Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Youngjin Choi,' Yonghwan Oh,' Sang Rok Oh,3 and Wan Kyun Chung4
Intelligent System Control Research Center,
1,2,3
Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST), KOREA
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), KOREA
1
by Lagrangian equation of motion is for the set-point 0 I 0
regulation control. Here, let us define the extended 0 r
disturbance as following form: -M-'CKI -M-'CKp - KI - M - -'C- K p
and
+ +
w ( t ,e , e, S e ) = M ( q )( i i d K p e K f e ) + 0
+ +
C(q,0)( Q d K p e K I J e ) g(n) W + + , (2)
+ B ( z ,t ) d + B ( z t, ) u .
X = A ( z , t ) z+ B ( z t,) Y ( z , t ) O
The difference and common point between the set-point (7)
regulation system model (1) and trajectory tracking Here, the regressor Y ( z , t )is not a zero matrix at
system model (3) were explained by Remark 1-2 in [Z]. x = 0 except the case of set-point regulation control
and gravity free motion. In other words, if g ( q ) # 0
B y using the composite error vector, the inverse opti- or qd # 0,qd # 0 , then Y ( x ,t ) # 0 at I = 0. Hence,
mal PID controller suggested in [Z] can be expressed as z = 0 is not an equilibrium point of (7) even when
following compact form: d ( t ) = 0 , because one term B ( 0 ,t)Y(O,t ) O has the
T = (K + 7-21) s, (4)
time-varying characteristics according t o desired tra-
jectories. Actually, since the equilibrium point can not
with three conditions: be found for the system (7), we will introduce the con-
cept of quasi-equilibrium region in the following sec-
tion.
(Cl) K , K p , K I > 0 , constant diagonal matrices
(CZ) K $ >~ K I , 2.2 Quasi-Equilibrium Region
To begin with, we s s u m e that there exist no external
(C3) y > 0 . disturbances for system model (7), namely d = 0 . If
the inverse optimal PID controller (4) described by a
First, let us obtain the state space description for tra- state vector as following form:
jectory tracking system model (3). If we define 3n-
dimensional state vector as follows: U = -(K+y-21)[K~,Kp,I]~
[ 21 = [ ] edt
EP3n,
is applied to (7), then the closed-loop control system is
obtained as follows:
X = A,($,t)a: + B ( m , t ) Y ( x ,t ) O (8)
then the state space representation of trajectory track-
ing system model (3) can be obtained by where
R e m a r k 1 L e t s = e + K p e + K I J e d t . Ifwemultiply
[ K IK , p , I ] b y I, in Theorem 1:
A
s.(t) = [KI,KP,~IG(~)
= [K + y - 2 1 ] - ' Y , ( t ) t l , (11)
1
A
V ( s ,K ,t ) = -sTMs
2
+
1
-2t T [(??(t) - K n ) r-' (??(t) - K O ) ] ,
F i g u r e 1: Quasi-equilibrium region
2.3 A u t o - t u n i n g Law
Since the quasi-equilibrium region is determined by
the size of gains of PID controller, we should
know the inverse dynamics Y.(t)t9 depending on de-
sired configurations(qd, qdrqd) and dynamic parame-
ter vector(@)t o calculate the quasi-equilibrium region.
However, it is difficult to exactly identify the dynamic
parameters of a general robotic manipulator. Actually,
if they are known exactly, then the model-based con-
troller using inverse dynamics will show better perfor- Here, if the following matrix trace property is applied
mance than a PID controller. Hence, we use the con- t o above equation:
cept of target performance instead of quasi-equilibrium
region. If we determine the target performance, then
the size of quasi-equilibrium region should be adjusted
t o achieve the target performance by using the auto- then above time derivative of Lyapunov function is ar-
tuning law for gains. Here, we choose the gain matrix ranged as follows:
K in (11) as an auto-tuning parameter. The auto-
tuning law is derived from the direct adaptive control
scheme and ISS characteristics of trajectory tracking
v = -2 (Kn+ ? I )1 s- r2'J
Y2
is-m(2+
system in following Theorem.
