454444

© All Rights Reserved

20 views

454444

© All Rights Reserved

- 1-s2.0-0005109896855579-main.pdf
- Uncertainty and Disturbance Observer
- Sensor Less Control for IM via Fuzzy Observer Design
- Generalized PI Control of Active Vehicle Suspension Systems With MATLAB
- Digital Control of Dynamic Systems G F Franklin An
- Second International Conference on Soft Computing, Control and Mathematics (SCM 2016)
- Second International Conference on Soft Computing, Control and Mathematics (SCM 2016)
- International Journal of Soft Computing, Mathematics and Control (IJSCMC)
- SCM
- IJACEEE
- International Journal of Soft Computing, Mathematics and Control (IJSCMC)
- Brochure ST
- Second International Conference on Soft Computing, Control and Mathematics (SCM 2016)
- Gain Scheduling
- The International Journal of Applied Control, Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJACEEE)
- Acc00 Boom
- IC6601 Imp Part B Theory Questions_Unit I
- 1 Benefit of Process Control
- DG Governer 1
- 4 Digital Control-Advanced Controllers_Autotuning.pdf

You are on page 1of 159

Techniques for

Electro-Hydraulic

Actuators in Robotics

Engineering

Nonlinear Control

Techniques for

Electro-Hydraulic

Actuators in Robotics

Engineering

Edited by

Qing Guo and Dan Jiang

MATLAB is a trademark of The MathWorks, Inc. and is used with permission. The MathWorks

does not warrant the accuracy of the text or exercises in this book. This book’s use or discussion

of MATLAB software or related products does not constitute endorsement or sponsorship by The

MathWorks of a particular pedagogical approach or particular use of the MATLAB software.

CRC Press

Taylor & Francis Group

6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300

Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable

eﬀorts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot

assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and

publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication

and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any

copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any

future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced,

transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or here-

after invented, including photocopying, microﬁlming, and recording, or in any information storage or

retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.

copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC),

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-proﬁt organization that

provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a

photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and

are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe.

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

http://www.crcpress.com

To my parents

and my daughter.

Qing Guo

Contents

Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii

Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xix

Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxi

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxiii

Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Kyoung Kwan Ahn, Andrew Alleyne, James E. Bobrow, I. Boiko, Fanping

Bu, Wenhua Chen, Roger Fales, Cheng Guan, Wei He, Zongxia Jiao,

Claude Kaddissi, Atul Kelkar, Hassan K. Khalil, Wonhee Kim, Miroslav

Krstic, Songjing Li, Guoping Liu, Noah D. Manring, Vladimir Milić,

Morteza Moradi, Prut Nakkarat, N. Niksefat, Huihui Pan, Yangjun Pi,

Gang Shen, Yan Shi, Xingyong Song, Hong Sun, Weichao Sun, Ioan

Ursu, Junzheng Wang, Qingfeng Wang, Shaoping Wang, Jianhua Wei,

Daehee Won, Chifu Yang, Bin Yao, Jianyong Yao, Hong Yu, Shuang

Zhang, and Zongyu Zuo

Chung Choo Chung, Can Du, Roger Fales, Wonhee Kim, Noah D.

Manring, Andrew Plummer, Claudio Semini, and Tian Yu

Can Du, Nigel Johnston, Noah D. Manring, Andrew Plummer, Claudio

Semini, Ming Yang, and Tian Yu

John C. Doyle, Cheng Guan, Vladimir Milić, and Kemin Zhou

Cheng Guan, Wonhee Kim, and Daehee Won

vii

viii Contents

Branko G. Celler, Wenhua Chen, Huijun Gao, Wonhee Kim, Miroslav

Krstic, Kouhei Ohnishi, Yanan Qiu, Steven W. Su, Chengwen Wang,

Daehee Won, and Paul Zarchan

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Foreword

When I undertook a project on the Lower Limb Exoskeleton in the year 2010,

I was very interested in the electro-hydraulic control system to drive this

complicated mechatronics plant. Hence I have tried to investigate many ref-

erences about the advanced control techniques used in the electro-hydraulic

system by many researchers. In these references, especially with the lack of

high-cited literature, it indicated that more and more engineers are required

to introduce new control ideas into mechanical control plants, not limited

to the traditional PI control method. Especially in certain terrible working

conditions, perhaps PI control has no favorable dynamic performance or

accuracy since its effective model is only two orders. If the control algorithm

is not changed, we must select a better sensor or actuator, and other elements

to replace the current hardware. This will lead to more cost and consumption

of more material. Thus, we need to update the control algorithm and look for

better control techniques to improve the performance of the electro-hydraulic

system. Based on this concept, now that I have my attention on it, it appears

to be a better idea to spread some advanced control techniques applied in the

electro-hydraulic control system, especially in typical fields such as robotics

engineering and fluid transmission engineering.

Electro-hydraulic servo actuator started gaining recognition in the 1960s

as a field. This actuator has many obvious advantages than the general

servo motor actuator, such as higher load-bearing and small size-to-power

ratio. Many mechatronics plants about multi-DOF manipulator, crane, space

manipulator, and lower limb of BigDog favor this actuator due to the exis-

tence of large dynamic external load beyond the capability of the servo

motor actuator. Furthermore, the electro-hydraulic servo actuator has high

control accuracy and fast response performance since the supply pressure

can be easily increased. The operation and reliability are also beneficial to

the automation control system. In addition, the energy saving of the electro-

hydraulic system can also be realized by some pump valve combined control

method.

For the researchers of automatic control field, the important purpose is to

apply several control methods into practice. However, different actual con-

trol plants have different characteristics. There is no generic control method

superiorly used in any plant. To address different control problems, the corre-

sponding control scheme should be designed and optimized. Although some

ix

x Foreword

control method does not have an ideal performance in special working con-

ditions, engineers cannot give up easily, that is, the issue is analyzed case by

case. Thus, in this book, many control methods handle many different con-

trol problems and conditions in electro-hydraulic system, which is only for

the reference of the reader.

Yan Shi

School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering

Beihang University

Beijing, China

Preface

tronic control engineering due to their higher load-bearing and small size-to-

power ratio. It was found that EHSs are beginning to be commonly applied

in some multi-DOF manipulator, crane, space manipulator, and lower limb

of BigDog. However, there exist several typical problems that are related

to EHS.

One of the fundamental difficulties in electro-hydraulic control is the unde-

sirable dynamic behavior of the designed controller due to the external load

disturbance that exists in EHS. This is caused by the driven force or torque of

the mechatronics plant. For different types of external load on the electro-

hydraulic actuator (EHA), it is often considered as zero [31] or unknown

constant [64], even a bounded uncertainty disturbance [7,60,62]. However,

Kim et al. [33] developed a high-gain disturbance observer (HGDO) with

backstepping control to compensate for the unknown external load while

guaranteeing the position tracking error within an acceptable level. Chen [9]

proposed a nonlinear disturbance observer integrated with a general non-

linear controller. In practice, the external load may be a largely unknown

structural disturbance of EHS, which should be compensated by the con-

structed controller. Even though the feedback control of EHS may be stable,

it is clear that the dynamic performance will be declined if the external load

increases beyond the maximum load capability of EHA.

The second problem in electro-hydraulic control system is degraded

dynamic and steady-state performance due to the hydraulic parametric

uncertainties existing in EHS. To handle this problem, several advanced

control methods have also been presented such as local model lineariza-

tions [5,38,49], robust H∞ controllers [20,42], quantitative feedback control

schemes [45], geometric control approach [55], output regulation control

[52], parametric adaptive controllers [1,18,23,24], state-constrained control

[26,27], robust controller with extended state observer [21,61], and distur-

bance observer [47]. These controllers usually adopted adaptive parametric

estimation law (APEL) to estimate the uncertainty parameter. It is to be noted

that the load disturbance and parametric uncertainty often lead to unex-

pected chatter, overshoot, and zero bias of tracking error. Thus, the designed

controller should be considered in EHS to guarantee not only the prescribed

accuracy of output tracking error but also the desirable dynamic responses

of system state.

In addition, as the common nonlinear control system with strict feed-

back form is usually handled by the well-known backstepping method [37],

many high-order derivatives of the virtual control variables are generated in

backstepping iteration, which easily result in the derivatives explosion [58],

xi

xii Preface

violent control, and saturation. To address this problem, the dynamic surface

control (DSC) was proposed to design a stable dynamic surface [54] instead

of a virtual control derivative. The advantage of DSC is to eliminate the

severe proliferation and singularity of the nonlinear system and guarantee

fast state convergence and desirable dynamic performance [50]. The dynamic

surface is often designed as a linear filter to transform high-order deriva-

tions of virtual control variables into a different stable dynamic surface. If

the DSC is not considered in the backstepping controller, Guo et al. [18] pro-

posed another computation method of virtual control variable to avoid the

derivatives explosion. This virtual control variable can be directly filtered by

a linear decayed memory filter to smooth the high-order derivatives.

In this book, based on the aforementioned contributions of many

researchers, the authors have tried their best to apply some typical linear and

nonlinear control techniques into EHAs, which drive a two-DOF robotic arm,

for example. Some control ideas and motion mechanism are partially similar

to many references. Both theoretical proof and simulation and experimental

results are given to verify the corresponding control method in detail. The

authors hope that these points of view can benefit the reader to study the

electro-hydraulic control system in depth.

information, please contact:

The MathWorks, Inc.

3 Apple Hill Drive

Natick, MA 01760-2098 USA Tel: 508 647 7000

Fax: 508-647-7001

E-mail: info@mathworks.com

Web: www.mathworks.com

List of Figures

in the EHS model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Figure 2.1 Symmetrical and asymmetrical hydraulic cylinders. . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Figure 2.2 Linearized model of the electro-hydraulic actuator. . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 3.1 Linear feedback control loop of the electro-hydraulic

system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 3.2 Closed loop from the load disturbance FL to the

cylinder position Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 3.3 Change of pipe pressure loss ptube from valve to

cylinder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Figure 3.4 Motion control mechanism of the two-DOF robotic arm. . . . . . 25

Figure 3.5 General framework for the mechanical movement. . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 3.6 Two cylinder dynamic lengths and force arms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 3.7 Mechanical properties curve of the motor with load. . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 3.8 Simulation model for solvering the dynamic pressure of

the cylinder with load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 3.9 Simulation result with the elbow joint θ 2 = 140°, the

sinusoidal input of the shoulder angle f u = 1.05 Hz. . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 3.10 Simulation result with the shoulder joint θ 1 = − 70°, the

sinusoidal input of the elbow angle f f = 1.85 Hz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 3.11 Simulation result with two sinusoidal inputs of the

shoulder angle f u = 0.6 Hz and the elbow angle f f = 1 Hz.. . . . . 37

Figure 3.12 Frequency domain characteristic of the open-loop

control system for the shoulder actuator for Equation 3.56. . . 38

Figure 3.13 Performance results of the PI controller design for the

shoulder actuator for Equation 3.56. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3.14 Frequency domain characteristic of the open-loop

control system for the shoulder actuator for Equation 3.57. . . 40

Figure 3.15 Performance results of the PI controller design for the

shoulder actuator for Equation 3.57. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

xiii

xiv List of Figures

Figure 3.17 Position tracking results of the upper arm cylinder. . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3.18 Position tracking results of the forearm cylinder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3.19 Dynamic control voltages of two servo valves.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 3.20 Two chamber pressures of two cylinders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 4.1 Dynamic ranges of KFLu and KFLf in one motion duration. . . . 50

Figure 4.2 Robust model with parametric and structural

uncertainties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 4.3 Block diagram of the closed-loop system with robust

performance requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 4.4 Frequency response of the open-loop system with

varying uncertainty parameters Kq , V t , b, and KFLu . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 4.5 Cross-linked feedback system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 4.6 Singular values of the inverse function μ−1 Wp and

n

the nominal closed-loop system μ Gc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 4.7 Block diagram for the description of robust stability and

robust performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 4.8 Maximum robust stability bound with varying

uncertainty parameters Kq , V t , b, and KFLu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 4.9 Maximum robust performance bound with varying

uncertainty parameters Kq , V t , b, and KFLu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 4.10 Frequency domain result of the designed robust

controller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Figure 4.11 Cylinder position response in time domain by the

designed robust controller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 4.12 Designed controller result in time domain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 4.13 Square response of two joint angles in simulation and

experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 4.14 Control voltage of two servo valves in simulation and

experiment for square demand.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 4.15 Sinusoidal response of two joint angles in simulation

and experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 4.16 Control voltage of two servo valves in simulation and

experiment for sinusoidal demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

List of Figures xv

control methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4.18 Sinusoidal response of the experiment result by the two

control methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4.19 Snapshots of the sinusoidal experiment process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 5.1 Step response experiment of the upper arm hydraulic

actuator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure 5.2 State estimations by the high-gain state observer in step

response experiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 5.3 Sinusoidal response experiment of the upper arm

hydraulic actuator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 5.4 State estimations by the high-gain state observer in the

sinusoidal response experiment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure 5.5 Comparison result in condition (1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 5.6 Comparison result in condition (2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Figure 5.7 The coordinated motion experiment results of the

robotic arm joints, sinusoidal demand input for the

shoulder actuator, and step demand input for the elbow

actuator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 5.8 Experiment video of coordinated motion for the robotic

arm joints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Figure 6.1 Block diagram of the control system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

Figure 6.2 Four state responses of the EHS by the proposed

controller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 6.3 Six estimation values by parametric adaptive estimation

laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 6.4 Control voltages of two hydraulic actuators by the

proposed controller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 6.5 Comparison result for the demand input

xs1d = 14.5 sin(2πt) mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Figure 6.6 Comparison result for the demand input

xs1d = 29 sin(π t) mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Figure 6.7 Simulation results of load disturbance estimation. . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Figure 6.8 Experimental results of the load disturbance estimation

on two EHAs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

xvi List of Figures

controllers, y1 —upper arm error, y2 —forearm

error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Figure 6.10 Experimental results of position tracking error by two

controllers, y1 —upper arm error, y2 —forearm

error. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

List of Tables

Table 3.2 Parameters of the Hydraulic Cylinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 3.3 Mechanical Parameters of the Two-DOF Robotic Arm . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 3.4 Parametric Analysis of the Shoulder Hydraulic Actuator . . . . . 34

Table 3.5 Parametric Analysis of Elbow Hydraulic Actuator . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 3.6 Parametric Analysis of Two Joint Angles Simultaneously

Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Table 3.7 Control Parameters and Performance Design with

Respect to Different Pressures of the Upper Arm

Cylinder with Different Loads in the Condition of

Extended State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 3.8 Control Parameters and Performance Design with

Respect to Different Pressures of the Upper Arm

Cylinder with Different Loads in the Condition of

Retracted State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 3.9 Hydraulic Parameters Used in Simulation and

Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 4.1 Hydraulic Parameters Used in Simulation and

Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Table 6.1 Specific Parameters and Brand of Main Components . . . . . . . . . 110

Table 6.2 Hydraulic Parameters Used in Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

xvii

Acknowledgement

Qing Guo and Dan Jiang acknowledge Professor Andrew Plummer, director

of Power Center for Power Transmission and Motion Control, Department

of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath for the funding assistance and

previous work. They thank Dr. Tian Yu and Dr. Can Du from Power Center

for Power Transmission and Motion Control for their collaborative study in

related electrohydraulic work.

During the writing of the book, the authors were assisted by many

researchers from electrohydraulic engineering regarding some innovative

methods and techniques. Although some theoretical methods have a long

way to go in the application of electrohydraulic engineering, scholars did

not give up using new control methods and techniques, which is much

appreciated by them.

The study was supported by UK Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council project (No. EP/H024190/1), the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (Nos. 61305092 and 51205045), the Postdoctoral Science

Foundation of China (No. 2013M542487), the Fundamental Research Funds

for the Central Universities, China (Nos. 20160250331 and ZYGX2016J160),

and the Open Foundation of the State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power &

Mechatronic Systems (No. GZKF-201515).

xix

Editors

Qing Guo earned his B.E. in automation from Harbin Institute of Technology

(Harbin, China) in 2003, and went on to earn his M.S. and Ph.D. there, in 2005

and 2008, respectively. In 2009, he became a lecturer at the School of Aero-

nautics and Astronautics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of

China (ChengDu, China), and in 2013, he was promoted to associate profes-

sor. From December 2013 to December 2014, he served as an academic visitor

at the Center for Power Transmission and Motion Control, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, United Kingdom. Dr. Guo’s

research interests include robust and adaptive control, mechatronic systems,

and rehabilitation robots.

Dan Jiang earned her B.E. in mechanical engineering (2002), and M.S. (2005)

and Ph.D. (2009) in fluid power transmission and control from the Harbin

Institute of Technology (Harbin, China). Since April 2009, she has been with

the School of Mechatronics Engineering, University of Electronic Science and

Technology of China (ChengDu, China) as a lecturer. Her research interests

include hydraulic control and microfluidic technology, and she has published

several research papers in these areas.

xxi

Contributors

School of Mechanical Division of Electrical and

Engineering Biomedical Engineering

University of Ulsan Hanyang University

Ulsan, Korea Seoul, South Korea

John C. Doyle

Andrew Alleyne

Control and Dynamical Systems,

Department of Mechanical and

Electrical Engineering, and

Industrial Engineering

Bioengineering

University of Illinois

California Institute of Technology

Urbana Champaign

Pasadena, California

Urbana, Illinois

Can Du

James E. Bobrow Department of Mechanical

Department of Mechanical and Engineering

Aerospace Engineering University of Bath

University of Bath Bath, United Kingdom

Bath, United Kingdom

Roger Fales

Department of Mechanical and

I. Boiko

Aerospace Engineering

The Petroleum Institute

University of Missouri

Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Columbia, Missouri

Halliburton Energy Services School of Astronautics

Houston, Texas Harbin Institute of Technology

Harbin, China

Branko G. Celler

Cheng Guan

School of Electrical Engineering and

Mechanical Design Institute

Telecommunications

Zhejiang University

University of New South Wales

Hangzhou, China

Sydney, Australia

Wei He

Wenhua Chen School of Automation and Electrical

Department of Aeronautical and Engineering

Automotive Engineering Beijing University of Science and

Loughborough University Technology

Loughborough, United Kingdom Beijing, China

xxiii

xxiv Contributors

School of Automation Science and School of Astronautics

Electrical Engineering Harbin Institute of Technology

Beihang University Harbin, China

Beijing, China

Noah D. Manring

Nigel Johnston

Mechanical and Aerospace

Department of Mechanical

Engineering Department

Engineering

University of Missouri

University of Bath

Columbia, Missouri

Bath, United Kingdom

École de Technologie Supérieure Department of Robotics and

Montréal, Québec, Canada Automation of Manufacturing

Systems

Atul Kelkar University of Zagreb

Mechanical Engineering Zagreb, Croatia

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

Morteza Moradi

Department of Engineering

Hassan K. Khalil

Islamic Azad University

Department of Electrical and

Chalos, Iran

Computer Engineering

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan Prut Nakkarat

Department of Mechanical and

Wonhee Kim Aerospace Engineering

Department of Electrical King Mongkut’s University of

Engineering Technology North Bangkok

Dong-A University Bangkok, Thailand

Busan, South Korea

N. Niksefat

Miroslav Krstic

Department of Mechanical and

Department of Mechanical and

Industrial Engineering

Aerospace Engineering

University of Manitoba

University of California

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

San Diego, California

Department of Fluid Control and Department of System Design

Automation Engineering

Harbin Institute of Technology Keio University

Harbin, China Yokohama, Japan

Contributors xxv

School of Astronautics Faculty of Engineering and

Harbin Institute of Technology Information Technology

Harbin, China University of Technology Sydney

Sydney, Australia

Yangjun Pi

State Key Laboratory of Fluid Hong Sun

Power and Mechatronic Systems School of Mechanical Engineering

Zhejiang University Purdue University

Hangzhou, China West Lafayette, Indiana

Department of Mechanical School of Astronautics

Engineering Harbin Institute of Technology

University of Bath Harbin, China

Bath, United Kingdom

Ioan Ursu

Yanan Qiu

Systems Department

School of Automation

Elie Carafoli National Institute for

Northwestern Polytechnical

Aerospace Research

University

Bucharest, Romania

Xi’an, China

Chengwen Wang

Claudio Semini

School of Mechanical Engineering

Department of Advanced Robotics

Taiyuan University of Technology

Italian Institute of Technology

Taiyuan, China

Genoa, Italy

School of Mechatronic Engineering School of Automation

China University of Mining and Beijing Institute of Technology

Technology Beijing, China

Xuzhou, China

Qingfeng Wang

Yan Shi State Key Laboratory of Fluid

School of Automation Science and Power and Mechatronic Systems

Electrical Engineering Zhejiang University

Beihang University Hangzhou, China

Beijing, China

Shaoping Wang

Xingyong Song School of Automation Science and

Innovation and Research Center Electrical Engineering

Halliburton Energy Corporation Beihang University

Houston, Texas Beijing, China

xxvi Contributors

State Key Laboratory of Fluid School of Mechanical Engineering

Power and Mechatronic Systems Shanghai Jiaotong University

Zhejiang University Shanghai, China

Hangzhou, China

Tian Yu

Daehee Won Department of Mechanical

Convergent Technology R&D Engineering

Department University of Bath

Korea Institute of Industrial Bath, United Kingdom

Technology

Ansan, South Korea

Paul Zarchan

Chifu Yang Raytheon Company

Department of Fluid Control and Waltham, Massachusetts

Automation

Harbin Institute of Technology Shuang Zhang

Harbin, China School of Aeronautics and

Astronautics

Ming Yang University of Electronic Science and

School of Astronautics Technology of China

Harbin Institute of Technology Chengdu, China

Harbin, China

School of Mechanical Engineering School of Electrical Engineering

Purdue University Southwest Jiaotong University

West Lafayette, Indiana Chengdu, China

School of Mechanical Engineering School of Automation Science and

Nanjing University of Science and Electrical Engineering

Technology Beihang University

Nanjing, China Beijing, China

Symbols

Two-DOF Two-degree-of-freedom

EHS Electro-hydraulic system

EHA Electro-hydraulic actuator

Ksv Gain of the servo valve

Tsv Time constant of the servo valve

u Input control voltage of the servo valve

Cd Discharge coefficient

w Area gradient of the servo valve spool

pL Load pressure of the servo valve

ps Supply pressure

xv Spool position of the servo valve

ρ Density of the hydraulic oil

y Displacement of the cylinder

yd Demand displacement

Ctl Total leakage coefficient of the cylinder

βe Effective bulk modulus

Ap Annulus area of the symmetrical chamber

Aa Annulus area of the single-rod chamber

Ab Annulus area of the no-rod chamber

Vt Half-volume of the cylinder

m Load mass

K Load spring constant

b Viscous damping coefficient

FL External load of the hydraulic actuator

k Positive constant in the hyperbolic tangent function

sgn(.) The sign function

tanh(.) The hyperbolic tangent function

zi System state error

xi System state

ϑi Parametric uncertainty

ϑ̂i Parametric estimation

ϑ̃i Parametric estimation error

θi Joint angle of the robotic arm

d Equivalent disturbance

d̂ Disturbance estimation

d̃ Disturbance estimation error

xxvii

1

Introduction

Fanping Bu, Wenhua Chen, Roger Fales, Cheng Guan, Wei He,

Zongxia Jiao, Claude Kaddissi, Atul Kelkar, Hassan K. Khalil,

Wonhee Kim, Miroslav Krstic, Songjing Li, Guoping Liu,

Noah D. Manring, Vladimir Milić, Morteza Moradi, Prut Nakkarat,

N. Niksefat, Huihui Pan, Yangjun Pi, Gang Shen, Yan Shi,

Xingyong Song, Hong Sun, Weichao Sun, Ioan Ursu, Junzheng Wang,

Qingfeng Wang, Shaoping Wang, Jianhua Wei, Daehee Won, Chifu Yang,

Bin Yao, Jianyong Yao, Hong Yu, Shuang Zhang, and Zongyu Zuo

CONTENTS

1.1 Parametric Uncertainty Problem of EHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2 Largely Unknown Load Disturbance of EHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3 Control Method Illustration in EHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

automation system, that is, servo motor, electro-hydraulic, and pneumatic.

The servo motor system has high mechanical efficiency and control accuracy

than the other two actuators. However, its power is restricted by the element

size and structure of motor and driver. Pneumatic actuator is an environ-

mentally friendly actuator, which has no obvious pollution to environment.

But the pneumatic actuator has very low execution efficiency in engineering.

Many available energy dissipates as heat. Although the mechanical efficiency

of the electro-hydraulic actuator (EHA) is not higher than that of the servo

motor actuator, electro-hydraulic servo systems (EHSs) are nowadays more

widely used in mechatronic control engineering due to their higher load-

bearing and small size-to-power ratio [40] than the general servo motor

actuator. When the supply pressure is large, the dynamic response may also

be faster than the servo motor under some large external load and other

unknown disturbance. It was found that EHSs are beginning to be commonly

applied for large power equipment such as wheel loaders [13], load simula-

tors [63], insulator fatigue test devices [66], and exoskeletons [22]. EHA is

a favorable control executive part to realize some multi-DOF manipulator,

crane, space manipulator, and lower limb of BigDog due to the large dynamic

external load.

1

2 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

system such as linear classical control, robust control, nonlinear control,

and adaptive control methods. Each method has its own advantages to

address different control problems. The authors have investigated numer-

ous references about the hydraulic control of EHS. Generally, four typical

problems need to be addressed in EHS control (Figure 1.1). The first prob-

lem is parametric uncertainties such as effective bulk modulus β e , leakage

coefficient of the cylinder Ctl , and hydraulic oil density ρ. These param-

eters are often unknown constants in different working conditions. To

solve the unknown constant parameters, the parametric adaptive estima-

tion (PAE) law is adopted to estimate some parametric uncertainties. The

second problem is unmodeled uncertainties, such as nonlinear friction of

cylinder and viscous resistance of hydraulic oil [3,17]. These parameters

are dynamic variables, which are often adopted by extended state observer

(ESO) [61] or disturbance observer (DO) [59]. The third problem is output

feedback control, which assumes that some system states are not directly

measured from sensors. Thus, we need to construct the high-gain observer

[33–35] to estimate some unmeasured system states, which are used in the

x1 = x2

1

x2 = (–Kx1 – bx2 + Ap x3 – FL)

m

4βe Ap 4βe Ctl 4βe Cdw

x3 = x2 x3 + ps – tanh(kx4)x3x4 + Δf (t)

Vt Vt Vt ρ

Fo PAE—Parametric adaptive estimation

1 Ksvu δ(t) ur

x4 = – x + + EH prob ESO—Extended state observer

Tsv 4 Tsv Tsv S m lem HGOB—High-gain observer

od s in

el DOB—Disturbance observer

QFC—Quantitative feedback control

EHS control SPT—Singular perturbation theory

Problem 1: Problem 2:

Problem 3: Problem 4:

Parametric Unmodeled

uncertainty Unknown state External load

uncertainty

Geometric Output

Backstepping

PID, QFC,

Robust H∞ control regulation

SPT

approach control

FIGURE 1.1

Some typical problems and the corresponding solutions in the EHS model.

Introduction 3

controller design. The last problem is the external load on the EHA, which

is a largely unknown dynamic variable. To address the external load, a

simple method is adopted by the DO. In this book, we mainly consider

Problems 1 and 4, that is, parametric uncertainty and external load dis-

turbance. These two problems may degrade the dynamic behavior and

steady-state control accuracy of EHS and the robustness of the designed

controller.

Since some unknown parametric variation may be significant in differ-

ent working conditions (i.e., phenomenon such as oil temperature varia-

tions, pressure-flow characteristics, hysteresis in flow gain characteristics,

oil leakage, characteristics of valves near null) [42], many state/output

feedback controllers cannot be well established to guarantee the dynamic

performance of EHS. Thus, the parametric estimation is one available

method to obtain unknown parameters by state observer construction inte-

grated with other nonlinear controller. However, different from paramet-

ric uncertainties, the main disturbance is the largely unknown torque/-

force disturbance caused by external loadings on the hydraulic actuator.

So, further references have been more focused on disturbance rejection

of EHS. For instance, Reference 64 proposed a nonlinear controller in

which the external load is treated as an uncertain but bounded distur-

bance. It has been shown that the closed-loop stability can be directly

analyzed by Lyapunov technique. Yao and Bu [7,60] assumed that the

maximum relative uncertainty of the external load disturbance is bounded

by a known value and proposed a discontinuous projection-based adap-

tive backstepping controller. Kim et al. [33] presented a DO with propor-

tional integral (PI) control form to estimate a biased sinusoidal external

load. Then, Won et al. [59] developed a high-gain disturbance observer

(HGDO) with backstepping to compensate for the unknown external load

and guaranteed tolerance of the position tracking error. These references

denote that the external load with wide variations is an important fac-

tor to decline the dynamic response performance of the hydraulic con-

troller, especially in some critical condition where the external load of

the hydraulic actuator is close to the limitation. Therefore, to improve

the dynamic behavior of EHS, various advanced control approaches were

developed to estimate unknown parametric uncertainties and unmeasured

disturbance.

Recently, some robust H∞ control methods [19,20,28,29] and quantitative

feedback theories [45] have been presented to overcome parametric uncer-

tainties and to guarantee the robustness of the controller. A geometric control

4 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

tracking position of a single-rod cylinder. In the past two decades, back-

stepping control was widely used in EHS [2,3,56]. If the model of EHS is

a strict feedback system [32,37], the backstepping controller based on state

feedback can be well implemented. Bu and Yao [8] presented a discontin-

uous projection-based adaptive backstepping controller to estimate some

unknown parameters of the asymmetric hydraulic actuator. Subsequently,

Guan and Pan [16,17] also constructed a parametric adaptive estimation

law to guarantee the asymptotic convergence of the backstepping con-

troller. Kaddissi et al. [31] proposed an equivalent parameter identification

method by the least squares and obtained better performance than the lin-

ear controller. Ahn et al. [1] presented an adaptive position control for a

pump-controlled EHA based on an adaptive backstepping control scheme.

To address some unmeasured physical states, Sun and Chiu [53] proposed a

perturbation observer to estimate the load pressure of a single-rod hydraulic

actuator. Pi and Wang [48] designed an observer-based cascade controller

to estimate the disturbance force in the hydraulic manipulator. In addition,

some output observers [34,35,44,61] were used to estimate hydraulic states

with less measured information than state feedback observers. These various

observers were verified in backstepping or other nonlinear control method.

