Experience Seamless Full Ebook Downloads for Every Genre at textbookfull.

com

Introduction to Applied Digital Controls Gregory

Starr

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-applied-
digital-controls-gregory-starr/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD NOW

Explore and download more ebook at https://textbookfull.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

An Introduction to Applied Linguistics Norbert Schmitt

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-applied-
linguistics-norbert-schmitt/

textboxfull.com

Introduction to Digital Communications Joachim Speidel

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-digital-
communications-joachim-speidel/

textboxfull.com

An Introduction to Applied Cognitive Psychology 2nd

Edition David Groome

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-applied-cognitive-
psychology-2nd-edition-david-groome/

textboxfull.com

An Introduction to Applied Cognitive Psychology 2nd

Edition David Groome

https://textbookfull.com/product/an-introduction-to-applied-cognitive-
psychology-2nd-edition-david-groome-2/

textboxfull.com
Introduction to Digital Communications 2nd Edition Joachim
Speidel

https://textbookfull.com/product/introduction-to-digital-
communications-2nd-edition-joachim-speidel/

textboxfull.com

A Pelican Introduction Marx and Marxism Gregory Claeys

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-pelican-introduction-marx-and-
marxism-gregory-claeys/

textboxfull.com

Our Digital World: Introduction to Computing 5th Edition

Anita Verno

https://textbookfull.com/product/our-digital-world-introduction-to-
computing-5th-edition-anita-verno/

textboxfull.com

Models to Code: With No Mysterious Gaps 1st Edition Leon

Starr

https://textbookfull.com/product/models-to-code-with-no-mysterious-
gaps-1st-edition-leon-starr/

textboxfull.com

American Popular Music: From Minstrelsy to MP3 5th Edition

Larry Starr

https://textbookfull.com/product/american-popular-music-from-
minstrelsy-to-mp3-5th-edition-larry-starr/

textboxfull.com
Gregory Starr

Introduction
to Applied
Digital
Controls
Introduction to Applied Digital Controls
Gregory Starr

Introduction to Applied
Digital Controls
Gregory Starr
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM, USA

Additional material to this book can be downloaded from http://www.springer.com

ISBN 978-3-030-42809-9 ISBN 978-3-030-42810-5 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42810-5

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface

This book is intended to give the senior or first-year graduate students in mechanical
engineering an introduction to digital control of dynamic systems with an emphasis
on applications. The nature of the book is biased towards clarity rather than
mathematical rigor, although the development of important material is complete.
Both transform-based (classical) and state-space (modern) control design are
addressed. The root-locus design method in the z-plane is used for classical, while
pole-placement plus a state estimator (where needed) is used for modern control.
The topic of model building is treated using parameter identification by least-
squares.
A brief review of the chapters is as follows: Chap. 1 introduces the idea of
digital control and some basic terminology. Chapter 2 covers linear discrete systems
and introduces the z-transform. Chapter 3 presents several methods for finding
discrete approximations to continuous systems. Mathematical modeling of the
sampling process is treated in Chap. 4, along with the phenomenon of aliasing.
Chapter 5 covers classical control system design in the z-plane using root-locus. A
review of state-space analysis of continuous systems is presented in Chap. 6, while
Chap. 7 extends this to state-space design of digital control systems. Finally, a brief
introduction to system identification using least-squares is presented in Chap. 8.
The book is intended for a one-semester or one-quarter course and can be fully
covered in that time. Students are expected to have had a prerequisite course in
continuous control system analysis and design.
In keeping with the philosophy of this book, the author encourages the use
of laboratory demonstrations and projects as resources allow. The appendices
document demonstrations (Appendix A) and projects (Appendices B and C) that
are used at The University of New Mexico. The use of such “hands-on” activities
greatly enhances students’ understanding.
Finally, the accompanying interactive online material developed by Prof. Greg
Mason is pedagogically significant; its use is encouraged. This URL is sub-
ject to change, depending on whether Springer hosts the interactive material
(http://applieddigitalcontrols.com). The ability to immediately see the effect of

v
vi Preface

parameter choice is a significant learning tool; students will benefit from this
resource. The data for performing system identification for the Final Project are
also available at this website.

Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Gregory Starr

Acknowledgements

Thanks must first go to Prof. Gene Franklin of Stanford University, for introducing
me to digital control. The encouragement of Prof. Greg Mason of Seattle University
was instrumental; without him, this publication would never have happened.
The development of the hardware for the Final Project (Appendices B and C)
was done by Dr. David G. Wilson; then a graduate student at The University of New
Mexico.
Finally, thanks go to my wife Anne and four sons Paul, Keith, Mark, and Jeff
for being patient during the preparation and revision of this manuscript—also my
late father Duke Starr who recognized that any kid who liked mathematics and
motorcycles cannot be all bad.

vii
Contents

1 Introduction and Scope of this Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Continuous and Digital Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Feedback Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Digital Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Philosophy and Text Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Linear Discrete Systems and the Z-Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Linear Difference Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.1 Solving Difference Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 The Z-Transform and the Discrete Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1 The z-Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.2 Discrete Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.3 Block Diagrams of Discrete Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.4 Going From Transfer Function to Difference Equation . . . . . 15
2.3.5 Relation of the Transfer Function to the Unit Pulse
Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4 Dynamic Response of Discrete Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4.1 Unit Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4.2 Exponential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4.3 Damped Sinusoid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4.4 Relationship Between z-Plane Poles and Transient
Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.5 Effect of Zeros on Dynamic Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.5 Correspondence Between Discrete and Continuous Signals . . . . . . . . 23
2.6 Frequency Response of Discrete Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7 Z-Transform Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.7.1 Inverse Transforming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.8 A Word About LTI Systems and MATLAB Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.8.1 LTI Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.8.2 Overloaded Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.9 Table of Z-Transforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
ix
x Contents

3 Discrete Simulation of Continuous Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

3.1 Chapter Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 Discrete Simulation Using Numerical Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.1 Forward Rectangular Rule (Euler’s Rule) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.2 Backward Rectangular Rule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.2.3 Trapezoidal Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2.4 Prewarped Trapezoidal Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.3 Pole-Zero Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.4 Comparison of Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.5 Using MATLAB in Discrete Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.5.1 Finding Transfer Function from LTI System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.6 Implementation of Difference Equations in Real Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.6.1 Direct Realization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.6.2 Canonical Realization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4 Sampled Data Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.2 The Sampling Process as Impulse Modulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.3 Frequency Spectra of Sampled Signals—Aliasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.3.1 Fourier Transform and Fourier Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.4 Desampling or Signal Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.4.1 Impulse Response of the Ideal Desampling Filter. . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4.2 The ZOH as a Desampling Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.5 Block Diagram Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5.1 Two Blocks with a Sampler Between Them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.5.2 Two Blocks Without a Sampler Between Them. . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.5.3 Response Between Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5 Design Using Transform Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.2 Example System and Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.2.1 Steady-State Accuracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.2.2 Transient Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.2.3 Disturbance Rejection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.2.4 Control Effort and Gain Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.2.5 Parameter Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.3 Design in the s Plane, then Discretize Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.4 Direct Design in the z Plane. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.5 Another Design Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.6 Modeling Using Simulink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.6.1 Creating the Simulink Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
5.7 PID Control (Mode Controllers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5.7.1 Proportional Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.7.2 Derivative Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5.7.3 Integral Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.7.4 PD Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Contents xi

5.7.5 PI Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

5.7.6 PID Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.8 Some Comments on the Step Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.8.1 Hardware Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.8.2 Controller Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6 State-Space Analysis of Continuous Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.2 System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.2.1 State Equation and Output Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.2.2 State Equation from Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.2.3 Transfer Function from State-Variable Description . . . . . . . . . 118
6.3 Different State-Space Representations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.3.1 State Variable Transformation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.3.2 Control Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6.3.3 Diagonal (Modal or Decoupled) Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
6.4 MATLAB Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6.4.1 Transform ↔ State-Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.4.2 Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors, and Diagonalization . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.4.3 Dynamic Response of State-Space Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
7 Digital Controller Design using State Space Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.2 Canonical State-Space Forms from Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.3 Solution to the State Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.3.1 Homogeneous Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.3.2 Particular Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.3.3 Calculating System and Output Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.4 Control Law Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.4.1 Pole Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
7.4.2 Selecting System Pole Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7.4.3 Controllability and the Control Canonical Form . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
7.4.4 Ackermann’s Rule and a Test for Controllability . . . . . . . . . . . 143
7.4.5 MATLAB Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.4.6 Poles and Zeros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
7.4.7 More on Controllability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.5 State Estimator Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.5.1 Prediction Estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.5.2 Observability and Ackermann’s Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.5.3 MATLAB Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
7.6 Regulator: Control Law Plus Estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
7.6.1 Controller Transfer Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
7.7 Current and Reduced-Order Estimators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.7.1 Current Estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
7.7.2 Reduced-Order Estimators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
xii Contents

7.8 Adding a Reference Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

7.8.1 Reference Input with Full State Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
7.8.2 Reference Input with an Estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
7.9 Uniqueness of Solution: The MIMO Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
7.10 Another Example—Inverted Pendulum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
8 System Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.2 Models and Data Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.3 Least Squares Approximations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.3.1 Minimization of  2 by Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
8.3.2 Minimization of  2 by Linear Algebra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
8.4 Application to System Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
8.5 Practical Issues—How Well Does It Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.5.1 Selection of Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8.5.2 Quantization Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
8.5.3 Identification Example. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

A Aliasing and Notch Filter Demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

A.1 Aliasing Demo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
A.1.1 Laboratory Setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
A.1.2 Sinusoidal Input and Frequency Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
A.1.3 Sampled Output and Frequency Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
A.2 Notch Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
A.2.1 Specific Filter and Prewarped Discretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
A.2.2 Frequency Response of Discrete Notch Filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

B Final Project: Transform-Based Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

B.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
B.1.1 Motor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
B.1.2 PWM Amplifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
B.1.3 Beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
B.1.4 Encoder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
B.1.5 Required Project Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
B.2 Plant Model Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
B.2.1 Model Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
B.2.2 Input-Output Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
B.3 Reference Trajectory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
B.4 Transform-Based Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
B.4.1 Some Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
B.5 Simulation and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
B.5.1 From and To Workspace Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
B.5.2 Tracking Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
B.5.3 Submission of Controller Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
B.6 Project Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
B.6.1 Performance of your Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Contents xiii

C Final Project: State-Space Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

