跳到主要内容

第 26 讲:反馈应用实例:倒立摆

本讲内容:开环系统分析及反馈动态特性的选择;用二阶线性常系数微分方程描述系统行为;根轨迹分析;结合比例反馈与微分反馈实现倒立摆稳定;轨道上倒立摆的演示,以及改变动态特性和阻尼特性产生的影响。

授课教师:艾伦·V. 奥本海姆教授

英文字幕稿

The following content is provided under a Creative

Commons license.

Your support will help MIT OpenCourseWare continue to

offer high-quality educational resources for free.

To make a donation or view additional materials from

hundreds of MIT courses, visit MIT OpenCourseWare at

ocw.mit.edu.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

PROFESSOR: Last time, we began a discussion of feedback.

And I briefly introduced a number of applications.

For example, the use of feedback in compensating for

non-ideal elements in a system.

And also, as another example, the use of feedback in

stabilizing unstable systems.

In this final lecture, what I'd like to do is focus in

more detail on the use of feedback to

stabilize unstable systems.

And the specific context in which I'd like to do that is

in the context of the inverted pendulum.

Now, I've referred to the inverted pendulum in several

past lectures.

And, basically, as everyone realizes, a pendulum is

essentially a rod with a weight on the bottom.

And, naturally, an inverted pendulum is just

that, upside down.

And so it's essentially a rod that's top-heavy.

And the idea with the inverted pendulum is, although by

itself it's unstable around a pivot point at the bottom, the

idea is to apply an external input, an acceleration,

essentially to keep it balanced.

And we've all probably done this type of thing at some

point in our lives, either childhood or not.

And so that's the system that I'd like to analyze and then

illustrate in this lecture.

Now, the context in which we'll do that is not with my

son's horse, but actually with an inverted pendulum which is

mounted on a cart.

And first I'd like to go through an analysis of it, and

then we'll actually see how the system works.

So basically, then, the system that we're talking about is

going to be a system which is a movable cart.

Mounted on the cart is a rod with a weight on the top.

And this then becomes the inverted pendulum.

And the cart has an external acceleration applied to it,

which is the input that we can apply to the system.

And then, in general, we can expect some disturbances.

And I'm going to represent the disturbances in terms of an

angular acceleration, which shows up around the weight at

the top of the rod.

So if we look at the system, then, as I've kind of

indicated it here, basically we have two inputs.

We have an input, which are the external disturbances,

which we can assume that we have no control over.

And then there is the acceleration that's apply to

the cart externally, or in the case of balancing my son's

horse, it's the movement of my hand.

And then, through the system dynamics, that ends up

influencing the angle of the rod.

And we'll think of the angle of the rod

as the system output.

And basically the idea, then, is to try to keep that angle

at 0 by applying the appropriate acceleration.

Now, as I've mentioned several times previously, if we know

exactly what the system dynamics are, and if we know

exactly what the external disturbances are, then

theoretically we can choose an acceleration for the cart

which will exactly balance the system, or balance the rod.

However, since the system is inherently unstable, any

deviation from that model-- in particular, any unanticipated

external disturbances--

will excite the instability.

And what that means is that the rod will fall.

So the idea, then, is, as we'll see, to stabilize the

system by placing feedback around it.

In particular through a measurement of the output

angle, processed through some appropriate feedback dynamics,

using that to control the acceleration of the cart.

And if we choose the feedback dynamics correctly, then, in

fact, we can end up with a stable system, even though the

open-loop system is unstable.

Well, as a first step, let's analyze the system in its

open-loop form.

In particular, let's analyze the system without feedback,

demonstrate that, indeed, it is unstable, and then see how

we can stabilize it using feedback.

So the system, then, is--

as we've indicated, the variables involved are the

measured angle, which represents the output, the

angular acceleration due to external disturbances, and

then there is the applied external

acceleration on the cart.

So these represent the variables, with L representing

the length of the rod, and s of t I indicate here, which we

won't really be paying attention to, as the position

of the cart.

And without going into the details specifically, what

we'll do is set up the equation, or write the

equation, in terms of balancing the acceleration.

