0 views

Uploaded by Fiandjafar

Canuto 2013

Canuto 2013

© All Rights Reserved

- Proof of Small Gain Theorem
- STCSL
- EEC 510 Syllabus 2015 - Morinec
- Solutions to Case Studies Challenges
- Discontinuous Dynamical Systems - Jorge Cortés
- Stability
- Stability
- REMOTE HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM USING HEALTHY PI
- non linear control
- Adaptive Delta Modulation ACC07 v2
- Design of PID Controllers Integrator System with Time Delay and Double Integrating Processes
- A Globally Converging Observer of Mechanical Variables for Sensorless PMSM
- LPV
- Improved Noise Sensitivity Under High-gain Feedback in Nano-positioning Motion Systems
- CCE 2011
- Dynamic Load Carrying Capacity of Mobile- Base Flexible-link Manipulators: Feedback Linearization Control Approach
- Oren Review t Ms
- 0128.pdf
- 11422multiple choice2_0
- Lect 5 - Stability

You are on page 1of 16

2, 2013

Carlos Perez Montenegro

Politecnico di Torino,

Department of Control and Computer Engineering,

Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy

E-mail: enrico.canuto@polito.it

E-mail: wilber.acunabravo@polito.it

E-mail: carlos.perez@polito.it

*Corresponding author

Abstract: This paper formulates the error loop as a tool for designing robust stability control

systems in the presence of structured and unstructured uncertainties. The error loop indicates that

uncertainties can be accommodated through the design of the noise estimator, which is the unique

feedback channel from plant to control. The real-time model that is embedded in the control unit

and the noise estimator constitute a state predictor. The embedded model consists of a

controllable dynamics plus a disturbance dynamics fed by the noise estimator. It is shown that

causality constraint prevents perfect cancellation of causal uncertainties (unknown disturbance),

but makes the control law which is fed by the state predictor to play a role, thus offering a further

degree of freedom. Employing asymptotic expansions of the closed-loop transfer functions,

simple, explicit design formulae derive from stability inequalities. They relate closed-loop

eigenvalues to model parameters and requirements, and define an admissible frequency band for

the state predictor bandwidth. This paper restricts formulation to the univariate case. A simple

example is provided with simulated and experimental data.

Keywords: robust control; closed-loop; stability; error loop; embedded model control.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Canuto, E., Acuña-Bravo, W. and

Perez Montenegro, C. (2013) ‘Robust control stability using the error loop’, Int. J. Mechatronics

and Automation, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.94–109.

Biographical notes: Enrico Canuto received his degree in Electrical Engineering from

Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy, where he joined the staff as an Associate Professor of

Automatic Control in 1983. From 1982 to 1997, he contributed to data reduction of the European

astrometric mission Hipparcos. Technological studies in view of scientific and drag-free space

missions, like Gaia and GOCE, provided the opportunity of applying embedded model control to

drag-free satellites and to electro-optics. He contributed to the conception, design and

implementation of the nanobalance interferometric thrust-stand, capable of sub-micronewton

accuracy. Presently, he is involved in the design of the orbit, formation and attitude control of the

Next Generation Gravity Missions of the European Space Agency. His research interests cover

all the entire field of control problems that are challenging because of complexity, uncertainty

and precision.

Wilber Acuña-Bravo received his degree in Electrical Engineering from Universidad del

Quindío, Armenia, Colombia, and MS in Control Engineering from Universidad de Los Andes,

Mérida, Venezuela. In 2011, he received his PhD in Information and System Engineering from

Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy, where he is currently a Research Assistant. His research

interests include electro-hydraulic control systems and control applications.

Carlos Perez Montenegro received his degree in Electrical Engineering from Pontificia

Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia. Currently, he is a PhD student in Information and

System Engineering at Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy. His main research interests include

space control applications and quadricopter design and control.

Robust control stability using the error loop 95

The difficulty is that h, being output and command

1.1. Uncertainty and the error loop dependent cannot belong to Du, as the latter is defined as a

Closed-loop performance is affected by uncertain class of command independent signals. This is one of the

discrepancies between model and reality. Three kinds of chief instability sources of any feedback control design,

discrepancies may be distinguished (Maciejowski, 1989; since feedback signals – in this case the estimated

Doyle et al., 1992) as in Figure 1. innovations wd and wu – spill components incoherent with

Causal uncertainty, denoted by clouds, regards the design model. Appropriate stability conditions need to

unpredictable actions, referred to as innovation, and be formulated and proved, which are shown to be mainly

formulated either as a white-noise or a bounded and related to the noise estimator (and therefore to the state

arbitrary-signal class corresponding to wd and wu in predictor) design. Specifically, frequency-domain design

Figure 1. They are independent of the model state and suggests to enlarge the state predictor bandwidth (BW) to

command and only affect performance. The mechanism allow estimation and cancellation of the dominant low

through which they affect a plant is not merely frequency components.

unpredictable, as they accumulate prior to be released. Unstructured uncertainty, denoted by a cloudy 3D box,

Causes of this kind are referred to as ‘unknown’ disturbance refers to model-class discrepancies and uncertainties, which

and their model, the disturbance dynamics D in Figure 1, are unavoidable due to the embedded model finite order.

generates the signal class du ∈ Du. The control goal is to They may take several forms as in Maciejowski (1989),

cancel their effect less the innovation, as the latter occurs Doyle et al. (1992) and Ross Barmish (1994). The output

while the command is acting on the plant. Innovations wd fractional form [multiplicative form in Doyle et al. (1992)]

and wu are necessary and sufficient for updating the state of is adopted here as in Canuto (2007) and in Canuto et al.

D. They must be real-time estimated by correlating them to (2012). They are driven by the model output ym and yield

the model error e = y – ym through a noise estimator as in the model error e (plant minus model) as output, as follows:

Canuto et al. (2010). This is the basic mechanism of the

e = y − ym = ∂P ( ym ) + wy , (1)

‘disturbance observers’ pioneered by Johnson (1971), and

Hostetter and Meditch (1973), and further studied and where y is the measured plant output. The dynamic operator

applied by Mita et al. (1998), Bickel and Tomizuka (1999), ∂P is the (uncertain) ‘neglected dynamics’, a term

Schrijver and van Dijk (2002), Choi et al. (2003), and preferable to unstructured uncertainty, and wy is the

Katsura et al. (2007). The embedded model control of measurement error, which has been assumed adding to ∂P.

Canuto (2007) inspired by Donati and Vallauri (1984) Components of (1) are completely neglected in the

develops around the concept that noise is the necessary and embedded model. Spilling e to the command through

sufficient feedback from plant to control. The ensemble of feedback must be restricted, since, for what concerns ∂P, it

noise estimator and design model, to be embedded as a can be assimilated to a command-dependent output error. In

real-time model in the control unit – hence the name addition, wy prevents accurate estimation of the innovations

embedded model – implements a one-step state predictor. wd and wu, which difficulty leads to Kalman filter

The structured (or parametric) uncertainty h(·), denoted optimisation (see Kwakernaak and Sivan, 1972). The

by a cloudy 3D box, either refers to discrepancies from the uncertainty-based design restricts noise estimation in the

model class in the form of parameter uncertainty or to frequency band (usually at higher frequencies below

neglected relations between model variables (cross Nyquist frequency) where ∂P dominates.

couplings). They must be distinguished from the known As a result in robust design, structured and unstructured

interconnections, that are denoted with h (⋅) and must be uncertainties must be accommodated by a trade-off in the

treated as known disturbances. They have been extensively design of the state predictor BW: a wider band is required to

studied in the literature, as for instance by Chapellat et al. cancel structured discrepancies, a narrower band to prevent

(1990), Foo and Soh (1993), Ross Barmish (1994), spilling of neglected dynamics. The design defines a

Calafiore and Dabbene (2002), Chen et al. (2005), stability interval where to place noise-estimator gains or,

Patre et al. (2008). They may take several forms, equivalently, the state-predictor eigenvalues. Converting

from command-to-state to output-to-state relations: only eigenvalues into frequency domain, lower and upper bounds

state-to-command relations are treated here since they affect of the state-predictor BW are obtained. The interval width

the model eigenvalues. They are included in the so-called depends on the ratio of the predictor and control-law

design model and implemented as a numerical simulator, eigenvalues, and on a stability margin. When the interval is

but they are forcedly neglected in the embedded model, void, robust design becomes unfeasible, which may be due

except for the known part h, and are surrogated by the to excessive stability margin (conservative design) or large

unknown disturbance class Du. The advantage is that h can uncertainty (poor modelling).

