization is designed
by Pang et al. H.Verrelst et al used Neural Network for stabilization of BBS. S.K Oh et al proposed Fuzzy based cascade control
and Chang et al designed a tracking control strategy using fuzzy sliding-mode controllers. Further all the intelligent controllers
are knowledge based and the stability of the system is not guaranteed. In this proposed work controller is designed for
positioning the ball along the beam by manipulating the servomotor voltage. The mathematical modelling of BBS connected
with servo motor is obtained from the force balance equation expressed using Newton‟s law of motion. The state space
modelling of the plant is obtained so as to design optimal controllers. An implementation of FSFB controller with set point gain
and linear quadratic controller for the modelled system is carried out. The paper is organized as follows. Section II gives details
about the mathematical modelling of BBS and servomotor. In Section III the concepts of full-state feedback controller for a
desired specification is presented. In Section IV the design of Linear Quadratic controller is discussed. The stability analysis of
the closed loop system is presented in section V. The simulated results are given in section VI. Finally conclusion is given in
section VII.
B. Modelling of Servomotor
The armature voltage equation is,
dia t
Va t La Ra ia t K m m
dt
The torque balance equation is,
K g K m ia t J L BL
J L BL
ia t
K g Km
Ignoring armature inductance the armature voltage equation becomes,
J BL
Va t Ra L K m Kg
K g K m
K g K mVa S Ra J L S 2 BL S K m Kg S (S )
2
The transfer function of the servo motor including inertia and friction of load shaft is
Km K g
(s) Ra J eq
(4)
Va ( s ) 2 Beq K m2 K g2
S S
J Ra J eq
eq
Or equivalently,
( s) am
(5)
Va ( s) S ( S bm )
Where
Km K g Beq K m2 K g2
am , bm
Ra J eq J eq Ra J eq
bm amVa (6)
Parameter Value
Beam length (L) in meter 0.1675
Lever arm offset (r) in meter 0.0254
Acceleration due to Gravity ( g ) in m/S2 9.84
Armature resistance ( Ra ) in Ohms 2.6
Motor voltage constant ( K m ) 0.00767
gear ratio ( K g ) 70
Efficiency ( ) 0.8
2 0.0023
Equivalent moment of inertia ( J eq )Kg m
Equivalent viscous friction B in Nm/rad/sec 4 103
eq
x
x
y 1 0 0 0
The system parameters given in Table.1 are used for simulation purpose.
The block diagram of FSFB controlled system is shown in Fig.2, which is composed of plant, state feedback gain matrix
and a pre compensator which provides a set point gain factor. The primary need for adding set point gain is to compute new
reference input that increases the speed of system response thus reduces the steady-state error to zero. The controllability
property reveals that the system under consideration is controllable.
4
n 30
It is desired to have overshoot of less than 3% and settling time less than 0.2 seconds, which corresponds to a ts
30 . The closed loop poles p p p and p are thus chosen as 30 j30, 50, 200 .Now, the state feedback gains are
and d 1, 2, 3 4
obtained by solving the equation given below
det sI A B K ( s p1 )( s p2 )( s p3 )( s p4 ) 0
The closed loop response with FSBF controller results in large steady state error, and in order to compensate for this error, a
reference input compensation is included.
The state space model and output equation of the closed loop system with set point gain is,
x 0 1 0 0 x 0
x x
0 0 1.1 0 0 Va
0 0 0 1 0
16360000 954500 26800 310
16360000
y = 1
0 0 0 x x θ θ
T
The state space model given above is used to carry out simulation as shown in Fig.2. The state feedback gains for
various pole locations are evaluated and listed in Table 2, which indicates that as the dominant poles are moved farther from
imaginary axis, the speed of response increases.
The state space model given above is used to carry out simulation as shown in Fig.2.
