Active Disturbance Rejection Control for Pm Lm Servo

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

Active Disturbance Rejection Control for Pm Lm Servo

© All Rights Reserved

- Hysys Dinamics
- PID Control - ARAKI
- PID Report
- Hypersonic Glider Control Using Higher Order Sliding Mode Control
- Diagram Manipulation and Reduction Control Systems
- lars_hagg2012PID.pdf
- PID-Controller Tuning Optimization With GA
- A Nonlinear Programming Approach for Control Allocation
- simu_optim
- A NON-INTEGER CONTROL TOOLBOX FOR MATLAB
- Process Control
- Positioning Control of a Ball Screw Mechanism Using Disturbance Observer 24 Pages
- Rugh
- emmerson1.docx
- Fuzzy Logic Applied to an Oven Temperature Control
- cascade control
- Time Delay Temperature Control With Imc And
- Control Systems Sensitivity and Its Effects - GATE Study Material in PDF
- 4.6.01-GB (1)
- 86006-00_2-4

You are on page 1of 26

net/publication/288542773

Active Disturbance Rejection Control for PMLM Servo System in CNC Machining

CITATIONS READS

0 60

1 author:

Wenchao Xue

Chinese Academy of Sciences

47 PUBLICATIONS 730 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

All content following this page was uploaded by Wenchao Xue on 29 December 2015.

J Syst Sci Complex (2015) 28: 1–25

System in CNC Machining∗

GUO Jianxin · XUE Wenchao · HU Tao

DOI:

Received: 30 October 2013 / Revised: 4 May 2015

c

The Editorial Office of JSSC & Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Abstract Uncertain friction is a key factor that influences the accuracy of servo system in CNC ma-

chine. In this paper, based on the principle of Active Disturbance Rejection Control (ADRC), a control

method is proposed, where both the extended state observer (ESO) and the reduced order extended

state observer (RESO) are used to estimate and compensate for the disturbance. The authors prove

that both approaches ensure high accuracy in theory, and give the criterion for parameters selection.

The authors also prove that ADRC with RESO performs better than that with ESO both in distur-

bance estimation and tracking error. The simulation results on CNC machine show the effectiveness

and feasibility of our control approaches.

Keywords Active disturbance rejection control, CNC machine, nonlinear friction, parameter selec-

tion, servo system.

1 Introduction

With the development of the mechanical manufacturing technology, permanent magnet syn-

chronous motor (PMLM) gradually becomes one of the most competitive motion control prod-

ucts with high speed, high precision, high efficiency, which has been widely utilized in domain

such as NC milling machine, cutting machine tool, lathe or high-grade CNC machine tools[1] .

Due to the linear construction, PMLM motor has an incomparable advantage compared with

rotating motor. One of the most important points is that middle mechanical drive conversion

link is saved so as to realize the feeding system “zero transmission”, to improve the system

transmission stiffness and to reduce the mechanical wear substantially. Moreover, it possesses

higher speed and higher acceleration or deceleration ability. As is known, high speed cutting

GUO Jianxin · XUE Wenchao · HU Tao

KLMM, Academy of Mathematic and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China;

Key Laboratory of Systems and Control, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of

Sciences, Beijing 100190, China. Email: wenchaoxue@amss.ac.cn.

∗ This paper was partially supported by the National Key Basic Research Project of China under Grant No.

2011CB302400, the National Basic Research Program of China under Grant No. 2014CB845303 and the National

Center for Mathematics and Interdisciplinary Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

⋄ This paper was recommended for publication by Editor HONG Yiguang.

2 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

can significantly improve the metal processing precision, surface processing quality and produc-

tion efficiency as well as the service life of CNC machine tools, by the virtue of which PMLM

can meet the needs of high speed and high precision processing. So it is of great significance in

high-end CNC machine[2] .

Although the linear motor has many advantages compared with the rotating motor, the lin-

ear motor control system also claims higher requirements. The mathematical model of PMLM

is a multi-variable, nonlinear system[3] , which makes it difficult to utilize traditional controller.

With the development of research of the control theory and linear motor, many scholars put

forward various methods from classical control to modern control, such as PID control, adaptive

control, self-learning control[4–6] , and so forth. Nevertheless, these control methods have a vari-

ety of limitations, which either rely too much on accurate mathematical model or narrow scope

of robustness. Hence, a better quality, higher efficiency and more practical control algorithm

are the primary issues in need of solution.

The Active Disturbances Rejection Control (ADRC) is a new control method which does not

depend on the accurate mathematical model of the plant. Through improving the classic PID

inherent defects, the controller algorithm is simple, and the parameters of the scope is adaptable.

Since ADRC can utilize the extended state observer to estimate the total disturbance including

the internal and external disturbance of the plant, it can ensure the system to generate ideal

control effect, perform stronger robustness of maneuverability. These virtues attract much

attention both in theory (see [7–9]) and application (see [10–12]).

In this paper, in order to ensure the accuracy in manufacture process, we apply the ADRC

control method to PMLM mounted in CNC motion system with complicated nonlinear part.

We use series square wave to simulate the unspecific part aiming to approximate practical

situation to a great extend. Moreover, ESO used in ADRC is replaced via reduced order ESO

(RESO), the reason for which is that the measured output does not need to be estimated.

Comparisons are presented to verify the effectiveness of ESO and RESO as well. We also

obtain the relationship between the parameters of ESO (and RESO) and tracking performance.

In addition, the theoretical results help to offer the reference for us to select the parameters of

ESO (and RESO) reasonably in practice. An example from CNC is used to test the approach

in the end.

The paper is organized as follows. The model of the motor and the motion control problem

are introduced in Section 2. The general principle and structure of the ADRC are presented

in Section 3. Stability analysis and parameters tuning method are discussed in Section 4.

Simulation test is shown in Section 5. Finally, some concluding remarks are given in Section 6.

In order to describe the proposed servo control scheme, the voltage controllable PMLM is

adopted, whose mechanical dynamics and circuit dynamics are expressed as the following forces

balance equation[13]

M ẍ1 + Dẋ1 + Fd = Kf i(t) (1)

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 3

where x1 is the motion position, ẋ1 = dxdt , and the parameters have the following meaning:

1

D is the viscious coefficient;

Fd is the load force;

Kf is the amount of force produced by the motor;

i(t) is the armature current;

Ke is the back EMF voltage;

L is the electrical constant parameter;

R is the armature resistance;

u(t) is the armature voltage.

In this paper, the load force is assumed to be composed of three parts: The external load

force which is bounded, the ripple force arising from the magnetic structure of the PMLM

and other physical imperfections, and the frictional force[14, 15] . So the total load force can be

described as

Fd = Fload + Ffric + Fripple ,

where Fload , Ffric , and Fripple are the external load force, friction force, and ripple force respec-

tively. We assume

|Fload (t)| ≤ FlM , t > 0

and the friction is assumed to be

ẋ1 2

Ffric = (Fc + (Fs − Fc )e−( xs ) + Fv |ẋ1 |)sign(ẋ1 ),

where Fc is the Coulomb friction, Fs is the static friction force, Fv is the viscous friction

coefficient, and xs is the lubrication coefficient. The last part of the friction is a significant

disturbance from the uniform magnetic field of the permanent magnet and other physical im-

perfections in the process of linear driver. These factors could be represented as the wave power

to ripple, which often can be written in the form of trigonometric functions of the load position.