be made implicitly known by du and therefore cancelled by

u, thus favouring robustness of the model-based design

96 E. Canuto et al.

Figure 1 Block-diagram of embedded model and uncertainties (see online version for colours)

Figure 2 Block-diagram of the error loop (see online version for colours)

wu

Disturbance du

wd dynamics

D

Structured

uncertainty

h ( ⋅)

Control unit e

h (⋅) Dynamics d y State

Known ey

predictor e −

disturbance

M Sm

eˆy

wy

y Neglected e State eˆ y ey

− −

dynamics ∂P predictor

− ym

Vm Causality

S c ML w

Uncertainties

Stability inequalities are obtained in Section 3 from error e defined in (1), the tracking error ey and the prediction

equations driven by model uncertainties in Figure 1. They error eˆ y defined by

generate a loop passing through different errors, and

therefore designated as the ‘error loop’ in Canuto (2007). ey = y − ym

Three main errors enter the loop in Figure 2: the model error (2)

eˆ y = ym − yˆ m ,

Robust control stability using the error loop 97

where y is the reference signal driving the loop and yˆ m is 1 the modelling procedure pivoting on the disturbance

the one-step prediction of the model output ym. None of the dynamics D and on the driving noise as the sole

above errors is measurable as they include the model output plant-to-model feedback

ym, which is only available either as a signal class or from 2 the performance equation (63) including all the

simulated runs. The corresponding measurable errors that uncertainty contributions and their closed-loop

are indicated as the output of the control unit in Figure 2, accommodating filters

are made available by replacing ym either with yˆ m or y in

3 the derivation of (63) in Section 3

(2). They correspond to the measured model error e , to the

4 the asymptotic inequalities in Section 3 and their

measured tracking error eˆy and to the control error ey. They

derivation throughout this paper.

are defined as follows

More sophisticated algorithms, simulation and in-field

e = y − yˆ m = e + eˆ y tuning may refine the resulting robust design.

eˆy = y − yˆ m = ey + eˆy (3) Formulation employs discrete-time transfer functions

denoted as y(z) = M(z)u(z). Sometimes z is dropped. Since

e y = y − y = eˆy − e = ey − e.

this paper aims to be introductory, the univariate case is

treated.

1.2 Content of this paper

In Section 3, this paper concentrates on the derivation and 2 The embedded model and the uncertainty

properties of the error loop. The main result is the

following: structured and unstructured uncertainties may be 2.1 The embedded model and its realisation

accommodated by the state predictor sensitivity Sm and its

2.1.1 Generalities

complement Vm as shown in Figure 2. The result seems

partly departing from most of the literature, where either the A discrete-time dynamics is considered, which is associated

control law is dedicated to the purpose as in Solihin et al. to the time unit T, to the Nyquist frequency fmax = 0.5/T and

(2011) or no distinction between control and state predictor to discrete times iT. The model output ym is the response to

is made. On the contrary, structured uncertainties must be the command u and to the disturbance d as follows (see

real-time estimated so as to update the embedded model. Figure 1):

This is obtained by shaping the lower-frequency part of the

ym ( z ) = M ( z ) ( u ( z ) + d ( z ) ) = M ( z )u ( z ) + d y ( z )

sensitivity Sm. Unstructured uncertainties must be blocked (4)

from spilling into the embedded model in order to prevent d ( z ) = du ( z ) + wu ( z ) + h ( xc ) + h ( x c ) ,

instability. This is achieved by shaping the higher-frequency

part of Vm. Actually, as shown in Section 3, because of where

causality, which prevents cancelling innovation wu in

M = Cc ( zI − Ac ) Bc = Cc N ( z ) / φ ( z ).

−1

(5)

Figure 1, – wu and wd can only be causally estimated –, the

state predictor is affected by the correction Sw = ScMLwSm is irreducible and of order nc. To be simple, CcN(z) is

in Figure 2, right bottom, which depends on the control-law assumed to be Hurwitz. The input signals u and d are scaled

sensitivity Sc, on the controllable dynamics M and on the to the output units; dy is the output disturbance to be used in

noise estimator Lw. Causality adds a degree of freedom and Section 3. The disturbance d is decomposed into the

shows how state predictor and control law intertwine in the following components:

overall control sensitivity S and its complement V.

Shaping Sm and S is done by approximating them and 1 The unknown disturbance du(z) = D(z)wd(z) is driven by

their complements Vm and V with low- and high-frequency a noise vector wd of size nw through the irreducible

asymptotes, respectively, within the Nyquist frequency dynamics D = Mc(zI – Ad)–1Gd of order nd, with state

band. Asymptotes can be related to noise estimator and vector xd. The disturbance must be rejected by the

control gains and to state predictor and state feedback control action.

eigenvalues. The intersections of the asymptotes with 2 The unpredictable noise wu(z) cannot be cancelled due

the zero dB line are interpreted as the bandwidths of to causality, since any sample wu(i) occurs while the

(asymptotic) sensitivity and complement. The main result command sample u(i) actuates plant and model.

affirms that a robust design accommodating structured and

unstructured uncertainty defines an admissible region Δfm of 3 The non-linear feedback h(xc ) + h (xc ) depends on the

the BW fm of the state predictor sensitivity Sm. The state xc of M; the unknown part h(xc) is treated as a

admissible region in turn depends on the control ratio γ = fm structured uncertainty to be estimated and rejected by

/ fc, fc being the BW of Sc, and on the stability margin η–1 > the control action.

1. Machinery and proof of the asymptotes are carried out

step by step throughout the paper. The disturbance dynamics D plays the role of the weighting

Main contributions are credited to be: functions in Maciejowski (1989) and Doyle et al. (1992),

but is designed to be parameter-free and explicitly coded in

98 E. Canuto et al.

the control unit. A disturbance adding to the command is the neglected dynamics, as well as amplifier dynamics and

simplest case, which is referred to as the collocated case. LuGre friction dynamics (Canudas de Wit et al., 1995).

The not collocated case is treated in Canuto (2007). Signals Transfer functions and h(·)in (4) hold

wd and wu may be treated as white noise, but when statistics

is unknown they may be also interpreted as bounded, ⎡ ym = θ ⎤

M ( z ) = ( z − 1) −2 , xc = ⎢ ⎥

arbitrary signals, whose average converges to a null value. ⎣ Δθ ⎦

Null value is therefore their best prediction. ⎡ wa ⎤ ⎡a ⎤

All the state variables of M and D are observable by the D( z )w d ( z ) = ( z − 1) −1 ⎣⎡1 ( z − 1) −1 ⎦⎤ ⎢ ⎥ ( z ), xc = ⎢ ⎥ (9)

w

⎣ s⎦ ⎣s⎦

model output ym. Low- and high-frequency asymptotes of M

for f < fmax are as follows: h ( xc ) = − ( sgn(Δθ ) A (| Δθ |) − mgl cos ( ym ) ) T 2 / J

lim f →0 M ( jf ) = ( f 0 / f )

m0 h ( xc ) = 0.

