You are on page 1of 10

ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Research Article

Active disturbance rejection control for fractional-order system
Mingda Li a,n, Donghai Li b,1, Jing Wang a,2, Chunzhe Zhao b,c,3
a
b
c

Engineering Research Institute, University of Science and Technology Beijing, No. 30 Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, China
State Key Lab of Power Systems Dept. of Thermal Engineering, Tsinghua University, Haidian District, Beijing 100084, China
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Chongqing Three Gorges University, Chongqing 404000, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 3 July 2012
Received in revised form
1 December 2012
Accepted 2 January 2013
Available online 8 February 2013
This paper was recommended for
publication by Dr. Y. Chen

Fractional-order proportional–integral (PI) and proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controllers are
the most commonly used controllers in fractional-order systems. However, this paper proposes a
simple integer-order control scheme for fractional-order system based on active disturbance rejection
method. By treating the fractional-order dynamics as a common disturbance and actively rejecting it,
active disturbance rejection control (ADRC) can achieve the desired response. External disturbance,
sensor noise, and parameter disturbance are also estimated using extended state observer. The ADRC
stability of rational-order model is analyzed. Simulation results on three typical fractional-order
systems are provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.
& 2013 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Fractional-order system
Active disturbance rejection control
Extended state observer
Stability

1. Introduction
Fractional-order system and control have been studied by
many researchers in the past decade because fractional calculus
can model real-world phenomena more precisely [1,2]. Some
fractional-order models, such as heating–furnace [3], gas–
turbine [4,5], and heat solid models [6] are obtained using system
identification methods. Compared with integer-order model, the
exact fractional-order model of a process usually has a complicated structure, which could be reduced and approximated to a
simple one [7,8]. Otherwise, fractional-order controllers, as a
generalization of traditional integer-order controllers, have been
suggested to enhance the performance of control systems [9,10].
Some fractional-order controllers have been introduced in the
literature such as the fractional PID controller [3,7,8,11–19], the
fractional lead–lag compensator [20], different generations of the
CRONE controllers [21–24], and optimal fractional controllers
[25]. It is particularly pointed out that Ref. [26,27] proposed a
new method to control single-link lightweight flexible manipulators in the presence of changes in the load. The nonlinear effects

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ8613581819826.
E-mail addresses: inventorlmd@gmail.com (M. Li),
lidongh@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (D. Li), wangj@nercar.ustb.edu.cn (J. Wang),
zcz@amss.ac.cn (C. Zhao).
1
Tel.: þ86 10 62782272
2
Tel.: þ86 10 62332598 6306.
3
Tel.: þ8613699252268.

have been compensated and the system transfer function is
reduced to a double integrator. The proposed method in this
paper is also a little similar to that.
For fractional-order model, fractional-order controller can be
naturally considered as the best controller. However, the active
disturbance rejection control (ADRC), proposed as an alternative
paradigm for control system design, offers a novel perspective
[28,29]. The active disturbance rejection concept originated from
Han [30], and full account of ADRC is provided in Ref. [31]. The
original ADRC contains tracking differentiator, nonlinear PID, and
extended state observer (ESO). Bandwidth-parameterization
method is proposed to improve ADRC for easy tuning [32].
Stability [33–35] and frequency response [36] are also researched.
ADRC has been applied to DSP-based power converter [37], delay
system [38], motion control [39–42], hysteretic system [43], highperformance turbofan engines [44], flight control [45], interconnected power system [46], decoupling [47], micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) gyroscopes [48,49], noncircular
turning process [50], and coordinated robust nonlinear boiler–
turbine–generator control system [51].
Motivated by these applications, a novel approach named
fractional-order dynamics rejection scheme is proposed for
fractional-order system based on active disturbance rejection
method. By treating the fractional-order dynamics as a common
disturbance and actively rejecting it, ADRC achieves the desired
response, and ESO estimates effectively the external disturbance,
sensor noise, and parameter disturbance. Stability analysis

0019-0578/$ - see front matter & 2013 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2013.01.001

