energies

Article
Toolface Control Method for a Dynamic Point-the-Bit
Rotary Steerable Drilling System
Weiliang Wang , Yanfeng Geng *, Ning Wang, Xiaojiao Pu and Joice de Oliveira Fiaux
School of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao 266580, China;
weiliangwang1988@163.com (W.W.); ningw_upc@163.com (N.W.); dghm1454@163.com (X.P.);
ls1702021@s.upc.edu.cn (J.d.O.F.)
* Correspondence: gengyf@upc.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-532-8698-3465




Received: 14 April 2019; Accepted: 7 May 2019; Published: 14 May 2019


Abstract: In the dynamic point-the-bit rotary steerable system (DPRSS), a high dynamic stiffness
toolface control method is desired to ensure the stabilized platform traces the directional command
accurately and quickly. A three-loop compound toolface control method using the Model-based Active
Disturbance Rejection Control (MADRC) algorithm is presented, and a load torque estimator and an
outer housing speed estimator are designed based on system model to obtain the external disturbances.
The proposed toolface control method was verified by numerical simulation and DPRSS prototype
testing, and its speed loop frequency responses are analyzed. The results reveal that this method
is effective in disturbance rejection and robust against parameter uncertainties, and the MADRC
shows better performance compared with the conventional ADRC and the proportional-integral (PI)
controller. The proposed method has the potential to be used in harsh drilling conditions.

Keywords: dynamic point-the-bit rotary steerable system (DPRSS); model-based active rejection
control (MADRC); disturbance estimator; toolface control

1. Introduction
Directional drilling technology is the science of deviating a borehole along a predefined path.
With the growing demands of new oil and gas drilling technology, the traditional drilling equipment
has difficulty in covering these demands. The rotary steerable system (RSS) is the latest technology
that improves drilling accuracy and increases the rate of penetration [1,2].
As can be seen in Figure 1, the downhole drilling equipment consists of the drill string, the
measurement while drilling (MWD) instrument, the RSS, and the drilling bit. The drill string applies
the drilling torque and the weight on bit (WOB), the MWD is used for real-time drilling parameters
measurement, and the RSS connects to the bit and changes the bit orientation directly.
The bit direction is described by an angle named the toolface. Generally, the RSS has two essential
parts: the first one, named the bit steering unit, is used to apply steering force to the bit; the other one,
named the geostationary unit, is used to determine the toolface while the drilling string is rotating.
Two kinds of steering units are used, the first one applies a side force to the borehole by three pads,
which is known as ‘push-the-bit,’ and the second one uses a dual-eccentric ring to change the bit
steering directly, which is called ‘point-the-bit.’ The second one is of particular interest because its
performance is independent of formation quality. There are also two kinds of geostationary units, the
first one having an independent outer housing which does not rotate or rotates very slowly relative
to the drilling string, called ‘static RSS’, and the second one is known as ‘dynamic RSS’, having a
closed-loop-controlled stabilized platform which is geostationary while the drilling string is rotating [3].
Based on the combination of the steering units and geostationary units, four kinds of directional
drilling tools are developed.

Energies 2019, 12, 1831; doi:10.3390/en12101831 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2019, 12, 1831 2 of 20
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21

Drill String

RSS
Bit
MWD

Figure 1. Schematic of the directional drilling system.

Figure 1. Schematic of the directional drilling system.
This paper focuses on the dynamic point-the-bit rotary steerable system (DPRSS), its geostationary
unit isThe bit directionstabilized
a motor-driven is described by an and
platform, angle thenamed
steering theunit
toolface.
is fixed Generally,
at one end the of RSS has two
the platform.
essential parts: the first one, named the bit steering unit, is used to apply
Hence, the toolface is operated by changing the stabilized platform angular position [4]. The steering steering force to the bit; the
other one, named the geostationary unit, is used to determine the
accuracy of DPRSS is determined by the performance of the stabilized platform control system. toolface while the drilling string is
rotating. the
However, Twodownhole
kinds of steering units are
disturbances, suchused,
as thetheload
first torque
one applies
and the a side
outerforce to thespeed,
housing borehole by
create
three pads, which is known as ‘push-the-bit,’
additional challenges to the controller design [3,5–9]. and the second one uses a dual-eccentric ring to change
the The
bit steering
structure directly,
of the RSS which is called
toolface ‘point-the-bit.’
control method isThe second one
summarized inisFigure
of particular
2, and itinterest
is alsobecause
suitable
its performance is independent of formation quality. There are also
for our DPRSS. The control method consists of four loops from inside to outside, namely, the currenttwo kinds of geostationary units,
the first
loop, one having
the motor speedan independent
loop, outerplatform
the stabilized housing speed which loop,
does and not rotate or rotates
the toolface loop.veryTheslowly
motor
relative to the drilling string, called ‘static RSS’, and the second one
is described by the transfer function, where s is the Laplace operator, L and R are the motor stator is known as ‘dynamic RSS’,
having a closed-loop-controlled stabilized platform which is geostationary
resistance and inductance, Km is the torque constant, Ke is the coefficient of counter electromotive while the drilling string
is rotating [3]. Based on the combination of the steering units and geostationary units, four kinds of
force, J is the total inertia of the stabilized platform and the motor, and B is the viscous coefficient.
directional drilling tools are developed.
ϕ, ωm and i denote the toolface, motor speed, and motor current, respectively. The load torque TL is
This paper focuses on the dynamic point-the-bit rotary steerable system (DPRSS), its
the disturbance of the motor speed loop, and the outer housing rotary speed ωh is the disturbance
geostationary unit is a motor-driven stabilized platform, and the steering unit is fixed at one end of
of the stabilized platform speed loop. Both the current loop and motor speed loop are designed to
the platform. Hence, the toolface is operated by changing the stabilized platform angular position [4].
improve motor performance. The stabilized platform speed loop is to suppress outer housing speed
The steering accuracy of DPRSS is determined by the performance of the stabilized platform control
fluctuations, and
Energies 2019, 12, thePEER
x FOR toolface
REVIEWloop is used to track the toolface reference. 3 of 21
system. However, the downhole disturbances, such as the load torque and the outer housing speed,
create additional challenges to the controller design [3,5–9].
K eωm Motor T ωh
The structure ofStabilized
the RSS∗toolface control method is summarized in Figure 2,L and it is also suitable
ϕ∗ Motor i
Toolface ϕ
∗
Platform ωm ϕ
∗
Current 1 i 1 ωm ϕ 1
for ourController
DPRSS. The control Speed
method consists
Speed of four loops
Controller
from
Inverter inside to
Ls + R
outside,
K m namely, the current
Controller Js + B s
loop, the motor speed loop, the stabilized
Controller platform speed loop, and the toolface loop. The motor is
Current Loop
described by the transfer function, where s is the Laplace Current Sensor
operator, L and R are the motor stator
resistance and inductance, K mMotor Speed
is the Loop constant,
torque K e Sensor
Motor Speed is the coefficient of counter electromotive
Stabilized Platform Speed Loop
force, J is the total inertia of the stabilized platform Gyroand the motor, and B is the viscous
Toolface Loop
coefficient. ϕ , ωm and i denote the toolface, motor speed,
Toolface Sensor and motor current, respectively. The
load torque TL is the disturbance of the motor speed loop, and the outer housing rotary speed ωh
Figure 2. Structure of the RSS toolface control method.
Figure 2. Structure
is the disturbance of the stabilized platformofspeed
the RSS toolface
loop. Bothcontrol method.
the current loop and motor speed loop
are Different
designed to improvein
structures motor performance.
Figure 2 have been The stabilized
used in RSS,platform speed loop structure
e.g., a three–loop is to suppress outera
without
Different structures in Figure 2 have been used in RSS, e.g., a three–loop structure without a
housing
stabilized speed fluctuations, and the toolface loop is used to track the toolface reference.
stabilizedplatform
platform speed
speed loop
loop was
was suggested
suggested byby Tang
Tang [10]
[10] and
and Zhang
Zhang [11].
[11]. The
The performance
performanceof ofthe
the
three–loop and four–loop structure using proportional-integral (PI) controllers was compared
three–loop and four–loop structure using proportional-integral (PI) controllers was compared in [12], in [12],
with the help of stabilized platform speed loop, the four–loop system has better outer housing speed
with the help of stabilized platform speed loop, the four–loop system has better outer housing speed
rejection
rejectionperformance,
performance,butbutthe four–loop
the four–loopstructure is complex
structure is complex since there
since are four
there controllers
are four that that
controllers need
toneed
be tuned.
to be tuned.
The control algorithm is another key factor for system performance. Controllers based on PID
[3,7,10,13], sliding mode control [5,14] and intelligent control [11] have been studied in the other types
of RSS drilling system, however, the DPRSS disturbances are time-varying with uncertainties, the
traditional PID algorithm cannot achieve high performance, and the others are too dependent on
mathematical models or too complex to implement on the downhole hardware.
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 3 of 20