(6)

lim f →∞< fmax M ( jf ) = ( f ∞ / f )

m∞

, Parameters in (6) can be proved to hold

m0 = m∞ = 2, d 0 = d ∞ = 4

where m0 > 0 and m∞ > 0 imply a pole-zero excess of at (10)

least one. Since D is sized 1 × nw, it is post-multiplied times f 0 = f ∞ = f d 0 = f d ∞ = (2πT ) −1.

the arbitrary transfer vector Ld(z), nw × 1, in a way that no

The block diagram with input, state and output variables is

zero-pole cancellation occurs, and

in Figure 3. The noise size is nw = 3 and the embedded

lim z →1 L d ( z ) = Ld 0 < ∞ model size parameters are n = d0 = d∞ = 4. The

(7)

lim z →∞ L d ( z ) = Ld ∞ < ∞. block-diagram includes the reference dynamics to be

explained in Section 2.3. Boxes marked with Σ represent

Then, given Ld(z) satisfying (7), we assume discrete-time integrators having the generic state equation

lim f →0 M ( jf )D( jf )L d ( jf ) = ( f d 0 / f )

d0

x(i + 1) = x(i ) + u (i ), x(0) = x0 . (11)

(8)

lim f →∞< fmax M ( jf )D( jf )L d ( jf ) = ( f d ∞ / f )

d∞

, Initial states are marked by a superimposed arrow.

where d0 – m0 > 0 and d∞ – m∞ > 0 imply that DLd possesses Figure 3 Block diagram of the embedded model of the example

at least a unitary pole. The lim f →∞< fmax accounts for (see online version for colours)

excess of the type (z – 1 + β)–1 with 0 ≤ β < 1, and thus [ rad ] [ rad ] y (i )

[ rad ]

Δθ ( i ) e (i )

exclude pure delays. u (i ) ym ( i ) = θ ( i ) −

∑ ∑

The noise wd is multivariate, since D is the composition

of different stochastic signals, and each component is driven

by different noise components. Moreover, M and D are [ rad ] [ rad ]

assumed to be strictly causal, which implies that the relevant a (i ) s (i ) ws ( i )

∑ ∑

output ym and du are linear combinations of state vectors wa ( i )

only. D is usually stylised from experimental spectral wu ( i )

densities by whitening their perturbing sources as in Canuto

and Rolino (2004), and Canuto (2008). The embedded

model control implements the control unit around equation

Δθ ( i )

(4) written in the form of a state equation. This entails the u (i ) au ( i ) y (i )

∑ ∑

need of estimating the noise vectors wd(i) and wu(i) for

updating controllable and disturbance states. As in Kalman

filtering (see Kwakernaak and Sivan, 1972), the only way to Similar design model and considerations apply to a ball and

the purpose is to extract the causal estimates w and wu beam device (Keshmiri et al., 2012), when ball position is

from the model error e defined in (1). uncontrolled. The ball control would require a more

complex dynamics than (9).

2.1.2 Example

2.2 Noise estimation and output prediction

Consider a balanced robot arm moving, in a vertical plane, a

mass m that is distant l from the rotation centre. The 2.2.1 Generalities

counter-clockwise rotation θ with respect to the horizontal

Noise estimation forces the embedded model to update and

plane is denoted with ym. The angular rotation ω = y m is instantiate the signals ym(i) and du(i) into the realisations

replaced by the angular increment Δθ = ωT. The arm is yˆ m (i ) and dˆu (i ). The mark ^ denotes one-step prediction as

driven by a DC motor and is subject to gravity torque and

friction. The total inertia on the gear output shaft is J. Gear the relevant signals only depend on the past measures

backlash and torsional deformations are confined into y(i – k), k > 0. On the contrary, the noise estimates w d (i )

Robust control stability using the error loop 99

and wu , and the actual (or measured) model error embedded model are one-step anticipated as indicated by

e (i ) = y (i ) − yˆ m (i ) are barred, meaning they depend on the the boxed z.

present measure y(i). Thus, one must distinguish between

Figure 4 Embedded model and noise estimator (see online

the a priori embedded model (4) and the a posteriori model version for colours)

which is implemented in the control unit and is forced by a

realisation e of e. Consequently, unknown prediction errors from plant

y (i )

establish between model signals and their prediction as

follows: u (i ) Controllable yˆ m ( i ) e (i )

dynamics

eˆ y = ym − yˆ m d̂ ( i ) M

(12)

eˆd = du + h ( xc ) − dˆu . z

Known cross Noise

coupling estimator

Defining the noise error as ew = wu − wu , a first expression h ( ⋅)

relating ê to the errors in (12) is z

wd (i )

dˆu ( i ) Disturbance

eˆ y ( z ) = M ( z ) ( eˆd + ew ) ( z ). (13) dynamics

Ld

D

To prove it with the help of (4), rewrite the former equation z wu ( i )

in (12) as follows: Lw

Embedded model

ym − yˆ m =M ( u + du + wu + h ( xc ) + h ( xc ) )

(14)

(

−M u + dˆu + wu + h ( xc ) . ) The coefficients of Ld and Lw, i.e., the noise estimator gains,

are fixed by the state-predictor closed-loop eigenvalues, i.e.,

Equation (14) yields (13) with the help of the second

by the poles of Sm. The closed-loop spectrum is denoted as:

equation in (12).

A further expression derives from the linear and Λ m = {1 − γm1 , ..., 1 − γmk , ..., 1 − γmμ } , (20)

time-invariant noise-estimator, which is driven by the

measured model error e and is partitioned as follows: where μ ≥ n = nc + nd is the order of the state predictor.

Eigenvalues in (20) are written in terms of the

w d ( z ) = L d ( z )e ( z ) complementary eigenvalue γmk. When the latter is real and

(15)

wu ( z ) = L w ( z )e ( z ), 0 < γmk ≤ 1, provides the frequency fmk [Hz] through

γmk = κm2πfmkT, where π–1 ≤ κm ≤ 1 and κm → 1 as γmk → 0.

where Ld and Lw are suitable transfer functions having finite

Asymptotic inequalities in Section 3 will be obtained by

gains for z → 1 and z → ∞, i.e.,

assuming equal and real eigenvalues, i.e.,

lim z →1 L w ( z ) = lw0

(16) γmk = γm = 2πf mT , k = 1, ..., μ, (21)

lim z →∞ L w ( z ) = lw∞ .

having set κm = 1, i.e., γm << 1. The frequency fm is referred

Specifically Lw must be all-pass for estimating the white to as the state-predictor frequency.

noise wu, whereas Ld may be low-pass. Replacing (15) in The low-frequency asymptote of Sm follows from (8)

(13) and dropping z yields and holds

eˆ = M ( h ( xc ) + du + wu + h ( xc ) ) − M ( DL d + L w ) e S m 0 ( jf ) = lim f →0 S m ( jf )

(17)

= d y − MHeˆ − MHe,

= lim f →0 (1 + M ( DL d + L w ) )

−1

1 (22)

together with the overall feedback H = DLd + Lw and the = lim f →0

1 + ( f d 0 / f ) + lw 0 ( f 0 / f )

d0 m0

key error equality

d0

e = e + eˆ y . (18) ⎛ f ⎞

=⎜ ⎟ ,

Assumptions on Ld and Lw imply H to be proper. Inserting ⎝ f m0 ⎠

the sensitivity Sm = (1 + MH)–1 and the complement where fm0 = fd0. The high-frequency asymptote of Vm

Vm = 1 – Sm into (17), yields the second expression of eˆ, follows from (6) and holds

namely

lim f →∞< fmax Vm ( jf ) = lim f →∞< fmax M ( DL d + L w )

eˆ y ( z ) = − Vm ( z )e( z ) + S m ( z )d y ( z ), (19) m∞

⎛ f ⎞

which is illustrated in Figure 2. = ⎜ m∞ ⎟ (23)

⎝ f ⎠

Figure 4 shows the noise estimator driving the

f m∞ = f ∞ ( lw∞ )

1/ m∞

disturbance dynamics. All the output variables of the .

100 E. Canuto et al.

The frequencies fm0 and fm∞ are referred to as the sensitivity φm ( z ) = ( z − 1)4 + l0 ( z − 1)2 + l1 ( z − 1) + l2 . (27)

and complement BWs, and are proportional to fm through

the coefficients κm0 and κm∞ that depend on the spectrum Λm Since the polynomial in (27) lacks the third degree

in (20). They hold coefficient, no set {l0, l1, l2} exists capable of stabilising Sm.

The only alternatives are either to add a fictitious noise

f m 0 = κm 0 f m on the angular increment Δθ in Figure 3, as it is done by

f m∞ = κm∞ f m (24) Kalman filters, or to employ a dynamic estimator capable of

lw 0 = κ w0 f mnc , respecting noise layout and size. As an alternative

interpretation of the dynamic estimator, we may think of

where the polynomial relation of lw0 in (16) has been added. replacing the missing input noise with a further output q

which is linearly independent of e . In fact, any dynamic

2.2.2 Example filter, in the limit a delay, makes output independent of

input. As a result, the number of available feedback

Since the noise size nw = 3 is less than the order n = d0 = channels from model error to noise double, from three to

d∞ = 4 of the noise-to-output transfer function MD, a six. It can be shown that stability can only be recovered by

dynamic noise estimator is mandatory for stabilising the tuning the six gains together with the parameters of the

closed-loop state predictor (embedded model and noise dynamic filter from the error e to the output q.

estimator), as in Canuto et al. (2010). To prove it, assume Assume a first-order filter q = ( z − 1 + β ) −1 e , because

first a static noise estimator in (15), namely:

the noise deficiency is just ne = n – nw = 1. The following

⎡ wa ⎤ ⎡la ⎤ noise estimator replaces (25):

⎢ w ⎥ ( z) = ⎢l ⎥ e ( z) (25)

⎣ a⎦ ⎣ s⎦ ⎡la ⎤ ⎡ ma ⎤

wu ( z ) = lu e ( z ). L d ( z ) = ⎢ ⎥ + ⎢ ⎥ ( z − 1 + β ) −1

⎣ ls ⎦ ⎣ ms ⎦ (28)

The corresponding loop transfer function MH = M(DLd + L w ( z ) = lu + ( z − 1 + β ) −1 mu .

