EMG 4210 Control Eng.

II Lecture 2, Agnesnv
RECAP: State-space representation
As we know, a control system can be described through G(s), the system’s transfer function
Y ( s)
G ( s )= is derived via the Laplace transformation of the input (u(t)) and output (y(t)) differential
U ( s)
equations of the system to model. Nevertheless, there is another way to define a control system. This
is the so-called state-space representation of the system. Transfer function G(s) can be transformed
to state-space representation, and vice-versa.
The standard state-space representation is given below:
Ẋ =Ax + Bu (state equation);
y=Cx + Du (output equation);
Where:
 x is the state vector that contains all the state variables, (it can be position, velocity,
acceleration, angle, voltage, current, etc.);
 Ẋ is the time derivative of the state vector;
 u is the input scalar;
 y is the output scalar (it can be position, velocity, acceleration, angle, voltage, current, etc.);
 A is the state matrix;
 B is the input vector;
 C is the output vector;
 D is the feedforward constant.

The general block diagram of the state-space representation

Definition of state x(t): state of a system at time t0 is the information by which, together with the
control input u(t) (t ≥t0.), the response of the system can be determined for all t ≥t0.
Example 1

Example 2
Example 3: Mechanical system:
Newton's laws of motion form the basis for analyzing mechanical systems. Newton’s second law,
stating that the sum of the forces acting on a body equals the product of its mass and
acceleration. Newton's third law, for our purposes, states that if two bodies are in contact, then they
experience the same magnitude contact force, just acting in opposite directions.

When applying this equation, it is best to construct a free-body diagram (FBD) of the sysetm
showing all of the applied forces.
Mass-Spring-Damper system
The free-body diagram for this system is shown below. The spring force is proportional to the
displacement of the mass,  , and the viscous damping force is proportional to the velocity of the
mass,  . Both forces oppose the motion of the mass and are, therefore, shown in the negative  -
direction. Note also that   corresponds to the position of the mass when the spring is
unstretched.

Now we proceed by summing the forces and applying Newton’s second law, in each direction. In
this case, there are no forces acting in the  -direction; however, in the  -direction we have:

This equation, known as the governing equation, completely characterizes the dynamic state of the
system. To determine the state-space representation of the mass-spring-damper system, we must
reduce the second-order governing equation to a set of two first-order differential equations. To this
end, we choose the position and velocity as our state variables.

The position variable captures the potential energy stored in the spring, while the velocity variable
captures the kinetic energy stored by the mass. The damper only dissipates energy, it doesn't store
energy. Often when choosing state variables it is helpful to consider what variables capture the
energy stored in the system.
The state equation in this case is:

If, for instance, we are interested in controlling the position of the mass, then the output equation is:

Assignment: Direct current machines are the most versatile energy conversion devices. Their outstanding advantage is
that the volt-ampere or speed torque characteristic of these machines are very much flexible and easily adaptable for both
steady state and dynamic operations. When a wide range of speed control and torque output are required dc motor is an
obvious choice.
The state space approach is a generalized time domain method for modelling, analysing and designing a wide range of
control systems and is particularly well suited to digital computational technique. In this question we attempt Dc motor
modelling using state space analysis. Different equations related to DC motor are given below
dθ (t)
e m ( t ) =K m
dt

d ia ( t )
e a ( t ) = Lm + Rm i a ( t ) +e m ( t )
dt

T ( t )=K t i a ( t )

dθ2 dθ(t)
J +B =T (t)
dt
2
dt

Where 𝑒𝑎(t) = armature voltage, 𝑒𝑚 (t) = back emf, 𝑖𝑎(t) = armature current, 𝑇(𝑡) =developed torque, Ɵ(𝑡) = motor shaft
dθ(t )
angle, =ω(t ), Ɵ= shaft speed, J= moment of inertia of the rotor, B = viscous frictional constant, 𝐿𝑚 = inductance
dt
of armature windings, 𝑅𝑚= armature winding resistance, 𝐾𝑡= motor torque constant, 𝐾𝑚= motor constant.
Here the motor speed ω(t) is controlled by varying the armature voltage 𝑒𝑎(t). Hence 𝑒𝑎(t) is the input variable and ω(t) is
the output variable.
dθ(t )
We chose as the state variables 𝑥1(𝑡) = =ω(t ), and 𝑥2(𝑡) = 𝑖𝑎 (𝑡)
dt
Find the state equations