C.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
C.2 Plant ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
C.3 SISO Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
C.3.1 State-Space Model Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
C.3.2 Control Law Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
C.3.3 Prediction Estimator Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
C.3.4 Reference Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
C.3.5 System Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
C.3.6 Simulink Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
C.3.7 SISO System Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
C.3.8 Submission of Controller Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
C.4 MIMO Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
C.4.1 Plant Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
C.4.2 Control Law and Prediction Estimator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
C.4.3 Reference Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C.4.4 System Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C.4.5 Simulink Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
C.4.6 MIMO System Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
C.4.7 Submission of Controller Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Basic digital control system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Fig. 1.2 Three types of signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fig. 2.1 A/D converter and computer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Fig. 2.2 Numerical integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fig. 2.3 Block diagram of trapezoidal integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fig. 2.4 Unit step pole/zero locations and response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Fig. 2.5 Exponential pole/zero locations and response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fig. 2.6 Discrete damped sinusoidal response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Fig. 2.7 Contours in s and z planes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fig. 2.8 Step response of discrete system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Fig. 3.1 Forward integration rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Fig. 3.2 Backward integration rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Fig. 3.3 Trapezoidal integration rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Fig. 3.4 Left-half s-plane mapped into z-plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Fig. 3.5 Bode magnitude plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Fig. 3.6 Bode angle plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Fig. 3.7 Observer canonical block diagram realization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Fig. 4.1 Convolution of continuous signal with impulse train . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Fig. 4.2 Sampler and zero-order hold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Fig. 4.3 Frequency spectra of two signals. (a) Non-overlapping
spectra. (b) Overlapping spectra showing contamination . . . . . . . . . . 65
Fig. 4.4 Plot of two sinusoids which have identical values at the
sampling intervals: an example of aliasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Fig. 4.5 Use of ideal desampling filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Fig. 4.6 Sinc function: impulse response of ideal desampling filter . . . . . . . . 69
Fig. 4.7 Frequency response of zero-order hold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Fig. 5.1 Block diagram of antenna plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Fig. 5.2 Another block diagram of antenna plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Fig. 5.3 Block diagram for ss error analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

xv
xvi List of Figures

Fig. 5.4 Transient response specifications, showing percent

overshoot P O, rise time tr , and settling time ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Fig. 5.5 Regions in the s-plane corresponding to restrictions on P O,
tr , and ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Fig. 5.6 Regions in the z-plane corresponding to restrictions on
P O ≤ 15%, tr ≤ 6 s, and ts ≤ 20 s. (Sampling period
T = 1 s was chosen to obtain the tr and ts regions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Fig. 5.7 Root locus of the antenna plant with D(s) compensator . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Fig. 5.8 Unit step response of the continuous antenna controller
design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Fig. 5.9 Unit step response of the discrete antenna controller design
using the D(z) designed in the continuous domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Fig. 5.10 Root locus of antenna system vs proportional gain K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Fig. 5.11 Root Locus of antenna system vs gain K using compensator
D(z) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Fig. 5.12 Step response of system designed in z plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Fig. 5.13 Unit step response of plant G(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 5.14 Acceptable regions for poles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Fig. 5.15 Block diagram with unity feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Fig. 5.16 Hand sketch of root locus for Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fig. 5.17 MATLAB root locus for Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Fig. 5.18 Unit step response of closed-loop system for Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Fig. 5.19 Control force u(t) for unit step r(t) in Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Fig. 5.20 Block diagram for Simulink model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Fig. 5.21 Block diagram of the finished Simulink model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Fig. 5.22 Simulink screenshot showing plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Fig. 5.23 PID control action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Fig. 5.24 A ball suspended by an electromagnet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Fig. 5.25 An automotive cruise-control system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Fig. 6.1 Feedback control system, showing compensator and plant . . . . . . . . 116
Fig. 6.2 Spring-mass-damper system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Fig. 6.3 Control canonical form. (a) Introduction of v. (b) Addition
of a terms. (c) Addition of b terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Fig. 6.4 DC motor driving inertia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Fig. 6.5 Coupled spring-mass system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Fig. 7.1 Control canonical form. (a) Introduction of v. (b) Addition
of a terms. (c) Addition of b terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Fig. 7.2 Response of controlled inertia plant from initial condition
x(0) = [1 1]T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Fig. 7.3 Dual pendula on cart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Fig. 7.4 Open-loop estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
Fig. 7.5 Closed-loop estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Fig. 7.6 Control law plus estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Fig. 7.7 Response of undamped harmonic oscillator from initial state . . . . . 152
List of Figures xvii

Fig. 7.8 Response of controlled plant from initial state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Fig. 7.9 Estimator error response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Fig. 7.10 y response of plant + control law + estimator from initial
state (1, 1, 1, 0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Fig. 7.11 Root locus of oscillator plant and controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Fig. 7.12 Block diagram of reference input added to plant with full
state feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
Fig. 7.13 Reference input added to plant with full state feedback plus
feedforward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Fig. 7.14 Reference input added to plant with estimator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Fig. 7.15 Pendulum and cart driven by position servo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Fig. 7.16 Response of pendulum to 1 cm step servo displacement . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Fig. 7.17 Response of cart and pendulum to 1 cm initial condition of
cart (note initial motion of cart is away from equilibrium) . . . . . . . . 176
Fig. 7.18 Response of cart and pendulum to reference trajectory of
0.2 m in 1 s at constant velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Fig. 8.1 Normally-distributed random noise with mean 0.0 and
variance 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Fig. 8.2 Random binary signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Fig. 8.3 Effect of rounding with q = 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
Fig. 8.4 Quantized output of example G(z) driven by random binary
signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Fig. 8.5 Comparison of actual and model step responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Fig. A.1 Block diagram of laboratory setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Fig. A.2 Repeated spectra and attenuation by ZOH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Fig. A.3 Amplitude ratio of notch filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Fig. B.1 Single-link system and components. (a) Motor and encoder.
(b) Current amplifier and power supply. (c) Link, motor, and
bumpers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
Fig. B.2 Block diagram of angular positioning system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Fig. B.3 Input-output data for identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Fig. B.4 Reference position and velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Fig. B.5 Fourier transform of cubic trajectory input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Fig. B.6 Simulink diagram for simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Fig. C.1 Simulink diagram for SISO simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Fig. C.2 Simulink diagram for MIMO simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
Chapter 1
Introduction and Scope of this Book

This book is intended to give the student an introduction to the field of digital
control, with an emphasis on applications. Both transform-based and state-variable
approaches will be included, with a brief introduction to system identification.
The material requires some understanding of the Laplace transform and assumes
that the reader has completed a first course in continuous linear feedback control
systems.

1.1 Continuous and Digital Control

1.1.1 Feedback Control

The study of feedback control systems is concerned with using a measurement of

the output of a plant (device to be controlled) to modify its input. The controller
is that part of the system that receives the measurement of the plant output, then
generates the plant input, hence closing the loop. Control system design is the
task of designing this controller such that the closed-loop system has satisfactory
performance. Broadly speaking, some goals of most closed-loop control systems
are:
• Command Tracking . . . cause the output to track the reference input closely
• Disturbance Rejection . . . isolate the output from unwanted disturbance inputs
• Parameter Sensitivity . . . reduce the effect on the output of variations in plant
parameters
These are goals of both continuous and digital control systems.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

G. Starr, Introduction to Applied Digital Controls,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42810-5_1
2 1 Introduction and Scope of this Book

1.1.2 Digital Control

Digital control systems employ a computer as a fundamental component in the con-

troller. The computer typically receives a measurement of the controlled variable,
also often receives the reference input, and produces its output using an algorithm.
This output is usually converted to an analog signal using a D/A converter, then
amplified by a power amplifier to drive the plant. A block diagram of a typical
digital control system is shown in Fig. 1.1.
When compared to a continuous-time system, there are three new elements in the
block diagram of Fig. 1.1:
• A/D converter. This device acts on a continuous physical variable, typically a
voltage, and converts it into an integer number. A/D converters typically have
unipolar ranges of 0–5 V, 0–10 V, or bipolar ranges of ±5 V, or ±10 V. These are
often jumper-selectable. The A/D conversion causes quantization q, given by the
resolution of the converter in bits. Common resolutions are 8 bits (256 levels),
and 12 bits (4096 levels). A 12-bit A/D converter of range ±10 volts would have
a conversion quantum of q = 20/4096 = 4.88 mV. Note that quantization is a
nonlinear operation. The effect of quantization on a continuous signal is often
called quantization noise.
• D/A converter. This device converts an (integer) number to a voltage. The voltage
ranges and converter resolutions are the same as for the A/D converter. A D/A

w(t)

r (t) e(t) e(kT ) u(kT ) u(t) y(t)

A/D Computer D/A Plant
+ -
Clock

ŷ(t)
Sensor

v(t )

r = reference input or setpoint

u = control force (actuator input)
y = controlled variable or output
ŷ = measurement of controlled variable
e = r − ŷ = error signal
w = disturbance acting on the plant
v = measurement noise
A/D = analog-to-digital converter
D/A = digital-to-analog converter

Fig. 1.1 Basic digital control system

1.1 Continuous and Digital Control 3

converter functions as a zero-order hold, holding its output at a constant value

until it receives the next discrete input.
• Sampling. This is represented by the clock in Fig. 1.1. The computer samples the
error (or it may sample both the setpoint and the measurement, thus forming the
error internally) at particular times. In this book we will assume that sampling
is at a constant period T , which is called the sampling period. The sampling
frequency in Hz is 1/T . When a continuous signal e(t) has been sampled, it is
called a discrete signal and is denoted by e(kT ) or e(k) or ek . Discrete signals
are only mathematically defined at the sample instants tk = kT .
A system in which there are only discrete signals is called a discrete-time
system. Systems with both continuous and discrete variables are called sampled-data
systems. When quantization is added, the system may be called digital. Continuous,
discrete, and “zero-order hold” (output of D/A) signals are shown in Fig. 1.2, where
the signal is sin(t).
Much of the task of designing a digital controller is in accounting for the effects
of quantization and sampling, especially sampling. If both T and q are small, digital
signals approach continuous signals, and continuous methods of analysis and design

Continuous
1

-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Discrete
1
Each sample is
discretized

-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Output of ZOH
1

0
Sample held
for one period
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 1.2 Three types of signals

4 1 Introduction and Scope of this Book

may be used. However, when this is not the case, continuous methods can lead to
erroneous results.

1.2 Philosophy and Text Coverage

The philosophy of this course is to present the basic material necessary for
the analysis and design of digital control systems. We assume a background in
continuous systems, and relate the digital problem to its continuous counterpart.
The emphasis is on understanding the physical reality behind the analysis.
The eight chapters in this book contain the following material:
Chapter 1. This chapter. Describes philosophy and content of book. Some defini-
tions. Rationale for studying digital control.
Chapter 2. Sampled (discrete-time) variables. Introduction of the z-transform for
discrete variables, which is analogous to the Laplace transform for continuous
variables.
Chapter 3. Discrete simulations of continuous systems. Several methods of sim-
ulation are given, specifically numerical integration, pole-zero mapping, and
zero-order hold equivalence.
Chapter 4. Frequency spectra of sampled signals. The impulse modulation model
of sampling. Aliasing and its effects.
Chapter 5. Transform-based design of digital control systems, primarily using
the root locus method. When sampling can be ignored, and when it must be
considered.
Chapter 6. State-space modeling and analysis of continuous systems, including
nonlinear systems.
Chapter 7. State-space design of digital control systems, primarily using pole
placement. Control law design and state estimation. Introduction of the reference
input.
Chapter 8. System identification using the least squares method.
It is the author’s observation that digital control systems are so widely used that
it is rare to see a completely continuous control system. There are several reasons
for this:
• Computers are getting faster, cheaper, and more reliable.
• Control systems incorporating computers are inherently more flexible than those
without, e.g. during the prototyping phase, tuning gains to achieve satisfactory
performance is simply a matter of changing numbers in a computer program,
rather than changing hardware.
• Advanced control techniques such as optimal and adaptive control can only be
realized digitally.
• Computers are often already present in mechanical systems for communication,
visualization, etc., thus their use for control is logical. The reverse is also true—if
Homework Problems 5

a computer is used for control, it can also address many other functions which
may be needed in a system.
These days, for anyone with a desire to design and construct working control
systems, at least an introductory course in digital control (like this one) is absolutely
necessary.