which can be easily controlled by a proportional or proportional–derivative (PD) controller. the fractional-order derivative is important for long-term conditions. For the above-mentioned fractional-order systems. A general single-input–single-output fractional-order system can be expressed as an yðan Þ ðtÞ þ an1 yðan1 Þ ðtÞ þ    þa1 yða1 Þ ðtÞ þ a0 yðtÞ ¼ bm uðbm Þ ðtÞ þ bm1 uðbm1 Þ ðtÞ þ    b1 uðb1 Þ ðtÞ þ b0 uðtÞ BðsÞ bm sbm þ bm1 sbm1 þ    b1 sb1 þb0 ¼ AðsÞ an san þ an1 san1 þ    þ a1 sa1 þ a0 The prevailing control scheme for fractional-order system is the fractional-order controller. Active disturbance rejection control where an 4 an1 4    4 a1 40 and bm 4 bm1 4    4 b1 4 0 are arbitrary positive rational numbers. (6) and (9a) is equivalent to yða2 Þ þ a1 ða1 Þ a0 1 b0 y þ y¼ wþ u a2 a2 a2 a2 ð9bÞ Eq. f is referred to as the generalized disturbance because it   represents the fractional-order dynamics yða2 Þ  a1 =a2 yða1 Þ . Section 3 presents the ADRC and its stability analysis. Section 4 demonstrates the proposed algorithm of some examples. a A N ¼ lim ð 1 Þ ð1Þ a j dt a h-0 h GI ðsÞ ¼ b0 a1 sa1 þ a0 ð8aÞ GII ðsÞ ¼ b0 a2 sa2 þ a1 sa1 þ a0 ð8bÞ GIII ðsÞ ¼ b1 sb1 þ b0 a3 sa3 þ a2 sa2 þ a1 sa1 þ a0 ð8cÞ j¼0 where (  1)j a ! j is the usual notation for binomial coefficients. Obviously. and heat solid models. the transfer functions are ¨ The Grunwald–Letnikov’s definition is the most popular definition of fractional-order derivatives for fractional-order control and its application. a3 Z b1 ð7cÞ 2. such as (1 z)a. (5) is therefore rewritten as follows:   m2 m2 1 b h2m2 s q þh2ðm2 1Þ s q þ    þ 1 h2 ðsÞ b¼ m HðsÞ ¼ m1 1 1 1 h1 ðsÞ s q þ h1ðm1 1Þ s q þ    þh11 sq þ h10   i Pm2 q b i ¼ 1 h2i s þ 1 ¼ m1 . The general parameterization of n-order ADRC and ESO was proposed by Gao [32]. Eq. This paper is organized as follows: A brief introduction of the fractional-order system is described in Section 2.bj ði ¼ 0. Assumption is made that ai . the fractional-order systems are assumed to be bounded-input bounded-output (BIBO) stable according to the Matignon theorem [52]. Conclusions are given in Section 5. Fractional-order dynamics rejection scheme ð5Þ For Type II system. However.1. and simulation results show satisfactory system response. Li et al. . ð4Þ 3. Eq. systems into three simple structures [7].366 M. the second-order ADRC/third-order ESO is described as a Type II system in this section. All rational numbers can be expressed as a ratio of two integers.    n:j ¼ 0. denoted by w. (7b) can be rewritten as The transfer function is represented by GðsÞ ¼ 3. and the unknown internal dynamics      a0 =a2 y þ y€ þ b0 =a2 be Þu. ba0. respectively. gas–turbine. Referring to Eqs. Fractional-order systems In the zero initial condition. we consider the three most common types of fractional-order dynamic systems under the above conditions as follows: TypeI : a1 yða1 Þ þ a0 y ¼ b0 u ð7aÞ TypeII: a2 yða2 Þ þa1 yða1 Þ þa0 y ¼ b0 u ð7bÞ TypeIII: a3 yða3 Þ þ a2 yða2 Þ þ a1 yða1 Þ þ a0 y ¼ b1 uðb1 Þ þb0 u. the external disturbance. The first-order derivative of function f(t). it has the form. including a heating–furnace. The fractional-order derivative characteristic makes the system response slow and sensitive to disturbance. To explain the ADRC/ESO clearly. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 demonstrates that the fractional-order system can be controlled by ADRC. the integer-order derivative is only relevant for the current moment. which considers the fractional-order dynamics as a common disturbance to the desired integer-order dynamics and actively rejects this disturbance to present an integer-order system that is a single/ double integrator.1. (9b) can be rewritten as a1 a0 1 b0 y€ ¼ yða2 Þ  yða1 Þ  yþ y€ þ w þ ube u þ be u a2 a2 a2 a2     a0 1 b0 ða2 Þ a1 ða1 Þ € be u þ be u ¼ y  y  y þ y þ wþ a2 a2 a2 a2 ¼ f þbe u ð10Þ where f ¼ yða2 Þ    a1 ða1 Þ a0 1 b0 y  y þ y€ þ wþ be u a2 a2 a2 a2 where. is also considered. and an 4 bm. which achieves theoretical effectiveness and completeness but must be approximated to high integer-order differential form and is difficult to apply to ready-made manufacturing line. TavakoliKakhki proposed a reduction technique to approximate these a2 yða2 Þ þa1 yða1 Þ þa0 y ¼ w þb0 u ð9aÞ where y and u are the output and input. is defined as D1 f ðt Þ ¼ df ðtÞ f ðtÞf ðthÞ ¼ lim dt h h-0 ð2Þ Obviously. The current research proposes an integer-order control scheme. and m1 Zm2.    nÞ are positive. ð6Þ i P q s q þ im¼1 1 h s 1i 0 where q40. ESO is implemented in which the fractional-order dynamics are treated as a disturbance and is canceled. ! a 1 a d f ðtÞ 1 X j Da f ðt Þ ¼ f ðtjhÞ. the external disturbance w. m1 4 0. the fractional-order system is reduced to a unit gain single/double integrator. ¨ The Laplace transform of the Grunwald–Letnikov fractionalorder derivative is given by L½Da f ðtÞ ¼ sa FðsÞ ð3Þ where zero initial condition is considered. denoted by D1f(t). m2 Z0 are integers. Without loss of generality. In this paper. Then.1. this fractional-order system is a commensurate-order system.

