|Views: 10|Likes: 0

Published by Saifizi Aneeza

hello

hello

See more

See less

SELF-TUNING CONTROL BASED ONGENERALIZED MINIMUM VARIANCECRITERION.Anna Patete

∗

Katsuhisa Furuta

∗∗

Masayoshi Tomizuka

∗∗∗∗

Department of Advanced Multidisciplinary Engineering.E-mail: apatete@furutalab.k.dendai.ac.jp

∗∗

Department of Computer and Systems Engineering.E-mail: furuta@k.dendai.ac.jpTokyo Denki University, Hatoyama-cho, Hiki-gun,Saitama, 350-0394, Japan. Fax: +81-49-296-3286.

∗∗∗

Department of Mechanical Engineering.University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.Fax:+1-510-643-5599. E-mail: tomizuka@me.berkeley.edu

Abstract: The stability of adaptive control systems has been studied extensivelyfor minimum phase systems, mainly for model reference adaptive systems, butcomplete stability proof for non-minimum phase systems have not been given. Inthis paper, the stability of two types of self-tuning controllers for discrete timeminimum and non-minimum phase plants is studied, namely: recursive estimationof the implicit self-tuning controller parameters based on generalized minimumvariance criterion (REGMVC), and another based on generalized minimum vari-ance criterion -

β

equivalent control approach (REGMVC-

β

). Stability of thealgorithms are proved by the Lyapunov theory.Keywords: Self-tuning control, discrete-time systems, generalized minimumvariance control, and sliding-mode control, linear control systems.1. INTRODUCTION˚Astr¨om and Wittenmark (Astrom and Witten-mark, 1973) developed and studied the conver-gence of the implicit self-tuning controller in astochastic setting. The stability of self-tuning al-gorithms for Model Reference Adaptive Systems(MRAS) have been studied for the strictly positivereal model by Landau (Landau, 1980)(Landau,1982). Latter on, Johansson (Johansson, 1986)studied the stability of MRAS for a minimumphase system, using Lyapunov theory. Global con-vergence for a class of adaptive control algorithmsapplied to discrete-time single-input single-output(SISO) and multi-input multi-output (MIMO) lin-ear systems were studied for the minimum vari-ance criterion in a seminal paper by Goodwin,et al. (Goodwin

et al.

, 1980). However in theseapproaches the considered system should be min-imum phase and the extension to consider themeasurement noise may be diﬃcult.Extending the results of ˚Astr¨om (Astrom andWittenmark, 1973), Clarke and Gawthrop (Clarke

et al.

, 1975) proposed the Generalized MinimumVariance Control (GMVC) for non-minimum phasesystems, using a cost function which incorpo-rates system input and set-point variation. Forthe case of the unknown system parameters, theunknown parameters are estimated using a re-

cursive least-squares algorithm. Latter, in (Clarke

et al.

, 1979) the convergence of the closed-loopsystem is analyzed using the positive real condi-tion. In (Gawthrop, 1980) some stability analysisare given based on the notion of dissipative sys-tems and conicity properties. However a completeglobal stability proof of self-tuning control fornon-minimum phase systems have not been yetstudied.Sliding mode control (SMC) based on the variablestructure systems (VSS), in the continuous-timecase, is not robust when uncertainty excess thebound assumed in the design. Slotine (Slotineand Li, 1964) combined variable structure andadaptive control to solve this problem. Furuta(Furuta, 1993

a

) presents a discrete-time VSS typemethod for the case where systems parameters areunknown. The VSS is designed based on minimumvariance control (MVC) or generalized minimumvariance control (GMVC) using recursive param-eter estimation. Extending (Furuta, 1993

a

), in(Furuta, 1993

b

) a designed parameter is intro-duced in the control law while maintaining theuse of VSS. The stability of self-tuning controlbased on the certainty equivalence principle hasbeen studied in (Morse, 1992). This approach issaid implicit self-tuning control. However param-eters are not identiﬁed accurately in the closedloop, and the stability is not assured based on thecertainty equivalence principle.In this paper, the stability of two types of implicitself-tuning controllers for discrete time minimumand non-minimum phase plants, when the systemparameters are unknown, is proved. One is thecombination of the generalized minimum variancecontrol and identiﬁcation of control parameterrecursively (REGMVC), which has been used inmany self-tuning controllers. The stability of theoverall adaptive system is proved in this paper, al-though the parameters are not assured to convergeto the true values. The other one (REGMVC-

β

)considers delay in control input. Stability of thealgorithm is proved by the Lyapunov theory. Itis not necessary to use VSS nor any additionalcondition to ensure closed loop system stability forthe algorithms studied in this paper. The stabilityof the closed-loop system is proved in straightforward way in comparison with Goodwin, et al.(Goodwin

et al.