The other difficulty in EHS is the undesirable dynamic behavior of the

established controller due to the ignorance of the largely unknown distur-

bance caused by the dynamic external load (i.e., torque/force). As far as

the authors know, the external load was not well addressed in aforemen-

tioned studies. If the external load disturbance is treated as zero [56] or a

known constant [1], even bounded by a known value [64], many novel con-

trollers are designed conveniently by Lyapunov technique. Thus, Yao and Bu

[7,60] assumed that the maximum relative uncertainty of the external load

disturbance was bounded by a known value and proposed a discontinuous

projection-based adaptive backstepping controller. Yao et al. [62] presented

an adaptive robust controller to handle the nonlinear parametric uncertainty

in an auxiliary function. In this approach, the first and second derivatives

of the external load disturbance were bounded by two constants directly in

order to conveniently obtain the negative definite Lyapunov function. Then,

he also assumed that the modeling uncertainty and the external load dis-

turbance became zero after a finite time in Reference 61. Kaddissi et al. [31]

proposed an equivalent parameter identification method by the least squares

and obtained better performance than the linear controller. In this method,

Introduction 5

the load torque disturbance was still assumed as zero. However, in engineer-

ing practice, the external load is often the largely unknown disturbance of

EHS. Thus, the designed controller would not only eliminate system state

error but also suppress the unknown disturbance of the external load. Even

though the EHS may be stable, it is clear that the dynamic performance will

be declined if the external load increases beyond a definite boundary [25].

Subsequently, Kim et al. [36] proposed a flatness-based nonlinear con-

troller to improve the position tracking performance while assuming the

known constant external load. Then his research team developed a HGDO

with backstepping control to compensate for the unknown external load

and guaranteed the position tracking accuracy. In this novel approach, the

DO had two different forms. One was a second-order high-pass filter [33]

to estimate a sinusoidal disturbance with unknown frequency. The other

was a HGDO [59] to estimate the largely unknown disturbance caused by

the friction, the load force, and the parameter uncertainties. Both the sim-

ulation and the experimental results indicated that the external load can

be well compensated, as well as the extended system state error was ulti-

mate boundedness. Chen proposed a nonlinear DO integrated with general

nonlinear controller [9]. In practice, the external load may be the largely

unknown structural disturbance of EHS, which should be compensated by

the constructed controller.

Recently, there have been several control methods applied in electro-

hydraulic control system. The classical approach to the control of EHSs is

proportional integral derivative (PID) control, which is easy to be used in

industry. Variable control parameters of PID controllers [6,43] are adopted

to suit the variable characteristics of the dynamic model. The advantage of

the linear PID controller is the simple structure and the feedback variable

is only the output information, not all the state or other indirect computed

variables. However, the linear controller cannot effectively compensate the

external load and has an obvious bias error that exists in tracking response

due to the parametric uncertainty. Thus, some advanced controllers are used

in EHS to improve the dynamic performance under the uncertain hydraulic

parameters and load disturbances. The robust controller can improve the

robustness of the feedback control system according to small gain theorem.

But the controller is relatively conservative. The parametric adaptive control

method often addresses the parametric uncertainty and has an obvious effect

of the parametric estimation. However, some unmodeled uncertainties are

not well addressed due to the unknown boundness of the hydraulic parame-

ter. Furthermore, the nonlinear model of EHS is assumed to be strict feedback

6 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

the virtual control variable.

The feedback control method is often of two forms, that is, the state feed-

back and the output feedback. The former needs adequate sensors to measure

the state of EHS. In practice engineering, due to the cost constraints and

measurement reliability of engineering, many hydraulic states may not be

easy to obtain, such as pressures in different cylinder chambers, spool posi-

tion, and its velocity. Therefore, the output feedback control method should

be investigated to achieve a similar performance to the state feedback con-

trol. Some output state observers are used in EHS to estimate hydraulic

states, which can be used in backstepping or other nonlinear control method

[34,35,44]. These state observers are designed as proportional or PI struc-

ture. If the observer is convergence, the dynamic behavior can be obviously

improved. Apart from the above-mentioned observer, Sun presented a per-

turbation observer to estimate the different chamber pressure of the single-

rod hydraulic actuator [53]. Pi and Wang constructed a DO to estimate and

compensate the unknown disturbance in the hydraulic manipulator [48].

2

Model Construction of Electro-Hydraulic

Control System

Noah D. Manring, Andrew Plummer, Claudio Semini, and Tian Yu

CONTENTS

2.1 Hydraulic Cylinder Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2.1.1 Symmetrical Cylinder Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

2.1.2 Asymmetrical Cylinder Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2.2 Servo Valve Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2.2.1 Load Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2.2 Spool Position Response Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3 Parametric Uncertainty and Load Disturbance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4 Nonlinear State-Space Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.5 Linearized Model of Electro-Hydraulic Actuator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

such as hydraulic cylinder, servo valve, mechatronics plant, and hydraulic

parametric uncertainty. In terms of the model construction of the electro-

hydraulic actuator, the mechatronics plant can be omitted and is usually

replaced by the so-called external load disturbance. In this chapter, these

model elements are illustrated in detail.

In EHS, the hydraulic cylinder is one type of motion actuator to realize the

linear stretch of the plant. It often has two different styles, that is, symmetri-

cal hydraulic cylinder and asymmetrical hydraulic cylinder. The former is a

double-rod acting mechanism in both sides of the cylinder and the latter is

a single-rod acting mechanism in only one side of the cylinder as shown in

Figure 2.1.

7

8 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Vt/2 Vt/2

Load disturbance

Ap Ap FL

Qa pa pb

Qb

Servo valve

Relief valve

ps pr

Pump

Tank

Vb

Va Load disturbance

Aa Ab FL

pa pb

Qa Qb

Servo valve

Relief valve

ps pr

Pump

Tank

FIGURE 2.1

Symmetrical and asymmetrical hydraulic cylinders: (a) the double-rod acting mechanism of the

symmetrical hydraulic cylinder and (b) the single-rod acting mechanism of the asymmetrical

hydraulic cylinder.

By referring to the symmetrical cylinder model mentioned in References 40

and 41, the flow-pressure continuous equation of the hydraulic cylinder is

Vt

QL = Ap ẏ + Ctl pL + ṗL , (2.1)

4βe

Model Construction of Electro-Hydraulic Control System 9

ment of the cylinder, Ctl is the coefficient of the total leakage of the cylinder, β e

is the effective bulk modulus, Ap is the annulus area of the cylinder chamber,

and V t is the half-volume of the cylinder.

When the cylinder starts to move, the spring force and the viscous friction

of hydraulic oil are two typical resistances of the electro-hydraulic system.

Especially in load condition, the hydraulic pressure has to overcome the

external load force to drive the plant motion. Thus, if the major viscous

friction of hydraulic oil is simplified as coulomb friction, the mechanical

dynamic equation driven by the hydraulic actuator can be constructed as

follows:

mÿ = pL Ap − Ky − bẏ − FL , (2.2)

where m is the load mass, K is the load spring constant, b is the viscous

damping coefficient, and FL is the external load on the hydraulic actuator.

The flow-pressure continuous model of the hydraulic cylinder is given by

Aa ẏ + Ctl (pa − pb ) + (V0a + Aa y)ṗa /βe = Qa

, (2.3)

Ab ẏ + Ctl (pa − pb ) − (V0b − Ab y)ṗb /βe = Qb

where Qa and Qb are load flows with the spool position of the servo valve

xv ≥ 0 and xv < 0, respectively, pa and pb are the pressures inside the two

chambers of the cylinder, Aa and Ab are the ram areas of the two chambers,

and V 0a = V t /2 and V 0b = V t /2 are the initial total control volumes of the

two cylinder chambers, respectively.

Different from the symmetrical cylinder, the load pressure of the asym-

metrical cylinder pL = (pa Aa − pb Ab )/Aa , the mechanical dynamic equation

is described as follows:

The servo valve model includes the load flow model and the spool posi-

tion response model. In terms of the zero-opened four-way spool valve,

the load flow of the valve can be described differently for symmetrical and

asymmetrical cylinders, respectively.

10 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

For the symmetrical cylinder, the load flow of the valve is simplified as

follow:

1

QL = Cd wxv (ps − sgn(xv )pL ), (2.5)

ρ

where xv is the spool position of the servo valve, ps is the supply pressure

of the pump, Cd is the discharge coefficient, w is the area gradient of the

servo valve spool, and ρ is the density of the hydraulic oil, and sgn(.) is the

sign function, that is, sgn(x) = 1, if x > 0, else if x < 0, sgn(x) = − 1, else

sgn(x) = 0.

For the asymmetrical cylinder, the load flow of the valve cannot be

described as QL , and the flow in the two directions Qa and Qb is given by

Cd wxv 2(ps − pa )/ρ xv ≥ 0

Qa = ,

C wx 2(p − pr )/ρ xv < 0

d v a (2.6)

Cd wxv 2(pb − pr )/ρ xv ≥ 0

Qb = ,

Cd wxv 2(ps − pb )/ρ xv < 0

where Qa is the main load flow as xv ≥ 0, Qb is the main load flow xv < 0,

and pr is the return pressure of the tank.

The spool position response model describes the relationship between the

spool position and the input control voltage. Without loss of generality, this

model can be constructed as three forms, that is, a simplified model, first-

order linear dynamic model, and second-order dynamic model.

For the simplified model, since the cut-off frequency of the servo valve

is far greater than the control system bandwidth, the valve dynamics can

be neglected in model construction [33]. Thus, the spool position response

model is given by

xv = Ksv u, (2.7)

where Ksv is the gain of the servo valve and u is the control voltage of the

servo valve.

For the one-order linear dynamic model, it is considered one time constant

in the spool position response to denote the command delay of the servo

valve, which is constructed as follows:

Model Construction of Electro-Hydraulic Control System 11

If both the delay and damping characteristics are considered in the spool

position response model of the servo valve, then the second-order dynamic

model is given by

2 2

ẍv + 2ζsv ωsv ẋv + ωsv xv = Ksv ωsv u, (2.9)

Electro-hydraulic systems often have some model uncertainties such as para-

metric uncertainty and external load disturbance. The former is mostly due

to unknown viscous damping, load stiffness, variations in control fluid

volumes, physical characteristics of the valve, bulk modulus, and oil temper-

ature variations [13], and the latter is caused by the driven force or torque

of the mechatronic plant. However, in practice, all the parametric uncer-

tainty and load disturbance are unknown. Without loss of generality, some

hydraulic parametric uncertainties are considered to be bounded by several

unknown or known constants as follows:

(2.10)

Ctl = C̄tl + Ctl, ρ = ρ̄ + ρ, Vt = V̄t + Vt ,

where C̄d , w̄, β̄e , C̄tl , ρ̄, and V̄t are known normal hydraulic parameters, and

their uncertainties are constrained as follows:

βe min ≤ βe ≤ βe max , Ctl min ≤ Ctl ≤ Ctl max , (2.11)

ρmin ≤ ρ ≤ ρmax , Vt min ≤ Vt ≤ Vmax .

As shown in Equation 2.11, Cd min , Cd max , wmin , wmax , βe min , βe max ,

Ctl min , Ctl max , ρmin , ρmax , Vt min , and Vt max are unknown or known

boundaries of parametric uncertainties.

Remark 2.1

The above parametric uncertainties should be estimated in controller design.

Otherwise, the dynamic performance of the electro-hydraulic system will be

declined and the robustness of the designed controller will also be degraded.

electro-hydraulic system. Since FL is caused by the driven force or torque of

the mechatronic plant, it is reasonable to assume that the dynamic value of FL

12 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

cylinder, that is, y, ẏ, ÿ. Without loss of generality, FL can be described as the

following two forms.

The first form of FL (t) is bounded by

|FL (t)| ≤ c0 y + c1 ẏ + c2 ÿ , (2.12)

Remark 2.2

By Equation 2.12, the boundary discussion of FL (t) can be transformed into

the direct state dynamics of y. Thus, the stability analysis of the electro-

hydraulic system model and the control design become easy.

Remark 2.3

The advantage of Equation 2.13 is very clear to denote the constraint of load

disturbance. However, if the boundary FL is unknown, the DO should be

used to estimate FL rather than to estimate the dynamic unknown vari-

able FL (t). Even though FL is a known value, the controller is relatively

conservative as FL is discussed as a direct uncertainty constraint in control

design.

According to Equations 2.1, 2.2, and 2.7, the simplest electro-hydraulic

actuator model without the spool position response model is given by

⎧

⎪ ẋ1 = x2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨ 1

ẋ2 = (−Kx1 − bx2 + Ap x3 − FL (t))

m , (2.14)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 4β A 4β C 4β C wK

⎪

⎩ ẋ3 = −

e p

x2 −

e tl

x3 +

e d

√

sv

ps − sgn(u)x3 u

Vt Vt Vt ρ

where [x1 , x2 , x3 ]T = [y, ẏ, pL ]T are three state variables of the electro-

hydraulic actuator and u is the control variable of the servo valve.

Model Construction of Electro-Hydraulic Control System 13

electro-hydraulic actuator model is constructed as follows:

⎧

⎪

⎪ ẋ1 = x2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1

⎪

⎪ ẋ2 = (−Kx1 − bx2 + Ap x3 − FL (t))

⎪

⎪

⎨ m

4βe Ap 4βe Ctl 4βe Cd w , (2.15)

⎪

⎪ ẋ = − x − x + √ ps − sgn(x4 )x3 x4

⎪

⎪

3

V

2

V

3

V ρ

⎪

⎪

t t t

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1 K

⎩ ẋ4 = − x4 +

sv

u

Tsv Tsv

where [x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]T = [y, ẏ, pL , xv ]T are four state variables of the electro-

hydraulic actuator.

If the asymmetrical cylinder model is considered with the second-order

spool position response model, then, according to Equations 2.3, 2.4, 2.6,

and 2.9, the electro-hydraulic actuator model is given by

⎧

⎪ ẋ1 = x2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ ẋ2 = (x3 Aa − x4 Ab − Kx1 − bx2 − FL )/m

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ ẋ3 = h1 (−Aa x2 − Ctl (x3 − x4 ))

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨ + h1 Cd wx5 2/ρ s1 ps − x3 + s2 x3 − pr

, (2.16)

⎪

⎪ ẋ4 = h2 (Ab x2 + Ctl (x3 − x4 ))

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ − h2 Cd wx5 2/ρ s1 x4 − pr − s2 ps − x4

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ ẋ5 = x6

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ 2 2

ẋ6 = −2ζsv ωsv x6 − ωsv x5 + Ksv ωsv u

βe βe

h1 = , h2 = ,

V0a + Aa x1 V0b − Ab x1

(2.17)

1 + sgn(x5 ) 1 − sgn(x5 )

s1 = , s2 = .

2 2

Remark 2.4

The above three models (2.14), (2.15), and (2.16) are all used in practical con-

trol design. The difference is the model accuracy. In conventional condition,

the model (2.14) is enough to describe the dynamics of the electro-hydraulic

system. However, in largely unknown load disturbance and parametric

uncertainty, the models (2.15) and (2.16) are necessary to be used in advanced

control method.

14 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

The linearized model of the electro-hydraulic actuator is necessary to be used

in the linear controller design such as PID, which is very widely adopted in

engineering (Figure 2.2). For the symmetrical cylinder, the linearized model

is derived from Equations 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.8.

At first, the load flow QL in Equation 2.5 is linearized as follows:

QL = Kq xv + Kc pL , (2.18)

tion 2.5 as follows:

∂QL ps − pL

Kq = = Cd w ,

∂xv ρ

(2.19)

∂QL Cd wxv

Kc = = .

∂pL 2 ρ(ps − pL )

Second, from Equations 2.1, 2.2, 2.19, and 2.8, we can describe the linearized

model of the electro-hydraulic actuator as follows:

Thus, from Figure 2.2, the linearized model of the double-rod electro-

hydraulic actuator is given by

Kq Ksv 1 Vt

Ap (Tsv s+1) u(s) − A2p Kce + 4β e

s FL (s)

y(s) = , (2.20)

Vt m 3 mt Kce Be Vt bKce Vt K KKce

s + + s + 1+ 2 +

2 s+

4βe A2p A2p 2

4βe Ap Ap 2

4βe Ap A2p

where y(s), u(s), and FL (s) are frequency domain transformations, and

Kce = Kc + Ctl .

In terms of the single-rod electro-hydraulic actuator, the load pres-

sure pL is defined as pL = pa − υpb , and the load flow QL is defined as

QL = (Qa + υQb )/(1 + υ 2 ), where υ is the annulus area ratio between the

FL(t)

Ksv xv QL 1 pL – y

u 1

Kq Vt Ap

Tsvs + 1 Kc + Ctl + s ms2 + bs + K

– 4βe

Aps

FIGURE 2.2

Linearized model of the electro-hydraulic actuator.

Model Construction of Electro-Hydraulic Control System 15

cylinder with rod and the cylinder without rod. Thus, the load flow QL is

linearized as follows:

⎧

⎪

⎪ 2(ps − pL )

⎪

⎪ C wx , xv ≥ 0

⎪

⎨ d v ρ(1 + υ 3 )

QL = . (2.22)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 2(np s + pL )

⎪ Cd wxv

⎩ , xv < 0

ρ(1 + υ 3 )

tion 2.22 as follows:

2(ps − pL ) Cd wxv

Kqa = Cd w , Kca = ,

ρ(1 + υ 3 ) 2ρ(ps − pL )(1 + υ 3 )

(2.23)

2(αps + pL ) Cd wxv

Kqb = Cd w , Kcb = − .

ρ(1 + υ 3 ) 2ρ(υps + pL )(1 + υ 3 )

Then, like Equation 2.20, the linearized model of the single-rod electro-

hydraulic actuator is also obtained as follows:

Tsv s+1 Vt

Kqi Ksv u(s) − Aa Kcei + 2(1+υ 2 )βe

s FL (s)

y(s) = , (2.24)

Den

Vt m 3 mKcei bVt

Den =Aa (Tsv s + 1) s + + s2

2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a A2a 2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a

bKcei Vt K KKcei

+ 1+ 2 + s + .

Aa 2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a A2a

(2.25)

16 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Remark 2.5

The two linearized models (2.20) and (2.24) can be used in classical control

design such as PID, robust H∞ , where a linear controller is obtained. This lin-

ear controller is relatively simple to guarantee the stability of the closed-loop

system and basic dynamic behavior. However, there exist unknown paramet-

ric uncertainty and load disturbance in the electro-hydraulic system, which

lead to the existing model error in linearized models. Thus, the two nonlinear

models (2.15) and (2.16) are adopted in the nonlinear controller design. Many

nonlinear controllers such as backstepping, adaptive, slide mode, etc. should

guarantee that the transient and steady behavior of the electro-hydraulic

system achieve the prescribe performance. Furthermore, the designed con-

troller must guarantee the global convergence or ultimate boundedness of

the generalized system state, including hydraulic state variable, parametric

estimation error, and DO error.

3

Linear PID Control Design

Claudio Semini, Ming Yang, and Tian Yu

CONTENTS

3.1 Linear Feedback Control Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2 Mechatronics Plant Model Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.2.1 Servo Valve Model Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.2.2 Hydraulic Cylinder Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3.2.3 Mechanical Motion Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.3 System Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.3.1 Motor Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.3.2 Output Pressure Analysis of Pump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3.3 Dynamic Pressure of Cylinder with Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3.4 PID Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.5 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

The linear PID control is a classical control method, which is very easy to be

understood. The PID controller is designed in frequency domain based on the

linear model of the electro-hydraulic system. The main evaluation indexes

for the linear PID control design are relative stability margin and bandwidth.

This design idea is derived from the frequency design method in classical

control principle. In this chapter, the linear PID control design method is

introduced and the system stability and dynamic behavior are discussed.

According to Figure 2.2, the whole linear feedback control loop of the electro-

hydraulic system is shown in Figure 3.1. This is a typical cylinder position

feedback control loop. The actual cylinder position Y is controlled by the PID

controller to track the position demand Yexp . The servo valve and the cylinder

model can be considered as the plant model, which is similar to the linearized

model of the double-rod electro-hydraulic actuator (2.20). Here, the dynamics

17

18 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

1 V FL

K + t s

Ap2 ce 4βe

Cylinder dynamics

Yexp Servo valve –

Control law Xv Kq/Ap Y

Gc(s) K Gcyd(s) =

– Gsv(s) = sv Vtmt 3 mtKce BeVt 2 B K KK KK

Tsv s+1 s + + s + 1 + e 2 ce + 2ce s + 2ce

4βe Ap2 Ap2 4βe Ap2 Ap Ap Ap

Y

Sensor model

Gsen(s)

FIGURE 3.1

Linear feedback control loop of the electro-hydraulic system.

of the position sensor model is not temporarily considered, that is, it is a unit

feedback, Gsen (s) = 1.

Consider the position demand Y exp as the system input, and the actual

cylinder position Y as the output. The open-loop transfer function of the

position feedback control loop is given by

Y(s)

Gol (s) = = Gc (s)Gsv (s)Gcyd (s)Gsen (s)

u(s)

Kq Ksv

Ap (Tsv s+1)

(3.1)

= .

Vt m 3 mt Kce Be Vt bKce Vt K KKce

s + + s2 + 1 + + s+

4βe A2p A2p 4βe A2p A2p 4βe A2p A2p

Remark 3.1

When the position feedback control loop is mainly considered, the external

load FL need not be substituted into Equation 3.1, which is different from

Equation 2.20. In other words, FL is compensated by the designed control u.

Now the effect of the external load FL to the closed loop is analyzed. Con-

sider FL as the load disturbance input, and the actual cylinder position Y as

the output. The closed loop from FL to Y is shown as Figure 3.2.

The closed-loop transfer function from FL to Y is given by

Y(s)

GyFL (s) =

FL (s)

− 1

(Kce + Vt (3.2)

A2p 4βe s)Gcyd (s)

= .

1 + Gc (s)Gsv (s)Gcyd (s)Gsen (s)

Linear PID Control Design 19

1 Vt FL

Kce + s

Ap2 4βe

Cylinder dynamics

Servo valve Xv –

Control law Kq/Ap Y

Gc(s) Ksv Gcyd(s) =

– Gsv(s) = Vtmt mt Kce BeVt BeKce KKce KKce

Tsv s+1 s3 + + s2 +1+ + s+

Y 4βe Ap2 Ap2 4βe Ap2 Ap2 Ap2 Ap2

Sensor model

Gsen(s)

FIGURE 3.2

Closed loop from the load disturbance FL to the cylinder position Y.

If the static gain of the controller Gc (s) is obviously larger than 1, then

Equation 3.2 can be simplified as follows:

1 1

− K − K

A2p ce A2p ce

GyFL (s) = = , s → 0 ⇔ t → ∞, (3.3)

Gc (s)Gsv (s) kp Ksv

From Equation 3.3, owing to the constants Kce and Ksv , the negative effect of

FL to the system dynamic tracking performance is only declined by increas-

ing the static gain of the controller Gc (s). This denotes that a reasonable

controller u can suppress the external disturbance FL to a prescribed level.

Theorem 3.1

Consider the two transfer functions (3.1) and (3.2). There exists a linear

PID controller Gc (s) with sufficiently large static gain such that the closed-

loop feedback control system as shown in Figure 3.1 has enough global

stability margin and the external load disturbance FL (t) is suppressed into

a sufficiently small finite boundary.

Figure 3.1. According to the global stability property of a linear control sys-

tem, if there exists an isolated linear controller to guarantee the stability of

the closed-loop feedback system, then the feedback control system is globally

stable.

To address the open-loop transfer function of the position feedback control

loop Gol (s), a suitable PID controller is designed as follows:

ki

Gc (s) = kp + + kd s, (3.4)

s

20 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

parameters, respectively.

If the three control parameters have no constraint, the closed-loop poles

of Gol (s) can be arbitrarily configured to any position in the negative half

plane. Thus, this PID controller is designed to guarantee the stability of the

closed-loop feedback control system as shown in Figure 3.1. Especially, some

reasonable PID parameters can guarantee that the open-loop transfer func-

tion Gol (s) has predefined amplitude margin, phase margin, and expected

bandwidth as follows:

⎧ exp

⎪

⎪ Am (Gol (s)) > Am dB

⎨

exp

Pm (Gol (s)) > Pm deg , (3.5)

⎪

⎪

⎩ exp

ωc > ωc

exp exp exp

where Am , Pm , and ωc are the predefined performances of the relative

stability margin.

On the other hand, from Equation 3.3, the sufficiently large static gain Kp of

Gc (s) can simultaneously reduce the disturbance effect caused by the external

load FL (t) as follows:

Kce Kce

y(∞) = FL (∞) ≤ Fmax

L , (3.6)

A2p kp Ksv A2p kp Ksv

where Fmax

L is a finite boundary of FL (t).

saturation, that is, u ≤ umax . Thus, the PID control law Gc (s) should be appro-

priately designed to compromise the dynamic stable performance (3.5) and

the disturbance suppression (3.6).

In this section, a two-DOF robotic arm is considered to be a typical mecha-

tronics plant, which is driven by two electro-hydraulic actuators. The linear

PID control of the electro-hydraulic system is designed to illustrate the

motion control of the robotic arm.

Servo valve is the control element. It receives a voltage signal given by the

controller and be converted to the spool position to control the oil flow in

Linear PID Control Design 21

TABLE 3.1

Servo Valve Parameters of Moog D633-R02K01M0NSM2

No. Name Symbol Value Unit

2 Rated flow qn 5 L/min

3 Rated pressure pn 70 bar

4 Maximal pressure pm 350 bar

5 Output current range Ictrl 4–20 mA

6 Control voltage range Uctrl −10 to 10 V

7 Spool diameter Dv max 7.9 mm

8 Servo valve pressure loss pvloss 1.4 bar

9 Pipe pressure loss ptube 7.5 bar

the hydraulic cylinder. From Equation 2.8, the math model is simplified as

follows:

xv Ksv

Gsv (s) = = , (3.7)

u Tsv s + 1

where xv is the spool position of the servo valve, u is the control voltage of

the servo valve, Ksv is the gain of the servo valve, and Tsv is the response time

constant of the servo valve.

According to the production of Moog D633-R02K01M0NSM2, some perfor-

mance parameters are shown in Table 3.1.

The maximal spool displacement is given by

Ksv = = = 3.95 × 10−4 m/V. (3.9)

Uctrl 10

Thus, the first-order transfer function model of this servo valve is con-

structed as

xv Ksv 3.95 × 10−4

= = . (3.10)

u Tsv s + 1 0.012s + 1

Owing to the servo valve hysteresis characteristics, the servo valve pres-

sure loss is computed by

characteristic.

22 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Druckmittel Hydraulikol nach DIN 51.524 Hydraulic fluid Hydraulic fluid to DIN 51.524

und DIN 51.525 and DIN 51.525

Schlauch Anschlüsse

ΔPAnschlüsse/connections

hose connections

ΔPSchlauch/hose(bar)

12 6 AnschluBtyp M

(bar)

Durchflu Bwiderstand

10 5

DurchfluB widerstand

Connection type M

ν = 55 mm2/s ν = 55 mm2/s

flow resistance for

AnschluBtyp 1

for 1 m schlauch

flow resistance

8 4

Connection type 1

1 m hose

6 3

AnschluBtyp 6

4 2 Connection type 6

2 1

0 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

DurchfluB Q (L/min) DurchfluB Q (L/min)

Flow rate Q (L/min) Flow rate Q (L/min)

Der gesamt-widerstand des schlauches errechnet sich nach folgender formel:

The total hose resistance is calculated by means of the formula:

ΔPsec = ΔPAnschlüsse 1 (bar) + ΔPSchlauch (bar) x L (m) + ΔPAnschlüsse 2 (bar)

ΔPtotal = ΔPConnection 1 (bar) + ΔPHose (bar) x L (m) + ΔPConnection 2 (bar)

FIGURE 3.3

Change of pipe pressure loss ptube from valve to cylinder.

pressure loss ptube from valve to cylinder is shown in Figure 3.3.

Ignoring the pressure loss of the connector, the pipe pressure loss from the

proportional valve outlet to the inlet of the hydraulic cylinder is computed by

where kp/Q = 5 is the approximate slope of the pipe pressure loss with

respect to flow, Qa = 3 L/min is the average flow of this hydraulic system,

and ltube = 0.5 m is the pipe length from valve to cylinder. Thus, ptube is

computed approximately by

If the maximal output pressure from the pump is the supply pressure ps ,

the maximal no-load flow of the servo valve is computed by

ps ps − pvloss − ptube

q0m = qn =5× L/min. (3.14)

pn 70

q0m 2

Kq0 = m /s. (3.15)

xvm

Linear PID Control Design 23

ps − pl − pvloss − ptube

Kq = Kq0 , (3.16)

ps

the second-order Lagrangian math model.

The hydraulic cylinder is the actuator of the control loop to output the posi-

tion and pressure. In this example, the asymmetric hydraulic cylinder is

adopted as shown in Figure 2.1b. Some parameters of the hydraulic cylinder

“Hoerbiger LB6-1610-0080-4M” are shown in Table 3.2.

The cross-section of the rod chamber is computed by

Ap = = = 2.01 × 10−4 m2 . (3.17)

4 4

The total volume of the cylinder is as follows:

ps − pvloss − ptube

Kp = . (3.19)

xvm

The flow-pressure coefficient of the valve Kc and the coefficient Kce are

computed by

Kc = Kq /Kp ,

(3.20)

Kce = Kc + Ctl ,

TABLE 3.2

Parameters of the Hydraulic Cylinder

No. Name Symbol Value Unit

1 Cylinder length Lc 91 mm

2 Piston stroke dr max 79 mm

3 Cylinder diameter Dc 16 mm

4 Rod diameter Drod 10 mm

5 Load mass of No. 2 cylinder m2f 1.778 kg

6 Load mass of No. 1 cylinder m1f 3.550 kg

7 Load spring stiffness K 0 N/m

8 Load damping Be 50 Ns/m

9 Elastic modulus βe 7000 bar

24 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

From the linearized model of the single-rod electro-hydraulic actuator

(2.24), the load flow gain of the valve Kq and the flow-pressure coefficient

of the valve Kc are rewritten as follows:

⎧

⎪

⎪ 2

⎪

⎪ K = Kq ×

⎪

⎨ qa 1 + υ3

, (3.21)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 2(υ(p s − p vloss − ptube ) + pl )

⎪

⎩ Kqb = Kq × (p − p

vloss − ptube − pl )(1 + υ )

3

s

⎪

⎪ 2

⎪

⎪ K = Kc ×

⎪

⎨ ca 1 + υ3

, (3.22)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ K = Kc × 2(ps − p vloss − ptube − pl )

⎪

⎩ cb (υ(ps − pvloss − ptube ) + pl )(1 + υ 3 )

where υ ≤ 1 is the annulus area ratio of two chambers, and the coefficient Kce

is rewritten as Kcea = Kca + Ctl , Kceb = Kcb + Ctl .

