Gain Scheduling: Potential Hazards and Possible Remedies Jeff $. Shamma and Michael Athans ‘common gun scheduling rle-ofhamb isto "schedule on a slow variable” Coret fui scheduling practic is cesar limited to slow sariton inthe scheduling varieble ‘Tres limitations ae revealed 1 be conse quences of fundamental contol concep. Fartherore, tis shown how reformulation ofthe gain scheduling procedure can ead towards ultimately removing these resic- in Scheduling Cin scheduling isa common engaceing practice used to contol nonlinear plans i 3 variety of engineering applications, such 3s flight convo [1}and proces com (2) The rain ie is 10 break the contol design proces into (v0 steps. Fast, one designs Toc linear contol sed on ineariztons ‘of the norlinear plant at sever diferent ‘operating conditions. Second, global tonlnea coacller for the nonlinear plats bined by imerpolating, of “schedling, the ais of the local operating point designs, ‘One advantage of guin schedling is its potential to icoxpoat Hines bust contel ‘methedoogies into nonlinear contol design Despite i popula, pain scheduling remains an. ad. foe methodology. For example, the fobustes, performance, of {ven nominal slability properties ofa global Presented at the 1991 American Control Conference, Boston, MA, June 26-28, 1991 Jeff S. Shama is withthe Deparment of ‘Aerospace Engineering and. Engineering ‘Mechanics, Univers of Tesas, Austin. TX 78712, om leave from the Deparment of Elecrical Engineering, Universi of Minnesota, Minneapolis. MN 35435 Michoe “Athans is withthe Deparment of Electrical ‘Engineering and Computer Science, Masa chases Intute of Technology, Cambridge IMA 02139. This research war supported by the NASA Ames and. Langley. Research (Centers under grant NASAINAG 2-297 June 1992 ain scheduod controller are not adresse xplicly in te design process. Rater, such Properties are infeed) from extensive $imulitions,Vaious heuristic les of humb, however, have emerged guiding successful sun scheduled designs. “Two prominent gain scheduling guidelines tue "the schoduling varable should eaptare the plant’ nonlinearities” andthe scheduling arable should vary slowly.” Previously, these guidelines were justified only through Smlation and implementation. However, event work by the auhors [3}5] shows tha these grielines indeed have a rigorous mathematical juscaion. Ta [3}18} ie eric ules-o.thumb behind psi sched ing are taneformed into quintuaive ste ments Which lead 10 2 deeper and more Insightful understanding ofthe gain Sched img procedure. An aerate approach gain scheduling may be found in Rugh [6] and references therein In adtion to giving gain scheduling a theoretical foundation, the work of (3}(S] reveals cena imitations of ain cheng, More expicily the guidelines of "apring the plan's soalneaies” and. "varying slow! fat pace furdameraa listens fon the achievable perormance of current [in scheduling pasties ‘A in scheduled controler is based & collestin fea time inrian approxi: tion 1 2 nonlinear plan at fixed operating points. In this sense, the uidcline of cploring the nonlineartes™ is simply a reminder tht the “design medes” are only Tinarized approximations to the soln plan Silry, the “slow” vsiation™ {uideline 3s a reminder that the design ‘models explicitly assume a fixed operating Condition. I those design modes are not a0 Securate reflection ofthe actual plant, then ‘one cannet demand guranteed performance ‘ofthe overall design. Given the widespread success of gin scheduling, st would be ‘worthuile to have gain scheduling evolve Ito @ more systematic formal design methodology. However, without a mod 0272-170492/503,00019921BEE ‘tion of he gun scheduling desian procedure, the aforementioned fundamental Limitations wil remain. ‘Since gin scheduled design ae based on tinarzations, the itaton of capturing the onlineries can be addressed inthe fspproprite selection of the. scheduling ‘aiales. In this case, any theory developed is likely to simply’ venfy the inition ‘bined from an understanding of the physical system, The cave ofthe retrction to