Automatic Control 2 Notes

UCK363E – AUTOMATIC CONTROL II
FALL ‘21
LECTURE 4
STATE SPACE MODEL FEATURES AND OBSERVABILITY
Instructor: Barış Başpınar

Zeros in State Space Models
 Roots of transfer function numerator called the system zeros

 Need to develop a similar way of defining/computing them using a state space model
 Zero: generalized frequency 𝑠0 for which the system can have a non-zero input 𝑢(𝑡) =
𝑢0 𝑒 𝑠0𝑡 , but exactly zero output 𝑦(𝑡) ≡ 0 ∀𝑡
 Note that there is a specific initial condition associated with this response 𝑥0 , so the state response is of
the form 𝑥(𝑡) = 𝑥0 𝑒 𝑠0 𝑡
 Given 𝑥ሶ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝐵𝑢, substitute the above to get:

 Also have that 𝑦 = 𝐶𝑥 + 𝐷𝑢 = 0 which gives:
 So we must find the 𝑠0 that solves:
 There is a zero at the frequency 𝑠0 if there exists a non-trivial solution of:
𝑥0
 Key point: Zeros have both direction 𝑢 and frequency 𝑠0
0
 Just as we would associate a direction (eigenvector) with each pole (frequency 𝜆𝑖 )
 Example:
so there is clearly a zero at 𝑠0 = −2, as we expected. For the directions, solve
gives 𝑥01 = −2𝑥02 and 𝑢0 = 2𝑥02 so that with 𝑥02 = 1

 Further observations: apply the specified control input in the frequency domain, so that
2
where 𝑢 = 2𝑒 −2𝑡 , so that 𝑈 𝑠 = 𝑠+2
say that 𝑠 = −2 is a blocking zero or a transmission zero
 The response 𝑌1 (𝑠) is clearly non-zero, but it does not contain a component at the input
frequency 𝑠 = −2
 That input has been “blocked”
 Note that the output response left in 𝑌1 (𝑠) is of a very special form – it corresponds to
the (negative of the) response you would see from the system with 𝑢 𝑡 = 0 and 𝑥0 =
−2 1 𝑇
 So then the total output is 𝑌 𝑠 = 𝑌1 𝑠 + 𝑌2 (𝑠) showing that 𝑌 𝑠 = 0 → 𝑦 𝑡 = 0, as

expected
State-Space Model Features
 There are some key characteristics of a state-space model that we need to identify
 Will see that these are very closely associated with the concepts of pole/zero cancelation in transfer
functions
 Example: Consider a simple system:

for which we develop the state-space model
 But now consider the new state space model 𝑥ҧ = 𝑥 𝑥2 𝑇
which is clearly different than the first model, and larger.

 But let’s looks at the transfer function of the new model ⇒
 This is a bit strange, because previously our figure of merit when comparing one state-
space model to another was whether they reproduced the same transfer function
 Now we have two very different models that result in the same transfer function
 Note that I showed the second model as having 1 extra state, but I could easily have done it with 99
extra states!!
 So what is going on?

 A clue is that the dynamics associated with the second state of the model 𝑥2 were eliminated when we
formed the product
because the 𝐴 is decoupled and there is a zero in the 𝐶 matrix

෨
 Which is exactly the same as saying that there is a pole-zero cancelation in the transfer function 𝐺(𝑠)
* For this system we say that the

෨
 Note that model #2 is one possible state-space model of 𝐺(𝑠) (has 2 poles) dynamics associated with the
second state are unobservable
using this sensor (defines C matrix)
 There is an analogous problem on the input side as well. Consider:
𝑇
with 𝑥ҧ = 𝑥 𝑥2
which is also clearly different than model #1, and has a different form from the second model
 Once again the dynamics associated with the pole at 𝑠 = −1 are canceled out of the
transfer function
 But in this case it occurred because there is a 0 in the 𝐵 matrix
 So in this case we can “see” the state 𝑥2 in the output 𝐶 = 3 2 , but we cannot
“influence” that state with the input since B = 2 0 𝑇
 So we say that the dynamics associated with the second state are uncontrollable using
this actuator (defines the B matrix)
 Of course it can get even worse because we could have
 So now we have
 Get same result for the transfer function, but now the dynamics associated with 𝑥2 are
both unobservable and uncontrollable
 Summary: Dynamics in the state-space model that are uncontrollable, unobservable,

or both do not show up in the transfer function
 Would like to develop models that only have dynamics that are both controllable and
observable
⇒ called a minimal realization
 A state space model that has the lowest possible order for the given transfer function
 But first need to develop tests to determine if the models are observable and/or
controllable
 Summary: Dynamics in the state-space model that are uncontrollable, unobservable,

or both do not show up in the transfer function
 Would like to develop models that only have dynamics that are both controllable and
observable
⇒ called a minimal realization
 A state space model that has the lowest possible order for the given transfer function
 But first need to develop tests to determine if the models are observable and/or
controllable
Observability
 Definition: An LTI system is observable if the initial state 𝑥 0 can be uniquely

deduced from the knowledge of the input 𝑢(𝑡) and output 𝑦(𝑡) for all 𝑡 between 0 and
any finite 𝑇 > 0
 If 𝑥(0) can be deduced, then we can reconstruct 𝑥 𝑡 exactly because we know 𝑢 𝑡 ⇒ we can find
𝑥 𝑡 ∀𝑡
 Thus we need only consider the zero-input (homogeneous) solution to study observability
 Definition: A state 𝑥 ∗ ≠ 0 is said to be unobservable if the zero-input solution 𝑦(𝑡),

with 𝑥(0) = 𝑥 ∗ , is zero for all 𝑡 ≥ 0
 Equivalent to saying that 𝑥 ∗ is an unobservable state if
Observability
 For the problem we were just looking at, consider Model #2 with 𝑥 ∗ = 0 1 𝑇
≠ 0, then
so
So, 𝑥 ∗ = 0 1 𝑇
is an unobservable state for this system
 But that is as expected, because we knew there was a problem with the state 𝑥2 from the
previous analysis
Observability
 Theorem: An LTI system is observable iff it has no unobservable states