because the output y (blue line) and ESO estimation (green line) are so closed to the desired responses (red line). Li et al. In practice. As P(0) 40 and Q(0) 40. Denoting z1 ¼ y^ . Thus. operation cost. 2q p r argz r 2q p . the Type II system is reduced to a unit gain double integrator. if knowledge of (b0/a2) is given. 50. ^ z3 ¼ f . 2. Common ADRC system. where oc is the controller bandwidth.M. Let the first group are not in the set z z A C. and   degQ ðsÞ rdegPðsÞ þ q ¼ deg sq PðsÞ .4 is taken for example. Hence. Hence. which moves toward the roots of P(s) when k increases.4. The system responses with different oo are shown in Fig. Thus. respectively. and h iT L ¼ 3oo 3o2o o3o ð13Þ 0 Sensor noise. The roots of sq P ðsÞ þ k1Q ðsÞ can be classified into two distinct groups. the roots of ksqP(s) þQ(s) are identical to the roots of sq P ðsÞ þ k1Q ðsÞ. (10). all observer poles can be placed at  oo. set z z A C. Proof. 3. Meanwhile. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 From Eq. Considering k 40. By adopting a properly designed and well-tuned ESO. There are only red lines in figure output y. The ADRC stability for a rational-order model is shown below. 3. The left root is in the second group. 20. the real parts of P(l) and Q(l) are both positive and approximately P(0) and Q(0). A large oc can increase not only the response speed but also the magnitude and rate of change of the control signal. P(s) be a polynomial with positive parameters and Q(s) be a polynomial that satisfy Q(0)40 and degQ(s)rdegP(s)þq. The second model in Section 4. the absolute values of the imaginary parts of P(l) and Q(l) are very small.. 10. Stability Lemma 1. Extended state observer 367 ð17Þ The closed-loop system transfer function is Define h ¼ f_ . and observer bandwidth oo. Control algorithm ^_ and _ and f. On the other hand. the roots in the second group are all outside the n o 1 1 p r argz r 2q p if k is sufficiently large. It must also be smaller than the frequency of the sensor noise. the only remaining issue is to show that the roots in n o 1 1 p r argz r 2q p . Parameters be and oo are fixed. The lower bound is related to stability margin and desired response. Eq. z2 ¼ y.2. and 20. Eq. The upper bound is related to the control signal. and oc is set as 1. which is the observer bandwidth. As the roots of a polynomial are continuously dependent on the parameters [53]. Let the integer q40. y. where r is the set point. The system responses with different oc are shown in Fig. a small oc can enhance the stability. for a large enough k. By applying the bandwidth-parameterization method. controller bandwidth oc should be tuned in a wide range between the upper and the lower bounds. The ESO outputs track y. from the condition discussed above. and oo is set as 10. If any root of P(s) is not in the set n o 1 1 z z A C. 1.3. Thus lim l ¼ 0: k. (10) is 32 3 2 3 2 3 82 _ 3 2 x x1 0 1 0 0 0 > >6 1 7 6 > 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 > _ > x x 0 0 1 b 4 25¼4 54 2 5 þ 4 e 5u þ 4 0 5h > > > > < x_ 3 x3 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 x1 > > >  6 7 > > > y ¼ 1 0 0 4 x2 5 > > > : x3 where x3 ¼f is ESO as 82 _ 3 2 z 0 > >6 1 7 6 > > > z_ 2 5 ¼ 4 0 4 > > > > < z_ 3 0 GðsÞ ¼ ð11Þ an augmented state and f can be estimated by 1 0 32 z1 3 2 0 3   76 7 6 7 1 54 z2 5 þ 4 be 5u þL yy^ z3 0 0 0 2 3 ð12Þ z1 > > >  6 7 > > > y^ ¼ 1 0 0 4 z2 5 > > > : z3 h iT where L ¼ b1 b2 b3 is the observer gain vector. 5. Using the bandwidth-parameterization method. then k0 40 exists such that all roots n o 1 1 p r argz r 2q p for of ksqP(s)þQ(s) are outside the set z z A C. It has been proved that be is very robust in active disturbance rejection based control system [25. 3. the arguments of P(l) . The little oc makes the system response slow and the big oc makes it fast. 2q ð14Þ y€ ¼ f f^ þu0  u0 kp s2 þ kd s þ kp l be a root in the first group. (10) becomes y€ ¼ f f^ þu0 . The first group is formed by q roots directed at the origin of the complex plain. which can be easily controlled by a PD controller   ^_ u0 ¼ kp ry^ þkd ðyÞ ð18Þ spondingly as k increases.e. 200 and 500.4 is also taken for example. all roots of sq P ðsÞ þ k1Q ðsÞ move toward the roots of sqP(s) corre- ð15Þ ð16Þ Therefore.þ 1 Fig. which are drawn at last. sampling rate. Ignoring estimation error when t-N. kp and kd are selected as kp ¼2oc and kd ¼ o2c .39]. the observer bandwidth oo should be larger than the controller bandwidth oc so that the observer can follow the controller. (15) is rewritten as y€ ¼ kp ðryÞ þkd ðy_ Þ 3. be can be tuned near (b0/a2). which should be filtered out and can be easily realized by the limited sampling rate. the control law is chosen as f^ þu0 u¼ be which is the desired response of ADRC. y^_ is used instead of r_ y^_ to avoid the r_ pulse. The little oo makes the ESO track slowly and the big oo amplifies the sensor noise. and state-space model are important in designing ESO. the state equation form of Eq. Parameters be and oc are fixed. 2. 2q each k 4 k0. A perfectly tuned oo must be larger than the state frequency to estimate effectively the state and disturbance. 2q Therefore. The second model in Section 4. outputs y and y_ and disturbance f can be estimated precisely. 100. i.