The motion control mechanism of the two-DOF robotic arm is shown in

Figure 3.4 [51]. The shoulder and elbow joints are driven by two single-rod

electro-hydraulic actuators.

At first, the general framework for the mechanical movement must be

given in Figure 3.5. Some mechanical parameters of the two-DOF robotic arm

are shown in Table 3.3.

The initial load mass is computed by

If the load mass is mf , the moment of inertia of the load rotation from the

elbow is given by

If the load mass is mf0 , the centroid distance from the elbow to the forearm

(including initial load) xc0 is P2 Pm2 . So the moment of inertia of the initial

load rotation from the elbow is

= 0.010018 kgm2 .

(3.25)

Linear PID Control Design 25

Elbow θ2 >0

ε22

l2(θ2) b2 c2(θ2)

Shoulder cylinder θ1 < 0 θ1 > 0 Elbow cylinder

Va Vb d21 a2

Aa Ab

Pb ε21 Shoulder

Pa

d22

Qa Qb c1(θ1)

b1

ε11 a1 l1(θ1)

Servo valve d12 d13 Servo valve

d11

Ps Pr

Pump

FIGURE 3.4

Motion control mechanism of the two-DOF robotic arm.

P3

Forearm

Pm2

θ2 > 0 Y

P2 Cylinder 2

Elbow θ1 < 0

θ1 > 0

Cylinder 1 Shoulder

O

P1

X

P0

FIGURE 3.5

General framework for the mechanical movement.

If the load is a spherical particle, the moment of inertia of the load rotation

from the elbow is proportional to the mass of the load. So it is computed by

mf 1.039

Ifp2 = Ifp20 = × 0.010018 = 0.1508573 kgm2 . (3.26)

mf 0 0.069

26 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

TABLE 3.3

Mechanical Parameters of the Two-DOF Robotic Arm

No. Name Symbol Value Unit

2 Upper arm mass with cylinder m1 1.772 kg

3 Load mass mf 1.039 kg

4 Moment of inertia for forearm around I2 0.0145 kgm2

the elbow

5 Moment of inertia for upper arm I1 0.0713 kgm2

around the shoulder

6 Forearm rotation range θ2 20–140 deg

7 Upper arm rotation range θ1 −70 to 50 deg

8 Forearm around the elbow inertia with I2f 0.0218 kgm2

load

9 Forearm mass with load m2f0 0.808 kg

10 Upper arm length P1 P2 0.35 m

11 Distance from centroid upper arm to P1 Pm1 0.164 m

shoulder

12 Forearm length P2 P3 0.33 m

13 Distance from centroid forearm to P2 Pm2 0.122 m

elbow

14 Distance from centroid forearm to P2 Pm20 0.103 m

elbow without load

When the current load is 1.039 kg, the distance from the centroid forearm

to the elbow (including the current load) is computed by

mf × P2 P3 + m2 × P2 Pm20

xc = = 0.23565 m. (3.27)

mf + m2

Substituting Ifp2 and xc into the above equation, the equivalent moment of

inertia of the forearm with the new load is computed by

I2f = 0.16911 kgm2 . (3.28)

The equivalent moment of inertia of the forearm with the new load rotated

at its centroid is computed by

I2fm = I2f − (m2 + mf )x2c = 0.07038 kgm2 . (3.29)

The equivalent moment of inertia of the upper arm with the cylinder

rotated at its centroid is computed by

Linear PID Control Design 27

lished. The Lagrange function is defined as follows:

L = KE − V, (3.31)

Thus, the Lagrange equation of the two-DOF robotic arm is given by

∂ ∂L ∂L

T= − , (3.32)

∂t ∂ q̇ ∂q

where T is the generalized force vectors including force and torque and q is

the generalized coordinates vector of the system.

The coordinate X-O-Y is constructed in Figure 3.5. The shoulder joint P1 is

the origin point. A hinge point P1 is fixed with the bedframe. The position

vector of P1 Pm1 is as follows:

T

roPm1/o = P1 Pm1 sin(−θ1 − εm1 ) P1 Pm1 cos(−θ1 − εm1 )

T (3.33)

= −P1 Pm1 sin(θ1 + εm1 ) P1 Pm1 cos(θ1 + εm1 ) .

T

vPm1/o = −P1 Pm1 θ̇1 cos(θ1 + εm1 ) −P1 Pm1 θ̇1 sin(θ1 + εm1 ) . (3.34)

T

roP2/o = P1 P2 sin(−θ1 − εm1 ) P1 P2 cos(−θ1 − εm1 )

T (3.35)

= −P1 P2 sin(θ1 + εm1 ) P1 P2 cos(θ1 + εm1 ) .

T

vP2/o = −P1 P2 θ̇1 cos(θ1 + εm1 ) −P1 P2 θ̇1 sin(θ1 + εm1 ) . (3.36)

= [−P1 P2 sin(θ1 + εm1 ) − P2 Pm2 sin(θ1 + θ2 ), (3.37)

T

P1 P2 cos(θ1 + εm1 ) + P2 Pm2 cos(θ1 + θ2 )] .

−P1 P2 θ̇1 cos(θ1 + εm1 ) − P2 Pm2 (θ̇1 + θ̇2 ) cos(θ1 + θ2 )

vPm2/o = . (3.38)

−P1 P2 θ̇1 sin(θ1 + εm1 ) − P2 Pm2 (θ̇1 + θ̇2 ) sin(θ1 + θ2 )

28 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Then, the kinetic energy of the upper arm including cylinder 2 is com-

puted by

KEpm2 = 0.5m2f vPm2/o · vPm2/o + 0.5I2f (θ̇1 + θ̇2 ) · (θ̇1 + θ̇2 ). (3.40)

computed by

computed by

= 0.5m1 P1 P2m1 θ̇12 + 0.5I1 θ̇12 + 0.5m2f [P1 P22 θ̇12 + P2 P2m2 (θ̇12 + θ̇22 )

+ 2P1 P2 · P2 Pm2 θ̇1 (θ̇1 + θ̇2 ) cos(θ2 − εm1 )] + 0.5I2f (θ̇1 + θ̇2 )2 (3.43)

− m2f g[P1 P2 cos(θ1 + εm1 ) + P2 Pm2 cos(θ1 + θ2 )].

Using the Lagrange equation, if the angle vector q = [θ 1 , θ 2 ]T , then the kinetic

equation of the two-link system is given as follows:

where

H11 H12 C11 C12 G1 Tu

H= , C= , G= , T= , (3.45)

H21 H22 C21 C22 G2 Tf

Linear PID Control Design 29

+ 2m2f P1 P2 · P2 Pm2 cos(θ2 − εm1 ),

H12 = I2f + m2f P1 P2 · P2 Pm2 cos(θ2 − εm1 ),

H22 = I2f + m2f P2 P2m2 ,

C11 = −2m2f P1 P2 · P2 Pm2 θ̇2 sin(θ2 − εm1 ),

C12 = −m2f P1 P2 · P2 Pm2 θ̇2 sin(θ2 − εm1 ), (3.46)

C21 = m2f P1 P2 · P2 Pm2 θ̇1 sin(θ2 − εm1 ),

C22 = 0,

G1 = −m1 gP1 Pm1 sin(θ1 + εm1 )

− m2f g[P1 P2 sin(θ1 + εm1 ) + P2 Pm2 sin(θ1 + θ2 )],

G2 = −m2f gP2 Pm2 sin(θ1 + θ2 ).

After the kinetic model is constructed, according to the changes of the input

commands, a rate, and secondary rate of commands, two driving torques of

a two-link system are computed.

Then, two cylinder dynamic lengths are computed by

⎧

⎪

⎨ c1 (θ1 ) = a21 + b21 − 2a1 b1 cos(π/2 + θ1 + ε11 )

, (3.47)

⎪

⎩ c (θ ) = a2 + b2 − 2a b cos(π − θ − ε − ε )

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 22

ε22 = 6°.

Thus, the two dynamic force arms are given by

⎧

⎪

⎪ a21 + c1 (θ1 )2 − b21

⎪

⎪ l (θ ) = a1 sin arccos

⎪

⎨ 1 1 2a1 c1 (θ1 )

, (3.48)

⎪

⎪ a22 + c2 (θ2 )2 − b22

⎪

⎪

⎩ l2 (θ2 ) = a2 sin arccos

⎪

2a2 c2 (θ2 )

where the ranges of two joint angles are − 70° ≤ θ 1 ≤ 50°, 20° ≤ θ 2 ≤ 140°.

In this robotic plant, the simulation results of two cylinder dynamic lengths

and force arms are as shown in Figure 3.6

30 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

(a) (b)

0.37 0.045

0.36

0.35 0.04

0.34

0.035

0.33

c1 (m)

l1 (m)

0.32

0.03

0.31

0.3 0.025

0.29

0.02

–80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60

θ1 (°) θ1(°)

(c) (d)

0.37 0.045

0.36

0.35 0.04

0.34

0.035

0.33

c2 (m)

l2 (m)

0.32

0.03

0.31

0.3 0.025

0.29

0.02

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

θ2 (°) θ2 (°)

FIGURE 3.6

Two cylinder dynamic lengths and force arms. (a) The dynamic length of the upper arm cylinder

c1 . (b) The dynamic force arm of the upper arm cylinder l1 . (c) The dynamic length of the forearm

cylinder c2 . (d) The dynamic force arm of the forearm cylinder l2 .

The system performance should be considered due to the selected motor

and the pump. From Equation 2.12, the dynamic loads FL of the robotic arm

depend on the hydraulic cylinder position y, velocity ẏ, and acceleration ÿ.

Thus, this system performance includes motor performance, output pressure

analysis of the pump, and dynamic pressure of the cylinder with load.

The maximal allowable speed of the pump is 3000 rpm. According to the

mechanical efficiency curve in the motor type “BSM63N-375,” the continu-

ous rated torque is 1.85 Nm as the motor is operated in 3000 rpm with load

Linear PID Control Design 31

8

70

650 V

10

565 V

7

D

60

C BU

D

C BU

6

8

50

S

320 V

Current (Amps)

5

DC B

Torque (lb-in.)

Torque (Nm)

160 V

40

6

US

DC B

4

30

US

3

4

20

2

2

10

1

0

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Speed (rpm) × 1000

FIGURE 3.7

Mechanical properties curve of the motor with load.

as shown in Figure 3.7. So, at this operated point, the motor rated power is

1.85 × 3000 × 2 × π

Pm = = 581 W. (3.49)

60

The fixed pump displacement ν = 3.14 mL/r. The continuous torque of

motor Tc = 2.09 Nm. The peak torque is Tpeak = 8.36 Nm. So, the rated

pressure and the maximum pressure of the pump is computed by

Tc × 2 × π × 10

Pn = × η = 39.7 bar,

ν

(3.50)

Tpeak × 2 × π × 10

Pmax = × η = 158.9 bar.

ν

32 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

The peak motor torque can stick about 2 s. This indicates only a short time

for the pump to provide a maximum pressure 158.9 bar. So the operated pres-

sure is no more than 40 bar long time. The maximum output flow of the pump

is computed by

Qmax = 3000 × ν × η = 8.95 L/min. (3.51)

Considering the servo valve and pipe pressure loss, the actual pressure of

cylinders is computed by

(3.52)

Pa max = Pmax − pvloss − ptube = 158.9 − 1.4 − 7.5 = 150 bar.

Considering the full efficiency of the pump ς , the output power of the

pump is computed by

The pressure of the cylinder with load is a dynamic value, which depends on

the mass of the load, joint rotational movement, angular velocity, and angular

acceleration. The motion model of a two-link mechanical structure with load

® ®

is built by MATLAB /Simulink shown in Figure 3.8. Two joint angles θ 1 , θ 2

are imported like these sinusoidal variation.

⎧

⎪ θmin + θmax θmax − θmin

⎪

⎪ θ (t) = + sin(2πft)

⎪

⎪ 2 2

⎪

⎨

θmax − θmin

θ̇(t) = × 2π × cos(2π ft) . (3.54)

⎪

⎪ 2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ θ̈(t) = − θmax − θmin × 4π 2 × sin(2π ft)

⎪

2

Torque

Theta Theta Matrix Matrix Terminator

Force Force

Sub_Theta_Command Sub_Matrix

Theta

c_Theta c_Theta

Sub_Torque_Force Sub_Actuator_Flow

FIGURE 3.8

Simulation model for solvering the dynamic pressure of the cylinder with load.

Linear PID Control Design 33

50

100

40

50

30

Pu (bar)

Pf (bar)

0 20

10

–50

0

–100

–10

–150 –20

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

t (s) t (s)

(c) 700 (d) 1

0.8

600

0.6

500

0.4

Poweru (W)

400

Qf (L/min)

0.2

300 0

200 –0.2

–0.4

100

–0.6

0 –0.8

–100 –1

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

t (s) t (s)

(e) 4 (f) 1

0.8

3

0.6

0.4

2

Powerf (W)

Qu (L/min)

0.2

1 0

–0.2

0 –0.4

–0.6

–1

–0.8

–2 –1

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

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 3.9

Simulation result with the elbow joint θ 2 = 140°, the sinusoidal input of the shoulder angle

f u = 1.05 Hz. (a) The pressure of the upper arm cylinder with load pu . (b) The pressure of the

forearm cylinder with load pf . (c) The flow of the upper arm cylinder with load Qu . (d) The flow

of the forearm cylinder with load Qf . (e) The power consumption of the upper arm cylinder with

load Poweru . (f) The power consumption of the forearm cylinder with load Powerf .

If the elbow joint is fixed, θ2 = θ2 min = 140◦ and the load mf = 1.039 kg,

and the shoulder angle is sinusoidal input, the simulation result is acquired

as shown in Figure 3.9.

As shown in Figure 3.9, if the condition of the frequency of θ 1 is 1.05 Hz, the

flow of the upper arm cylinder with load is 150 bar. It reaches the maximum

motor torque value. But the power of the upper arm cylinder is 110 W, which

is less than the rated power 494 W. At this moment, the flow of the upper

34 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

TABLE 3.4

Parametric Analysis of the Shoulder Hydraulic Actuator

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

Condition Frequency Pressure Flow Power

θ 2 = 20° 0.7 Hz − 149 bar 2.77 L/min 76 W

arm cylinder is 3.75 L/min, which is less than the output flow of the pump

8.95 L/min. These results indicate that the frequency of the shoulder angle

should not exceed 1.05 Hz. The parametric analysis of the shoulder hydraulic

actuator is shown in Table 3.4.

Case 2: The pressure of the cylinder supporting the elbow

If the shoulder joint is fixed, θ1 = θ1 min = −70◦ and the load mf = 1.039 kg,

and the elbow angle is sinusoidal input, the simulation result is acquired as

shown in Figure 3.10.

As shown in Figure 3.10, if the condition of the frequency of θ 2 is 1.85 Hz,

the flow of the forearm cylinder with load is 150 bar. It reaches the maxi-

mum torque value. But the power of the forearm cylinder is 226 W, which

is less than the rated power 494 W. At this moment, the flow of the fore-

arm cylinder is 6.6 L/min, which is less than the output flow of the pump

8.95 L/min. These results indicate that the frequency of the elbow angle

should not exceed 1.85 Hz. The parametric analysis of the elbow hydraulic

actuator is shown in Table 3.5.

Case 3: The pressure of the cylinder with two joints in simultaneously motion

If two joints change simultaneously and the load mf = 1.039 kg, the simu-

lation results are acquired as shown in Figure 3.11.

As shown in these figures, if the condition of the frequency of θ 1 is 0.6 Hz

and θ 2 is 1 Hz, the flow of the upper arm cylinder with load is 150 bar. It

reaches the maximum torque value. But the power of the upper arm cylinder

is 70 W, which is less than the rated power 494 W. Also, the power of the

forearm cylinder is only 47 W. At this moment, the total flow of two cylinders

is 5 L/min, which is less than the output flow of the pump 8.95 L/min. These

results indicate that the frequencies of shoulder and elbow angles should not

exceed 0.6 and 1 Hz respectively. The parametric analysis of two hydraulic

actuators is shown in Table 3.6.

The actual angles of two joints are measured by encoders. The errors between

actual angles and command angles are as input of the control system. The

controller inputs the control voltage into proportional valves and the spool

dynamic positions are regulated to drive the cylinder motion.

Linear PID Control Design 35

(a) (b)

200 250

200

150 150

100

100

Pu (bar)

Pf (bar)

50

0

50

–50

0 –100

–150

–50 –200

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

t (s) t (s)

(c) 1 (d) 7

0.8 6

0.6 5

0.4 4

Qf (L/min)

Qu (L/min)

0.2 3

0 2

–0.2 1

–0.4 0

–0.6 –1

–0.8 –2

–1 –3

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

t (s) t (s)

(e) 1

(f ) 200

0.8

0.6 0

0.4

Powerf (W)

–200

Poweru (W)

0.2

0 –400

–0.2

–600

–0.4

–0.6 –800

–0.8

–1 –1000

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

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 3.10

Simulation result with the shoulder joint θ 1 = − 70°, the sinusoidal input of the elbow angle

f f = 1.85 Hz. (a) The pressure of the upper arm cylinder with load pu . (b) The pressure of the

forearm cylinder with load pf . (c) The flow of the upper arm cylinder with load Qu . (d) The flow

of the forearm cylinder with load Qf . (e) The power consumption of the upper arm cylinder with

load Poweru . (f) The power consumption of the forearm cylinder with load Powerf .

supply pressure is chosen as follows:

3

ps = pl max . (3.55)

2

36 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

TABLE 3.5

Parametric Analysis of Elbow Hydraulic Actuator

Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum

Condition Frequency Pressure Flow Power

θ 1 = 50° 1.95 Hz − 150 bar 7.0 L/min 255 W

The supply pressure ps is 150 bar. pl max is the maximal pressure of the cylin-

der with load. If the load mass is 3 kg, the value is 100 bar of the upper arm

cylinder, which satisfies this relation. So the load mass is chosen as 3 kg suffi-

ciently. Owing to the asymmetrical hydraulic cylinder, the open-loop transfer

function of this system is shown as follows:

Kqa Ksv

Gc (s)

A T s+1

Gol = a sv . (3.56)

Vt mt m t Kcea Be Vt

s +

3 + s2

2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a A2a 2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a

Be Kcea Vt K

+ 1+ + s + KK2cea

A2a 2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a Aa

Kqb Ksv

Gc (s)

A T s+1

Gol = a sv , (3.57)

Vt mt mt Kceb Be Vt

s 3 + + s2

2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a A2a 2(1 + υ 2 )βe A2a

Be Kceb Vt K KKceb

+ 1+ + s+

Aa 2 2(1 + υ )βe Aa

2 2 A2a

The maximal supply pressure ps is 150 bar and the maximal load mass mf

is 3 kg. The control law is designed by MATLAB/SISO tool like this

ki 1

Gc (s) = kp + × , (3.58)

s 1 + b1 s

where kp and ki are the proportional and integral control parameters, and

b1 is the lag parameter. This hysteresis element 1/(1 + b1 s) can improve the

dynamic quality of the control variable u and suppress the control saturation

as the initial large error existing in the system.

Linear PID Control Design 37

100 150

50 100

Pu (bar)

Pf (bar)

0 50

–50 0

–100 –50

–150 –100

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

t (s) t (s)

(c) 2.5 (d) 4

2 3

1.5

2

Qu (L/min)

Qf (L/min)

1

1

0.5

0

0

–0.5 –1

–1 –2

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

t (s) t (s)

(e) 500 (f) 50

0

400 –50

–100

300

Powerf (W)

Poweru (W)

–150

200 –200

–250

100 –300

–350

0

–400

–100 –450

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

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 3.11

Simulation result with two sinusoidal inputs of the shoulder angle f u = 0.6 Hz and the elbow

angle f f = 1 Hz. (a) The pressure of the upper arm cylinder with load pu . (b) The pressure of the

forearm cylinder with load pf . (c) The flow of the upper arm cylinder with load Qu . (d) The flow

of the forearm cylinder with load Qf . (e) The power consumption of the upper arm cylinder with

load Poweru . (f) The power consumption of the forearm cylinder with load Powerf .

The designed results of control design for the upper arm cylinder is shown

as follows:

1. If the hydraulic cylinder is extended, that is, ẏ ≥ 0, the con-

trol parameters and the lag parameter are kp = 178.5, ki = 21, and

b1 = 0.073.

38 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

TABLE 3.6

Parametric Analysis of Two Joint Angles Simultaneously Motion

Joint Maximum Frequency Maximum Pressure Maximum Flow Maximum Power

Elbow 1 Hz 70 bar 3.6 L/min 47 W

Root locus editor for open loop 1 (OL1) Open-loop bode editor for open loop 1 (OL1)

4000 200

2000 100

0 0

–100

–2000

–4000 Frequency: 32.9 rad/s

–4000 –2000 0 2000 4000

Stable loop

Bode editor for closed loop 1 (CL1) –300

0

–90

–200 –180

–400 –270

0

–180 –360

–360 P.M.: 57°

Frequency: 7.02 rad/s

–540 –450

100 102 104 10–5 100 105

Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

FIGURE 3.12

Frequency domain characteristic of the open-loop control system for the shoulder actuator for

Equation 3.56.

tem for the upper arm actuator is as shown in Figure 3.12. In the

right Bode chart, the amplitude margin G.M. is 21.3 dB and the phase

margin P.M. is 57°, and the closed loop is a stable loop. Generally,

if G.M. is larger than + 6 dB and P.M. is larger than 45°, the stabil-

ity margin is enough. Furthermore, the open-loop root locus shows

that all the roots of the closed-loop control system are located in

the negative half plane. Thus, the feedback control system by the PI

controller Gc (s) is stable. The bandwidth of this closed-loop control

system is 7.02 rad/s, that is, 1.11 Hz. If the sinusoidal input demand

is less than 1.11 Hz, then the dynamic tracking performance is sat-

isfactory. Otherwise, the tracking performance will be declined. The

Linear PID Control Design 39

0.09 10

0.08

8

0.07

0.06 6

Amplitude

Amplitude

0.05

4

0.04

0.03 2

0.02

0

0.01

0 –2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Time (s) Time (s)

FIGURE 3.13

Performance results of the PI controller design for the shoulder actuator for Equation 3.56. (a)

The step response of the upper arm cylinder for the maximal stroke y. (b) The voltage control

with respect to step response u.

ator is as shown in Figure 3.13. As a step demand is selected as the

input, the actual position response of the upper arm cylinder is as

shown in Figure 3.13a. The step response for the maximal stroke is

regulated to the maximum value 79 mm by the PID controller after

0.8 s. The overshoot is less than 13% and the rising time is less than

0.3 s, which indicates the superior performance of the control design.

The voltage control u with respect to step response is shown as Figure

3.13b. The dynamic magnitude of u is less than the control saturation

umax = 10 V, which satisfies the engineering requirement.

2. If the hydraulic cylinder is retracted, that is, ẏ < 0, the control

parameters and the lag parameter are kp = 102, ki = 12, b1 = 0.073.

The frequency domain characteristic of the open-loop control sys-

tem for the upper arm actuator is as shown in Figure 3.14. The

amplitude margin G.M. is 18.6 dB, the phase margin P.M. is 49.5°, and

the bandwidth of this closed-loop control system is 9.08 rad/s, that is,

1.43 Hz, which is larger than case 1. The performance results of case 2

is shown as Figure 3.15. The steady-state time is 1 s, which has a little

weaker performance than case 1. However, the control magnitude is

less than 5 V, which denotes that the control consumption of case 2 is

more than case 1.

different. Thus, from Equations 3.21 and 3.22, the model parameters Kqa ,

Kqb , Kcea , and Kceb are distinguished. To guarantee enough stability mar-

gin of Gol (s) and the similar dynamic performance, the control parameters

40 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Root locus editor for open loop 1 (OL1) Open-loop bode editor for open loop 1 (OL1)

4000 150

100

2000

50

0 0

–50

–2000

–100

G.M.: 18.6 dB

–4000 –150 Frequency: 33.3 rad/s

–4000 –2000 0 2000 4000 Stable loop

–200

Bode editor for closed loop 1 (CL1)

0 –90

–200 –180

–400 –270

0

–180 –360

–360 P.M.: 49.5°

Frequency: 9.08 rad/s

–540 –450

100 102 104 10–4 10–2 100 102 104

Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

FIGURE 3.14

Frequency domain characteristic of the open-loop control system for the shoulder actuator for

Equation 3.57.

0.1 6

0.09

5

0.08

0.07 4

Amplitude

Amplitude

0.06 3

0.05

0.04 2

0.03 1

0.02

0

0.01

0 –1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Time (s) Time (s)

FIGURE 3.15

Performance results of the PI controller design for the shoulder actuator for Equation 3.57. (a)

The step response of the upper arm cylinder for the maximal stroke y. (b) The voltage control

with respect to step response u.

Linear PID Control Design 41

TABLE 3.7

Control Parameters and Performance Design with Respect to Different Pressures of

the Upper Arm Cylinder with Different Loads in the Condition of Extended State

Load Pressure (bar) Kp /Ki Bandwidth (rad/s) Steady Time (s) Maximum Control (V)

40 150/10 8.37 1 7.53

60 150/10 7.73 1 7.68

80 170/10 7.74 1 8.70

100 179/21 7.02 0.9 9.34

TABLE 3.8

Control Parameters and Performance Design with Respect to Different Pressures of

the Upper Arm Cylinder with Different Loads in the Condition of Retracted State

Load Pressure (bar) Kp /Ki Bandwidth (rad/s) Steady Time (s) Maximum Control (V)

40 128/15 9.28 1 6.25

60 119/14 9.31 1 5.82

80 110/13 9.24 1 5.40

100 102/12 9.08 1 5.0

need to be adaptively regulated with the variable external load. Table 3.7

gives the control parameters and performance design with respect to differ-

ent pressures of the upper arm cylinder with different loads in the condition

of extended state.

As the hydraulic cylinder is controlled to be retracted, the control

parameters are also switched into the other designed interpolation table as

shown in Table 3.8. Obviously, the control parameters in the retracted condi-

tion are less than the corresponding parameters in the extended condition

because the external load of the retracted cylinder is negative where the

gravity of the load mass need not be compensated.

Similarly, the control parameters of the forearm cylinder is also designed

like the above two tables in the condition of extended and retracted states.

3.5 Experiment

To verify the PI controller, the experimental bench of the two-DOF robotic

arm driven by EHA is set up as shown in Figure 3.16 [11,12]. The two EHAs

include two servo valves (Moog D633-R02K01M0NSM2), two double-acting

cylinders (Hoerbiger LB6-1610-0080-4M), an axial piston pump (Takako TFH-

315), a servo motor (BALDOR BSM63N-375), and a relief valve. The angle

42 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

11

1

3 10

8 9 4

5

6

FIGURE 3.16

Experimental equipment (1—robotic arm, 2—hydraulic cylinder, 3—servo valve, 4—pressure

gauge, 5—relief valve, 6—fixed displacement pump, 7—servo motor, 8—encoder, 9—pressure

sensor, 10—tank, 11—IPC).

TABLE 3.9

Hydraulic Parameters Used in Simulation and Experiment

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Cd 0.62 w 0.024 m

ps 40 bar Aa 2.01 cm2

Ab 1.25 cm2 ν 0.62

Vt 1.74 × 10−5 m3 βe 7 × 108 Pa

Ksv 7.9 × 10−5 m/V Lmax 58 mm

Tsv 12 ms umax 10 V

K 0 b 2200 N.s/m

Ctl 2.5 × 10−11 m3 /(s · Pa) ρ 850 kg/m3

can obtain the cylinder position by trigonometry computation. The load pres-

sure on each EHA is measured by an optional tension/compression load cell

(Burster 8417-6005). The position derivatives is computed by forward Euler

method. The control law is executed by industrial personal computer (IPC).

The load mass is a disk on the forearm terminal. Some hydraulic parameters

of this experimental bench are shown in Table 3.9. The two cylinder position

demands are considered as y1d = 0.5Lmax sin(1.6π t), y2d = 0.5Lmax sin(2π t).

According to Tables 3.7 and 3.8, the PI control parameters are designed as

kp = 150, ki = 10, if ẏi ≥ 0. Otherwise, kp = 128, ki = 15.

Linear PID Control Design 43

Figures 3.17 and 3.18 show the position tracking results of the two

hydraulic cylinders. The magnitude of two sinusoidal demands is 29 mm,

and the two frequencies are 0.8 and 1 Hz. The two dynamic position errors

are less than 3 mm, that is, (yid − yi )/yid < 10%. The position errors of the

forearm cylinder is less than that of the upper arm cylinder, since the exter-

nal load of the upper arm hydraulic actuator is more violent than that of

forearm actuator from Figure 3.11. The two control variable u does not

exceed the control saturation ± 10 V, which means that the designed PI

controller can guarantee the stability of the closed-loop feedback control

30 3

2.5

20

2

Position (mm)

Position (mm)

10 1.5

1

0

0.5

–10 0

–0.5

–20

–1

–30 –1.5

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

Time (s) Time (s)

FIGURE 3.17

Position tracking results of the upper arm cylinder. (a) The upper arm position response y1 . (b)

The upper arm position error y1 .

(a)

y2d y2 (b) Δy2

30 3

20 2

Position (mm)

Position (mm)

10 1

0 0

–10 –1

–20 –2

–30 –3

0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15

Time (s) Time (s)

FIGURE 3.18

Position tracking results of the forearm cylinder. (a) The forearm position response y2 . (b) The

forearm position error y2 .

44 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

mance of the cylinder position is satisfactory (Figure 3.19). Figure 3.20 shows

the two chamber pressures of the asymmetrical cylinder. These pressures

are switched from a small value into the approximate value of the supply

pressure, which is less than the supply pressure ps = 40 bar.