The control algorithm is another key factor for system performance. Controllers based on
PID [3,7,10,13], sliding mode control [5,14] and intelligent control [11] have been studied in the other
types of RSS drilling system, however, the DPRSS disturbances are time-varying with uncertainties,
the traditional PID algorithm cannot achieve high performance, and the others are too dependent on
mathematical models or too complex to implement on the downhole hardware.
The ADRC is an emerging technology proposed by Han [15]. It has been adopted by the motor control
system to cope with vast uncertainties [16–18] and it is easy for downhole hardware implementation.
The ADRC can be designed model–independent, which is called conventional ADRC (CADRC).
Meanwhile, the model information can also be used in the ADRC algorithm, which is called model–based
active disturbance rejection control (MADRC). In our system, parts of the DRPSS dynamics are known,
which can be separated from the ESO to reduce estimation burden. In this way, the toolface tracking
performance can be improved.
In this paper, a three-loop compound toolface control system using the MADRC algorithm is
proposed. The stabilized platform is driven by a permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM), and
the field–oriented control (FOC) technique is applied. The theoretical model of the stabilized platform
is studied, a load torque estimator and an outer housing speed estimator are presented, based on the
system model, and the toolface MADRC controller and motor speed MADRC controller are designed.
The proposed toolface control method was verified by simulation and tested by a DPRSS prototype under
several typical drilling modes, including normal drilling, sticking, and the stick-slipping. The controller
robustness against parameter uncertainties and the toolface response performance were analyzed and
simulated. For comparison, the CADRC and PI algorithms were also implemented in simulation and
experimental tests. The proposed control method shows satisfactory performance and its application in
actual drilling operation would be explored in future work.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 includes the DPRSS working principle description
and stabilized platform modeling. Section 3 provides a short review of the MADRC algorithm and
shows a comprehensive explanation of the proposed toolface control method. Section 4 provides the
simulation and prototype test results. Section 5 provides the conclusion and future work.

2. The DPRSS Working Principle and Modeling of the Stabilized Platform

2.1. DPRSS Working Principle

In Figure 3, plane P is perpendicular to the wellbore axis, point A is the top of plane P, and point B
↔ ↔
is the intersection of the bit axis and plane P. The line OA is named the high side; the angle between OA
↔
and OB is the toolface, and it is denoted by ϕ. The toolface is defined between 0 and 360 deg, which
Energies 2019,
represents the12,intended
x FOR PEER REVIEWdirection. The DPRSS consists of four fundamental parts: the
drilling 4 ofouter
21

housing, the stabilized platform, the bit shaft, and the universal joint. The outer housing connects to
fundamental parts: the outer housing, the stabilized platform, the bit shaft, and the universal joint.
the drill string and rotates at the same speed as it. The drilling torque and the WOB are transmitted
The outer housing connects to the drill string and rotates at the same speed as it. The drilling torque
from outer housing to bit through the universal joint. The steering unit is assembled on the stabilized
and the WOB are transmitted from outer housing to bit through the universal joint. The steering unit
platform, and the bit shaft connects eccentrically to the steering unit.
is assembled on the stabilized platform, and the bit shaft connects eccentrically to the steering unit.

Figure 3. Structural schematic of the DPRSS.

Figure 3. Structural schematic of the DPRSS.
The stabilized platform is the core part of DPRSS, it is equipped with an angular position control
systemThe
andstabilized platform
remains nearly is the core part
geostationary of DPRSS,
while it is housing
the outer equippediswith an angular
rotating. positiontoolface
The desired control is
system and remains nearly geostationary while the outer housing is rotating. The desired toolface is
achieved by changing the stabilized platform angular position. It is clear that the DPRSS bit steering
precision highly depends on the stabilized platform toolface control performance.
In drilling engineering, the toolface is monitored by the field engineer, and the desired toolface
is updated based on the formation characteristics. According to the field engineer experience, the
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 4 of 20

achieved by changing the stabilized platform angular position. It is clear that the DPRSS bit steering
precision highly depends on the stabilized platform toolface control performance.
In drilling engineering, the toolface is monitored by the field engineer, and the desired toolface
is updated based on the formation characteristics. According to the field engineer experience, the
DPRSS toolface tracking error should be less than ±15 deg, otherwise the bit cannot reach the target
reservoir successfully.

2.2. The Stabilized Platform Modeling

In the synchronous d–q frame, the PMSM mathematical model is:
 .
 ud = Ld .id + Rs id − pn λωm Lq iq


(1)
 uq = Lq iq + Rs iq + pn λωm (Ld id + ψ f )



where ud and uq , id and iq , Ld and Lq denote the stator voltage, stator current, and the stator winding
inductance of the d–axis and q–axis, respectively. Rs is the stator winding resistance, ψ f is the permanent
magnet flux, and pn is the number of pole pairs.
The PMSM is a complex nonlinear system with multi-variables and strong coupling. By applying
the field oriented control (FOC) technique, the id controller is designed to keep id nearly zero, and then
the torque- and flux-producing components are approximately decoupled; the PMSM electromagnetic
torque Te is only related to the q–axis motor current [19]:

Te = Km iq (2)

where Km is the motor torque constant. In this case, the PMSM model is simplified, and its torque can
be controlled by an iq controller.
Based on Newton’s 2nd law for rotation, the stabilized platform kinematic equation is:
.
Te − TL − Bλωm − T f = Jλωm (3)

where Te , TL , B, T f , and J are the PMSM electromagnetic torque, load torque, friction factor, static
friction torque, and total inertia, respectively, λ = 2π/360 is a unit transform factor, and the term Bλωm
denotes the viscous friction torque.
Considering the toolface is determined by the outer housing speed ωh and motor speed ωm , from
the DPRSS structure shown in Figure 3, we can obtain:
.
ϕ = ωm + ωh (4)

Considering B, T f , and J are constants, the toolface is linearly related to ωm and iq , the drilling
dynamics are considered in terms of the load torque and the outer housing speed, which are nonlinear
and time-varying. The load torque and outer housing speed are difficult to measure immediately,
hence, they are treated as disturbances in the control system design.

3. DPRSS Toolface Control Method

The q–axis current, motor speed, and toolface are controlled separately using a three–loop
compound structure. In this way, we reduce the stabilized platform to three first–order objects, and
then, the MADRC algorithm is applied in the motor speed loop and toolface loop to achieve high
dynamic performance in the overall operating range.

3.1. MADRC Framework and Algorithm

The MADRC diagram is shown in Figure 4, and consists of four items: the tracking differentiator
(TD), the extend state observer (ESO), the state error feedback (SEF) control law, and the model–based
compound structure. In this way, we reduce the stabilized platform to three first–order objects, and
then, the MADRC algorithm is applied in the motor speed loop and toolface loop to achieve high
dynamic performance in the overall operating range.