5 1 1.5 4 4.5 t 3 3.5 2 2.5 4 4.5 3 3.5 5 50 f 0 f 0 Disturbance f ESO estimation -50 -100 0 1 Output y ESO estimation Desired response y y 1 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Disturbance f ESO estimation -50 -100 5 200 0 0.5 0.5 1 1.5 5 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 2 2.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 t 3 3.5 0 0 0.5 t 3 3.5 0.5 3 3.5 t 3 3.5 4 4.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 3 3.5 1 1.5 4 4.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 2 2.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 5 200 Control signal Control signal 100 u u 100 0 0 -100 -100 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 t 3 3.5 1 1.368 M.5 p p.5 t 3 3.5 5 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 3 3.5 1 1. Li et al.5 0 5 50 0 0.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 4 4.5 3 3.5 1 1.5 3 3.5 2 2.5 1 1. System responses with different oo.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1 1.5 3 3.5 3 3.5 1 1.5 4 4.5 4 4.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 2 2.5 4 4.5 Fig.5 2 2.5 1 1. 2.5 4 4.5 5 100 Control signal Control signal 50 u u 50 0 0 -50 -50 0 0.5 5 0.5 50 0 -100 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 Disturbance f ESO estimation -50 -100 5 100 0 0.5 2 2.5 4 4.5 2 2.5 Disturbance f ESO estimation -50 -100 5 100 0 0.5 5 0.5 4 4.5 2 2.5 5 100 Control signal Control signal u 50 u 50 0 0 -50 -50 0 0.5 5 50 f 0 f 0 Disturbance f ESO estimation -50 -100 0 1 Output y ESO estimation Desired response y y 1 0 0.5 2 2.5 2 2.5 y y 1 0 5 50 0 0.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 4 4.5 4 5 f f 0 Disturbance f ESO estimation -50 0 0.5 1 1. and Q(l) are almost zero such that arg 4.5 3 3.5 4 4. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 1 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 4 4.5 1 1.5 0 5 50 0 0.

we can obtain p. : PðlÞ 2 2 As klq ¼  (Q(l)/P(l)) and k 40. Q ðlÞ ¼ argQ ðlÞargPðlÞ A  .

p .

q [ .5 5 . 2 2 4 4.p . arg l A p.

2Þ. and m2 Z0 are integers. the requirement can be met by choosing be such that beb0 40 and by enlarging 9be9. (20)]. Hence. 1=2q p.r1 Z ai. As rational numbers can be expressed in fractional form. o ai.r2 . the reader is referred to the web version of this article. Li et al.j s j¼0 where 0 ¼ ai.   by ðsÞ ¼ b1 p1 þ b2 s þ p1 b2 : cðsÞ ¼ ω =2 0. Based on the results in Ref. ð19Þ Theorem 1. Comparison of system response and ESO estimation of the heating– furnace model. (22) can be stabilized by the ADRC scheme [Eq. red line: desired response) l As Eq. g2. respectively. ð1=2qÞp rargz rð1=2qÞp if be =b0 is large enough. p : arg l2 2q 2q Considering l can be any of the q roots in the first group. 1=l a l h1 l . closeloop stability is guaranteed [54]. the argument     of any of its root is not in the interval ½ 1=2q p.6 y 369 ω =1 0.2 ω =20 1 ω =10 Gc ðsÞ ¼ ω =5 0.j 40 (j¼0. Then. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 where 1.8 1 bv ðsÞh2 ðsÞ. (p/2)]. [35]. q can be set equal to the lowest common multiple of the denominators in all the powers that exist in the model transfer function. Further     q   q    q   q  1  q  q þq ¼ deg a l h1 l Z deg by l h2 l : deg q a l h1 l 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 t Output y (blue line: output y. (22) can be expressed in the form of Eq. Simulation result In this section.1 Proof.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 t 60 70 80 90 100 2000 u q40.0 o ai. . h2 ðsÞ ¼ m2 X h2i i sq . Then. c(lq).y.y. ð1=2qÞp r argz r ð1=2qÞp [54]. 1 y h2 ðsÞ b0 . and the real numbers g1.8 1 t Control signal Fig.& ω =20 u 200 100 0 -100 -200 0 0. the proof is completed. 4. the following ADRC scheme can stabilize the closed-loop system: 8 <z_ 1 ¼ z2 b1 ðz1 yÞ þbe u ð20Þ : z_ ¼ b ðz yÞu ¼ 1 ðz þ p ðvz ÞÞ 2 2 1 1 2 1 be 1000 0 Control signal 90 100 Fig. the proof is completed according to Lemma 2.1 i¼0 Disturbance f ESO estimation f 0 -0. and q q by(l )h2(l ) are the polynomials of l. 500 ω =1 400 ω =2 ω =5 300 ω =10 Thus.j g 1. 3. and u represent the differential operator. a(lq)h1(lq). Eq. Then. the output.0 ¼1. and the control input.) indicating that arglqe[ (p/2). Let us assume that the following model is open-loop stable: yðsÞ ¼ HðsÞuðsÞ.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0. ai.4 0. (19) is open-loop stable.r2). As be is a controller parameter. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend. cðsÞ be aðsÞh1 ðsÞ þ by ðsÞh2 ðsÞ. the close-loop system can be expressed as yðsÞ ¼ Gc ðsÞvðsÞ. This condition means that Eq. b0   aðsÞ ¼ s s þ b1 þ p1 .ri ði ¼ 1. h1 m1 ðsÞ ¼ s q þ m 1 1 X h1i i sq . y. Thus. including a where s. Hence   1 1 =  p.2. green line: ESO estimation. from Lemma 1. b0 a 0 HðsÞ ¼ h1 ðsÞ i¼0 0 h20 ¼ 1. Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.r1). Assume that the following rational-order lineartime-invariant (LTI) model is open-loop stable: Pr2 g sa2. System responses with different oc.i a uðsÞ. m1 40.        q q q q Considering l1q a l h1 l ¼ l þ b1 þ p1 h1 l . any root of c(s) cannot be in the set    z z A C. all roots of h1(lq) are outside the  set z z A C. Proof. g2.4 0.2 1   q q  q Let l ¼ sq .& Lemma 2. h2m2 a 0. . 1. ADRC and the fractional-order dynamics rejection scheme are used on fractional-order systems. and m1 Zm2. ð21Þ -0.6 0. (19).& 4.1 o .i 40 (i¼1.2 0.i ð22Þ yðsÞ ¼ Pri 1¼ 0 2.M.1. .  2  bv ðsÞ ¼ p1 s þ b1 s þ b2 .