In reality, the ripple force is more complex due to variations in the magnet dimension, but it

has a comparable period and amplitude as described in [15]. So, we have

where Ar , ω, φ are constant parameters. Additionally, all the parameters introduced above can

be obtained through experiments and can be regarded as constants.

Finally, since the electrical time constant parameter L is much smaller than the mechanical

ones, the delay of electrical response can be ignored and we obtain a second order system

from (1) and (2)

1 Kf Ke Fd Kf u(t)

ẍ1 = − + D ẋ1 − + .

M R M MR

4 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

1 Kf Ke Kf

Regarding the current as the internal disturbance and defining a1 = M( R + D), b0 = MR

and fd (ẋ1 , x1 , w(t)) = FMd , the above equation can be written as

ẋ1 = x2 ,

ẋ2 = x3 + b0 u, (3)

y = x1 ,

where

x3 = −a1 x2 − fd .

In the frame of ADRC, x3 is regard as the “total disturbance” which lumps the external

and the internal disturbance of the system.

1

Note that fd can be written as fd = fv x2 + f0 , fv = FMv , f0 = M [Fload + Fripple + (Fc +

x

−( x2s )2

(Fs − Fc )e )sign(x2 )] and f0 is bounded.

In this section, we give an ADRC based control for PMLM, which consists of an ESO and

a linear form in NLSEF part. Since the derivatives of the signals are known, TD is not used.

General form about the design of ADRC can be referred to [16].

For the PMLM system (5), the ESO for PMLM has the following form

b2 − β1 (b

x1 − y),

x

ḃ1 = x

x b3 − β2 (b

ḃ2 = x x1 − y) + b0 u, (4)

ḃ3 = −β3 (b

x x1 − y),

In this paper, the following linear form is used in the place of NLSEF

u0 = kp (v − x

b1 ) + kd (v̇ − x

b2 ) + v̈, (5)

where v stands for the reference input signal, and kp , kd are determined by the controller

bandwidth ωc as follows: kp = ωc2 , kd = 2ωc .

There are two reasons for using the above linear form feedback. First, the controller struc-

ture is simple to be implemented in practice. Second, a large number of application studies

indicate that the linear feedback structure can also perform well to cope with the nonlinear

uncertainties[8, 9, 17] . Thus, the corresponding controller is

u0 − xb3

u= , (6)

b0

which will be used to implement the control in PMLM system (5).

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 5

Since the output of the system y = x1 can be directly measured, it is unnecessary to estimate

x1 by xb1 . According to the reduced order state observer (RESO) in [18], we can design the

following RESO for the PMLM system (5) as follows:

v

ḃ −β 1 vb −β 1 1

2 = 1 2 + 1 x1 + b0 u,

vḃ3 −β2 0 vb3 −β2 0 0

(7)

x

b vb β

2 = 2 + 1 x1 .

x

b3 vb3 β2

ω 2 . Thus the following RESO controller for the PMLM system (5) is obtained:

u = u0 − x b3

,

b0 (8)

u0 = kp (v − x1 ) + kd (v̇ − x

b2 ) + v̈,

In this section we aim to analyze the stability of the ADRC in PMLM. Based on the work

in [19], we further analyze performances of the closed-loop which adopt the stratagy of ESO

and RESO, respectively. Moreover, we prove that ADRC with RESO performs better than that

with ESO both in tracking error and disturbance estimation.

For the load Fload (t) and the reference signal v, we make the assumption as follows.

Assumption 1 |Fload (t)| ≤ FlM < ∞, t > 0, piecewise continuous, and only posses

discontinuity point of the first kind {ti }∞ i=1 , ti−1 < ti , and inf i {ti − ti−1 } > 0; Fload (t) is

derivable on (ti−1 , ti ), i = 1, 2, · · · , and the derivative is bounded as well.

Assumption 2 The reference position signal v and the velocity signal v̇ are continuously

differentiable. Besides, v and v̇ are bounded.

For simplication, we ignore the Coulomb friction and the static friction in the friction model.

So in the system (5), fd reduces to fd = f0 + fv x2 , where

1

f0 = (Fload + Fripple ). (9)

M

Define x∗ = (x∗1 , x∗2 )T ,

ẋ∗1 = x∗2 ,

ẋ∗2 = v̈ − kp (x∗1 − v) − kd (x∗2 − v̇). (10)

Here, the initial value of x∗ are x∗1 (t0 ) = x1 (t0 ), x∗2 (t0 ) = x2 (t0 ). We will show that the

states (x1 , x2 ) of the closed-loop system of ADRC can be closed to the (x∗1 , x∗2 ) for t ∈ [t0 , ∞).

Besides, for convenience, we denote x e = (e e2 )T = (x1 − x∗1 , x2 − x∗2 )T , e = (e1 , e2 , e3 )T =

x1 , x

x1 − x1 , x

(b b2 − x2 , xb3 − x3 )T .

6 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

Theorem 4.1 Based on Assumptions 1 and 2, (5) ensures the closed-loop possessing the

following properties: When ω is large enough,

1 ln ω

ke(t)k ≤ T 1 · , t ∈ ti−1 + 2c22 , ti , (11)

ω ω

ln ω

ke

xk ≤ T 2 · , t ∈ [t0 , ∞), (12)

ω

where c22 = 4.3372, T 1 and T 2 are positives depending on ωc , the initial values, uncertainty,

and the reference signals.

The corresponding proof is in the appendix B. From the analysis above, we can draw the

conclusions:

1) (11) ensures that x b1 , x

b2 and x

b3 can track x1 , x2 and x3 fast, so that the disturbance

estimation is smaller in the sections out of the removable points. Moreover, the disturbance

estimation

√

error can be adjusted via ω. In addition, from the proof in Appendix B, we get T 1 =

c22 c22

c21 s4 + c21 ρ3 , where s4 and ρ3 are positive constants related to the initial values, uncertainty

√

and the reference signal’s bound. Thus, we get that the larger bound of the uncertainty, the

larger ω required to achieve estimation.

2) (12) indicates that the smaller error will be between x(t) and x∗ (t). Viewed from the

δt

4c22 ρ3 r1 (ωc ) e c12

proof in Appendix B, we get T 2 = c11 · δt , where ρ3 is a positive constant related

e 2c12 −1

to the initial values, uncertainty and the reference signal’s bound and r1 (ωc ) is a decreasing

function with respect to ωc . Thus, we get that the larger ω or ωc , the better tracking effect will

be obtained.

The skill used in the proof of the ESO is similar to that of RESO, which is only different

from the other in the order and small change in parameters. Besides, define x e = (e e2 )T =

x1 , x

(x1 − x∗1 , x2 − x∗2 )T , eb = (b

e2 , eb3 )T = (b b3 − x3 )T . Hence, the closed-loop system of PMLM

x2 − x2 , x

using ADRC with RESO can be described as follows.

Theorem 4.2 Based on Assumptions 1 and 2, (8) ensures the following properties: When

ω is large enough,

1 ln ω

kb

e(t)k ≤ T1 · , t ∈ ti−1 + 2c22 , ti , (13)

ω ω

ln ω

ke

xk ≤ T2 · , t ∈ [t0 , ∞), (14)

ω

where c22 = 1.7071, T1 and T2 are positives depending on ωc , the initial values, uncertainty,

and the reference signals.

