on model-based feedback flow control jonathan epps, miguel palaviccini, louis cattafesta
Post on 22-Feb-2016
16 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
On Model-Based Feedback Flow Control
Jonathan Epps, Miguel Palaviccini, Louis CattafestaMAE Department, University of FloridaInterdisciplinary Microsystems Group
Florida Center for Advanced Aero-Propulsion
IFFC-2Poitiers, France
December 8-10, 2010
Supported by AFOSR, NSF, and FCAAP
Outline
Choices for Feedback Flow Control Methods Desirable Model Features POD-Galerkin Model Shortcomings Extensions to POD-Galerkin Models
– Example I – 2-D cylinder wake (Re=100)- Nonlinear model and controllers
– Example II – compressible cavity oscillations - Dynamic phasor control
Limit-cycle oscillations Lightly-damped, linear, stable oscillations?
–Balanced models and the connection between theory and experiments
Outlook
Feedback Flow Control ChoicesRef: Pastoor et al., JFM, 2008
Example: Adaptive Black-Box ModelCavity Oscillations
Control works but lacks physical insight and basis– Ref: Kegerise et al., JSV, 2007
M=0.275
Overview
Model-based feedback flow control techniques require an analytically tractable plant model.– Motivates development of minimal-order flow models
POD models are useful for flow control but…– Exhibit inherent limitations that must be circumvented
Various extensions have been proposed– Focus here is on those most amenable to experimental
implementation
POD – Limitations & Extensions for Control
“Standard” POD method has limitations– How to respect effects of boundary conditions? Pressure gradient?– When actuation is introduced, flow structures change. How do we
account for this?– Low-energy features (e.g., acoustic feedback) can be important to
the dynamics. How do we account for these? Some recent extensions
– Traveling POD: shift reference frame for traveling waves– Mode-interpolation techniques– Double POD– Shift modes: add additional mode(s) to capture transient– Phenomenological models: instead of Galerkin projection, base
models on physical intuition– Balanced truncation: use adjoint simulations to weight modes
according to dynamical importance
Model Requirements for Control Synthesis
(a) natural flow (I) as initial condition, (b) actuated flow (II) not far from the desired controlled flow, (c) natural transient from (II) to (I) when actuation is turned off, (d) actuated transient from (I) to (II), (e) suitability of the model for control design, (f) possibility of observer design from sensor signals, (g) implementable in experiments
Ref: Noack et al., AIAA 2004-2408 and JFM 2003.
Model should describe dynamics near I and II
Generalized Galerkin System
Generalized Galerkin approximation
Leads to generalized system model via Galerkin projection
Objective: obtain a minimal Galerkin model suitable for control
u= aiui−NA
−1
∑actuationm odes
1 2 3+ u0
baseflow
{ + aiuii=i
NKL
∑PODm odes
1 2 3
standard POD insufficient! Tadm or et al (2010)
1 244 34 4
+ aiuii=NKL+1
NEM
∑non-equilibriumm odes (shift m odes orstability eigenm odes)
1 24 34
daidt
= lij+ lij+
unresolved m odedissipation}
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟⎟aj
j=−NA
NEM
∑
linear term s1 24 4 4 34 4 4
+ qijk + qijk+
non-zeropressure term s}
⎛
⎝
⎜⎜⎜⎜
⎞
⎠
⎟⎟⎟⎟aj
k=−NA
NEM
∑j=−NA
NEM
∑ ak
quadratic term s1 24 4 4 44 34 4 4 4 4
+ gijj=−NA
−1
∑daj
dtboundary control inputs
1 24 34; i =−NAK NEM
Ref: Noack et al., AIAA 2004-2408
Example - Cylinder Wake
Minimal Extended Galerkin POD ModelBased on 3-mode Galerkin POD model with a shift mode for cylinder wake (Noack et al., 2003, Tadmor et al. 2004).