And if you go through that process, then the basic

equation that you end up with is the equation that I

indicate here.

And this equation, then, tells us how the basic forces, or

accelerations, are balanced, where this is the second

derivative of the angle.

And then we have the acceleration due to gravity,

reflected through the angular acceleration times the sine of

the angle, the angular acceleration due to the

external disturbances, and finally, the angular

acceleration due to the motion of the cart.

Now, this equation, as it's written here, is a nonlinear

equation in the angle theta of t.

And what we'd like to do is linearize the equation.

And we'll linearize the equation by making the

assumption that the angle is very small, close to 0.

In other words, what we'll assume is that we're able to

keep the rod relatively vertical.

And our analysis, because we're linearizing the

equations, will obviously depend on that.

So making the assumption that the angle is small, we then

assume that the sine of the angle is approximately equal

to the angle, and the cosine of the angle is approximately

equal to 1.

That will then linearize this equation.

And the resulting equation, then, in its linearized form,

is the one that I indicate here.

So we have an equation of motion, which linearizes the

balance of the accelerations.

And what we see on the right-hand side of the

equation is the combined inputs due to the angular

acceleration of the rod and the acceleration of the cart.

And on the left-hand side of the equation, we have the

other forces due to the change in the angle.

So this is, then, the differential equation

associated with the open-loop system, the basic dynamics of

the system.

And if we apply the Laplace transform to this equation and

solve for the system function, then the basic equation that

we're left with expresses the Laplace transform of the

angle, equal to the system function, the open-loop system

function, times the Laplace transform of

the combined inputs.

And I remind you again that our assumption is that this is

an input that we have no control over.

This is the input that we can control.

And the two together, of course, form

the combined input.

Now, we can, of course, solve for the poles and 0's.

There are no 0's.

And there are two poles, since this is a second-order

denominator.

And looking at the poles in the s-plane then, we see that

we have a pair of poles, one at minus the square root of g

over L, and one at plus the square root of g over L.

And the important observation, then, is that while this pole

represents a stable pole, the right half-plane pole

represents an unstable pole.

And so this system, in fact, is an unstable system.

It's unstable because what we have is a pole in the right

half-plane for the open-loop system.

Now, before we see how to stabilize the system, let's,

in fact, look at the mechanical setup, which we

won't turn on for now, and just see essentially what this

instability means and what the physical orientation of the

equipment is.

So what we have, which you just saw a caricature of in

the view graph, is an inverted pendulum.

This represents the pendulum.

And it's mounted with the pivot point at the bottom.

It's mounted on a cart.

And here we have the cart.

And this is a pivot point.

And, as you can see, the cart can move back

and forth on a track.

And the external acceleration, which is applied to the cart,

is applied through this cable.

And that cable is controlled by a motor.

And we have the motor at this end of the track.

And so as the motor turns, then the cart will

move back and forth.

OK.

Now, since the system is not turned on

and there's no feedback--

in fact, the system, as we just saw in the transparency,

is an unstable system.

And what that instability means is that, for example, if

I set the angle to 0 and then let it go, then as soon as

there's a slight external disturbance, it

will start to fall.

Now, you can imagine that not only is the system unstable as

it is, but certainly can't accommodate changes in the

system dynamics.

For example, if we change, let's say, the

weight of the pendulum.

So if we thought, for example, of changing the weight by,

let's say, putting something like a glass with something in

it on top, and I think about trying to balance it by

itself, obviously that's hard.

In fact, I would say, without turning the system on,

guaranteed to be impossible.

So the basic system, as we've just analyzed it, is

inherently an unstable system.

The instability reflecting in the fact that the pendulum,

following its own natural forces, will tend to fall.

And now what we want to look at is how, through the use of

feedback, we can, in fact, stabilize the system.

So let's first, once again, look at the open-loop system.

And the open-loop system function that we saw was a

system function of this form, 1 over Ls squared minus g, and

that represents the system function associated with the

two inputs, one being the external disturbances, the

other being the externally applied acceleration.

And the system function here

represents the system dynamics.

And the resulting output is the angle.