Lw) in (17) is found to be

l0 ( z − 1) 2 + l1 ( z − 1) + l2

M ( z )H( z ) = , (26)

( z − 1) 4

Figure 5 Block diagram of the embedded model plus noise estimator and control law (see online version for colours)

Robust control stability using the error loop 101

The seven gains in (28) must be explicitly related to the 2.3 Reference dynamics and tracking error

closed-loop eigenvalues, or, that is the same, to the poles of

Performance refers to a class of reference signals y which

Sm, whose cardinality is μ = n + ne = 5. Equal eigenvalues

are assumed, namely Λm = {1 – γm, …, 1 – γm}. Since the is assumed to satisfy the same dynamics as in (4), but

seven gains in (28) satisfy the following five equations corrupted by a known disturbance du as follows:

β = 5γm y ( z ) = M ( z ) ( u ( z ) + du ( z ) ) . (31)

lu = lw0 = 10γm2 = κ w0 f m2

Here, du is assumed to be known, which is not the case

lu β + mu + la = 10γm3 (29)

when it is recorded from measurements. The reference

la β + ma + ls = 5γm4 signal class is shaped by the open-loop command u , which

ms = γm5 , is real-time computed by a reference generator (not treated

their selection may be optimised. Equation (29) shows that here, see Figure 5) capable of matching operator requests

the filter gain β is essential for recovering stability, as and technology limits. Typically, model predictive control

already mentioned. Moreover, either the pair (ma, mu) or (Camacho and Bordons, 2003) is concerned with it. The

reference state is denoted with x.

(la, ls) can be set to zero. The latter solution, i.e., la = ls = 0,

is preferable, since forcing them to be zero reduces the Control performance is assessed by means of the

contribution of e which is noisier than q. Using (29) and tracking error ey = y − ym , satisfying

(24), the asymptote parameters in (22) and (23) become

ey ( z ) = M ( z ) ( u + du − u − du − h(⋅) − wu − h (⋅) ) ( z )

(32)

( β / ms )1/ 4

γ ey ( z ) = Cc ( x − xc ) ( z ) = Cc e ( z ).

d 0 = 4, f m 0 = = 4 5 m = κm 0 f m

2πT 2πT (30)

In the example, du = 0, and the reference block-diagram is

l 10γm

m∞ = 2, f v∞ = u = = κ m∞ f m . shown in Figure 3, bottom. The reference state vector is

2πT 2πT

denoted by

Figure 5 shows the block-diagram of the embedded model

in Figure 3 plus the dynamic noise estimator (28) and the ⎡y = θ⎤

x=⎢ ⎥. (33)

control law to be outlined in Section 3.1.2. Gains are ⎣ Δθ ⎦

denoted with circles. Dashed circles correspond to zero

gains.

2.4 Model errors and uncertainties

Figure 6 Bode plots (magnitude) of the sensitivity transfer 2.4.1 Generalities

function and of the complement (see online version

for colours) Following the literature (Maciejowski, 1989), two kinds of

2 model errors are treated in addition to innovations wd and

10

wu.

Structured uncertainty is defined by the uncertain

0

‘static’ feedback h(xc) connecting xc to u as in (4). Being

10 unknown, it cannot be explicitly cancelled by the control

law in Section 3. The inclusion in (4) of the disturbance du

Magnitude

-2

10 degradation since a feedback link is replaced by a

command-independent signal as du. Closed-loop stability

Complement V, γ=0.4, f m=1.9 Hz must be guaranteed. h(·) is assumed differentially bounded.

10

-4 The bound is obtained expanding h around the reference

Sensitivity S

state x as follows:

Predictor complement Vm

-6

Predictor sensitivity Sm h ( xc ) = h ( x ) + Δh ( x )( x − xc )

10 -1 (34)

10 10

0

10

1

10

2

x = x − α ( x − xc ) , 0 ≤ α < 1.

Frequency [Hz]

If x and the state tracking error e = x − xc are bounded,

Figure 6 shows typical Bode plots (magnitude) of the also x is bounded. Using (5) and (32), the first order

predictor transfer functions (dashed lines), and of the overall expansion in (34) is written as

transfer functions to be derived in Section 3.

102 E. Canuto et al.

Δh ( x )( x − xc ) ( z ) = e ( z ), (35) is the ‘pendulum’ natural frequency of the arm, whereas

Cc N ( z )

2πf Δθ (Δθ ) is the friction/inertia pole, depending on the

and the parametric error eΔh is defined by reference angular rate Δθ , and such that f Δθ (Δθ ) ≤ f Δθ (0).

ΔH ( x , z ) Neglected dynamics is restricted to gear backlash and

eΔh ( z ) = M ( z )Δh ( x )( x − xc ) ( z ) = e ( z ), (36) torsional deformation. Due to backlash, dynamics is

φ ( z) non-linear. It can be linearly approximated for |e| ≥ emin, the

lower bound corresponding to the backlash width. Then

where φ has been defined in (5). ΔH ( x , z ) = Δh ( x ) N ( z ) is

∂P ( z ) − ( z − 1) ( ( z − 1) 2 + β t ( z − 1) + α t )

2 −1

a polynomial having degree mh = degΔH < degφ, and

bounded coefficients (42)

αt ( 2πft T ) , βt α t (α t + 2ζ t ) , pT = [ ft ζ t ] ∈ Π,

2

expresses the fractional error between the motor-gear-arm

The same polynomial having the bounds in (37) as dynamics having flexible transmission and the rigid body

coefficients is denoted with ΔH max ( x, z ). (9). The parameters in p are the uncertain natural frequency

Unstructured uncertainty is defined as an uncertain ft and the damping coefficient ζt. Typical Bode diagrams,

including a ball and beam device, are in Canuto et al.

dynamic operator ∂P(ym, …) from the model output ym to

(2012). The response peak and the peak frequency in (39)

the plant output y. Input-output stability and linear,

hold

time-invariance are assumed, implying that the model error

(1) has the expression f ∂P = ft ,min = min ft ∈Π ft

(43)

max p∈Π ∂Pmax ( z ) = ( 2ζ t ,min ) .

−1

e( z ) = ∂P ( z; p) ym ( z ) + wy ( z ), ∂P ( z; p) ∈ ∂P. (38)

vector p ∈ Π belonging to a bounded set Π, and wy is the

measurement noise. The transfer function ∂P results from 3 Control law and the error loop

the sampled-data transform of a continuous-time dynamics 3.1 Control law and tracking error

enclosed between the plant zero-order hold and the output

sampler. Since ∂P is dropped from the embedded model, it 3.1.1 Generalities

may affect the overall stability, and calls for robust stability Given (4) and (31), in order to respect causality, the control

conditions. Here, we assume that there exists a worst-case law must depend either on the state variables or on their

element ∂Pmax(z; pmax) in ∂P such that combinations like ym and du, but not on wu. In addition, the

max f < fmax ∂Pmax ( f ) = max ∂P max f < fmax ∂P ( f ) control law must guarantee that the tracking error

ey = y − ym is bounded, and that the mean value tends

0 < arg max f < fmax ∂Pmax ( f ) = f ∂P (39)

asymptotically to zero. The control law

= min ∂P arg max f < fmax ∂P ( f ) < f max

u ( z ) − u ( z ) − du ( z ) = C( z ) ( e ( z ) + eˆ( z ) )

i.e., the peak of the worst case is the highest peak in the (44)

−du ( z ) − h ( xc ) + eˆd ( z )

class ∂P, and the peak frequency f∂P is the lowest in the class

∂P. can be shown to bound ey under appropriate conditions on

C, and on the prediction errors eˆ y and eˆd . In (44), C(z) is

2.4.2 Example usually improper with a bounded low-frequency gain

Using (9), the transfer function in (36) is found to be c0 = limz→1C(z) ≠ 0 and

ΔH ( x , z )

=

( )

Δh1 Δθ ( z − 1) + Δh0 θ ( ), m = 1, nc = 2 (40)

lim f →∞< fmax C( jf ) = c∞ f m∞ −1 . (45)

h

φ ( z) ( z − 1) 2 Inserting (44) into (32), simple manipulations yield

where the bounds of the dimensionless coefficients in (40) ( I + M ( z )C( z ) ) ey ( z ) = −M ( z )C( z )eˆy ( z )

are given in terms of the frequencies fg and f Δθ (Δθ ), i.e., (46)

−M ( z ) ( eˆd + ew ) ( z ) − M ( z ) wu ( z ).

