Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Basili Limit Cycles in Relay Systems Sage Timc Sci 2019
Basili Limit Cycles in Relay Systems Sage Timc Sci 2019
Basili Limit Cycles in Relay Systems Sage Timc Sci 2019
net/publication/334256859
CITATIONS READS
2 2,691
3 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Yüce on 19 January 2020.
Abstract
In this paper, limit cycle frequency, pulse width and stability analysis are examined using different methods for relay feedback nonlinear control systems
with integer or fractional order plant transfer functions. The describing function (DF), A loci, a time domain method formulated in state space notation
and Matlab/Simulink simulations are used for the analysis. Comparisons of the results of using these methods are given in several examples. In addition,
the work has been extended to fractional order systems with time delay. Programs have been developed in the Matlab environment for all the theoreti-
cal methods. In particular, Matlab programs have been written to obtain a graphical solution for the A loci method, which can precisely calculate the
limit cycle frequency. The developed solution methods are shown in various examples. The major contribution is to look at finding limit cycles for relay
feedback systems having plants with a fractional order transfer function (FOTF). However, en route to this goal new assessments of limit cycle stability
have been done for a rational plant transfer function plus a time delay.
Keywords
Nonlinear systems, fractional order systems, relay systems, limit cycle, A loci
X
Frequency domain approach y_ (t) = (2hv=p) gn ½cos (nvt + un ) cos (nvt nvt + un )
nodd
The Fourier series for the relay output, u, is easily shown to ð4Þ
be expressible as
provided lims!‘ sG(s) = 0.
X 1
u(t) = (2h=p) ½sin nvt sin (nvt nvt) ð1Þ When lims!‘ G(s) 6¼ 0 and lims!‘ sG(s) 6¼ 0, then y(t) and
nodd
n y_ (t) are not continuous and well documented changes need to
be made to the final equations (12) and (13) below.
Writing for the transfer function Defining the A locus (Atherton, 1966) of the transfer func-
tion for odd terms n only by
G( jnv) = UG (nv) + jVG (nv) = gn ejun ð2Þ
AoG (u, v) = ReAoG (u, v) + jIm AoG (u, v) ð5Þ
then the output from the transfer function, y(t), is
where
X gn
y(t) = (2h=p) ½sin (nvt + un ) sin (nvt nvt + un ) X
nodd
n ReAoG (u, v) = VG (nv) sin nu + UG (nv) cos nu ð6Þ
nodd
ð3Þ
X 1
provided lims!‘ G(s) = 0, and its derivative, y_ (t), is Im AoG (u, v) = ½VG (nv) cos nu UG (nv) sin nu ð7Þ
nodd
n
4426 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(15)
then it is easy to show that (3) and (4) can be written Substituting for x(T =2) from (17) and x(t) from (15) in (16)
gives
y(t) = (2h=p)fIm AoG ( vt, v) Im AoG ( vt + vt, v)g ð8Þ x(0) = eAf(T =2)tg ½eAt x(0) + A1 (eAt I)Bh, which, on
using ekA = A1 ekA A can be shown to give
and
x(0) = (I + eAT=2 )1 A1 (eAT=2 eAf(T=2)tg )Bh ð18Þ
y_ (t) = (2vh=p)fRe AoG ( vt, v) Re AoG ( vt + vt, v)g ð9Þ
The two switching conditions require The relay input is y = Cx and it switches positive at time
0 when Cx(0) = d + D so that
y(0) = d + D and y_ (0) . 0 ð10Þ
C(I + eAT=2 )1 A1 (eAT=2 eAf(T =2)tg )Bh (d + D) = 0 ð19Þ
and
Substituting for x(0) in (15) and using that when the relay
y(t) = d D and y_ (t)\0 ð11Þ switches to zero output at time t, Cx(t) = d D gives
Thus, for the case of an odd symmetrical limit cycle in the The switching conditions are Cx(0) = d + D and
above system Cx(t) = d D, as before.