Galerkin approximation is
u= usunstablesteadyN-S sol
{ + a1u1 + a2u2
first 2 POD m odes1 24 34 + a3u3
shift m ode{
us
umean
u3
u2
u1
Example: Cylinder Wake
Resulting Dynamical Systems Model
After projection, phase averaging, & transforming to cylindrical coordinates:
obtain
which has a limit cycle
a1 =rcosΦ, a2 =rsinΦ
&r&Φ&a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥=
s r −ba3( )r
w +ga3
ar2 −s 3a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥
a3* =s r
br* =
s 3a3*
a=
s 3s r
ab
Example: Cylinder Wake
Control of the Cylinder Wake (Tadmor et al., 2004; King et al., 2005)Adding actuation (transverse oscillation velocity w/ appropriate phase) to the unforced system model yields
&r&Φ&a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥=
s r −ba3( )r
w +ga3
ar2 −s 3a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥+
gcos Φ−q( )
−gr
⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟sin Φ−q( )
0
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
u
Example: Cylinder Wake
Using:
transforms the controlled system to
b1 =rcos Φ−q( ) b2 =rsin Φ−q( )
&b1&b2&a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥=
s r −ba3( )b1 − w +ga3( )b2w +ga3( )b1 + s r −ba3( )b2
−s 3a3 +a b12 +b2
2( )
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥+
g00
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥u
Example: Cylinder Wake
Key Dynamical Aspects (Tadmor et al., 2004) Amplitude Dynamics and Inertial Manifold
of the natural system provide insight (actuation amplitude g assumed constant)
Example: Cylinder Wake
Lessons Learned
Qualitatively, the model does a good job predicting the salient features of the controlled flow, including the existence of globally stable and unstable limit cycles and a lower bound on the reduction of fluctuation energy for the given control policy.
The low order model is quantitatively accurate near the open-loop limit cycle, but diverges rapidly as the vortices are suppressed and the base flow changes.
Techniques suggested for a posteriori corrections to the model parameters via nonlinear model estimation.
Additional model extensions required.
Nonlinear Control Approaches
&b1&b2&a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥=
s r −ba3( )b1 − w +ga3( )b2w +ga3( )b1 + s r −ba3( )b2
−s 3a3 +a b12 +b2
2( )
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥+
gc
00
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥u
b1 =rcos Φ−q( ) b2 =rsin Φ−q( )
&A&Φ&a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥=
s r −ba3( )A
w +ga3
aA2 −s 3a3
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥+
gccos Φ−q( )
−gc
r⎛⎝⎜
⎞⎠⎟sin Φ−q( )
0
⎡
⎣
⎢⎢⎢⎢⎢
⎤
⎦
⎥⎥⎥⎥⎥
u
King et al. (2005) developed several nonlinear controllers based on the “Dynamic Phasor” model recast in the following form– Also described in Rowley and Juttijudata (2005)
Energy-Based Controller
Dynamics Phasor Models: Cylinder Wake (King et al., 2005) A simple energy-based controller was developed by averaging the control influence on the oscillation amplitude over half a period when cos(Φ-θ)>0.
This mean influence is inserted into the dynamics, and the amplitude A is then forced to decay with a rate of –k.
In general, the control is:
Note: This assumes we know a1, a2, and a3. In real-time experiments, we will need to estimate these.
Energy-Based Controller
Dynamics Phasor Models: Cylinder Wake (King et al., 2005)
Energy Based Control Results k=0.0075
Other Nonlinear Controllers
Damping controller that preserves the natural oscillation frequency ω
Input-output linearization
Lyapunov controller based on
Backstepping controller
State feedback control based on a linear parametrically varying model
Opposition controller
Have similar effects as the energy-based controller, but the commanded input is undesirable.
DNS of the seven controllers were performed Simplified Galerkin model no longer accurately reflects the flow
for peak suppression and performance suffers– Note: passive splitter plate reduces fluctuations by ~60%
DNS of Nonlinear Controllers
Energy-based control – max reductionUnactuated flow - contours of u
Application to Cavity Oscillations?
Rowley and Juttijudata (2005) postulated a similar, two-state, dynamical system model for cavity oscillations.