( )

Δh1 Δθ Then, by replacing (13) in (46), the tracking error equation

follows:

= sgn(Δθ )dA ( Δθ ) / d | Δθ | T / J ≤ 2πf v ( Δθ ) T (41)

Δθ =Δθ

ey ( z ) = −eˆ y ( z ) − S c ( z )M ( z ) wu ( z ). (47)

( ) ( )

Δh0 θ = mglT 2 sin θ / J ≤ ( 2πf g T ) .

2

appearance, and the sign of eˆ y is due to a different sign of

Robust control stability using the error loop 103

ym in the errors. The asymptotes of ScM and Vc = 1 – Sc can Performance only depends on the non-rejected noise wu

be found to be and initial conditions.

which simplifies (47) to the ideal equality

( f 0 / f )m 0

1

= lim f →0 = ey = −eˆ y . (52)

1 + ( f0 / f )

m 0

c0 c0

(48)

Vc∞ ( jf ) = lim f →∞< fmax Vc ( jf ) = lim f →∞< fmax MC Moreover, adding eˆd = 0 and ew = 0 (model-based

assumptions), tracking error becomes zero, less the

c∞ ( f ∞ )

m∞

f c∞ free-response. Anti-causal laws cannot be realised since

= = .

f f u(i) depends on y(i – 1), whereas wu (i ) depends on

y(i). In terms of transfer functions, it would mean

The coefficients of C derive from the poles of Sc, are of the

Sc → 0 for f < fmax (the open switch in Figure 2 below,

order κ = nc ≥ m∞, and are designed to stabilise Sc. Likewise

ScMLw), which is unrealisable because of the Bode’s

in (20), the closed-loop spectrum is denoted with

integral theorem (Maciejowski, 1989; Wu and

Λ c = {1 − γc1 , ..., 1 − γck , ..., 1 − γcκ } , (49) Jonckheere, 1992).

and equal eigenvalues are assumed, γck = γc = 2πfcT, Clearly, (47) is a combination of the ideal equalities (51)

k = 1, …, κ. The control-law frequency is fc. Likewise in and (52).

(24) we can write Figure 7 shows the whole control unit that is built

around the embedded model: the control law interfaces

f c ∞ = κ c∞ f c model and plant, the noise estimator interfaces plant and

(50)

c0 = κc 0 f cnc model, and the reference generator interfaces operator/plant

and model. The delay z–1, from control law to plant,

Equation (47) may be better understood if one restricts to a balances the model one-step prediction. Digitisation

pair of ideal conditions: converts the computed command to a digital signal, and

may include a non-linear inversion. The opposite is denoted

1 Model-based control law: it corresponds to eˆd = 0,

with D/A and provides the embedded model with the same

ew = 0, to eˆ y = 0 in (13), and to the ideal equality in command dispatched to the plant.

(47)

ey = −S c Mwu . (51)

Figure 7 The control unit built around the embedded model (see online version for colours)

to plant from plant

y (i )

u (i ) Controllable yˆ m ( i ) e (i )

−

Digitisation z −1 D/A dynamics

d̂ ( i ) M

−

z

Known cross-

coupling

e ( i ) + eˆ ( i ) h ( ⋅) Noise estimator

−

C z

wd (i )

dˆu ( i ) Disturbance

Ld

dynamics

− D

z

wu ( i )

Lw

z

z

Reference y (i ) from

dynamics Reference plant/operator

du ( i ) M generator

Control law

u (i )

Embedded model

Control unit

104 E. Canuto et al.

The final expression relating ey to the model error e and to 3.2 Stability and performance versus structured and

the output disturbance dy in (4) is obtained as follows. unstructured uncertainty

Firstly, by replacing (15) and (18) in (47) one finds 3.2.1 Robust stability

ey = − ( I + S c ML w ) eˆ y − S c ML w e. (53) Input-output stability of (55) occurs if and only if:

Then, by replacing the prediction error eˆ y through (19) and 1 S is asymptotically stable, which in turn requires the

by defining the overall ‘control sensitivity’ S and the stability of Sm and Sc, and

complement V = 1 – S as follows: 2 the input signals e and dy are bounded and causally

S = Sm + Sw independent of ey .

V = 1 − S = Vm − S w (54) The latter condition only occurs when structured and

S w = S c ML wS m , unstructured uncertainties are zero: h = ∂P = 0 (the open

switches in Figure 2), i.e.,

the final expression is found to be

e( z ) = w y ( z )

e ( z ) = V ( z )e( z ) − S( z )d y ( z ). (55) (61)

d y ( z ) = M ( z ) ( D( z )w d ( z ) + wu ( z ) ) ,

The following alternative expression of V will be employed

hereafter: and imply that the tracking error is only forced by an

‘unpredictable’ noise as in the linear quadratic Gaussian

V = Vm − S c ML wS m = Vm − S c M ( H − DL d ) S m control (Kwakernaak and Sivan, 1972).

(56)

= Vm Vc + S c MDL d S m . On the contrary, making explicit structured and

unstructured uncertainties in (55) by means of (38) and (4),

The high-frequency asymptotes of the two terms in the last and dropping z, the implicit ‘error loop’ equation follows:

part of (56) descend from (8), (23) and (48), and hold

( )

ey = V∂P y − ey − SMh ( xc ) + Vwy

( f m∞ )m ∞

f c∞ ⎛ f ⎞

m∞ +1

(62)

lim f →∞< fmax Vm Vc = = ⎜ v∞ ⎟ −SM ( Dw d + wu ) .

f m∞ +1 ⎝ f ⎠ (57)

lim f →∞< fmax S c MDL d S m = ( f d ∞ / f ) Equation (62) is made explicit in ey through (34) and (36),

d∞

.

which yields the stability equation

Thus, if d∞ > m∞ + 1 and fv∞ ≥ fd∞, the former asymptote in

(57) dominates and the high frequency asymptote of V (1 + V∂P + SΔH ( x ) / φ ) ey = V ( ∂Py + wy )

simplifies to (63)

−SM ( h ( x ) + Dw d + wu ) .

m∞ +1

⎛ f ⎞

V∞ = lim f →∞< fmax V ( jf ) = ⎜ v∞ ⎟ , f ≥ f v∞ Equation (62) is graphically represented in Figure 2. There,

⎝ f ⎠ (58) the uncertainties in Figure 1 and the control unit are

f v∞ = κv∞ f m / γ1/ ( m∞ +1) , κv∞ = κ m∞ κc∞(

1/ m∞ +1)

. combined so as to build the ‘error loop’. The control unit,

detailed in Figure 7, has been transformed by the above

The overall functions S and V combine the predictor derivation into a combination of the ingredients of S and V,

transfer functions Sm and Vm with the causality correction namely, M (controllable dynamics), Sm (state predictor), Sc

Sw. The latter is imposed by wu not being rejected. Equation (control law and controllable dynamics) and Lw (noise

(55) is the basic ‘error loop’ equation, to be further estimator of wu).

elaborated by making explicit e and dy. Observe that:

1 the unstructured uncertainty ∂P is filtered by V, which

3.1.2 Example being a low-pass filter, implies that ∂P should become

C is a proportional plus derivative compensator, i.e., significant only at higher frequencies

C( z ) = c∞ ( z − 1) + c0 . (59) 2 the structured uncertainty ΔH is filtered by S, which

being a high-pass filter, implies that ΔH should become

Assuming that the poles of Sc are equal and collected in significant only at lower frequencies.

