Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Uncertainty and Disturbance Observer

Uncertainty and Disturbance Observer



|Views: 1,810|Likes:
Published by D.Viswanath

More info:

Published by: D.Viswanath on Jun 04, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less


1.Most modern control laws need the full state vector for theiimplementation. In general, the full state is not accessible making these lawsunimplementable. Even when the states are accessible the cost of the sensorscould be very high. This makes the use of state estimators mandatory. Another problem that real plants present is that their models are not known accurately.For such plants the classical Luenberger observer does not work, thus further compounding the problem of state estimation.2.The problem of designing an observer for a multivariable linear systempartially driven by unknown inputs is of great interest. Such a problem arises insystems subject to disturbances or with inaccessible
unmeasurable inputs and inmany applications such as fault detection and isolation, parameter identificationand cryptography. This problem has been studied extensively for the last twodecades. One approach has been to design linear observers (both full order andreduced order). In the literature, linear observers which are completelyindependent of the unmeasurable disturbances are known as unknown inputobservers (UIOs) [1–5]. In particular, easily verifiable system theoretic conditions,which are necessary and sufficient for the existence of UIOs, have beenestablished (see for example [6] or [5]). One possible statement of theseconditions is that the transfer function matrix between the unmeasurable inputand the measured outputs must be minimum phase and relative degree one.3.The concept of sliding mode control [7–9] has been extended to theproblem of state estimation by an observer, for linear systems [9], uncertainlinear systems [10, 11] and nonlinear systems [12–14]. Using the same design
principles as for variable structure control, the observer trajectories areconstrained to evolve after a finite time on a suitable sliding manifold by the useof a discontinuous output injection signal (the sliding manifold is usually given bythe difference between the observer and the system output). Subsequently thesliding motion provides an estimate (asymptotically or in finite time) of the systemstates. Sliding mode observers have been shown to be efficient in manyapplications, such as in robotics [15, 16], electrical engineering [17–19], and faultdetection [20, 21].4.The Lyapunov based approach of Walcott and Zak [2, 3, 4] considered theproblem of state observation in presence of bounded uncertainties/UI. Slotine [5]examined the potential use of sliding surfaces for observer design for systems incompanion form with extension to non-linear systems. Lopez in [6] formulated analternative form of sliding mode observer wherein the output disturbances aretransformed into state disturbances, avoiding noise amplification. Similar workwas seen in [7] wherein the UI and model uncertainties were considered as afictitious state added to the slotine like structure [5]. Although, the methods basedon this category [5, 7] only require the output information, they suffer drawbacks.As, choosing gains, for eg. k1 to ensure sliding depends on the estimation error |ex2|max which is unknown. The control requires switching terms to deal withunknown inputs thereby introducing chatter and complicating the analysis. It canbe shown that the second order PIO could bring about the same improvementsthat the switching terms used in [7] brought in while being added to the first order PIO, thereby simplifying the analysis and design. Chen [1] proposed adisturbance observer which required the states of the system. There are other disturbance observers also in literature [8] which also require the states in order to estimate the disturbances. In general, the states are not available. The stateestimator is possible using Luenberger type [9] of observers provided the systemdoes not have uncertainties. Thus, we have a situation that the state estimationcan be done in the absence of disturbances and disturbance estimation ispossible if the states are available.
5.Luenberger ObserveThe classical Luenberger observer is the fundamental state observer and allother observers are extensions of this basic structure. Consider a plant definedby,
x = Ax + Buy = Cx
Assuming the state x to be approximated by the state ˆx of the dynamic model,
 A Bu L y
and denoting e = x − ˆx, the state error dynamics is deduced as,
e A LC e
_____________________________(7.3)Thus, the dynamic behavior of the error vector is determined by the eigen valuesof (A − LC). Thus, by choosing L such that (A − LC) is stable, the error dynamicswill reduce to zero asymptotically.6.Limitations of Luenberger ObserveThe problem with this observer is that it fails when the output is sensed inpresence of model uncertainties and/or sensor noise. To examine the reasonconsider the plant with lumped uncertainties d as,
 x Ax Bu B
 y Cx n
 and the observer modeled as eqn. 2.3, the error dynamics is thus deduced as,
e A LC e Ln B
____________________(7.5)The last terms shows that the proportional gain observer tends to amplify themeasurement noise by L and that the lumped uncertainty d affects theconvergence.

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Phuong le Dinh liked this
raa2010 liked this
J_B_IM liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->