, 1980), and may be extended tothe case including the measurement noise (Patete

et al.

, n.d.). This paper consider the non-minimumphase systems contrary to (Goodwin

et al.

, 1980)paper.The paper is organized as follows; in section 2,the generalized minimum variance criterion is pre-sented. Section 3 deals with parametric uncertain-ties using self-tuning control based on generalizedminimum variance criterion. A simulate examplesis given in section 4. Concluding remarks are in 5.2. GENERALIZED MINIMUM VARIANCECRITERIONThis paper considers a single-input single-output(SISO) time-invariant system. The representationof the plant with input

u

k

and output

y

k

is

A

(

z

−

1

)

y

k

=

z

−

d

B

(

z

−

1

)

u

k

(1)where

A

(

z

−

1

) and

B

(

z

−

1

) have no common factorand

z

denotes the time shift operator

z

−

t

y

k

=

y

k

−

t

. In the Laplace transformation,

z

=

e

sT

0

where

T

0

is the sample period (for simplicity, andwithout loss of generality, we may assume

T

0

= 1).The polynomials

A

(

z

−

1

) and

B

(

z

−

1

) are assumedto be known, and represented as:

A

(

z

−

1

) = 1 +

a

1

z

−

1

+

a

2

z

−

2

+

...

+

a

n

z

−

n

B

(

z

−

1

) =

b

0

+

b

1

z

−

1

+

b

2

z

−

2

+

...

+

b

m

z

−

m

where

b

0

= 0 and delay step

d

, is also assumed tobe known.The objective of the control is to minimize thevariance of the controlled variables

s

k

+

d

, that isdeﬁned in the deterministic case as

s

k

+

d

=

C

(

z

−

1

)(

y

k

+

d

−

r

k

+

d

) +

Q

(

z

−

1

)

u

k

(2)The polynomials

C

(

z

−

1

) = 1 +

c

1

z

−

1

+

c

2

z

−

2

+

...

+

c

n

z

−

n

Q

(

z

−

1

) =

q

0

(1

−

z

−

1

)are to be designed,

r

k

is the reference signal, andthe error signal

e

k

is deﬁned as

e

k

=

y

k

−

r

k

.The idea is similar to the discrete time slidingmode control, see (Xinghuo and Jian-Xin, 1992)and (Zinober, 1994). In the case of Goodwin, et al.(Goodwin

et al.

, 1980),

Q

(

z

−

1

) is not consideredand

C

(

z

−

1

) is chosen as

C

(

z

−

1

) = 1.The polynomial

C

(

z

−

1

) is Schur, hence the errorsignal will vanish if (2) is kept to zero. The polyno-mial

C

(

z

−

1

) may be determined by assigning allcharacteristic roots inside the unit disk of

z

-plane.Equation (2) is rewritten as:

s

k

+

d

=

G

(

z

−

1

)

u

k

+

F

(

z

−

1

)

y

k

−

C

(

z

−

1

)

r

k

+

d

(3)where the polynomial

G

(

z

−

1

) is deﬁned as

G

(

z

−

1

) =

E

(

z

−

1

)

B

(

z

−

1

)+

Q

(

z

−

1

), and polynomials

E

(

z

−

1

)and

F

(

z

−

1

) satisfy the equality,

C

(

z

−

1

)

.

=

A

(

z

−

1

)

E

(

z

−

1

) +

z

−

d

F

(

z

−

1

) (4)

Then the minimum generalized variance controlinput needed to vanish

s

k

+

d

in (2) is given by:

u

k

=

−

G

(

z

−

1

)

−

1

[

F

(

z

−

1

)

y

k

−

C

(

z

−

1

)

r

k

+

d

] (5)where, the polynomials

C

(

z

−

1

) and

Q

(

z

−

1

) arechosen to make the close-loop characteristic equa-tion to have all zeros inside the unit disc. If theprocess is minimum phase,

Q

(

z

−

1

) = 0 may bechosen, which is the case of minimum variancecontrol.3. SELF-TUNING CONTROL BASED ONGENERALIZED MINIMUM VARIANCECRITERIONIn the previous section, the generalized minimumvariance criterion was described for the case whereall plant parameters are known. Yet, in gen-eral, plant parameters are not accurately knownand parameter identiﬁcation should be performed.The assumption here is that while model param-eters are unknown, the structure of the model(model order) is known a-priori.When the parameters of the plant are not accu-rately known, the controller polynomials

G

(

z

−

1

)and

F

(

z

−

1

) are estimated, i.e.ˆ

F

(

z

−

1

) = ˆ

f

0

+ ˆ

f

1

z

−

1

+

...