Homework Problems

1. Go back to your continuous control textbook and review the following concepts:
• Feedback Control
• Laplace Transform
• Transfer Functions
• Block Diagrams
2. Cite examples of physical variables that are:
• Continuous
• Discrete
Chapter 2
Linear Discrete Systems and the
Z-Transform

The primary new component of discrete (or digital, we won’t treat the effects of
quantization) systems is the notion of time discretization. No longer are we dealing
with variables which are functions of time, now we have sequences of discrete
numbers. These discrete numbers may come from sampling a continuous variable,
or they may be generated within a computer. In either case, the tools that were used
in the analysis of continuous variables will no longer work. We need new methods.
The z-transform bears exactly the same relationship to a discrete variable that the
Laplace transform bears to a continuous variable. This is the new tool we need, and
the whole of transform-based digital control system design turns on the z-transform.

2.1 Chapter Overview

In Sect. 2.2 linear difference equations, the discrete counterpart of linear differential
equations, will be introduced. Through solutions of difference equations we will
get insight into discrete pole locations and stability. Section 2.3 will present
the z-transform, which operates on discrete variables like y(k) or yk to produce
functions of z, Y (z). The z-transform will lead to the discrete transfer function,
which can be represented with block diagrams composed of sums, gains, and unit
delays. The dynamic response of discrete systems will be presented in Sect. 2.4,
where we will examine the step, exponential, and damped sinusoidal functions.
The correspondence between discrete signals and the continuous signals from
which they were obtained will be investigated in Sect. 2.5, where we will derive
a fundamental mapping linking the s and z planes. A method for obtaining the
frequency response of discrete systems will be briefly shown in Sect. 2.6. Some
properties of the z-transform will be discussed in Sect. 2.7, including several
techniques for inverse transforming to obtain f (kT ) or f (k) from F (z). A brief
table of z-transforms appears in Sect. 2.9.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 7

G. Starr, Introduction to Applied Digital Controls,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42810-5_2
8 2 Linear Discrete Systems and the Z-Transform

2.2 Linear Difference Equations

Physical systems are modeled by (continuous) differential equations. The order of

the system is the order of the corresponding differential equation. Discrete systems,
of course, cannot be modeled by differential equations, but are instead represented
by difference equations.
Consider the block diagram of Fig. 2.1, where an A/D converter samples a
continuous variable e(t) to produce discrete variable e(kT ), then a computer
processes these e(kT ) to produce discrete output u(kT ).
To generate the kth output sample u(kT ) or uk , the computer can make use of
the following inputs and (past) outputs:

inputs : e0 , e1 , e2 . . ., ek
outputs : u0 , u1 , u2 . . ., uk−1

This discrete relationship can be expressed in the form

u(k) = f (e0 , e1 , e2 . . ., ek ; u0 , u1 , u2 . . ., uk−1 ) (2.1)

If the function f is linear, the relationship becomes a linear difference equation

given by

uk = a1 uk−1 + a2 uk−2 + . . . + an uk−n + b0 ek + b1 ek−1 + b2 ek−2 + . . . + bm ek−m

(2.2)

If the initial conditions and input are known, a difference equation can be simulated
by simply evaluating the equation.

Example

Consider the difference equation given by

uk = uk−1 + uk−2 (2.3)

Fig. 2.1 A/D converter and e(t) A/D e(kT )

computer u(kT )
Computer
T
2.2 Linear Difference Equations 9

Table 2.1 Behavior of Sample index k uk

difference equation
0 1
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 5
5 8
6 13
7 21
.. ..
. .

with initial conditions u0 = 1 and u1 = 1. This equation computes the

sequence known as Fibonacci1 numbers. Note that this difference equation has no
input. . . don’t worry about that for now. Table 2.1 can then be constructed (assume
all variables are zero for k < 0). Note that from the response shown in Table 2.1
you would probably say that this system is unstable.

2.2.1 Solving Difference Equations

Although any difference equation with a given input can be “solved” in this manner,
we need some way to predict the behavior, a way to represent difference equations
and discrete systems that is generally useful.
Consider first the solution of a difference equation. With linear differential
equations, we often assume a solution, then see if it works.2 For linear differential
equations in time we often assume a solution of the form

u(t) = Aest (2.4)

where s is a complex variable. Substitution of this into the differential equation will
yield values of s for which the solution is valid. The constant A will be determined
by initial conditions.
A similar approach can be used with difference equations. Try a solution of the
form

u(k) = Azk (2.5)

1 Leonardo Fibonacci of Pisa, who introduced Arabic notation to the Latin world about 1200 A.D.
2 The guy I’d like to meet is the guy who first figured out what to assume!
10 2 Linear Discrete Systems and the Z-Transform

where z is a complex variable and of course k is the sample index. Substitution

into (2.3) yields

Azk = Azk−1 + Azk−2 (2.6)

or

1 = z−1 + z−2 (2.7)

or

z2 − z − 1 = 0 (2.8)

Note that Eq. (2.8) is the characteristic equation for this system, for which the
two roots z1 and z2 are

z1 = −0.618, z2 = 1.6183 (2.9)

The general solution is therefore

u(k) = A1 z1k + A2 z2k (2.10)

where A1 and A2 may be found from initial conditions.

Of note here is the behavior of the two “modes” in Eq. (2.10). The mode
associated with z1 will decay, but the mode associated with z2 will grow. Clearly
if a root z of the characteristic equation has |z| > 1 that term will increase.
Since z is a complex variable, we can speak of the z-plane, a complex number
plane. An observation on stability that will be of fundamental importance is
If any roots of the characteristic equation of a discrete system have magnitude > 1, i.e. are
outside the unit circle of the z-plane, that system will be unstable.

This is our first observation on the correlation between z-plane root location and
discrete system dynamic response.

Example

Consider the numerical integration of a continuous time variable, as shown graphi-

cally in Fig. 2.2
We want the integral of the function e(t) from t = 0 to t as given by

3 This is the value of the Golden Ratio; see C. Moler, Numerical Computing with MATLAB.
2.3 The Z-Transform and the Discrete Transfer Function 11

Fig. 2.2 Numerical

integration e(t)

e k −1
ek

t
tk −1 tk

t
I= e(t)dt (2.11)
0

using only samples e0 , e1 , . . ., ek−1 , ek . We assume that the integral from t = 0 to

t = tk−1 is known, and is uk−1 . Thus we just want a procedure to take the “next
step.”
Although there a numerous methods, here we use trapezoidal integration, in
which we approximate the integral by computing the area A of the trapezoid in
Fig. 2.2. Thus

tk − tk−1
A= (ek + ek−1 ) (2.12)
2
Assume constant stepsize, so tk − tk−1 = T , thus

T
uk = uk−1 + (ek + ek−1 ) (2.13)
2
Equation (2.13) is a linear difference equation for trapezoidal integration. We
will be using this equation in Chap. 3.

2.3 The Z-Transform and the Discrete Transfer Function

First define the z-transform, then use it to find a discrete transfer function.
12 2 Linear Discrete Systems and the Z-Transform

2.3.1 The z-Transform

Given a discrete variable e(k) or ek with values e0 , e1 , . . . , ek , . . ., the z-transform

of this variable is given by
∞

E(z) = Z{ek } = ek z−k (2.14)
k=0

The z-transform has the same role in the analysis and design of discrete systems
as the Laplace transform has in continuous systems. The transform given in
Eq. (2.14) is the single-sided version (summation index from 0 to ∞ rather than
from −∞ to ∞, but this causes no loss of generality.

2.3.2 Discrete Transfer Function

Discrete systems can be modeled with transfer functions, just like linear continuous
systems. Recall that for continuous systems the transfer function represents the
Laplace transform of the output Y (s) over the Laplace transform of the input U (s),
and is a ratio of polynomials b(s) and a(s), thus

Y (s) polynomial b(s)

G(s) = = (2.15)
U (s) polynomial a(s)

The order of b(s) must not be greater than the order of a(s) or the system will be
non-causal.
Let’s apply the z-transform to the difference equation for trapezoidal integration,
Eq. (2.13). We can do this by multiplying Eq. (2.13) by z−k and summing from 0 to
∞. . .
∞ ∞
∞ ∞

  T  
uk z−k = uk−1 z−k + ek z−k + ek−1 z−k (2.16)
2
k=0 k=0 k=0 k=0

For the two terms with the k − 1 subscript, let k − 1 = j and write them in the
form
∞
 ∞

uk−1 z−k = z−1 uj z−j . (2.17)
k=0 j =−1

Since with the single-sided transform all variables are zero for negative sample
index, we can change the lower limit from j = −1 to j = 0 and we have
2.3 The Z-Transform and the Discrete Transfer Function 13

∞
 ∞

uk−1 z−k = z−1 uj z−j
k=0 j =0

= z−1 U (z). (2.18)

Now Eq. (2.16) can be written

T  
U (z) = z−1 U (z) + E(z) + z−1 E(z) (2.19)
2
which may be rearranged to yield discrete transfer function

U (z) T z+1 T 1 + z−1

= = . (2.20)
E(z) 2 z−1 2 1 − z−1

Note that the transfer function of Eq. (2.20) can be expressed using either positive
or negative powers of variable z. Each form is preferable for certain uses, as will be
seen later.

General Form of Discrete Transfer Function

In general, a discrete transfer function H (z) relating input E(z) and output U (z)
will be

b0 zn + b1 zn−1 + b2 zn−2 + · · · + bm zn−m

H (z) =
zn − a1 zn−1 − a2 zn−2 − · · · − an
b0 + b1 z−1 + b2 z−2 + · · · + bm z−m U (z)
= −1 −2 −n
= (2.21)
1 − a1 z − a2 z − · · · − an z E(z)
b(z)
= a ratio of polynomials in z,
a(z)

where the “1” in the denominator of the negative-power form of H (z) is required
(this will be shown later).
Again, in Eq. (2.21) either the negative or positive power of z form can be used.
Given that the transfer function is the ratio of output or input z transforms, we can
rearrange to get

U (z) = H (z)E(z), (2.22)

thus just like for continuous systems, the (z-transformed) output is given by the
transfer function times the (z-transformed) input.
14 2 Linear Discrete Systems and the Z-Transform

Poles and Zeros of Discrete Transfer Function

Since z is a complex variable (like s), so is H (z), and we can define the poles and
zeros of H (z) as
• poles: locations in z-plane where polynomial a(z) = 0
• zeros: locations in z-plane where polynomial b(z) = 0
For finding poles and zeros it is easier to use the version of H (z) with positive
powers of z. The poles and zeros may be real or complex. If complex, they occur in
conjugate pairs.

The Unit Delay

If we let b1 = 1 and all other bn = 0; also let all an = 0, then the transfer function
of Eq. (2.21) degenerates to

U (z)
= z−1 = H (z) (2.23)
E(z)

Doing the same thing to the general difference equation of (2.2) yields

uk = ek−1 (2.24)

which says the present value of the output equals the input delayed by one sample,
or the previous input.
Thus a transfer function of z−1 is a delay of one sample period, or a unit delay.
These may be placed in series to effect a delay of multiple samples.

2.3.3 Block Diagrams of Discrete Systems

All linear difference equations are composed of delays, multiplies, and adds, and
we can represent these operations in block diagrams. A block diagram will often be
helpful in system visualization.