3.1. MADRC Framework and Algorithm

Energies 2019, 12, 1831 5 of 20
The MADRC diagram is shown in Figure 4, and consists of four items: the tracking differentiator
(TD), the extend state observer (ESO), the state error feedback (SEF) control law, and the model–
compensation
based (MC). The
compensation ESOThe
(MC). is used
ESOtoisestimate
used to the total unknown
estimate the total disturbances; the SEF generates
unknown disturbances; the SEF u0
generates u0 to restrain the residual error and achieve the desired control goal; the TD is to arrange
to restrain the residual error and achieve the desired control goal; the TD is to arrange the transition
process,
the and itprocess,
transition can be omitted in the
and it can be first-order
omitted insystem. The three
the first-order items mentioned
system. abovementioned
The three items constitute
the CADRC [15]. The MC, which generates the estimation of available disturbance
above constitute the CADRC [15]. The MC, which generates the estimation of available disturbance value f0 , is an
improvement of the CADRC, and it needs to be designed based on the object model.
value f , is an improvement of the CADRC, and it needs to be designed based on the object model.
0

Figure 4. Block
Block diagram
diagram of
of the
the MADRC.
MADRC.

Considering a typical first–order single–input single–output system:

1 =FF +WW((tt))++b(bt()tu)u
( . 
x1 x= (x(1x,1t, )t )+
 (5)
(5)
y=y =x1x1

where yy(t()t )∈∈RR is

where is the
the output,
output, the
the FF((xx11,, tt )) is
is the
the real–valued
real–valued function
function of
of the state xx11 ∈
the state ∈R W((tt)) ∈
R,, W ∈RR is
is the
the
external disturbance, uu((tt)) ∈ ∈RR is the control input. Owing to uncertainties, it is hard to fully know know the
the
FF((xx11,,t) and the WW((tt),, but
but we
we can
can separate
separate the theknown
knownpart
partfrom
fromthem.
them. Rewrite
Rewrite (5)
(5) as
as
.
x1 = (xF1 (=x(1F 1 , tF)0−
, t()x− (xF10,(tx)1 ,+ +W
t) W ) −W
(t()t− W00((tt)) ++(b(b(t()t)−−
b0b)0u))u+)(+
F0 (( Fx10,(tx) 1+, W (t ))W+0b(0tu)) + b0 u
t)0+
(6)
(6)
= f +=ff0++f 0b+0 ub0u

where f f == FF((xx11,, tt)) −

−FF00((xx1 ,1t,)t)+ +
W (W t )(−t)W−0 (W
t ) 0+((tb)(+
t ) −(bb(0t))u− represents the unknown
b0 )u represents objectobject
the unknown dynamics and
dynamics
and external
external disturbances,
disturbances, which which are called
are called totaltotal unknownunknown disturbances,
disturbances, the parameter
the parameter uncertainties
uncertainties are
also included in f . f 0 =0F0 ( x1 ,0t ) +1 W0 (t ) denotes
are also included in f . f = F ( x , t ) + W 0 ( t ) denotes the known dynamics and external
the known dynamics and external disturbances, anddisturbances,
and is obtained
is obtained by the MC.by the MC.
Considering ff asasananaugmented
Considering augmentedstate, state,we wecan canwritewriteEquation
Equation(6)(6)as:as:
 .
 x1 = x2 + f0 + b0 u
 .



 x2 = h (7)

 y=x
1

In Equation (7), the x2 = f is the augmented state, according to [20], the states of the augmented
first–order system in Equation (7) are observable. Then, the unique ESO for Equation (7) is:

 e = z1 − y
 .

z1 = z2 − β1 e + b0 u + f0

 (8)
 z. = −β f al(e, α, δ)


2 2

where z1 and z2 are the estimation values of y and f , and β1 and β2 are the observer gains. Compared
with the CADRC, which treats all dynamics and external disturbances as unknown, the MADRC
separates f0 from the ESO output z2 , which lightens the ESO burden. This is helpful to reduce the ESO
estimation error. The nonlinear function f al(e, α, δ) is [15]:

e
= ke e |e| ≤ δ
(
f al(e, α, δ) = δ1−α (9)
sign(e)|e|α |e| > δ
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 6 of 20

The f al function plays an important role in the ADRC framework, it has both linear and nonlinear
region, its linear region is to prevent high–frequency chattering. It is obvious that Equation (8) is in
the form of classical Luenberger observer when α = 1, and it is in the form of a variable structure
observer when α = 0. Generally, the ADRC adopts 0 < α < 1, in this case, the ESO does not converge
to sliding mode but to the ‘self–stable region’, it also yields relatively high gain when the error is small
and small gain when the error is large [21]. The gains β1 and β2 are determined based on observer
cut–off frequency ω0 [22,23]:
β1 = 2ω0
(
(10)
β2 = ω0 2
With the ESO properly designed, z2 is expected to converge to the unknown disturbance f ,
Equation (5) can now be dynamically compensated with:

(−z2 − f0 + u0 )
u= (11)
b0

Substituting Equation (7) into Equation (6):

.
y= ( f + f0 − z2 − f0 ) + u0 ≈ u0 (12)

It is clear that the object is reduced to an approximate unit–gain integrator transfer function, which
is easy to be controlled by the following SEF:

ec = y∗ − z1
(
(13)
u0 = Kp f al(ec , α, δ)

where y∗ is the reference, Kp is determined by closed loop cut–off frequency. The nonlinear function
f al generates a large equivalent controller gain while ec is small, and vice versa. The nonlinear control
law has been proved to be more efficient than the linear one [21].

3.2. Load Torque and Outer Housing Speed Estimators

The typical value of total inertia, friction factor, and static friction are determined based on the motor
parameter and the DPRSS structure, but the load torque and outer housing speed are immeasurable
and need to be estimated.
Considering the iq and ωm are obtained by sensors, the load torque TL can be estimated by:
.
TL = Km iq − Jλωm − Bλωm − T f (14)

A low–pass filter is used to suppress the high–frequency noise, and then, the estimator is shown as:

Km iq (s)−Jλsωm (s)−Bλωm (s)−T f

T̂L (s) = T0 s+1
J
Km iq (s)−(B− T )λωm (s)−T f (15)
Jλ
T0 ωm (s)
0
= T0 s+1 −

where T0 is the time constant of low pass filter. The discrete load observer using the backward Euler’s
method is:



 B = B − J/T0

TL (k) = (TL (k − 1) + (Km iq (k) − T f )h/T0 − Bhλωm (k)/T0 )/(1 + h/T0 ) (16)




 T̂L (k) = TL (k) − Jλωm (k)/T0


where T̂L is the estimator output, h is the sample period, k is the kth sample time, B and TL are two
intermediate variables. Although the larger T0 leads to better estimation performance in the steady
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 7 of 20

state, the observer dynamic response becomes slow. T0 depends on the application requirements; in
our application, T0 is 0.001 s.
In addition to the load torque, the outer housing speed is still unknown. Owing to the limitation
.
of DPRSS structure, it is hard to install sensors on the outer housing. Considering that ϕ is easily
obtained by installing a gyro inside the stabilized platform sensor package, we utilize Equation (4) to
estimate the outer housing speed ω̂h :
.
ω̂h = ϕ − ωm (17)
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
3.3. Design of the DPRSS Toolface Control Method
where bm0 = Km / J λ is a constant. iq in Equation (3) is replaced by the current loop reference iq∗ ,
The toolface control method block diagram is shown in Figure 5. Considering that the id current
ˆ
m 0 (TL , ωloop
and can
loop f m bedenotes thethetotal
designed sameunknown disturbances.
as the iq controller, the id fcurrent m ) isisthe speedin loop
omitted MC,
Figure which
5. The PMSMis
designed as:
is also described by transfer function to meet an agreement with Figure 2, and the coefficient of counter
electromotive force Ke is pn ψ f λ. The subscripts m 1and t denote the speed loop terms and toolface loop
terms, respectively. f m 0 (TˆL , ωm ) = − (TˆL + Bλωm + T f ) (19)
Jλ