The corresponding proof is in Appendix A. Similar to the case in Theorem 4.1, we get that

1) (13) confirms that the higher estimation can be achieved through selecting the larger ω

especially when the bound of the uncertainty is considered.

2) Besides, from (14), smaller tracking error, i.e., the difference between x(t) and x∗ (t), will

be obtained via the monotonous selecting larger parameter ω or ωc .

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 7

Remark 4.3 In the light of the proof of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, we can make a comparison

between ESO and RESO if we choose the same parameters ωc , ω and the same initial values:

1) Since c22 = 4.3372 > c22 = 1.7071, comparison between (11) and (13) shows

∗

ti > t∗i , i = 0, 1, · · · , (15)

which revels that, in the discontinuous points compared with ESO, RESO can estimate the

disturbance faster;

2) According to the proof in Appendix C, we can see that T1 ≤ T1 and T2 ≤ T2 . Therefore,

compared with ESO, the estimation error kb ek is much smaller under RESO. In addition, the

tracking error ke

xk is smaller under RESO as well.

In the next section, simulation will be implemented to further investigate the control effect

between ESO and RESO.

The motion planning of computer numerical control (CNC) manufacturing systems can be

divided into three main courses: Path planning, trajectory generation and trajectory tracking.

The path planning consists of determining a geometric path according to the specified task.

The desired curve ~r(u) = (x(u), y(u)) (u is curve parameter) is generated from a solid modeler,

the process of which is also named as CAM (Computer Aided Manufacturing)[20] . In the

trajectory generation process, kinematic bounds information, such as velocity, acceleration,

and jerk (derivative of acceleration with respect to time), are determined, after which the

interpolator which calculates the intermediate coordinates using an appropriate interpolation

algorithm[21–24] . Due to the function of the interpolator relating the parameter u (the curve

parameter) and time t, the description of the trajectory can be used in the control system.

Such a relationship can be determined if the feedrate specifications are known. Feedrate will be

determined through optimization with considering the kinematic information determined at the

beginning, and it can be a constant or variable throughout the path. Given a feedrate profile

vf (t), it is possible to obtain the desired coordinates as a function of time

s

2 2 q

dx(u) dy(u) du

vf (t) = + = x′ (u)2 + y ′ (u)2 ,

dt dt dt

′

d

where (·) = du (·).

Since the feedrate is assumed to be known, we have a differential equation between u and t

du vf (t)

=p ′ .

dt x (u)2 + y ′ (u)2

Using this differential equation, the command signal is now available as a function of time.

It is also possible to find the time derivative of the command for control purposes. Finally, it is

easy to implement trajectory tracking process using the closed-loop controllers to regulate the

actuators moving along the planned trajectory. The basic system consists of two motors, each

8 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

motor moving the tool along a single axis of motion. In the simulation below, we apply PMLM

motor to act as the axis drive motor. ESO and RESO are mounted on ADRC, respectively.

The overall system for ESO case is illustrated in Figure 1.

Meaning Parameter Unit Value

Mass of thrust block M Kg 5.4

Viscosity constant D Ns/m 10

Armature resistance R Ohms 16.8

Armature inductance L Henry 17.4 × 10−3

electrical-mechanical energy conversion constant Kf N/A 130

back electromotive force (EMF) voltage Ke v/m/s 123

Minimum level of coulomb friction fc Newton 10

Static friction fs Newton 20

Viscous friction parameter fv Newton 10

Ripple paremeter 1 Ar Newton 8.5

Ripple patemeter 2 ω Rad/m 314

Ripple patemeter 3 ϕ unit 0.05π

Bounded force flm Newton 100

Viscous parameter xs m/s 0.1

v&&

+

Interpolator v& +

/LQHDU

u0 (t ) 1 u (t ) y (t )

− :HLJKWHG6XP

3ODQW

+ − b0

v + −

x̂2

3UHSURFHVVLQJ ESO

x̂1

Figure 2 is a butterfly curved segments[25] generated from the solid modeler of the CNC

system.

There is a lot of velocity planning methods. In this paper, a quintic splines trajectory

generation algorithm[26] is utilized to connect a series of reference knots that produces con-

tinuous position, feedrate optimization technique in [27] for minimizing the cycle time in ma-

chining spline tool paths with axis velocity, acceleration and jerk limits. The plane butter-

fly curve is discretized to more than 100 points which are close enough to be the reference

~max = (200, 200)mm/s, A

knots. The drive constraints are set to be V ~ max = (4000, 4000)mm/s2,

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 9

J~max = (50000, 50000)mm/s3. The initial and terminal velocities and accelerations are all zero,

and we set the initial position of the curve at origin points (0, 0); the sampling period is set to

be 1ms and the same physical parameters are assumed for both the x and y axes; the parame-

ters of PMLM are given in the Table 1. Especially, Fload is simulated as a piece constants, the

period of which is 3s with eighties percents of the periods being constant value 50 and the rest

being value 100. Simulation is carried out to make comparison between ESO and RESO which

are applied in ADRC by using Matlab/Simulink. The control bandwidth and the bandwidth

for the simulation is ωc =800 and ω =1000, which are adjusted under the guidance from the

theorem discussed in Section 4. The effects are demonstrated in the following figures.

Butterfly Curve

30

20

10

0

Y axis (mm)

−10

−20

−30

−40

−50

−60

−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60

X axis (mm)

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (ESO based ADRC)

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

10 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (RESO based ADRC)

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

200

Voltage(V)

100

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (ESO based ADRC)

200

Voltage(V)

100

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

200

Voltage(V)

100

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (RESO based ADRC)

200

Voltage(V)

100

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Figures 3 and 4 are the tracking error comparison. As can be seen from the picture, if we

PN

define mean error emean = ( i=1 |ei |)/N to demonstrate average accuracy in the total progress,

where N denotes the number of the interpolation points, then the corresponding axis average

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 11

mean = (0.0060, 0.0079)mm and ~ eRESO

mean = (0.0032, 0.0038)mm,

respectively. Thus, the error generated by ESO is larger than that of RESO, at the cost of a

small vibration of the control voltage (near zeros in the horizontal axis) which is shown in

Figures 5 and 6.

Figures 7 and 8, 9 and 10 are the corresponding results for tracking error comparison and

voltage comparison when the input signals are combined with certain measurement noise, re-

spectively. We denote the input signals of X and Y axis as Xoriginal and Yoriginal , Xoriginal , Yoriginal ∈

RN . Considering the noise signals to X and Y axis as εX and εY , in which satisfy Gauss dis-

tribution:

The simulation shows that the designed controllers have certain filtering effect for measurement

noise. Obviously, ESO is superior to the RESO in filtering effect for its higher order.

X−Axis (ESO based ADRC)

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (ESO based ADRC)

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (RESO based ADRC)

Tracking Errors(mm)

0.05

−0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

12 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

200

100

Voltage

0

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (ESO based ADRC)

200

Voltage 100

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

200

100

Voltage

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Y−Axis (RESO based ADRC)

200

100

Voltage

−100

−200

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time (s)

Remark 5.1 RESO performs better than the ESO both in disturbance estimation and

tracking error. The physical reason for this phenomenon should be addressed more vividly.