 We normally just say that the pair (A,C) is observable
 Pseudo-Proof: Let 𝑥 ∗ ≠ 0 be an unobservable state and compute the outputs from the
initial conditions 𝑥1 (0) and 𝑥2 (0) = 𝑥1 (0) + 𝑥 ∗
 Then,
and
but
 Thus 2 different initial conditions give the same output 𝑦(𝑡), so it would be impossible
for us to deduce the actual initial condition of the system 𝑥1 (𝑡) or 𝑥2 (𝑡) given 𝑦1 (𝑡)
 Testing system observability by searching for a vector 𝑥(0) such that 𝐶𝑒 𝐴𝑡 𝑥 0 = 0 ∀ 𝑡

is feasible, but very hard in general
 Better tests are available
Observability
 Theorem: The vector 𝑥 ∗ is an unobservable state iff
 Pseudo-Proof: If 𝑥 ∗ is an unobservable state, then by definition,
But all the derivatives of 𝐶𝑒 𝐴𝑡 exist and for this condition to hold, all derivatives must
be zero at 𝑡 = 0
Observability
Then
 We only need retain up to the 𝑛 − 1𝑡ℎ derivative because of the Cayley-Hamilton

theorem
Observability
 Simple test: Necessary and sufficient condition for observability is that
 Why does this make sense?

 The requirement for an unobservable state is that for 𝑥 ∗ ≠ 0
 Which is equivalent to saying that 𝑥 ∗ is orthogonal to each row of

 But if the rows of are considered to be vectors and these span the full 𝑛-dimensional space, then it
is not possible to find an 𝑛-vector 𝑥 ∗ that is orthogonal to each of these
 To determine if the 𝑛 rows of span the full 𝑛-dimensional space, we need to test their linear
independence, which is equivalent to the rank test1
References
Jonathan P. How and Emilio Frazzoli. 16.30/31 Feedback Control Systems. Fall 2010.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare, https://ocw.mit.edu/.
License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA.
Katsuhiko Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, 2010, 5th edition, Prentice Hall.
Norman Nice, Control Systems Engineering, 2011, Addison-Wesley.

Automatic Control 2 Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Automatic Control 2 Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Automatic Control 2 Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCK363E – AUTOMATIC CONTROL II

Instructor: Barış Başpınar

 Roots of transfer function numerator called the system zeros

 Given 𝑥ሶ = 𝐴𝑥 + 𝐵𝑢, substitute the above to get:

 Also have that 𝑦 = 𝐶𝑥 + 𝐷𝑢 = 0 which gives:

 So we must ﬁnd the 𝑠0 that solves:

 There is a zero at the frequency 𝑠0 if there exists a non-trivial solution of:

so there is clearly a zero at 𝑠0 = −2, as we expected. For the directions, solve

gives 𝑥01 = −2𝑥02 and 𝑢0 = 2𝑥02 so that with 𝑥02 = 1

say that 𝑠 = −2 is a blocking zero or a transmission zero

 So then the total output is 𝑌 𝑠 = 𝑌1 𝑠 + 𝑌2 (𝑠) showing that 𝑌 𝑠 = 0 → 𝑦 𝑡 = 0, as

 Example: Consider a simple system:

 But now consider the new state space model 𝑥ҧ = 𝑥 𝑥2 𝑇

which is clearly diﬀerent than the ﬁrst model, and larger.

 So what is going on?

because the 𝐴 is decoupled and there is a zero in the 𝐶 matrix

* For this system we say that the

 There is an analogous problem on the input side as well. Consider:

 Of course it can get even worse because we could have

 Summary: Dynamics in the state-space model that are uncontrollable, unobservable,

 Summary: Dynamics in the state-space model that are uncontrollable, unobservable,

 Deﬁnition: An LTI system is observable if the initial state 𝑥 0 can be uniquely

 Deﬁnition: A state 𝑥 ∗ ≠ 0 is said to be unobservable if the zero-input solution 𝑦(𝑡),

 Theorem: An LTI system is observable iﬀ it has no unobservable states

 Testing system observability by searching for a vector 𝑥(0) such that 𝐶𝑒 𝐴𝑡 𝑥 0 = 0 ∀ 𝑡

 Theorem: The vector 𝑥 ∗ is an unobservable state iﬀ

 Pseudo-Proof: If 𝑥 ∗ is an unobservable state, then by deﬁnition,

 We only need retain up to the 𝑛 − 1𝑡ℎ derivative because of the Cayley-Hamilton

 Simple test: Necessary and suﬃcient condition for observability is that

 Why does this make sense?

 Which is equivalent to saying that 𝑥 ∗ is orthogonal to each row of

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.