slow vana- tions on the scheduling variable mst likely i due to the nate of the scheduling tlgorts. More precisely, he scheduling of controler gains such that good perfor: tance may te expected for any fted lntepoated operating condition. However, performance may deteriorate rapidly as one experiences rapid changes throughout the range of operating conditions aan example Sich rapid changes may be expected ie misile tacos [7 "This paper shows how curent gain scheduling practice is necessarily Limited to slow varaons in the scheduling variable ‘These limitations ae reveaed via a funds ‘went inepretaton of the gain Schedling design process. Furtermore, ts show how ‘reformulation of the gin. scheduling procedure can Lead to removing. these Potential Hazards of Gain ‘Scheduling “The rection to slow variations ia the scheduling variable is fnamental. That. Unless the time variations inthe operating ‘onions are aesed expicily, then 2 Slow variation asumption is necessary in fader to provide varanees 08 the overall sign. Funher "documentation of the ‘dscussion sn this section maybe Found in BL ‘The particular gain scheduling paradigm addressed here 18 the so called. “linear aaetr-vrying (LPV) system.” An LPV v0!system is defined a linear system whose The eigenvalues as a function of @ shown ayy Aynamies depend on exogenous parameters below imply that AQ) s sable forall frozen with values thar are unknown prior bat parameter vals, = HEINE 4) ~ MOKED ~ yO. fan be measured online. The ony a prior information regarding the parameters 15 e 'ypcaly knowledge ofthe ange of variation (099-50) tnd knowledge of some upper bound onthe ® rate of timevaratons. In (3-8 tis shown ‘thatthe LPV paradigm forms the underlying gin scheduled design for P(8) is now where H and G are ‘ramework fr nonlinear gin scheduling For presented. First, 10. improve command ‘example in scheduling on the plant output, following alow frequencies, an imeratoc i (A) ~ 8,60) Me = GME, ‘te suman vals afte ep tpn weeping: sarees) 10) = wor'2e!, fay te viewed ars pum iongh plate Pil Be ete of te oe endogenous) whose values are unknown @ — compensator design for (8). In the actual GO) = p"B , 20), por invccrntn, he mqnemed Inept aly wt porte vel comer, Loss of Stability ‘tor, K,(@). The augmented plant, P,(@) hi o ‘ng “tees opens KiswellAnown hata parameter dependent (suppressing tine dependence) with © and Z the stabilizing solutions to the syne may 6 uae foe pene TpstcRcaleqnton Sikes yrs by be psn of eee beter uae ( ): 1 ase 421 6) (). OBO /0)-AOE@)-MN are sufficiently slow (c.g, (8]). In this “, o a7 w) WU Es section the open Toop implications of this anon: MON EOCICZO), enone we cide eh tt : Fevloned fox pacar LEV plant Tis Pn sable or oven ureter eset sable fora parca smb parucer ® -cle-9"'20n./20. trey, An LV compensa i dg cd autora or Oot ean a. Eedaed res maner whch oes ec OMA ® ACG) ~ Bt Spicy ales epee me “tin, ced op inst sen Ths crmpl dems te dane seaticon slow vero npn a 1 ing. Moe spectcaly, al of te fen worl Oo Fetter dss are ued on se plat The feetack contigo is shown in Fi ods tuthescun puntnay townie. | Eacaol Tie lg pny theo, a an ee Le den sie ofthe compen raterepeaenition oe to ant —hense 6). Ne “LIV. tages ne fuaraeed perfomance crm te exted ug plat asad sneer “print Tos phenomenon woul ae scr feta oetguaion gees o ite panne vines vee sie dio, in ths oon, eg selling fee ee aes finest arash Deen ee nee ee the desin mois mast be an accu —,rroytoxi wien is ndpenen 08 fees oe ne la. rom. the independent eency “The LPV pao be cooled, Phas ee eseme ee so pool damped eigmalcs whch ay Sune eld god command falewing wth dong th taps Let PO) hve the Stetunesably np Foresampe wih foowing opts Flp epee for 0) = 0, te sy Bas toroenor sds seny suet than oe scod: Sim sep responses may te aged for sow params varione 1560051 inorder evalu perfomance ie —____— rece of pose fs teva 8 Fig 1. Unin feedback coniuration for ameter ijt of) = con 2 (©) Cand flltag ee Oe eine 2 he papas sve Alone The design parameters Ny, and pare 0 = Cx. ee a P xpld=-[1-0.50(9)x()-0.240)-, lee) 