(a) 8 (b) 8 u2

u1

6 6

4 4

Control (V)

Control (V)

2 2

0 0

–2 –2

–4 –4

–6 –6

–8 –8

0 5 10 15

0 5 10 15

Time (s)

Time (s)

FIGURE 3.19

Dynamic control voltages of two servo valves. (a) The upper arm control variable u1 . (b) The

forearm control variable u2 .

(a) 50 (b) 40

pa pb pa pb

35

40

Chamber pressure (bar)

30

pressure (bar)

30

25

20 20

15

10

10

0 5

–10 0

0 2 4 8 10 12 0 2 4 8 10 12

Time (s) Time (s)

FIGURE 3.20

Two chamber pressures of two cylinders. (a) The two chamber pressures of the upper arm

cylinder pa , pb . (b) The two chamber pressures of the forearm cylinder pa , pb .

4

Robust Control Method

CONTENTS

4.1 Linearized Hydraulic Model Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

4.2 Analysis of Parametric Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.3 Robust Model Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.4 Robust Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.4.1 Analysis of Open-Loop System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.4.2 Weight Function Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.4.3 Robust Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4.4.4 Simulation and Experimental Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

These uncertainties include uncertain linear/nonlinear parameter and uncer-

tain nonlinearity [17], which are caused by unknown viscous damping, load

stiffness, variations in control fluid volumes, physical characteristics of valve,

bulk modulus, and oil temperature variations [42]. If these uncertainties are

not addressed in the control design, the dynamic and steady performance of

EHS will be degraded and the robustness of the designed controller will also

be reduced. In this chapter, the robust control method of EHS is proposed to

handle the parametric uncertainties and compensate their negative effect in

real engineering [20]. Thus, the dynamic and steady behaviors are obviously

improved, especially the largely unknown load disturbances emerging in the

electro-hydraulic actuator.

In this chapter, first, the linear mathematical model of EHS is constructed

by flow-pressure model linearization. Second, the external load forces of the

two-DOF robot arm are modeled by Lagrange dynamic equation. A bounded

linear function is constructed to describe the relationship between load forces

and cylinder position. Then the H∞ suboptimal controller is designed in the

output feedback form with structural and parametric uncertainty. Both the

simulation and experiment are performed to validate the effectiveness of

the developed algorithm.

45

46 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

In this section, for convenient discussion, the dynamic cylinder model of

EHA is adopted by the linearized hydraulic model mentioned in Equa-

tions 2.4 and 2.25. Thus, the linear model of the hydraulic cylinder is shown

as follows:

Kqi

1 Vt

Aa xv (s) − A2a Kcei + 2(1+υ 2 )βe

s FL (s)

y(s) = , (4.1)

Vt mt mt Kcei bVt

s3 + + 2 s

2

2(1+υ 2 )βe A2a A2a 2(1+υ 2 )βe Aa

bKcei Vt K KKcei

+ 1+ + s+

A2a 2(1+υ 2 )βe A2a A2a

where y is the displacement of the piston, xv is the spool position of the servo

valve, Kqi , Kcei (i = a, b) are the flow gain of the servo valve and flow-pressure

coefficient, Aa and Ab are the annulus areas of the two chambers (υ = Aa/Ab ),

V t is the cylinder volume, β e is the effective bulk modulus, mt is the load

mass, K is the load spring constant, b is the viscous damping coefficient of

oil, and FL is the external load on the hydraulic actuator from the mechanical

structure of the two-DOF robotic arm.

Remark 4.1

From Equation 4.1, it is clear that the hydraulic cylinder model is simplified

as a third-order linear model. If there exist bounded uncertain parameters

such as V t , K, b, Kq , and Kce , this linear model is appropriately handled by the

robust control method, which obtains an H∞ suboptimal solution to preserve

a satisfactory dynamic control performance.

order linear model mentioned in Equation 2.9 as follows:

2 2

ẍv + 2ζsv ωsv ẋv + ωsv xv = Ksv ωsv u, (4.2)

where ζ sv is the damping ratio, ωsv is the natural frequency, Ksv is the servo

valve gain, and u is the control voltage.

According to Equations 4.1 and 4.2, the whole state-space model of the

electro-hydraulic actuator is five. The control input variable is u and the

output cylinder position is y.

Robust Control Method 47

In the linear model of the cylinder (4.1), V t , b, and Kq are three paramet-

ric uncertainties. They are caused by operating conditions, environmental

variability, hydraulic characteristic variations, and the linearized model error.

The flow gain of the servo valve Kq changes with time due to variable load

pressure PL and component degradation variations. Because of the asymme-

try cylinder, the value of Kq is different in cylinder extension or retraction,

respectively.

Some hydraulic parameters used in simulation and experiments are shown

in Table 4.1. According to Equations 3.16 and 3.21, the load flow gain of valve

Kq for the single-rod electro-hydraulic actuator is rewritten as follows:

ps − pl − pvloss − ptube

Kq = Kq0 ,

ps

2

Kqa = Kq , (4.3)

1 + υ3

2(υ(ps − pvloss − ptube ) + pl )

Kqb = Kq .

(ps − pvloss − ptube − pl )(1 + υ 3 )

The load mass is 1 kg and the motion frequency of the shoulder arm is

assumed to be no more than 0.5 Hz. Thus, the load pressure pL range of the

shoulder cylinder can be estimated by Lagrange equation. The maximum

value of pL is 40 bar. If some known parameters are substituted into Equa-

tion 4.3, the flow gain ranges of the rod chamber and non-rod chamber are

TABLE 4.1

Hydraulic Parameters Used in Simulation and

Experiments

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Ps 40 bar Pr 2 bar

Aa 2.01 cm2 Kq0 0.015 m2 /s

Ksv 3.95 × 10−4 m/V βe 2 × 108 Pa

ωsv 353.6 rad/s ζ sv 0.707

pvloss 1.4 bar ptube 7.5 bar

Lc 157 mm dr max 79 mm

m1 1.772 kg m2 0.739 kg

48 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

estimated as follows:

0.012 ≤ Kqa ≤ 0.02,

(4.4)

0.019 ≤ Kqb ≤ 0.027.

So the range of Kq can be considered as 0.012 < Kq < 0.027. The nominal

values K̄q of Kq is 0.02 m2 /s and the maximum relative uncertainty pKq is

0.375 with the relative variation. The flow gain of the servo valve Kq can be

represented as follows:

Equation 2.1, the cylinder volume V t is not accurate. The actual volume can

be described as follows:

Va = Va0 + Aa y

. (4.6)

Vb = Vb0 − Ab y

(4.7)

Aa y Vt , Ab y Vt ,

ever, the initial volumes of two chambers are unknown, which means per-

haps not in the center of the cylinder chamber. So the parameter V t can be

represented as a parametric uncertainty. The initial volumes of two chambers

are estimated as follows:

(Lc − dr max )Aa /2 ≤ Va0 ≤ (Lc + dr max )Aa /2

. (4.8)

(Lc − dr max )Ab /2 ≤ Vb0 ≤ (Lc + dr max )Ab /2

After the known parameters are substituted into Equation 4.8, the nom-

inal values V̄t of V t is 2.85e-5 m3 and the maximum relative uncertainty

pVt is 0.663 with the relative variation δ Vt . The cylinder volume V t can be

represented as follows:

experiment test. The value is 5000 or 2000 Ns/m in cylinder extension or

retraction, respectively. So the nominal values b̄ of b is 3500 Ns/m and the

Robust Control Method 49

viscous damping coefficient b can be represented as follows:

b = b̄(1 + pb δb ), −1 ≤ δb ≤ 1. (4.10)

Now the external load FL is the maximum disturbance in the dynamic char-

acteristic of the cylinder. It can be considered as an unmodeled disturbance.

In this chapter, the quantitative relationship between the external load FL and

the position of the cylinder is analyzed to describe the structural uncertainty.

According to Equation 3.43, two torques on the upper arm and forearm Tu

and Tf are obtained by Lagrange method. Then, two external load forces FLu ,

FLf that change with the variation of two joint angles are computed by

⎧ Tu (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎨ FLu (θ1 , θ2 ) = l (θ )

⎪

1 1

, (4.11)

⎪

⎪ T (θ ,θ )

⎩ FLf (θ1 , θ2 ) = f 1 2

l2 (θ2 )

where li (θ i )(i = 1, 2) are the force arms of the external load forces.

To consider the effect of the external load in the linear model (4.1) of EHS,

two fictitious proportional gains are defined as follows:

⎧

⎪ FLu (θ1 , θ2 ) Tu (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎪ KFLu (θ1 ) = =

⎪

⎪ c1 (θ1 ) l1 (θ1 )c1 (θ1 )

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ FLu (θ1 , θ2 ) Tu (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎪

⎨ KFLu (θ2 ) = c2 (θ2 )

⎪ =

l1 (θ1 )c2 (θ2 )

, (4.12)

⎪

⎪ FLf (θ1 , θ2 ) Tf (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎪ KFLf (θ1 ) = =

⎪

⎪ c1 (θ1 ) l2 (θ2 )c1 (θ1 )

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ F (θ , θ ) Tf (θ1 , θ2 )

⎩ KFLf (θ2 ) = Lf 1 2 =

c2 (θ2 ) l2 (θ2 )c2 (θ2 )

The dynamic ranges of KFLu and KFLf in a duration are shown in Figure 4.1.

Here, two fictitious proportional gains KFLu (θ 1 ) and KFLf (θ 2 ) are larger than

the other two gains, respectively. It means that the external load FLu is

influenced by the shoulder angle θ 1 more than θ 2 . It is similar to FLf .

So the structural uncertainty caused by FL can be described as follows:

FLu = KFLu (θ1 )y1

. (4.13)

FLf = KFLf (θ2 )y2

The nominal values K̄FLu , K̄FLf of KFLu and KFLf are 0 N/m, which means

the no-load motion. The maximum relative uncertainties pKFLu and pKFLf are

50 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

1500

KF (θ1)

Lu

KF (θ2)

Lu

KF (θ1)

Lf

1000

KF (θ2)

Lf

500

KF (N/m)

L

–500

–1000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

t (s)

FIGURE 4.1

Dynamic ranges of KFLu and KFLf in one motion duration.

1200 and 300 with the relative variations δ KFLu and δ KFLf . The two fictitious

proportional gains and can be represented as follows:

KFLu = K̄FLu (1 + pKFLu δKFLu ), −1 ≤ δKFLu ≤ 1

. (4.14)

KFLf = K̄FLf (1 + pKFLf δKFLf ), −1 ≤ δKFLf ≤ 1

Remark 4.2

From Equations 4.5, 4.9, and 4.10, the three parametric uncertainties Kq , V t ,

and b are adopted by the multiplication uncertain expressions. However, KFL

is adopted by the addition uncertain expression.

The parameters Kq , V t , and b may be represented as an upper linear fractional

transformation (LFT) [14,39], that is, Kq = Fu (MKq , δ Kq ), V t = Fu (MVt , δ Vt ),

b = Fu (Mb , δ b ), where

Robust Control Method 51

0 K̄q

MKq = ,

pKq K̄q

−pVt 1/V̄t

MVt = , (4.15)

−pVt 1/V̄t

0 B̄e

MBe = .

pBe B̄e

KFLu = Fu (MKFLu , δ KFLu ), KFLf = Ff (MKF , δ KF ), where

Lf Lf

0 1

MKFLu = ,

pKFLu K̄FLu

(4.16)

0 1

MKF = p K̄FLf .

Lf KF Lf

Taking the shoulder hydraulic actuator for example, the robust model with

parametric and structural uncertainties is shown in Figure 4.2. If some vec-

tors are defined as the state variable vector X = [x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 ]T , the control

inputs u(t) is the voltage of the servo valve, the vector of exogenous inputs

w(t) = [w1 , w2 , w3 , w4 , w5 , w6 ]T , the vector of measurements y(t), the reg-

ulated output vector z(t) = [z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 , z5 , z6 ]T , then the linear uncertain

state-space model is described as follows:

⎧

⎪

⎪ Ẋ(t) = AX(t) + B1 W(t) + B2 u(t)

⎨

Z(t) = C1 X(t) + D11 W(t) , (4.17)

⎪

⎪

⎩

Y(t) = C2 X(t) + Yd (t)

where

⎡ ⎤

0 1 0 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ −ωsv 2 −2ζsv ωsv 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 1 0 ⎥

A =⎢

⎢

⎥,

⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣4K̄q βe Aa 4βe K̄FLu Kce 4βe A2a K̄F −4Kce βe ⎦

0 − − − b̄βe Kce − m Lu − mb̄

V̄t m1f V̄t m1f V̄t m1f V̄ m 1f V̄t 1f

t 1f

(4.18)

52 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

δK w4

w1 FLu

δKq w6

z1 δV MK

t z6 FLu

1/m1f

xv 4β A MKq + −

e a

m1f − x⋅ 3 x⋅ 2 x⋅ 1 x1

−

MV

t ∫ ∫ ∫

− −

− δB

e w5

z5

MB 1/m1f

e

4Kcβe

4βe Aa2

m1f

w3

δB

z3 e

βe Kc

MB

e m1f

δK w2

FLu

z2

MK 4βe Kc

FLu m1f

FIGURE 4.2

Robust model with parametric and structural uncertainties.

⎡ ⎤

0 0 0 0 0 0

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥

B1 = ⎢

⎢ 0

⎥,

⎥ (4.19)

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎣ pKq pKFLu pBe ⎦

− − −pKFLu −pBe −pvt

V̄t V̄t V̄t

T

B2 = 0 Ksv ωsv

2 0 0 0 , (4.20)

⎡ ⎤

4K̄q βe Aa

⎢ m 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ 1f ⎥

⎢ 4βe Kc ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ m1f ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ b̄βe Kc ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ m1f ⎥

C1 = ⎢

⎢ 1

⎥ , (4.21)

⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ m1f ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ B̄e ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ m1f ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ 4K̄q βe A 4βe K̄FLu Kc 4βe A2a B̄e βe Kc −4Kc βe ⎦

0 − − −

V̄t m1f V̄t m1f V̄t m1f V̄t m1f V̄t

Robust Control Method 53

eu

Wu

Uncertainty model

Δ

z

w

+

r + u Ghyd y ep

K Wp

− −

+

d −

Gd

FIGURE 4.3

Block diagram of the closed-loop system with robust performance requirements.

⎡ ⎤

0 0 0 0 0 0

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

D11 =⎢

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥,

⎥ (4.22)

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ pKq pKFLu pBe ⎦

− − 0 0 −pvt

V̄t V̄t V̄t

C2 = 0 0 1 0 0 . (4.23)

measurement noise Yd (t) can be described in frequency domain as follows:

1 + 0.12s

Yd (s) = Gd (s)N(s), Gd (s) = 0.006 × , (4.24)

1 + 0.001s

The block diagram of the closed-loop system with robust performance

requirements is shown in Figure 4.3. In this figure, the linear uncertain state-

space model is described as block Ghyd , the block = diag(δ Kq , δ Vt , δ Be , δ KFLu ),

r is the demand displacement of the cylinder input, d is the measure-

ment noise input, and K is the robust controller. The weighting functions

W p and W u are used to reflect the relative significance of the performance

requirement.

Remark 4.3

The block diagram of the closed-loop system (Figure 4.3) involves two inputs

r and d, and two outputs ep and eu , where ep is the tracking error of the

54 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

cylinder position and eu is the control variable. The objective of the robust

controller is to design K to guarantee the tracking error ep = W p (r − y)

achieving the required performance under the control saturation constraint

of the control variable eu and the existed external disturbance d.

The goal of the controller design is to satisfy the robust stability and perfor-

mance in the case of the parametric and structural uncertainties. In addition,

the controller should reduce the output sensitivity due to the presence of

measurement noise.

If the structural uncertainty model FL (4.13) is embedded in the linear EHS

model (4.1) and (4.2), then the open-loop system of the EHS model from the

control variable u to the output cylinder position y is given by

Kqi Ksv ωsv

2

Y(s) Aa s2 +2ζsv ωsv s+ωsv2

= ,

u(s) Vt mt

s +

3 mt Kcei

+ bVt

s2 +

2(1+υ 2 )βe A2a A2a 2(1+υ 2 )βe A2a

Vt KFLi

Kcei KFLi

1 + bKcei2 +

Vt K

2 + s + KK2cei / 1 +

Aa 2(1+υ )βe Aa

2 22Aa (1+υ )βe

2 Aa A2a

(4.25)

tion 4.12.

By referring to the open-loop control system analysis in Section 3.1, Gopen

needs to be analyzed since the three performance indexes, that is, the mag-

nitude margin Am , the phase margin Pm , and the system bandwidth ωc , are

reflected in the open-loop system. The frequency response of the open-loop

system with uncertainties is shown in Figure 4.4. The magnitude is little dif-

ferent between perturbed parameter and nominal parameter. But the phase is

significantly different, which is mainly caused by the structural uncertainty

parameter KFLu . Owing to the presence of KFLu , the stable phase of the open-

loop system will lead or lag approximately 40° compared to the nominal

model in the middle frequency stage. So the important objective of robust

controller design is to compensate the phase margin of the system.

It should be noted that, in a general condition, the external load FL (t) is a

typical disturbance input of the EHS. The linear EHS model (4.1) and (4.2) is

difficult to simplify into Equation 4.25 due to the two system inputs u and FL .

Thus, according to the analysis of the dynamic ranges of KFLu and KFLf in a

Robust Control Method 55

100

Log magnitude (dB)

Nominal

Perturbed

10−2

10−4

0.1 1 6.28 10 100

0

Phase (degrees)

−50

−100

−150

−200

0.1 1 6.28 10 100

Frequency (rad/s)

FIGURE 4.4

Frequency response of the open-loop system with varying uncertainty parameters Kq , V t , b, and

KFLu .

duration in Section 4.2, the simplified linearized model (4.13) can be substi-

tuted into Equation 4.1, and the open-loop system of the EHS model (4.25) is

obtained.

The weighting functions W p and W u are iteratively designed according to

robust performance requirement and control constraint. If W p is larger, the

dynamic tracking performance of EHS is required to be higher. But the robust

controller is more difficult to find a feasible solution in this case. Otherwise,

the robust controller is easily designed. If W u is larger, the control constraint

is rigorous, which means the control variable u is bounded in sufficiently

small value. In this case, the robust controller is also difficult to design. The

general form of W p is designed as follows [15]:

s/Ms + ωc

Wp = . (4.26)

s + ωc Ae

0.01. It means the relative steady error between system output and demand

56 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

sensitivity, which is selected as 2. ωc is the prospective bandwidth of the

closed loop, which is selected as 2π according to the bandwidth range of the

demand position input. The weighting function W u is selected as 6 × 10 − 4 ,

which can satisfy the maximum control voltage ± 10 V of the servo valve in

the following iteration.

Consider the general feedback system in Figure 4.5, which includes two

cross-linked subsystems H1 and H2 . If there exist four constants γ 1 , γ 2 , c1 ,

and c2 such that

H1 e1 ≤ γ1 e1 + c1

, (4.27)

H2 e2 ≤ γ2 e2 + c2

where ∀e1 , e2 ∈ Lp , and γ 1 γ 2 < 1, then there exist two sufficiently large

constants γ and c such that

e1 u1

e2 ≤ γ u2 + c, (4.28)

y1 = H1 e1 , e1 = u1 − y2 ,

(4.29)

y2 = H2 e2 , e2 = u2 + y1 .

u1 + e1

H1

– y1

+

y2 u2

e2

H2

+

FIGURE 4.5

Cross-linked feedback system.

Robust Control Method 57

Thus, if two errors e1 and e2 are defined as the system outputs, and u1 , u2

are system inputs, then the following condition is satisfied:

e1 = u1 − H2 e2

. (4.30)

e2 = u2 + H1 e1

H1 e1 = u2 − e2 ≥ e2 − u2

. (4.31)

H2 e2 = u1 − e1 ≥ e1 − u1

e2 ≤ γ1 e1 + u2 + c1

. (4.32)

e1 ≤ γ2 e2 + u1 + c2

To address Equation 4.32, if the two sides of two equalities are multiplied by

γ 1 , γ 2 , respectively, and are incorporated together, we can obtain

⎧ 1

⎪

⎨ e1 ≤ 1 − γ γ (u1 + γ2 u2 + c2 + γ2 c1 )

⎪

1 2

. (4.33)

⎪

⎪ 1

⎩ e2 ≤ (u2 + γ1 u1 + c1 + γ1 c2 )

1 − γ1 γ2

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

1 γ2 c 2 + γ2 c 1

⎢ 1 − γ1 γ2 ⎥

1 − γ1 γ2 ⎥ ⎢ 1 − γ1 γ2 ⎥

γ = ⎢

⎣ γ 1

⎦ ,

c = ⎣⎢ ⎥

⎦ , (4.34)

1 c 1 + γ1 c c

1−γ γ

1 − γ1 γ2 1 − γ1 γ2 1 2

Remark 4.4

Theorem 5.1 denotes that if the feedforward subsystem and feedback

subsystem H1 and H2 are L stable, and the gain γ 1 , γ 2 are bounded by

γ 1 γ 2 < 1, then the closed-loop system is a bounded-input-bounded-output

stable system.

4.4, if the nominal closed-loop sys-

tem of EHS Gnc is satisfied as Gnc < 1, then the closed-loop system may be

58 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

101

100

Magnitude

10−1

μ(W −1

p )

10−2

μ(G cn)

10−3

10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 102

Frequency (rad/s)

FIGURE 4.6

Singular values of the inverse function μ−1 Wp and the nominal closed-loop system μ Gnc .

following rule holds, then the closed-loop system is stable:

Wp Gn ≤ μ Wp μ Gnc < 1, (4.35)

c ∞

For convenient expression, Equation 4.35 is rewritten as follows:

μ Gnc < μ−1 Wp . (4.36)

Then the singular values of the inverse function μ−1 Wp and the nominal

n

closed-loop system μ Gc are shown in Figure 4.6. As shown in Figure 4.6,

the dynamic variety μ Gnc is lower than μ−1 Wp . So Equation 4.35 is

satisfied.

The robust controller will solve two problems: robust stability and robust

performance requirement [4,10], which can be described in Figure 4.7. The

left figure shows the robust stability of the controller K under the parametric

uncertainty . In this case, u and w are two inputs and the required perfor-

mance z, the position response y, and the control performance eu are three

Robust Control Method 59

Gic = Fu(Ghyd, Δ)

Δ

z Gc

w

u Ghyd y Gic

d ep

Gd Wp

K K

eu

Wu

FIGURE 4.7

Block diagram for the description of robust stability and robust performance.

outputs. After the robust stability is discussed, the robust performance of the

controller K is analyzed in the right figure. In this case, d is the input and the

dynamic tracking performance of position ep is the output. The robust sta-

bility of the designed controller is equivalent to the H∞ suboptimal control

problem as follows.

The subsystem Gic = Fu Ghyd , with the parametric uncertainty is con-

structed as a cross-link together with the controller K. According to Theo-

rem 5.1, a stabilizing controller K needs to be found such that the H∞ norm

of the closed-loop transfer function is less than a given positive number γ ,

that is,

Fl (Gic , K)∞ = Fl Fu Ghyd , , K ∞ < γ , (4.37)

stabilizing

The robust performance requirement represents two performances, that is,

the tracking error of position response ep and the control variable eu . Both of

them are constrained by the weight functions W p and W u . Thus, if the sen-

sitivity and complementary sensitivity functions of the closed-loop feedback

control system satisfies the following constraint:

Wp (I + Gic K)−1 Gd

< 1, (4.38)

Wu K(I + G K)−1

ic ∞

The robustness analysis for different uncertainty parameters is given in

Figures 4.8 and 4.9. The maximum robust stability bound with varying uncer-

tainty parameters Kq , V t , b, and KFLu from the relative uncertainties = − I

to = I. Figure 4.8 shows the upper bound and lower bound of the singular

60 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

100

Upper bound

Low bound

10−1

μ(GicK)

10−2

10−3

10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 102

Frequency (rad/s)

FIGURE 4.8

Maximum robust stability bound with varying uncertainty parameters Kq , V t , b, and KFLu .

100 Nominal

Upper bound

Low bound

10−0.1

μ

10−0.2

Frequency (rad/s)

FIGURE 4.9

Maximum robust performance bound with varying uncertainty parameters Kq , V t , b, and KFLu .

Robust Control Method 61

this figure, μ(Gic K) < 1, which denotes that the feedback control system has

the robust stability. No matter how the uncertain parameters Kq , V t , b, and

KFLu changes, the closed-loop system is stable as shown in Figure 4.7. Differ-

ent from Figure 4.8, Figure 4.9 gives the singular values between μ(Gsen Gd )

and μ(1 − Gsen ), where Gsen is the sensitivity function of the closed-loop

system and 1 − Gsen is the complementary sensitivity function.

In Figure 4.8, the singular value of the closed loop perturbed by uncer-

tainty parameters is 0.37, which is less than 1. It shows that the closed-loop

system Gc is stable and its relative uncertainties can be extended to 1/0.37.

However, in Figure 4.9, the maximum singular value of the upper bound

for μ(Gsen Gd ) or μ(1 − Gsen ) shows that the robust performance require-

ment is 1.06. It is a little more than 1 in the low frequency stage. It means

the steady trace accuracy may not be excellent. But in the middle fre-

quency stage 4–20 rad/s, the maximum singular value is less than 1. It

means that the dynamic trace performance and robustness margin meet the

requirement [46].

Then the frequency domain result of the designed robust controller is

shown in Figure 4.10. After iterative design, the robust controller is seven

orders. Taking the realistic project into account, the controller should be

reduced into lower order by the balanced truncation method [57]. From

Figure 4.10, we can see that reduced order controller is very similar to the

102

Log |u|

7th orders u

4th orders u

100

10−4 10−2 100 102 104

Frequency (rad/s)

100

7th orders u

Phase (degrees)

4th orders u

−100

10−4 10−2 100 102 104

Frequency (rad/s)

FIGURE 4.10

Frequency domain result of the designed robust controller.

62 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

0.08

0.06

0.04

y (m)

0.02

0

Response

Demand

−0.02

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (s)

FIGURE 4.11

Cylinder position response in time domain by the designed robust controller.

able. At last, the controller is simplified to four orders as follows:

n4 s4 + n3 s3 + n2 s2 + n1 s + n0

Ki (s) = yid − yi , i = 1, 2, (4.39)

d4 s + d3 s + d2 s + d1 s + d0

4 3 2

d3 = 146.2, d2 = 1938.3, d1 = 6198.7, and d0 = 77.4, yid is the demand input,

and yi is the measurement output, which can be computed by triangle

geometry for the upper arm and forearm hydraulic actuators.

After the robust controller is obtained, the cylinder position response in

time domain is given by Figure 4.11. The step demand is a pulse input, where

the magnitude is ± 79 mm and the period is 4 s. The response time of the

cylinder position is 0.4 s and the steady-state error is less than 1 mm. This

denotes that the robust controller can guarantee the output tracking accuracy.

The control voltage of the servo valve is shown in Figure 4.12. Because the

control saturation is ± 10 V, the robust controller is designed to guarantee the

dynamic tracking accuracy of the cylinder position under the control input

constraint by the robust performance requirement (4.38).

The nonlinear simulation of Equations 4.1, 4.2, and 4.39 can be implemented

by MATLAB/Hydraulic and Simechanics modules. The maximum stroke of

the cylinder is 79 mm. So the range of the shoulder joint angle is from −60°

to 20° and the range of the elbow joint angle is from 40° to 130°. Furthermore,

Robust Control Method 63

15

10

5

u (V)

−5

−10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (s)

FIGURE 4.12

Designed controller result in time domain.

the relative variations δ Vt , δ b , δ KFLu , and δ KFLf are all selected as 1, which means

the maximum uncertainties. Then, two simulation results about the square

response and the sinusoidal response of the maximum stroke are shown in

Figures 4.13 through 4.16.

Shoulder angle (degrees)

20 Demand

0 Simulation

−20 Experiment

−40

−60

−80

0 5 10 15 20 25

Elbow angle (degrees)

120

100

80

60

40

0 5 10 15 20 25

t (s)

FIGURE 4.13

Square response of two joint angles in simulation and experiment.

64 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

10

Shoulder control (V)

−5 Simulation

Experiment

−10

0 5 10 15 20 25

10

Elbow control (V)

−5

−10

0 5 10 15 20 25

t (s)

FIGURE 4.14

Control voltage of two servo valves in simulation and experiment for square demand.

The two square frequencies are 0.1 and 0.1 Hz and the sinusoidal frequen-

cies are 0.3 and 0.5 Hz, respectively. Since the load on the shoulder joint

is heavier than the elbow joint, the sinusoidal frequency for the shoulder

motion is not allowed too high. The steady errors of two joint angles are less

than 2, 0.5, respectively, shown in Figure 4.13, which means that the relative

position errors are less than 5%. Owing to the small dynamic mechanical load

on the elbow arm, the tracking accuracy is higher than the shoulder arm. The

control voltages of two servo valves are no more than the control saturation

± 10 V as shown in Figure 4.14.

Similarly for the sinusoidal response, the maximum dynamic errors of two

joint angles are less than 3°, 3°, respectively, shown in Figure 4.15. These

steady errors are no more than the relative error 5% of demand input. The

control voltages are also no more than ± 10 V as shown in Figure 4.16. So the

two robust controllers of two hydraulic actuators can be validated effectively

in simulation.

In this experiment, the supply pressure ps is 40 bar, and the motor revo-

lution is fixed at 1000 rpm. The joint angle is measured by an encoder and

the control voltage is measured by a serial port terminal of the servo valve.

The experiment results are very close to the corresponding simulation results

as shown in Figures 4.13 through 4.16. The steady errors of two joint angles

are less than 2°, 2°, respectively, in square response results. The maximum

Robust Control Method 65

40

Demand

20 Simulation

0 Experiment

–20

–40

–60

–80

0 1 1.65 2 3 3.3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

140

Elbow angle (degrees)

120

100

80

60

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t (s)

FIGURE 4.15

Sinusoidal response of two joint angles in simulation and experiment.

dynamic errors of two joint angles are less than 4°, 4°, respectively, in sinu-

soidal response results, which are no more than the relative error 5% of

demand input. So the two robust controllers can guarantee the tracking posi-

tion accuracy and dynamic response performance in the case of the robust

stability. Furthermore, the control voltages of two servo valves are also no

2

Shoulder control (V)

–2

–3 Simulation

Experiment

–4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5

4

Elbow control (V)

–5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t (s)

FIGURE 4.16

Control voltage of two servo valves in simulation and experiment for sinusoidal demand.