Example

Consider the difference equation for trapezoidal integration,

T
uk = uk−1 + (ek + ek−1 ) (2.25)
2
2.3 The Z-Transform and the Discrete Transfer Function 15

+
ek e k −1 T + uk
−1
z 2
+ +
uk −1
z−1

Fig. 2.3 Block diagram of trapezoidal integration

This difference equation is represented by the block diagram shown in Fig. 2.3.
Figure 2.3 can be reduced by standard block diagram reduction techniques and
the transfer function of (2.20) will result. This is left as an exercise for the student.

2.3.4 Going From Transfer Function to Difference Equation

It is useful to be able to easily convert a discrete system from its transfer function
form to its difference equation. If we take the general discrete transfer function of
Eq. (2.21) given by

U (z) b0 + b1 z−1 + b2 z−2 + · · · + bm z−m b(z)

H (z) = = = polynomials
E(z) 1 − a1 z−1 − a2 z−2 − · · · − an z−n a(z)
(2.26)
and cross-multiply, we get

U (z) − a1 z−1 U (z) − a2 z−2 U (z) − · · · = b0 E(z) + b1 z−1 E(z) + b2 z−2 E(z) + · · ·
(2.27)

We know that U (z) may be inverse-transformed to yield sequence uk , likewise

for E(z). And multiplication by z−k simply delays by k samples. Hence by
inspection the difference equation corresponding to (2.27) is given by

uk − a1 uk−1 − a2 uk−2 − · · · = b0 ek + b1 ek−1 + b2 ek−2 + · · · (2.28)

or

uk = a1 uk−1 + a2 uk−2 + · · · + b0 ek + b1 ek−1 + b2 ek−2 + · · · (2.29)

Retracing the development, if the denominator polynomial a(z) in (2.21) did not
contain the “1” term, the output term uk would not be present in Eq. (2.29), i.e.
there would be no output!
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
one of my kinsfolk.” He failed to obtain the Priory at once, though he
made repeated efforts. On June 27th of this year he wrote[137]:
“Though your suit for the Priory of St. Thomas in my behalf cannot
stand, yet as you mind my preferment to the farm of the demesnes,
I thank you. I desire them only for quietness, not for advantage”;
and he wrote again on April 3rd, 1537.
The Priory of Stone contained many tombs of the Staffords, and
Lord Stafford evidently hoped the house would escape. But the glory
of his family had departed and he had no real influence. The Prior
was William Smith, and he does not appear to have had any
suspicion that his house was soon to come to an end. Even while the
Visitors were making their investigations, if, indeed, any investigation
at all was made in the great majority of cases, he was engaged in
the business of his house. In his financial transactions with his
Bishop he found the latter more worldly-wise than he was himself.
Bishop Roland Lee sold him timber out of Blore Park and received
the payment. But, being better informed of the trend of events, he
prevented many of the trees from being felled and delivered to the
dying Priory. On February 19th William Smith wrote urgently to Lee,
[138] “Touching the timber in Blore Park which I bought and paid for
to my lord, 40 trees are still standing, as the bearer can show. If I
have not the said timber I know not where to be provided for my
great work now in hand. I shall intreat you for your pains.” Several
months later, Henry Lord Stafford wrote to Cromwell telling him “that
the Prior of Stone hathe good hope that his howse schall stand,
whereof all the contree is right glad, and praye fulle hertily for your
lordeship therfore.” The Earl of Shrewsbury, however, had designs on
it, and sought the assistance of Scudamore in obtaining it, bringing
himself to address his letter “To my hertly biloved fellow John
Skydmore, oon of the gentylmen vsshers of the Kynge’s most
honourable Chamber.”
In these circumstances there was much uncertainty as to the
extent to which the Act would literally and fully be carried out, and
how far influence might succeed in nullifying it.
 In due course another band of royal agents was let loose upon
the land to carry out the work of dissolution. The “Instructions for
the King’s Commissioners” are exceedingly minute. For each county
an Auditor and Receiver was to be appointed, with one of the clerks
of the late visitation, and to these were to be joined “three other
discreet persons to be named by the King.” These were to visit each
condemned house and exhibit the Statute of Dissolution to the head
and his brethren. The inmates were then to be required to make on
oath a full disclosure of the state of their affairs, to surrender their
charters and seal, plate, and other effects. Such of the monks as
were willing to take “capacities” were to be referred to the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, and were to be
rewarded for their complacency; the rest were to be transferred to
other houses. Orders were to be given that the monks were to cease
receiving any income except such as was absolutely necessary, but
they were to continue “to sow and till their grounds as they have
done before,” and the Superior was referred to “the Chancellor of
the Augmentation for his yearly stipend and pension.” But evidently
the agents were prepared to accept favourable offers. Henry Lord
Stafford, writing to Cromwell on March 12th, 1537, says: “The
Commissioners will be in Staffordshire on Sunday next. The Prior of
Stone thinks his house shall stand, whereof the country is glad; so
my suit is in vain unless your Lordship help me to the Priory of
Rontone, for which I was first suitor: howbeit Sir Simon Harcourt
makes great labour for it”; and he proceeds again to plead his
poverty and his large family, mentioning that he had twelve children.
[139]

