Lecture 08

State Feedback Controller Design

8.1 State Feedback and Stabilization

8.2 Full-Order Observer Design
8.3 Separation Principle
8.4 Reduced-Order Observer
8.5 State Feedback Control Design with Integrator

Modern Control Systems 1

State Feedback and Stabilization
Stabilization by State Feedback: Regulator Case

Plant: x  Ax  Bu , x(t0 )  x0

State Feedback Law: u   Fx

Closed-Loop System:
x  Ax  Bu  Ax  BFx
  A  BF x
Theorem
Given i , i  1, ,n
( A,B) 
Controllable

There exists a state feedback matrix, F, such that

det I   A  BF     1   2   n 

Modern Control Systems 2

 D

 x y
u x  
B  C

A

State Feedback System (Regulator Case)

Modern Control Systems 3

State Feedback Design in Controllable Form

 0  0
   0
Bc   
I n 1
Ac   
 0  
   
 a1  a2   an  1 

u   Fx   f1  f 2   f n x

 0 1  0 
 0 0  0 
Ac  Bc F   
     
 
 a1  f1   a2  f 2    an  f n 

det sI   Ac  Bc F   s n  an  f n s n 1    a1  f1  (8.1)

Modern Control Systems 4

Suppose the desired characteristic polynomial
n

 s  i   s n
 a cn s n 1
   ac1 (8.2)
i 1

Comparing (8.1) and (8.2), we have

f n  a cn  a n
f n 1  a cn 1  a n 1

f1  a c1  a1

F  ac1  a1 ac 2  a2  acn  an  (8.3)

Modern Control Systems 5

State Feedback: General Case (Non-Zero Input Case)

u   Fx  r F   f1 f2  fn 

D
r u y
  x x  

B  C

A

State Feedback Control System

Modern Control Systems 6

State Feedback Design with Transformation to Controllable1Form
x  Ax  Bu Ac  T AT
y  Cx Bc  T 1B
Desired poles : 1 ,, n
n Cc  CT
Desired Char. Poly. :  s  i   0 
i 1
  
x  Tz Ac  
I n 1

Controllable From:  0 
 
z  Ac z  Bc u   a1  a2   an 
Bc  0 0  1
T
y  Cc z

Fc  ac1  a1 ac 2  a2  acn  an 
T
u   Fc z

u   Fc z   FcT -1 x
n
det sI   A  BF    s  i   s n  acn s n 1    ac 2 s  ac1
i 1

Modern Control Systems 7

Transform to Controllable Form
x  Ax  Bu x  Rn
 ln T  y  Cx
 T   l1T 
l A   
T  n
 
1
where L      V 1
   U  B AB  An-1 B
 T n 1   ln T 
ln A    rank (U )  n,  ( A, B) is controllab le

Coordinate Transform Matrix T  v1 v2  vn 

 I n1n1  0 
z T x1
x  Tz  Ac  
0
 0 
 a1  a2    an  Bc   

 
Controllable Form:  
C c  C c1 C c2  C cn 1 
x  Ac x  Bcu xR n

y  Cc x Ao  Ac
T
Bo  Cc
T
Co  Bc
T

Ac  T 1 AT Bc  T 1B
Cc  T 1C
Modern Control Systems 8
Example

0 1 0
x    x   u
  2  2 1

Desired poles :  3  3 j
Desired Char. Polynomia l : s  3  32  s 2  6s  18
2

(A, B) is in controllable from, we can derive the state feedback

gain from eq. (8.3)

 16
4
F  18  2 6  2  16 4 U (s ) 1 s -1 x2 s -1 x1 1 y

u  Fx  16 4x 2

2

Modern Control Systems 9

Obtain the State Feedback Matrix by Comparing Coefficients

Plant:
x  Ax  Bu x  R n1 uR
y  Cx yR

State Feedback: u(t )   Kx(t )  r (t ) K  R1n

Closed Loop System: x  ( A  BK ) x  Br

Char. Equation: sI  A  BK  0

Suppose that the system is controllable, i.e.

rank [ B AB A2 B  An1B]  n

Modern Control Systems 10

Then, for any desired pole locations: 1,, n
We can obtain the desired char. polynomial ( s  1 )( s  n )
By controllability, there exists a state feedback matrix K, such that

sI  A  BK  ( s  1 )( s  n ) (8.4)

From (8.4), we can solve for the state feedback gain K.