2 102 (EEE Contot ystomsthat dhe resulting sytem is unsuabe, This instability isnot coincidental, because the parameter trajectory 9) = cos 2 makes the open loop plant dynamics unstable. It is phased thatthe resuking instability 8 hot due to poor sabity margins in che ‘ozen parameter design. Rather, the frozen parameter plant models donot reflect levuratly the actual ime-varying dynamics. Hence, degradation in performance and even lose of salty i not Surprising Loss of Minimum Phase Property ‘An important quality of a plan is stable fnveribiiy, Le, 2 minimum phase propery. For example, itis well known thar the presence of unsuble zeros is the main ressction inthe problem of seasivity ‘minimization eg, [9). This section presents ‘an example which demonstrates the crcial, ‘pendence of stable inverbilty on parame ‘The LPV plant to be conlle, PQ), as two poorly damped zeros which vary along the imaginary ais, The ate space represen: tation is given by { af) [0 e-0109 1-0500)-(2-0007 uo] [10 02 eo} 0 ° eo) ro-0 1) 50 ls 1587s | eaise o Fora frozen value of the transfer function vib $0250.58) TEOTe a0) 0.154, 99+0.50)" [Noe that for frozen values of 8, the plan ‘zeros are minimum phase — hence the plant has a stable inverse “The cancelation of sable zeros does not necessarily lead to a closed-loop unstable sjstem. Thus, one may be tempted (for Stablzation purposes) to dain & gain Scheduled LPV compensitor which cancels fx) ]- ‘) ao, leo} ® ANN WUUYy 00 25 eee eee 5 75 100 time (see) Fig, 2. Step response with 082, une 1992 the plan’s zeros, However, forthe parameter trajectory 8) = cos 2 the plant becomes onminimom phase. This lack of sable inveribilty may be seen in ig. 3, where the needed contol input ud), generate the ‘output ) = sin 0.51 is pled. ‘The effects of the plant becoming nonminimum phase on a gin scheduled design was simulated in (3). A gain sche led design was performed which canceled the 2eros ofthe plan for fozen parameter ‘values. Since the scheduling ofthe gains id ot address explicly the possible time ‘aritons, a dynamics cancellation occured ven for time-varying parameter trajectories. ‘The unit sep response of hs design for a parameter aectory 8) = cos. 20 has a Slowly decaying sine wave 0. sin 2 between 09) and 11 oscillaing about the unit response as shown in Fig. 4, At a glance, it appears that closed-loop stability is achieve, However, an ispecion of he plant stats in Fig, 5 reveal, as expected, that a hidden instability is present, Retrospect, ‘Two potential hazards of ignoring time -varaions in the operating conditions ae fs of sabily and violation of suble inversion onsen. Tn both eases it is Seen that he limitation of gain scheduling. wo. slow ‘vantions is fundamental in the following Sense AS long asthe frozen operating point desig plants do not represent an acura ‘escription ofthe actual plant dynamics, one ‘cannot expect guaranteed peeformance — or ‘ven stablity — of the overall design. Teis emphasized that these phenomena ae ‘nota result of poor stability margins in the fixed operating condition designs. Rather, they ate ceived rom the fuity of tying to design a convoller for an unstable (or non ‘minimum phase) plant based on sable (or ‘minimum pss) design plant dyeamis Although the particular examples peesented here are for LPV systems itis believed that these examples are demonstrative of posible hazards in nonlinear gun scheduled systems, “This exapoliton stems fom the underying framework of nonlinear goin scheduled stems actully having LPVlike dynamics ‘Scheduling on Fast Variables Reformulaion of LPV Galn Scheduling Surtees ‘The main reason for introducing an akemate gain scheduling framework i 10Fig, 4 Stable step response ut internal instability with (0) © cos 2 sive guarates onthe overall design in he presence of rapidly changing operating ‘ondtions However, hese guarantees cant ‘be limited to simply nominal stabity. More specifically, the orginal design specifications at the fixed operating conditions cannot be ‘serfced forthe sake of nomial stability [Aer ll, one