The Commissioners in Staffordshire dissolved three out of the

nine houses which came within the scope of the Act, namely Ronton,
Stone, and Trentham. The majority were spared, some, as we have
seen, through the intervention of powerful or interested friends, but
all on payment of large sums.[140] For instance, Hulton, having paid
£66 13s. 4d., obtained a grant of exemption on October 1st, 1536,
the Abbot being Edward Wilkyns; Rocester’s grant was made on
March 11th, 1537, and its payment £100; Tutbury, per Arthur
Meverell, received its license on May 3rd; Croxden, per Thomas
Chawner, on the 2nd of July, by payment of £100; St. Thomas’,
Stafford, per Richard Whyttewall, on July 4th, by payment of £133
6s. 8d. On April 3rd, Robert Burgoyn had written to the Bishop, who
so earnestly had desired the Priory: “According to your desire ... I
have forwarded letters from the Chancellor of the Augmentations to
Mr. Scudamore to survey the lead of the late house of Canons beside
Stafford,”[141] which shows how narrowly the house escaped, even
for a time, the clutches of Roland Lee and Cromwell, for though he
spoke of it as “the late house,” it did not surrender till October, 1538.
Lee kept up his persistent begging for it to the end.
The Grant of Exemption obtained by Croxden is given in the
Appendix. It gives the King’s new title, “Supremum Caput Anglicanae
Ecclesiae,” in its most offensive form, without the qualifying words,
but it will be noticed that it is couched throughout in general terms.
There is nothing in it which is peculiar to the particular house
concerned. Everything would apply equally well to any other house.
It looks as though the Commissioners went on their circuit provided
with a supply of such general forms, having blanks for the names of
houses and of abbots, which they were prepared to issue whenever
they thought fit, that is, whenever a sufficiently large pecuniary
inducement could be offered. That there was no genuine intention to
allow any of the religious houses to continue permanently was
speedily shown.
But for the present the elaborate grants for continuance served
their turn, and allayed public dismay. No echo of the Pilgrimage of
Grace was heard in Staffordshire, although that dangerous rising
began near the north-eastern border of the county. It rolled
northwards, and Lord Stafford was so entirely satisfied that he
carried out the difficult and costly process of transferring his family
monuments from the dissolved Priory at Stone to the Austin Friary at
Stafford. He evidently had no idea that Commissioners would
destroy that house, too, in a few months.
 It was, of course, entirely to the interest of the agents of the
Dissolution to conceal the real scope of their intentions, for the
threatened monks naturally tried sometimes to keep back part of
their cherished possessions and to save the sacred vessels and
vestments from the profane uses to which they were likely to be put.
The Act of Dissolution had foreseen the danger and had made all
sales and leases of lands effected “within one year next before the
making of this Act,” “utterly void and of none effect”; while all
ornaments, jewels, goods and chattels which the houses possessed
“at the first day of March in the year of our Lord God 1535 or any
time sithen whensoever” were declared the property of the King.
The Prior of Stone and some of his neighbours, who, as we have
seen, resented the suppression of the house, attempted to save
something.
“Articles and instructions” for special commissioners were issued
“concerning the embezzling and taking [away] of certain plate,
jewels, ornaments, goods, and chattels of the late monastery of
Stone ... whereupon as well William Smyth, late Prior of the said
house, James Colyer, James Atkyn, Sampson Greswike, Geoffrey
Walkeden, and Hugh Rathebone, and all such other persons as
Thomas Woodall, bringer hereof, shall name, are to be
examined.”[142] The specific charges are as follows, so far as they
can be traced, for the document unfortunately exists in a
fragmentary form only: “Whether Colyer received a shrine, four
standing cups, and two silver salts; whether Atkyn received certain
sheep and cattle since the said fourth day of February; whether
Greswike since the fourth day of February hath of the said house ...,”
and there the paper ends. February 4th was the day on which the
Session of Parliament which had passed the Act of Dissolution had
opened.
In the Augmentation Accounts for 1538 we find “A parcel of £20
due from James Colyer for the surplus value of a shrine of silver-gilt
mortgaged to him by the Prior of Stone, part of which was paid 5 of
June, 30 Henry VIII, £13 6s. 8d.”[143] The Abbot of Dieulacres
secured blank forms with the Convent seal before it was taken from
him, and on these he subsequently made out ante-dated leases.
Bishop Lee reported to Cromwell that the Prior of St. Thomas at
Stafford was making “unreasonable waste,” which probably means
that he had realized the uselessness of economy in the face of
imminent dissolution.
The fines for continuance were exceedingly heavy and must have
pressed very hardly on the houses which were called upon to raise
such large sums. They appear to have been roughly calculated at a
year’s income,[144] and no doubt they account in no small measure
for the indebtedness which subsequently was charged against some
of the houses.
Moreover, the officials looked for bribes and presents, and we
may be sure they required to be well entertained when they visited
the monasteries, to judge from their own large expenditure on
“cates.”[145] The houses were impoverished by direct methods as
well. Prior Richard, of St. Thomas’s, Stafford, was ordered to give
the lease of a church at Audlem in Cheshire, belonging to the Priory,
to a nominee of Cromwell’s. He protested against the unfairness,
though he was unable to avoid compliance. “It is,” he says,[146] “in
the occupation of five poor farmers there by lease,” but he had to
give Cromwell’s nominee a fifty years’ lease in reversion, in
consideration of Cromwell’s “goodness,” and the lessee was to pay
six shillings and eightpence, whereas they could have had 40 marks
from another. He adds that last Midsummer he paid Cromwell £60
and now sends £20 more.
The same policy of crippling the Abbeys was pursued even
towards Burton, which did not come under the Act. On August 15th,
1538, the Abbot of Burton-on-Trent wrote to Cromwell[147]: “On the
12th of August I received the King’s letters and yours in favour of Mr.
Robert Everest, one of the servers of the Chambers, for the tithe of
the parsonage of Allstrye, Warwickshire. That tithe is so necessary
for our house that we cannot do without it, and was appropriated
under the broad seal of England because we had not corn sufficient
for hospitality. You write that Sir Thomas Gresley, lately deceased,
had it. But that is 34 years ago, and he only had it then because the
Abbot was indebted to him.”
The following letter from the Abbot of Burton is addressed “to
the Ryght Worshipful Maister Holcroft the Kynge comycyoner at
Lenton delyver this:”[148]
“Mayster Holcroft I enterlye recomend me vnto you beseching God
that I may once be able to surrendre vnto you condygne thanks for
thys youre goodness wyche have dymynysshed parte of the charges
wyche by yor (scored through) comyssyon you myght have put me to,
And as touchyng youre request of this brother and the lame chylde,
god wyllyng I shall so accomplysshe hyt as shall both please yor
mastership & content the partyes beyng not only in this thyng but
also in all other redy at my prynces comandement and to my small
power shew yor mastershippe pleasure pryng you accordyng to yor
w’tyng of good word and lawfull favor Thus oure lorde have yor
mastershippe in his kepyng to his pleasure and youre comfort from
Burton the xviiith day of Maye
“Yors assuryd
“Willm Abbot there.”
The friaries for some time were left to themselves. They were
poor and had few inmates, and their houses were not settled in
pleasant situations, with broad estates reaching “to my lord’s park
pale.” They were, indeed, within or near the walls of the towns, and,
consequently, were of little interest to the aristocracy.
But their poverty was no permanent security. On February 6th,
1538, Dr. Ingworth, the renegade Prior of the richest house of the
Black Friars in England, and lately made Suffragan Bishop of Dover,
was commissioned to visit all the friaries, and he rapidly carried out
his work. We have very full particulars of his campaign in
Staffordshire, and some remarkable details. On August 7th he was at
the house of the Grey Friars at Lichfield, on August 9th he decided
the fate of both the friaries at Stafford, and next day he was equally
effective at Newcastle-under-Lyme;[149] and this in spite of the fact
that he was obliged to confess that “the Friars in these parts have
many favourers, and great labour is made for their continuance.
Divers trust to see them set up again, and some have gone up to
sue for them.” But he tells Latimer (on August 23rd) that such strong
expressions of popular opinion had had no terrors for him; he had
visited 18 places, including Lichfield, Stafford, and Newcastle, and
had only left one house standing.[150]
The Staffordshire friaries were without exception poor places in
every respect, and the Bishop cleverly made that a strong argument
against them. In spite of poverty, the friars clung to their old homes
and work, although he invariably offered them money payments to
depart. Writing from Lichfield, he told Cromwell that “divers of the
Friars are very loath to forsake their houses, and yet they are not
able to live.” The house at Lichfield, for instance, he says, “is in that
taking, and yet loath to give up.”[151] The day after he had been
there he wrote Cromwell a full account of his visit.[152] He
announced that in spite of their wishes he had induced them all to
surrender. The warden was in a pitiable state of ill-health, with a
loathsome disease on his face. He had been little at home for the
past six months, “yet now he came home and was loath to give up
his house, though it is more in debt than all the stuff that belongs to
it will pay, chalice, bells, and all, by 20 nobles.” The certificate of
surrender is dated August 7th.[153] It states that the house was
surrendered voluntarily, without any counsel or constraining, for very
poverty—a manifest falsehood, as the Bishop’s own letters testify.
The witnesses of this surrender were Richard Wetwode, “Master of
the Guild there,” and the two constables, Alexander Grene and
Thomas Lont. The Visitor delivered the house and goods to these
three, gave every friar a letter, and departed. An inventory of the
goods so delivered follows, and comprises articles in kitchen,
brewhouse, choir, and sextry. There is also a statement of the debts
owing by the house, which were partly for malt and rye, with 30
shillings which had been borrowed “for byldyng of the quere” and 20
shillings due to the Bishop for five years’ rent. Four days later Dr.
Legh wrote to Cromwell, on his own account and also at the instance
of the Bishop, to both of whom Wetwode had shown “great
pleasure,” asking that Wetwode should have the preferment.[154] It
is evident that just as great lords and enterprising country squires
were interested parties in the suppression of monasteries, so the
rising tradesmen in the towns cast longing eyes on the houses of the
friars. This accounts for the co-operation of the municipal authorities
in the work of dissolution.
A very full and detailed account of the Bishop’s procedure in
regard to the friars is given in a memorandum referring to the
visitation of the two houses at Stafford. This most interesting and
valuable document is as follows:[155]
“Mem. This 9 day of August in the 30 year of our most dred
Sovereign lord King Henry VIII., Richard Bishop of Dover, visitor under
the Lord Privy Seal for the King’s Grace, was in Stafford in the Grey
Friars and also in the Austen Friars, where that the said Visitor said to
the heads and brethren of both places these words: Brethren, where
that I understand ye have had information that I should come, by the
King’s Commission, to suppress your house and put you out, fear not,
for I have no such commission, nor I use no such fashion in any
place. I am sent to reform every man to a good order and to give
injunctions for preservation of the same. If ye can be content and
think yourself able here to live and to be reformed and to observe
such reasonable injunctions as I shall leave with you, the which or
that I require your answer, ye shall here and see in writing, then I am
and shall be content that ye shall with the King’s favour continue as
before ye have do. If that ye be not able to live and observe the same
then if ye of your own minds and wills give your houses into the
King’s hands I must receive them. The said injunctions were read to
them which were reasonable. The said heads with all the brethren
with one assent, without any counsel or co-action, gave their houses
into the Visitor’s hands to the King’s use. The Visitor received the
same, and of the houses and implements made inventories and
delivered them to such as should keep them to the King’s use, and so
delivered to each friar a letter to visit his friends and so departed. This
witnesseth John Savage and Thos. Russell, Bailiffs of the borough of
Stafford; Wm. Stamforde and Ric. Warde, gentlemen, with divers
others.”
 The mean trickery as well as absolute perversion of truth in the
Bishop’s conduct and statement could not be better shown than in
this interesting record. The wretched friars were already trembling
for their own safety, as they saw the monks on every side
dispossessed and impoverished, and impoverished themselves at any
rate by the check which the events of recent years must inevitably
have given to bequests and alms to all religious institutions.
Disheartened by long uncertainty, they fell easy victims to the
bullying and falsehoods of the plausible Visitor and his coadjutors,
the vulgar and rich shopkeepers who accompanied him, the latter
eager for the site and buildings, adjoining perhaps their own places
of business, and certainly convenient for warehouses and store-
rooms. It was not till the spring of 1539 that Parliament passed an
Act recognising the fait accompli and giving the King all the religious
houses.
The Inventory of the possessions of the Austin Friars at Stafford,
which were placed in charge of William Stamforde, of Rowley, and
Master Richard Warde, of Tylynton, is full of interesting details
throwing much light on the ecclesiastical and domestic arrangements
of the time.[156] In the vestry there was a cross of copper gilt “with
an image silver of parcel gilt,” a copper censer, four “suits” (i.e.,
sets) of vestments, one black set for requiems, and one with
“images” of the Blessed Virgin, two green copes, one black
“chamlet,” etc. In the choir were two old altar-cloths, two small
candlesticks, a sacring-bell, and a “pair of organs.” There were two
bells in the steeple. In the church were two stained cloths, an
alabaster table, two ladders, and two benches. The contents of hall,
kitchen, recreation-house, etc., are also given. There was little or no
lead, and the yearly rents amounted only to 51s. 8d. The Visitor took
into his own keeping the chalice, which weighed 13 oz., and he
ordered that the servants should be paid ten shillings of their wages
at the next Michaelmas.
The Inventory of the house of the Grey Friars is similarly
detailed.[157] In the sextry there were five “suits” without albs; a
suit for requiems, one each of dun silk, yellow sey, and branched
green silk. There were six copes, two being of linen cloth “stained
with image work.” There were six altar-cloths, a pyx of latten, etc. In
the church were four alabaster tables, a pair of large candlesticks, a
cross, and a censer of latten, two missals, one printed and one
written, “a pair of small organs,” etc. There was much lead, for half
the choir was leaded and one of the chapels. The rents only came to
26s. 8d. Again the chalice was taken by the Visitor, with six spoons:
16 oz. in all.
Next day he was at Newcastle-under-Lyme.[158] He found it
owed £14, for which all its substance was in pledge, yet was
insufficient to meet the debt. The Inventory was again signed by the
town officials, John Lymforde, Mayor, and Thomas Brodsha and
Richard Smyth. The Inventory of the goods showed that in the
vestry there were “suits” of blue silk, of silk with roses, and of green
silk. There were eleven chasubles, five copes, and two old tunicles.
In the choir there were two pairs of candlesticks of copper and
latten, one cross of copper and gilt with a “Mary and John.” “A pair
of organs” is mentioned and an alabaster table on the High Altar. In
the steeple were two bells. In the house were two old feather beds,
one old bolster, and five old coverlets, an old chest, and a green
covering of say. The usual articles are mentioned in kitchen,
brewhouse, hall, and buttery. The choir and cloisters were roofed
with lead, and the rents came to 40s. a year. The Bishop of Dover
took possession of the chalice, which was a small one, five spoons,
and “two narrow bands of masers” (14 oz.), but he sent up to
Cromwell three boxes “of evidence,” one of the King’s, one of other
gentlemen’s, and one of the Convent’s.
He wrote from Lichfield an account of his journey to that point,
and supplemented it on August 13th by another letter written at
Shrewsbury.[159] He apologises for not being able to send at once all
the Inventories, but he had no leisure for such work, and, moreover,
his servants were ill. Perhaps they could not stand the rapidity with
which he travelled, “but I trust to se yower lordschype within a veke,
and be that tyme I trust to make an ende in all Walys.” He
continues: “Sumwhat to certyfye yower lordeschype of the state off
suche as I have receyveyd sythe that I wrote to yow towcheynge
Stafforde, the Austen Fryeres ther ys a pore howse, with small
implementes, no jwelles but on lytyll chales, no led in the howse, in
rentes by yere lis. xiiid. The Graye Fryeres ther, halfe the quere