Equivalence between state-space representation and system’s transfer function

State-space description of a system and the system’s transfer function can be transformed to each
other. In this lecture we will learn how to realize the conversion from state-space model to transfer
function.
We have the general SISO, LTI state-space form as follows:
x(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t);
y(t) = Cx(t) + Du(t);
After applying the Laplace transformation, the state-space form becomes:
sX(s) = AX(s) + BU(s);
Y (s) = CX(s) + DU(s);
State equation can be reformulated:
sX(s)- AX(s) = BU(s)
(sI-A) X(s) = BU(s)
X(s) = (sI-A)-1 BU(s)

When we substitute X(s) the output equation becomes:

Y(s) = C(sI-A)-1 BU(s) + DU(s) = [C(sI-A)-1 B+D] U(s)
So, the transfer function is
Y (s ) −1
G ( s )= =C ( sI −A ) ∗B+ D
U ( s)
Electrical systems: Like Newton’s laws for mechanical systems, Kirchoff’s circuit laws are
fundamental analytical tools for modeling electrical systems. Kirchoff’s current law (KCL) states
that the sum of the electrical currents entering a node in a circuit must equal the sum of electrical
currents exiting the node. Kirchoff’s voltage law (KVL) states that the sum of voltage differences
around any closed loop in a circuit is zero. When applying KVL, the source voltages are typically
taken as positive and the load voltages are taken as negative.
Consider a simple series combination of three passive electrical elements: a resistor, an inductor, and
a capacitor, known as an RLC Circuit and derive the state space equation and transfer function.

Controllability
The concepts of controllability and observability introduced first by
Kalman, play an important role in both theoretical and practical aspects
of modern control. The conditions on controllability and observability
essentially govern the existence of a solution to an optimal control problem. This seems to be the
basic difference between optimal control theory and classical control theory. In the classical control
theory, the design techniques are dominated by trial-and- error methods so that given a set of design
specifications the designer at the outset does not know if any solution exists. Optimal control theory,
on the other hand, has criteria for determining at the outset if the design solution exists for the
system parameters and design objectives.
We shall show that the condition of controllability of a system is closely related to the existence of
solutions of state feedback for assigning the values of the eigenvalues of the system arbitrarily. The
concept of observability relates to the condition of observing or estimating the state variables from
the output variables, which are generally measurable.
The block diagram shown in Fig. a&b illustrates the motivation behind investigating controllability
and observability. Figure (a) shows a system with the process dynamics described by
dy
=Ax ( t ) + Bu(t)
dx

The closed-loop system is formed by feeding back the state variables through a constant feedback
gain matrix K. Thus, from Fig. a,
U ( t )=−Kx ( t )+ r (t)
where K is a p x n feedback matrix with constant elements. The closed-loop system is thus
described by
dy
=( A−BK ) x ( t )+ Br (t)
dx
This problem is also known as the pole-placement design through state feedback. The design
objective in this case is to find the feedback matrix K such that the eigenvalues of (A - BK), or of the
closed-loop system, are of certain prescribed values. The word pole refers here to the poles of the
closed-loop transfer function, which are the same as the eigenvalues of (A - BK).
We shall show later that the existence of the solution to the pole-placement design with arbitrarily
assigned pole values through state feedback is directly based on the controllability of the states of the
system. The result is that if the system is controllable, then there exists a contant feedback matrix K
that allows the eigenvalues of (A - BK) to be arbitrarily assigned.
Once the closed-loop system is designed, the practical problems of implementing the feeding back of
the state variables must be considered. There are two problems with implementing state feedback
control: First, the number of state variables may be excessive, which will make the cost of sensing
each of these state variables for feedback prohibitive. Second, not all the state variables are
physically accessible, and so it may be necessary to design and construct an observer that will
estimate the state vector from the output vector y(t). Fig. (b) shows the block diagram of a closed-
loop system with an observer. The observed state vector ~ x (t) is used to generate the control u(t)
through the feedback matrix K. The condition that such an observer can be designed for the system
is called the observability of the system.
The concept of controllability can be stated with reference to the block diagram of Fig. (a). The
process is said to be completely controllable if every state variable of the process can be controlled
to reach a certain objective infinite time by some unconstrained control u(t). Intuitively, it is simple
to understand that, if any one of the state variables is independent of the control u(t), there would be
no way of driving this particular state variable to a desired state in finite time by means of a control
effort. Therefore, this particular state is said to be uncontrollable, and, as long as there is at least one
uncontrollable state, the system is said to be not completely controllable or, simply, uncontrollable.