66 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

20

–45

0 –50

–55 20

–20 –60 18

–65

–40 16 Demand

14 PI control

–60 10 Robust control

0 5 10 15 20 25

Elbow angle (degrees)

120

100

80

40

60 5

40

0 5 10 15 20 25

t (s)

FIGURE 4.17

Square response of the experiment result by the two control methods.

more than the control saturation, which is reflected in the robust performance

requirement eu as shown in Equation 4.38.

The traditional PI control methods can also be used in this EHS. The experi-

ment result comparison for the two control methods is shown in Figures 4.17

and 4.18. In Figure 4.17, although the step response by PI control is faster

than by robust control, the transient chatter emerges in two responses of the

shoulder, especially in the retraction process of the shoulder actuator. This

chatter phenomenon is the main cause by the different hydraulic parameters,

rapid changes of load forces between actuator extension and retraction. It

shows that the robust H∞ control method can eliminate the transient chatter

Shoulder angle (degrees)

20 –40 Demand

PI control

0 –50 Robust control

–20 –60

5

–40

–60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

140

Elbow angle (degrees)

120

100

80 130

120

60

110

40 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t (s)

FIGURE 4.18

Sinusoidal response of the experiment result by the two control methods.

Robust Control Method 67

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f )

FIGURE 4.19

Snapshots of the sinusoidal experiment process. (a) Two cylinders retracted entirely (t = 0 s). (b)

The elbow cylinder extended to the maximum stroke (t = 1 s). (c) The shoulder cylinder extended

to the maximum stroke (t = 1.65 s). (d) The elbow cylinder retracted entirely (t = 2 s). (e) The elbow

cylinder extended to the maximum stroke once again (t = 3 s). (f) The shoulder cylinder extended

to the maximum stroke once again (t = 3.3 s).

68 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

The maximum steady error is 5° of the shoulder step response by PI control,

which is a little larger than by robust control. The steady error of the elbow

step response is 2°, less than that of the shoulder step because of the smaller

load forces. In Figure 4.18, the hysteresis of sinusoidal response by PI control

is more clearer than by robust control. It shows that the dynamic tracking

performance is obviously improved by robust control method.

The video sequences of sinusoidal experiment process are as shown in

Figure 4.19. The two-DOF robotic arm is controlled steady by two robust

controllers with 1 kg disk load. Double cylinders are all retracted at ini-

tial time t = 0 s. Approximately 1 s later, the elbow cylinder is extended to

reach its maximum stroke and the shoulder cylinder is extending gradually.

Then the elbow cylinder has turned to retract and the shoulder cylinder is

extended to reach its maximum stroke at t = 1.65 s. At t = 2 s, the elbow

cylinder is retracted entirely and the shoulder cylinder turns to retract grad-

ually. Then the elbow cylinder is extended to reach its maximum stroke once

again at t = 3 s, which means the duration of the elbow joint motion has

ended. But the shoulder cylinder is retracting gradually at this time. After

3.3 s, the shoulder cylinder is retracted entirely, which means the duration of

the shoulder joint motion has ended.

5

Output Feedback Control Method

CONTENTS

5.1 Output Feedback Control Model of EHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.2 State Observer Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.2.1 Full-State Observer Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.2.2 Observer Convergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

5.3 Nonlinear Backstepping Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.3.1 Backstepping Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.3.2 Controller Design with Observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.3.3 Stability Discussion of EHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.4 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.4.1 Result of the Proposed Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

5.4.2 Compared Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

presented for a single-rod hydraulic actuator [19]. The system states are not

measured except the cylinder displacement. Although this system is not a

strict feedback system, the proposed controller theoretically guarantees the

stability and convergence of EHS. In addition, the stable full-state observer

is designed to estimate some unknown hydraulic states, which can be used

in the backstepping controller. To verify this proposed backstepping control

based on the full-state observer, an experiment is carried out. Experiment

results are obtained from the hydraulic position control of the two-DOF

robotic arm motion. Experiment results highlight the better dynamic perfor-

mance of the proposed method in comparison to the conventional PI control

method in some specific critical condition with high response frequency and

large unknown external load.

The electro-hydraulic system shown in Figure 2.1b comprises a servo valve, a

single-rod cylinder, a fixed-displacement pump, a relief valve, and a variable

69

70 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

load. The variable load Pl drives the two-DOF robotic arm manufactured by

Italian Institute of Technology, which is referred as the Robotic BigDog. In this

section, the nonlinear dynamic model of the single-rod hydraulic actuator

will be discussed.

The dynamics of the servo valve is adopted by a second-order linear model

mentioned in Equation 2.9 as follows:

2 2

ẍv + 2ζsv ωsv ẋv + ωsv xv = Ksv ωsv u, (5.1)

where xv is the spool position of the servo valve, ζ sv is the damping ratio, ωsv

is the natural frequency, and Ksv is the gain of control voltage u.

According to Equation 2.6, the flow equations of the single-rod cylinder

can be described as follows:

Cd wxv 2(ps − pa )/ρ xv ≥ 0

Qa = ,

Cd wxv 2(pa − pr )/ρ xv < 0

Cd wxv 2(pb − pr )/ρ xv ≥ 0

Qb = (5.2)

Cd wxv 2(ps − pb )/ρ xv < 0

where Qa is the main load flow as xv ≥ 0, Qb is the main load flow as xv < 0,

pa and pb are the pressure inside the two chambers of the cylinder, ps is the

supply pressure of the pump, Cd is the discharge coefficient, w is the area

gradient of the servo valve spool, and ρ is the density of the hydraulic oil.

The two load flows Qa and Qb are handled like the following uniform form:

⎧

⎪

⎪ 1 + sgn(xv ) 2

⎪

⎪ Qa = Cd wxv (ps − pa )

⎪

⎪ ρ

⎪

⎪ 2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1 − sgn(xv ) 2

⎪

⎪ + (pa − pr )

⎪

⎪

Cd wxv

⎨ 2 ρ

, (5.3)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1 + sgn(xv ) 2

⎪

⎪ Qb = Cd wxv (pb − pr )

⎪

⎪ ρ

⎪

⎪ 2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1 − sgn(x ) 2

⎪

⎪ +

v

(ps − pb )

⎩ 2

Cd wxv

ρ

⎧

⎨−1 x>0

sgn(x) = 0 x=0 . (5.4)

⎩

1 x<0

Output Feedback Control Method 71

tion of the backstepping control. So sgn(xv ) can be replaced with tanh(kxv ) as

follows [16]:

ekxv − e−kxv

sgn(xv ) ≈ tanh(kxv ) = , k 0. (5.5)

ekxv + e−kxv

hydraulic cylinder is shown as follows:

Aa ẏ + Ctl (pa − pb ) + (V0a + Aa y)ṗa /βe = Qa

, (5.6)

Ab ẏ + Ctl (pa − pb ) − (V0b − Ab y)ṗb /βe = Qb

where y is the displacement of the piston, Ctl is the coefficient of the total

leakage of the cylinder, β e is the effective bulk modulus, Aa and Ab are the

ram areas of the two chambers, and V 0a and V 0b are the initial total control

volumes of the two cylinder chambers, respectively.

From Equation 2.2, the mechanical dynamic equation is shown as follows:

where m is the load mass, K is the load spring constant, b is the viscous damp-

ing coefficient, Ff is the stick-slip friction caused by the viscous damp of oil,

and FL is the external load on the hydraulic actuator from the mechanical

structure of the two-DOF robotic arm.

The stick-slip friction often includes two items: a stick phase Ffstatic occurs

when the velocity is within a small critical velocity range and a slip fric-

tion Ffslip , which is the same as the Coulomb friction model [30]. Here, Ff

is defined as

uncertainties of b, and δ is the relative variation.

According to Remark 2.2, the H∞ norm of FL is bounded by a constant FL

as follows:

FL (y, ẏ, ÿ) < F . (5.9)

∞ L

[y, ẏ, pa , pb , xv , ẋv ]T , the control inputs u(t), which is the voltage of the servo

valve, the displacement of piston y(t) indirectly measured by the encoder, the

72 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

⎧

⎪ ẋ1 = x2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1

⎪

⎪ ẋ2 = (x3 Aa − x4 Ab − Kx1 − Ffstatic − b(1 + qb )x2 − FL )

⎪

⎪ m

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ βe Aa x2 βe Ctl

⎪

⎪ ẋ3 = − − (x3 − x4 )

⎪

⎪ +

⎪

⎪ V 0a A x

a 1 V 0a + Aa x1

⎪

⎪ ⎛ ⎞

⎪

⎪ 1 + tanh(kx5 ) 2

⎪

⎪ (p − x )

⎪

⎪ βe Cd wx5 ⎜ ρ

s 3 ⎟

⎪

⎪ ⎜ 2 ⎟

⎪

⎪ + ⎜ ⎟

⎪

⎪ V + A x ⎝ 1 − tanh(kx ) 2 ⎠

⎪

⎨

0a a 1

+

5

(x3 − pr )

2 ρ . (5.10)

⎪

⎪ β β

⎪

⎪ A

e b 2x C

e tl

⎪

⎪ ẋ = − (x3 − x4 )

⎪ 4

⎪ V0b − Ab x1 V0b − Ab x1

⎪

⎪ ⎛ ⎞

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1 + tanh(kx5 ) 2

⎪

⎪ (x4 − pr ) ⎟

⎪

⎪

⎪ βe Cd wx5 ⎜ ⎜ 2 ρ ⎟

⎪

⎪ − ⎜ ⎟

⎪

⎪ V − A x ⎝ 1 − tanh(kx ) 2 ⎠

⎪

⎪

0b b 1

+

5

(ps − x4 )

⎪

⎪ ρ

⎪

⎪ 2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ ẋ5 = x6

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ 2 2

ẋ6 = −ωsv x5 − 2ζsv ωsv x6 + Ksv ωsv u

Owing to the unknown states except x1 , a high-gain state observer is

designed to estimate the full state, which can be used in the design of

the backstepping control. In this section, different from the previous state

observer in Reference 16, a stable observer is constructed by more processing

steps. Then the global asymptotic convergence for the full-state observer is

proved.

According to Equation 5.10, the nonlinear model of the EHS can be rewrit-

ten as

Ẋ = AX + φ(X) + Bu,

(5.11)

y = CX,

Output Feedback Control Method 73

where

⎡ ⎤

0 1 0 0 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ Aa Ab ⎥

⎢0 0 − 0 0 ⎥

⎢ m m ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ βe Ctl βe Ctl ⎥

⎢0 0 − − 0 0 ⎥

⎢ V0a + Aa x1 V0a + Aa x1 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

A=⎢ ⎥, (5.12)

⎢ ⎥

⎢ βe Ctl βe Ctl ⎥

⎢0 0 − − 0 0 ⎥

⎢ V0b − Ab x1 V0b − Ab x1 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢0 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ ⎦

0 0 0 0 −ωv2 −2ζv ωv

T

B= 0 0 0 0 0 Ksv ωv2 , (5.13)

C= 1 0 0 0 0 0 , (5.14)

⎡ ⎤

0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 1 ⎥

⎢ (−Kx1 − Ffstatic − bx2 − bpb x2 − FL ) ⎥

⎢ m ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎛ ⎞ ⎥

⎢ 1 + tanh(kx5 ) 2 ⎥

⎢ (ps − x3 )+⎟ ⎥

⎢ ⎜ 2 ρ ⎥

⎢ βe Cd wx5 ⎜ ⎟ β A x

e a 2 ⎥

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ − ⎥

⎢ V0a + Aa x1 ⎝ 1 − tanh(kx ) 2 ⎠ V0a + Aa x1 ⎥

⎢ 5 ⎥

⎢ (x3 − pr ) ⎥

φ(X) = ⎢

⎢

2 ρ ⎥.

⎥

⎢ ⎛ ⎞ ⎥

⎢ 1 + tanh(kx5 ) 2 ⎥

⎢ (x4 − pr )+⎟ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ βe Cd wx5 ⎜ ⎜ 2 ρ ⎟ βe Ab x2 ⎥

⎢− ⎟+ ⎥

⎢ V0b − Ab x1 ⎜⎝ 1 − tanh(kx ) 2 ⎠ V0b − Ab x1 ⎥

⎢ 5 ⎥

⎢ (ps − x4 ) ⎥

⎢ 2 ρ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ 0 ⎦

0

(5.15)

74 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

matrix A; the new matrix A0 can be defined as

⎡ ⎤

0 1 0 0 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ K Aa Ab Aa ⎥

⎢− 0 − − 0 0 ⎥

⎢ m ⎥

⎢ m m m ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ βe Ctl ⎥

⎢ 0 0 − 0 0 0 ⎥

3×(−1)+4 ⎢ V0a + Aa x1 ⎥

A0 = ⎢ ⎥,

⎢ ⎥

⎢ βe Ctl ⎥

⎢ 0 0 − 0 0 0 ⎥

⎢ V0b − Ab x1 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥

⎣ ⎦

0 0 0 0 −ωv2 −2ζv ωv

(5.16)

Since the leakage coefficient Ctl has a small value and hence little impact,

two items A0 (3, 3) and A0 (4, 3) are neglected in this chapter. Hence, A0 (3, 3) =

A0 (4, 3) = 0. To ensure the validation and convergence of the observer, two

items A0 (3, 5) and A0 (4, 5) are replaced by other nonzero items as follows:

βe 2

A0 (3, 5) = Cd w ps , (5.17)

V0a + Aa x1 ρ

βe 2λ

A0 (4, 5) = − Cd w ps , (5.18)

V0b − Ab x1 ρ

Then, two elements A0 (6, 5) and A0 (6, 6) are moved into φ(X), which means

A0 (6, 5) = A0 (6, 6) = 0. So the new matrix A0 and φ(X) are defined as

⎡ ⎤

0 1 0 0 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢0 0 a23 −a23 − a24 0 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢0 0 ⎥

⎢ 0 0 0 a35 ⎥

A1 = ⎢

⎢

⎥,

⎥ (5.19)

⎢0 0 0 0 −a45 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢0 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥

⎣ ⎦

0 0 0 0 0 0

Output Feedback Control Method 75

⎡ ⎤

0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 1 ⎥

⎢ (−Kx1 − Ffstatic − bx2 − bpb x2 − FL ) ⎥

⎢ m ⎥

⎢ ⎛ ⎞ ⎥

⎢ 1 + tanh(kx ) 2 ⎥

⎢ 5

(ps − x3 ) ⎥

⎢ ⎜ ρ ⎟ ⎥

⎢ βe Cd wx5 ⎜⎜

2 ⎟ ⎥

⎟ ⎥

⎢

⎢ V0a + Aa x1 ⎜ 2 ⎟ ⎥

⎢ ⎝+ 1 − tanh(kx5 ) 2

(x3 − pr ) − Cd w ps ⎠ ⎥

⎢ ρ ρ ⎥

⎢ 2 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ βe Aa x2 ⎥

⎢ − ⎥

φ1 (X) = ⎢

⎢ V + A x ⎥,

⎞⎥

0a a 1

⎢ ⎛ ⎥

⎢ 1 + tanh(kx5 ) 2 ⎥

⎢ ⎜ (x4 − pr ) ⎟ ⎥

⎢ βe Cd wx5 ⎜ 2 ρ ⎟⎥

⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥

⎢− ⎟⎥

⎢ V0b − Ab x1 ⎜

⎝+ 1 − tanh(kx ) 2 2λ ⎥

ps ⎠ ⎥

5

⎢ (ps − x4 ) − Cd w

⎢ 2 ρ ρ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ βe Ab x2 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ + ⎥

⎢ V0b − Ab x1 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ 0 ⎦

−ωv2 x5 − 2ζv ωv x6

(5.20)

where

Aa

a23 = , (5.21)

m

Ab

a24 = , (5.22)

m

βe 2

a35 = Cd w ps , (5.23)

V0a + Aa x1 ρ

βe 2λ

a45 = Cd w ps . (5.24)

V0b − Ab x1 ρ

˙

X̂ = A1 X̂ + φ1 (X̂) + Bu + (y − ŷ),

T (5.25)

= 1 2 3 4 5 6 , i > 0, i = 1, . . . , 6.

displacement, ŷ = x̂1 .

76 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

If the designed observer is fast convergence, the next estimated state X̂(k +

1) can be computed by the current estimated state X̂(k) and current control

u(k) according to Equation 5.25. Now the stability and convergence of this

observer are analyzed. Since Equation 5.11 is subtracted by Equation 5.25,

the error state model of the observer is defined as

˙ = A X̃ + δ (X, X̃),

X̃ (5.26)

c φ

where

T

X̃ = x̃1 x̃2 x̃3 x̃4 x̃5 x̃6

T (5.27)

= x1 − x̂1 x2 − x̂2 x3 − x̂3 x4 − x̂4 x5 − x̂5 x6 − x̂6 ,

⎡ ⎤

−

1 1 0 0 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢−

2 0 a23 −a23 − a24 0 0⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢−

3 0 0 0 a35 0⎥

Ac = A1 − LC = ⎢

⎢−

⎥, (5.28)

⎢ 4 0 0 0 −a45 0⎥

⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢−

0 0 0 0 1⎥

⎣ 5 ⎦

−

6 0 0 0 0 0

det |sI − Ac | = s6 +

1 s5 +

2 s4 + [a23

3 + (a23 + a24 )

4 ]s3

+ [a23 a35

5 − (a23 + a24 )a45

5 ]s2

+ [a23 a35

6 − (a23 + a24 )a45

6 ]s = 0. (5.30)

Theorem 5.1

If the high gain of the observer

is satisfied to the following condition (5.31),

then the matrix Ac is Hurwitz after removing the only one eigenvalue 0. In

Output Feedback Control Method 77

⎧

⎪

1 > 0

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

2 > 0

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ a23

3 + (a23 + a24 )

4 > 0

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨ a23 a35

5 − (a23 + a24 )a45

5 > 0

.

⎪

⎪ a23 a35

6 − (a23 + a24 )a45

6 > 0

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

1

2 − a23

3 − (a23 + a24 )

4 > 0

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

1

2 [a23

3 + (a23 + a24 )

4 ] − [a23

3 + (a23 + a24 )

4 ]2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩

−

12

5 [a23 a35 − (a23 + a24 )a45 ] +

1

6 [a23 a35 − (a23 + a24 )a45 ] > 0

(5.31)

Proof. Equation 5.30 shows that one eigenvalue of the matrix Ac is 0 easily.

After removing the eigenvalue 0, Equation 5.30 can be simplified as

s5 + c4 s4 + c3 s3 + c2 s2 + c1 s + c0 = 0. (5.32)

According to Routh criterion, the necessary and sufficient conditions that all

characteristic roots have a negative real part must satisfy two properties as

follows:

I. All coefficients are greater than zero, which means ci > 0(i = 0, . . . ,4).

II. Arrange the coefficients ci in the following form:

s5 1 c3 c1

s4 c4 c2 c0

c 4 c 3 − c2 c 4 c 1 − c0

s3 0

c4 c4

c24 c1 − c4 c0

s2 c2 − c0 0

c 4 c 3 − c2 , (5.33)

c4 c 0 c 3 − c 2 c 0

c 4 c 1 − c0 c4

s1 − 0 0

c4 c c 1 − c4 c 0

2

c2 − 4

c 4 c 3 − c2

s0 c0 0 0

than 0.

worksheet of Equation 5.33, then the high gains of the observer

i (i = 1, . . . ,6)

are satisfied to five inequality conditions as shown in Equation 5.31.

78 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

According to the fourth and fifth inequalities of Equation 5.31, the follow-

ing property is satisfied:

When Equations 5.23 and 5.24 are substituted into Equation 5.34, the

constant parameter is satisfied as follows:

A2a

λ< . (5.35)

A2a + A2b

positive constant ε is defined, then the new estimation error is described as

T

η̃ = η̃1 η̃2 η̃3 η̃4 η̃5 η̃6

T (5.36)

x̃ x̃2 x̃3 x̃4 x̃5

= 1 x̃6 .

ε4 ε3 ε2 ε2 ε

After η̃ is substituted into Equation 5.26, the new error state equation is

described as

εη̃˙ = Aη η̃ + δφ (η, η̃, ε), (5.37)

where

⎡ ⎤

−

1 /ε 1 0 0 0 0

⎢ ⎥

⎢−

2 /ε2 0 a23 −a23 − a24 0 0⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢−

3 /ε3 0 0 0 a35 0⎥

Aη = ⎢

⎢

⎥,

⎥ (5.38)

⎢−

4 /ε3 0 0 0 −a45 0⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢−

/ε4 1⎥

⎣ 5 0 0 0 0 ⎦

−

6 /ε5 0 0 0 0 0

⎡ ⎤

0

⎢ ⎥

⎢εδ2 (η2 , η̂2 , ε)⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ δ3 (η5 , η̂5 , ε) ⎥

⎢

δφ (η, η̂, ε) = ⎢ ⎥. (5.39)

⎥

⎢ δ4 (η5 , η̂5 , ε) ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 0 ⎥

⎣ ⎦

εδ6 (η6 , η̂6 , ε)

Substituting

i in Equation 5.28 with the first column of Equation 5.38,

respectively, the two characteristic polynomials of matrix Aη and Ac are

Output Feedback Control Method 79

equivalent to Ac . So, the matrix Aη is also Hurwitz after removing one eigen-

value 0 and the seven inequality conditions (5.31) are still available for the

new error state Equation 5.37.

Theorem 5.2

If φ 1 (X) is continuous and differentiable, and its first-order derivative is

bounded, Equation 5.39 satisfies the following condition:

Because all the states described specified physical variables, the first-order

derivative of φ 1 (X) is bounded. According to Equation 5.36, the first-order

derivative of φ 1 (X) is still bounded, although its form derives from φ 1 (X).

Then Equation 5.39 can also be described as

⎡ ⎤

0

⎢ ⎥

⎢ εδ2 (η2 , η̂2 , ε) ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ 2 ⎥

⎢ε δ3 (η5 , η̂5 , ε)⎥

⎢

δφ (η, η̂, ε) = φ1 (η) − φ1 (η̂) = ⎢ ⎥. (5.41)

⎥

⎢ε2 δ4 (η5 , η̂5 , ε)⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ 0 ⎦

εδ6 (η6 , η̂6 , ε)

continuous and differentiable, a point η0i exists such that

= δi

(ηi0 ), ηi0 ∈ (ηi , η̂i ), (5.42)

ηi − η̂i

where δ

i (η0i ) is the derivative at η0i .

If ηi and η̂i belong to Mi , which is a bounded neighborhood, η0i also belongs

to Mi and the following condition is satisfied:

≤ sup δi

(ηi0 ) . (5.43)

ηi − η̂i η0 ∈M

i i

80 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

⎡ ⎤

0

⎡ ⎤

⎢ sup δ

(η0

⎢ 0 2 2 η̃2 ⎥

⎥

0 ⎢η2 ∈M2 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎢ εδ2 (η2 , η̂2 , ε) ⎥ ⎢ε sup δ

(η0 η̃3 ⎥

⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ 3 3 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢η30 ∈M3 ⎥

δφ (η, η̃, ε) = ⎢ε δ3 (η5 , η̂5 , ε)⎥ = ε ⎢ ⎥

2 ⎢ε2 δ4 (η5 , η̂5 , ε)⎥ ⎢ε sup δ

(η0 η̃4 ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 4 4 ⎥

⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎢η0 ∈M4 ⎥

⎢ 4 ⎥

εδ6 (η6 , η̂6 , ε) ⎢ 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ sup δ

(η0

2

η̃6 ⎦

η0 ∈M6 6 6

6 2

⎡ ⎤ (5.44)

0

⎢ sup δ

(η0 ⎥

η̃2 ⎥

⎢ 0 2 2

⎢η2 ∈M2 ⎥

⎢

0 ⎥

⎢ sup δ (η

⎢ 3 3 η̃3 ⎥

⎥

⎢η30 ∈M3 ⎥

< ε ⎢ ⎥ .

⎢ sup δ

(η0

⎢ 4 4 η̃4 ⎥

⎥

⎢η0 ∈M4 ⎥

⎢ 4 ⎥

⎢ 0 ⎥

⎢ ⎥

⎣ sup δ

(η0 η̃6 ⎦

η0 ∈M6 6 6

6 2

⎛! !⎞

! !!

!

μδ = max ⎝!! sup δi

(ηi0 !!⎠ , (5.45)

!η0 ∈Mi !

i

Theorem 5.3

In Equation 5.37, if the positive constant ε satisfies the following condition

(5.45), then the error vector η̃ converges to 0, which means η → η̂:

1

0<ε< , (5.46)

2λmax (Pη )μδ

where Pη is a positive definite matrix and λmax (Pη ) is the maximum eigen-

values of matrix Pη .

Output Feedback Control Method 81

I 0

ATη Pη + Pη Aη = − 5×5 . (5.48)

0 0

If Equation 5.37 is combined with Equations 5.47 and 5.48, then the

derivative of V η is

≤ − η̃ 22 + 2ελmax (Pη )μδ η̃ 22 (5.50)

≤ −(1 − 2ελmax (Pη )μδ ) η̃ 22 .

If ε satisfies the condition shown in Equation 5.46, then V̇η < 0. Therefore,

the error vector η̃ converges to 0 and the system described by Equation 5.37

is exponentially stable.

tion 5.36, we see that X → X̂.

The dynamic model of EHS in Equation 5.10 shows that the system order is

six. But the relative degree is only five. Therefore, this EHS is not a strict

feedback nonlinear system and then the recursive procedure of the back-

stepping control method cannot be used in Equation 5.10 directly. In this

section, the dynamic model is divided into two parts to design the backstep-

ping controller after a simple transformation of the pressure error from two

chambers.

82 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Equation 5.10 is considered to design the backstepping controller by recur-

sive procedure. At first, a pressure error is defined as

ep = p − pd ,

Aa x3 − Ab x4

p= ,

Aa (5.51)

Kx1d (t) Ffstatic FL

pd (t) = + + ,

Aa Aa Aa

where pd is the virtual command of the load pressure and p is the actual load

pressure, and x1d is the displacement command of the system input.

The error of x5 is defined as

e5 = x5 − x5d , (5.52)

1

x5d = − (k1 ep − ṗd + g1 ), (5.53)

g2

βe Aa x2 βe Ctl βe A2b x2

g1 = − − (x3 − x4 ) −

V0a + Aa x1 V0a + Aa x1 Aa (V0b − Ab x1 )

βe Ab Ctl

+ (x3 − x4 ), (5.54)

Aa (V0b − Ab x1 )

⎛ ⎞

ekx5 2

⎜ ekx5 + e−kx5 Cd w ρ (ps − x3 ) ⎟

βe ⎜ ⎟

g2 = ⎜ ⎟

⎜

V0a + Aa x1 ⎝ ⎟

e−kx5 2 ⎠

+ kx Cd wx5 (x3 − pr )

e 5 + e−kx5 ρ

⎛ ⎞ (5.55)

ekx5 2

⎜ ekx5 + e−kx5 Cd w ρ (x4 − pr ) ⎟

βe Ab ⎜ ⎟

+ ⎜ ⎟.

⎜

Aa (V0b − Ab x1 ) ⎝ −kx

⎟

e 5 2 ⎠

+ kx −kx

Cd wx5 (p s − x4 )

e 5 +e 5 ρ

1 2

V3 = e . (5.56)

2 p

Output Feedback Control Method 83

Aa ẋ3 − Ab ẋ4

V̇3 = ep ėp = ep − ṗd = ep (g2 x5 + g1 − ṗd ), (5.57)

Aa

we can see that

− k1 ep + g2 e5

= −k1 ep + g2 (x5 − x5d )

1 (5.58)

= −k1 ep + g2 x5 + (k1 ep − ṗd + g1 )

g2

= g2 x5 + g1 − ṗd .

is described as

V̇3 = −k1 e2p + g2 ep e5 . (5.59)

defined as

1 2

V4 = V3 + e , (5.60)

2k2 5

where k2 is a positive constant.

Then the derivative of V 4 is

e5

V̇4 = V̇3 + ė5

k2

(5.61)

e5

= −k1 e2p + g2 ep e5 + (x6 − ẋ5d ).

k2

If the virtual command x6d is satisfied as

e25 e5 e 6

V̇4 = −k1 e2p − + , (5.63)

k2 k2

where the error of x6 is defined as

e6 = x6 − x6d . (5.64)

defined as

1 2

V5 = V4 + e , (5.65)

2k3 6

where k3 is a positive constant.

84 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

The derivative of V 5 is

e6

V̇5 = V̇4 + ė6

k3

e25 e5 e6 e6

= −k1 e2p − + + (ẋ6 − ẋ6d ) (5.66)

k2 k2 k3

e25 e5 e6 e6

= −k1 e2p − + 2

+ (−ωsv 2

x5 − 2ζv ωsv x6 + Ksv ωsv u − ẋ6d ).

k2 k2 k3

1 2 k3

u= ωsv x5 + 2ζsv ωsv x6 + ẋ6d − e5 − e6 , (5.67)

Ksv ωsv

2 k2

e25 e2

V̇5 = −k1 e2p − − 6 < 0. (5.68)

k2 k3

So far, the recursive procedure for the third-order equivalent model of EHS

ends. By the construction of three Lyapunov functions, the stability of the

variable states xi (i = 3, 4, 5, 6) is analyzed from the third equation to the sixth

equation in Equation 5.10.

Owing to unknown variable states x5 and x6 , the variables e5 , e6 , ẋ6d cannot

be computed and the controller u shown in Equation 5.57 cannot be used in

EHS directly. In this section, the backstepping controller is further processed

by state estimation x̂i (i = 1, . . . , 6).

At first, the first and second equations in Equation 5.10 can be described as

the second-order linear nonhomogeneous model as follows:

Aa p − Ffstatic − FL

ẍ1 + α1 ẋ1 + α2 x1 = , (5.69)

m

where

b(1 + pb ) K

α1 = , α2 = . (5.70)

m m

different forms of the displacement command x1d as follows:

Output Feedback Control Method 85

of the sinusoidal function), pd is redesigned as

Kυ sin ωt FL

pds (t) = + , (5.71)

Aa Aa

pdd (t) = −σ1 x2 (t),

the characteristics roots of model (5.69) can be reassigned to improve

the dynamic performance of x1 .

Compared to the third equation in Equation 5.51, the stick item

Ffstatic is not included in pd shown in the second equation in

Equation 5.71 since the actual displacement x1 will be regulated

dynamically.