ω3 ω2

Actually, for ESO, x b3 = (s+ωe )3 x3 ; for RESO x

b3 = (s+ωe )2 x3 . Thus, RESO performs better

e e

than ESO both in estimation speed toward the disturbance and compensation speed toward

the disturbance, and hence the closed-loop property is better. On the other hand, the above

transfer functions mean that ESO is superior to the RESO in filtering the measurement noise.

Hence, we suggest to choose the ESO based ADRC and RESO based ADRC according to the

specific properties of the plant.

6 Conclusion

The permanent magnet linear motor (PMLM) has high speed, high precision, and is widely

used in CNC machining. However, because of its nonlinearity and uncertainty as well as easily

being subjected to the existing outside disturbance, the traditional control method such as

PID is hard to meet its performance requirements. To improve the performance of the system

PMLM, this paper utilizes the ADRC to design the controller in the system of PMLM due to

its good performance, robust, and simple for implementing.

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 13

To mimic the practical manufacture situation, the nonlinear load force of PMLM, including

friction and magnetic resistance as well as the nonlinear disturbances are considered. The

stability of closed-loop system is proved. The control accuracy and quality are analyzed. We

use a tangible manufacture example from CNC machining to perform the simulation of PMLM.

ADRCs using ESO and RESO are implemented to specify the effects of these two methods

respectively.

The result showed the effectiveness and feasibility of both ESO and RESO. Moreover, com-

pared with ESO, RESO exhibits better performance at the cost of a little vibration in control

signal.

References

[1] Brandenburg G, Bruckl S, Dormann J, et al., Comparative investigation of rotary and linear motor

feed drive systems for high precision machine tools, Advanced Motion Control, 2000, Proceedings

6th International Workshop on IEEE, 2000, 384–389.

[2] Seamus G and Michael T H, Development of a high-speed CNC cutting machine using linear

motors, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2005, 166(3): 321–329.

[3] Lin F J, Shyu K K, and Lin C H, Incremental motion control of linear synchronous motor, IEEE

Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2002, 38(3): 1011–1022.

[4] Chong G and Li Y, PID control system analysis, design, and technology, IEEE Transactions

Conontrol Systems Technology, 2005, 13(4): 559–576.

[5] Narendra and Kumpati S, Robust adaptive control, American Control Conference, 1984.

[6] Bristow D, Tharayil M, and Alleyne A G, A survey of iterative learning control, IEEE Transactions

Conontrol Systems Technology, 2006, 26(3): 96–114.

[7] Guo B and Zhao Z, On convergence of the nonlinear active disturbance rejection control for mimo

systems, SIAM J. Control and Optimization, 2013, 51(2): 1727–1757.

[8] Zheng Q, Chen Z Z, and Gao Z Q, A practical approach to disturbance decoupling control, Control

Engineering Practice, 2009, 17(9): 1016–1025.

[9] Xue W C and Huang Y, On performance analysis of ADRC for nonlinear uncertain systems

with unknown dynamics and discontinuous disturbances, 2013 Chinese Control Conference, 2013,

1102–1107.

[10] Dong J Y and Li D H, Active disturbance rejection control for complex dynamical systems, System

Science and Mathematic, 2013, 33(6): 639–652 (in Chinese).

[11] Jiang Z, Active disturbance rejection control for the yaw tracking for helicopter, System Science

and Mathematic, 2012, 32(6): 641—652 (in Chinese).

[12] Zheng Q, Gao L Q, and Gao Z, On validation of extended state observer through analysis and

experimentation, Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement & Control, 2012, 134(2): 224–240.

[13] Xiao Y and Zhu K Y, Optimal synchronization control of highprecision motion systems, IEEE

Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2006, 53(4): 1160–1169.

[14] Canudas-De-Wit C, Olsson H, Astrom K J, et al., A new model for control of systems with friction,

IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1995, 40(3): 419–425.

[15] Tan K K, Huang S N, and Lee T H, Robust adaptive numerical compensation for friction and

14 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

force ripple in permanent-magnet linear motors, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, 2002, 38(1):

221–228.

[16] Han J Q, Auto-disturbances-rejection controller and its application, Control and Decision, 1998,

13(1): 19–23.

[17] Gao Z Q, Haung Y, and Han J Q, An alternative paradigm for control system design, IEEE

Conference on Decision and Control, 2001, 5: 4578–4585.

[18] Xue W C, On Theoretical analysis of active disturbance rejection control, Ph.D. Thesis, 2012.

[19] Hu T, Xue W C, and Huang Y, Active disturbance rejection control for permanent magnet linear

motor, Proceedings of the 31st Chinese Control Conference, 2012, 7: 296–301.

[20] Castelino K, D’Souza R, and Wright P K, Tool path optimization for minimizing airtime during

machining, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 2003, 22(3): 173–180.

[21] Guo J X, Zhang Q, Gao X S, et al., Time optimal feedrate generation with confined tracking error

based on linear programming, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 2015, 28(1): 80–95.

[22] Zhang K, Gao X S, Li H, and Yuan C M, A greedy algorithm for feed-rate planning of CNC

machines along curved tool paths with confined jerk for each axis, Robotics and computer Integrated

Manufacturing, 2012, 28: 472–483.

[23] Fan W, Gao X S, Yan W, et al., Interpolation of parametric CNC machining path under confined

jounce, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2012, 62(5–8): 719–

739.

[24] Zhao C and Huang Y, ADRC bsed input disturbance rejection for minimum-phase plants with

unknown orders and/or uncertain relative degrees, Journal of Systems Science and Complexity,

2012, 25(4): 625–640.

[25] Yau H T, Lin M T, and Tsai M S, Real-time NURBS interpolation using FPGA for high speed

motion control, Computer-Aided Design, 2006, 38: 1123–1133.

[26] Erkorkmaz K and Altintas Y, High speed CNC system design Part I: Jerk limited trajectory gen-

eration and quintic spline interpolation, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,

2001, 41: 1323–1345.

[27] Altintas Y and Erkorkmaz K, Feedrate optimization for spline interpolation in high speed machine

tools, CIRP Annals—Manufacturing Technology, 2003, 52(1): 297–302.

Appendix

Before giving the corresponding proof, the closed-loop form of ESO and RESO are rendered

respectively.

From(1), (4), (5), (10), (73), we get the closed-loop system of ESO:

x

ė1 0 1 0 0 0 x

e1 0

x 2 2 2

−1 e −f

ė2 −ωc −2ωc −ωc /ω −2ωc /ω x 2 0

ζ̇1 = 0 0

0 −3ω ω ζ1 + 0 , (16)

ζ̇2 0 0 −3ω 0 ω

ζ2 ωf0

ζ̇3 0 0 −ω 0 0 ζ3 η3

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 15

where

ζ1 ω 2 e1

ζ=

ζ2 = ωe2 ,

(17)

ζ3 e3 − f0

ω2

η3 = −(ωc2 x e2 + ωc2 ζ1 + 2 ωωc ζ2 + ζ3 + f0 )e

e1 + 2ωc x a1 + (ωc2 v + 2ωc v̇ + v̈ − ωc2 x∗1 − 2ωc x∗2 )e

a1 ,

a1 = a1 + f v .

e

Besides, from (5), (8), (10), (20), we can obtain the closed-loop system of RESO:

x

ė1 0 1 0 0 x

e1 0

x 2 e −f

ė2 −ωc −2ωc −2ωc/ω −1 x 2 0

= + , (18)

ξ̇2 0 0 −2ω ω ξ2 ωf0

ξ̇3 0 0 −ω 0 ξ3 η1

where

ξ2 ωb

e2

ξ= = . (19)

ξ3 eb3 − f0

and η1 = −(ωc2 x e2 + 2ω

e1 + 2ωcx ω ξ2 + ξ3 + f0 )e

c

a1 + (ωc2 v + 2ωc v̇ + v̈ − ωc2 x∗1 − 2ωcx∗2 )e

a1 , e

a1 = a1 + f v .