2 -200 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 15 100 t 0.5 t 2 2. Heating–furnace model The parameters were obtained considering external disturbance w Based on a set of measured values yni (i¼ 0. Comparison of system response and ESO estimation at 93% rated speed demand. a gas–turbine. Comparison of system response and ESO estimation on the heatsolid model. 1. and oc ¼0.2 1 y y 1 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 2 0.2 is easy.5 10 0 3 Disturbance f ESO estimation Control signal 0 0.5 t 2 2. tuning be ¼ 0:0001  b0 =a2 ¼ 1=14994:3. Control signal 0 0. 8. 7.5 3 1000 1 500 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 1 1. 1 2 3 4 heating–furnace. 5 0 -5 No.6 400 0 0.5 -14000 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 t 0 0.5 1 1.y. Podlubny et al. Among the three.5 3 Fig.5 2 3 Disturbance f ESO estimation 200 f 0.5 1 1.5 3 Fig. and some published models.5 0 0. Comparison of ADRC and FOPID on heating–furnace model. 4.5 1 1. 14994:3yð1:31Þ þ 6009:52yð0:97Þ þ 1:69y ¼ w þ u a2 yða2 Þ þ a1 yða1 Þ þ a0 y ¼ b0 u ð23Þ ð24Þ From the proposed approach presented in Section 3.M).5 0 0.5 t 2 3 10 u Output y 5 2000 0 0 -5 Control signal 0 -2000 2. a heat solid. The step response and control signal are shown in Fig. 0 2. a common ADRC system is shown in Fig.5 0. the most accurate model is described by a three-term fractional differential equation. 5 G1I ðsÞ ¼ 1 0:4s0:5 þ 1 2 GII ðsÞ ¼ 0:8s2:2 þ 10:5s0:9 þ 1 G3II ðsÞ ¼ 0:6s0:8 þ 10:9s0:3 þ 1 1 G4II ðsÞ ¼ 0:4s2:4 þs 0:8s1:2 þ 2 G5III ðsÞ ¼ 1:1s1:8 þ 0:8s 1:3 þ 1:9s0:5 þ 0:4 ADRC parameters be oo oc 2. which belongs to the Type II system presented in this paper.5 Model 3 Fig. Taking into consideration input disturbance w and the sensor noise.5 2 2.5 2 2. 5.370 M.1.1. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 1.5 500 10 2 300 10 4.5 x 10 -8000 -10000 1 y -12000 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 2 Control signal f -10 -20 0 0.5 1 1. which are .5 1 1.8 0 0.5 1 1.5 300 10 1 300 10 2 300 10 2.5 1 1. Comparison of the system response and ESO estimation at 90% rated speed demand. identified three models of a real experimental heating furnace [3].5 2 400 2.5 3 x 10 Table 1 Test models and ADRC parameters.1 constitutes a step signal when t¼ 60 and the sensor noise is considered. oo ¼100000. -4000 -6000 u 2. Li et al. External disturbance w ¼  0. The ESO outputs.5 u y 3 Disturbance f ESO estimation 0 Fig. 6. f 200 -500 0 -200 0 u 15 10 0.5 1 1.4 2.

2 2.5 2. 4 shows that ESO estimates y and f accurately.5 0 0.5 3 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 371 2 t 2.5 1 1.5 3 200 20 0 -20 -40 -60 0 f y 3 5 Control signal 1 f 2.5 1 1.5 1 1. Comparison of system responses and ESO estimations on hypothetical models.5 0 0 0. respectively.5 3 Model 3 1 0.5 0 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 3 40 3.5 3 .5 t Model 4 y 1 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 0 100 50 0 Disturbance f ESO estimation -200 Control signal u u 3 0 0 0 -50 2.5 Control signal 0 3 2.5 Disturbance f ESO estimation 50 -10 0 2 f f 0 100 Disturbance f ESO estimation 0 u Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 -50 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 4 Control signal 20 0 0 0.5 2 2. are compared with the actual y and f.5 1 1.5 t 2 2.5 1 1.5 150 100 -400 3 u 1.5 1 1.5 y Output y ESO estimation Desired response Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0.5 1 1.5 t 2 u 0 0. Li et al.5 t 2 2.5 2 2.5 3 3. Output y is the same as the desired response.5 1 1.5 3 3. To control this system.5 1 2 1.5 3 Control signal Model 2 f 1 0.5 1 1. 9. which led to the FOPID controllers   C FOPID1 ðsÞ ¼ 100 s0:31 þ10 þ s0:5 the estimation of y and f.5 1 1. respectively.5 1 1. Ref. The desired response is also given for comparison with y and y^ .5 2 2.5 10 Model 1 Disturbance f ESO estimation 0 0.5 2 2.M.5 4 Model 5 Fig.5 3 0 0. Fig.5 4 0 -50 Disturbance f ESO estimation -100 0 0. although output y is affected by the sensor noise.5 y y 1 0 0 0. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 cancelled effectively.5 0 -100 0.5 0 0.5 2 0 0.5 0.5 2 2. The fractional-order dynamics and the external disturbance are estimated and 1 Output y ESO estimation Desired response 0. [55–58] proposed turning methods.5 2 2.5 2 2.