+ ˆ

f

n

−

1

z

−

n

+1

ˆ

G

(

z

−

1

) = ˆ

g

0

+ ˆ

g

1

z

−

1

+

...

+ ˆ

g

m

+

d

−

1

z

−

(

m

+

d

−

1)

Let,

φ

T

= [

y

k

,y

k

−

1

,...,y

k

−

n

+1

,u

k

,...,u

k

−

m

−

d

+1

]be a vector containing measured and control sig-nal data,

θ

T

= [

f

0

,f

1

,...,f

n

−

1

,g

0

,...,g

m

+

d

−

1

]the vector containing the controller parameters,andˆ

θ

T k

= [ ˆ

f

0

,

ˆ

f

1

,...,

ˆ

f

n

−

1

,

ˆ

g

0

,...,

ˆ

g

m

+

d

−

1

]the estimation of

θ

.˚Astr¨om and Wittenmark (Astrom and Witten-mark, 1989) have studied self-tuning estimationby minimizing the least-squares criterion function

J

= 12

k

∑

j

=0

[

ε

j

]

2

(6)by the recursive least-squares algorithmˆ

θ

k

= ˆ

θ

k

−

1

+

P

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

1 +

φ

T k

−

d

P

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

ε

k

(7)

P

k

=

P

k

−

1

−

P

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

φ

T k

−

d

P

k

−

1

1 +

φ

T k

−

d

P

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

(8)where

ε

k

is the prediction error.In this paper the control law is:

u

k

=

−

ˆ

G

(

z

−

1

)

−

1

[ ˆ

F

(

z

−

1

)

y

k

−

C

(

z

−

1

)

r

k

+

d

] (9)where the estimates of control parameters aregiven by (Furuta, 1993

a

),ˆ

θ

k

= ˆ

θ

k

−

1

+ Γ

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

1 +

φ

T k

−

d

Γ

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

(10)

·

[

s

k

+

C

(

z

−

1

)

r

k

−

φ

T k

−

d

ˆ

θ

k

−

1

]Γ

k

= Γ

k

−

1

−

Γ

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

φ

T k

−

d

Γ

k

−

1

1 +

φ

T k

−

d

Γ

k

−

1

φ

k

−

d

(11)The stability of the self-tuning control algorithm,recursive estimates of controller parameters basedon generalized minimum variance criterion (REG-MVC), is analyzed by using Lyapunov function asfollows:

Theorem 1.

. Recursive estimates of controller pa-rameters based on generalized minimum variancecriterion: Given Γ

0

and ˆ

θ

0

, the estimate ˆ

θ

k

of thecontroller (9) satisﬁes the recursive equations (10)and (11), then the overall self-tuning controllercombining (9), (10) and (11) for system (1) isstable.Proof.

s

k

+

d

is written as

s

k

+

d

= (12)ˆ

G

(

z

−

1

)

u

k

+ ˆ

F

(

z

−

1

)

y

k

−

C

(

z

−

1

)

r

k

+

d

+

φ

T k

˜

θ

k

+

d

where ˜

θ

k

=

θ

−

ˆ

θ

k

. Using the control law (9), (12)is rewritten as

s

k

+

d

=

φ

T k

˜

θ

k

+

d

(13)Consider the candidate Lyapunov function:

V

k

= 12

s

2

k

+ 12˜

θ

T k

Γ

−

1

k

˜

θ

k

,

(Γ

0

>

0) (14)The time diﬀerence of (14) is:

V

k

=

V

k

−

V

k

−

1

(15)=

−

12

s

2

k

−

1

+ 12˜

θ

T k

Γ

−

1

k

˜

θ

k

−

12˜

θ

T k

−

1

Γ

−

1

k

−

1

˜

θ

k

−

1

(16)+12

s

2

k

=

−

12(˜

θ

k

−

˜

θ

k

−

1

)

T

Γ

−

1

k

−

1

(˜

θ

k

−

˜

θ

k

−

1

) + 12

s

2

k

(17)

−

12

s

2

k

−

1

+ 12˜

θ

T k

(Γ

−

1

k

+ Γ

−

1

k

−

1

)˜

θ

k

−

˜

θ

T k

Γ

−

1

k

−

1

˜

θ

k

−

1