Modern Control Systems 11

Example

Plant: Y ( s) 8

U ( s ) s( s  1)( s  10)

State Feedback: u(t )   Kx(t ) K  k1 k2 k3 

Y ( s)  8k1
 3
R( s ) s  (11  8k 3 ) s 2  (10  8k 2 ) s  8k1

r 1 x1  k1 u 8 s 1 x3 s 1 x2 s 1 1 y

1  10
 k3

 k2

1
Fig. State Feedback Design Example
Modern Control Systems 12
Spec. for Step Response: Percent Overshoot 5%, Settling Rise time 5 sec.
n  8,   0.707
Desired pole locations: s1, 2  8  j8 (dominant ploes)
s3  40

From (8.4), we get

s 3  (11  8k3 ) s 2  (10  8k2 ) s  8k1 
( s  8  j8)( s  8  j8)( s  40) (8.5)

By comparing coefficients on the both sides of 8.5), we obtain

k1  -640 k2  94.75 k3  5.625

 K  - 640 94.75 5.625

Modern Control Systems 13

 Simulation Results
y (t )
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Fig. Step response of above example

Modern Control Systems 14

Ackermann Formula for SISO Systems

Plant:
x  Ax  Bu x  R n1 uR
y  Cx yR
State Feedback: u(t )   Kx(t )  r (t ) K  R1n
Desired poles : 1,, n
n
Desired Char. Poly. :  s  i   s n  acn s n 1    ac 2 s  ac1
i 1
The Matrix Polynomial
n
 c ( A)    A  i   An  acn An 1    ac 2 A  ac1 I
i 1

Then the state feedback gain matrix is

K  0 0  1 B  AB 2
AB  A B n 1

1
 c ( A)

 R1n
Modern Control Systems 15
Steady State Error
x (t )  Ax(t )  Br (t )
y(t )  Cx(t )

Error Variable e( t )  r ( t ) - y ( t )

Lapalce Transform of the Error Variable

E ( s )  R( s )  Y ( s )
From (3.6)
E ( s )  R( s ) [1  C sI  A B ]
1

By Final Value Theorem

ess  lim e(t )  lim sE ( s )
t  s 0
 lim sR ( s )[1 - C ( sI-A )-1 B ]
s 0

Modern Control Systems 16

Full-Order Observer Design

Full-Order Observer
Plant: x  Ax  Bu , x(t0 )  x0
y  Cx
Suppose x̂ is the observer state

x̂  Axˆ  Bu  L y  Cxˆ  L: Observer gain

  A  LC xˆ  Bu  Ly

Estimation error:

e  x  xˆ
Error Dynamics Equation:

e  x  xˆ  Ax  Bu   A  LC xˆ  Bu  Ly
  A  LC e  y  Cx
Modern Control Systems 17
Hence if all the eigenvalues of (A-LC) lie in LHP, then the error system
e   A  LC e
is asy. stable and e  0, as t  
x (t )
u(t )  1 x(t )
y (t )
B s C


A
e y (t )
+
L

 xˆ ( t ) 1 xˆ ( t )
B s
C
 yˆ ( t )

Fig. Full-Order Observer

Modern Control Systems 18
By duality between controllable from and obeservable form

Ao  Ac Bo  Cc Co  Bc
T T T

we have the following theorem.

Theorem

Given i , i  1, ,n
( A,C ) Observable 
There exists a observer matrix, L, such that
det I   A  LC     1   2   n 

Modern Control Systems 19

The eigenvalues of (  AT  C T K ) can be assigned arbitrarily by
proper choice of K. Since

( AT  C T K ), and ( A  K T C )

have same eigenvalues, if we choose

L  KT
then the eigenvalues of (A-LC) can be arbitrarily assigned.

Modern Control Systems 20

Separation Principle

Plant: x  Ax  Bu
y  Cx
State Feedback Law using estimated state: u  Fxˆ
State Equation: x  Ax  Bu  Ax  BF xˆ  Ax  BFx  BFe
  A  BF x  BFe (8.6)

Observer: x̂  Axˆ  Bu  L y  Cxˆ   Axˆ  BFxˆ  LC x  xˆ 

  A  BF  LC xˆ  Ly

Error Dynamics: e  x  xˆ
e  x  xˆ   A  LC e (8.7)

Modern Control Systems 21

Separation Principle (Cont.)

From (8.6) and (8.7), we obtain the overall state equation

 x   A  BF BF   x  ~  x
 e    0   
A  LC   e 
 A  (8.8)
   e

Eigenvalues of the overall state equation (7.17)

~ I   A  BF   BF 
I  A  
 0 I   A  LC 
 I   A  BF   I   A  LC  (8.9)

Equation (8.9) tells us that the eigenvalues of the observer-based state feedback
system is consisted of eigenvalues of (A-BF) and (A-LC).
Hence, the design of state feedback and observer gain can be done independently.

 y1  C 
y      x
 y2   I 
Modern Control Systems 22
Observer-Based Control System

Plant: x (t )  Ax(t )  Bu(t )

y (t )  Cx(t )

Observer：
x̂  Ax  L( y  Cxˆ )  Bu
 ( A  LC ) xˆ  LCx  Bu

State Feedback Law: u(t )   Kxˆ (t )  r (t )