ofthe original advantages of ‘ai schedaling was it ability incorporate powerful linear design methodologies into a onlinear framework. Thus in any alternate framework, the designer should be able to | | 2000 au ry) 5 1% zs 300 tine (60) Fig, 3 Control pats to generate t) = sn 05 with Ot) = cos 2 timo (ee) ‘se state-of the-art methods in robust contol ‘esi athe foven operating point desins tn adatom fo having guaranteed sabi in the presence of rapid Varitons. ‘One approsch which shows patil i modify the manner in which the fixed ‘operating point gins are scheduled. Thats the fie operating poi guns should be scheduled in a manner which expicitly tresses the posit of rapid variations ‘Such an approach fs the advantage that closed-loop stability is maintained and de fixed operating point properties remain ‘Asa demonseation of sch an sppreach, recall the example P(O) in the previous fection, This plast becomes open loop ‘sable for the parameter taectory 80) = foe 2 After augmenting integrators a he plat input, a controler Ki@) was designed or the augmented plat P(). This design Ted 10 desirable properies for all constant ales of the parameter. However, the parameter trajectory Bt) = cos 2 led to an Unstable closed oop system. ‘ince the contreller K(Q) has an obser existe feedback configuration, the closed Toop stably reduces (0 the Silty of the ‘vo dynamics maces A084 000)-8.600. afta (03)-ONC, a ‘Using ress fom 3) ican be shown tht gl) isatime-varyiag stability mats forall, sdmisible time-vaiations. Tis stability Stem from the eigenvalues of A?) being ‘sulci fas wth espect he parameter ‘arations, Now ene approach fo guarantee losed-oop stability fo choose HG) such that the eigenvalues ofA ae sucealy fast However, this approach may violate a design specification of the fixed operating point design. For example in his design, he bserver gain (8) was selected © achieve f desired bandwidth which should not be exceeded (Le, 10 meet a roll-off robusness spesificaton. ‘An alternate approach is to modify the manner in which the fted operating point design guns are schedule, Towards thisend, Jet 0) denote the time-varying observer sin defined 2 follows Ho = [w@(OIF” BOC, 0 whee Linea (aUniELa (aA KOC) cniv 78) “wmaenr Ecc, Ee, 2eE WE 0. «3 |E&E Conte) ystemsNote that these equations are simply the time-varying Kalman filter dyes. In this case, the observer gun Mj) isa causal) function ofthe parameter rajetory and not the istaanoous parameter value “The advantage in using these dynamics 10 schedule the observer gins i hate dime ‘varying Kalman fier is guranoed 10 be Stable (eg. (10) fr arbitrary fast parame ter varitons. A step response with 10) evolviag according to the Kalman filter “dynamics once again a sine wave 0.1 sin Dr between 09 and I. oscillating about the uni response similar to Fig. 4. Altbough the sed of response des not compare f0 the Constant paremeter ease, recall that ths trajectory" was destabilizing in case the paruneter-varying observer ns were an oo 125 % ars % Instantaneous update of te fixed operating timo (500) point designs. Furthermore, inthe case of Constant parameter trajectory, 8) = 8, en Hin)» HN@.) Ths, the properties ofthe Fig 5. Lack of eral sabi fixed operating point designs are recovered fn case of constant parameter tact ‘This recovery is valuble since the perfor mance cannot be sactifced forthe sake of timesaryng stability vt tng sgn dT eqs ot «ly ot San eer unin oor oe ee eal we Beata Paleo cope ose tee coma He ora ee estes ae uns cera oreenaber se felae mond ibe ae oe terion in inertias (kg m’), L=1 is the link length (m), scheduling does not lead to limitations. mri ala be econ Cs carer tee athena sk moo pte ee es cen 0, co E86 ControSstems“able I shows the design parameter values at seleced operating pins In between these ‘perating pins, the design parameters — ‘not the conrller gains — are linearly Incerpolated to yield global design This design was simulated with rapid saritons throughout the operating range. Fig. 7 shows the response 10 an ital condition of @.