Λc = {1 – γc, 1 – γc}, the gain equations are c∞ = 2γc,

A sufficient stability condition in terms of the frequency

c0 = γc2 = κc 0 f c2 . The overall block diagram of the control

response may descend from the ‘small-gain theorem’ in

unit is in Figure 5. The errors Desoer and Vidyasagar (1975), and leads to

eˆθ (i ) = eθ (i ) + eˆθ (i )

(60) max f < fmax V ( f ) ∂P ( f ) + S( f )ΔH ( x , f ) / φ ( f )

eˆΔθ (i ) = eΔθ (i ) + eˆΔθ (i ) (64)

≤ η < 1,

are the ‘measured’ tracking errors already defined in (3).

Robust control stability using the error loop 105

where η-1 is a stability margin. Inequality (64), which is the S 0 ( jf ) = lim f →0 S( jf ) = lim f →0 S m (1 + S c ML w )

key result, is similar but not equal to inequalities in Doyle

= ( f / fs0 ) 0 , f ≤ fs0

d

et al. (1992), where stability and performance inequalities

are combined. (67)

f s 0 = f m 0 / (1 + lw0 / c0 )

1/ d 0

= κ m 0 f m / (1 + κ s γ nc )

1/ d0

3.2.2 Performance < fm0 ,

Inequality (64) allows to rewrite (63) as where κs = κw0 / κc0. Equation (67) affirms that the overall

sensitivity BW fs0 is narrower than the state predictor fm0,

ey ≤ (1 − η )

−1

( )

V ∂Py + wy − SM ( h ( x ) + Dw d + wu ) , (65) because Sc is not zero. Since, as stated in Section 2.4,

ΔH (x ) / φ is strictly proper and nc = degφ < d0, the

which becomes the performance inequality, |.| being a

suitable norm. It is out of the paper aim to discuss and apply parametric component SΔH / φ in (64) achieves its

(65). It suffices to point out that it can be split in two maximum close to fs0. Then, replacing the coefficients of

components: ΔH (x ) with their bound in (37), the following inequality

results

1 the ‘deterministic’ term V∂Py − SMh( x ) depending on

the reference trajectory max f < fmax S 0 ( f )ΔH ( x , f ) / φ ( f )

(68)

2 the ‘random’ term Vwy − SM (Dw d + wu ) depending ≤ (1 + εs ) ΔH max ( x, f s 0 ) / φ ( f s 0 )

on noise components. where εs << 1 accounts for the actual |S(f)| in the

Given η and the eigenvalue range derived from (64) in neighbourhood of fs0.

Section 3.3, the first term in (65) fixes the slew rate of the Maximisation of the second component in (64) employs

reference trajectory, whereas the random part fixes sensor the asymptote (58). Considering (39) and assuming f∂P ≥ fv∞,

and actuator noise. It has been already remarked that ey is a local maximum of |V∞(f)∂P(f)| occurs for fv∞ ≤ f ≤ f∂P,

only available through simulated runs, and is related to the since |V∞(f)| in (58) is monotonically decreasing. Having the

measured control error ey – defined as reference minus Example of Section 2.1.2 in mind, we assume

measure - through the model error e as in (3). Therefore, if max f < fmax V ( f )∂P ( f )

the tracking error ey is made bounded by (65) and (69)

≤ (1 + εv )( f v∞ / f ∂P ) ∞ ∂Pmax ( f ∂P ; p max ) ,

v

| ey | << | e | – which are mandatory requirements – the

control error ey becomes the opposite of the model error e. where εv < 1 plays the role of εs in (68).

Alternative and measurable conditions derive from the Finally, (64) splits into the asymptotic inequalities

former decomposition of ey in (3). In the case that | eˆy |→ 0,

( )

1/ v∞

which corresponds to approach the anti-causal law (52), the f v∞ ≤ f ∂P η / ∂Pmax ( f ∂P ; p max ) , η <1

(70)

control error becomes the opposite of the measured model

φ ( f s 0 ) ≥ ΔH max ( x, f s 0 ) / η, η < 1,

error e , a condition that can be easily verified in practice.

where εs in (68) and εv in (69) have been absorbed by the

3.3 Asymptotic stability inequalities stability margin 1/η.

Given η, (70) can be solved for fv∞ < fmax and fs0 < fmax.

Explicit expressions of (64) and (65) are obtained under the

The first inequality in (70) provides an upper bound to fv∞.

following assumptions.

The second is a polynomial inequality, that, since degφ >

1 State predictor and control law have uniform but degΔHmax(·), provides a lower bound as fs0 → ∞. Bounds in

distinct eigenvalues as already stated in (21) and (49). (70), if they are feasible, can be transformed into bounds on

Their ratio the state-predictor frequency fm, and on the control ratio γ in

(66), by replacing the expressions (67) and (58) of fs0 and

γ = γm / γc = f m / f c (66)

fv∞, respectively. At the end, (70) can be replaced by

is referred to as the control frequency ratio. f m,min (γ, η) ≤ f m ≤ f m ,max (γ, η) < f max . (71)

2 The components of the inequality (64) reach their

Inequality (71) proves the following.

maximum values within separate frequency domains:

the sensitivity frequency band, f ≤ fs0, and the 1 A robust design is driven by the predictor frequency fm,

complementary sensitivity band, f ≥ fv∞, to be defined which is bounded from above by the neglected

below. dynamics and bounded from below by the parametric

uncertainty.

Consider the former component in (64) due to parametric

uncertainty, and replace S(f) with the low-frequency 2 The admissible band Δfm = fm,max / fm,min ≥ 1 depends on

asymptote S0(f). The latter, derived from (22), (48) and (24), the control ratio γ > 0 and on the stability margin

holds

106 E. Canuto et al.

η–1 > 1. The asymptotic approximations that have been Figure 8 Admissible state predictor frequency fm for η = 0.5

adopted to obtain (71), tend to be accurate for γ ≤ 1. (see online version for colours)

Because of the assumptions made at the beginning of this 0.6 fm,max @ η=1/2

section, the closed-loop eigenvalues entailed by (71) must 10

fm,min @ η=1/2

be kept as first trial, to be refined by simulation and 0.5

10

in-field. The admissible band Δfm(γ) ≥ 1 provides

degrees-of-freedom to satisfy the performance inequality 0.4

10

(65) as in Canuto (2007, 2008).

fm [Hz]

0.3

10

3.4 Example: robust stability design

0.2

10

Using (9), (28) and (59), the low-frequency asymptote of S

and the high-frequency asymptote of V can be written as 0.1

10

S 0 ( z ) = ( z − 1) 4 β (1 + lu / c0 ) / ms

(72)

V∞ ( z ) = ( z − 1) −3 lu c∞ . 10

-1

10

0 1

10

φ [Hz/Hz]

They correspond to the asymptotes of the Bode plots in

Figure 6. Expressing fs0 and fv∞ in terms of fm and γ as in Figure 9 The admissible frequency band Δfm versus γ and η

(67) and (58), yields (see online version for colours)

(

f s 0 ( f m , γ ) = f m / 5 (1 + 2γ 2 ) )

1/ 4

η=0.2

(73)

f v∞ ( f m , γ ) = f m (20 / γ)1/3 . η=0.25

0 η=0.33

10

Δfm [Hz/Hz]

f v ( Δθ ) f g2

f s20 ( f m , γ ) − fs0 ≥

η η (74)

f v∞ ( f m , γ ) ≤ ft ,min ( 2ηζ t ,min ) .

1/3

They have been solved for fm and γ in the Table 1 using the

parameters of the same table. -2 0 2

10 10 10

Three alternative eigenvalues, denoted as cases 1, 2 and γ [Hz/Hz]

3, have been selected: they correspond to the square marks

on the line fm,max(γ) in Figure 8 and to γ = {1, 0.4, 0.2}. As The design has been restricted to the upper bound fm,max(γ)

shown by Figure 9, γ = 1 corresponds to the widest and to the region γ ≤ 1 in order to force the control error ey

admissible band Δfm, whereas γ = 0.2 is a lower threshold to stay within the target bounds in Figure 10. The frequency

since uncertainty cannot be more accommodated for γ < 0.2. bounds fm,max and fm,min are shown in Figure 8 versus the

In practice, given the state predictor frequency fm, the eigenvalue ratio γ for a stability margin η–1 = 2. The margin

control law frequencies fc and fv∞ in (73) become too large, is sufficient since the worst-case uncertainties enter the

and the first inequality in (70) (accommodating the bound expressions (74).

neglected dynamics) cannot be guaranteed.