The proof from ESO is similar to that from RESO. Nevertheless, the proof of RESO is more

presentative, which helps to understand the principle and process of the proof. Hence, we give

more detail to RESO initially.

Appendix A: The Proof of Theorem 4.2

We will prove the theorem in two steps.

Step 1 Prove that x1 , x2 , eb2 , eb3 are bounded in [t0 , ∞).

Make transformation

ξ2 ωb

e2

ξ= = . (20)

ξ3 eb3 − f0

Define

0 1 0 0 −2 1

Ac = , Bc = , A2 = .

−ωc2 −2ωc −2ωc /ω −1 −1 0

Since Ac , A2 are Hurwitz matrixes, there exist positive matrixes P1 = mn and P2 =

n l

p q , satisfying

qr

AT

c P1 + P1 Ac = −I2 , c11 I2 ≤ P1 ≤ c12 I2 (21)

AT

2 P2 + P2 A2 = −I2 , c21 I2 ≤ P2 ≤ c22 I2 , (22)

16 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

where c11 , c12 are the minimum and maximum eigenvalues of P1 ; c21 , c22 are the minimum and

maximum eigenvalues of P2 . From (21), (22), we have

2

ωc +5 1 1 1

2 −

P1 = 4ωc ω2ω 2

c

, P2 = 2 2

,

1 c +1 1 3

2ωc 2 4ωc 3 − 2 2

1 h 4 2

p i

c11 = 3

ωc + 6ωc + 1 − (ωc4 + 6ωc2 + 1)(ωc4 + 2ωc2 + 1) , (23)

8ωc

1 h p i

c12 = 3

ωc4 + 6ωc2 + 1 + (ωc4 + 6ωc2 + 1)(ωc4 + 2ωc2 + 1) ,

8ωc

√ √

2− 2 2+ 2

c21 = , c22 = .

2 2

k·k below is the 2-norm. Define Lyapunov function, along the trajectory of (18): V1 (e eT P1 x

x) = x e

V̇1 (e xT P1 x

x) = 2e xk2 + 2e

ė = −ke xT P1 (Bc ξ + ( 0 1 )T (−f0 ))

xk2 + 2ke

≤ −ke xk · kP1 ( 0 1 )T f0 k.

xk · kP1 Bc k · kξk + 2ke

In the formula above, when ω ≥ 2ωc , the second and the last parts of the equation are

!

√ √
−2nωc /ω −n

kP1 Bc k ≤ 2kP1 Bc k1 = 2

−2lωc /ω −l 1

√

= 2(n + l) max{2ωc /ω, 1}

√ 1 ωc2 + 1

= 2 + ,

2ωc2 4ωc3

s

p 2 2 2

T 1 ωc + 1

2 2

kP1 0 1 f0 k = |f0 | n + l = |f0 | + .

2ωc2 4ωc3

1

Due to the bound of the |f0 | (f0 = M (Fload+ Fripple )), suppose |f0 | ≤ κ1 and define

√ 1 ωc2 + 1

r1 (ωc ) = 2 2 + , (24)

2ωc2 4ωc3

s 2 2 2

1 ωc + 1

r2 (ωc ) = 2 + . (25)

2ωc2 4ωc3

Then

x) ≤ −ke xk · kξk + κ1 r2 (ωc )ke

xk. (26)

R = ( ωf0 η1 )T .

Along the trajectory of (18):

= −ωkξk2 + 2ωξ T P2 ( 1 0 )T f0 + 2ξ T P2 ( 0 1 )T (−K1 x

e − K 2 ξ − f0

+ωc2 v + 2ωc v̇ + v̈ − ωc2 x∗1 − 2ωc x∗2 )e

a1 .

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 17

Suppose |f0 − (ωc2 v + 2ωc v̇ + v̈ − ωc2 x∗1 − 2ωc x∗2 )| ≤ κ2 , and define

p

s1 (ωc ) = |ea1 | 10((2ωc )2 + ωc4 ), (27)

√

s2 = 2 5|e a1 |, (28)

√

s3 = κ2 10|e a1 |. (29)

1 !

T 2 − 21 T

kP2 0 1 K1 k ≤ 01 · k ω 2 2ωc k = s1 (ωc ) ,

1 3 c a1 |

2|e

−2 2

1 !

T 2 − 21 T

kP2 0 1 K2 k ≤ 0 1 · k 2ωc /ω 1 k ≤ s2 ,

1 3 2|ea1 |

−2 2

T s3

kP2 0 1 (f0 − (ωc2 v + 2ωc v̇ + v̈ − ωc2 x∗1 − 2ωc x∗2 ))k ≤ ,

a1 |

2|e

we have

√

V̇2 (ξ) ≤ −(ω − s2 )kξk2 + ( 2ωκ1 + s3 )kξk + s1 (ωc )ke

xk · kξk. (30)

Define

p √ ρ2

ρ1 = max V1 (e

x(t0 )), 2 c12 √ r1 (ωc ) + κ1 r2 (ωc ) , (31)

c21

p √ √

ρ2 = max{ V2 (ξ(t0 )), ( 2 + 1) c22 κ1 }. (32)

p

We will prove that when ω > κ11 ( √ρc222 s1 (ωc ) √ρc111 + s2 + s3 ), then Ω = {(e x) ≤

x(t0 ), ξ)| V1 (e

p

ρ1 , V2 (ξ) ≤ ρ2 } is a positive invariant set of (18). We develop the proof in two situations:

p p

x) = ρ1 , V2 (ξ) ≤ ρ2 , then from (26), along the trajectory of (18), we have

i) if V1 (e

x) ≤ −ke

V̇1 (e xk · [ke

xk − (r1 (ωc )kξk + κ1 r2 (ωc ))]

ρ1 ρ2

≤ −kexk · √ − r1 (ωc ) √ + κ1 r2 (ωc )

c12 c21

ρ2

≤ −kexk · r1 (ωc ) √ + κ1 r2 (ωc )

c21

≤ 0; (33)

p p

x) ≤ ρ1 , V2 (ξ) = ρ2 , then from (30), along the trajectory of (18), we have

ii) if V1 (e

√

V̇2 (ξ) ≤ −kξk · [(ω − s2 )kξk − (( 2ωκ1 + s3 ) + s1 (ωc )ke xk)]

ρ2 √ ρ1

≤ −kξk · (ω − s2 ) √ − ( 2ωκ1 + s3 ) + s1 (ωc ) √

c22 c11

ρ2 √ ρ2 ρ1

≤ −kξk · √ − 2κ1 ω − √ s2 + s3 + s1 (ωc ) √

c22 c22 c11

ρ2 ρ1

≤ −kξk · κ1 ω − √ s2 + s3 + s1 (ωc ) √

c22 c11

< 0. (34)

18 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

From (33) and (34), we can come to the comclusion: If ω > κ11 ( √ρc111 s1 (ωc ) + √ρc222 s2 + s3 ), Ω is

a positive invariant set of (18).

