Closed loop pole placement and cost analysis
Read Online

Closed loop pole placement and cost analysis

  • 670 Want to read
  • ·
  • 47 Currently reading

Published by Naval Postgraduate School, Available from the National Technical Information Service in Monterey, Calif, Springfield, Va .
Written in English

Book details:

Edition Notes

ContributionsThaler, George J. (George Julius), 1918-
The Physical Object
Pagination87 p.
Number of Pages87
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL25524672M

Download Closed loop pole placement and cost analysis


90 An Analysis of the Pole Placement Problem. matrix A−bfT or its spectrum, repectively. This leads to some confusion in the literature. In our opinion the most important goal of the pole placement is that the implemented poles of the closed loop system are close to the desired ones. If.   Approach #2: is to place the pole locations so that the closed-loop system optimizes the cost function J. LQR = ∞ x(t) T. Qx(t)+ u(t) T. Ru(t) dt. 0. where: • Tx Qx is the State Cost with weight Q • Tu Ru is called the Control Cost with weight R • Basic form of Linear Quadratic Regulator problem. • MIMO optimal control is a time File Size: KB.   The closed loop poles are plotted for different values of I as well. Now we find Fig. 3. Closed loop poles and LQ upper bound of the uncertain system (5) for different values of the uncertain parameter Do. the optimal controller that places the poles of the closed loop system inside the given disk and so that the real part larger than Author: H. Esfahani, R. Moheimani, R. Petersen. Controller Design by Pole placement 1. Introduction to control 2. Design of two position controller 3. Control design by pole placement •Closed-loop control (feed-back control). -More robust: so that poles of the close-loop system meet given requirements.

  In this paper, the multi-constraints optimal regional pole placement problem is studied. The considered problem is to find a controller such that the resultant closed-loop poles lie in a prespecified region Ω and, meanwhile, to minimize a cost function which the performance criterion and robustness considerations are embedded. Closed loop step response on the KVA generator for K P =30, K I = 11 and K D = 9 in fuzzy pole placement control, poles of system alter gradually based on the performance of system and are. Pole Placement The approach we wish to take at this point' is pole placement; that is, having picked a control law with enough parameters to influence all the closed-loop roots, we will arbitrarily select the desired root locations of the do::;ed-loop system and see if the approach will work. Although this approach can often. A “top-down analysis, bottom-up design” method [31] was used to design the closed-loop control system for the conceptual oxy-fuel -down analysis aims to define control goals, identify controlled and manipulated variables, and determine the rate of production; a bottom-up design focuses on designing the regulatory control layer and supervisory control layer.

Michel Kinnaert, Youbin Peng, in Control and Dynamic Systems, VIII CONCLUSIONS. An assisted pole placement method has been proposed to help the designers in their choice of the design parameters. Once the desired rise time, settling time and percentage of overshoot of the step response of the closed-loop system with respect to a reference change have been specified, the computation of. The effect of third pole on the stability of closed loop system has been studied in detail in the case of mismatch between the process delay time and the delay time at which the controller is. The additional real closed-loop pole of Eq.() is inversely proportional to the parameter , as illustrated in Figure , small values of the coefficient a (such as a = ) result in a response that is very close to that of the original second-order system (a = 0 in the same figure). This indicates that the additional closed-loop pole is farther away in the LHP from the original. Consider the case where an extra real pole is been added to a 2ndOrder Systems without nite zeros. H(s) =!2 n (s2 + 2! ns+!2 n)(s+ 1) (2) Thus the extra pole has a value of 1. If this pole is far away enough from the imaginary axis (i.e. 1= is large enough) then the e ect of the extra pole on the step response can be ignored.