Note: This page has been translated by MathWorks. Please click here

To view all translated materals including this page, select Japan from the country navigator on the bottom of this page.

To view all translated materals including this page, select Japan from the country navigator on the bottom of this page.

Compute upper bounds on Vinnicombe `gap`

and `nugap`

distances
between two systems

[gap,nugap] = gapmetric(p0,p1) [gap,nugap] = gapmetric(p0,p1,tol)

`[gap,nugap] = gapmetric(p0,p1)`

calculates upper bounds on the `gap`

and `nugap`

(Vinnicombe)
metric between systems `p0`

and `p1`

.
The `gap`

and `nugap`

values lie
between 0 and 1. A small value (relative to 1) implies that any controller
that stabilizes `p0`

will likely stabilize `p1`

,
and, moreover, that the closed-loop gains of the two closed-loop systems
will be similar. A `gap`

or `nugap`

of
0 implies that `p0`

equals `p1`

,
and a value of 1 implies that the plants are far apart. The input
and output dimensions of `p0`

and `p1`

must
be the same.

`[gap,nugap] = gapmetric(p0,p1,tol)`

specifies a relative accuracy for calculating the `gap`

metric
and `nugap`

metric. The default value for `tol`

is
0.001. The computed answers are guaranteed to satisfy

gap-tol < gapexact(p0,p1) <= gap

`gap`

and `nugap`

compute
the gap and ν gap metrics between two LTI objects. Both quantities
give a numerical value δ(`p0`

,`p1`

)
between 0 and 1 for the distance between a nominal system `p0`

(*G*_{0})
and a perturbed system p1 (*G*_{1}).
The gap metric was introduced into the control literature by Zames
and El-Sakkary 1980, and exploited by Georgiou and Smith 1990. The
ν gap metric was derived by Vinnicombe 1993. For both of these
metrics the following robust performance result holds from Qui and
Davidson 1992, and Vinnicombe 1993

arcsin * b*(

where

$$b(G,K)={\Vert \left[\begin{array}{c}I\\ K\end{array}\right]{(I-GK)}^{-1}\left[\begin{array}{cc}G& I\end{array}\right]\Vert}_{\infty}^{-1}$$

The interpretation of this result is that if a nominal plant *G*_{0} is
stabilized by controller *K*_{0},
with "stability margin" * b*(

`gap`

is
always less than or equal to the `gap`

, so its predictions
using the above robustness result are tighter.To make use of the gap metrics in robust design, weighting functions
need to be introduced. In the above robustness result, * G* needs
to be replaced by

`loopsyn`

and `ncfsyn`

for
more details).The computation of the gap amounts to solving 2-block *H*_{∞} problems
(Georgiou, Smith 1988). The particular method used here for solving
the *H*_{∞} problems is
based on Green et al., 1990. The computation of the `nugap`

uses
the method of Vinnicombe, 1993.

Georgiou, T.T., "On the computation of the gap metric,
" *Systems Control Letters,* Vol. 11, 1988,
p. 253-257

Georgiou, T.T., and M. Smith, "Optimal robustness in
the gap metric," *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,* Vol.
35, 1990, p. 673-686

Green, M., K. Glover, D. Limebeer, and J.C. Doyle, "A
J-spectral factorization approach to *H*_{∞} control," *SIAM
J. of Control and Opt.,* 28(6), 1990, p. 1350-1371

Qiu, L., and E.J. Davison, "Feedback stability under
simultaneous gap metric uncertainties in plant and controller," *Systems
Control Letters,* Vol. 18-1, 1992 p. 9-22

Vinnicombe, G., "Measuring Robustness of Feedback Systems," PhD Dissertation, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, 1993.

Zames, G., and El-Sakkary, "Unstable systems and feedback:
The gap metric," *Proceedings of the Allerton Conference,* October
1980, p. 380-385

Was this topic helpful?