From the analysis above, we can draw the conclusion that when the bandwidth of RESO ω

and the bandwidth of control ωc satisfy

1 ρ1 ρ2

ω > max 2ωc , √ s1 (ωc ) + √ s2 + s3 , (35)

κ1 c11 c22

then ke

xk, kξk are bounded:

ρ1 ρ2

ke

xk ≤ √ , kξk ≤ √ . (36)

c11 c21

Since x

e= x1 − x∗ , and x∗ , ẋ∗ are bounded, x and x are bounded. At the same time, from

1 2

x2 − ẋ ∗

Step 2 Due to Assumption 1, the load force |Fload (t)| only contains the first discontinuous

1

points {ti }∞

i=1 , ti−1 < ti , and inf i {ti − ti−1 } > 0. Since f0 = M (Fload + Fripple ), f0 onle

contains the discontinuous points of the first kind {ti }i=1 , ti−1 < ti , and inf i {ti − ti−1 } > 0.

∞

Define δt = inf i {ti − ti−1 }. The derivative of f0 in a general form can be defined as

df0 , t 6= ti ,

f˙0 = dt (37)

H δ(t − t ), t = t ,

i i i

Z 0, t < t

i

δ(t − ti )dt =

1, t ≥ ti .

Make a transformation:

ξ2 ωb

e2

ξ= = . (38)

ξ3 eb3 .

x

ė1 0 1 0 0 x

e1 0

x 2 e 0

ė2 −ωc −2ωc −2ωc/ω −1 x2

˙ = + , (39)

ξ 0 0 −2ω ω ξ 2

2 0

ξ˙ 3 0 0 −ω 0 ξ3 η2

where

η2 = −(ωc2 x

e1 + 2ωc x

e2 + 2ωc eb2 + eb3 )e a1 + f˙0 .

a1 + (ωc2 v + 2ωc v̇ + v̈ − ωc2 x∗1 − 2ωc x∗2 )e (40)

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 19

q q

2 2

kξk = ξ 2 + ξ 3 = ξ22 + (ξ3 + f0 )2

√ q

≤ 2 · ξ22 + ξ32 + f02

√

≤ 2(kξk + |f0 |).

c21

√ ρ2

kξk ≤ ρ3 , ρ3 = 2 √ + κ1 . (41)

c21

When t0 ≤ t < t1 , along the trajectory (39),

T T

V̇2 (ξ) = 2ξ P2 ωA2 ξ + 0 1 η2 .

bounded in the continuous points of f0 , then

√ √

T 10 10 s4

kP2 ( 0 1 ) k · |η2 | = |η2 | ≤ κ3 = , (42)

2 2 2

√

where s4 = 10κ3 .

Hence V̇2 (ξ) ≤ −ωkξk2 + s4 kξk, and

q

d V˙2 (ξ) kξk2 s4 kξk

V2 (ξ) = q ≤ −ω q + q

dt

2 V2 (ξ) 2 V2 (ξ) 2 V2 (ξ)

q

V2 (ξ) s4

≤ −ω + √ . (43)

2c22 2 c21

From Gronwall-Bellman inequation, we can get, when t0 ≤ t < t1 ,

q q

1 c22 s4 ω

V2 (ξ) ≤ √ + V2 (ξ(t0 ))e− 2c22 (t−t0 )

ω c21

1 c22 s4 √ ω

≤ √ + c22 kξ(t0 )ke− 2c22 (t−t0 )

ω c21

1 c22 s4 √ − ω (t−t0 )

≤ √ + ρ3 c22 e 2c22 . (44)

ω c21

2c22

If δt = inf i {ti − ti−1 } ≤ then {ω|δt = 2c22ωln ω } 6= ∅. Define

e ,

2c ln ω 2c22

max ω|δt = 22 , δt ≤ ,

ω1 = ω e (45)

0, 2c22

δt > .

e

Then when ω > ω1 , we have

2c22 ln ω

< δt . (46)

ω

20 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

Define

2c22 ln ω

t∗0 = t0 + . (47)

ω

From (45), t∗0 < t1 , then

ω 1

e− 2c22 (t−t0 ) ≤ , t ≥ t∗0 . (48)

ω

From (44) and (48), we get

q

1 c22 s4 √

V2 (ξ) ≤ √ + ρ3 c22 , t ∈ [t∗0 , t1 ). (49)

ω c21

Hence,

√

1 c22 c22

kξk ≤ s4 + √ ρ3 , t ∈ [t∗0 , t1 ). (50)

ω c21 c21

√

1 c22 c22

kb

ek ≤ kξk ≤ s4 + √ ρ3 , t ∈ [t∗0 , t1 ). (51)

ω c21 c21

q q

1 c22 s4 − 2cω (t−t1 )

V2 (ξ) ≤ √ + V2 (ξ(t+1 ))e

22

ω c21

1 c22 s4 √ − 2cω (t−t1 )

≤ √ + c22 kξ(t+1 )ke

22

ω c21

1 c22 s4 √ − ω (t−t1 )

≤ √ + ρ3 c22 e 2c22 . (52)

ω c21

Define

2c22 ln ω

t∗1 = t1 + . (53)

ω

Then

− 2cω (t−t1 ) 1

e 22 ≤ , t ≥ t∗1 . (54)

ω

From (52) and (54), we obtain

q

1 c22 s4 √

V2 (ξ) ≤ √ + ρ3 c22 , t ∈ [t∗1 , t2 ). (55)

ω c21

Hence,

√

1 c22 c22

kξk ≤ s4 + √ ρ3 , t ∈ [t∗1 , t2 ). (56)

ω c21 c21

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 21

√

1 c22 c22

kξk ≤ s4 + √ ρ3 , t ∈ [t∗i , ti+1 ), (57)

ω c21 c21

where

2c22 ln ω

t∗i = ti + . (58)

ω

From the transformation (38), for i ≥ 1,

√

1 c22 c22

kbek ≤ kξk ≤ s4 + √ ρ3 , t ∈ [t∗i , ti+1 ). (59)

ω c21 c21

Next, we will prove that, when ω is large enough (ω ≫ 1), kx(t) − x∗ (t)k ≤ O( lnωω ), t ∈

[t0 , ∞).

Along the trajectory of (39) we have

V̇1 (e xT P1 x

x) = 2e xk2 + r1 (ωc )kξ|k · ke

ė ≤ −ke xk.

So

dp V˙1 (e

x) kexk2 xk · kξk

r1 (ωc )ke

x) = p

V1 (e ≤− p + p

dt 2 V1 (e x) 2 V1 (ex) 2 V1 (ex)

p

V1 (e

x) r1 (ωc )

≤− + √ kξk.