Gravity frequency fg Hz 0.11

Friction frequency fv Hz 0.25 Δθ ≥ 0.75 mrad

Damping ζt,min 0.025

Backlash emin mrad ≤0.4

Predictor frequency: case 1 fm,max Hz 2.2 @ η = 0.5, γ = 1

idem, case 2 fm,max Hz 2.6 @ η = 0.5, γ = 0.4

idem, case 3 fm,max Hz 1.3 @ η = 0.5, γ = 0.2

Robust control stability using the error loop 107

Figure 9 shows the admissible frequency band Δfm. The slower in the set point achievement, as anticipated above.

horizontal dashed line corresponds to Δfm = 1 (the band has The backlash effect cannot be cancelled, being smaller than

no width). The largest achievable stability margin is close to the encoder quantisation. It couples with sensor quantisation

4. The widest admissible band occur for γ ≅ 1. and gives rise to a limit cycle around the set point not larger

than 1 bit.

4 Simulated and experimental results Figure 11 Set point achievement for two different designs

(see online version for colours)

The alternative designs in Table 1 have been tested through

simulation and a ball and beam device leaving the ball 2.002

Reference

uncontrolled. Their performance has been compared

Measure: γ=0.4

through the control error ey defined in (3). The angular

position is measured by an incremental encoder mounted on 2.001 Measure: γ=0.2

the gear output shaft. Encoder quantisation is of the same

order of the backlash in Table 1. Up and down motion is

driven by a suitable reference generator that accounts for 2

speed and current limits, which latter impose motion

duration. Figure 10 shows the control error during up and

down motion and intermediate halt intervals. Bounds to 1.999

control error have been set larger during motion (dashed

lines in Figure 10). 4 5 6 7 8 9

Time [s]

Figure 10 Simulated control error for two different designs

(see online version for colours) The trapezoidal angular position of the gear pivoting the

-3 beam is measured by the gear encoder and is shown in

x 10

Figure 12. The difference between reference and measured

4 Tolerance

angle – the control error – can be perceived from the

Tolerance

3

enlargement in Figure 13, when the reference angle reaches

Control error: reference-measure γ=0.2

the maximum value. The measured position reaches the

Control error: reference-measure γ=0.4

2 maximum value after a damped oscillation ending in a limit

cycle (the square wave overlapping the constant reference)

Angle [rad]

Figure 12 shows the ball stroke (both simulated and

0 experimental), that, being uncontrolled, swings between the

beam extremes with some delay owing to friction.

-1

Figure 12 Experimental and simulated gear and ball motion

-2 (see online version for colours)

Gear Angular Positions

-3

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time [s] 0.8

0.6

Performance improves by increasing γ from 0.2 (case 3) to

Angular position [rad]

0.4 (case 2) and to 1 (case 1), as Figure 10 shows. The result 0.4

is reasonable since a lower γ in Figure 8 narrows the 0.2

predictor BW and consequently increases the norm of the

second term in the right-hand side of (65). This clearly 0

occurs during up and down motion, say from 9 s to 12 s in -0.2

Figure 10, when friction, assumed unknown, cannot be fully

-0.4 Experimental

cancelled by the predicted dˆu in (44). When the set-point is

-0.6 Simulated

reached, control error is dominated by backlash and no Ball stroke [m]: simulated

significant difference appears between the different cases. -0.8 Ball stroke [m] : measured

The case 1, not shown in Figure 10, behaves more or less as

the case 2, except that the control error becomes noisier, due 12 14 16 18 20 22

Time [s]

to a larger control BW. Therefore, case 2 looks a good

trade-off: the relevant transfer functions have been reported The transient oscillation in Figure 13 is the same as in

in Figure 6. Figure 11 and would disappear by adding an appropriate

Figure 11 shows the achievement of a set point for the known term h in the control law. To prove this, the

cases 2 and 3. One may observe that the case 3 is much

108 E. Canuto et al.

experimental runs are compared in Figure 13. The

The paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper

experimental measurement is free of the transient oscillation

entitled ‘The error loop and robust closed-loop stability’,

because an appropriate h has been added to the control law

presented at IEEE ICMA 2012 Conference, Chengdu,

for accounting viscous and static friction. The result 5–8 August 2012.

highlights the different frequency bands where dˆu and

h (xˆ c ) counteract the plant uncertainty. Assuming that the

‘anti-causal limit’ holds, dˆu is estimated within the

References

sensitivity BW fm in (30). On the contrary, h (xˆ c ), Bickel, R. and Tomizuka, M. (1999) ‘Passivity-based versus

disturbance observer based robot control: equivalence and

depending on the controllable state xˆ c , is estimated within stability’, ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and

the control law BW fc, which, in absence of command Control, Vol. 121, No. 1, pp.41–47.

limitations, may approach the Nyquist frequency Calafiore, G. and Dabbene, F. (2002) ‘A probabilistic framework

fmax = 0.5/T = 100Hz. The limit cycles in Figure 13 are for problems with real structured uncertainty in system and

different in their period because of a different static friction. control’, Automatica, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp.1265–1276.

Experimental measurements in Figure 13 certify that the Camacho, E.F. and Bordons, C. (2003) Model Predictive Control,

design model is a faithful description of the real plant. Springer Verlag, London.

Canudas de Wit, C., Olsson, H., Åström, K.J. and Lischinsky, P.

Figure 13 Gear set point achievement (enlargement of (1995) ‘A new model for control of systems with friction’,

Figure 12) (see online version for colours) IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 40, No. 3,

pp.419–425.

Gear Angular Positions

Canuto, E. (2007) ‘Embedded model control: outline of the

Experimental theory’, ISA Transactions, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.363–377.

0.79 Simulated Canuto, E. (2008) ‘Drag-free and attitude control for the GOCE

satellite’, Automatica, Vol. 44, No. 7, pp.1766–1780.

Canuto, E. and Rolino, A. (2004) ‘Multi-input digital frequency

Angular position [rad]

No. 12, pp.2139–2147.

Canuto, E., Acuna Bravo, W., Molano, A. and Perez, C. (2012)

‘Embedded Model Control calls for disturbance modeling and

0.78

rejection’, ISA Transactions, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp.584–595.

Canuto, E., Molano, A. and Massotti, L. (2010) ‘Drag-free control

of the GOCE satellite: noise and observer design’, IEEE

0.775 Trans. on Control Systems Technology, Vol. 18, No. 2,

pp.501–509.

Chapellat, H., Dahleh, M. and Bhattacharyya, S.P. (1990) ‘Robust

12 14 16 18 20 22 stability under structured and unstructured perturbations’,

Time [s] IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 35, No. 10,

pp.1100–1108.

Chen, S-H., Chou, J-H. and Zheng, L-A. (2005) ‘Stability

5 Conclusions robustness of linear output feedback systems with

time-varying structured and unstructured parameter

The error loop, i.e., the loop from model to tracking error, uncertainties as well as delayed perturbations’, J. Franklin

points out which is the key design tool for accommodating Institute, Vol. 342, No. 2, pp.213–234.

uncertainties. The tool is the noise estimator, which is Choi, Y., Yang, K., Chung, W.K., Kim, H.R. and Suh, I.H. (2003)

responsible for the noise estimates that update the ‘On the robustness and performance of disturbance observers

disturbance state in the embedded model. Actually, for second-order systems’, IEEE Trans. on Automatic

causality constraint adds a further degree-of-freedom to the Control, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.315–320.

design, allowing the control law to play a role in making the Desoer, C. and Vidyasagar, M. (1975) Feedback Systems:

design feasible, especially when contrasting stability and Input-Output Properties, Academic Press, New York.

performance inequalities need to be satisfied. Employing Donati, F. and Vallauri, M. (1984) ‘Guaranteed control of

asymptotic expansions of the closed-loop transfer functions, ‘almost-linear’ plants’, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control,

Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.34–41.

simple and explicit design formulae relating closed-loop

eigenvalues to model parameters and requirements have Doyle, J.C., Francis, B.A. and Tannenbaum, A.R. (1992) Feedback

Control Theory, Macmillan Pu. Co., New York.

been derived. Refinement may be pursued through

simulation and in field.