K eωm PMSM TL ωh
ϕ ∗
ω ∗
Motor ∗
i 1 iq Te ωm ϕ ϕ
Toolface m q
iq Current 1 1
Speed Inverter Km
Controller Controller Lq s + Rs J λ s + Bλ s
Controller
Current Loop iq
Current Sensor
Motor Speed Loop ωm
Motor Speed Sensor
ϕ
Gyro
Toolface Loop ϕ
Toolface Sensor

Toolface Controller Motor Speed Controller

ωm∗ emc iq∗
ϕ ∗ etc ωm∗ K mp 1/bm0
K tp fal ( etc , 0.5, 2 ) 1/bt0 - -
- - bm0
bt0
ωˆ h Outer Housing ωˆ h
f m 0 (TˆL , ωm )
Speed Estimator
TˆL
ωm ωm
Load Torque
ϕ Estimator
iq
zt 2 zm 2
zt 1 ESO
ϕ zm1 ESO

Figure 5. The scheme of the toolface control method.

Figure 5. The scheme of the toolface control method.

The iq current loop controller adopts the PI algorithm, its controller parameters were tuned
By applying the linear formation of fal , where fal ( e,1, δ ) =e , the speed loop ESO is:
by the frequency domain design method. The motor speed loop and the toolface loop adopt the
MADRC algorithm.  emo = zm1 − ωm
Define states xm1 = ωm and xm2 = fm , we rewrite Equation (3) as:
 zm1 = zm 2 + f m 0 (TˆL , ωm ) − 2ωmo emo + bm 0iq
∗
(20)
 .

 zmx2m1= =−ωmo2
emo(T̂L , ωm ) + xm2 + bm0 iq
fm0 ∗

 .
 .
x the=errorf m equation of Equation (20) is: (18)
Let emi = xmi − zmi (i = 1,2) , then,
 m2


 ym = xm1

 em1   −2ωmo 1  em1  0 
where bm0 = Km /Jλ is a constant. iqin  =  2 (3) is replaced
Equation   +  by  f mthe current loop reference i∗q , and
(21) fm
em 2   −ωmo 0 em 2  1
denotes the total unknown disturbances. fm0 (T̂L , ωm ) is the speed loop MC, which is designed as:
−2ωmo 1
The roots of the characteristic polynomial of1  are −ω , which are all in the left half
fm0 (T̂L , ωm ) = − (T̂−Lω+
2
0 m + T f ) mo
mo Bλω (19)
Jλ
plane, considering f comes from a physical system which varies continuously, the f is bounded,
m m

then,Byitapplying thethat
is obvious linear
the formation f al, where
speed loopofESO f al(e, 1, δ) =bound–output
is bounded–input e, the speed loop ESOthe
stable, is: f can be
m

estimated.
The linear formation of fal is also used in the speed loop SEF design, which is given by:

emc = ωm∗ − zm1

∗ (22)
i = (K e − z − f (Tˆ , ω )) / b
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 8 of 20



 emo = zm1 − ωm
 .

m1 = zm2 + fm0 (T̂L , ωm ) − 2ωmo emo + bm0 iq
∗

 z (20)
 .
 zm2 = −ω2mo emo



Let emi = xmi − zmi (i = 1, 2), then, the error equation of Equation (20) is:
" . # " #" # " #
em1 −2ωmo 1 em1 0 .
. = + fm (21)
em2 −ω2mo 0 em2 1
" #
−2ωmo 1
The roots of the characteristic polynomial of are −ωmo , which are all in the left half
−ω2mo 0
.
plane, considering fm comes from a physical system which varies continuously, the f m is bounded, then,
it is obvious that the speed loop ESO is bounded–input bound–output stable, the fm can be estimated.
The linear formation of f al is also used in the speed loop SEF design, which is given by:

emc = ω∗m − zm1

(
(22)
i∗q = (Kmp emc − zm2 − fm0 (T̂L , ωm ))/bm0

Once the speed loop MADRC controller is designed, we use ωmr instead of ωm . Define states
xt1 = ϕ, xt2 = ft , and then, the state equation of Equation (4) is:
 .

 xt1 = xt2 + ft0 (ω̂h ) + bt0 ωmr

 .
 .

 xt2 = f t (23)

 yt = xt1


where the bt0 = 1 is a constant. The MC of the toolface MADRC controller is:
.
ft0 (ω̂h ) = ω̂h = ϕ − ωm (24)

Remark 1. Equation (24) combines gyro measurements in the toolface loop, comparing with the direct use of
gyro measurements, for example, the stabilized platform speed control loop [12], the gyro turns into an auxiliary
measurements in the proposed toolface control loop, the gyro drift is lumped in the unknown disturbance and
estimated by ESO, and then the gyro drift effect is reduced.

The nonlinear f al is applied in the toolface loop to improve control performance, the ESO and
SEF are given by:
eto = zt1 − ϕ


. .

zt1 = zt2 + ft0 (ϕ, ωm ) − βt1 eto + ωmr




 .



 zt2 = −βt2 f al(eto , 0.5, 0.5) (25)
ϕ ∗−z



 e tc = t1

 ω = K f al(e , 0.5, 2) − z − f (ϕ, .
ωm )

mr tp tc t2 t0
. .
Assuming f t ≤ f t is bounded, which is reasonable in the DRPSS application because its
disturbances can be treated as continuously varying, then, referring to [24], the steady–state errors of
. 2 . 2
the toolface loop ESO are |zt1 − xt1 | ≤ ( f t /ωt0 2 ) and |zt2 − xt2 | ≤ 2ωt0 ( f t /ωt0 2 ) , it is obvious that the
ESO estimation errors are bounded.
For DPRSS applications, the reference signal mainly remains constant, the disturbances come
from the physical system and varies continuously, then, the external disturbances, the reference signal,
and their derivatives are all bounded; hence, the toolface control system is convergent [23,25], but its
performance depends on the controller parameters.
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 9 of 20

4. Simulation and DPRSS Prototype Experiment

The numerical simulation and DPRSS prototype experiments were performed to verify the
controller performance, besides the proposed toolface control method, the CADRC strategy and the PI
algorithm were also used for comparison. The CADRC strategy was realized by deleting the fm0 and
ft0 terms in the MADRC.
The control method simulation was carried out, the controller robustness against parameter
uncertainties and the toolface response performance in the presence of various disturbances were
presented. Then, the control method was implemented on the DPRSS prototype to test its capability.
The typical values of PMSM parameter, which were used in the simulation, load torque estimator, and
speed loop MADRC controller, are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Specification of the PMSM.

Rated Power 452 W Rated Voltage 48 V

Rated Current 4.7 A Pole Pairs 4
Stator Inductance 0.0021383 H Stator Resistance 1.52 Ohm
Rated Speed 2280 RPM Total Inertia 1.4490 × 10−5 kgm2
Rated Torque 0.69 Nm Torque Constant 0.12887 Nm/Apeak
EnergiesStatic x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.0115 Nm
Friction
2019, 12, Viscous Coefficient 0.00008 Nms10 of 21

4.1.
4.1. Toolface
Toolface Control
Control Method
Method Simulation
Simulation
As
As shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 6,
6, the
the control
control method
method was
was simulated
simulated byby Simulink
Simulink software.
software. The
The current
current loop
loop
and PMSM were combined in one block. The speed loop control algorithm and
and PMSM were combined in one block. The speed loop control algorithm and the toolface loop the toolface loop
control algorithmwere
control algorithm wereperformed
performed by different
by different blocks.
blocks. Thetorque
The load load disturbance
torque disturbance TL was
TL was simulated
simulated
as follows as follows [11]:
[11]:
TLT==T LS + TLC sin ϕ (26)
L TLS + TLC sin ϕ (26)
where T is the steering torque, and TLC sin ϕ denotes the eccentric torque which is caused by the
where TLS LS is the steering torque, and TLC sin ϕ denotes the eccentric torque which is caused by the
eccentrically located receptacle of steering unit.
eccentrically located receptacle of steering unit.