As a simple example of an uncontrollable system, figure above illustrates the state diagram of a
linear system with two state variables. Because the control U(t) affects only the state x1(t), the state
x2{t) is uncontrollable. In other words, it would be impossible to drive x2(t) from an initial state
x2(t0) to a desired state x2(tf) in finite time interval tf- t0 by the control U(t). Therefore, the entire
system is said to be uncontrollable.
The concept of controllability given here refers to the states and is sometimes referred to as state
controllability. Controllability can also be defined for the outputs of the system, so there is a
difference between state controllability and output controllability.

Controllability: A system is controllable if there always exists a control input u(t) (t ≥t0.) that
transfers the system from an initial state x(t0) to another arbitrary state x(tf ) in infite time such that
x(tf ) ≠ x(t0).
Controllability matrix is:
C = [B AB A2 B ::: An-1 B]

A system is controllable if and only if its controllability matrix C has full rank, i.e. if rank(C) = n
where n is the number of the states variables within the given system.

Observability
Essentially, a system is completely observable if every state variable of the system affects some of
the outputs. In other words, it is often desirable to obtain information on the state variables from the
measurements of the outputs and the inputs.
If any one of the states cannot be observed from the measurements of the outputs, the state is said to
be unobservable, and the system is not completely observable or, simply. unobservable.
Fig. below shows the state diagram of a linear system in which the state x 2 is not connected to the
output y(t) in any way. Once we have measured y(t), we can observe the state x1(t), since x 1 (t) =
y(t). However, the state x2 cannot be observed from the information on y(t). Thus, the system is
unobservable.

Observability: A system is observable if the initial state x(t0), can be determined only based on the
knowledge of system input u(t) and system output y(t) over some finite time interval t0 < t < tf.
Observability matrix is:

[]
C
CA
CA 2
O= .
.
.
CA n−1

Asystem is observable if and only if observability matrix O has full rank, i.e. if rank(O) = n where n
is the number of the state variables.
Check the observability and controllability of the last two examples!

Full state feedback control (pole placement).

Principle
Full state feedback control or pole placement is a method employed in feedback control system
theory to place the closed-loop poles of a plant in pre-determined locations in the s-plane. The
location of poles corresponds directly to the eigenvalues of the system, which indicate the
characteristics of response of the system. By changing the location of poles, one can easily modify
the characteristics of the system response.

The block diagram of a full-state feedback system is shown below. By full state we mean that all
state variables are always known to the controller. Pole placement method is to design a gain vector,
called K, to make the system controllable, stable and the system response faster.
If a system can be written in state-space representation, the poles are the eigenvalues of state
matrix A.

Ẋ =Ax (t)+ Bu(t)

y=Cx (t)
The input u(t) is then
U ( t )=−Kx ( t )+ r (t)
Where r is the reference signal. For simplicity, assume r=0, i/e.
U ( t )=−Kx ( t )
Substituting:
ẋ= Ax(t)+ B (¿ kx ( t ) )
The state space equations for the closed loop feedback system are therefore,
ẋ=(A−BK ) x (t)
y(t) = Cx(t)
where ACL is the state matrix of the closed-loop controlled system. The stability and time-domain
performance of the closed-loop feedback system are determined primarily by the location of the
eigenvalues of system matrix ACL = A - BK, which are equal to the closed-loop poles. By choosing
an appropriate state-feedback gain matrix K, we can place these closed-loop poles to any appropriate
positions.

Design method
There are three main steps to design a full state feedback control which are:
1. Check controllability, i.e. if rank(C) = n is true. Note that only controllable systems can be
controlled by the method of pole placement.
2. Design the gain vector K.
3. Analyse the closed-loop system (ACL).

We shall continue from here……!