Robust control stability using the error loop 109

Foo, Y.K. and Soh, Y.C. (1993) ‘Robust stability bound for Mita, T., Hirata, M., Murata, K. and Zhang, H. (1998) ‘H∞ control

systems with structured and unstructured perturbations’, IEEE versus disturbance-observer-based control’, IEEE Trans. on

Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp.1150–1154. Industrial Electronics, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp.488–495.

Hostetter, G. and Meditch, J. (1973) ‘On the generalization of Patre, P.M., MacKunis, W., Makkar, C. and Dixon, W.E. (2008)

observers to systems with unmeasurable, unknown inputs’, ‘Asymptotic tracking for systems with structured and

Automatica, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp.721–724. unstructured uncertainties’, IEEE Trans. on Control Systems

Johnson, C. (1971) ‘Accommodation of external disturbances in Technology, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp.373–379.

linear regulator and servomechanism problems’, IEEE Trans. Ross Barmish, B. (1994) New Tools for Robustness of Linear

on Automatic Control, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.635–644. Systems, Macmillan Pu. Co., New York.

Katsura, S., Matsumoto, Y. and Ohnishi, K. (2007) ‘Modelling of Schrijver, E. and van Dijk, J. (2002) ‘Disturbance observers for

force sensing and validation of disturbance observer for force rigid mechanical systems: equivalence, stability, and design’,

control’, IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 54, ASME J. Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control,

No. 1, pp.530–538. Vol. 124, No. 4, pp.539–548.

Keshmiri, M., Jahromi, A.F., Mohebbi, A., Amoozgar, M.H. and Solihin, M.I., Akmeliawati, R. and Legowo, A. (2011) ‘Robust

Xie, W-F. (2012) ‘Modelling and control of a ball and beam feedback control design using PSO-based optimization: a case

system using model based and non-model based control study in gantry crane control’, Int. J. of Mechatronics and

approaches’, Int. J. on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, Automation, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.121–131.

Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.14–35. Wu, B-F. and Jonckheere, E.A. (1992) ‘A simplified approach to

Kwakernaak, H. and Sivan, R. (1972) Linear Optimal Control Bode’s theorem for continuous-time and discrete-time

Systems, J. Wiley & Sons, New York. systems’, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. 37, No. 11,

Maciejowski, J. (1989) Multivariable Feedback Design, Addison pp.1797–1802.

Wesley, Wokingham, Berskshire, UK.

- Proof of Small Gain TheoremUploaded byAsim Khan Niazi
- STCSLUploaded byAlvis Jeffrey
- EEC 510 Syllabus 2015 - MorinecUploaded byjenil7042
- Solutions to Case Studies ChallengesUploaded byasma mushtaq
- Discontinuous Dynamical Systems - Jorge CortésUploaded bythiago_sp19858151
- StabilityUploaded byAmir
- StabilityUploaded byDany Salvatierra Atenas
- REMOTE HEALTH MONITORING SYSTEM USING HEALTHY PIUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- non linear controlUploaded byatom tux
- Adaptive Delta Modulation ACC07 v2Uploaded byGowtham Raaj
- Design of PID Controllers Integrator System with Time Delay and Double Integrating ProcessesUploaded byijicsjournal
- A Globally Converging Observer of Mechanical Variables for Sensorless PMSMUploaded byQuan Nguyen Duc
- LPVUploaded byJose Ivan Cueto
- Improved Noise Sensitivity Under High-gain Feedback in Nano-positioning Motion SystemsUploaded byVinh Tran
- CCE 2011Uploaded byAugusto Acuna
- Dynamic Load Carrying Capacity of Mobile- Base Flexible-link Manipulators: Feedback Linearization Control ApproachUploaded byInternational Journal of Robotics, Theory and Applications
- Oren Review t MsUploaded byAdrag
- 0128.pdfUploaded bydmorenoc
- 11422multiple choice2_0Uploaded byUsman Ubair
- Lect 5 - StabilityUploaded byAri Kurniawan S
- rez527Uploaded byyogendra_solar2049
- Distributed Synchronization of Networked Drive Response Syst 2017 ISA TransaUploaded byIkhtiander Ikhtiander
- 1-s2.0-S1474667015383324-mainUploaded byMuhammad Hadi
- KE36303 CS-8Sept2015-lect5.pdfUploaded byHabib Firdaus
- 0005-1098(87)90017-3.pdfUploaded byNafisah Gemeli
- 2005_Optimal Closed-loop Operation of Binary Batch Distillation ColumnsUploaded byademargcjunior
- 2005_Real-Time Estimation of Mean Arterial Blood PressureUploaded byademargcjunior
- V2I6-IJERTV2IS60920Uploaded byAnonymous uistmdvrt
- Jawaban Q3-2Uploaded byEko Rudiawan
- 0792396170_RobustUploaded byusriko9999

- Meng 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Usd 827969Uploaded byFiandjafar
- 1Uploaded byFiandjafar
- skripsiUploaded byFiandjafar
- Mohammed 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Dry Block Heater.pdfUploaded byFiandjafar
- Nam Dar 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- f 101175112642938Uploaded byFiandjafar
- f 101175112642938Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Tuning Material and Component Properties to Redu 2015 Case Studies in MechanUploaded byFiandjafar
- Editorial Board 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical Systems and Signal ProcessinUploaded byFiandjafar
- 1-s2.0-S1877705814010492-mainUploaded byFiandjafar
- Numerical Investigation of Linear Particl 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical SyUploaded byFiandjafar
- A Comparative Study of Adaptive Filters in de 2016 Case Studies in MechanicaUploaded byFiandjafar
- Design Simulation and Comparison of Co 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical SystUploaded byFiandjafar
- Content List 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical Systems and Signal ProcessingUploaded byFiandjafar
- avci2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Analysis of Tri-Star Frame in Stair Climbing Hand TruckUploaded byFiandjafar
- f 231115104129768Uploaded byFiandjafar
- f 167511124938102Uploaded byFiandjafar
- f 104671123119582Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Ruk Kuman i 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Pal 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Mariani 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Hamza h 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Ceccarelli 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Orsino 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar

- ROTALIGN Ultra System ManualUploaded byFranco Taday
- Developmental Tasks of Early Childhood.pptxUploaded byGlea Pavillar
- PTCE Review NotesUploaded bySantos Wheeler
- Draw a Lgt Form 09 Showing Estimate of Capital ExpenditureUploaded byKAYODE OLADIPUPO
- Paper ACI Coupling Beams Canbolat-Parra-WightUploaded byOvidiu Cristian
- Mar 103 Experimental Elastomer AnalysisUploaded byDan Wolf
- 5_HXvPjqE.pdfUploaded byResna Marvinza
- Bali Bar Nation FormUploaded bySusana Justo Barreira
- FG201734.pdfUploaded byAlinour Amena
- officers_career_brochureUploaded bySajid Ali
- JavaScript- Form Validation- Date and TimeUploaded byWalter Buyela
- Evaluation of the CO2behavior in binary mixtures with alkanes, alcohols, acids and esters using the Cubic-Plus-Association Equation of StateUploaded byMario Ricardo Urdaneta Parra
- DBTV2702SMUploaded byTrevor Paton
- I Am Amazed Sometimes by How Technology is Impacting the World We Live InUploaded bytotolatin
- Strategies for Writers-SyntaxUploaded byKhongorzul Gankhuyag
- CongUploaded byakilesh
- AHRI_Standard_210-240_2017Uploaded byShoukat Ali Shaikh
- Tally Unit 4 (BBA)Uploaded byvivekrock
- Lab Answer Key_ Module 4_ Handling ExceptionsUploaded byJoemarco Bernabe
- VIDEOGRAPHY BY INGICUploaded byINGIC OFFICIAL
- Assignment on International Business ( The current business environment of India)Uploaded byAman Bhattacharya
- Disha Publication Concept Notes General ScienceUploaded byArnab Roy
- Introduction to StatisticsUploaded byMayank Saini
- Chapter_1 Anthropology 101Uploaded byBob
- BSE PHTUploaded bydgina8800
- Small-Scale Solar PV Net Metering Regulations FinalUploaded byhusnikhalil
- Arapahoe County Email PolicyUploaded byColorado Ethics Watch
- Garlic Essential Oil as a Natural Antioxidant in Edible Coating OfUploaded byJournal of Environment and Bio-Sciences
- Trikhanda MudraUploaded bySathis Kumar
- SomaliaUploaded bysalimaliomar2000