2c12 2 c11

Since x

e(t0 ) = 0, from Gronwall-Bellman inequation, we get

p Z

r1 (ωc ) t − 2c

t−τ

x) ≤ √

V1 (e e 12 kξ(τ )kdτ. (60)

2 c11 t0

When tk−1 ≤ t < tk ,

X

k Z t∗ X Z ti

k−1

p r1 (ωc ) i−1 t−τ

− 2c t−τ

x) ≤ √

V1 (e e 12 kξ(τ )kdτ + e− 2c12 kξ(τ )kdτ

2 c11 i=1 ti−1 i=1 t∗

i−1

Z t

t−τ

+ e− 2c12 kξ(τ )kdτ . (61)

t∗

k−1

From (41),

X Z ti

k−1 Z t √

t−τ t−τ c22 c22 1

e− 2c12 kξ(τ )kdτ + e− 2c12 kξ(τ )kdτ < s4 + √ H , (62)

i=1 t∗

i−1 t∗

k−1

c21 c21 ω

k Z

X t∗ k t δ

i−1 t−τ

− 2c ln ω X − t−ti e 2c12 ln ω

e 12 kξ(τ )kdτ ≤ 4c ρ e 2c12

≤ 4c ρ . (63)

22 3 22 3 δt

i=1 ti−1 ω i=1 1 − e− 2c12 ω

Then, from (61), (62) and (63), we get

√ δt

p r1 (ωc ) c22 c22 1 e 2c12 ln ω

x) ≤ √

V1 (e s4 + √ ρ3 + 4c22 ρ3 δt . (64)

2 c11 c21 c21 ω 1 − e− 2c12 ω

22 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

Hence,

√ δt

r1 (ωc ) c22 c22 1 e 2c12 ln ω

ke

xk ≤ s4 + √ ρ3 + 4c22 ρ3 δt . (65)

2c11 c21 c21 ω 1 − e− 2c12 ω

√ δt

c e 2c12

When ( cc22 s4 + √ 22 H) 1 ≤ 4c22 ρ3 ln ω

21 c21 ω −

δt ω , namely,

1−e 2c12

√

c22 s + c

√ 22 H

δt

c21 4 c21 e 2c12 − 1

ω ≥ ω2 = exp · δt , (66)

4c22 ρ3 e c12

δt

4c22 ρ3 r1 (ωc ) e c12 ln ω

ke

xk ≤ · δt · . (67)

c11 e 2c12 − 1 ω

To sum up, from (45), (51), (59), (66) and (67), when ω ≥ ω ∗ we have

1 ρ1 ρ2

ω ∗ = max 2ωc , √ s 1 (ω c ) + √ s 2 + s 3 , ω 1 , ω 2 , (68)

κ1 c11 c22

1 ln ω

kb

e(t)k ≤ T1 · , t ∈ ti−1 + 2c22 , ti , (69)

ω ω

ln ω

ke

xk ≤ T2 · , t ∈ [t0 , ∞), (70)

ω

where

√

c22 c22

T1 = s4 + √ ρ3 , (71)

c21 c21

δt

4c22 ρ3 r1 (ωc ) e c12

T2 = · δt , (72)

c11 e 2c12 − 1

are constants depend on ωc , the initial values, the uncertainty and the reference signals.

Appendix B: The Proof of Theorem 4.1

The proof is similar to that of Theorem 4.2. We only render the important variables form

so that can make comparison with RESO.

Make a transformation

ζ1 ω 2 e1

ζ=

ζ2 = ωe2 .

(73)

ζ3 e3 − f0

Define

−3 1 0

0 1

Ac = , Aζ =

−3 0 1 .

−ωc2 −2ωc

−1 0 0

For Ac , Aζ are Hurwitz matrixes, so there exist positive matrix P1 and P 2 , satisfying

AT

c P1 + P1 Ac = −I2 , c11 I2 ≤ P1 ≤ c12 I2 (74)

AT

ζ P 2 + P 2 Aζ = −I3 , c21 I2 ≤ P 2 ≤ c22 I2 , (75)

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 23

where c11 , c12 are the minimum and maximum eigenvalue of P1 , c21 , c22 are the minimum and

maximum eigenvalue of P 2 . Corresponding to (23), we have

2 1 − 1

−1

ωc +5 1 2

2

P1 = 4ωc ω2ω c

, P 2 = − 1 1 − 1 ,

1

2

c +1

2 2

2ωc2 4ωc3 −1 − 12 4

1 h 4 2

p i

4 + 6ω 2 + 1)(ω 4 + 2ω 2 + 1) ,

c11 = ω + 6ω + 1 − (ω (76)

8ωc3 c c c c c c

1 h p i

4 2 4 + 6ω 2 + 1)(ω 4 + 2ω 2 + 1) ,

c12 = ω c + 6ω c + 1 + (ω c c c c

8ωc3

c21 = 0.1966, c22 = 4.3372.

e, V 2 (ζ) = ζ T P 2 ζ, and

√ 1 ωc2 + 1

r1 (ωc ) = 2 2 + , (77)

2ωc2 4ωc3

s 2 2 2

1 ωc + 1

r2 (ωc ) = 2 + , (78)

2ωc2 4ωc3

p

a1 | (2ωc )2 + ωc4 ,

s1 (ωc ) = 10|e (79)

√

s2 = 10 3|e a1 |, (80)

a1 | · κ 2 ,

s3 = 10|e (81)

p √ ρ

ρ1 = max V1 (ex(t0 )), 2 c12 √ 2 r1 (ωc ) + κ1 r2 (ωc ) , (82)

c21

q √ √

ρ2 = max{ V 2 (ζ(t0 )), ( 2 + 1) c22 κ1 }. (83)

1 ρ1 ρ2

ω > max 2ωc , √ s1 (ωc ) + √ s2 + s3 , (84)

κ1 c11 c22

then ke

xk, kζk are bounded:

ρ ρ

xk ≤ √ 1 ,

ke kζk ≤ √ 2 . (85)

c11 c21

For x

e= x1 − x∗ and transformation (73), so x, eb are bounded.

x2 − ẋ∗

Make a transformation:

ζ1 ω 2 e1

ζ=

ζ 2 = ωe2 .

(86)

ζ3 e3

24 GUO JIANXIN · XUE WENCHAO · HU TAO

x

ė1 0 1 0 0 0 x

e1 0

x 2 2 2

−1 e 0

ė2 −ωc −2ωc −ωc /ω −2ωc /ω x 2

˙

ζ = 0 0 ζ1

+

1 0 −3ω ω 0 , (87)

˙

ζ 0 0 −3ω 0 ω

2 ζ2 0

˙ζ 0 0 −ω 0 0 ζ3 η4

3

where

2 ωc2 2ωc

η4 = − ωc x e1 + 2ωc xe2 + 2 ζ 1 + ζ + ζ3 e a1

ω ω 2

c c 1 a1 + f˙0 .

+(ω 2 v + 2ωc v̇ + v̈ − ω 2 x∗ − 2ωc x∗ )e 2 (88)

q q

2 2 2

kζk = ζ 1 + ζ 2 + ζ 3 = ζ12 + ζ22 + (ζ3 + f0 )2

√ q

≤ 2 · ζ12 + ζ22 + ζ32 + f02

√

≤ 2(kζk + |f0 |).

ρ

For ζ and f0 are bounded, and kζk ≤ √2 ,

c21

|f0 | ≤ κ1 , so ζ is bounded. Define

√ ρ

kζk ≤ ρ3 , ρ3 = 2 √ 2 + κ1 . (89)

c21

From (88), η4 is bounded in the continuous points in f0 . Define kη4 (t)k ≤ κ3 , t 6= ti , i =

1, 2, · · · , here κ3 = κ3 (ωc , ρ1 , ρ2 , v, v̇, v̈, Ar , D), namely, κ3 is a constant, which depends on ωc ,

the initial values, uncertainty, and the reference signal.