Figure 6. Simulation diagram of the toolface control method.

Figure 6. Simulation diagram of the toolface control method.
The outer housing speed is the primary disturbance and it is time-varying. Particularly, the
stick-slipouter
The housing
condition whichspeedis aisperiodic
the primary disturbance
stopping (sticking)and
andit is time-varying.
overshooting Particularly,
(slipping) of thethe stick-
angular
slip condition
velocity which isit is
is considered, a periodic
caused bystopping (sticking)
the drilling assembly and overshooting
stick-slip torsional(slipping)
vibration. ofTypically,
the angularthe
velocity
stick-slipisbaseband
considered, it is caused
frequency is lessby the3.14
than drilling
rad/sassembly
[26], and stick-slip
the peak bittorsional
rotationvibration.
rate may Typically,
be several
the
timesstick-slip baseband
that of the operatingfrequency
rotationisrate.
less than 3.14 rad/s [26], and the peak bit rotation rate may be
severalThetimes that of the
controllers were operating
tuned basedrotation
on rate.
the method presented in [22]. bt0 = 1 is a constant, and
bm0 = TheKmcontrollers
/Jλ can be were tunedusing
calculated basedthe onmotor
the method presented
parameter, in [22].
the other bt 0 =1 isneed
parameters a constant, and
to be tuned
bm0 = Konm / J λ can be calculated using the motor parameter, the other parameters need to be tuned
based the disturbance characteristics. The ESO gains cannot be smaller than the closed loop cut–off
based on the disturbance characteristics. The ESO gains cannot be smaller than the closed loop cut–
off frequency, and it is known that the higher bandwidth leads to better controller tracking
performance. However, it cannot be too large to ensure the control signal under physical limits, such
as the motor rated current and rated speed limitations. Considering the toolface loop bandwidth
should be larger than 3.14 rad/s to suppress stick-slip disturbance, and the motor speed loop cut–off
 Energies 2019, 12, 1831 10 of 20

frequency, and it is known that the higher bandwidth leads to better controller tracking performance.
However, it cannot be too large to ensure the control signal under physical limits, such as the motor
rated current and rated speed limitations. Considering the toolface loop bandwidth should be larger
than 3.14 rad/s to suppress stick-slip disturbance, and the motor speed loop cut–off frequency can be
selected 10–20 times that of the toolface loop, we selected the Kmp = ωmo = 31.4 as the initial values,
then, the Kmp and ωmo were increased step by step until the control signal reached the physical limits.
Following such a tuning procedure, the toolface loop controller was tuned by setting Ktp = ωto = 3.14
as the initial values. The final controller parameters are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Controller parameters.

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWKmp 555 Ktp 40 11 of 21

ωmo 555 ωto 65
as follows: (1)bt0the ω =1800deg/s
∗
The simulation process was
bm0carried out509,831 1 step reference change
is added at t = 0 s; and (2) the steering load torque step change is added at t = 0.25 s. Considering the
4.1.1. The Motor Speed Loop Simulation
stabilized platform mechanical characteristics, the TLC is 0.0014 Nm. Due to the steering torque TLS
The motor
is linear related speed
to the WOBloop [27],
was simulated
based onfirstly. The motor
the DPRSS speed controller
mechanical sampling
structure [4]time
andwas
the0.5field
ms. WOB
The CADRC and a well–tuned PI controller were also employed for comparison, and the CADRC uses
data [28], we assumed a set of TLS data which is calculated by:
the parameters in Table 2.
out as follows: (1) the ω∗ = 1800deg/s step reference change (27)
L =0.2 + 0.048sin(π t ) + 0.0014 sin ϕ
The simulation process wasTcarried
is added at t = 0 s; and (2) the steering load torque step change is added at t = 0.25 s. Considering
The
themotor speed
stabilized responses
platform of MADRC,
mechanical CADRC,
characteristics, the Tand PI areNm.
LC is 0.0014 shownDueinto Figure 7. Ittorque
the steering is observed
T is linear related to the WOB [27], based on the DPRSS mechanical structure [4] and
that all three controllers can track the reference step change and reject the load torque disturbance.
LS the field WOB
data [28], we assumed
The MADRC and CADRC take 0.023 a set of T data which is calculated by:
LS s to suppress the disturbance, but the PI controller needs 0.103

s. The maximum speed tracking errors TL = 0.2in+the presence

0.048 sin(πt) +of loadsin
0.0014 torque
ϕ disturbance for the (27) MADRC,
the CADRC, and the PI controller are 622 deg/s, 1116 deg/s, and 1243 deg/s, respectively. The results
reveal thatThethemotor
MADRC speedisresponses of MADRC,
more effective, whichCADRC,
showsandthePIbest
are shown in Figure
reference 7. It is
tracking observed
and disturbance
that all three controllers can track the reference
rejection performance in the motor speed loop simulation. step change and reject the load torque disturbance.
The MADRC and CADRC take 0.023 s to suppress the disturbance, but the PI controller needs 0.103 s.
The ESO estimated unknown disturbances of MADRC and CADRC are shown in Figure 8. It can
The maximum speed tracking errors in the presence of load torque disturbance for the MADRC, the
be seen that the unknown disturbance of MADRC is much smaller than that of CADRC, which means
CADRC, and the PI controller are 622 deg/s, 1116 deg/s, and 1243 deg/s, respectively. The results reveal
the ESOthatestimation
the MADRC burden
is more is reduced
effective, as desired.
which shows theThe
best load observer
reference output
tracking is also compared
and disturbance rejection with
the load torque in in
performance Figure 9, and
the motor theloop
speed observer output follows the load torque well.
simulation.

Figure 7. CADRC, MADRC, and PI response curves.

Figure 7. CADRC, MADRC, and PI response curves.

1000
MADRC
f
 Energies 2019, 12, 1831 11 of 20

The ESO estimated unknown disturbances of MADRC and CADRC are shown in Figure 8. It can
be seen that the unknown disturbance of MADRC is much smaller than that of CADRC, which means
Figure
the ESO estimation burden 7. CADRC,
is reduced MADRC,
as desired. Theand
loadPI response
observer curves.
output is also compared with the
load torque in Figure 9, and the observer output follows the load torque well.

1000
MADRC
Unknown disturbance of

CADRC
speed loop(deg/s2)

-1000

-2000

-3000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time(s)
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21
Figure 8. The ESO estimated unknown disturbance of CADRC and MADRC in the speed loop.
Figure 8. The ESO estimated unknown disturbance of CADRC and MADRC in the speed loop.