Parameters σ, α, ω “tuned” to match unforced oscillator– Parameter estimation methods would be used in experiments
Parameters b1 and b2 “tuned” to match observed transient in simulations w/ sinusoidal forcing at ω
&a1&a2
⎡
⎣⎢⎢
⎤
⎦⎥⎥= s −ar2 −w
w s −ar2⎡⎣⎢⎢
⎤⎦⎥⎥
a1a2
⎡
⎣⎢⎢
⎤
⎦⎥⎥+
b1b2
⎡
⎣⎢⎢
⎤
⎦⎥⎥u
a1 =rcosq, a2 =rsinq
Dynamic Phasor Control
As before, the input is chosen to be u = rc cos(θ – θc) and the model is averaged over one period (Krylov-Bogoliubov)– Assumes r is changing slowly, dθ/dt~ω, and inputs u are
small
An appropriate choice of θc and rc yields the final model, which, for 0 < κ < σ, has a periodic orbit with amplitude
Idea is to reduce amplitude of oscillations but stay within the range of validity of the model (κ cannot be too large)
r* =s −ka
Dynamic Phasor Control
Kalman filter, assuming dr/dt = 0, is used to estimate the states
– where η is a p sensor measurement and– L1 > 0, and L2 = ω – L1
2 / 2ω (chosen for stable, critically damped observer dynamics)
Both the model and the state observer will only work well when the oscillations are near ω, which depends on the Mach number– Could also estimate ω (as in Pastoor et al. 2008)
Dynamic Phasor Control
Model-based control works well for the design Mach number Oscillations are completely eliminated for 1 ≤ κ / σ ≤ 3
– Too high a value of κ causes the system to leave the region of validity of the model, resulting in increased oscillations.
Dynamic Phasor Control
Performance is very sensitive to Mach number (design M=0.6)
M=0.55
M=0.65
M=0.7
Dynamic Phasor Control
Can this approach be applied in experiments?
Issues Need to account for strong influence of Mach number?
Adaptive parameter estimation and control? Only applies to limit-cycle oscillation
Cavity oscillations often lightly-damped, stable, linear What can we do in this case?
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500138
140
142
144
146
148
150
152
Freqency [Hz]
SP
L [d
B] w
ith P
ref =
20m
Pa
Balanced Truncation(Linear Systems)
Consider a linear (stable) state-space system
Idea for obtaining a reduced-order model:– Change to coordinates in which x1 is “most important” state, x2 “less
important”,…, xn “least important”– Then throw out (truncate) the least important states
How to define “most important” states?– Two important concepts: controllability and observability– Most controllable states are ones easily excited by an input– Most observable states are ones that have a large effect on output– Balance these concepts: x1 is most controllable and most
observable, etc. Typically produces better control-oriented models than POD/Galerkin
Overview of balanced truncation
What are you interested in capturing?
States that have large influenceon the output
States easily excitedby an input
Hankel singular values
Balanced POD
Can use standard & adjoint simulations to compute approximate balanced truncation with cost similar to POD (“Balanced POD”)– Rowley, Int. J. Bifurc. Chaos, 2005
Advantages– Explicitly incorporates effects of actuators and sensors– Considering observability effectively weights the dynamical
importance of various modes: low-energy modes that affect the dynamics (e.g., acoustic waves) will be strongly observable, and will not be truncated
– Guaranteed error bounds for linear systems, close to best achievable by any model
Disadvantages– Works only for linear systems
- Extensions available for nonlinear systems– Computation intractable for systems with more than about 104 states
Not applicable to experiments!