thus.2 0. ADRC parameters FOPID be oo oc G2II 1 1000 60 C(s) ¼ 20. 9.8 y heated by an electrical radiator in which the temperature is measured by a pyrometer. The structure of this fractionalorder model also belongs to the Type II system as follows: GII ðsÞ ¼ b0 a2 sa2 þ a1 sa1 þ a0 Table 2 ADRC parameters and FOPID controllers.13–15]. Most are controlled 1 1.9435s)1.2.5 1 t ð28Þ 4.2 1.668 þ 1.4 ð25Þ 1. 10. and the output is the turbine speed. The simulation results are shown in Fig.4 0. The external disturbance w ¼  10 constitutes a step signal when t¼2 and sensor noise is considered. which are hypothetical models [10.4 0. the fractional-order model is 103:9705 0:00734s1:6807 þ 0:1356s0:8421 þ 1 1 ð26Þ Similarly. Comparison of ADRC and FOPID on hypothetical models.6 0 ADRC FOPID 0 0. the ESO output and the actual response are compared and shown in Fig. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 C FOPID2 ðsÞ ¼ 714:9739þ 107:0099 þ 287:7011s0:35 s0:6 C FOPID3 ðsÞ ¼ 736:8054 0:5885 818:4204s0:35 s0:6 C FOPID4 ðsÞ ¼ 1924:7 by fractional-order controllers. 8 demonstrate that the first-order ADRC/secondorder ESO performs well in the Type I system. ESO is very effective.2 1 0.8 Model 2 A heat solid model is categorized to belong to the Type I system 39:69s1:26 þ 0:598 0. oo and oc are tuned as oo ¼100 and oc ¼10. the parameters are obtained using an identification method based on minimization of the quadratic criteria-difference between measured and model values [6]. In general. The external disturbance w¼ 10 constitutes a step signal when t ¼2 and sensor noise is considered. Tuning be ¼ 0:03  1=39:69.11. the input and the output are voltages.4 ð27Þ The ADRC is tuned for 90% of the rated speed demand model.8 0. oo ¼300. Thus. but ADRC is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the fractional-order dynamics rejection scheme proposed in this paper.5 500 10 C(s) ¼ 6.372 M. The best be is (b0/a2)¼8532. the first-order ADRC/second-order ESO is more suitable.824 2. Model 4. Other examples This section includes some published fractional-order systems. At 90% of the rated speed demand.6 0.6 1. Heat-solid model GHS ðsÞ ¼ 0. For a Type I system.6 0.3.2 0 ADRC FOPID 0 1 0. 6.5 t 2 2.5]. be is set as be ¼10000 to come up with a realistic design. the gas turbine is operated between 90% and 93% of the rated speed demand.2 0 ADRC FO-[PD] 0 0. Gas–turbine model The fractional-order gas–turbine model is derived from the input–output operating data using the system identification method [4.4 1.4.205 1. 0. One Type I system.8 y GGT90 ðsÞ ¼ 0.2 þ 1) G3II G4II 2 500 30 C(s) ¼ 1. Fig.72 þ41. The input of the model is the fuel rate. The simulation results shown in Fig.5(s1. oo.4 1 0. the fractionalorder model is identified as 0. 111:8922 653:2185s0:325 s0:325 Fig.5 1 1. The external disturbance w¼ 10 constitutes a step signal when t ¼2 and sensor noise is considered. three Type II systems.59s0. at 93% of the rated speed demand. .524s  0.6. and output y is closed to the desired response.2 y 110:9238 GGT93 ðsÞ ¼ 0:0130s1:6062 þ 0:1818s0:7089 þ 1 0.4 t 4. and one Type III system are chosen to test the ADRC tuned in Table 1.3092(1 þ0. 7 shows the same response under the same be.2 At 90% of the rated speed demand.5 3 Model 4 Fig. and oc when the rated speed demand changes to 93%. For fair comparison. 5 shows the step response and control signal of ADRC and FOPID. which also shows the desired response. 0.5 2 Model 3 1. and oc ¼10 is easy. external disturbance and sensor noise are not considered. Li et al.