Modern Control Systems 23

r (t )  u(t )  x (t ) 1 x(t )
C y (t )
B s
 

A
e(t ) 
L

 xˆ ( t ) 1 xˆ ( t )
B s
C
 yˆ ( t )

K
Fig. Observer-based control system

Modern Control Systems 24

r (t )  u(t )  x (t ) 1 x(t )
y (t )
kc B s C
 

A
e(t ) 
L

 xˆ ( t ) 1 xˆ ( t )
B s
C
 yˆ ( t )

Fig. Observer-based control system with compensating gain

Modern Control Systems 25

Reduced-Order Observer Design

Consider the n-dimensional dynamical equation

x (t )  Ax(t )  Bu(t ) (8.10a)

y (t )  Cx(t ) (8.10b)

A  Rnn , B  Rn p , C  Rqn

Here we assume that C has full rank, that is, rank C =q. Then, there
exists a coordinate transformation x  Px

x  PAP1 x  PBu
y  CP 1 x  CQx  I q 0x
which can be partitioned as

 x1   A11 A12   x1   B1 

      x      u (8.11)
 x2   A21 A22   2   B2 
y  I q 0x  x1
Modern Control Systems 26
Since y  x1 , we have
y  A11 y  A12 x2  B1u (8.12a)

x2  A21x1  A22 x2  B2u (8.12b)

which become
x2  A22 x2  u Plant: (8.13a)

w  A12 x2 x (t )  Ax(t )  Bu(t ) (8.13b)

where u  A21 y  B2u y (t )  Cx(t )
w  y  A11 y  B1u
Observer:
Observer
x̂  Ax  L( y  Cxˆ )  Bu
x̂2  ( A22  L A12 ) xˆ2  L w  u  ( A  LC ) xˆ  Ly  Bu

Modern Control Systems 27

 Note that u and w are function of known signals u and y. Now if the
dynamical equation above is observable, an estimator of x2 can be
constructed.

Theorem:
The pair {A, C} in (8.10) or, equivalently, the pair { A, C } in
(8.12) is observable if and only if the pair{ A22 , A12} in (8.13) is
observable.

Modern Control Systems 28

Let the estimate of x2 be
x̂2  ( A22  L A12 ) xˆ2  L w  u (8.14)

Such that the eigenvalues of A22  L A12 can be arbitrarily assigned

by a proper choices of L . The substitution of w and u into (8.143)
yields
xˆ2  ( A22  L A12 ) xˆ2
 L ( y  A11 y  B1u)  ( A21 y  B2u) (8.15)

To eliminate the term of the derivative of y, by defining

z  xˆ2  L y (8.16)

Modern Control Systems 29

Using (8.15), then the derivative of (8.16) becomes
z  ( A22  L A12 )  ( z  L y )
 ( A21  L A11 ) y  ( B2  L B1 )u
 ( A22  L A12 ) z  ( B2  L B1 )u
 ( A22  L A12 ) L  ( A21  L A11 )y
From (8.15), we see that

xˆ2  z  L y
is an estimate of x2 .
Define the following matrices
Aˆ  ( A22  L A12 ), Bˆ  ( B2  L B1 ),
Jˆ  ( A22  L A12 ) L  ( A21  L A11 )
 x1  0  y  ˆ
xˆ           Cz  Dˆ y
 xˆ2   z   L y
Modern Control Systems 30
Reduced-Order Observer:

z  Aˆ z  Bˆ u  Jˆy

xˆ  Cˆ z  Dˆ y
where
 x1  0  y  ˆ
xˆ           Cz  Dˆ y, xˆ2  z  L y
 xˆ2   z   L y
Aˆ  ( A22  L A12 ), Bˆ  ( B2  L B1 ),
Jˆ  ( A22  L A12 ) L  ( A21  L A11 )

Modern Control Systems 31

u(t )  x (t ) 1 x(t )
y (t )
B s C


Ĵ D̂
 z(t ) + xˆ ( t )
 1 z (t ) +
B̂ s Ĉ


Â

Fig. Reduced-Order Observer

Modern Control Systems 32

Define Error Variable
e  x2  xˆ2
 x2  ( z  L y )
then we have

e  x2  ( z  L y )  x2  ( z  L x1 )

 A21x1  A22 x2  B2u  ( A22  L A12 )( z  L x1 )
 ( A21  L A11 ) x1  ( B2  L B1 )u  L A11x1  L A12 x2  L B1u
 ( A22  L A12 )( x2  z  L x1 )
 ( A22  L A12 )e