ledeyd and a chapell, small implementes, no plate but a chales and
vi. small sponys, in renttes xxvis. iiiid. The Blacke Fryeres in
Newecastell Underlyne, all in ruyne, and a pore howse, the quere
ledeyd and the cloeyster led redy to fall downe, the reste slate and
schyngyll; in fermys by yere xls. On master Broke hathe of late
fownde the menys with the prior to gett of hym the more parte of
they howseys and grownde ther by iii. leseys, and that for lytyll
money; he wolde a gyve me golde to a grantteyd to hys leseys, but I
toke no peny of hym nor of non other, nor non woll. Iff he have
thoys leseys there ys lytyll besyde, for he hathe lyberte allmost in all.
Ther ys a proper wode, but he hathe all in lese. No sylver above xiii.
ounce.” The property had been fully mortgaged to Mr. Broke,
possibly, but not probably—for the general poverty of the house
amply accounts for it—with a view to the threatened visit of Dr.
Ingworth. But the Bishop’s elaborate assertion of his superiority to
bribery must have been amusing reading to Cromwell: he “doth
protest too much, methinks.” He was not chary of sycophancy,
however. He proceeds, after describing the ruined state of the Austin
Friars at Shrewsbury: “My synguler good lorde, I beseche youe
pardon me of my rude wrytynge, and yf that I do not my dewte as I
owte to do I beseche youe pardon me, for my hart and intente ys to
do that thynge that shulde specyally plese God, the kynges grace,
and yower lordschype, accordeynge to my dewte.” He then goes on
to “beseche” his Lordship, the son of the drunken brewer, “that yf
before my cumynge there be any order taken for Newecastell
Underlyne, that ye wolde be good lorde to on Master Johan Bothe, a
servant of the kynges graces, the whyche is a grett bylder in theys
partes, that he myght for money have the slate and schyngyll ther;
for ther ys no other to be don with the more parte of that howse,
but save the lede and slate, and take the profete of the grownde.
That master Bothe for yower sake sheuyd me many plesures and
gave me venyson; wherefor I may no lesse do but wryght to yower
lordeschype besecheynge yow to be good lorde to hym, an I ever
yower orator to Jhesu, who preserve yower lordschype.”
In this year Bishop Lee issued a series of injunctions to the clergy
of the diocese.[160] In these he ordered sermons to be preached at
least quarterly in “all monasteries.” There were few remaining by the
end of the year, and only one—Burton-on-Trent, in Staffordshire. No
monks or friars were to have any “cure or servyce,” “except they be
lawfully dispensed withall or licensed by the ordinary.” Confessions to
monks and friars were forbidden, though ordered to be made to
parish priests, before Communion, and the wearing of secular dress
was sternly condemned.
Cromwell also issued injunctions to the clergy, on September 5th,
1538,[161] ordering, among other things, “that such Images as ye
know in any of your cures to be so abused with pilgrimages or
offerings of anything made thereunto ye shall for avoiding of that
most detestable offence of Idolatry furthwith take down and deley ...
admonyishng your parishioners that Images serve for no other
purpose but as to be bookes of unlearned men that can no letters....
And therefor the kinges highnes graciously tenderyng the weale of
his subjectes sowles hath in parte alredy and more will hereafter
travail for the abolishing of suche Images as might be occasion of so
greate an offence to god and so gret daunger to the sowles of his
loving subjectes.” No charge of superstition had been brought
against the image of St. Modwen at Burton by Layton and Legh at
their visitation, but none the less it was pulled down. Sir William
Bassett, of Meynell Langley, a few miles from Burton, wrote as
follows to Cromwell:[162] “Ryght honorabull my inesspeyciall gud
lord, accordyng to my bownden dewte and the teynor of youre
lordschypys lettres lately to me dyrectyd, I have sende unto yowre
gud lordschyp by thys beyrer, my brother, Francis Bassett, the
ymages off sentt Anne off Buxtone and sentt Mudwen of Burtun
apon Trentt, the wych ymages I dyd take frome the place where
they dyd stande, and browght them to my owne howss within xlviiie
howres after the contemplation of yowre seyd lordschypis lettres, in
as soober maner as my lyttull and rude wytt wollde serve me. And
ffor that there schullde no more idollatre and supersticion be there
usyd, I dyd nott only deface the tabernaculles and placis where they
dyd stande, butt allso dyd take away cruchys, schertes, and schetes,
with wax offeryd, being thynges thatt dyd alure and intyse the
yngnorantt pepull to the seyd offeryng; allso gyffyng the kepers of
bothe placis admonicion and charge thatt no more offeryng schulld
be made in those placis tyll the kynges plesure and yowre
lordschypis be ffurther knowen in that behallf.... And, my lord, as
concerning the opynion off the pepull and the ffonde trust that they
dyd putt in those ymages and the vanyte of the thynges, thys beyrer
my brother can telle yowre lordschyp much better att large then I
can wryte, for he was with me att the doing of all.” The said Francis
Bassett was in the service of Cranmer, and we shall meet with him
again; “There cam nothyng with theym but the bare imagis.” Bishop
Lee saved from the spoilers the jewels of St. Chad’s Shrine at the
Cathedral for “necessary uses.” Prebendary Arthur Dudley was one
of the authorized commissioners for holding such Church goods as
were seized by the Crown, but he apparently reverenced holy things,
and gave the bones of St. Chad to some female relatives of his. The
latter handed them to two brothers named Hodgetts, and eventually
some of them have been deposited in the Roman Catholic Cathedral
at Birmingham. The shrine disappeared, and as the relics had gone
the Cathedral was spared such sacrilege as was witnessed
elsewhere.
 CHAPTER VIII
THE GENERAL SUPPRESSION: SECOND STAGE
Meanwhile the harrying of the houses continued, and the feeling
of uncertainty deepened. It became more and more evident that the
whole monastic edifice was falling. The dissolution of the lesser
monasteries and the sharing of their spoils had served the useful
purpose of creating an appetite for more. On February 20th, 1538,
Francis Lord Hastings wrote to Cromwell begging the Abbey of
Burton, apologizing for not having written sooner, and explaining
that he should have done so but that he had been suffering from
measles.[163] On August 23rd, Cranmer wrote urging on Cromwell
the suppression of Tutbury, and desiring that Commissions should be
sent to Rocester and Croxden.[164] The three had paid large sums
for their continuance only a year before, but Cranmer was interested
in obtaining them, or one of them, for his servant, Francis Bassett.
Again, on December 14th, he wrote begging for Croxden to be given
to Bassett.[165]
Bishop Roland Lee had continued his pleading for the Priory at
Stafford, and when time went by without seeming to bring him
nearer obtaining it he began to suspect Legh of playing him false.
The latter, however, assured him he was as interested as the Bishop
himself in the matter, though he advised an application direct to
Cromwell. “I have spoken,” he wrote,[166] “to Mr. Strete for the
suppression of St. Thomas’s, but I would your lordship should write
to my Lord Privy Seal (Cromwell) for your own matter, and to thank
him, for he told me he would move the King for you and your heirs
to have St. Thomas’s, and no doubt the King will be content, and,
indeed, it is all one. Remember to write to my lord to put away
sinister suspicion, and be not light of credit against me: mistrust
without cause is very unpleasant.” Thus encouraged, Lee returned to
the charge, adding fresh inducements. He suggests that the longer
the matter is delayed the less there will be to confiscate, “as the
Prior makes unreasonable waste.” He asks that the Priory may be let
to him “at an easy rent, that the poor boys, my nephews, may have
some relief thereby”; and he begs that Cromwell will write to the
surveyors that he may buy what things belonging to the house he
desires.[167] The latter request he obtained. Again, on December
13th, he wrote to Cromwell on the same subject. He even ventured
to apply direct to the King, both in person and by letter. There is a
letter of his written to the King on December 26th, which says:
“Where at my being with your Majesty, I moved the same for the
late Priory of St. Thomas, I was minded to pay a certain sum as your
Grace should determine. I am so much bound to your Majesty that I
can crave no more; but, being charged with eight poor children of
my sister’s, now fatherless and motherless, I am forced to show the
truth.”[168]
Other petitions had flowed in, and gradually matters were
arranged. Some houses were granted as they stood, sites, buildings,
furniture and other contents, stores, animals, farm implements, etc.,
to a single recipient in return for a single money payment. No doubt
influential petitioners like Bishop Roland Lee and Lord Derby (who
obtained Dieulacres) met with less rivalry than more obscure suitors
who made efforts for the smaller houses. There appears to have
been keen competition for the little nunnery at Brewood.
When the houses and belongings were to be sold en bloc, Dr.
Legh, with whom went William Cavendish as auditor, appears to
have had the management, while Scudamore conducted the
business where other arrangements had been made, and the
contents of the houses were sold by public auction.
The religious houses found that their attempts to secure a further
lease of life for themselves by authorized payments to the Royal
Treasury, or by irregular bribes to Cromwell and his friends, had all
failed. The large fines recently paid served to prolong the houses for
a twelvemonth only, and as the autumn of 1538 drew on the news
probably reached all the houses that they were doomed.
 The harvest having been safely gathered in by the monks, in
accordance with the royal injunctions, the royal agents began to
close round them once more, and the last agony began.
John Scudamore was appointed “Receiver-General unto the
King’s Majesty of the dissolved possessions” in Staffordshire and
elsewhere. He received his authorization on August 23rd, 1538, from
Sir Richard Riche, the Solicitor-General and Chancellor of
Augmentations. His instructions were to survey all the lands of
surrendered houses and to make a return of their yearly value, with
such pensions and corrodies, etc., as they might be burdened with.
The bells and superfluous houses were to be sold, and the lead
melted into “plokes” and sows and marked with the Royal mark, and
delivered under indenture to the constables of neighbouring castles.
[169] On September 27th, the goods of both houses at Stafford were
sold, on October 4th the friary at Lichfield, on the 15th Scudamore
was at Croxden, and next day at Rocester; on the 21st he was at
Hulton. The details of all these sales are extant and are full of
interest.
The sales were evidently conducted in a most wasteful way, as
Robert Burgoyne, who acted as auditor at the sales at Stafford,
testified. He told Scudamore, “I have sold in some ffrire houses all
the buyldynges, the cause was for that they were so spoyled and
torne by suche as sold the goodes, that in manner they were downe,
and yff they shuld nott have ben sold, the kyng shuld have hadd
nothyng theroff.”[170]
Although there had been loud discontent at the threatened
dissolutions of the friaries at Stafford, the townspeople did not
hesitate to profit by the sales any more than the country people did
in the case of the monasteries. They knew that the end of the alms
and easy rents had come, and it was only human nature to make the
best of the sorry business. The town bought the stone wall of the
Grey Friars and a pair of candlesticks at Stafford; and the
churchwardens a Corporas.[171] The “warden of the sayd [Grey]
Fryers” bought two brass pots for eight shillings and six plates for
2s.; the under-bailiff and the late warden of the friars bought “iii
leads, one to brue in, and ii to kele in, fates, iiii tubbes, a bulting
hutche, and a knedyng troughe” for 14s. 7d. Friar Wood bought a
vestment of blue fustian and one of white diaper for 6d., and the
Prior of the Austin Friars bought a vestment of white bustion for 8d.
The friars were determined to make the best of things. Robert
Whytgreve bought books. The great purchaser was James Luson or
Leveson, from Wolverhampton, who followed the sales. At the sale
of the Grey Friars in Stafford he purchased “a table of alabaster
standyng in the church” for 2s. 8d., and “all the churche and quyer,
with all edyfyengs and buyldynges within the precinct of the Fryers
Minours surrendryd, with all the stone, tymber, tyle, glasse, and iron
in the same, ledd and belles only exceptyd, and also exceptyd and
reservyd the stone wall next unto the towne of Stafford,” for £29 1s.
8d. At the Austin Friars he bought a vestment and two tunacles “of
bawdekyn with images of our lady” for 18d., two copes, “greene and
yelowe partye colouryd and rewyd,” for 22d., and, with Thomas Picto
and Richard Warde, “all the tyle, shyngle, tymber, stone, glass, and
iron, one marble gravestone, the pavementes of the church, quyer,
and chapelles, with rode lofte, the pyctures of Cryst, Mary, and
Johan, beyng in the church and chauncell of the Austen Fryers,
besydes the towne of Stafford, surrendryd with all other superfluos
edyfyes and buyldynges within the precynct of the seyd Fryers, to be
takyn down, defaycd, and caryed away by the seyd Loveson, Picto,
and Ward, at there owne proper costes and charges,” for £28 8s. 4d.
The two bells at the former house, one a Sanctus bell and one “by
estimation Xcth,” were also placed in his custody. Sir Richard Riche
wrote to Scudamore “to assingne and apoynct unto my ffrende
James Lewson the five bellis remaynyng at the late monasterie of
Wenlocke.”[172] Robert Dorynton was another dealer. At the Austin
Friars at Stafford he purchased “a table in the inner hall with ii
trestylles and iii formes,” and at the Grey Friars, Stafford, he bought
a “gret basen” from the buttery, 3 altar cloths, the seats in St.
Francis Chapel, books in library and vestry, a coffer in the former,
four pennyworth of “old wexe,” and a lamp. Robert Wetwode, the
Master of the Guild, bought “the table at the hyeghe deske” in the
hall for 8d. The whole contents of the kitchen sold for 22s. 2d., of
the church, 55s. 8d., of the brewhouse, 15s., and of the hall, 3s. 4d.
The total sales of goods and buildings at the Grey Friars fetched £34
3s. 10d. The lead upon choir and chapel, 45 feet broad “of bothe
sydes” by 43 feet long, was left in the custody of the town bailiffs.
The contents of the Austin Friars fetched 79s., and Robert Burgoyne,
the auditor, kept “one playne crosse of copper with a lytle image of
Cryst sylver apon hyt,” estimated to be worth 3s. 4d., John
Scudamore kept “one lytle woodden crosse,” which is noted as being
“platyd over verry thyn with sylver,” and as being worth only 12d.
“Ther remaynyth in the steple one belle, by estimation Xcth in the
custody of Thomas Picto, worth by estimation viiili., and a lytle bell
worth 8s. The total sales of goods and buildings at the Austin Friars
produced £32 6s. 4d.
The Grey Friars’ house at Lichfield was sold on October 4th. The
“prisors jurati,” or sworn valuers, were Robert Ryve, William Colman,
Marke Wyrley, and Thomas Fanne. Mr. Strete made a great purchase
of “all the copes, vestments, and tynakles in gros for xls.,” also two
candlesticks of latten, for 8d., the paving tiles in the cloisters for
40s., and of the choir for 13s. 4d. Thomas Fanne, above-mentioned,
bought “the bryck wall at the churche ende” for 2s.; Marke Wyrley,
“a fryer’s masse boke” for 4d., and William Colman “the glasse that
ys lewse in the newe loggyng” for 3s. The Warden of the Guild
bought a vestry press, “the cundyt of ledd in the cloyster,” “all the
kechyn stuff,” and “ii. standert candelstyckes.” Mr. Lytleton bought
“the cesterne of ledd standyng in the porche at the Tenys Court
ende,” and “a lytle porche standyng by the dwellyng house.” The
whole of the buildings were sold to a “ring” of eight purchasers for
£42 13s. 4d., “except and reserved ledd, belles, pavement, and
gravestones within all the seyd buyldynges, save only the pavement
of the seyd churche, whyche ys parcell of the seyd bargayne ... and
hath day to deface the steple, cloyster, and quyer forth [with], wyth
the churche, onles they obteyne lycens otherwyse of the kyng, and
hys councell, athyssyde the feast of the Purification of our Lady next
commyng, and for all the residewe of the buyldynges iii. yeres day to
pull downe and carye awey, and to have egresse and regresse for
the same.” These careful stipulations that the buildings should be
defaced and destroyed show that the ruin of the monastic buildings
is not to be attributed to the ravages of time alone, but also to wilful
and deliberate vandalism.
Meanwhile Legh and Cavendish began to go on their circuit. They
were at Tutbury in the middle of September. No record exists of the
procedure or of the means Legh used; but his progress was an
unqualified triumph and the surrenders of the monasteries one after
another were formally received. The Deed of Surrender was signed
at Tutbury on September 14th.[173] It bears the following
signatures:[174]
p me Arthurum priorem de Tuttbury p me Thomam Norton p me
Thomam Smith p me Thomam Shele p me Rob’tum Stafford p me
Nycholas Broly p me Rogerum Hylton p me Thomam Renez p
Richardum Arnold
From Tutbury they proceeded, along the road by the banks of the
swift and winsome Dove, to Rocester. There the canons, who seem
to have been living simple, harmless lives among neighbours who
respected them, were speedily forced to sign the Deed of Surrender.
It is dated September 16th, and the seal, except for a fracture at the
base, is still in good condition. The signatures are as follows:[175]
per me Wylliamum Grafton
„ Georgium Dave
„ Johannem Snape
„ Ricardum Heith
„ Johannem Brykylbake
„ Radulphum Corke
„ Williamum Bond
„ Georgium Graftu
„ Johannem Dayne