VGM
Closed loop pole location State feedback gains Set point gain
in dB
50, 200
246070 14350 400 3 246070 8.5
& 30 j 30
50, 200
& 10 j10
27341 3418 229 3 27341 10.6
50, 200
6835.3 1538 188.7 3 6835.3 12.4
& 5 j5
Table 2: Full state feedback controller gains for various pole locations
Now , V ( x) ( AX Bu ) PX X P( AX Bu )
T T
V ( x) X T ( AT P PA) X uT BT PX X T PBu
1 T
From ARE we have, A P PA Q PBR B P
T
1
We get, V ( x) ( X QX u Ru ) ( B PX Ru ) R ( B PX Ru )
T T T T T
Integrating
V ( x) we get
0 0
J X T (0) PX (0) ( BT PX Ru )T R 1 ( BT PX Ru )dt
0 Minimum value of „J‟ is achieved when
1
U R B PX KX .The design procedure is described by the following steps:
T
VGM
R LQR gains Eigen Values Set point gain
in dB
40, 2.35
0.1 7.07 6.2 3 0.071 7.07 30.87
& 1.17 j 2.03
40, 3.45
0.01 22.36 13.52 4.5 0.104 22.36 17.59
& 1.71 j 2.98
40, 5.1
0.001 70.7 29.7 6.84 0.152
& 2.5 j 4.37
70.71 6.87
Table.3: Linear quadratic controller gains for various weight matrices.
V. STABILITY ANALYSIS
According to Franklin et al (2006), vector gain margin (VGM) is a single margin parameter that combines gain and phase
margins into a single measure. This quantity eliminates the ambiguities that exist with the gain margin and phase margin
combination in relation to analyzing stability of a system. The original idea of VGM was proposed by Smith (1958) as cited in
the work by Franklin et al (2006) is adopted in this work. The vector margin or stability margin is the minimum distance from
the Nyquist plot to the point (-1+j0) and the idea is illustrated graphically n Fig.3. Recent advances in computing facility have
made measurement of VGM feasible which was not been used in the past extensively due to difficulties in computing it.
1 1
S
1 G ( s )Gc ( s ) 1 L( j pc )
VGM is linked with sensitivity function as the maximum of as given in
Equation . The reasonable values of VGM for good closed loop system stability is
1
3.5 dB max 9.5 dB
1 L( j pc )
(8)
L( j pc )
Where is the loop gain at the phase cross over frequency.
The above VGM-based stability assessment is carried out for the proposed control schemes and the results are tabulated
in Table 2 & 3. The tabulation shows that the state feedback controller with greater dominant pole value and linear quadratic
controller with very small „R‟ value yields VGM value which is well within the tolerance as specified in equation (8).
of the closed loop system with proposed controllers is presented in Fig.11 & Fig.12. As all the contours corresponding to the
loop transfer function does not encloses the -1+j0 point, stability is assured
Fig. 4: Open loop step response of BBS connected with servo motor
VII. CONCLUSION
The proposed algorithm is demonstrated for BBS with servomotor. It has been shown that, FSFB controller with pre
compensator tracks the set point with desired settling time. Also it exhibits less overshoot than LQC. The performance summary
given in Table 4 indicates that, the time domain specifications are close to the desired specifications with FSFB controller than
with LQC. The stability of the closed loop system is more for LQC than with FSFB controller.
Parameter FSFBC LQC
Settling time 0.15 sec 1.33 sec
Rise time 0.07 sec 0.455 sec
Peak time 0.146 sec 1 sec
% overshoot 2.04% 8.22%
Table 3: Comparison of Time domain Specifications
REFERENCES
[1] J. Hauser, S. Sastry, and P. Kokotovic, “Nonlinear control via approximate input-output linearization the ball and beam
example,” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 392–398,
1992.
[2] Z.H Pang, G. Zheng and C.X. Luo, “Augmented State Estimation and LQR Control for a Ball and Beam System”, Proc. of
the 6th IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications., pp.1328-1332, June 21-23, 2011.
[3] H. Verrelst, K. Van Acker, J. Suykens, B. Motmans, B. De Moor and J. Vandewalle, “Neural Control Theory: Case Study
for a Ball and Beam System”, Proc. of the European Control Conference Brussels, Belgium, July –4, 1997.
[4] S.K Oh, H.J. Jang and W. Pedrycz, “The Design of a Fuzzy Cascade Controller for Ball and Beam System: A Study in
Optimization with the Use of Parallel Genetic Algorithms”, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 22, pp.
261–271, 2009.
[5] Y.H. Chang, C.W. Chang, C.W. Tao, H.W. Lin and J.S. Taur, “Fuzzy Sliding-mode Control for Ball and Beam System with
Fuzzy ant Colony Optimization”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 3624-3633, 2012.
[6] “Ball and Beam Experiment and Solution,” Quanser Consulting, 1991.