The frequency domain solution is easy to implement for a
hBC hBC time delay in the plant as it is easily shown that (Atherton,
Q = exp½Af(T=2) tg exp exp½At exp ð26Þ
j_x(t)j j_x(0)j 1981) if G1 (s) = G(s)est , then
and the limit cycle will be stable if all the eigenvalues of Q are AG1 (u, v) = AG (u + vt, v) ð32Þ
less than or equal to unity. One eigenvalue is always unity cor-
responding to the limit cycle solution, that is the limit cycle Example 1: In this example a feedback loop with the follow-
amplitude neither increases or decreases. ing time delay transfer function and relay parameters is con-
sidered, namely
Table 2. The limit cycle frequencies obtained from A locus, simulation and state space for L=0.2.
when v = 0:754 rad= sec some of the corresponding eigenva- shown in Figure 5. Similar results were obtained for K=3
lues are greater than one, which means this frequency is the with L varied as shown in Table 5 and Figure 6.
frequency of an unstable limit cycle, on the other hand, when
v = 1:110 rad= sec one eigenvalue is equal to one and the oth-
ers are smaller than one since this frequency is the stable limit Limit cycles in systems with a FOTF
cycle frequency. For K = 2:82 the frequency of the stable The application of the time domain limit cycle method to sys-
limit cycle is 1.051 rad/sec and the frequency of the unstable tems with a fractional order plant is not straight forward as
limit cycle is 1.051 rad/sec which are equal. Therefore, we can to obtain a state space description for the plant requires the
conclude that K = 2:82 is the critical value for stability. This fractional order one to be replaced by an approximate integer
also can be seen from Figure 4, which shows graphs of the one. Then for good accuracy the order of this transfer func-
variation of the frequencies of the stable and unstable limit tion needs to be quite high. On the other hand, since fre-
cycles with K. quency responses of fractional order plants are exact the
It will also be noted from Tables 1 and 3 that the unstable frequency domain approach can be done exactly but the A
eigenvalue for the unstable limit cycle approaches unity as K loci have to be found computational by summation of the
is decreased towards the point where no limit cycle exists. A series to a finite number of terms.
practical aspect of this is that in a simulation if one can start
on the unstable limit cycle divergence from it will be slower as Example 2: Consider now the system of Figure 1 with the
this value of K is approached. For two fixed values of K FOTF given in (34).
and varying L, the results are given in Tables 4 and 5. From
Table 4 it can be seen that for K=4 and L=0.03 the time K
G(s) = , d = 1, h = 1, D = 0 ð34Þ
domain method predicts a critical limit cycle frequency value s1:2 (s + 1)(0:5s + 1)
of 1.271 rad/sec, that is the stability limit, whereas the A loci
The procedure given above is applied to this transfer function
and simulation methods show the system to have no limit
and the results obtained from the A loci method and simula-
cycle, that is, stable, for these values. This error is due to the
tion are given in Table 6. Here, for the simulation we
used Oustaloup’s seventh order integer approximate transfer
function given in (35) for the frequency band
(vl , vh ) = (0:01 rad= sec , 100 rad= sec ).
K Eigenvalues
integer approximation used for the fractional order of 1 s0:2 K=2.38 the stable and unstable limit cycle frequencies
and according to the results of simulation the system becomes obtained from the seventh order approximation are equal to
stable for K ł 2.38. each other at 0.952 rad/sec. so that the critical gain K for sys-
The results obtained from the time domain method for tem stability is 2.38 compared with the A locus value of
K=8 and K=2.38 using Oustaloup first, third, fifth and 2.3739. Further investigations of higher order Oustaloup
seventh order approximations are given in Tables 7 and 8. approximations showed that a 13th order one was required to
For K=8 it can be seen from Table 7 that the stable limit yield a critical gain and frequency to three figures in agree-
cycle is computed from the first, third, fifth and seventh order ment with the A locus result.
approximations at frequencies of 0.579 rad/sec, 0.938 rad/sec, Another approximation that can be used in obtaining
0.985 rad/sec and 0.990 rad/sec respectively, and the unstable results is to take fewer terms in the A loci series although
limit cycle is computed from first, third, fifth and seventh there is no reason to do this with modern computation facili-
order approximations at 0.257 rad/sec, 0.431 rad/sec, 0.342 ties. Table 9 shows the results for values of n equal to 1, 3, 5,
rad/sec and 0.339 rad/sec respectively. Table 8 shows that for 21 and 101. This shows as expected that errors in the results
4430 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(15)
K
G(s) = eLs , d = 1, D = 0, h = 1 ð36Þ
sa (s + 1)(0:5s + 1)
Figure 5. Stable and unstable limit cycle frequencies using the time Figure 6. Stable and unstable limit cycle frequencies using the time
domain method for K=4 and different values of L. domain method for K=3 and different values of L.
frequency and pulse width results are given for varying a in that there is a really significant difference between the 2/2 and
Table 11. It can be seen in Table 11 that while the simulation 4/4 Padé approximation results for the case of an unstable
result is stable for a ł 0:7, the A loci and time domain meth- limit cycle, because the pulse width of the unstable limit cycles
ods indicate limit cycle frequencies. Also, the A loci and time is narrower so that the limit cycle waveform at the relay out-
domain methods show a stable system for a ł 0:6. put contains more higher frequencies.