Figure 9. The load torque variation and load torque observer output.
Figure 9. The load torque variation and load torque observer output.
4.1.2. The Toolface Control Method Simulation
4.1.2. TheThe
Toolface Control
toolface controlMethod
method Simulation.
was simulated with various outer housing speed disturbances.
The toolface controller sampling time was 10 ms. The CADRC was used to compare response
The toolface control method was simulated with various outer housing speed disturbances. The
performance, and the parameter uncertainties of the load torque estimator were studied.
toolface controller samplingwastime
The load disturbance wasas10
the same thems. The
one in CADRC
motor was used
speed simulation, andtofourcompare response
typical outer
performance, and the
housing speed parameter
disturbances areuncertainties
shown in Figure of the loadouter
10. The torque estimator
housing were studied.
is stationary in the first part,
The
whichload disturbance
represents was the
the ‘making same as the
a connection’ oneprocess,
drilling in motor speed simulation,
meanwhile, the toolfaceand four changes
reference typical outer
housing
fromspeed disturbances
0 to 180 deg. Then, aare 720shown in Figure
deg/s speed step is10. The outer
applied, whichhousing
represents is stationary
the drilling in the first part,
equipment
which starts to drill. The
represents thethird part isaa negative
‘making connection’step, drilling
which occurs while meanwhile,
process, the bit is sticking,
the and the fourth
toolface reference
part is a typical outer housing speed under stick-slip vibration; the rotation
changes from 0 to 180 deg. Then, a 720 deg/s speed step is applied, which represents the drilling speed comes from a set of
raw data
equipment which
starts toacquired
drill. The from thepart
third drilling
is asite.
negative step, which occurs while the bit is sticking, and
As can be seen in Figure 11. At t = 0 s, the 180 deg step reference is added, the CADRC and
the fourth part is a typical outer housing speed under stick-slip vibration; the rotation speed comes
MADRC response curves are similar, but the MADRC shows better disturbance rejection performance
from ata set of raw data which acquired from the drilling site.
the beginning of the second part. In the following part, the negative step disturbance is added,
As
the can be seen
maximum in Figure
toolface errors11.
for At t = 0 and
CADRC s, the 180 deg
MADRC step
are 20 degreference
and 4.5 deg,is added, the CADRC
respectively, and the and
MADRC MADRC response
reduces curves are similar,
77.5% tracking butCADRC.
error of the the MADRC
In the lastshows better oscillations
part, sustained disturbance canrejection
be
performance
observed:atthetheMADRC
beginning of the
tracking second
error is 1.1part. In the
deg, but thatfollowing
of the CADRC part,isthe
4.9negative
deg. In Figurestep disturbance
12, the
is added, the maximum
ESO estimated unknowntoolface errors for
disturbance CADRCfollows
of CADRC and MADRC
the outerare 20 deg
housing andvariation,
speed 4.5 deg, respectively,
but the
and the MADRC reduces 77.5% tracking error of the CADRC. In the last part, sustained oscillations
can be observed: the MADRC tracking error is 1.1 deg, but that of the CADRC is 4.9 deg. In Figure
12, the ESO estimated unknown disturbance of CADRC follows the outer housing speed variation,
but the one of MADRC is nearly zero, which reveals the MADRC disturbance estimation burden was
 MADRC response curves are similar, but the MADRC shows better disturbance rejection
performance at the beginning of the second part. In the following part, the negative step disturbance
is added, the maximum toolface errors for CADRC and MADRC are 20 deg and 4.5 deg, respectively,
and the MADRC reduces 77.5% tracking error of the CADRC. In the last part, sustained oscillations
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 12 of 20
can be observed: the MADRC tracking error is 1.1 deg, but that of the CADRC is 4.9 deg. In Figure
12, the ESO estimated unknown disturbance of CADRC follows the outer housing speed variation,
one of
but the one ofMADRC
MADRC is nearly zero,zero,
is nearly whichwhich
reveals reveals
the MADRC
the disturbance estimation burden
MADRC disturbance was reduced,
estimation burden was
and the disturbance rejection performance was improved as desired.
reduced, and the disturbance rejection performance was improved as desired.

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21

Figure 10. The outer housing speed disturbance.
Figure 10. The outer housing speed disturbance.

Figure 11. The toolface response curves.

Figure 11. The toolface response curves.
Figure 11. The toolface response curves.

Figure 12. The ESO estimated disturbances of CADRC and MADRC in the toolface loop.
Figure 12. The ESO estimated disturbances of CADRC and MADRC in the toolface loop.
Figure
4.1.3. 12. Theand
Robustness ESO estimatedRejection
Disturbance disturbances of CADRC
Performance and MADRC in the toolface loop.
Analysis
4.1.3. Robustness and Disturbance
The DPRSS Rejection
is operated in harsh Performance
drilling conditions, the Analysis
parameter uncertainties in Equation (16)
4.1.3. Robustness and Disturbance Rejection Performance Analysis
and the disturbance rejection performance in the presence of various disturbances need to be considered.
The DPRSS is operated in harsh drilling conditions, the parameter uncertainties in Equation (16)
The DPRSS is operated in harsh drilling conditions, the parameter uncertainties in Equation (16)
and the disturbance rejection performance in the presence of various disturbances need to be
and the disturbance rejection performance in the presence of various disturbances need to be
considered. Since the stabilized platform is sealed inside the outer housing, the total inertia is mainly
considered. Since the stabilized platform is sealed inside the outer housing, the total inertia is mainly
affected by bit inertia variation, such as the bit balling, which increases the bit inertia, and the bit
affected by bit inertia variation, such as the bit balling, which increases the bit inertia, and the bit
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 13 of 20

Since the stabilized platform is sealed inside the outer housing, the total inertia is mainly affected by
bit inertia variation, such as the bit balling, which increases the bit inertia, and the bit wear, which
decrease the bit inertia. The friction factor is mainly affected by the bearing friction which is related to
temperature and bearing load. The motor torque constant is reduced with the increasing of temperature.
Considering bit wear [29], bit balling, bear friction variation and motor flux linkage variation [30], the
error of J, B and Km was assumed to be ±20%, −90% to +100%, and −40% to 0%, respectively. Note
that the controller parameters were the same during the simulation.
Considering the parameter uncertainties and load torque disturbance are included in the speed
loop, its tracking and disturbance rejection performances in the presence of parameter uncertainties
are analyzed.
Since the speed loop MADRC is a linear controller, its frequency response can be obtained by its
transfer function. Additionally, since the transient of the current loop is negligible compared with
that of the speed loop, for the sake of simplicity, we use i∗q instead of iq in the derivation, and the static
friction torque is omitted. The MADRC transfer function is derived based on the CADRC transfer
function which was initially presented in [31]. By converting the MADRC algorithm to the frequency
domain using the Laplace transform, it is possible to obtain Equation (28) from Equations (15), (19),
(20), and (22):
G2 (s)ω∗m (s) − G3 (s)ωm (s) − G4 (s) fm0 (s)
i∗q (s) = (28)
G1 ( s )
where G1 (s), G2 (s), G3 (s), and G4 (s) are listed in the Appendix A, specifically. If G4 (s) is set to 0, the
MADRC is equivalent to the CADRC. The block diagram shown in Figure 13 is derived to obtain the
closed–loop transfer function.

ωm ( s ) Km Gr (s)Gc (s)Gp (s) ωm (s) 1

Gcl (s) = = , Gd ( s ) = = (29)
ω ∗ (
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER s )
m REVIEW 1 + K G
m c ( s ) G p ( s ) G p ( s ) T L ( s ) 1 + Km c ( s ) Gp ( s )
G 14 of 21

whereGG
where r (s()s,) G (s)(,sand
, cG ) , GG3 p((ss) ), are
andlisted
G4 ( s )inare
thelisted
Appendix
in theA. Then, the specifically.
Appendix, closed–loop transfer is set to G
If G4 ( s )function (s)
0,clthe
1 2
and the disturbance transfer function Gd (s) can be obtained. Note that the load torque disturbance is
MADRC is equivalent to the CADRC. The block diagram shown in Figure 13 is derived to obtain the
considered in the form of its motor speed response.
closed–loop transfer function.
TL ( s )
∗
i (s) ωm ( s )
ωm∗ ( s ) q
Gr ( s ) + Gc ( s ) Km G p ( s)
-

Figure 13.
Figure Block diagram
13. Block diagram of
of the
the speed–loop
speed–loop MADRC
MADRC in
in the
the frequency
frequency domain.
domain.