Now, the feedback, the basic strategy behind the feedback,

is to in some way use the measured angle, make a

measurement of the angle, and use that through appropriate

feedback dynamics to stabilize the system.

And so with feedback applied around the system then, there

would be some measurement of the angle through some

appropriately chosen feedback dynamics.

And that then would determine for us the applied external

acceleration corresponding to what the motor does by pulling

the cable back and forth.

And we would like to choose G of s so that the overall

system is stable.

Now, as you recall from the lecture last time, with the

feedback around the system and expressed here in terms of

negative feedback, the overall transfer function then is the

transfer function associated with the basic feedback loop,

where H of s is the open-loop system and G of s corresponds

to the feedback dynamics.

Now, that's the basic strategy.

We haven't decided yet how to choose the feedback dynamics.

And that becomes the next step.

And we want to choose the dynamics in such a way that

the system ends up being stabilized.

Well, I think the thing to do is just simply begin with what

would seem to be the most obvious, which is a simple

measurement of the angle.

Let's take the angular measurements, feed that back,

let's say through a potentiometer and perhaps an

amplifier, so that there's some gain, and see if we can

stabilize the system simply through feedback which is

proportional to a measurement of the angle, what.

Is typically referred to as "proportional feedback." Well,

let's analyze the results of doing that.

Once again we have the basic feedback equation, where the

open-loop transfer function is what we had developed

previously, given by the second-order expression.

Now, using proportional feedback, we choose the

acceleration a of t to be directly proportional through

a gain constant or attenuation constant K1, directly

proportional to the measured angle theta of t.

And consequently the system function in the feedback path

is just simply a gain or attenuate K1.

So this, then, is the system function for

the feedback path.

Well, substituting this into the closed-loop expression,

then the overall expression for the Laplace transform of

the output angle is, as I indicate here, namely that

theta of s is proportional through this system function.

So the Laplace transform of the input X of t-- and let me

remind you that X of t, the external disturbances, now

represent the only input, since the other input

corresponding to the applied acceleration to the cart is

now controlled only through the feedback loop.

So we have this system function, then, for the

closed-loop system.

We recognize this once again as a second-order system.

And the poles of this second-order system are then

given by plus and minus the square root of g minus K1,

divided by L. So K1, the feedback constant, clearly

influences the position of the poles.

And let's look, in fact, at where the

poles are in the s-plane.

Well, first of all, with K1 equal to 0, which, of course,

is no feedback and corresponds to the open-loop system, we

have the poles where they were previously.

And if we now choose K1, let's say less than 0, then what

will happen as K1 becomes more and more negative, so that

this term is more and more positive, is that the left

half-plane pole will move further into the left

half-plane, the right half-plane pole will move

further into the right half-plane.

So clearly with K1 negative, this pole, which represents an

instability, becomes even more unstable.

Well, instead of K1 negative, let's try K1 positive and see

what happens.

And with K1 positive, what happens in this case is that

the left half-plane pole moves closer to the origin, the

right half-plane pole moves closer to the origin.

What one would hope is that they both end up in the left

half-plane at some point.

But, in fact, they don't.

What happens is that eventually they both reach the

origin, split at that point, and travel along the

j-omega-axis.

Now, this movement of the poles, as we vary K1 either

positive or negative, what we see is that with the open-loop

system, as we introduce feedback, those basic poles

move in the s-plane, either this way, as K1 becomes more

negative, or for this particular case, if K1 is

positive, they move in together, split, and move

along the j-omega-axis.

And that locus of the poles, in fact, is referred to in

feedback terminology as the "root locus." And as is

discussed in much more detail in the text, there are lots of

ways of determining the root locus for feedback systems

without explicitly solving for the roots.

For this particular example, in fact, we can determine the

root locus in the most straightforward way simply by

solving for the roots of the denominator

of the system function.

Now, notice that in this case, these poles, with K1 positive,

have moved together.

They move along the j-omega-axis.

And before they come together, the

system is clearly unstable.

Even when they come together and split, the system is

marginally stable, because, in fact, the system

would tend to oscillate.