Computation of spectral sets for uncertain linear fractional-order systems. Capacitor theory. Interval methods for analysis and synthesis of linear and nonlinear uncertain fractional order systems. Bombay. Das S. external disturbance and sensor noise are not considered. ESO estimates y and f accurately. PhD dissertation. 1595–9. State-space representation for fractional-order controllers. Monje CA.22(2):343–50.56(3):900–6. Table 2 gives the re-tuned ADRC parameters and FOPID controllers.144:767–77. 2006. Control Engineering Practice 1996. Active disturbance rejection control: a paradigm shift in feedback control system design. Transactions of the ASME 1984.9(4):328–35 In Chinese. Fractional order model reduction approach based on retention of the dominant dynamics: application in IMC based tuning of FOPI and FOPID controllers.1(5):1451–60. Gao ZA. Das S. Dasgupta S. For fair comparison. in this paper.14. The stability of ADRC has been proven. Gao LQ.20(7):823–31. p. [55.29(1-4):363–85. It is clearly that ADRC is effective in fractional-order system control as FOPID. In: 16th IEEE international conference on control applications part of IEEE multi-conference on systems and control. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2005. Gao LQ.44(1):208–13. DSP-based active disturbance rejection control design for a 1kW H-bridge DC–DC power converter. From PID to active disturbance rejection control. Nouillant M.1(1):75–81. Automatica 2009. 2002. Das S. Ref.15] proposed tuning methods of FOPID to control model 2. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 2010.51(2):237–61. In: Proceedings of the 46th IEEE conference on decision and control. Lanusse P. The external disturbance w is also estimated and cancelled. Frequency response analysis of active disturbance rejection based control system. and Control 2012. Abraham A. fractional-order dynamic systems and PIlDm-controllers.51(2):294–8. In: Proceedings of the American control conference. [25] Vinagre BM. Based on ADRC. Gupta A. Improved model reduction and tuning of fractional-order PIlDm controllers for analytical rule extraction with genetic programming. p.4(8):1101–8. IET Control Theory Application 2007.10(4): 269–76. 2006. Fractional digital control of a [6] PETRA´Sˇ I. Chen YQ. a novel approach based on ADRC has been successfully applied on fractional-order systems. p. Advances in Fractional Calculus: Theoretical Developments and Applications in Physics and Engineering 2007:449–62. Dorcak L. IET Control Theory Applications 2007. The simulation test results of three physical models and five hypothetical models showed that the output was close to the desired response of ADRC. However. Bagley RL. 2006. model 3. Meanwhile. Ramos F. Huang Y. p.36(7):1017–21. Fractional-order control of a flexible manipulator. Fractional order ultra low-speed position servo: improved performance via describing function analysis. Active disturbance rejection control for uncertain multivariable systems with time-delay. [8] Das S. Pan I. Shi P. Chen YQ. ISA Transactions 2011. [22] Oustaloup A. [28] Gao Z. [11] Podlubny I.50(3):432–42. Chen YQ. Kalla R. [31] Han J.18(2):516–20. Liu GP. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 2007. 10 shows the step response of ADRC and FOPID. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 1990. Although the measurement of output y is affected by sensor noise. Luo Y. A fractional order proportional and derivative (FOPD) motion controller: tuning rule and experiments. This research has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China #51176086. Journal of Process Control 2010. International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems 2005. Zergainoh A.52(5):1271–7. 1997. [9] Chen YQ. Rees D. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on decision and control. Hu S. India: Indian Institute of Technology. synthesis. Nonlinear Dynamics 2002. [43] Goforth FJ. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 1999. . Journal of Dynamic Systems. ISA Transactions 2011. Gao Z. and parameter disturbance are estimated and rejected. Scaling and bandwidth-parameterization based controller tuning.50(4):557–72. [17] Luo Y.M. Gao for his guidance on ADRC and Professor D. On fractional derivatives. Iturricha AG. An alternative paradigm for control system design. In: Proceedings of the 36th conference on decision & control.51(3):477–84. International carpathian control Conference ICCC’. 4578–85. 2009. Chen YQ. [23] Sabatier J. [15] Luo Y. 6121–6. 2006. 2003. Gao Z. [39] Zheng Q. Han J. Gupta A. Design of fractional-order PIlDm controllers with an improved differential evolution. On the appearance of the fractional derivative in the behavior of real materials. [27] Monje CA. Feliu V. CRONE control: principles and extension to time-variant plants with asymptotically constant coefficients. [14] Biswas A. [20] Raynaud HF. Tip position control of a lightweight flexible manipulator using a fractional order controller. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 Adopting the same oc. Applied Mathematical Sciences 2009. IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation 1994. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Chinese control conference. Petras I. ISA Transactions 2012. FELIU V. 365–70. Gao Z. [7] Tavakoli-Kakhki M. DORCA heat solid: experimental results. Xue for the simulation toolbox. performances with nonlinearities and robustness-input immunity dilemma. Gao Z. Measurement. Capability of ADRC for minimum-phase plants with unknown orders and uncertain relative degrees. Gao Z. 1397–411. 2010. fractional-order system is controlled by fractionalorder controller. In: Proceedings of second IFAC workshop on fractional differentiation and its applications. [34] Zheng Q. An algorithm for stabilization of fractional-order time delay systems using fractional-order PID controllers. Fractional order control—a tutorial. [29] Gao Z. Haeri M. 5552–7. Conclusions Generally. Vinagre BM. IEEE CDC conference. [42] Tian G. 2001. Das S. Vinagre BM. Gao Z. ADRC can control easily fractional-order systems. Ubiquitous fractional order controls? Second IFAC workshop on fractional differentiation and its applications. 4989–96. 2001. Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank Professor Z. 4985–4990. Gao Z.15(4):946–55. ADRC is also likely appropriate in other types of fractional-order system controls. [41] Zheng Q. 373 [13] Luo Y. p. Control theory: is it a theory of model or control? Systems Science and Mathematical Sciences 1989. VINAGRE BM. Tuning fractional order proportional integral controllers for fractional order systems. ISA Transactions 2011. [26] Feliu V. References [1] Westerlund S. Shao S. 5. ISA Transactions 2012.45(10):2446–50. 4877–82. ISA Transactions 2011. Feliu V. Motion control design optimization: problem and solutions. where fractional-order dynamics are treated as a common disturbance and actively rejected. 2399–405. [36] Tian G. On validation of extended state observer through analysis and experimentation. Han J. and model 4. p. Saha S. In: 2009 American control conference Hyatt Regency Riverfront. A novel practical control approach for rate independent hysteretic systems.50(3):376–88. [19] Pan I. Fractional order [proportional derivative] controller for a class of fractional order systems. [5] Nataraj PSV. [18] Das S. Xue D. Jiang F.52(10):1964–9. 2009 American control conference. [21] Oustaloup A. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 2007. Benchmark tests of active disturbance rejection control on an industrial motion control platform. the external disturbance. p. Zheng Q. Mumbai. [35] Zhao C. Kostial I. 39–69. The CRONE approach: theoretical developments and major applications. Fractional-order systems and PIlDm-controllers. Thus.134(2):024505 (6 pages). The CRONE suspension. [16] Li HS. p. [24] Oustaloup A. Chen and all reviewers for their precious comments and suggestions. 2009. [3] Podlubny I. [10] Chen YQ. the proposed fractionalorder dynamics rejection scheme is demonstrated to be effective in fractional-order systems. A novel motion control design approach based on active disturbance rejection. 3501–6. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 2009. ˇ ´ K |L. Gupta A. 2007. Optimal fractional controllers for rational order systems: a special case of the Wiener–Hopf spectral factorization method. [30] Han J. [12] Hamamci SE. [4] Deshpande MK. [32] Gao Z.1(5):826–39. The authors also would like to thank Editor Professor Y. Pi YG. p. [33] Zhou W.50(1):53–60.52(12):2385–9. Using simple tuning parameters. Automatica 2000. In: Proceedings of the 2003 American control conference. Li et al. [37] Sun B. Moreau X. Wang CY. p. [40] Gao Z. Handling packet dropouts and random delays for unstable delayed processes in NCS by optimal tuning of PIlDm controllers with evolutionary algorithms. On the selection of tuning methodology of FOPID controllers for the control of higher order processes.3(10):491–508. 2007. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2009. all step responses are clearly and interestingly the same as the desired response. Fig. Pi Y. sensor noise. [38] Xia Y. On stability analysis of active disturbance rejection control for nonlinear time-varying plants with unknown dynamics. CRONE control: principle. Oustaloup A. A stability study of the active disturbance rejection control problem by a singular perturbation approach. [2] Torvik PJ. p. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 2009.