√

Define s4 = 67κ3 , so similar to the proof of RESO in Step 2, we can prove, when

2c22 ln ω 2c22

max ω δt = , δt ≤ ,

ω1 = ω e (90)

2c22

0, δt > ,

e

and then whenω > ω1 , we have

2c22 ln ω

< δt . (91)

ω

For i ≥ 0, we have

√

1 c22 c22 ∗

kek ≤ s4 + √ ρ3 , t ∈ [ti , ti+1 ), (92)

ω c21 c21

where

∗ 2c22 ln ω

ti = ti + < ti+1 , (93)

ω

ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL FOR PMLM SERVO SYSTEM 25

and

√ δt

r1 (ωc ) c22 c22 1 e 2c12 ln ω

ke

xk ≤ s4 + √ H + 4c22 ρ3 δt · , t ∈ [t0 , ∞). (94)

2c11 c21 c21 ω 1 − e− 2c12 ω

√ δt

√c22 H) 1 e 2c12 ln ω

So when ( cc22

21

s4 + c21 ω ≤ 4c22 ρ3 −

δt · ω , i.e.,

1−e 2c12

√

c22 s + √c22 H

δt

c21 4 c21 e 2c12 − 1

ω ≥ ω 2 = exp · δt , (95)

4c22 ρ3 e c12

δt

4c22 ρ3 r1 (ωc ) e c12 ln ω

ke

xk ≤ · δt · . (96)

c11 e 2c12 − 1 ω

Summing up the above (90), (92), (93), (95), (96), we have when

1 ρ ρ

ω ∗ = max 2ωc , √ 1 s1 (ωc ) + √ 2 s2 + s3 , ω 1 , ω 2 , (97)

κ1 c11 c22

then when ω ≥ ω ∗ ,

1 ln ω

kb

e(t)k ≤ T 1 · , t ∈ ti−1 + 2c22 , ti , (98)

ω ω

ln ω

ke

xk ≤ T 2 · , t ∈ [t0 , ∞), (99)

ω

where

√

c22 c22

T1 = s4 + √ ρ3 , (100)

c21 c21

δt

4c22 ρ3 r1 (ωc ) e c12

T2 = · δt (101)

c11 e 2c12 − 1

are constants which depend on ωc , initial values, uncertainty, and the reference signals.

Appendix C: The Proof of T1 ≤ T1 and T2 ≤ T2

Comparing (41) with (89), (40) with (83), we have ρ3 ≥ ρ3 . From (40), (88) and kη4 (t)k ≤

κ3 , kη2 (t)k ≤ κ3 , t 6= ti , i = 1, 2, · · · , we have κ3 > κ3 . Hence, s4 > s4 . Because c22 > c22 and

c22 c22

c21 = 22.0610 > c21 = 5.8284, comparing (71) and (100), we have T1 ≤ T1 .

Besides, for ρ3 ≥ ρ3 and c22 > c22 , comparing (72) with (101), we have T2 ≤ T2 .

- Hysys DinamicsUploaded byMicu Ionut Bogdan
- PID Control - ARAKIUploaded byLuiz Carlos da Silva
- PID ReportUploaded byNishiya Vijayan
- Hypersonic Glider Control Using Higher Order Sliding Mode ControlUploaded byP_lee
- Diagram Manipulation and Reduction Control SystemsUploaded byRodrigue Tchamna
- lars_hagg2012PID.pdfUploaded byMd Mustafa Kamal
- PID-Controller Tuning Optimization With GAUploaded byBGI Energy Services
- A Nonlinear Programming Approach for Control AllocationUploaded bysf111
- simu_optimUploaded byKalaichelvi Karthikeyan
- A NON-INTEGER CONTROL TOOLBOX FOR MATLABUploaded bya7med
- Process ControlUploaded byKeshav Chadha
- Positioning Control of a Ball Screw Mechanism Using Disturbance Observer 24 PagesUploaded byZuhaili Zawawi
- RughUploaded byFengming Shi
- emmerson1.docxUploaded bySofea Hanom Nordin
- Fuzzy Logic Applied to an Oven Temperature ControlUploaded byJorge Arturo
- cascade controlUploaded byFebryn Ngk
- Time Delay Temperature Control With Imc AndUploaded bymuhtar007
- Control Systems Sensitivity and Its Effects - GATE Study Material in PDFUploaded byPraveen Agrawal
- 4.6.01-GB (1)Uploaded byMuhd Khir Razani
- 86006-00_2-4Uploaded byHafiz Maulud
- L5portUploaded byboulainine houria
- p2_MedhaUploaded byjanurang
- Modeling, Analysis, And Control of a Current SourceUploaded byxehran
- 1-s2.0-S1474667015365447-main.pdfUploaded byVignesh Ramakrishnan
- LCS UMU - Inverted PendulumUploaded byGlen Hansard
- 5.RuthUploaded byHassan Syed
- International Journal of Applied Control,Electrical and Electronics Engineering(IJACEEE)Uploaded byijwest
- A_New_Internal_Model_Control_Method_for_MIMO_Over-.pdfUploaded byKarpaga Meenakshi
- 1 IntroductionUploaded bySadiq
- Optimal Web Guiding-1Uploaded byThiTang

- Chapter5 EnergyUploaded bywonghj
- Fuping Yuan- Plate Impact Experiments to Investigate Dynamic Slip, Deformation and Failure of MaterialsUploaded byArchmca
- Cap1 InfrastructureUploaded byBursuc Sergiu Emanuel
- Sample_Belt Bucket Elevator DesignUploaded bymfhasnain
- Friction capacity of soilUploaded bykushaljp
- a28v17n2Uploaded bymerc0581
- Mechanical Principles in orthodontic force controlUploaded byTejinder Singh
- Theory of MachineUploaded byPradip Patel
- CHILE Analysis and Design of Foundations in Mexico City 20 Years After the 1985 EarthquakeUploaded byGilberto Ramos
- Wear Thermal Analysis of Disc Brake Rotor for Different Materials Ijariie6191Uploaded byRizki Eka Putra
- Mechanics Exam Problems ExamplesUploaded byAdam Anglart
- U BendingUploaded bybabuty
- 33176-pdf.pdfUploaded bystephanus_ananda
- cbr carga repetida.pdfUploaded byALejandroRed
- LOAD DISTRIBUTION.docUploaded byShita Alemie
- Cross SectionUploaded byDevi Prasad
- Answers to Work Energy PowerUploaded bySamuel Tham
- Mechanical Vibrations LectureUploaded bymohamed fattal
- samplex1.pdfUploaded byEman Ros
- Response of Stiff Piles in Sand to Long Term Cyclic Lateral LoadingUploaded bysouzanamel
- MKA Physics -1Uploaded byvallabhaneni sivasankar
- Spherical BearingUploaded byRupchanda Barman
- PVL Lab GuidesUploaded byFernando Allauca
- At - OrBAN, F. Damping of Materials and Members in StructuresUploaded byHenrique Lima
- Hatami and BathurstUploaded bySiavash Art
- Article 6Uploaded byKush Dewangan
- Wind notesUploaded bytorinomg
- CHAPTER All QoestionUploaded byjatinmakwana09
- MAin Paper Pongsoi2013Uploaded byAnkit Lonare
- Caculation Step MotorUploaded byIgnacio Lascurain