Finally, K = 2 and a = 1:2 are selected. The results for
limit cycle and pulse width are given in Table 12. It can be
seen from the table that the system is stable for no time delay
case (L = 0). Furthermore, it is shown in Tables 10, 11 and 12
4432 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(15)
Table 6. The limit cycle frequencies from the A locus method and theoretical methods are covered, the approximate describing
simulation. function approach, the A loci method that involves a summa-
tion of an infinite series, where the DF approximation just
K A loci Simulation takes the first term, and a time domain approach formulated
v rad/sec t sec v rad/sec t sec
in the state space representation. Results are compared with
those from simulations, which like all the theoretical methods
8 0.987 2.884 0.991 2.871 involves approximations for the FOTF.
0.309 0.168 - - To develop the work in a logical and understandable man-
3 1.004 2.150 1.008 2.131 ner it was felt necessary to first give some results for a rational
0.755 0.680 - - plant transfer function. Here, for a plant with no time delay it
2.5 0.991 1.738 0.993 1.704 is concluded that all the methods, apart from the approximate
0.877 1.017 - -
describing function approach, give accurate results for obtain-
2.4 0.973 1.535 0.968 1.455
ing the limit cycle frequency and pulse width. The A loci pro-
0.922 1.201 - -
2.38 0.963 1.447 No Solution No Solution vides a nice graphical interpretation and the limit cycle
0.938 1.286 stability can be assessed from an intersection criterion. The
2.375 0.956 1.400 No Solution No Solution time domain method has the advantage that the eigenvalues it
0.945 1.330 gives provide information on the limit cycle dynamics. When
2.3739 0.951 1.365 No Solution No Solution extending the approaches to a rational plant transfer function
0.951 1.365 with time delay, as in example 1, the previous comments
apply apart from for the time domain method. Here, since a
rational approximation is required for the time delay an
approximate solution is obtained. It is not easy to find how
Conclusions good the approximation should be to obtain a given accuracy
but it is clear from the results, particularly so for the results
The objective of this paper has been to look at methods for
for example 3 in Table 10, that they are worse for a given
determining the frequency and stability of limit cycles in relay
order time delay approximation for the unstable limit cycle.
feedback systems with fractional order plant transfer func-
This is to be expected as the unstable limit cycle has narrower
tions. The theoretical techniques can be extended to more
pulse widths, which indicates a larger content of higher har-
complicated forms of limit cycle but here the concentration
monics, so the time delay approximation for better results has
has been on the normal form found in control systems with
two pulses per period for a relay with dead zone. Three
v rad/s t sec v rad/s t sec v rad/s tsec v rad/s t sec v rad/s t sec
8 1.008 2.797 0.989 2.874 0.987 2.883 0.987 2.884 0.987 2.884
0.997 0.318 0.810 0.253 0.705 0.230 0.446 0.187 0.309 0.168
3 1.009 2.122 1.008 2.129 1.005 2.143 1.004 2.150 1.004 2.150
1.008 0.993 0.857 0.769 0.7921 0.709 0.756 0.681 0.755 0.680
2.5 No Solution 0.994 1.682 0.9916 1.730 0.991 1.738 0.991 1.738
No Solution 0.905 1.071 0.8838 1.030 0.877 1.017 0.877 1.017
2.4 No Solution 0.967 1.447 0.9712 1.490 0.973 1.534 0.973 1.535
No Solution 0.938 1.263 0.9365 1.256 0.922 1.201 0.922 1.201
2.38 No Solution No Solution No Solution 0.963 1.445 0.963 1.447
No Solution No Solution No Solution 0.939 1.290 0.938 1.286
2.375 No Solution No Solution No Solution 0.956 1.400 0.956 1.400
No Solution No Solution No Solution 0.945 1.330 0.945 1.330
2.3739 No Solution No Solution No Solution No Solution 0.951 1.365
No Solution No Solution No Solution No Solution 0.951 1.365
to be good at higher frequencies, which is the case when a has to be found. In the case of the A loci method, however,
higher order approximation is used. the only approximation is in taking a finite number of terms
In extending the methods to an FOTF first without time in an infinite series, as unlike the case of a rational transfer
delay all the methods are approximate including the simula- function a closed form solution for the series is not obtain-
tion results for which a rational approximate transfer function able. The error, however, is controllable by any of several
4434 Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 41(15)
Table 10. The limit cycle frequencies obtained from A loci, simulation and the time domain method for a = 1:2 and L=0.2.