Application to Experimental Control of Cavity Oscillations
Limit cycle or lightly damped stable oscillations?– Assuming Gaussian input disturbances, then output puff is
Gaussian for a linear system
M=0.45 M=0.34 M=0.34
M=0.45: lightly damped oscillations
M=0.34: self-sustained oscillationsM=0.34: w/ control
Rowley et al. (2006)
Application to Cavity Oscillations -Eigensystem Realization Algorithm
Construct Hankel matrix H(0) from input/output data
H(0) = observability x controllability
SVD and truncate at order n
Results in balanced model
Calculate A B C D to achieve a balanced realization
• Illingworth et al., J Sound Vib, (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2010.10.030• Cattafesta et al., AIAA-97-1804
Application to Cavity Oscillations- 2D DNS
LQG Controller Design AFTER dynamic phasor control! Includes effects of disturbances and noise
Control feedback law
Quadratic cost function
Use Kalman filter to estimate unknown states
Weight matrices used to penalize large system states and large control inputsx̂
Application to Cavity Oscillations
System identification using ERA compared to spectral analysis – 140 states nearly matches spectral analysis– 8 states models frequency range of Rossiter modes
Application to Cavity Oscillations
Results indicate excellent suppression that is robust to Mach #
Mdesign=0.6
M=0.5 M=0.7
OL
CL
OL
CL
OL
CL
Present Experiments at UF
Bandpass filter around Rossiter modes @ M=0.3
ERA n=20
Reasonable comparison versus conventional frequency response
Next step is estimator and then LQG
Present Experiments at UF
Outlook
Nonlinear (limit cycle) reduced-order models can be obtained via extensions to standard POD that are suitable for control design.– Dynamic phasor control (appropriate amplitude and phase) via
physically motivated and formal methods can suppress the oscillations. Lower |u| is associated with energy-based control.
– These reduced-order models must “respect” the range of validity of the model.
– If the control is too aggressive, the model will no longer be valid and the control performance will suffer.
– Suggests additional model extensions and/or adaptive parameter estimation or…
Dynamic phasor control of nonlinear oscillator produces a stable, lightly damped oscillator system and then linear control is applied.– Robust, linear control approaches possible provided a “balanced”
reduced-order model can be obtained.- Balanced POD for simulations (requires adjoint)- Balanced state-space realization via ERA for experiments
References
B. Noack, K. Afanasiev, M. Morzynski, G. Tadmore, and F. Thiele, “A hierarchy of low-dimensional models for the transient and post-transient cyclinder wake.” J. Fluid Mech., vol. 497, pp. 335-363, 2003.
G. Tadmor, B. Noack, M. Morzynski, and S. Siegel, “Low-Dimensional Models For Feedback Flow Control. Part II: Control Design and Dynamic Estimation.” Proc. AIAA 2nd Flow Control Conference., pp. 2004-2409, 2004.
R. King, M. Seibold, O. Lehman, B. Noack, M. Morzynski, and G. Tadmor, “Nonlinear Flow Control Based on a Low Dimensional Model of Fluid Flow.” In Control and Observer Design for Nonlinear Finite and Infinite Dimensional Systems (ed. T. Meurer et al. ). Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 322, pp. 369-386, 2005.
C. Rowley and V. Juttijudata, “Model-based Control and Estimation of Cavity Flow Oscillations.” Proc. 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control., December 2005.
C. Rowley, D. Williams, T. Colonus, R. Muray, and D. Macmynowski V., “Linear Models for Control of Cavity Oscillations. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 547, pp.317-330, 2006.
M. Morzynski, W. Stankiewicz, B. Noack, R. King, F. Thiele, and G. Tadmor, “Continuous Mode Interpolation for Control-Oriented Models of Fluid Flow.” In Active Flow Control (ed. R. King). Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design., vol. 95, pp. 260-278, 2007.
S. Siegal, K. Cohen, J. Seidel, and T. McLaughlin, “State Estimation of Transient Flow Fields Using Double Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (DPOD).” In Active Flow Control (ed. R. King). Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design., vol. 95, pp. 105-118, 2007.
L. Henning and R. King, “Drag Reduction by Closed-Loop Control of a Separated Flow Over a Bluff Body with a Blunt Trailing Edge.” Proc. 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control., pp. 494-499, Dec. 2005.
S. Illingworth, A. Morgans, and C. Rowley. “Feedback Control of Flow Resonances Using Balanced Reduced-Order Models.” Journal of Sound and Vibration, to appear.
top related