2. If x1d is the step command, we consider the similar form

Then, pd is redesigned as

Kυ(1 − e−τ t ) bυe−τ t FL

pds (t) = + + + Ffstatic , (5.73)

Aa Aa Aa

pdd (t) = −σ1 x2 (t).

After Equation 5.71 or 5.73 is substituted into Equation 5.69, the model can

be described by Laplace transform as follows:

where

Aa (pds + ep ) − Ffstatic − FL

p (s) = . (5.75)

m

If p (s) is considered as the system input, and x1 (s) is the system output,

since α 1 + σ 1 > 0, α 2 > 0, the two characteristics roots of system (5.74) have

all negative real parts, which means x1 (t) is asymptotically stable.

When t → ∞, s → 0 in Equation 5.74. According to the backstepping pro-

cedure in section A, the pressure error ep converges to 0. Then, from

Equation 5.74, we see that

Aa pds − Ffstatic − FL

x1 (t) → . (5.76)

α2 m

86 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Now Equation 5.71 or 5.73 is substituted into Equation 5.76, we see that

x1 (t) → = = x1d . (5.77)

m mα2

The above equation shows that the system output x1 (t) can be controlled to

track its command x1d by the equivalent system input p

(s). The parameter σ 1

is designed to make x1 fast converge to x1d .

According to the Lyapunov analysis in section A, the pressure error ep

converges to 0 exponentially, which means the dynamic response of load

pressure p can be satisfied to the system requirement by the regulation of

parameter k1 . In the expression of pds (t) shown in Equations 5.71 and 5.73,

the dynamic external load error FL (y, ẏ, ÿ) and FL exist. But this error has

little impact on the convergence of x1 .

Finally, the actual states xi (i = 2, . . . ,6) are replaced by their estimation and

the backstepping controller can be described as

⎧

⎪ 1 k3

⎪

⎪

⎪ û = 2

ωsv x̂5 + 2ζsv ωsv x̂6 + x̂˙ 6d − ê5 − ê6

⎪

⎪ Ksv ωsv

2 k2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ Aa x̂3 − Ab x̂4

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ êp = − pd

⎪

⎪ Aa

⎪

⎨

1

⎪ x̂5d = − (k1 êp − ṗd + g1 ) , (5.78)

⎪

⎪ g2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ x̂6d = −k2 g2 êp + x̂˙ 5d − ê5

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ ê5 = x̂5 − x̂5d

⎪

⎪

⎩

ê6 = x̂6 − x̂6d

tion 5.25.

Now the stability of EHS should be analyzed after the full-state feedback

control is realized. In Equation 5.11, the controller u is replaced by û as

follows:

Output Feedback Control Method 87

Combined with Equations 5.10, 5.52, 5.53, 5.62, 5.64, and 5.67, the three state

errors satisfy the following conditions:

ėp = −k1 ep + g2 e5 ,

ė5 = −e5 − k2 g2 ep + e6 ,

(5.80)

k3

ė6 = − e5 − e6 .

k2

According to Equations 5.74 through 5.76, the state error x1 equation is

satisfied:

Aa ep

ë1 (s) + (α1 + σ1 )ė1 (s) + α2 e1 (s) = . (5.81)

m

If the full-state error is defined as

T

Z = z1 z2 z3 z4 z5

T (5.82)

= e1 e 2 ep e5 e6 ,

and combined with Equations 5.11, 5.79 through 5.81, we see that

Ż = Ae Z + Be Z + B(u − û)

(5.83)

= Ae Z + Be Z + Bũ(X, X̃, x1d ),

where ⎡ ⎤

−1

⎢−α2 −(α1 + σ1 ) ⎥

⎢ ⎥

Ae = ⎢

⎢ −k1 ⎥,

⎥ (5.84)

⎣ −1 ⎦

−1

' (T

Be = 0 Aa

m ep g2 e5 −k2 g2 ep + e6 − kk3 e5 , (5.85)

2

adopted by the high-gain state observer. On the contrary, the tracking error

dynamics shown in Equation 5.83 is slow dynamics. Therefore, according to

Equation 5.25, the gain of the observer and the estimation of controller û

can guarantee that the state estimation X̂ converge to X quickly, and then

û → u. This explanation is simply described as

˙

X̂ = A1 X̂ + φ1 ( X̂ ) + B û + (y − ŷ). (5.87)

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Ẋ X X u

88 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

The controller u can guarantee that the state errors ep , e5 , and e6 are asymp-

totic convergence to 0 after the Lyapunov candidate functions V 3 , V 4 , and

V 5 are constructed. Moreover, the state errors e1 and e2 are also asymptotic

convergence to 0 on the basis of Equation 5.81. Obviously, the matrix Ae in

Equation 5.84 is Hurwitz. Therefore, the full-state error dynamics shown in

Equation 5.83 is a quasi-steady-state model as follows:

t>ς

Ż = Ae Z + Be Z + B(u − û) ⇔ Ż = Ae Z + Be Z, (5.88)

When t → ∞, according to Equation 5.88, the full-state error Z converges to

0 as quickly as possible.

5.4 Experiment

To test the proposed backstepping control method and the full-state

observer associated with the control of EHS, the experimental frame-

work of the model is presented as shown in Figure 3.16. Some of the

same hydraulic parameters are shown in Table 3.9. The other parameters

are V 0a = 1.74 × 10−5 m3 , V 0b = 8.66 × 10−6 m3 , Ksv = 7.9 × 10−4 m / V,

ωsv = 353.6 rad/s, ζ sv = 0.707, b = 2500 Ns/m, K = 1000 N/m, Ffstatic =

20 N, FL = 500 N, and pb = 20%. Since the stroke of the cylinder is 79 mm

and the shoulder angle of the upper arm is from − 70° to 50°, the range of

absolute coordinates position x1 is from − 0.0476 to 0.0303 m. However, in

the experiment, the displacement of the cylinder is not more than 58 mm to

avoid the boundary collision of the robotic arm.

The observer and control parameters are designed as follows:

1 = 1000,

2 = 10,

3 = 10−3 ,

4 = 10−3 ,

5 = 1000,

6 = 10.

2. The control parameters: k1 = 10−6 , k2 = 10−9 , k3 = 10−12 , σ 1 = 500.

3. In the function tanh(.), k = 1000.

The full states are first estimated by observer Equation 5.25. Then, Equa-

tions 5.54, 5.55, and 5.71 or 5.73, and the estimated states are substituted

Output Feedback Control Method 89

into the controller (5.78) to compute the current control voltage. Here, the

displacement command is considered as two types: sinusoidal and step

demands. The amplitude of the sinusoidal command is 0.0289 m with fre-

quency 0.5 Hz. The step command also has the same amplitude. The actual

displacement can be obtained by trigonometry of the robotic arm according

to the angle measured by the relative encoder.

Figures 5.1 through 5.4 show the related results of the sinusoidal and

step experiment, respectively. In Figure 5.1a, after 1.27 s, the actual cylin-

der displacement has been close to the value 0.025 m when the steady error

is less than 5%. The maximum control voltage is 9 V, not more than its

saturation ± 10 V as shown in Figure 5.1b. When the displacement nears

the step command, the control voltage reduces to 0 quickly. The estima-

tion of x1 is a correct prediction for the actual cylinder displacement by

the designed observer as shown in Figure 5.2a. According to the estima-

tions of x3 and x4 as shown in Figure 5.2c and d, the dynamic estimation

is sharp due to the existing error of the high observer. Moreover, this

single-rod EHS has a one-dimensional internal dynamics, which results

in the rigid dynamic error of estimated state. This phenomenon is also

shown in the sinusoidal experiment, which means the estimation of load

pressure pL defined in Equation 5.51 is not smooth until the dynamic

response finishes. In step experiment, after approximately 3 s later, the esti-

mation of pL is smooth and is close to 30 bar shown in Figure 5.2c. The

estimation of spool position x5 is corresponded to the control voltage û,

which is not more than its saturation ± 7.9 mm shown in Figure 5.2e. In

the sinusoidal experiment, the maximum dynamic error of displacement

is less than 5.7 mm, which means the dynamic error is not more than

(a) (b)

0.08 10

Command

0.06 Actual 8

Error

Estimation of u (V)

0.04

0.0289 6

0.025

x1 (m)

0.02

4

0

2

–0.02

–0.04 0

–0.06 –2

0 1.27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 5.1

Step response experiment of the upper arm hydraulic actuator. (a) The position of the upper arm

cylinder. (b) The control voltage of the upper arm cylinder.

90 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

0.0289

Estimation of x2 (m/s)

0.02 0.05

Estimation of x1 (m)

0 0

–0.02 –0.05

–0.04 –0.1

–0.06 –0.15

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

(c) × 106 (d) × 105

4 3.5

3

Estimation of x3 (Pa)

Estimation of x4 (Pa)

3 2.5

2

2

1.5

1 1

0.5

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

(e) (f) 1.5

× 10–3

5

Estimation of x6 (m/s)

1

Estimation of x5 (m)

3 0.5

2 0

1 –0.5

0 –1

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 5.2

State estimations by the high-gain state observer in step response experiment. (a) Estimation of

x1 in step response. (b) Estimation of x2 in step response. (c) Estimation of x3 in step response.

(d) Estimation of x4 in step response. (e) Estimation of x5 in step response. (f) Estimation of x6 in

step response.

10% when the sinusoidal frequency is 0.5 Hz. Owing to the initial posi-

tion error of x1 and dynamic estimated error for the sinusoidal command,

the control voltage is saturation in a short duration. When the actual dis-

placement tracks the command well, the control voltage is less than its

saturation.

Output Feedback Control Method 91

(a) (b)

0.06 10

Command

Actual 8

0.04 Error 6

Estimation of u (V)

0.02 4

2

x1 (m)

0 0

–2

–0.02

–4

–0.04 –6

–8

–0.06 –10

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 5.3

Sinusoidal response experiment of the upper arm hydraulic actuator. (a) The position of the

upper arm cylinder. (b) The control voltage of the upper arm cylinder.

The conventional PI control method u = kp (x1d − x1 ) + ki (x1d − x1 )dt is also

used in this experiment. To illustrate the problem, we compare the PI method

and the backstepping method in two different conditions:

as seen in Figure 5.8a, which means the required control bandwidth

is low and the dynamic external load is relatively small.

2. The sinusoidal frequency is 1 Hz and the elbow is always extended

as seen in Figure 5.8b, which is the worst control condition for the

shoulder hydraulic actuator.

can guarantee the fast response of displacement shown in Figure 5.5a. In fact,

the dynamic error of the PI method is smaller than the proposed method in

the first condition shown in Figure 5.5b. But when the required frequency of

command is increased and the external load nears the critical value, which is

the maximum bearing load of the shoulder hydraulic actuator, the dynamic

performance of the PI method becomes worse than the proposed method

shown in Figure 5.6a. The control voltage is more intense for the PI method

as shown in Figure 5.6c, which results into the dynamic displacement error

that is larger than the proposed method shown in Figure 5.6b. These com-

pared results show that the fixed control parameters of the PI method cannot

fit all work conditions. If the control parameters are chosen big enough, the

robustness performance will become weak in critical conditions, except most

normal conditions. Therefore, the proposed method is suitable for this robotic

92 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Estimation of x2 (m/s)

0.02 0

Estimation of x1 (m)

0 –0.2

–0.02 –0.4

–0.04 –0.6

–0.06 –0.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

(b) × 106 (d) × 106

4 4

Estimation of x3 (Pa)

Estimation of x4 (Pa)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

(e) (f)

0.01 1.5

0.008

1

Estimation of x6 (m/s)

0.006

Estimation of x5 (m)

0.004 0.5

0.002

0 0

–0.002

–0.5

–0.004

–0.006 –1

–0.008

–0.01 –1.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t ( s)

FIGURE 5.4

State estimations by the high-gain state observer in the sinusoidal response experiment. (a)

Estimation of x1 in the sinusoidal response. (b) Estimation of x2 in the sinusoidal response.

(c) Estimation of x3 in the sinusoidal response. (d) Estimation of x4 in the sinusoidal response.

(e) Estimation of x5 in the sinusoidal response. (f) Estimation of x6 in the sinusoidal response.

limited.

Here, two joints of this robotic arm can be driven simultaneously to realize

the coordinated motion. The hydraulic actuator of the shoulder is controlled

by the proposed method and the actuator of the elbow is controlled by the

Output Feedback Control Method 93

(a) 0.04

0.02

0

x1 (m)

–0.02

–0.04 Command

Backstepping

PI

–0.06

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

t (s)

(b) 0.06

Backstepping

0.05 PI

0.04

Error of x1 (m)

0.03

0.02

0.01

–0.01

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

t (s)

(c) 10

Backstepping

PI

5

Estimation of u (V)

–5

–10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

t (s)

FIGURE 5.5

Comparison result in condition (1). (a) The cylinder position response of the sinusoidal demand.

(b) The cylinder position error of the sinusoidal demand. (c) The control voltage estimation of

the sinusoidal demand.

94 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

(a) 0.02

0.01

–0.01

x1 (m)

–0.02

–0.03

Command

–0.04 Backstepping

PI

–0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

t (s)

(b) 0.06

Backstepping

PI

0.04

Error of x1 (m)

0.02

–0.02

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

t (s)

(c) 10

Backstepping

PI

5

Estimation of u (V)

–5

–10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

t (s)

FIGURE 5.6

Comparison result in condition (2). (a) The cylinder position response of the sinusoidal demand.

(b) The cylinder position error of the sinusoidal demand. (c) The control voltage estimation of

the sinusoidal demand.

Output Feedback Control Method 95

(a) 0.04

0.02

0

–0.005

–0.02

x1 (m)

–0.04

Shoulder actual

–0.08 Elbow command

Elbow actual

–0.1

0 1 1.3 2 2.5 3 4 5

t (s)

(b) 10

Shoulder control

Elbow control

5

u (V)

–5

–10

0 1 2 3 4 5

t (s)

FIGURE 5.7

The coordinated motion experiment results of the robotic arm joints, sinusoidal demand input

for the shoulder actuator, and step demand input for the elbow actuator. (a) The two cylinder

positions response of sinusoidal and step demands. (b) The two control voltages of sinusoidal

and step demands.

PI method. The two input displacement commands are sinusoidal and step,

respectively, which is the same command as section B. The displacement

response and the corresponding control voltage of two hydraulic actuators

are shown in Figure 5.7. At initial time 0 s, the two joints are all retracted.

Then, after 1.3 s, the joint angle of the elbow is extended to its maximum 130°

by the PI control and then the elbow joint will always keep this extended

state. After 1.5 s, the shoulder actuator is retracted to its minimum dis-

placement − 0.0289 m. After 2.5 s, the shoulder actuator is extended to its

96 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

FIGURE 5.8

Experiment video of coordinated motion for the robotic arm joints. (a) t = 0 s. (b) t = 1.3 s.

(c) t = 1.5 s. (d) t = 2.5 s.

joint is repeated by the proposed control method. The experiment video of

coordinated motion for the robotic arm joints is shown in Figure 5.8, which

is corresponding to the four sample points.

6

Parametric Adaptive Control Method

Miroslav Krstic, Kouhei Ohnishi, Yanan Qiu, Steven W. Su,

Chengwen Wang, Daehee Won, and Paul Zarchan

CONTENTS

6.1 Dynamic Model of EHS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

6.2 Parametric Adaptive Backstepping Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

6.2.1 General Backstepping Control Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

6.2.2 Decayed Memory Filter Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

6.2.3 Revised Parametric Adaptive Control Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

6.3 Disturbance Observer Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

6.4 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

6.4.1 Result of the Proposed Controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

6.4.2 Comparison with Simplified Backstepping Controller . . . . . 114

6.5 Result of Disturbance Observer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

adaptive controllers need to deal with some derivatives of virtual control

variables, which exist in backstepping iteration. These derivatives can be

computed by the system state error model and parametric estimated law

established in recursive controller design [37]. Since this computed process

easily leads to derivative explosion, few research are focused on the quality

of these virtual control variables (i.e., data validation). If these virtual control

variables are not available, especially violent, both the stability and dynamic

performances of EHS will be significantly decreased. Thus, in this chapter, a

parametric adaptive backstepping control method [18] is presented based on

state feedback to estimate some unknown parameters in a hydraulic model.

Then, a decayed memory filter is proposed to compute the derivatives value

of virtual control variables in the backstepping control design. The effec-

tiveness of the proposed control is verified by a comparative experimental

study.

97

98 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

For convenient illustration, the dynamic model of EHS is adopted by the

symmetrical hydraulic actuator. The load flow QL of the servo valve men-

tioned in Equation 2.5 is given by

1

QL = Cd wxv ps − sgn (xv ) pL , (6.1)

ρ

where pL is the load pressure of the cylinder, xv is the spool position of the

servo valve, ps is the supply pressure of the pump, Cd is the discharge coef-

ficient, w is the area gradient of the valve spool, and ρ is the density of the

hydraulic oil.

The flow-pressure continuous equation of the hydraulic cylinder men-

tioned in Equation 2.1 is given by

dy Vt dpL

QL = Ap + Ctl pL + , (6.2)

dt 4βe dt

where y is the displacement of the cylinder, Ctl is the coefficient of the total

leakage of the cylinder, β e is the effective bulk modulus, Ap is the annulus

area of the cylinder chamber, and V t is the half-volume of the cylinder.

If the major viscous friction of the hydraulic oil is simplified as Coulomb

friction, the mechanical dynamic equation driven by the hydraulic actuator

mentioned in Equation 6.3 is shown as follows:

Ap pL = mÿ + bẏ + Ky + FL , (6.3)

where m is the load mass, K is the load spring constant, b is the viscous

damping coefficient, and FL is the external load on the hydraulic actuator.

The dynamics of the servo valve is adopted by one-order linear model

mentioned in Equation 2.8, which is given by

Tsv ẋv + xv = Ksv u, (6.4)

where Ksv is the gain of the control voltage u and Tsv is the response time

constant of the servo valve.

Remark 6.1

In Equation 6.1, the function sgn(.) should be smoothed in the derivation of

backstepping control, which is replaced by the hyperbolic tangent function

tanh(.) as follows [35]:

ekxv − e−kxv

sgn(xv ) ≈ tanh(kxv ) = , k 0, (6.5)

ekxv + e−kxv

where k is a positive constant.

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 99

y = x1 , and the control input u(t) is defined, the dynamics of EHS is con-

structed as the fourth state space model as follows:

⎧

⎪

⎪ ẋ = x2

⎪ 1

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1

⎪

⎪ ẋ2 = (−Kx1 − bx2 + Ap x3 − FL )

⎪

⎪ m

⎨

⎪ 4βe Ap 4βe Ctl 4βe Cd w . (6.6)

⎪

⎪ ẋ3 = − x2 − x3 + √ ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 x4

⎪

⎪ Vt Vt Vt ρ

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1 Ksv

⎪

⎩ ẋ4 = − x4 + u

Tsv Tsv

The external load FL (t) is divided into two elements, which is mentioned in

Equation 4.11 as follows:

⎧

⎪ Tu (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎨ FLu (θ1 , θ2 ) = l1 (θ1 )

⎪

, (6.7)

⎪

⎪ Tf (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎩ FLf (θ1 , θ2 ) =

l2 (θ2 )

where FLu is the load force on the shoulder hydraulic actuator, FLf is

the load force on the elbow hydraulic actuator, and the dynamic force

arms li (θ i ), (i = 1, 2) are computed by triangle geometry mentioned in

Equation 3.48.

Remark 6.2

Owing to measurement noise and uncertainty disturbance in engineer-

ing practice, FLu , FLf are difficult to be obtained. The computed value in

Equation 6.7 may deviate from the true value. Thus, these values should be

handled by a filter before being used in parametric estimation law.

All the states xi (i = 1, . . . , 4) are known for the controller design. If

these unknown parameters are defined as ϑ 1 = K, ϑ 2 = b, ϑ 3 = FL ,

√

ϑ 4 = ((4β e Ap )/V t ), ϑ 5 = ((4β e Ctl )/V t ), ϑ6 = ((4βe Cd w)/(Vt ρ)), then the

100 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

⎧

⎪

⎪ ẋ1 = x2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ Ap ϑ1 ϑ2 ϑ3

⎪

⎪

⎨ ẋ2 = m x3 − m x1 − m x2 − m

⎪

. (6.8)

⎪

⎪ ẋ3 = −ϑ4 x2 − ϑ5 x3 + ϑ6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 x4

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 1 Ksv

⎪

⎩ ẋ4 = − x4 + u

Tsv Tsv

At first, the state error zi (i = 1, . . . , 4) and parametric estimated error ϑ̃i (i =

1, . . . , 6) are defined as follows:

⎧

⎪ z1 = x1 − x1d

⎪

⎨

zi = xi − αi−1 (i = 2, 3, 4) , (6.9)

⎪

⎪

⎩

ϑ̃i = ϑi − ϑ̂i , (i = 1, . . . , 6)

where x1d is the demand of cylinder displacement, α i is the ith virtual control,

and ϑ̂i is the estimation of ϑ i .

Theorem 6.1

Assuming that the unknown parameters ϑ i (i = 1, . . . , 6) are constant, if the

virtual control variables α i ∈ C1 (i = 1, 2, 3) and their derivatives α̇i (i = 1, 2, 3)

are smooth, then there exists a backstepping controller u, which guarantees

zi (t)(i = 1, . . . , 4) → 0, ϑ̃i (t)(i = 1, . . . , 6) → 0, as t → ∞.

1 2

V1 = z . (6.11)

2 1

Since the derivative of V 1 is

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 101

Ap ϑ1 ϑ2 ϑ3

= x3 − x1 − x2 − + c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d (6.15)

m m m m

Ap Ap ϑ1 ϑ3 ϑ3

= z3 + α2 − x1 − x2 − + c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d ,

m m m m m

) 1
2

3

1

V2 = V1 + z22 + ϑi − ϑ̂i , (6.16)

2 2ki

i=1

Therefore, the derivative of V 2 is

Ap Ap ϑ1 ϑ2 ϑ3

V̇2 = −c1 z21 + z1 z2 + z2 z3 + α2 − x1 − x2 −

m m m m m

ϑ̂˙ 1 ϑ̂˙ 2 ϑ̂˙ 3

+ c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d − ϑ̃1 − ϑ̃2 − ϑ̃3

k1 k2 k3

Ap Ap

= −c1 z21 + z2 z1 + z3 + α2 − ϑ̂1 x1 /m − ϑ̂2 x2 /m − ϑ̂3 /m

m m

ϑ̂˙ 1 ϑ̂˙ 2

+ c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d − ϑ̃1 + x1 z2 /m − ϑ̃2 + x2 z2 /m

k1 k2

ϑ̂˙ 3

− ϑ̃3 + z2 /m . (6.17)

k3

If the parametric adaptive estimation laws and the virtual control α 2 are

designed as follows:

ϑ̂˙ 1 = −k1 x1 z2 /m, ϑ̂˙ 2 = −k2 x2 z2 /m, ϑ̂˙ 3 = −k3 z2 /m, (6.18)

m c2 m m

α2 = − z1 − z2 + ϑ̂1 x1 /m + ϑ̂2 x2 /m + ϑ̂3 /m − c1 x2 + c1 ẋ1d + ẍ1d ,

Ap Ap Ap

(6.19)

102 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Ap

V̇2 = −c1 z21 − c2 z22 + z2 z3 , (6.20)

m

where c2 is a positive constant.

Then the derivative of z3 is

ż3 = ẋ3 − α̇2 = −ϑ4 x2 − ϑ5 x3 + ϑ6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 x4 − α̇2 . (6.21)

) 1
2

6

1

V3 = V2 + z23 + ϑi − ϑ̂i , (6.22)

2 2ki

i=4

Ap

V̇3 = −c1 z21 − c2 z22 + z2 z3

m

+ z3 −ϑ4 x2 − ϑ5 x3 + ϑ6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 (z4 + α3 ) − α̇2

− ϑ̃4 − ϑ̃5 − ϑ̃6

k4 k5 k6

Ap

2 2 z2 + ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 z4

= −c1 z1 − c2 z2 + z3 m

+ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 α3 − ϑ̂4 x2 − ϑ̂5 x3 − α̇2

ϑ̂˙ 4 ϑ̂˙ 5 ϑ̂˙ 6

− ϑ̃4 + x2 z3 − ϑ̃5 + x3 z3 − ϑ̃6 − x4 z3 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 ,

k4 k5 k6

(6.23)

If the parametric adaptive estimation laws and the virtual control α 3 are

designed as follows:

ϑ̂˙ 4 = −k4 x2 z3 , ϑ̂˙ 5 = −k5 x3 z3 , ϑ̂˙ 6 = k6 x4 z3 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 , (6.24)

m

Ap z2 + c3 z3 + ϑ̂4 x2 + ϑ̂5 x3 + α̇2

α3 = − , (6.25)

ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

we see that the derivative of V 3 is

V̇3 = −c1 z21 − c2 z22 − c3 z23 + z3 z4 ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 , (6.26)

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 103

1

V4 = V3 + z24 , (6.27)

2

+ z3 z4 ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 + z4 (ẋ4 − α̇3 )

x4 Ksv

= −c1 z21 − c2 z22 − c3 z23 + z4 z3 ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 − + u − α̇3 .

Tsv Tsv

(6.28)

u=− c4 z4 + + α̇3 − z3 ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 , (6.29)

Ksv Ksv Ksv Ksv

Thus, by the parametric adaptive estimation laws (6.18) and (6.24), the ele-

ments involving ϑ̃i (i = 1, . . . , 6) vanish in V̇4 . Simultaneously, V̇4 is negative

definite by the virtual control (6.13), (6.19), and (6.25) and the backstep-

ping controller (6.29). This iteration controller guarantees the parametric

estimation errors ϑ̃i (i = 1, . . . , 6) and the system state error zi (i = 1, . . . , 4)

converging to zero.

Equations 6.19 and 6.25 can be simplified as follows:

m

α̇2 = − (z2 + α1 − ẋ1d ) − c2 z3 − c2 α2

Ap

c2 m c1 m ˆ

+ (−ϑ̂1 x1 /m − ϑ̂2 x2 /m − ϑ̂3 /m + c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d ) − ẋ2 ,

Ap Ap

(6.31)

z3 − m

Ap (c2 z2 + z1 ) + c3 (ẋˆ 3 − α̇2 ) + ϑ̂4 ẋˆ 2 + ϑ̂5 ẋˆ 3 + α̈2

α̇3 = − , (6.32)

ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

104 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

⎧ Ap

⎪

⎨ ẋˆ 2 = x3 − ϑ̂1 x1 /m − ϑ̂2 x2 /m − ϑ̂3 /m

m . (6.33)

⎪

⎩ˆ

ẋ3 = −ϑ̂4 x2 − ϑ̂5 x3 +ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 x4

As shown in Equations 6.31 and 6.32, although the derivatives α̇2 , α̇3 are

computed in backstepping design, the algorithm is still very complicated.

If these derivatives are directly used in the controller u, the robustness of this

backstepping controller may decline. Therefore, a decayed memory filter is

designed to re-estimate these derivatives and filter the variable parameter ϑ 3

mentioned in Remark 6.1. The filter form is described as follows [65]:

⎧

⎪ ˆ

⎪ Eφ (k) = φ(k) − φ̂(k − 1) + φ̇(k − 1) · Tc

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨

ˆ − 1) · T + G · E (k) ,

φ̂(k) = φ̂(k − 1) + φ̇(k φ = α 2 , α3 , ϑ3 , (6.34)

c φ

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ H

⎪ ˆ

⎩ φ̇(k) ˆ − 1) + E (k)

= φ̇(k φ

Tc

ˆ

where φ(k) is the kth calculated value of φ, φ̂(k) is the estimation of φ(k), φ̇(k)

is the kth estimation of the derivative φ̇, Tc is the interval of the controller, the

filter parameters G = 1 − λ2 , H = (1 − λ)2 , and the range of the filter factor

λ is (0, 1).

Since the calculated values of α 2 , α 3 are obtained by Equations 6.19

and 6.25, the estimation values α̂i , α̇ˆ i (i = 2, 3) are obtained by Equation 6.34.

From Equation 6.7, the calculated value of ϑ 3 is described as follows:

⎧

⎪ FLu (θ1 , θ2 ) Tu (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎪ ϑ31 = =

⎨ m1f m1f l1 (θ1 )

, (6.35)

⎪

⎪ FLf (θ1 , θ2 ) Tf (θ1 , θ2 )

⎪

⎩ ϑ32 = =

m2f m2f l2 (θ2 )

hydraulic actuators. After Equation 6.35 is substituted into Equation 6.34, the

estimation values ϑ̂ , ϑ̇ˆ (i = 1, 2) are also obtained.

3i 3i

Then the convergence of the proposed filter should be analyzed. If the vec-

T

ˆ

tor χ (k) is defined as χ (k) = α̂(k) , α̇(k) , then the filter (6.34) is described

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 105

as follows:

⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤

α̂(k)

1−G (1 − G)Tc α̂(k − 1) G

= ⎣ H ⎦ + ⎣ H ⎦ α(k) . (6.36)

ˆ

α̇(k) − 1−H ˆ − 1)

α̇(k

Tc Tc

Theorem 6.2

The input α(k) is assumed to be the input of the discrete linear system (6.36),

ˆ

and α̂(k), α̇(k) are the outputs; then Equation 6.36 is input-to-state stable (ISS),

ˆ

and α̂(k) → α(k), α̇(k) → α̇(k), as k → ∞.

Proof.

can see that λ1 < 1, λ2 < 1, λ1 < λ2 . The characteristic polynomial

of system matrix A in Equation 6.36 is described as follows:

⎡ ⎤

s − λ1 −λ1 Tc

|sI − A| = ⎣ λ2 − 1 ⎦ = s2 − (λ1 + λ2 )s + λ1 = 0. (6.37)

− s − λ2

Tc

values of system matrix A is given by

λ 1 + λ2 ± (λ1 + λ2 )2 − 4λ1

s1,2 = = λ. (6.38)

2

Since the filter factor λ < 1, the eigenvalues norm is strictly less

than 1. According to the stability of the linear discrete system, if the

system input α(k) is bounded, then Equation 6.36 is ISS.

ˆ

2. Since the two outputs α̂(k), α̇(k) are ISS, the filter convergence can be

analyzed by two steps. First, from Equation 6.36, we can see that

ˆ − 1) + Gα(k) .