And what that oscillation means is that with the

measurement of the angles, essentially if the poles are

operating on the j-omega-axis, what will happen is that

things will oscillate back and forth.

Perhaps with the cart moving back and forth trying to

compensate, and the rod sort of moving in

the opposite direction.

In any case, what's happened is, with just proportional

feedback, we apparently are unable to

stabilize the system.

Well, you could think that the reason, perhaps, is that we're

not responding fast enough.

For example, if the angle starts to change, perhaps, in

fact, we should make the feedback proportional to the

rate of change of angles, rather than

to the angle itself.

And so we could examine the possibility of using what's

referred to as "derivative feedback."

In derivative feedback, what we would do is to choose, for

the feedback equation, or for the feedback system function,

something reflecting a measurement of the derivative

of the angle.

And so here again, once again, we have the open-loop system

function with derivative feedback.

We'll attempt to--

or we will use this feedback.

And acceleration, which instead of being proportional

to the angle, as it was in the previous case, an acceleration

which is proportional to the derivative of the angle.

And so the basic feedback dynamics, or feedback system

function, is then G of s is equal to K2 times s.

The multiplication by s reflecting the fact that in

the time domain it's measuring the derivative of the angle.

The associated system function is then indicated here.

And if we solve again this second-order equation for its

roots, that tells us that the location of the poles are

given by this equation.

And so now what we would want to look at is how these poles

move as we vary the derivative feedback constant K2.

So let's look at the root locus for that case.

And first, once again, we have the basic open-loop poles.

And the open-loop poles consist of a pole on the left

half-plane and a pole on the right half-plane,

corresponding in this equation to K2 equal to 0.

That is, no feedback in the system.

If K2 is negative, then what you can see is that this real

part will become more negative.

Since K2 is squared here, this is still a positive quantity.

And, in fact, then with K2 less than 0, the root locus

that we get is indicated by this.

Now, notice, then, that this right half-plane pole is

becoming more unstable.

And the left half-plane pole likewise is

becoming more unstable.

And this point, by the way, corresponds to where this pole

ends up, or where the root locus ends up, when K2

eventually becomes infinite.

So clearly K2 negative is not going to stabilize the system.

Let's try K2 positive.

And the root locus dictated by this equation, then, is what I

indicate here.

The left half-plane pole moves further into the left

half-plane.

That's good.

That's getting more stable.

The right half-plane pole is moving closer to the left

half-plane, but unfortunately never gets there.

And, in fact, it's when K2 eventually becomes infinite

that this pole just gets to the point where the system

becomes marginally stable.

So what we found is that with proportional feedback, we

can't stabilize the system, with the derivative feedback,

we can't stabilize the system, by themselves.

And a logical next choice is to see if we can stabilize the

system by both measuring the angle and at the same time

being careful to be responsive to how fast that angle is

changing, so that if it's changing too fast, we can move

the cart or our hand under the inverted

pendulum more quickly.

Well, now then what we want to examine is the use of

proportional plus derivative feedback.

And in that case, we then have a choice for the acceleration,

which is proportional with one constant to the angle and

proportional with another constant to the

derivative of the angle.

And so the basic system function, then, with

proportional plus derivative feedback, is a system function

which is K1 plus K2 times s.

We then have an overall closed-loop system function,

theta of s, which is given by this equation.

And so the roots of this equation then represent the

poles of the closed-loop system.

And those poles involve two parameters.

They involve the parameter K2, which is proportional to the

derivative of the angle, and the constant K1, which is

proportional to the angle.

And we'll, first of all, examine this just with K2

positive, because what we can see is that as we vary K1, if

K2 were negative, that would, more or less immediately, put

poles into the right half-plane.

And the more negative K2 got, the larger this

term is going to get.

So, in fact, as it will turn out, we can stabilize the

system, provided that we choose K2 to be

greater than 0.

All right.

Now, with K2 greater than 0, what happens in the location

of the poles is that if K2 is greater than 0, and we choose

K1 greater than 0--

I'm sorry.

We choose K1 equal to 0, then in effect the influence of K2

is to shift the poles of the open-loop system slightly.

