1

AV-355
MODERN CONTROL SYSTEMS

Lecture-6 & 6a

Stability of State Space Models , State Feedback-I

Textbook : Modern Control Systems (13th Ed) by Richard C. Dorf and Robert H. Bishop
Section 6.4, Appendix E-6
 2

LECTURE CONTENTS
• Realization & Minimal Realization
• Introduction to Full State Feedback Control Design
 3
STABILITY OF STATE SPACE MODELS
• In the time domain solution of state space equation
• Eigenvalues of A matrix appear as powers of exponent

• Therefore, eigenvalues determine the following

• Shape of the time domain response
• Stability of time domain response (if eigenvalues are negative)

For a state space model to be stable, eigenvalues of A matrix must be negative

For SISO systems, eigenvalues of A matrix are same as poles of equivalent transfer
function. So, eigenvalues being negative means that poles of transfer function lie in left
half plane
 REALIZATION
• System realization is about the relationship between transfer functions
and state equations.
• Now we investigate the complications introduced by controllability and observability on
these relationship

• Recall state space is related to transfer function via relationship

 RECALL : STATE SPACE TO TRANSFER FUNCTION
RELATIONSHIP
• Consider SS function

y=Cx+Du
• Taking Laplace Transform of state Eq

x(s)(sI-A)=Bu(s)

• Taking Laplace Transform of output Eq

 STATE SPACE TO TRANSFER FUNCTION
RELATIONSHIP
• This transfer function is unique, meaning all state space systems related to each other via
some similarity transformation will have the same transfer function

• This is bcz the transfer function is the output to input relationship and does not depends upon the internal
states (chosen)
 RECALL:
STATE SPACE TO TRANSFER FUNCTION RELATIONSHIP
• Consider the same system with another SS representation

Where
• Laplace transform will give TF

So Transfer function form

is unique
 REALIZATION
• A realization of transfer function H(s) is any state space quadruple {} such that . If such a
set {} exists, then H(s) is said to be realizable.

• A transfer function is realizable if it is proper (or, in the multivariable case, if each component
transfer function is proper).

• Two different state space related by a similarity transformation give the same transfer
function.
 REALIZATION ORDER
• Now we wish to consider the order of these transfer functions relative to the
dimension of the state space description

• Consider a dynamical system represented by

With zero initial condition, the Laplace transform gives

So state space system has order 2, while transfer function gives 1 st order system
 REALIZATION ORDER
• We could also realize this transfer function with the first-order state space
system

• Taking Laplace gives

 REALIZATION
• To discover the reason for this occurrence, consider putting the
differential equation into state space form

• This realization is by default in observable canonical form which

employees that the system is therefore observable (you can verify the
observability matrix), rank(Q)=2
• However, not controllable as controllability matrix is rank deficient
rank(P)=1
 REALIZATION
• If we had chosen the controllable canonical realization from, we would have found that

• which is easily found to be controllable but not observable

 REALIZATION
• Thus if the system is either uncontrollable or unobservable, then there will be a pole
zero cancellation and the transfer function will be of a lower order than the state
space system.
• Since one of the dynamic modes is cancelled, the system became uncontrollable

• A transfer function is always both controllable and observable

 TRANSFER FUNCTION UTILIZATION IN
CONTROLLABILITY/ OBSERVABILITY

Checking the controllability and observability

P=rank(ctrb(A,B))=2, fully controllable
Q=rank(obsv(A,C))=2, fully observable
TF= , TF has same order as that of state space system ie order 2
 MATLAB COMMANDS
• A=[-2 1;-1 -2]
• B=[0;3]
• C=[0 4]
• D=0
• sys=ss(A,B,C,D)
• rank(ctrb(A,B))
• rank(obsv(A,C))
• [num, den]=ss2tf(A,B,C,D)
• TF=minreal(tf(num,den))
 TRANSFER FUNCTION UTILIZATION IN
CONTROLLABILITY/ OBSERVABILITY

Checking the controllability and observability

P=rank(ctrb(A,B))=1, Not fully controllable
Q=rank(obsv(A,C))=2, fully observable
TF= , once the system is uncontrollable, TF is of reduced order (order 1)
then that of state space system(order 2)
 TRANSFER FUNCTION UTILIZATION IN
CONTROLLABILITY/ OBSERVABILITY

Checking the controllability and observability

P=rank(ctrb(A,B))=2, fully controllable
Q=rank(obsv(A,C))=1, Not fully observable
TF= , once the system is unobserveable, TF is of reduced order (order 1)
then that of state space system(order 2)
 TRANSFER FUNCTION UTILIZATION IN
CONTROLLABILITY/ OBSERVABILITY
Checking the controllability and observability
P=rank(ctrb(A,B))=2, fully controllable
Q=rank(obsv(A,C))=1, Not fully observable
TF= , once the system is unobserveable, TF is of reduced order (order 1)
then that of state space system(order 2)
 TRANSFER FUNCTION UTILIZATION IN
CONTROLLABILITY/ OBSERVABILITY