α̂(k) = (1 − G)α̂(k − 1) + (1 − G)Tc α̇(k (6.39)

When α̂(k) reaches its steady state, there exists a sufficiently large

ˆ

integer n0 , ∀k > n0 , α̇(k) → 0, and α̂(k) = α̂(k − 1). Substituting these

two conditions into Equation 6.39, we can obtain that α̂(k) → α(k).

ˆ

Second, from Equation 6.36, the dynamics of α̇(k) is given by

ˆ H ˆ − 1) + H α(k) .

α̇(k) = − α̂(k − 1) + (1 − H)α̇(k (6.40)

Tc Tc

106 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

ˆ

When α̇(k) reaches its steady state, there exists a sufficiently large inte-

ˆ

ger n1 , ∀k > n1 , α̂(k − 1) → α(k − 1), and α̇(k) ˆ − 1). Simultaneously,

= α̇(k

we can see that (H/Tc )(α(k) − α(k − 1)) = Hα̇(k − 1). Substituting these three

ˆ

conditions into Equation 6.40, we can obtain that α̇(k) → α̇(k).

In Theorem 6.2, the unknown parameter ϑ 3 is assumed to be constant.

This assumption is not appropriate due to the variable external loads

on two hydraulic actuators. Thus, the aforementioned parametric adap-

tive backstepping controller should be revised to guarantee the EHS (6.8)

convergence.

Theorem 6.3

Assuming that the unknown parameters ϑ 3 is variable but its derivative ϑ̇3 is

bounded, and the other unknown parameters ϑ i (i = 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) are constants,

if the virtual control variables α i ∈ C1 (i = 1, 2, 3), and their derivatives α̇i (i =

1, 2, 3) are bounded, then there exists a revised backstepping controller u that

guarantees zi (t)(i = 1, . . . , 4) → 0, ϑ̃i (t)(i = 1, . . . , 6) → 0, as t → ∞.

Proof. The parametric adaptive estimation law of ϑ̂˙ 3 in Equation 6.18 can be

revised as follows:

ϑ̂˙ 3 = −k3 z2 + ϑ̇ˆ 3 +

ϑ̇3 max sgn(ϑ3 − ϑ̂3 ), (6.41)

where

ϑ̇3 max is the bound of the filter error

ϑ̇3 (i.e.,

ϑ̇3 = ϑ̇3 − ϑ̇ˆ 3 ), ϑ 3

is the calculated value from Equation 6.35, and ϑ̂ , ϑ̇ˆ are the filter outputs.

3 3

Owing to ϑ̇3 = 0, the Lyapunov function V 2 is rewritten as follows:

Ap Ap

V̇2

= −c1 z21 + z1 z2 + z2 z3 + α2 − ϑ̂1 x1 − ϑ̂2 x2 − ϑ̂3 + c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d

m m

− ϑ̃1 − ϑ̃2 − ϑ̃3

k1 k2 k3

2 Ap Ap

= −c1 z1 + z2 z1 + z3 + α2 − ϑ̂1 x1 − ϑ̂2 x2 − ϑ̂3 + c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d

m m

ϑ̂˙ 1 ϑ̂˙ 2 ϑ̂˙ 3 − ϑ̇3

− ϑ̃1 + x1 z2 − ϑ̃2 + x2 z2 − ϑ̃3 + z2 . (6.42)

k1 k2 k3

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 107

Substituting Equation 6.41 and ϑ̂˙ 1 , ϑ̂˙ 2 in Equation 6.18 into Equation 6.42,

we can see that

Ap ϑ̃3

V̇2

= −c1 z21 − c2 z22 + z2 z3 + (

ϑ̇3 − |

ϑ̇3 |max sgnϑ̃3 ). (6.43)

m k3

ϑ̇3 is bounded by |

ϑ̇3 |max .

This denotes that the last element in Equation 6.43 is less than 0.

Similarly, if the filter errors

α̇2 ,

α̇3 (i.e.,

α̇2 = α̇2 − α̇ˆ 2 ,

α̇3 = α̇3 − α̇ˆ 3 )

are bounded by |

α̇2 |max , |

α̇3 |max , then the virtual control α 3 is revised as

follows:

m

Ap z2 + c3 z3 + ϑ̂4 x2 + ϑ̂5 x3 + α̇ˆ 2 − |

α̇2 |max sgnz3

α3 = − . (6.44)

ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

Substituting Equations 6.44 and 6.24 into V̇3 , the Lyapunov function V 3 is

rewritten as follows:

V̇3

= −c1 z21 − c2 z22 − c3 z23 + z3 z4 ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

(6.45)

ϑ̃3

+ (

ϑ̇3 −

ϑ̇3 max sgnϑ̃3 ) − z3 (

α̇2 + |

α̇2 |max sgnz3 ),

k3

Finally, if the controller u is redesigned as follows:

u=− c4 z4 + + α̇3 − |

α̇3 |max sgnz4

Ksv Ksv Ksv Ksv

Tsv

− z3 ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 , (6.46)

Ksv

ϑ̃3

V̇4

= −c1 z21 − c2 z22 − c3 z23 − c4 z24 + (

ϑ̇3 −

ϑ̇3 max sgnϑ̃3 )

k3 (6.47)

− z3 (

α̇2 + |

α̇2 |max sgnz3 ) − z4 (

α̇3 + |

α̇3 |max sgnz4 ) < 0.

By the parametric adaptive estimation law (6.41), the sign of the dynamic

element ϑ̃3 is guaranteed to be negative in V̇4

. Similarly, the signs of z3 and

z4 become negative by the virtual control (6.44) and the revised backstep-

ping controller (6.47). This iteration controller guarantees ϑ̃i (i = 1, . . . , 6) and

zi (i = 1, . . . , 4) converging to zero.

108 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

FL

(6.46) (6.6)

α

ˆ 2,αˆ 3

x

ϑ̂i, (i = 1,...,6) ˆ ,αˆ

α

α

ˆ 2,αˆ3 2 3

Parametric ˆ ,αˆ

α Filtering α2,α3 Virtual control

2 3

estimation laws estimation (6.13), (6.19),

ˆ ,ϑˆ

(6.18), (6.24), (6.41) ϑ (6.34) ϑ3 (6.44)

3 3

x z α1, α2, α3

Traditional ARC

x1d State errors

(6.9) z

FIGURE 6.1

Block diagram of the control system.

Remark 6.3

The constants |

ϑ̇3 |max , |

α̇2 |max , and |

α̇3 |max need to be predefined

before the revised backstepping controller (6.46). From Equations 6.35

and 6.40, these three constants can be estimated by maxt→∞ {α̇id (t) − α̇ˆ i (t)},

max {ϑ̇ d (t) − ϑ̇ˆ (t)}, where α̇ d (t) = |α̇ |

t→∞ 3 3 isin 2πt for i = 2, 3, ϑ̇ d (t) =

i max 3

|ϑ̇3 |max sin 2πt. The constants |α̇i |max , |ϑ̇3 |max can be estimated in the follow-

ing simplified controller (6.49).

1, . . . , 4) and ϑ̃i (i = 1, . . . , 6) converging to zero. This controller involves the

parametric estimation laws (6.18), (6.24), and (6.41), the state errors (6.9), the

virtual control laws (6.13), (6.19), and (6.44), and the filtering estimation (6.34)

as shown in Figure 6.1.

For another way, the external disturbance FL (t) can be adopted by

the observer disturbance due to the dynamic characteristic of FL (t). If

f 21 (x3 ) = −Ap x3 /m, f 22 (x1 ) = −x1 /m, f 23 (x2 ) = −x2 /m, and d = −FL (t)/m

are defined, then the high-gain observer is given by

˙

d̂ = Kd (ẋ2 − f21 (x3 ) − ϑ̂1 f22 (x1 ) − ϑ̂2 f23 (x2 ) − d̂). (6.48)

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 109

is given by

c

kT

d̂(k) = Kd x2 − Kd (f21 (x3 ) + ϑ̂1 f22 (x1 ) + ϑ̂2 f23 (x2 ) + d̂)dt. (6.49)

(k−1)Tc

˙ x1 ϑ̃1 x2 ϑ̃2

d̃ = −Kd d̃ + ḋ + Kd + Kd , (6.51)

m m

where ϑ̃1 = ϑ1 − ϑ̂1 , ϑ̃2 = ϑ2 − ϑ̂2 .

Integrating the above equation, we can obtain

t

−Kd t −Kd (t−τ ) x1 (τ )ϑ̃1 (τ ) x2 (τ )ϑ̃2 (τ )

d̃(t) = e d̃(0) + e ḋ(τ ) + Kd + Kd dτ

m m

0

t

|ḋ|max (1 − e − Kd t ) x1 (τ )ϑ̃1 (τ ) + x2 (τ )ϑ̃2 (τ )

≤ e−Kd t d̃(0) + + Kd e−Kd (t−τ ) dτ .

Kd m

0

(6.52)

guarantee two estimation errors ϑ 1 , ϑ 2 bounded where the corresponding

boundedness is arbitrarily small, then Equation 6.52 can be furthermore han-

dled. In other words, ∀ > 0, ∃t1 > 0, as the time t > t1 , ϑ i < for i = 1, 2.

We can assume that ϑ̃i ≤ |ϑ̃i |max . Thus, Equation 6.52 satisfies the following

condition:

t1

−Kd t |ḋ|max (1 − e−Kd t ) x1 (τ )ϑ̃1 (τ ) + x2 (τ )ϑ̃2 (τ )

d̃(t) ≤ e d̃(0) + + Kd e−Kd (t−τ ) dτ

Kd m

0

t

x1 (τ )ϑ̃1 (τ ) + x2 (τ )ϑ̃2 (τ )

+ Kd e−Kd (t−τ ) dτ

m

t1

|ḋ|max (1 − e−Kd t ) (|x1 |max |ϑ̃1 |max + |x2 |max |ϑ̃2 |max )e−Kd t

≤ e−Kd t d̃(0) + +

Kd m

ε(|x1 |max + |x2 |max )

+ . (6.53)

m

110 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Therefore, as t → ∞,

d̃(t) ≤ + . (6.54)

Kd m

The large observer gain Kd can reduce the DO error d̃(t). Furthermore, t1 is

sufficiently large and
is arbitrarily small, which means d̃(t) is arbitrarily

reduced by the observer and estimated gains parameters.

Remark 6.4

The DO d̂ (6.48) is not different from the parametric adaptive estimation law

ϑ 3 , since this DO is directly designed based on the state equations. How-

ever, the parametric adaptive estimation law is derived in the backstepping

controller iteration.

6.4 Experiment

In this chapter, the two-DOF robotic arm is employed to implement and

test the performance of the proposed control method. Meanwhile, several

working conditions will be considered when both robotic arms are driven

simultaneously, or either one joint is run instead. The specific parameters and

brands of the main components in the experimental architecture are listed in

Table 6.1.

Some hydraulic and mechanical parameters of this EHS are shown in

Table 6.2. Since the hydraulic parameters Cd , w, ρ, β e , K, b, and Ctl are

not obtained exactly, which have some uncertainties in different exper-

imental conditions, it is necessary to estimate the uncertain parameters

TABLE 6.1

Specific Parameters and Brand of Main Components

Element Type Marks Quantity

Fixed displacement pump TFH-315 Takako 1

Servo valve D633-R02K01M0NSM2 Moog 2

Hydraulic cylinder LB6-1610-0080-4M Hoerbiger 2

Relative encoder AEDA-3300-BE1 AVAGO 2

Pressure sensor M3041-000006-350BG MEAS 4

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 111

ever, the approximate values C̄d , w̄, ρ̄, β̄e , K̄, b̄, and C̄tl can be preset from some

hydraulic references as shown in Table 6.2. If the proposed parametric adap-

tive estimation law is not adopted, the approximate values ϑ̄i (i = 1, 2, 4, 5, 6)

without considering parametric uncertainties can also be used in the back-

stepping controller instead of the estimation values. From the parametric

definition in Equation 6.8, the known nominal values are given by

⎧

⎪ ϑ̄1 = K̄

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ ϑ̄2 = b̄

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 4β̄e Ap

⎪

⎨ ϑ̄4 =

Vt . (6.55)

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 4β̄e C̄tl

⎪

⎪ ϑ̄5 =

⎪

⎪ Vt

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ 4β̄ C̄ w̄

⎩ ϑ̄6 = e √d

Vt ρ̄

⎪

⎪ u=− c4 z4 + + α̇3 − z3 ϑ̄6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

⎪

⎪ Ksv Ksv Ksv Ksv

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ m

⎪

⎪ α̇2 = − (z2 + α1 − ẋ1d ) − c2 z3 − c2 α2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ Ap

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ c2 m c1 m ¯

⎪

⎪ + (−ϑ̄1 x1 /m − ϑ̄2 x2 /m − ϑ3 /m + c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d ) − ẋ2

⎪

⎨ Ap Ap

m .

⎪

⎪ z3 − (c2 z2 + z1 ) + c3 (ẋ¯ 3 − α̇2 ) + ϑ̄4 ẋ¯ 2 + ϑ̄5¯˙x3 + α̈2

⎪

⎪ Ap

⎪

⎪ α̇3 = −

⎪

⎪ ϑ̄6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ Ap

⎪

⎪ ẋ¯ 2 = x3 − ϑ̄1 x1 /m − ϑ̄2 x2 /m − ϑ3 /m

⎪

⎪ m

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩

ẋ¯ 3 = − ϑ̄4 x2 − ϑ̄5 x3 + ϑ̄6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3 x4

(6.56)

The stroke of the cylinder Smax is 79 mm, but in the experiment, the dis-

placement of the cylinder is not more than 58 mm to avoid the boundary

collision of the robotic arm.

The initial values of the estimated parameters are predefined as zero, that

is, ϑ̂i0 = 0, (i = 1, . . . , 6) to verify the convergence effectiveness of the para-

metric estimation laws. Some control parameters are designed as follows:

112 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

TABLE 6.2

Hydraulic Parameters Used in Experiments

Parameter Value Parameter Value

xv max 7.9 mm Smax 79 mm

ps 40 bar Ap 2.01 cm2

Vt 1.74 × 10−5 m3 β̄e 2.2 × 108 Pa

Ksv 7.9 × 10−4 m/V Tsv 12 ms

K̄ 1000 N/m b̄ 2200 Ns/m

C̄tl 2.5 × 10−11 m3 /(s · Pa) ρ̄ 800 kg/m3

m1 1.772 kg m2 0.739 kg

mf 1 kg I1 0.071 kgm2

I2 0.015 kgm2 I2f 0.022 kgm2

m2f 1.739 kg m1f 3.511 kg

P1 P2 0.35 m P1 Pm1 0.16 m

P2 Pm2 0.12 m ε m1 7.9°

k6 = 10−5

2. The constants: c1 = 10, c2 = 1, c3 = 10−5 , c4 = 103

3. The constants: |

ϑ̇3 |max = 5 × 103 , |

α̇2 |max = 5 × 107 , |

α̇3 |max =

0.01

4. The filter parameters: λ = 0.7, Tc = 10−3 s

In order to verify the proposed parametric adaptive backstepping controller

in Equation 6.46, two sinusoidal demands of the cylinder displacement

are selected as xs1d = 29 sin(0.6π t) mm and xe1d = 29 sin(π t) mm. The four

state responses, six parametric estimations, and two control voltages of the

proposed controllers are shown in Figures 6.2 through 6.4.

Figure 6.2a shows the good displacement tracking responses of two sinu-

soidal demands by the proposed controllers. The load pressures measured

by pressure sensors are not more than the supply pressure 40 bar shown in

Figure 6.2c. Owing to the larger dynamic load on the shoulder actuator, the

motion frequency of the shoulder should be lower than that of the elbow.

During time slice (0, 0.8 s), the control saturation arises since the initial track-

ing error is significant. After 0.8 s, the spool positions of two servo valves do

not exceed the saturation ± xvmax , which are similar to the dynamic charac-

teristic of two control voltages us , ue shown in Figure 6.4. In the experiment,

the robotic arm motion will generate resonance effect when the tracking ten-

dency of two joint angles approach each other. Especially in some time such

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 113

(a) 50 (b)

30 0.1

x 2s (m/s)

x1 (mm)

0

–30 s 0

–50 x1d

x1s –0.1

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

50 0.2

30

x1 (mm)

x 2e (m/s)

0 0.1

–30 0

–50 xe1d

xe1 –0.1

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

(c) (d) 10

60 8

5

x 4s (mm)

x 3s (bar)

40 0

20 –5

0 –10

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

60 10

8

x 4e (mm)

x 3e (bar)

40 5

20 0

0 –5

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 6.2

Four state responses of the EHS by the proposed controller. (a) Cylinder displacement response

x1 . (b) Cylinder velocity x2 . (c) Load pressure of cylinder x3 . (d) Spool position of servo valve x4 .

two maximum external loads; the instant control supplement is significant

as shown in Figure 6.4a and b.

The six uncertain parameters are estimated, respectively, by the parametric

adaptive estimation laws (6.18), (6.24), and (6.41) shown in Figure 6.3. The

parametric estimation ϑ̂1 approaches the nominal value ϑ̄1 , which denotes

that the load spring constant is almost consistent with the approximate preset

values. The other four parametric estimations ϑ̂2 , ϑ̂4 , ϑ̂5 , and ϑ̂6 also con-

verge to the respective steady-state values like ϑ̂1 . However, these parametric

estimations have obviously deviated from the approximate preset values,

respectively. This phenomenon indicates that the permanent parameters ϑ̄2 ,

ϑ̄4 , ϑ̄5 , and ϑ̄6 cannot show the actual hydraulic parameters Cd , w, ρ, β e , b,

and Ctl with some uncertainties in different working conditions. Different

from the steady characteristic of the other five parameters, ϑ̂3s , ϑ̂3e are dynamic

estimations, which described two variable external loads of the hydraulic

actuators caused by the two-DOF robotic arm motion. If the parametric esti-

mated errors of ϑ̂i (i = 2, 4, 5, 6) are significant, the static control bias emerges

in long time shown in the initial 1 s in Figure 6.5f. If the dynamic estimations

of ϑ̂3 are inaccurate, the dynamic control saturation emerges in Figure 6.6f.

114 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

1000 2500

800 2000

ϑ̂2

ϑ1

600 1500

400 1000

200 ϑ̂1 500 ϑ̂1

– –

ϑ1 ϑ2

0 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

12

1200

10

1000

8

800

ϑ̂3

ϑ̂4

600 6

400 4

200 2 ϑ̂4

–

ϑ4

0 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

(e) × 1010

1500 (f ) 3

2.5

1000 2

ϑ̂6

1.5

ϑ̂5

500

1

ϑ̂5

– ϑ̂6

ϑ5 0.5 –

0 ϑ6

0 5 10 15 20 0

t (s) 0 5 10 15 20

t (s)

FIGURE 6.3

Six estimation values by parametric adaptive estimation laws. (a) Uncertainty parameter ϑ̂1 .

(b) Uncertainty parameter ϑ̂2 . (c) Uncertainty parameter ϑ̂3 . (d) Uncertainty parameter ϑ̂4 .

(e) Uncertainty parameter ϑ̂5 . (f) Uncertainty parameter ϑ̂6 .

To illustrate the problem, the comparison results for two different backstep-

ping controllers are given in two critical conditions where the external load

of the hydraulic actuator is close to the limitation. The proposed controller

(6.46) involves the parametric estimation laws and the filtering estima-

tion. The other simplified backstepping controller (6.56) has no parametric

estimation laws and no filtering estimation, where the approximate preset

parameters ϑ̄1 , ϑ̄2 , ϑ̄4 , ϑ̄5 , and ϑ̄6 are determined by Equation 6.55, ϑ 3 is

computed by Equation 6.35, without used Equations 6.34 and 6.41. Differ-

ent from the above experimental condition, the elbow joint is fixed and the

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 115

(a) (b)

10 10

8

6

4

5

2

ue (V)

us (V)

0

–2

–4 0

–6

–8

–10 –5

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 6.4

Control voltages of two hydraulic actuators by the proposed controller. (a) The control voltage

of shoulder controller us . (b) The control voltage of elbow controller ue .

xs1d = 29 sin(π t) mm. The comparison results are shown in Figures 6.5 and

6.6. The derivatives α̇2 , α̇3 obtained by the proposed filter are significantly

smaller than the computation values by Equation 6.56 as shown in Figures

6.5a–d. This experimental phenomenon denotes that the proposed filter has

more capability to suppress the violent derivative of virtual control than the

conservative approach based on model computation. Figure 6.5e shows that

the proposed controller has higher tracking performance, since the para-

metric estimation laws are used to adapt the actual hydraulic parameter

with uncertainties. On the contrary, the simplified backstepping controller

(6.56) with certain parametric assumptions decline the dynamic behavior

of the closed-control loop and results in the sharp controller as shown

in Figure 6.5f.

Especially in large stroke motion experiment of the shoulder actuator as

shown in Figure 6.6, the simplified backstepping controller could not obtain

the satisfactory tracking performance. However, to some extent, the pro-

posed filter still guarantees the dynamic response of the shoulder actuator.

These results show that the large stroke motion is easier to cause the saturated

and sharp controller than the high-frequency motion due to the dynamic

external load on the shoulder actuator.

The DO (6.48) can replace the estimation law (6.41) since the two external

loads on two hydraulic actuators are dynamic variables. In simulation, the

external loads FL1 and FL2 on two EHAs are computed by Lagrange equation

using some mechanical parameters of the robotic arm. This two values can

116 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

6

6

4

4

αˆ2

α2

2 2

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

× 108 2 × 10

9

1

1

0.5

0

α2

0

αˆ2

–0.5 –1

–1 –2

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

(c) 1 × 10

–4 (d) 5 × 10

–4

0 0

α̂3

–1 α3 –5

–2 –10

–15

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t (s) t (s)

0.01

0.05

0.005

0

α̂3

0

α3

–0.005

–0.01 –0.05

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

t (s) t (s)

(e) 20 (f ) 10 Proposed controller

15 Simplified controller

10 8

6

0 4

−10 2

x1 (mm)

us (V)

−15 0

−20 −2

−4

−30

−6

−40 Demand −8

Proposed controller

Simplified controller −10

−50

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 6.5

Comparison result for the demand input xs1d = 14.5 sin(2π t) mm. (a) α 2 and α̇2 by the pro-

posed filter. (b) α 2 and α̇2 by Equation 6.56. (c) α 3 and α̇3 by the proposed filter. (d) α 3 and

α̇3 by Equation 6.56. (e) Cylinder displacement response x1 . (f) The control voltage of shoulder

controller us .

be selected as the demand of the DO. Then the external load disturbances

on two EHAs are estimated by the DO (6.48) as shown in Figure 6.7. This

high-gain observer guarantees the observer errors d̃1 and d̃2 convergence to

zero. If the observer error is obvious, the controller will degrade the dynamic

tracking performance.

The load disturbance estimations on two hydraulic actuators by the pro-

posed controller are shown in Figure 6.8, which shows that the external

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 117

6 6

4 4

α̂2

α2

2 2

0 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

× 108 × 109

1 2

0.5

0

0

αˆ2

α2

–0.5 –2

–1

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

1 2

0 0

–1 –2

α̂3

–2 α3 –4

–3 –6

–4 –8

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

t (s) t (s)

0.01

0.15

0.005 0.1

0

αˆ3

α3

0.05

–0.005 0

–0.01 –0.05

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

t (s) t (s)

(e) 40

(f ) Proposed controller

Simplified controller

30 10

20

10 5

us (V)

x1 (mm)

0

−10 0

−20

−30 –5

Demand

−40 Proposed controller

Simplified controller –10

−50

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

t (s) t (s)

FIGURE 6.6

Comparison result for the demand input xs1d = 29 sin(π t) mm. (a) α 2 and α̇2 by the proposed

filter. (b) α 2 and α̇2 by Equation 6.56. (c) α 3 and α̇3 by the proposed filter. (d) α 3 and α̇3

by Equation 6.56. (e) Cylinder displacement response x1 . (f) The control voltage of shoulder

controller us .

load on the upper arm is greater than that on the forearm, although the fre-

quency of the former is smaller than that of the latter. These two disturbance

estimations are similar to the simulation results.

The simulation results of position tracking error by two controllers are

shown in Figure 6.9. The proposed controller represents the proposed para-

metric adaptive controller (6.46) with the parametric estimation laws (6.18),

(6.24), and (6.41). The other controller combines the simplified backstepping

controller (6.56) with the DO (6.48) and the parametric estimation laws (6.18),

118 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

200

d1

100

dˆ1

d1 (m/s2)

−100

−200

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

200

d2

100

dˆ2

d2 (m/s2)

−100

−200

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

10

d̃1

5

d˜ (m/s2)

d̃2

0

−5

−10

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

FIGURE 6.7

Simulation results of load disturbance estimation.

(6.24) as follows:

⎧

⎪ Tsv x4 Tsv Tsv

⎪

⎪ u=− c4 z4 + + α̇3 − z3 ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

⎪

⎪ Ksv Ksv Ksv Ksv

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ m

⎪

⎪ α̇2 = − (z2 + α1 − ẋ1d ) − c2 z3 − c2 α2

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ Ap

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ c2 m c1 m ¯

⎪

⎪ + (−ϑ̂1 x1 /m − ϑ̂2 x2 /m − d̂ + c1 x2 − c1 ẋ1d − ẍ1d ) − ẋ2

⎪

⎨ Ap Ap

.

⎪

⎪

⎪ z3 − Amp (c2 z2 + z1 ) + c3 (ẋ¯ 3 − α̇2 ) + ϑ̂4 ẋ¯ 2 + ϑ̂5 ẋ¯ 3 + α̈2

⎪

⎪ α̇3 = −

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ ϑ̂6 ps − tanh(kx4 )x3

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪ Ap

⎪¯

⎪

⎪

⎪ ẋ2 = x3 − ϑ̂1 x1 /m − ϑ̂2 x2 /m − d̂

⎪

⎪ m

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩ ẋ¯ = − ϑ̂ x − ϑ̂ x + ϑ̂ p − tanh(kx )x x

3 4 2 5 3 6 s 4 3 4

(6.57)

Parametric Adaptive Control Method 119

150

100

Disturbance estimation (m/s2)

50

−50

−100

−150 dˆ1

dˆ2

−200

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

FIGURE 6.8

Experimental results of the load disturbance estimation on two EHAs.

3

Controller 1

2 Controller 2

1

Δy1 (mm)

0

−1

−2

−3

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

3

Controller 1

2 Controller 2

1

Δy2 (mm)

0

−1

−2

−3

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

FIGURE 6.9

Simulation results of position tracking error by two controllers,

y1 —upper arm error,

y2 —

forearm error.

120 Nonlinear Control Techniques for EHAs in Robotics Engineering

Remark 6.5

It is to be noted that the controller (6.57) is different from the simplified

backstepping controller (6.56). In Equation 6.57, the parametric adaptive esti-

mation law can also be used to estimate ϑ i (i = 1, 2, 4, 5, 6). Furthermore, the

high-gain disturbance observer (6.48) can be adopted to estimate the distur-

bance d̂, which can be directly compensated in the backstepping design.

0.15 mm) is better than the proposed controller without the DO (emax =

1.13 mm) as shown in Figure 6.9. This means the DO is constructed to

improve the dynamic behavior of the designed controller. The controller can

eliminate the bias caused by the unknown dynamic external load.

Figure 6.10 shows that the dynamic tracking performance of the back-

stepping controller with the DO (emax = 1.17 mm, σ e = 0.59 mm) is also

better than the proposed controller without the DO (emax = 2.89 mm,

σ e = 1.53 mm). This result denotes that the tracking performance is declined

as the current external load disturbance on the upper arm approaches its

limitation (d̂1 = 150 mm/s2 ) as shown in Figure 6.8. Thus, the backstepping

controller with the DO constructs the HGDO to compensate largely dynamic

load disturbance and to avoid the obvious error of the position response.

4

Controller 1

Controller 2

2

Δy1 (mm)

−2

−4

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

4

Controller 1

2 Controller 2

Δy2 (mm)

−2

−4

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

FIGURE 6.10

Experimental results of position tracking error by two controllers,

y1 —upper arm error,

y2 —

forearm error.

References

trohydraulic actuator. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, 19(3):987–995,

2014.

2. A. Alleyne and R. Liu. A simplified approach to force control for electro-

hydraulic systems. Control Engineering Practice, 8(12):1347–1356, 2000.

3. A. Alleyne and R. Liu. Systematic control of a class of nonlinear systems with

application to electrohydraulic cylinder pressure control. IEEE Transactions on

Control System Technology, 8(4):623–634, 2000.

4. G. Balas and J. Doyle. Robustness and performance trade-offs in control design

for flexible structures. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 2(4):352–

361, 1994.

5. J. Bobrow and K. Lum. Adaptive, high bandwidth control of a hydraulic actu-

ator. ASME Journal of Dynamic System, Measurement, Control, 118(4):714–720,

1996.

6. I. Boiko. Variable-structure PID controller for level process. Control Engineering

Practice, 21(5):700–707, 2013.

7. F. Bu and B. Yao. Observer based coordinated adaptive robust control of robot

manipulators driven by single-rod hydraulic actuators. In Proceedings of 2000

IEEE-ICRA, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3034–3039. IEEE, 2000.

8. F. Bu and B. Yao. Nonlinear model based coordinated adaptive robust control of

electro-hydraulic robotic arms via overparametrizing method. In Proceedings of

2001 IEEE-ICRA, Seoul, Korea, pp. 3459–3464. IEEE, 2001.

9. W. Chen. Disturbance observer based control for nonlinear systems. IEEE/ASME

Transactions on Mechatronics, 9(4):706–710, 2004.

10. J. Doyle, K. Glover, P. Khargonekar, and B. Francis. State-space solutions to

standard H2 and H∞ control problems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,

34(8):831–847, 1989.

11. C. Du, A. Plummer, and D. Johnston. Variable pressure valve-controlled

hydraulic actuation for a robotic arm. In Proceedings of 9th International Fluid

Power Conference, Aachen, Germany, pp. 186–197, 2014.

12. C. Du, A. Plummer, and D. Johnston. Performance analysis of an energy-efficient

variable supply pressure electro-hydraulic motion control system. Control Engi-

neering Practice, 48:10–21, 2016.

13. R. Fales and A. Kelkar. Robust control design for a wheel loader using H∞ and

feedback linearization based methods. ISA Transactions, 48(3):313–320, 2009.