And so with K2 greater than 0 and K1 equal to 0, we have a

set of poles, which are indicated here, and so this is

just a shift, slight shift, to the left, depending on the

value of K2, a shift to the left of the open-loop poles.

Now, as we vary K1, and in particular we're going to

choose K1 greater than 0, what happens is that the poles will

begin to move together, as they did previously when we

looked at the variation of K1.

The poles will move together, reach a point where we have a

second-order pole, and then those poles will split and

move parallel to the j-omega-axis.

So what's indicated here is the root locus.

And what this represents, then, as long as we make K1

large enough so that this poles moves into the left

half-plane, is that it represents

now a stable system.

OK.

So what we've seen is that proportional feedback by

itself or derivative feedback by itself won't stabilize the

system, whereas with the right choice of feedback constants,

proportional plus derivative feedback will.

And we saw that basically by examining the root locus in

the s-plane.

All right.

Well, let's actually watch the system in action.

And I described it to you previously.

Basically, an inverted pendulum on a cart.

And so I still have it off.

And, of course, we have the pendulum.

And as I indicated, it's pivoted at the base.

And the angle is measured by a potentiometer that we have

attached to the pivot point.

And the measurement of the angle is fed back through this

wire to a motor that we have at the other end of the table.

And then that motor basically is used to provide the

acceleration to drive the cart.

OK.

Well, let's turn it on.

And when we turn it on, it'll take just

an instant to stabilize.

And fortunately we have the constants set right, and there

we have now the stabilization of an unstable system.

Remember that with the feedback off, the system is

unstable because the pendulum will fall, whereas now it's

stabilized.

Now, also, as you can see, not only have we stabilized it,

but we're able to compensate through the feedback to

changes in the external disturbances.

For example, by tapping it, because of the feedback and

the measurement of the angle, it will more or less

automatically stabilize.

Now, in addition to being stable in the presence of

external disturbances, it also remains stable and remains

balanced even if we were to change the system dynamics.

And let me just illustrate that with the glass that we've

talked about before.

Let's first not be too bold, and we'll take the liquid out

of the glass.

And presumably if it can adjust to changes in the

system dynamics, then if I put the glass on, in fact, it will

remain balanced.

And indeed it does.

And let me point out, by the way, that I don't have to be

very careful about exactly where I position the glass.

And furthermore, I can change the overall system even

further by, let's say for example, pouring a liquid in.

And now let me also comment that I've changed the physics

of it a little bit.

Because the liquid can slosh around a little bit, it

becomes a little more complicated a system.

But as you can see, it still remains balanced.

Now, if we really don't want to be too conservative at all,

we could wonder whether, with the feedback constants we

have, we could, in fact, balance the

pitcher on the top.

And, well, I guess we may as well give that a try.

And so now we're changing the mass at the top of the

pendulum by a considerable amount.

And, again, the system basically can respond to it.

Now, this is a fairly complicated system.

The liquid is sloshing around.

We, in fact, as you can see, have an instability right now,

although it's controlled.

And that's because the physics of the dynamics has changed.

And we can put a little bit more mass into the system, and

maybe or maybe not that will cut down on the instability.

OK.

Well, in fact, what happened there is that we increased the

mass at the top of the pendulum slightly.

And that provided just enough damping to

stabilize the system.

OK.

Well, with this lecture and this demonstration, this

concludes this entire set of lectures.

It concludes it especially if the pitcher happens to fall.

But, seriously, this concludes the set of lectures as we have

put them together.

And let me just comment that, as a professor of mine once

said, and which I've never forgotten, the purpose of a

set of lectures, or of a course, or, for that matter

anything that you study, is not really to cover a subject,

but to uncover the subject.

And I hope that, at least to some degree, we were able to

uncover the topic of signals and systems through this

series of lectures.

There are a lot of topics that we got only a very brief

glimpse into.

And I hope that at least what we've been able to do is get

you interested enough in them so that you'll pursue some of

these on your own.

And so I'd like to conclude by thanking you, both for your

patience and your interest.

And I hope that you have enough interest to pursue some

of these topics further.

Thank you.

FILMING DIRECTOR: Okay.

That's a wrap.