YZ
-lW12
2
+ t T [(g(t)
- K O )(r-'k(t)- SS')] , (14)
Theorem 2 Assume that there exists the smallest con-
stant diagonal gain matrix Kn > 0 of PID controller Also, if the diagonal elements of ( I - ' k ( t ) -)'ss are
(4) guaranteeing the target performance (Cl) as follows: zeros, then the trace term of (14) becomes zero because
(g(t)- K n ) is a diagonal matrix. In other words,
the auto-tuning law (13) is derived from the following
If the auto-tuning inverse optimal PID controller: relation:
dki
if dt = r&),
- for i = 1 , . . . , n
using the auto-tuning law as following form:
then [ - Kn)
tr (g(t) (I-'f?(t) - ss')] =0
(a) Desired configuration (h) Desired configuration (a) Composite error: s (h) Auto-tuned gains:
velocity : Qd
(E)
(c) Configuration error : (d) Configuration velocity
e error : e
-
(c) Composite error (s) (d) Auto-tuned gains
for 0 1s for 0 1s -
Figure 5 : Composite error and auto-tuned gains
Figure 4: Performance of auto-tuning PID controller
4 C o n c l u d i n g Remarks
error with proportional constant K p . the target per- In this paper, the quasi-equilibrium region was defined
formance can be approximately determined as follows: to guarantee the existence of controller gain achieving
target performance. Also, we proposed the auto-tuning
inverse optimal PID controller assisting the achieve-
ment of target performance. Finally, we showed the
validity of auto-tuning law through the experiment.
where lsijt and le,Jt are the target composite error and
configuration error, respectively. For instance, if we are
t o obtain the performance of le,/t < 0.02 r a d for each
References
driving axis, then the target performance should be
determined as R = 1.0 by (17). Also, the update gain [l] c. C. Yu, Autotuning of PID COntTolkTS: Relay
r = 1000 was used for the experiment. Figure 4.(c) Feedback Approach, Springer, 1999.
and (d) show experimental results such as the config- [2] Y . Choi, W. K. Chung, and I. H. Suh, “Perfor-
uration error and its velocity error. In figures, we can mance and H m optimality of PID trajectory tracking
see that the errors are large at initial time and errors controller for Lagrangian systems,” IEEE Trans. on
are reduced till target performance can be achieved by Robotics and Automation, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 857-869,
an automatic gain tuning. As a matter of fact, the Dec. 2001.
automatic gain tunings are executed at the exterior of 131 J. Park and W. K. Chung, “Design of a robust
two dotted lines of Figure 5.(a). After the auto-tuning H, PID control for industrial manipulators,” naris.
ic finished, the tuned gains arrived at 1?1 = 136.98, ASME J. of Dyn. Syst., Meas. and Contr., pp. 803-
K z = 65.60 and K3 = 6.83 as we can see in Figure 812, 2000.
-
5.(b). To see the tuning process in detail, the horizon-
tal ranges of 0 1 second of Figure 5.(a) and (b) are
enlarged as shown in that figure (e) and (d). The auto-
[4] W. M. Haddad and T. Hayakawa, “Direct adap-
tive control for nonlinear systems with bounded energy
C2 disturbances disturbances,” IEEE Conf. on Decz-
tuning of first axis is started at 0.11 second and ended sion and Control, pp. 2419-2423, 2000.
at 0.26 second because the error goes over the dotted [5] V. Chellaboina, W. M. Haddad, and
line ( l / & = 0.408) for the first time as shown in Fig- T. Hayakawa, “Direct adaptive control for non-
ure 5.(c). Also, the error of second axis goes over the linear matrix second-order dynamical systems with
dotted linc from 0.13 to 0.24 second. Finally, since the state-dependent uncertainty,” PTOC.of the Amencan
error of third axis goes over the dotted line downward Control Conference, pp. 4247-4252, 2001.
twice, the auto-tuning is implemented twice as shown (61 R. Ortega and M. W. Spang, “Adaptive motion
in Figure 5.(d). The experimental result of Figure 5.(a) control of rigid robots: A tutorial,” IEEE Conf. on
shows that the target performance is achieved after 0.6 Decision and Control, pp. 1575-1584, 1988.
second when the auto-tuning is finished.
Proceedings of the American Control Conference
355 Denver, Colorado June 4-6.2W3