The following witnesses signed:

 Mr. [magister] Williamus Bassett, miles
Thomas Fizharberd, armiger
William Bassett, armiger
Johannes Fizharberd, generosus

Hurrying away up the secluded valley to the west, Legh came in

an hour to the Abbey of Croxden. Its surrender was signed next day,
and the seal is in good condition:[176]
per me Thomam Chalner Abbatem de Crokesden
„ Thomam Rollesto[n]
„ Robertum Clarke
„ Thomam Kelynge
„ Johannem Thornto[n]
„ Johannem Orpe
„ Johannem Almo
„ Wylliamus Beche
„ Henricum Rothwell
„ Robertum Keydr.
„ Johannem Standlaw
„ Rycardum Meyre
„ Thomam Hendon

The following signed as witnesses:

Mr. Georgius Vernam, armiger
Ranoldus Corbett, armiger
Walterus Orton, generosus
Dominus Edmundus Stretaye

Archbishop Cranmer’s desire was thus accomplished, and the

three Staffordshire houses of Tutbury, Rocester, and Croxden, owe
their destruction directly to him.
Scudamore followed and held his public auctions. The sale at
Croxden took place on October 15th. Mr. Bassett, who looked to
have the place by Cranmer’s good offices, purchased the “lytle
gatehouse on the north syde of the comyn wey,” the loft under the
organ, “the lytle smythes forge,” and the roof of the dormitory. He
paid for the latter only. The whole sale only produced £9 9s. 8d. The
sale at Rocester next day was short and speedy, as nothing was sold
save St. Michael’s Chapel. John Forman bought “the glasse and iron
in the wyndowes” for 3s. 4d.; William Loghtonhouse the timber of
the same chapel for 7s. 6d.; and William Bagnall “the shyngle” for
8d., the total proceeds being 11s. 6d. The parishioners obtained the
three bells because they had been rung for their services as well as
for those of the canons.[177] At Hulton, on October 21st, the only
item was the unusual one of the bells. With the lead they were
generally sent to London, but here the three were sold to Stephen
Bagott, gentleman, for £19 16s., “after the rate of xviiis. the
hundredd.”
By this time the fate of St. Thomas’s Priory and of Dieulacres
Abbey had been settled. Bishop Roland Lee’s desires were to be
gratified, and the Earl of Derby was to have Dieulacres. Legh and
Cavendish accordingly proceeded towards these houses. Their first
business when they arrived at such houses as were to be disposed
of according to arrangements already made, was to empanel the
jury for the valuation. This is explained in the Account Book of Dr.
Legh,[178] which gives exceedingly full details of everything such
houses possessed at the time of their final suppression. Vestments
and church furniture, domestic utensils, farm implements, animals
and stores, all were made over alike to the purchasers, only such
things as the more valuable church plate, lead, and bells, being
usually held back. In spite of efforts at prevention it is obvious from
the inventories that a good deal had disappeared recently. No doubt
the religious themselves had made away with something, though
this was a dangerous thing to attempt; and probably there had been
a good deal of “picking and stealing,” regular and irregular, during
recent months.
It is somewhat surprising to find that so many of the monks and
nuns had remained after knowing that their fate was sealed. Some,
of course, had nowhere else to go: some stayed doubtless through
indifference: some waited for the promised pensions. All who
remained were “rewarded” and most were given pensions.
 The final arrangement at St. Thomas’s, Stafford, was made on
October 18th, and at Dieulacres on October 21st, at the same time
as Scudamore was holding his auctions at Rocester and Hulton.
Legh’s inventories are given in full in the Appendix.[179]
On October 11th Dr. Legh received a letter from Sir Thomas
Hennege[180] informing him that the house of Benedictine Nuns at
Brewood was to be given by the King’s orders to Sir Thos. Gifford, a
Gentleman Usher of the Chamber, who had been begging for it for
over a year, and continuing, “At your now being there you shall put
him in possession, and he may at leisure apply to the Chancellor of
Augmentations for the lease.” Legh was on his way to Brewood at
the time. When he arrived at the house he found himself in a
difficulty. There was a rival claimant. He wisely referred the matter
to Cromwell, enclosing Hennege’s letter and saying, “There was Mr.
Littleton also who said the King was pleased he should have it, as he
perceived by your lordship when he was last in London.” The
cautious Legh did not care to run the risk of offending anyone, so he
solved the difficulty in a characteristic way, as he explains:
“Wherfore I and Mr. Candisshe have put them both in possession,
and sold the stuff to them both till they may know the King’s
pleasure.”[181] Legh’s inventory describes the sale as having been
made to Sir Thomas Gifford. Gifford certainly obtained the place in
the end.
The Black Nuns of Brewood surrendered on October 16th.[182]
None of them signed the document. The house was too poor to
afford accommodation suitable for Dr. Legh, and he went on the
same day to Lilleshall Abbey, which he gave to Cavendish, who had
accompanied him as auditor, as he explains to Cromwell: “Now being
at Lilleshall, I intend to put Mr. Candisshe in possession of the farm
of the house who prays you that in his absence he be not in this
behalf supplanted.”
Legh himself went on to Stafford next day. Bishop Roland Lee’s
solicitations at last had their desired effect, and on October 17th the
Priory of St. Thomas surrendered. The Deed bore the following
signatures:[183]
p me Ricardum Whittall, p’iorem
p me Ricardum Harve
p me Thomam Baguley
p me Will’m pipstoke
p me Guilihelmum Stapletone
+ p me Christtoferum Symson