WeGassumed two extreme conditions to analyse the frequency response in the presence of parameter
where r ( s ) , Gc ( s ) , and G p ( s ) are listed in the Appendix. Then, the closed–loop transfer function
uncertainties, the first one changed J, B, and Km to 20%, 100%, and 0% of their normal values, and
Gcl (second
s ) and one the reduced
disturbance the J,transfer
B and Kfunction Gd (s) canandbe−40%obtained. Note that values.
the load Thetorque
the m to −20%, −90%, of their normal Bode
disturbance is considered in the form of its motor speed response:
diagrams of Gcl (s) and Gd (s), along with the two extreme conditions, are shown in Figure 14. For the
normal condition without ω ( s )uncertainties,
K m Gr ( s)Gc ( sthe
)G p –3
( s) dB bandwidth ωm (ofs) the speed loop1 is about 520 rad/s,
which agrees with Gcl ( s )K=mp . m*Although
= the parameter ， Gd ( s) =
uncertainties =
affect closed–loop (29)
frequency response,
ωm ( s ) 1 + K m Gc ( s )G p ( s) G p ( s)TL ( s) 1 + K m Gc ( s)G p ( s )
the low–frequency tracking responses are almost the same, which guarantees the tracking requirement
of the We toolface
assumed controller
two extremeoutput.conditions
Figure 14btoproves analyse thethe
disturbance
frequency rejection
responseability
in theofpresence
the speedof
parameter uncertainties, the first one changed J , B , and K m to 20%, 100%, and 0% of their normal
control loop since the magnitude responses are under 0 dB within controller baseband, the disturbance
frequency
values, andresponses
the secondare one almost
reduced unchanged
the J , B withand Kthe parameter uncertainties, in addition, with the
m to −20%, −90%, and −40% of their normal values.
help of the MC, the MADRC has better disturbance rejection performance, which shows agreement
The Bode diagrams of Gcl ( s ) and Gd (s) , along with the two extreme conditions, are shown in Figure
with Figure 7.
14. For the normal condition without uncertainties, the –3 dB bandwidth of the speed loop is about
520 rad/s, which agrees with Kmp . Although the parameter uncertainties affect closed–loop
frequency response, the low–frequency tracking responses are almost the same, which guarantees
the tracking requirement of the toolface controller output. Figure 14b proves the disturbance rejection
ability of the speed control loop since the magnitude responses are under 0 dB within controller
baseband, the disturbance frequency responses are almost unchanged with the parameter
 the tracking requirement of the toolface controller output. Figure 14b proves the disturbance rejection
ability of the speed control loop since the magnitude responses are under 0 dB within controller
baseband, the disturbance frequency responses are almost unchanged with the parameter
uncertainties, in addition, with the help of the MC, the MADRC has better disturbance rejection
performance,
Energies 2019, which
12, 1831 shows agreement with Figure 7. 14 of 20

0 100

-10

Magnitude (dB)
0

-20

-100

Magnitude (dB)
Magnitude (dB)

-30
MADRC Normal
-200 MADRC J +20%, B +100%, Km +0%
-40 MADRC J -20%, B -90%, Km -40%
CADRC Normal
-50 -300 CADRC J +20%, B +100%, Km +0%
0 270 CADRC J -20%, B -90%, Km -40%

Phase (deg)
180

-45
Phase (deg)

Phase (deg)
90

-90 0

1 2 3 4 5 -2 0 2 4
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

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

(a) (b)
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
Figure 14. 14.
Figure Frequency response
Frequency response of the speed–loop.
of the (a)(a)
speed–loop. thethe
frequency response
frequency responseofof G
Gcl((ss));; and
cl and(b)
(b)the
the
Due frequency response of Gcl (of
to the nonlinearity s) with fal function
the parameter in the toolface loop, it is difficult to analyze the
uncertainties.
frequency response of Gcl ( s ) with parameter uncertainties.
toolface response
Due to the using frequency
nonlinearity of domain method.inBecause
the f al function the tracking
the toolface loop, it iserror cantoshow
difficult the the
analyze toolface
tracking performance directly, we performed simulations in the presence of various
toolface response using frequency domain method. Because the tracking error can show the toolface possible
parameter uncertainties
tracking performance and disturbances,
directly, we performed and the tracking
simulations in theerrors areofevaluated
presence using parameter
various possible the root mean
square error (RMSE)
uncertainties index.
and disturbances, and the tracking errors are evaluated using the root mean square error
(RMSE) index.
Figure 15 shows the toolface tracking RMSEs with parameter uncertainties, the toolface response
data shown Figure 15 shows
in Figure 11 the
wastoolface
used as tracking RMSEs with
the standard parameter
value. uncertainties,
The toolface RMSEthe toolface
is small response
and negligible,
data shown in Figure 11 was used as the standard value. The toolface RMSE is small and negligible, which
which reveals that the DPRSS control system is robust in the presence of the possible parameter
reveals that the DPRSS control system is robust in the presence of the possible parameter uncertainties.
uncertainties.

Figure 15. The toolface RMSE in the presence of parameter uncertainties.

Figure 15. The toolface RMSE in the presence of parameter uncertainties.
Figure 16 shows the toolface tracking RMSEs with various load torque disturbance, the possible
load torque
Figure magnitude
16 shows and frequency
the toolface trackingare variedwith
RMSEs based on (27),load
various it is torque
observed that the toolface
disturbance, is
the possible
insensitive
load torque to the loadand
magnitude torque variation.are varied based on (27), it is observed that the toolface is
frequency
For the sake of simplicity, the sinusoidal wave shown in (30) was used to simulate stick-slip, and
insensitive to the load torque variation.
then, the toolface tracking RMSEs in the presence of outer housing speed disturbance were obtained:
For the sake of simplicity, the sinusoidal wave shown in (30) was used to simulate stick-slip, and
then, the toolface tracking RMSEs in the presence
( ofssouter
Ass sin(Ω t) housing
ωh >0
speed disturbance were obtained:
ωh = (30)
0 ωh ≤ 0
 A sin(Ωss t ) ωh > 0
ωh =  ss (30)
 0 ωh ≤ 0

where Ass and Ωss denote the amplitude and frequency of the stick-slip, respectively. As can be seen
in Figure 17, although the errors increase as the stick-slip becomes more extreme, the controller
performs well in rejecting these disturbances.
  Ass sin(Ωss t ) ωh > 0
ωh =  (30)
 0 ωh ≤ 0

where Ass and Ωss denote the amplitude and frequency of the stick-slip, respectively. As can be seen
in Figure 17, although the errors increase as the stick-slip becomes more extreme, the controller
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 15 of 20
performs well in rejecting these disturbances.
Although the proposed control method has shown satisfactory performance, there are still a
where ss and Ωof
largeAnumber ss factors, such
denote the as modeland
amplitude error, sensor error,
frequency of theand measurement
stick-slip, delay,
respectively. Aswhich
can becannot
seen inbe
well considered
Figure 17, althoughbythe
simulation, the DPRSS
errors increase as the prototype experiments
stick-slip becomes morewill be performed
extreme, in theperforms
the controller following
section.
well in rejecting these disturbances.

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21

Figure 16. Toolface tracking errors in the presence of load torque.

Figure 16. Toolface tracking errors in the presence of load torque.

Figure 17. Toolface tracking errors in the presence of stick-slip.