Lee DH. p. In: Proceeding of the 16th IFAC world congress. [53] Ostrowski A.15(5):1267–78. 118–23. Gao Z. Chen K. In: Proceedings of the 2007 American control conference. 4425–30. 223–8. [50] Wu D. In: 2008 American control conference. Chen Z.4(1):61–70. [52] Matignon D. Design and analysis of precision active disturbance rejection control for noncircular turning process. Flight control design using extended state observer and non-smooth feedback. p. Design of fractional order proportional–integral– derivative controller based on moment matching and characteristic ratio assignment method. 5176–81. Zhou B. Gao Z. Dong L. Han J. [54] Monje CA. Gao Z. Tong JP. Feliu V. p. Active disturbance rejection control for MEMS gyroscopes. A dynamic decoupling method for controlling high performance turbofan engines. 2007.20(4):365–74.51(3):410–9. [51] Yu T. Li et al. Solution of equations in euclidean and banach space. [56] Bouafoura MK. p. 16(1). ISA Transactions 2012. IET Control Theory and Applications 2010. [49] Zheng Q. Chen Y. Vinagre BM. 5:145–58. [55] Merrikh-Bayat F. 216–21. 2005. / ISA Transactions 52 (2013) 365–374 [44] Miklosovic R. In: IEEE CDC conference. [58] Tabatabaei M. Haeri M. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 2010. Method for designing PIlDm stabilisers for minimum-phase fractional-order systems. Gao Z. 2008. Zhang Y. 2005. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics 2009. Journal of Process Control 2010. 2007. London: Springer-Verlag. A fractional PID tuning algorithm for a class of fractional order plants. Stability properties for generalized fractional differential systems. Xu K. [46] Dong L. [57] Zhao C. Xue D.225(18):1040–53. Fractional-order systems and controls: fundamentals and applications. [45] Huang Y. New York: Acadamic Press. Karimi-Ghartemani M. Control and rotation rate estimation of vibrational MEMS gyroscopes. [48] Zheng Q. Chen YQ.56(7):2746–53. In: 16th IEEE international conference on control applications part of IEEE multi-conference on systems and control.374 M. Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering 2011. A dynamic decoupling control approach and its applications to chemical processes. Braiek NB. 1973. PIlDm controller design for integer and fractional plants using piecewise orthogonal functions.. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Chan KW. A robust decentralized load frequency controller for interconnected power systems. 2001. [47] Zheng Q. Xue D. Dong L. Lam J. . 1998. Gao Z. p. 2010. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on mechatronics and automation..Q. Li DH. In: ESAIM: Proceedings fractional differential systems models methods and applications. Coordinated robust nonlinear boiler– turbine–generator control systems via approximate dynamic feedback linearization.