Table 11. The limit cycle frequencies obtained from A loci, simulation and time domain for K=6 and L=0.2.
1.2 Stable 0.812 3.520 0.813 3.505 0.815 3.505 0.815 3.505
Unstable 0.047 0.145 - - 0.053 0.156 0.051 0.100
1.1 Stable 0.949 2.908 0.950 2.902 0.950 2.902 0.950 2.902
Unstable 0.062 0.224 - - 0.061 0.229 0.066 0.182
1 Stable 1.099 2.400 1.100 2.393 1.099 2.399 1.099 2.399
Unstable 0.537 0.339 - - 0.545 0.339 0.543 0.339
0.9 Stable 1.265 1.964 1.263 1.968 1.263 1.968 1.263 1.968
Unstable 0.828 0.399 - - 0.826 0.399 0.824 0.399
0.8 Stable 1.446 1.577 1.441 1.587 1.442 1.587 1.441 1.587
Unstable 1.086 0.461 - - 1.082 0.460 1.080 0.460
0.7 Stable 1.638 1.208 No solution 1.631 1.226 1.631 1.227
Unstable 1.379 0.546 - - 1.366 0.541 1.364 0.540
0.6 Stable No solution No solution No solution No solution
Unstable No solution - - No solution No solution
Yüce et al. 4435
Table 12. The limit cycle frequencies obtained from A loci, simulation and time domain for K= 2 and a = 1:2.
methods one may use to decide where to terminate an infinite Atherton DP (2011) An Introduction to Nonlinearity in Control Sys-
series. It is shown in example 2 that good accuracy can be tems. Derek Atherton & Ventus Publishing ApS, ebook at
obtained with a relatively small number of terms. When the bookboon.com.
FOTF also has a time delay, as in example 3, using the time Atherton DP, Tan N, Yeroglu C, et al. (2014a) Computation of limit
domain approach requires in addition to the transfer function cycles in nonlinear feedback loops with fractional order plants. In:
2014 International Conference on Fractional Differentiation and Its
approximation an additional approximation for the time delay.
Applications (ICFDA 2014). Catania, Italy, 23–25 June 2014, pp.
1–6. IEEE.
Declaration of conflicting interests Atherton DP, Tan N, Yeroglu C, et al. (2014b) Limit cycles in non-
linear systems with fractional order plants. Machines 2(3):
The author(s) declared no potential conflict of interests with 176–201.
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this Balasubramanian R (1981) Stability of limit cycles in feedback sys-
article. tems containing a relay. IEEE Proceedings D (Control Theory and
Applications) 128(1): 24–29.
Choudhury S and Atherton D (1974) Limit cycles in high-order non-
Funding linear systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup- 121(7): 717–724.
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this Chung J and Atherton D (1966) The determination of periodic modes
in relay systems using the state space approach. International Jour-
article: This work is supported by the Scientific and Research
_ nal of Control 4(2): 105–126.
Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) under Grant no. EEEAG-
Hamel B (1950) Étude mathématique des systèmes à plusieurs degres
115E388. de liberte décrits par des équations linéaires avec un terme de com-
mande discontinu. Proceedings of the Journe´es d’Ètudes des Vibra-
ORCID iD tions AERA. Paris.
Monje CA, Chen Y, Vinagre BM, et al. (2010) Fractional-order Sys-
Ali Yüce https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4642-6272 tems and Controls: Fundamentals and Applications. London:
Springer Science & Business Media.
Tsypkin IZ (1984) Relay Control Systems. Cambridge: CUP Archive.
References Wadey M and Atherton D (1987) A simulation study of unstable limit
Atherton DP (1966) Conditions for periodicity in control systems con- cycles. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 20(12): 149–154.
taining several relays. 3rd IFAC Congress, Paper 28E. London. Willems J and Pandit M (1971) Stability theory of dynamical systems.
Atherton DP (1981) Stability of Nonlinear Systems. New York, NY, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1(4):
USA: John Wiley & Sons. 408–408.