=3, and Fig. # shows the response 10. command of 0) = 3 sin Future Directions “The limitations of gain scheduling may be summanzed succinctly as follows. If the ossiility offs parameter variations is pot addressed inthe design process. then ‘uaranced properties of the overall gain Scheduled desig cannot be established. The examples presented here demonstrate hat his Timitation isa consequence of fundamental ‘contol concepts, Tn order to remove thes limitations, he evelopment of a theory for LPV systems is needed. This development would involve the ‘modification of robust contol design ‘methodologies such as AT and syns (Gf. [12] and references therein) inorder 10 cexplicily address time-vaitions. It Stressed that such modification is ot simply 2 time-varying” version of curent practice. This difference is due to the absence of ‘knowledge of fuse time: “arltons. The availablity of Sue informa ‘ois ertcal assumption in the cure erature time-varying robes contol (eg [13). Some progress inthis area is reported in [ld]. Further work is alto needed 10 determine to what degre these ideas may be applied to nonlinear systems. Two important lines of reserch are the exension to sperms whose scheduling variable Is not the con: tolled ouput and the determination of what _auaranted robusinesperormance properis ofthe associated LPV system cary over to the nonin “outpt-aryng” system. References (1G. Stein, “Adaptive tiga comet — A ragnatie ves" Apcation of Ada Coura KS. Narendra and RV. Morpal Eds. New tune 1992 [2] M4, Whatley and BC Pt “Adve gan Improves eater conto” Mybearbon Proce lng 9p 774 May 1988 (3) 38. Shans, "Assis and Sse of esa Schade conta system” PD. hes, Det of Mechs Engine, MT, 1988, [s] JS. Shamma and M. Athans, “Atal of tenlae gin hel sont se” EEE Trans, Aut. Cota vl AC, 20.8.9. 898 (5) 1S. Shamma snd M Aan, “Gaaatnd rsmetraying plat Aatons, 027,90 Sp $8956 May 1991 [6] WJ, Rh, “Andyical famewor for ga Sshedling. IEEE Contra Syt Map vel. 90. 1p. 798, 1091 (OTR Recent, Mates abut conor mite [8] CA. Dower, “Slowly saying ayer {EAU IEEE Trans Auto Cnr AEA, a 6.9. 7TH. 1968 [9]BA Fans, A Conse Optimal Comat Theor New York: Springer Vert. 1987 [U0] RS, Bucy and PD. Joep Ftering for Scheie Procnet with Applications 10 TM. Spon, "Modeing and cota of elas ‘eit ober. Dy Syst, Measurement end Con vo. 108, 0.4 pp 1031 ee. 1987 [2] JMC Macejosk, Malarble Feedback (03) 6. Tadnor, “The sandal #F problem and he maxima pncile: The gel ner ese Tech Rep 192, Uniesy of Teas at alas May 1988, LIS] SM. Shbwr ad 8. Betas, “Desen of ont friar parameter varying stem the gue scheaingetgueBekley Engine Jt. Shamma ws logy, Caboge, MA, Sytem a MELT Since September 1989, be has teenan Asian Profesor of Elect Enger: Ing at be Univers of Mnnesn, Mines. He i cumeay on lene atthe Dearne of AcspueEnioeig and Eninceig Mechanics the Unive of Teta a Aust. Hs i ‘ime-aying. and apie systems lca Athans was born in Orns Greece om May 3, 1997. He etendee the Unversiy of California at Berea fom 19510196 whee he rceivedthe BSEE degre it 1958 (ut highes. PRD. dere i contol i 1961 From 1961 10 19st he war a monber ofthe chica ff the MIT Lincoln Laprtry, Lexington, MA. Since 196s been acy ember i he MT ule Engering ad Compuler Sciences Deparment ere He cure Ptessox. He srs alo he Dict of he MLLT. Labora for Infrmtion a Devison Systems omer the In 1978 be coounded ALPHATECH. tne Bunton, MA, where eserves a Chima of the Bou of Dect and Chit Seen Consulates tector f ebook nd ta devel 65 welenson Hes and tay ides on ern contra tery. His ria main teary, malar ona yse05, td the appisnion of the matiodlgier to tense, “tampon, seromace, pomen, economic an sstems He eee he AACE ‘chun Awardin 164 ad whe st sien fe Fredrick Terman Award ofthe rein Society for Engineering Eucation a 1960 st ‘cutting yong eet engineering eda. He eve te Haein Award ofthe Ameren Con Cause 1980, Hei low of te IEEE and ASS. He his sewot on numero ech scey commitees. and as Ai or of sever profesional jours, He was eden of te EE Coe Sytem Sosy fro 1720197. esa meer ALAA, Pi Hes Kapp ts Kapps Ne and Sig Xi 107