Checking the controllability and observability

P=rank(ctrb(A,B))=1, Not fully controllable
Q=rank(obsv(A,C))=1, Not fully observable
TF is again reduced order once the system is both uncontrollable and
unobservable.
 MINIMAL REALIZATION
• From these examples we make two observations.
• The first is that for a given transfer function, it is possible to find realizations of different
order. This necessitates the following definition

Minimal Realization
A realization {A,B,C,D} is called a minimal realization (also called an irreducible
realization) of a transfer function if there is no other realization of smaller size.

• The second observation we make from the examples above results in the following the
following theorem
Theorem
A minimal realization is both controllable and observable.
 POINTS TO REMEMBER
• The transfer function does not depend on the uncontrollable and unobservable part of the
realization.
• Ie transfer function of the system depends on only the controllable and observable part of the system.

• Conversely, a non-minimal realization is either uncontrollable, unobservable, or both, i.e

Minimal realization theorem.

If {} is a minimal realization and {, , , } is another minimal realization, then the two realizations are
similar to one another (i.e., they are related by a similarity transformation).
 22

FEEDBACK CONTROL
DESIGN
For State Space Models
 STATE FEED BACK & CONTROL

• Control is needed to improve system attributes such as

• such as stability, the tuning of a transient response, the reduction of error in the output, or
improvement in the system's tolerance to disturbance and unmolded dynamics.

• This control is achieved through the introduction of a controller, or compensator,

which changes the equations to achieve a desired behavior
 STATE FEED BACK &
CONTROL
• The most fundamental form of control for state space systems is State Feedback Control.
• Valid for SISO/MIMO systems
• Discrete / continuous time
• Using state feedback, we will be able to change the A-matrix of a system, under certain
conditions.
• This will require access to the state variables, which sometimes are not available in physical
systems.
• However, we can reconstruct the state variables using a construct known as an observer.
• As might well be guessed from these introductory remarks, the conditions of controllability
and observability will be necessary for the design of controllers and observers
 STATE FEED BACK CONTROLLER
Open Loop System

System characteristics depend upon the eigen values of A. We have no control on A

once the design is finalized
No control on system stability, controllability aspects
 STATE FEED BACK
CONTROLLER
Close Loop System with control

• State feedback controller design is possible once the system is controllable

• Closed Loop controller System characteristics now depend upon the eigen values of (A.-BK).
We can choose the values of K, to have the eigen values of closed loop system where ever
we want.
• We can control the degree of stability we want
 STATE FEED BACK
Open Loop System
CONTROLLER

System characteristics depend upon the eigen values of A. We have no control on A once the design is finalized

Close Loop System with control

System characteristics now depend upon the eigen values of (A-BK). We can choose the values
of K, to have the eigen values of closed loop system where ever we want.
 EXAMPLE
• Given a second order SS system

The system has eigen values -2,5. Find a state feedback gain matrix that will make the
system stable. The closed loop system dynamics should have eigen values at the new
locations -5 and -6

Solution . First we check Controllability

rank(P)=rank[B AB]=2
So the system is fully controllable, and we can control both the eigen values to move to
our choice utilizing state feed back control
 EXAMPLE
• Characteristic Eq of closed loop system

• Characteristic Eq det(sI-A)
• (sI-A) =
• =
• det(sI-A)=)()-(
• det(sI-A)=s(+ (A)
 EXAMPLE
• Characteristic eq of desired system with eigen values -5, -6 is
= (B)

Compairing Eq A and Eq B.
+=11
=30
Solve we get
 EXAMPLE
• Check eigen values of closed loop system
Closed loop system (A-BK)
A-Bk= • Matlab Command
A-BK= • A=, B=
Eig(A-BK)= -5,-6 • p = [-5 -6];
• K = place(a,b,p) % gives k1=1,k2=13
 32
PROBLEM
• Full State feedback controller require that all the states are perfectly
measureable
• What in case , if some of the state(s) are not measurable
• Sensor availability
• Noisy measurements

• We require to then estimate that unmeasurable state(s) through some

mechanism
• The process of estimating that particular states(s) is called estimation
• And we design observers for estimating those state(s)
 OBSERVERS
• In case the states are not measureable than the states are estimated to be
utilized in the state feedback controller

Observers utilize information of outputs (y) and input (u) to estimate state(s) x.
 34

END OF LECTURE