Modern Control Systems 33

Since the eigenvalues of ( A22  L A12 ) can be arbitrarily assigned, the
rate of e(t) approaching zero or, equivalently, the rate of

z  Ly
approaching x2 can be determined by the designer. Now we
combine x1 with xˆ2  z  L y to form

 xˆ1   y 
xˆ      
xˆ
 2  z  L y 
Then from x  Px  Q 1 x
 y 
We get x  Qx  Q1 Q2  
ˆ 
 z  L y 
Iq 0   y
 Q1 Q2     
 L I nq   z 
Modern Control Systems 34
How to transform state equation to the form of (8.11)

Consider the n-dimensional dynamical equation

x (t )  Ax(t )  Bu(t )
(8.17a)
y (t )  Cx(t )
nn n p qn
(8.17b)
A R ,BR ,CR
Here we assume that C has full rank, that is, rank C =q. Define

C 
P 
 R
where R is any (n-q)n real constant matrix so that P is nonsingular.

Modern Control Systems 35

Compute the inverse of P as

Q  P 1  Q1 Q2 

where Q1 and Q2 are nq and n(n-q) matrices. Hence, we have

C 
I n  PQ     Q1 Q2 
 R
CQ1 CQ2   I q 0 
 

 RQ1 RQ 2   0 I n q 

Modern Control Systems 36

Now we transform (8.17) into (8.11),
by the equivalence transformation x  Px
x  PAP1 x  PBu
y  CP 1 x  CQx  I q 0x
which can be partitioned as

 x1   A11 A12   x1   B1 

      x      u
 x2   A21 A22   2   B2 
y  I q 0x  x1

Modern Control Systems 37

SISO State Space System
x  Ax  Bu x  Rn uR
y  Cx yR

Integral Control:
z  r  y  r  Cx A  Rnn , B  Rn1, C  R1n
Augmented Plant: zR
x  Ax  Bu
z  Cx  r
y  Cx

 x   A 0  x   B  0n1 
  z    C 0  z    0 u   1  r
        
 x
y  C 0 
 zModern Control Systems 38
State Feedback Control Design with Integrator

 x
u   Kx  Ke z   K K e  
z
Closed-Loop System:

 x   A  BK BK e   x  0n1 
 z     C      r
   0  z   1 
 x
y  C 0 
z

Modern Control Systems 39

Block diagram of the integral control system

r (t )
 e(t ) 1
z (t )  u(t )  x (t ) 1 x(t ) y (t )
Ke B s C
 s  

Fig.Block diagram of the integral control system

Modern Control Systems 40

Example

0 1  0
x    x   u
 3  5 1
y  1 0x

Spec. for Step Response: Percent Overshoot 10%, Settling time 0.5 sec.
n  8,   0.59

Desired poles :  8  j10.91

Desired Char. Polynomia l : s 2  16s  183.1

State Feedback Design: u(t )   Kx(t )  r (t ) K  k1 k2 

Modern Control Systems 41

  0 1  0
x   A  BK x  Br    x    r
 183.1  16 1
y  Cx  1 0x
From the steady state analysis in Sec. 3.4
ess  lim e(t )  lim sE ( s )
t  s 0
 lim sR ( s )[1 - C ( sI-A )-1 B ]
s 0
1
 1  C  A  BK  B 
1
(  R ( s ) )
s
1
 0 1   0
 1  1 0   1
  183.1  16  
 0.995

Modern Control Systems 42

State Feedback Design with Error Integrator:

Desired poles :  8  j10.91,  100

Desired Char. Polynomia l : ( s 2  16s  183.1)( s  100)
Closed-Loop System:

 x1    0 1   0  0   x1  0

 x        k1 k 2    K e     
x  0 r
 2    3  5 1  1   2   
 z    1 0 0   z  1
 0 1 0   x1  0
  (3  k1 )  (5  k2 ) K e   x2   0 r
     (8.18)
  1 0 0   z  1
 x1 
y  1 0 0 x2 
 
 z 
Modern Control Systems 43
From (8.18), we get the char. eq. of the closed-loop system is

s 3  (5  k2 ) s 2  (3  k1 ) s  K e  0 (8.19)

The desired char. eq. of the closed-loop system is

(8.20)
( s  100)( s 2  16s  183.1)  0
By comparing coefficients on left hand sides of (8.19) and (8.20), we obtain

k1  1780.1 k2  111 Ke  18310

 K  1780.1 111 Ke  18310

Modern Control Systems 44

Closed-Loop System:

 x1   0 1 0   x1  0
 x     1783.1  116 18310  x   0 r
 2   2   
 z    1 0 0   z  1
y  1 0 0 0x

18310 Y ( s)
T ( s)  
s 3  116s 2  1783.1s  18310 R( s)

Final Value Theorem

1 18310
lim y (t )  lim sT ( s )   lim 3 1
t  s 0 s s  0 s  116s  1783.1s  18310
2

Steady State Error

ess  0
Modern Control Systems 45