14. M. Fan, A. Tits, and J. Doyle. Robustness in the presence of mixed parametric

uncertainty and unmodeled dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,

36(1):25–38, 1991.

15. D. Gu, P. Petkov, and M.M. Konstantinov. Robust Control Design with MATLAB.

Springer-Verlag, London, 2005.

16. C. Guan and S. Pan. Adaptive sliding mode control of electro-hydraulic system

with nonlinear unknown parameters. Control Engineering Practice, 16(11):1275–

1284, 2008.

121

122 References

17. C. Guan and S. Pan. Nonlinear adaptive robust control of single-rod electro-

hydraulic actuator with unknown nonlinear parameters. IEEE Transactions on

Control System Technology, 16(3):434–445, 2008.

18. Q. Guo, P. Sun, J. Yin, T. Yu, and D. Jiang. Parametric adaptive estimation and

backstepping control of electro-hydraulic actuator with decayed memory filter.

ISA Transactions, 62(S1):202–214, 2016.

19. Q. Guo, T. Yu, and D. Jiang. High-gain observer-based output feedback con-

trol of single-rod electro-hydraulic actuator. IET Control Theory and Applications,

9(16):2395–2404, 2015.

20. Q. Guo, T. Yu, and D. Jiang. Robust H∞ positional control of 2-DOF robotic

arm driven by electro-hydraulic servo system. ISA Transactions, 59(11):55–64,

2015.

21. Q. Guo, Y. Zhang, B. Celler, and S. Su. Backstepping control of electro-

hydraulic system based on extended-state-observer with plant dynamics largely

unknown. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 63(11):6909–6920, 2016.

22. Q. Guo, Y. Zhang, and D. Jiang. A control approach for human-mechatronic-

hydraulic-coupled exoskeleton in overload-carrying condition. International

Journal of Robotics and Automation, 31(8):272–280, 2016.

23. W. He, Y. Chen, and Z. Yin. Adaptive neural network control of an uncertain

robot with full-state constraints. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 46(3):620–629,

2016.

24. W. He, Y. Dong, and C. Sun. Adaptive neural impedance control of a robotic

manipulator with input saturation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and

Cybernetics: Systems, 46(3):334–344, 2016.

25. W. He and S. Ge. Vibration control of a flexible string with both boundary

input and output constraints. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,

23(4):1245–1254, 2014.

26. W. He and S. Ge. Cooperative control of a nonuniform gantry crane with

constrained tension. Automatica, 66(4):146–154, 2016.

27. W. He and S. Zhang. Control design for nonlinear flexible wings of a robotic

aircraft. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 25(1):351–357, 2017.

28. W. He, S. Zhang, and S. Ge. Adaptive control of a flexible crane system

with the boundary output constraint. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,

61(8):4126–4133, 2014.

29. W. He, S. Zhang, and S. Ge. Robust adaptive control of a thruster assisted

position mooring system. Automatica, 50(7):1843–1851, 2014.

30. C. Johnson and R. Lorenz. Experimental identification of friction and its com-

pensation in precise, position controlled mechanisms. IEEE Transactions on

Industry Applications, 28(6):1392–1398, 1992.

31. C. Kaddissi, J. Kenne, and M. Saad. Identification and real-time control of an

electrohydraulic servo system based on nonlinear backstepping. IEEE/ASME

Transactions on Mechatronics, 12(1):12–22, 2007.

32. H. Khalil. Nonlinear Systems (3rd edition). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,

2001.

33. W. Kim, D. Shin, D. Won, and C. C. Chung. Disturbance-observer-based

position tracking controller in the presence of biased sinusoidal disturbance

for electrohydraulic actuators. IEEE Transactions on Control System Technology,

21(6):2290–2298, 2013.

References 123

34. W. Kim, D. Won, and C. Chung. High gain observer-based nonlinear posi-

tion control for electro-hydraulic servo systems. In Proceedings of 2010 American

Control Conference, Baltimore, MD, pp. 1440–1446, 2010.

35. W. Kim, D. Won, and C. Chung. Output feedback nonlinear control for electro-

hydraulic systems. Mechatronics, 22(6):766–777, 2012.

36. W. Kim, D. Won, and M. Tomizuka. Flatness-based nonlinear control for position

tracking of electrohydraulic systems. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics,

20(1):197–206, 2015.

37. M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotovic. Nonlinear and Adaptive Control

Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1995.

38. G. Liu and S. Daley. Optimal-tuning PID controller design in the frequency

domain with application to a rotary hydraulic system. Control Engineering

Practice, 7(7):821–830, 1999.

39. V. Lu, K. Zhou, and J. Doyle. Stabilization of uncertain linear systems: An LFT

approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41(1):50–65, 1996.

40. N. Manring. Hydraulic Control Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY,

2005.

41. H. Merritt. Hydraulic Control Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY,

1967.

42. V. Milić, Ž. Šitum, and M. Essert. Robust H∞ position control synthesis of an

electro-hydraulic servo system. ISA Transactions, 49(4):535–542, 2010.

43. M. Moradi. Self-tuning PID controller to three-axis stabilization of a satellite

with unknown parameters. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 49:700–

707, 2013.

44. P. Nakkarat and S. Kuntanapreeda. Observer-based backstepping force control

of an electrohydraulic actuator. Control Engineering Practice, 17(8):895–902, 2009.

45. N. Niksefat and N. Sepehri. Design and experimental evaluation of a robust

force controller for an electro-hydraulic actuator via quantitative feedback

theory. Control Engineering Practice, 8(12):1335–1345, 2000.

46. A. Packard, M. Fan, and J. Doyle. A power method for the structured singular

value. In Proceedings of the 27th Conference of Decision and Control, Austin, TX, pp.

2132–2137. IEEE, 1988.

47. H. Pan, W. Sun, H. Gao, and X. Jing. Disturbance observer-based adaptive track-

ing control with actuator saturation and its application. IEEE Transactions on

Automation, Science and Engineering, 13(2):868–875, 2016.

48. Y. Pi and X. Wang. Observer-based cascade control of a 6-DOF parallel hydraulic

manipulator in joint space coordinate. Mechatronics, 20(6):645–655, 2010.

49. A. Plummer and N. Vaughan. Robust adaptive control for hydraulic servo sys-

tems. ASME Journal of Dynamic System, Measurement, Control, 118(2):237–244,

1996.

50. Y. Qiu, X. Liang, and Z. Dai. Backstepping dynamic surface control for an anti-

skid braking system. Control Engineering Practice, 42:140–152, 2015.

51. C. Semini. The report of production display for “HyQ robot” made in the

Dynamic Legged Systems Lab, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT), Genova, Italy,

http://www.iit.it/en/advrlabs/dynamic-legged-systems.html.

52. X. Song, Y. Wang, and Z. Sun. Robust stabilizer design for linear time-

varying internal model based output regulation and its application to an electro

hydraulic system. Automatica, 50(4):1128–1134, 2014.

124 References

53. H. Sun and G. Chiu. Nonlinear observer based force control of electro-hydraulic

actuators. In Proceedings of 1999 American Control Conference, San Diego, Califor-

nia, pp. 764–768, 1999.

54. D. Swaroop, P. Hedrick, J. Yip, and J. Gerdes. Dynamic surface control for a class

of nonlinear systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45(10):1893–1899,

2000.

55. I. Ursu, A. Toader, A. Halanay, and S. Balea. New stabilization and tracking

control laws for electrohydraulic servomechanisms. European Journal of Control,

19(1):65–80, 2013.

56. I. Ursu, F. Ursu, and F. Popescu. Backstepping design for controlling electrohy-

draulic. Journal of the Frankin Institute, 343(1):94–110, 2006.

57. W. Gawronski. Balanced systems and structures: Reduction, assignment, and

perturbations. Control and Dynamic Systems, 54:372–415, 1992.

58. D. Wang and J. Huang. Neural network-based adaptive dynamic surface con-

trol for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems in strict-feedback form. IEEE

Transactions on Neural Networks, 16(1):195–202, 2005.

59. D. Won, W. Kim, D. Shin, and C. Chung. High-gain disturbance observer-based

backstepping control with output tracking error constraint for electro-hydraulic

systems. IEEE Transactions on Control System Technology, 23(2):787–795, 2015.

60. B. Yao and F. Bu. Adaptive robust motion control of single-rod hydraulic

actuators theory and experiments. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics,

5(1):79–91, 2000.

61. J. Yao, Z. Jiao, and D. Ma. Extended-state-observer-based output feedback non-

linear robust control of hydraulic systems with backstepping. IEEE Transactions

on Industrial Electronics, 61(11):6285–6293, 2014.

62. J. Yao, Z. Jiao, and D. Ma. High-accuracy tracking control of hydraulic rotary

actuators with modeling uncertainties. IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics,

19(2):633–641, 2014.

63. J. Yao, Z. Jiao, Y. Shang, and C. Huang. Adaptive nonlinear optimal compen-

sation control for electro-hydraulic load simulator. China Journal of Aeronautics,

23(6):720–733, 2010.

64. H. Yu, Z. Feng, and X. Wang. Nonlinear control for a class of hydraulic servo

system. Journal of Zhejiang University Science, 5(11):1413–1417, 2004.

65. P. Zarchan. Tactical and Strategic Missile Guidance. AIAA, Reston, VA, 1997.

66. J. Zhao, J. Wang, and S. Wang. Fractional order control to the electrohydraulic

system in insulator fatigue test device. Mechatronics, 23(7):828–839, 2010.

67. K. Zhou, J. Doyle, and K. Glover. Robust and Optimal Control. Prentice-Hall Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1996.

Index

A D

Actuators, 1; see also Electro-hydraulic Decayed memory filter, 97

servo systems design, 104–106

Adaptive control, 2 Disturbance

Amplitude margin, 20 effect, 20

Arm hydraulic actuator rejection, 3

sinusoidal response of, 91 Disturbance observer (DO), 2

step response experiment, 89 with general nonlinear controller, 5

Asymmetrical cylinder model, 9 in parametric adaptive control

method, 115–120

DO, see Disturbance observer

B Double-rod acting mechanism, 8

Dynamic control voltages of two servo

Backstepping control, 4 valves, 44

controller, 86 Dynamic model of EHS, 98; see also

general, 100–104 Parametric adaptive control

procedure, 82 method

external load, 99

flow-pressure continuous equation of

C hydraulic cylinder, 98

fourth state space model, 99

Closed loop; see also Open-loop load flow of servo valve, 98

from load disturbance, 19 one-order linear model, 98

with robust performance sgn(.) function, 98

requirements, 53

transfer function, 18

Command delay, 10 E

Complementary sensitivity function, 61 EHA, see Electro-hydraulic actuator

Control method, 5; see also Parametric EHSs, see Electro-hydraulic servo

uncertainty problem systems

external load, 4–5 Electro-hydraulic actuator (EHA), 1

linear PID controller, 5 linearized model of, 14–16

output feedback control method, 6 Electro-hydraulic control system, 7; see

robust controller, 5 also Hydraulic cylinder model;

state feedback control method, 6 Servo valve

Control voltage of two servo valves nonlinear state-space model, 12–14

for sinusoidal demand, 65 parametric uncertainty and load

for square demand, 64 disturbance, 11–12

Coordinated motion experiment of Electro-hydraulic servo systems (EHSs),

robotic arm joints, 95, 96 1, 8, 69; see also Control method;

Cross-linked feedback system, 56 Parametric uncertainty

Cylinder problem

position feedback control loop; see adaptive control, 2

also Linear feedback control control methods, 5

loop external load on, 3

position response in time domain, 62 geometric control approach, 3

volume, 48 H∞ control methods, 3

125

126 Index

(Continued) Hydraulic cylinder model, 7, 23; see also

to improve behavior of, 3 Electro-hydraulic control

largely unknown load disturbance system model; Linear feedback

of, 4 control loop

linear classical control, 2 annulus area ratio and coefficient, 24

nonlinear control, 2 asymmetrical cylinder model, 9

nonlinear model of EHS, 5 cylinder volume, 23

problems and solutions in, 2 double-rod acting mechanism, 8

quantitative feedback theories, 3 flow-pressure coefficient of valve,

robust control, 2 23, 24

unmodeled uncertainties, 2 flow-pressure continuous equation

Equivalent parameter identification of, 98

method, 4 hydraulic parameters, 47

ESO, see Extended state observer load flow gain of valve, 24

Extended state observer (ESO), 2 mechanical dynamic equation, 9

External load, 4–5, 49 parameters of, 23

as disturbance to EHS, 54 pressure gain of valve, 23

in parametric adaptive backstepping rod chamber, 23

controller, 99 single-rod acting mechanism, 8

symmetrical cylinder model, 8–9

F

Feedback control method, 6 I

Fictitious proportional gains, 49–50 Initial load mass, 24

Flatness-based nonlinear controller, 5

Flow

equations of single-rod cylinder, 70 J

gain of servo valve, 48

Flow-pressure Joint angles, 49

coefficient of valve, 23, 24

continuous equation, 48, 98 K

continuous model, 71

Fourth state space model, 99 Kinetic energy of arm, 28

Full-state

error, 87

observer construction, 72–75 L

Lagrange equation of two-DOF robotic

G arm, 27

Largely unknown load disturbance, 4

General backstepping control design, LFT, see Linear fractional transformation

100–104 Linear classical control, 2

Geometric control approach, 3 Linear feedback control loop, 17, 18; see

Gravitational potential energy of arm, 28 also Hydraulic cylinder model;

Linear PID control design

amplitude margin, 20

H

closed loop from load disturbance, 19

H∞ control methods, 3 closed-loop transfer function, 18

HGDO, see High-gain disturbance disturbance effect, 20

observer open-loop transfer function, 18

High-gain disturbance observer phase margin, 20

(HGDO), 3 Linear fractional transformation

with backstepping control, 5 (LFT), 50

Index 127

actuator, 14–16

Nonlinear backstepping control, 81; see

Linear PID control design, 17; see also

also Output feedback control

Linear feedback control loop;

model of EHS; Parametric

Mechanical motion model;

adaptive backstepping

Proportional integral derivative

controller

control; System performance

backstepping controller, 86

analysis

backstepping procedure, 82

controller, 5

controller design with observer, 84–86

open-loop transfer function for, 19

coordinated motion of robotic arm

Linear uncertain state-space model, 51

joints, 95, 96

Load

experiment on, 88

disturbance estimation, 118

full-state error, 87

rotation, 24

Lyapunov candidate function, 82, 83

Load flow

observer error dynamics, 87

gain of valve, 24, 47

PI and backstepping method

model, 10 comparison, 91, 93, 94

of servo valve, 98 pressure error, 82

Load mass, initial, 24 sinusoidal response of upper arm

Lyapunov candidate function, 82, 83 hydraulic actuator, 91

stability discussion of EHS, 86

M state errors, 88

state estimations, 90, 92

Maximum relative uncertainties, 49–50 step response experiment of upper

Measurement noise, 53 arm hydraulic actuator, 89

Mechanical dynamic equation, 9, 71 Nonlinear control, 2

Mechanical motion model, 24; see also Nonlinear DO integrated with general

Two-link dynamic model nonlinear controller, 5

distance from centroid forearm to Nonlinear model of EHS, 5, 72

elbow, 26 Nonlinear state-space model, 12–14

equivalent moment of inertia of

forearm, 26

framework for, 25 O

gravitational potential energy of Observer; see also Disturbance observer;

arm, 28 State observer design

initial load mass, 24 backstepping controller with, 84–86

kinetic energy of arm, 28 convergence, 76–81

Lagrange equation of two-DOF error dynamics, 87

robotic arm, 27 extended state, 2

load rotation, 24 full-state observer construction, 72–75

mechanical parameters of robotic HGDO, 3, 5

arm, 26 high gain of, 75, 76

moment of inertia, 24 One-order linear model, 98

motion control mechanism, 24, 25 Open-loop; see also Closed loop;

position vector of hinge point, 27 Open-loop control system

total energy of two-link system, 28–29 frequency domain

two cylinder dynamic lengths, 29, 30 system analysis, 54

velocity vector, 27 system frequency response, 54, 55

Mechatronics plant model, 20; see also transfer function, 18, 36

Mechanical motion model; Open-loop control system frequency

Servo valve model construction domain

Moment of inertia, 24 for shoulder actuator, 40

Motion control mechanism, 24, 25 for upper arm actuator, 38

128 Index

feedback control method, 6 hydraulic actuator, 34

flow of pump, 32 Parametric estimation, 3

power of pump, 32 Parametric uncertainties, 2

pressure analysis of pump, 31–32 and load disturbance, 11–12

Output feedback control model of EHS, Parametric uncertainty analysis, 47; see

69; see also Electro-hydraulic also Robust controller design;

control system; State observer Robust model construction

design cylinder volume, 48

dynamics of servo valve, 70 external load, 49

flow equations of single-rod fictitious proportional gains, 49–50

cylinder, 70 flow gain of servo valve, 48

flow-pressure continuous model, 71 flow-pressure continuous

mechanical dynamic equation, 71 equation, 48

Robotic BigDog, 70 hydraulic parameters, 47

sgn(.) function, 70–71 joint angles, 49

sixth-order nonlinear dynamic model load flow gain of valve, 47

of EHS, 72 maximum relative uncertainties,

stick-slip friction, 71 49–50

two load flows, 70 structural uncertainty, 49

viscous damping coefficient of

cylinder, 48–49

P Parametric uncertainty problem, 2, 3; see

PAE law, see Parametric adaptive also Control method

estimation law disturbance rejection, 3

Parametric adaptive backstepping parametric estimation, 3

controller, 99; see also Nonlinear unknown parametric variation, 3

backstepping control; Phase margin, 20

Parametric adaptive control PI controller, see Proportional integral

method controller

decayed memory filter design, PID, see Proportional integral derivative

104–106 Pneumatic actuator, 1

dynamics of EHS, 100 Position tracking

general backstepping control design, error by two controllers, 118, 120

100–104 results of arm cylinder, 43

revised parametric adaptive control Position vector of hinge point, 27

law, 106–108 Pressure error, 82

Parametric adaptive control method, 97; Pressure gain of valve, 23

see also Dynamic model of EHS; Pressure of cylinder

Parametric adaptive with load, 31–34, 38

backstepping controller supporting shoulder, 33–34

application, 108–110 supporting the elbow, 34, 35, 36

compared to simplified backstepping with two joints in simultaneous

controller, 114–115, 116, 117 motion, 34, 37, 38

decayed memory filter, 97 Proportional integral controller (PI

disturbance observer, 115–120 controller), 3, 41; see also

experiment on, 110–114 Proportional integral derivative

load disturbance estimation, 118 control

position tracking error by two and backstepping method

controllers, 118, 120 comparison, 91, 93, 94

virtual control variables, 97 design for shoulder actuator, 39, 40

Parametric adaptive estimation law dynamic control voltages of two

(PAE law), 2 servo valves, 44

Index 129

cylinder, 43 frequency domain result of robust

two chamber pressures of two controller, 61

cylinders, 44 frequency response of open-loop

Proportional integral derivative (PID), 5 system with uncertainties,

Proportional integral derivative control, 54, 55

34; see also Proportional integral input and output, 53–54

controller linear uncertain state-space model, 51

frequency domain characteristic of measurement noise, 53

open-loop control system, with parametric and structural

38, 40 uncertainties, 52

linear, 5 robust performance with uncertainty

open-loop transfer function, 36 parameters, 60

performance for actuator, 39, 40 robust stability, 60

supply pressure, 35, 36 singular values of inverse function, 58

upper arm cylinder, 37, 41 Small Gain Theorem, 56–57

structural uncertainty parameters, 51

Q weight function design, 55–58

Robust model construction, 50–54; see

Quantitative feedback theories, 3 also Parametric uncertainty

analysis; Robust control;

R Sinusoidal response

Revised parametric adaptive control law,

106–108 S

Robotic arm

coordinated motion of joints, 95, 96 Servo motor system, 1

mechanical parameters, 26 Servo valve, 9; see also Electro-hydraulic

Robotic BigDog, 70 control system model

Robust control, 2, 45; see also Robust command delay, 10

controller design; Parametric dynamics, 70

uncertainty analysis load flow model, 10

external load forces of two-DOF robot load flow of, 98

arm, 45 spool position response model, 10–11

hydraulic parametric Servo valve model construction, 20; see

uncertainties, 45 also Mechanical motion model

linearized hydraulic model first-order transfer function model, 21

construction, 46 load flow gain of servo valve, 23

linear mathematical model of EHS, 45 maximal spool displacement, 21

Robust controller, 5 no-load flow gain of proportional

Robust controller design, 54, 58; see also valve, 22

Robust model construction pressure loss from valve

analysis of open-loop system, 54 to cylinder, 22

block diagram for robust stability and servo valve parameters, 21

performance, 59 servo valve pressure loss, 21

block diagram of closed-loop sgn(.) function, 70–71, 98

system, 53 Single-rod acting mechanism, 8

complementary sensitivity Singular values of inverse function, 58

function, 61 Sinusoidal response, 62–68; see also

cross-linked feedback system, 56 Robust controller design;

cylinder position response in time Square response

domain, 62 control voltage for sinusoidal

external load as disturbance to demand, 65

EHS, 54 control voltage for square demand, 64

130 Index

cylinder position response in time load, 31–34

domain, 62 mechanical properties curve of motor

designed controller result in time with load, 31

domain, 63 motor performance, 30–31

experiment of upper arm hydraulic output flow of pump, 32

actuator, 91 output pressure analysis of pump,

of experiment result by two control 31–32

methods, 66 parametric analysis of shoulder

frequency domain result of robust hydraulic actuator, 34

controller, 61 pump output power, 32

steady error, 68 simulation model for dynamic

of two joint angles, 65 pressure of cylinder with

video sequences of, 67, 68 load, 38

Sixth-order nonlinear dynamic model of simulation result with elbow joint, 33

EHS, 72 volumetric efficiency coefficient of

Small Gain Theorem, 56–57 pump, 31

Spool position response model, 10–11

Square response T

in two control methods, 66, 66

of two joint angles, 63, 65 Two chamber pressures of two

State errors, 88 cylinders, 44

State estimations, 90, 92 Two-link dynamic model, 27; see also

State feedback control method, 6 Mechanical motion model

State observer design, 72; see also kinetic equation of, 28

Nonlinear backstepping control total energy of, 28–29

full-state observer construction, 72–75 two cylinder dynamic lengths and

high gain of observer, 75, 76 force arms, 30

nonlinear model of EHS, 72 two driving torques of, 29

observer convergence, 76–81 Two load flows, 70

Steady error, 68

Step response experiment of arm U

hydraulic actuator, 89

Stick-slip friction, 71 Unknown parametric variation, 3

Structural uncertainty, 49; see also Unmodeled uncertainties, 2

Linearized model of Upper arm cylinder control design,

electro-hydraulic actuator 37, 41

model, 54

parameters, 51 V

Supply pressure, 35, 36

Symmetrical cylinder model, 8–9 Velocity vector, 27

System performance analysis, 30; see also Virtual control variables, 97

Linear PID control design Viscous damping coefficient of cylinder,

actual cylinder pressure, 32 48–49

cylinder pressure in simultaneous Volumetric efficiency coefficient of

joints motion, 34, 37, 38 pump, 31

cylinder pressure supporting elbow,

34, 35, 36 W

cylinder pressure supporting

shoulder, 33–34 Weight Function Design, 55–58

- 1-s2.0-0005109896855579-main.pdfUploaded byCaterine Feria Ramirez
- Uncertainty and Disturbance ObserverUploaded byD.Viswanath
- Sensor Less Control for IM via Fuzzy Observer DesignUploaded bysajs201
- Generalized PI Control of Active Vehicle Suspension Systems With MATLABUploaded byAVALDER
- Digital Control of Dynamic Systems G F Franklin AnUploaded byBob Trollson
- Second International Conference on Soft Computing, Control and Mathematics (SCM 2016)Uploaded byCS & IT
- Second International Conference on Soft Computing, Control and Mathematics (SCM 2016)Uploaded byCS & IT
- International Journal of Soft Computing, Mathematics and Control (IJSCMC)Uploaded byijscmc
- SCMUploaded byCS & IT
- IJACEEEUploaded byijaceee
- International Journal of Soft Computing, Mathematics and Control (IJSCMC)Uploaded byijscmc
- Brochure STUploaded byHakan Kara
- Second International Conference on Soft Computing, Control and Mathematics (SCM 2016)Uploaded byCS & IT
- Gain SchedulingUploaded byYonas Ghiwot
- The International Journal of Applied Control, Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJACEEE)Uploaded byijaceee
- Acc00 BoomUploaded bysurjitvarma
- IC6601 Imp Part B Theory Questions_Unit IUploaded byKotteeswaran Rangasamy R
- 1 Benefit of Process ControlUploaded byParth Shah
- DG Governer 1Uploaded byKrishna Rao
- 4 Digital Control-Advanced Controllers_Autotuning.pdfUploaded byetmatsuda
- ijaceeeUploaded byijaceee
- ijaceeeUploaded byijaceee
- ijaceeeUploaded byijaceee
- ijaceeeUploaded byijaceee
- AEI504Uploaded byapi-26787131
- SensorsUploaded byPrashanth Bn
- International Journal of Applied Control, Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJACEEE)Uploaded byijaceee
- IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics Volume Issue 2017 [Doi 10.1109%2FTIE.2017.2779442] Shen, Chao; Shi, Yang; Buckham, Brad -- Trajectory Tracking Control of an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle uUploaded byEmad
- 15 Chapter15 CorrectedUploaded bySHUBHAM SAINI
- The International Journal of Applied Control, Electrical and Electronics Engineering (IJACEEE)Uploaded byijaceee

- 2010 - Practical Aeroservoelasticity in-Flight Identification and Adaptive ControlUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1-5-US 155235630AP1Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- Documento PompeUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2014 - Time-Domain Aeroservoelastic Modeling and Active Flutter Suppression by Model Predictive ControlUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2004 - Estimation ofFlape Electromechanical Actuator !!Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2013 - Modal Isolation and Damping for Adaptive Aeroservoelastic SuppressionUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1995 - AEROELASTIC ANALYSIS FOR FLAP OF AIRFOIL IN TRANSONIC FLOW.pdfUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2013 - Active Control for Flutter Suppression: An Experimental InvestigationUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2015 - Aeroservoelastic Simulation Considering Control System Component UncertaintyUploaded byFedericoBetti
- ???? - Larpe JFlectromechanical Actuation Svstems for Fbht Control Surfaces !!Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2004 - Aeroelastic Response of an Airfoil-Flap System Exposed to Time-Dependent DisturbancesUploaded byFedericoBetti
- Aeroelasticity03.pdfUploaded byGaneshGovindarajan
- 2006 - Modelling and Position Control of Voltage Forced Electromechanical ActuatorUploaded byFedericoBetti
- canless rngineUploaded bySrinivas Murthy
- 2014 - Aeroservoelastic Modeling and Analysis of a Missile Control Surface With a Nonlinear Electromechanical ActuatorUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1999 - Single Finite States Modeling of Aerodynamic Forces Related to Structural Motions and Gusts.pdfUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2011 - The Effect of Rate Limited Actuator Dynamics on the Adaptive Control of a Nonlinear Aeroservoelastic (ASE) SystemUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2000 - Comparing Linear Parameter-Varying Gain-scheduled Control Techniques for Active Flutter SuppressionUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2014 - Nonlinear Aeroelastic Analysis for a Rudder With a Hydraulic BoosterUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2014 - SCREW-DRIVEN VS. BELT-DRIVEN RODLESS ACTUATORS: How to select drive trains for reliability, ef ciency and long service life .pdfUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 2004 - Aeroelastic Forces and Dynamic Response of Long-span BridgesUploaded byFedericoBetti
- Electro Mechanical Actuators for General Aviation Fly by Wire AircraftUploaded byFedericoBetti
- ???? - Aeroelastic Dynamic Response and Control of an Airfoil Section With Control Surface NonlinearitiesUploaded byFedericoBetti
- MP-AVT-152-18Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1450-55840404317MUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 1996 - The Role of Eigenvectors in Aeroelastic AnalysisUploaded byFedericoBetti
- 01235292Uploaded byFedericoBetti
- Sem.org IMAC XXIV Conf s02p01 Investigation Dynamic Characterization Aircraft Control Surface FreeUploaded byFedericoBetti
- AIAA-2010-492Uploaded byFedericoBetti

- Keith Potts, Nii Ankrah-Construction Cost Management_ Learning From Case Studies-Routledge (2014)Uploaded bychristian garcia
- Controller TuningUploaded byAnonymous 0zrCNQ
- PHI Learning Catalogue > ENGINEERING Agricultural, Chemical, Civil and EnvironmentalUploaded byPHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
- PDC Chapter 8Uploaded bysatya sagar
- Jntu Citd m.tech Mechatronics SyllabusUploaded bySai Kiran
- four port dc-dcUploaded bysenram36961
- Control Theory Prof Shweta GaurUploaded by123_JE
- Manon z MoonUploaded byabrahnm
- Feedback 35-001-USB.pdfUploaded byFrancisco Ochoa
- Matlab Course Training DetailsUploaded bypkumarmys
- A Frequency Control Approach by Decentralized Generators and Loads in Power SystemsUploaded byMichael Zontche Bernard
- controlUploaded byahonenkone
- Motional Feedback on a loudspeaker wooferUploaded byValk1902
- syllabusUploaded bysanthoshiniselvaraj
- Feedback Control Systems Part 1 KCC 2011Uploaded byAlexis Delgado
- 5_heated_tank.pdfUploaded byNguyễn Ánh
- Small Signal Stability- SwedenUploaded byRahul Chakrabarti
- ME MotronicUploaded bydory7daw
- AIP JournalUploaded bySanjiv Cr
- Closed LoopUploaded byJaime A. Pascual
- Effects of Cnc on MachineUploaded byRyan Kikolski
- ^Pulse CycloUploaded byJeeva J
- B.tech MDU Syllabus (ECE) 3yrUploaded bybtechkarlo
- Sagar Suresh Srikant ResumeUploaded byms2sagar
- Optimal AGC Regulator for Multi Area Interconnected Power Systems With Parallel AC DC LinksUploaded bySai Krishna Velicheti
- [Zheng2012] an Energy Saving Factory-ValidatedUploaded byFernando Lotero
- Produce x 101Uploaded byBlack Rabbit
- ROBOTICS.docxUploaded bylakshmigsr6610
- NC MachineUploaded bysafvanshaikh
- IP Experiment Manual V2.00Uploaded bytmohanrajkec