There was at least one other canon, William Boudon, and when
the affairs of the house were wound up next day he received no
pension. No doubt this was his punishment for refusing to sign the
Deed of Surrender. The whole was sold to Bishop Roland Lee.
From Stafford a long journey was made northwards as far as
Leek. There stood the imposing Cistercian house of Dieulacres,[184]
with its fine church, with a timbered roof and a screen bearing
twelve candles, a glazed cloister with carrells, a dormitory and fratry,
an infirmary, hall and buttery, larder and kitchen, and outhouses of
various kinds. Dr. Legh’s eyes must have glistened as they came in
sight of the wealth of lead which covered the roofs, and which he
subsequently computed to be worth no less a sum than the
enormous amount of £720. There was also a fine peal of bells.
Sheep and cattle, horses and pigs, were in the fields, stores of grain
were in the granary, and abundance of hay was on the site. So large
a house gave employment to a large number of servants. The monks
numbered thirteen, under Thomas Whitney, the Abbot.
The King’s Commissioners did not know how their visit had been
prepared for. The personnel at Dieulacres comprised a useful
proportion of members of the Abbot’s family. Besides himself there
were four other men of the name of Whitney—Humphrey, who was
bailiff of the Cheshire Manors, John, who was Chamberlain, and two
other lay members of the household. Under these circumstances it
was not difficult to devise a scheme which should to some extent
defeat the plan for wholesale confiscation. William Davenport,
steward of the courts and collector of the rents in the Frith and
elsewhere, who acted as Abbot Whitney’s secretary, prepared blank
forms which were duly sealed with the Convent seal while it was still
in the Abbot’s keeping. On these forms various leases were
subsequently made out, when Legh and Cavendish were safely out
of the way, one of which was the lease and reversion of the Manor
of Poulton for a tenure of sixty-one years.
All this was carefully concealed from the Commissioners when
they arrived. The seal having been used for the last time on the
Deed of Dissolution on October 20th,[185] was duly handed over, and
it was not till Elizabeth had reigned for some years that John
Whitney turned Queen’s evidence and divulged the whole story.[186]
There is no reason for supposing that John Whitney’s confession
was untrue. It was by no means improbable in itself, and no doubt
represented action which was often attempted. But there appears to
have been considerable hesitation in believing it and in acting upon
it. It was made in the seventh year of Elizabeth’s reign, and so long
afterwards as fourteen years later one of the alleged ante-dated
leases was cancelled by the Master of the Rolls and the Solicitor-
General. There had evidently also been much selling of stock here as
elsewhere. Legh only found sixty sheep, six oxen, three horses and
thirteen pigs, all of inferior quality. These represented but a small
proportion of the farm-stock which had formerly made Dieulacres
rich and prosperous, and obviously would give but little occupation
to the thirty men-servants who applied for “rewards.” Abbot Whitney
had evidently played a bold though dangerous game, and it is
impossible not to feel considerable satisfaction in the knowledge that
it succeeded so well.
On October 21st the whole was sold to Edward, Earl of Derby.
As the agents went about their work, they lived well and spent
large sums on their own entertainment. Even at Brewood they spent
on themselves nearly as much as they gave in rewards to the
Prioress and her nuns. At Stafford they spent £8 19s. 10d. on
themselves, and at Dieulacres £10 17s. They looked to be well
treated by all who desired their favour. Their path was strewn with
bribes and gifts from prospective makers of easy bargains. Robert
Burgoyne, who had acted as auditor at Stafford, sent Scudamore a
buck: “good Mr. Giffard kylled yt for you yesterdaye.”[187] Another
time he is told a hostess “hadd provyded a ffat swane for you.”[188]
Master Bothe, the “grett bylder,” who hoped for a good bargain in
regard to the Friary at Newcastle-under-Lyme, was careful to “show
Bishop Ingworth many pleasures.” On August 13th Bishop Ingworth
wrote to Cromwell asking “that yf before my cumyng ther be any
order taken for Newecastell Underlyne, that ye wolde be good lorde
to on master Johan Bothe, a servant of the kynges graces, the
whyche ys a grett bylder in theys partes, that he myghte for money
have the slate and schyngyll ther; for ther ys no other to be don
with the more parte of that howse, but save the lede and the slate,
and take the profete of the grownde. That master Bothe for yower
sake scheuyd me many plesures, and gave me venyson; wherefor I
may no lesse do but wryght to yower lordeschype.”[189] Fault was
found with William Cavendish, who had accompanied Legh to
Brewood, for having given higher “rewards and wages” than he had
divulged. These were probably intended as bribes, for while riding
back from Merivale in Warwickshire they learnt that the Abbot had
not sold some plate as he said he had done. They accordingly
despatched a messenger back to fetch it, and the Abbot sent it by
way of bribe to them “to be good masters unto him and his
brethren.” Both Cavendish and Legh confessed that the whole story
was true.[190]
In 1541 the sum of £3 10s. was paid by warrant of the council to
sundry witnesses, including some of the servants of the late Priory of
St. Thomas’s, Stafford, for “coming up to the Court of
Augmentations to give evidence for the King against William
Cavendish.”[191]
Archbishop Cranmer maintained his paltry petitions for his friends
right through the whole period. As long ago as 1535 he had begged
for the Priory of Worcester to be given to one of the monks of
Burton.[192] On December 14th, 1538, he wrote to Cromwell to
accomplish his suit for his servant the bearer, Francis Bassett, who
had carried the image of St. Modwen up to London, for the
Monastery of Croxden.[193] Among Cromwell’s notes there is “A
remembrance to speak to the King for Francis Bassett, servant to my
lord of Canterbury”: “The ferme of Musden Grawnge, appertaining to
the Abbey of Crocksden, within the county of Stafford, being of the
yearly value of 20 marks by the year.”[194]
After Burton Abbey was dissolved it was made into a collegiate
church, with Abbot Edie as Dean; he was soon succeeded by Dr.
Brocke. The Patent is dated July 27th, 1540. The Chapels of Shene,
Cauldon, and Okeover, were allotted to the new foundation, and the
possessions of the late Abbey were to be held of the Crown by a
yearly rent of £62 2s. 4d., in lieu of first-fruits and tenths, and
burdened with various pensions, stipends, and fees. A pretence was
made that one of the objects of the transformation was that some of
the wealth should go towards poor-relief and repair of roads. Some
of the monks remained as Canons or Prebendaries; there was a
Gospeller and an Epistoller, with five singing men, six choristers, two
deacons, a parish priest, a schoolmaster, and four bedesmen. Among
the “common servants” were a barber, parish clerk, bridgemaster,
laundress, “turnbroche” or turnspit and apparitor. Robert Bradshawe,
gent., was Porter of the Gate, and Nicholas Burwey, gent., was
under-steward and clerk of the courts. It does not appear how much
of the contents of the Abbey—vestments, plate, etc.—was removed
when the change was made in its constitution, but a considerable
amount remained at the final dissolution, which took place in 1545,
when the place was given to Sir William Paget. Scudamore again did
most of the work, associated now with Richard Goodrich. They rode
in comfort and by easy stages from London to Burton, living
sumptuously and extravagantly, and spent four days at Burton in the
performance of their task. Again the best of the goods were not sold
but carried up to London, wrapped in ten yards of canvas and borne
on a horse specially hired for the purpose at a cost of £1 6s. 8d.[195]
 From the inventories and surrenders, supplementing Valor
Ecclesiasticus, we are able to form some idea as to the mode of
living in the monasteries, and the standard of comfort which was
reached. Doubtless the obligation to perform manual work had in
most cases been forgotten, otherwise the large number of servants
and labourers cannot well be accounted for. At Dieulacres[196] there
were thirteen monks, six stewards and bailiffs (excluding “my lord of
Derby,” whose office was a sinecure), a forester, and eleven others
who had to be pensioned, besides thirty servants and “the launders
and pore bedewomen.” The last-named probably did the Abbey
washing. The “household” is a large one in comparison with the
number of monks, even when we take into account the sheep-runs
of the Abbey. Still more excessive is the staff of twenty-nine servants
at Stafford for the seven canons; for the Priory of St. Thomas,
though it had scattered possessions, employed in 1535 nine or ten
stewards and bailiffs. Their baker was a person of sufficient
importance to receive a pension of 10s. a year. The four nuns at
Brewood had eight servants, although their house and income were
alike small. They must have had an idle time, and when they were
ejected with small pensions of £3 6s. 8d. to the Prioress, and half
that amount to each of the three nuns, the change in their style of
living must have been very marked and painful.
Payments to lay officials, such as stewards, bailiffs, rent-
collectors, and auditors, appear in Valor Ecclesiasticus as follows:
Brewood Nunnery (4), nil; Burton-on-Trent, £28; Croxden (13), £7;
Dieulacres (13), £5 6s. 8d.; Dudley, £2 6s. 8d.; Hulton, £6; Rocester
(9), £2 13s. 4d.; Ronton, £4 6s. 8d.; St. Thomas’s (7), £11 13s. 4d.;
Stone, £3 6s. 8d.; Trentham, £5; Tutbury (9), £18 13s. 4d.: Total,
£94 6s. 8d. The figures in brackets show the number of religious,
where these can be ascertained. At Dudley and Trentham these
must have been very few, yet at the latter the expenditure on
administration was £5. Tutbury also spent large sums on
management. On the other hand, Rocester, with nine canons and
two stewards, and a small expenditure on management, appears in
a favourable light. The canons at Rocester were on good terms with
their neighbours, and the house was almost unique among the
smaller houses in Staffordshire in the matter of charity. The general
impression of the canons of Rocester is that they were living quiet,
simple lives, working hard themselves, and held in respect.
The Nunnery at Brewood[197] possessed a hall, parlour, kitchen,
buttery, and larder, with a large bedroom (in which they all slept on
two bedsteads) and a bailiff’s chamber. Of outhouses there were
brewhouse and cooling house, bolting house for kneading bread,
cheeseloft, and a “kylhouse,” all of which were more or less
adequately furnished. There were hangings of painted cloth in the
parlour. In the hall there were two tables but only one form. The
nuns’ bedroom contained a feather bed and one tester of white linen
cloth, two coverlets and a blanket described as old, one bolster, two
pillows and four pairs of sheets. The bailiff slept on a mattress on
the floor, with a coverlet and blanket. His axe remained in his
bedroom when the house was sold. A table-cloth and two latten
candlesticks, a bushel and a half of salt, four pewter porringers, four
platters, and two saucers, which are mentioned, also throw light on
the standard of living. Of grain they had a quarter of wheat (6s.
2d.), a quarter of “munke-corne” (8s.), a quarter of oats (1s. 8d.),
and a quarter of peas (2s. 8d.). The bread they made was of good
quality: rye is not even mentioned. Their one horse was sold for 4s.,
the wain and dung-cart for 16d. They had ten loads of hay (15s.).
With this we may compare the abbey and out-buildings at
Dieulacres.[198] In the cloister was a lavatory. No beds or bedding
are mentioned in the dorter or dormitory, which the monks had
forsaken for more comfortable quarters in smaller bedrooms, of
which there were several. The corner chamber was luxuriously
provided with a mattress, feather bed, bolster, and two pillows, a
blanket and coverlet, a tester of “dorney,” a hanging of sey (silk),
etc. In the inner chamber also was a mattress. In the ryder’s
chamber were two bedsteads, a hanging of painted cloth, etc. In the
butler’s chamber were a mattress and feather bed and four
coverlets, a bolster and two pillows. In the buttery were five
napkins, three pewter salts, eight hogsheads, six candlesticks, etc.;
in the larder, a salting vat; in the kitchen, five great brass pots, four
small pans, a cauldron, three spits, a frying pan, a gridiron, thirty-
eight plates, dishes, and saucers, a grater, two chafing dishes, a
brass “skimmer,” etc. There was a brewhouse, bolting-house and
labourers’ chamber (with two mattresses and two coverlets).
Their live stock consisted of six oxen (sold for £4 5s.), sixty ewes
and lambs (£3 6s. 8d.), three horses (£1), and twelve swine (13s.
4d.). Of grain they had 159 bushels of oats (£11 19s.), and rye
worth £1 1s., with twenty-nine loads of hay which sold for £3.
At St. Thomas’s, Stafford,[199] the seven religious and twenty-
nine “servants” had stores as follows:
Wheat. Rye and Munke-corn. Barley. Peas. Hay.
Arberton Grange 3 qrs. 11 qrs. 40 qrs. 10 qrs. 20 loads
Berkswick Grange 12 „ 4 „
St. Thomas’s Priory 12 „
There were also the following farm implements and horses:
Waggons. Harrows. Ploughs. Cart. Cart Horses. Mares.
Arberton Grange 2 2 1 3 2
Berkswick Grange 2 2 2
Some of the waggons were “ironbound” and some “unbound,”
and all, with the ploughs and harrows, and the cart, appear to have
been complete “with yokes and teams to them belonging.”
The live stock was as follows:
Oxen. Cows. Calves. Wethers. Ewes. Lambs. Swine. Winter
Beasts.
Arberton Grange 12 9 8 60 70 6 6
Berkswick 12 80 9
Grange
In the house the dormitory had “cells” or cubicles, but the
absence of beds and bedding there indicates that more comfortable
quarters were occupied. The court had a conduit for the supply of
water. The Prior’s parlour was hung with linen, and had a folding or
trestle table, two forms and four chairs. There were six bedrooms
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

textbookfull.com