Brief paperAn extension of the prediction scheme to the case of systems with both input and state delay☆
Introduction
In the Introduction Chapter of the recently published book (Krstic, 2009) it is stated that “the area of control design for systems with simultaneous input and state delay is underdeveloped”. At the same time, it is mentioned there that the stabilizing problems for systems with state delay only “are the easiest in our list as they can be solved using finite dimensional feedback laws”. In this contribution we present an extension of the prediction scheme proposed in Manitius and Olbrot (1979) for the compensation of the input delay in the computation of stabilizing controllers for linear systems with both input delay and state delay. For simplicity of the presentation we treat the case of systems with one state delay, but the presented results can be extended to the case of systems with multiple state delays, as well.
In Section 2 we provide basic notations used in the contribution and give the formulation of the stabilization problem for systems with input and state delay. Section 3 is devoted to the computation of the stabilizing control laws. Similar to the case of systems with input delay we start with an explicit expression for the solution of an initial value problem for a time-delay system. Then, we apply this expression for the computation of future states in the form of functionals that depend on the present and past states of the time-delay system. And, finally, we compute the desired stabilizing control law. The stabilizing law is of the form of an integral equation, similar to that obtained in Manitius and Olbrot (1979), with some additional terms due to the presence of the state delay in the system. Section 4 is dedicated to the stability analysis of the closed-loop system. The principal result of the section is an upper exponential estimate for the solutions of the closed-loop system. In Section 5 some basic results concerning the complete type functionals for an exponentially stable system are given. In Section 6 we present a Lyapunov–Krasovskii type stability analysis of the closed-loop system. The key element of the analysis is a simple modification of the backstepping transformation of the control variable proposed in Krstic and Smyshlyaev (2008). This transformation allows us to present the closed-loop system in a form more appropriate for the consequent stability analysis. Here we propose for the transformed system a Lyapunov functional, similar to that of Krstic (2009), with a single modification: we use a complete type functional instead of the quadratic Lyapunov form used in Krstic (2009). As a result we obtain an upper exponential estimate for the solutions of the transformed system and derive a similar exponential estimate for the original control variable. Several examples illustrating the computation of the stabilizing control laws are given in Section 7.
Section snippets
Problem formulation
Given a time-delay system of the form where , , are real matrices, and is a real matrix. The system delays satisfy the inequalities . The opposite case, , can be treated similarly with trivial modifications. Let be an initial time instant and be an initial function. We assume that the function belongs to the space of piece-wise continuous functions, , defined on the segment . Let stand for
General scheme
Let us denote by the fundamental matrix of system (1); see Bellman & Cooke, 1963. The matrix satisfies the equation and the initial conditions: , , .
Given an initial time instant , and an initial function , then the corresponding solution of system (1) can be written as In particular this means that
Exponential estimates
Any particular solution of the closed-loop system (1), (5) is defined by the corresponding initial conditions For the corresponding solution is It follows from the preceding equality that where and .
Remark 3 As , then , and inequality (6) holds for .
Complete type functionals
The stability analysis performed in the previous section is based on a given exponential estimate of the solutions of system (2). In the following section we are going to provide a Lyapunov type stability analysis of the closed-loop system (1), (5). As the system involves both input and state delay we are not able to apply for this analysis quadratic Lyapunov forms as it has been done in Krstic (2009), any more. Actually, we have to replace these forms by quadratic Lyapunov–Krasovskii
Lyapunov–Krasovskii approach
In this section we present a Lyapunov type stability analysis of the closed-loop system (1), (5). To this end we apply a simplified version of the backstepping transformation of the control variable proposed in Krstic and Smyshlyaev (2008), where the new variable It is worth to be mentioned that in Krstic and Smyshlyaev (2008) the input delay is represented under a transport PDE, and the backstepping transformation is applied to the
Examples
We start with the following example from Krstic (2009).
Example 1 Let us consider the scalar equation where for simplicity we assume . Here the fundamental solution and This means that the following control transforms the original equation to the following one: The last equation is
Conclusions
In this contribution the classical prediction scheme used for the computation of stabilizing control laws is extended to the case of systems with both input and state delay. It is shown that the presented control laws convert to the standard ones when the state delay disappears. It is worth mentioning that the new control laws are described by integral equations and belong to the class of retarded type time-delay systems. Nevertheless, similar to the case of systems with only input delay, an
Vladimir L. Kharitonov, received the Candidate of Science Degree in Automatic Control in 1977 and the Doctor of Science Degree in Automatic Control in 1990, both from the Leningrad State University. Dr. Kharitonov is a Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Control Processes, St.-Petersburg State University, Russia. His scientific interests include: control, time-delay systems, stability and robust stability.
References (9)
- et al.
Stabilization of linear strict-feedback systems with delayed integrators
Automatica
(2010) - et al.
Backstepping boundary control for first-order hyperbolic PDEs and application to systems with actuator and sensor delays
Systems & Control Letters
(2008) Linear systems with delayed controls: a reduction
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
(1982)- et al.
Differential difference equations
(1963)
Cited by (70)
Lyapunov stability tests for linear time-delay systems
2022, Annual Reviews in ControlDelays compensation for an atmospheric sliced tomatoes dehydration process via state predictors
2019, Journal of the Franklin InstituteCitation Excerpt :It is worthy of mention that in contrast with the theoretical case studied in [14], the state delay is larger than the input delay, hence the corresponding compensator is developed here. In this work, the performance of the dynamic [14] and static [13] predictors are compared. The experimental effects, on the dehydration prototype, of the number of subdivisions of the integral term are studied.
Design of pseudo-predictor feedback for neutral-type linear systems with both state and input delays
2019, AutomaticaCitation Excerpt :Almost at the same time, the same problem was independently investigated in Kharitonov (2014) by a completely different method which is based on the fundamental matrix functions for open-loop time-delay systems. The approach proposed in Kharitonov (2014) was also extended to neutral-type time-delay systems (Kharitonov, 2015). Recently, a new method referred to as pseudo-predictor feedback (PPF) was proposed in Zhou (2014b) to study the stabilization of linear systems with only (time-varying) input delays.
Control of Axial-Torsional Dynamics of a Distributed Drilling System
2024, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems TechnologyDelay compensation of linear systems with multiple distributed input delays via memoryless feedback
2023, Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control
Vladimir L. Kharitonov, received the Candidate of Science Degree in Automatic Control in 1977 and the Doctor of Science Degree in Automatic Control in 1990, both from the Leningrad State University. Dr. Kharitonov is a Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Control Processes, St.-Petersburg State University, Russia. His scientific interests include: control, time-delay systems, stability and robust stability.
- ☆
The material in this paper was not presented at any conference. This paper was recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Nicolas Petit under the direction of Editor Miroslav Krstic.
- 1
Tel.: +7 812 4284510; fax: +7 812 4287159.