Figure 17. Toolface tracking errors in the presence of stick-slip.
Although the proposed control method has shown satisfactory performance, there are still a large
4.2. DPRSS
number Prototype
of factors, Experiment
such as model error, sensor error, and measurement delay, which cannot be well
considered by simulation, the DPRSS prototype experiments will be performed in the following section.
The DPRSS prototype is shown in Figure 18. The outer housing is connected to the outer housing
motor by a spline
4.2. DPRSS coupling,
Prototype and the outer housing motor acts as the upper drilling string which drives
Experiment
the outer housing. The stabilized platform which driven by the PMSM is assembled inside the outer
The DPRSS prototype is shown in Figure 18. The outer housing is connected to the outer housing
housing. A sensor package, including a gyro, accelerometer, and microprocessor, is installed on the
motor by a spline coupling, and the outer housing motor acts as the upper drilling string which
stabilized platform [32]. The proposed controllers are implemented in a TMS320F28335 DSP. The
drives the outer housing. The stabilized platform which driven by the PMSM is assembled inside the
high-speed CAN
outer housing. A bus is used
sensor for data
package, exchange
including between
a gyro, the DSP,and
accelerometer, the microprocessor,
microprocessor,isand the USB-
installed
CAN
on theanalyzer.
stabilizedThe analyzer
platform [32].acquires all data.
The proposed The motor
controllers arespeed is measured
implemented by a resolver, DSP.
in a TMS320F28335 and the
toolface is measured in the way shown in [30].
The high-speed CAN bus is used for data exchange between the DSP, the microprocessor, and the
USB-CAN analyzer. The analyzer acquires all data. The motor speed is measured by a resolver, and
the toolface is measured in the way shown in [30].
The outer housing speed disturbance was added by changing the outer housing motor speed, and
the load torque disturbance was tested by the equipment shown in Figure 19. The PMSM connects to
the torque motor by a spline coupling, the constant load torque is generated by a torque motor and
measured by the torque sensor. In the DPRSS prototype experiment, all the controller parameters were
the same as the ones used in the simulation.

Figure 18. DPRSS Prototype.

 the outer housing. The stabilized platform which driven by the PMSM is assembled inside the outer
housing. A sensor package, including a gyro, accelerometer, and microprocessor, is installed on the
stabilized platform [32]. The proposed controllers are implemented in a TMS320F28335 DSP. The
high-speed CAN bus is used for data exchange between the DSP, the microprocessor, and the USB-
CANEnergies 2019, 12, 1831
analyzer. 16 of 20
The analyzer acquires all data. The motor speed is measured by a resolver, and the
toolface is measured in the way shown in [30].

Figure 18. DPRSS Prototype.

The outer housing speed disturbance was added by changing the outer housing motor speed,
and the load torque disturbance was tested by the equipment shown in Figure 19. The PMSM
connects to the torque motor by a spline coupling, the constant load torque is generated by a torque
motor and measured by the torque sensor. In the DPRSS prototype experiment, all the controller
Figurein
parameters were the same as the onesFigure
used 18. DPRSS
18.the Prototype.
simulation.
DPRSS Prototype.

The outer housing speed disturbance was added by changing the outer housing motor speed,
and the load torque disturbance was tested by the equipment shown in Figure 19. The PMSM
connects to the torque motor by a spline coupling, the constant load torque is generated by a torque
motor and measured by the torque sensor. In the DPRSS prototype experiment, all the controller
parameters were the same as the ones used in the simulation.

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21

Figure 19. Load torque test equipment.

4.2.1. The Motor Speed Loop Test Figure 19. Load torque test equipment.

Figure
4.2.1.20 shows
The the motor
Motor Speed speed step response curve. The MADRC and CADRC controllers
Loop Test
have larger Figure
overshoot than
20 shows the the
motorPIspeed
algorithm before
step response t = The
curve. 0.3MADRC
s, but their speedcontrollers
and CADRC fluctuation
have is much
smaller. larger overshoot than the PI algorithm before t = 0.3 s, but their speed fluctuation is much smaller.

Figure 20. Speed loop step response curves.

Figure 20. Speed loop step response curves.
Owing to the torque motor limitation, only the constant 0.25 Nm load torque was tested. The load
torque disturbance rejection performance is shown in Figure 21. The test results meet an agreement
Owing to the
with the torquein motor
simulation Figure 7,limitation,
with the loadonly the
torque constant
being 0.25 Nm
compensated load torque
in MADRC, waserror
its tracking tested. The
load torque disturbance
is the smallest amongrejection performance
the three algorithms. Figureis22shown
shows the inload
Figure
torque21. The output
observer test results
and themeet an
agreement with the simulation in Figure 7, with the load torque being compensated in but
torque sensor measurements, the torque estimation error is larger than the one in the simulation, MADRC,
it its
follows the real torque tendency as desired.
tracking error is the smallest among the three algorithms. Figure 22 shows the load torque observer
output and the torque sensor measurements, the torque estimation error is larger than the one in the
simulation, but it follows the real torque tendency as desired.
 Owing to the torque motor limitation, only the constant 0.25 Nm load torque was tested. The
load torque disturbance rejection performance is shown in Figure 21. The test results meet an
agreement with the simulation in Figure 7, with the load torque being compensated in MADRC, its
tracking error is the smallest among the three algorithms. Figure 22 shows the load torque observer
outputEnergies
and the 12, 1831 sensor measurements, the torque estimation error is larger than the
2019,torque 17 of
one20 in the

simulation, but it follows the real torque tendency as desired.

Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21

Figure 21. Load torque rejection curve of the motor speed loop.
Figure 21. Load torque rejection curve of the motor speed loop.

Figure 22. Comparison of the load torque observer and the torque sensor.
Figure 22. Comparison of the load torque observer and the torque sensor.
4.2.2. The Toolface Loop Test
4.2.2. The Toolface
Figure 23Loop
showsTest
the toolface loop response curves of MADRC and CADRC. The outer housing
speed disturbances consist of the four parts which have been introduced in Figure 10. Comparing the
Figure 23 shows the toolface loop response curves of MADRC and CADRC. The outer housing
simulation results shown in Figure 11, the prototype toolface tracking errors are larger, but MADRC still
speed disturbances consist ofrejection
shows better disturbance the fourperformance.
parts which In have beenand
the second introduced
third parts,inthe
Figure
MADRC 10. maximum
Comparing the
simulation
error is 10 deg, the CADRC maximum error is 17 deg, which is 70% larger than the MADRC.but
results shown in Figure 11, the prototype toolface tracking errors are larger, MADRC
In the
still shows
fourthbetter disturbance
part, the rejectionis performance.
stick-slip disturbance tested, the CADRC In the second
maximum and third
tracking error isparts,
7 deg, the MADRC
and the
MADRC maximum tracking error is 4.5 deg, which reduces 36% errors
maximum error is 10 deg, the CADRC maximum error is 17 deg, which is 70% larger than the of the CADRC.
MADRC. InFigure 24 shows
the fourth thethe
part, realstick-slip
outer housing speed, and
disturbance the ESOthe
is tested, estimated
CADRC unknown
maximum disturbances
tracking error
of the MADRC and CADRC. Due to the model errors, which were not considered in the simulation,
is 7 deg, and the MADRC maximum tracking error is 4.5 deg, which reduces 36% errors of the
the ESO output magnitude in prototype test is larger than the simulation, but the ESO-estimated
CADRC. disturbance of MADRC is still smaller than that of CADRC, thus, the ESO burden is reduced as desired.
FigureIn24theshows theresearch
previous real outer[12], housing speed, and
the best maximum the ESO
tracking error estimated unknown
was 15 deg based on thedisturbances
four–loop of
the MADRC
PI controland CADRC.
method, whereDuethe to the model
performed errors,
stick-slip which were
magnitude notdeg/s.
was 720 considered in the
By applying thesimulation,
proposed the
ESO output magnitude
control method, in prototype
the toolface testwas
tracking error is reduced
larger than thewith
to 4.5 deg simulation, but the magnitude.
1400 deg/s stick-slip ESO-estimated
It is clear
disturbance of that the proposed
MADRC is stillcontrol method
smaller thanhasthat
largely improved the
of CADRC, DPRSS
thus, thetoolface control precision,
ESO burden is reduced as
and these results show the potential of the proposed method to be used in harsher drilling conditions.
desired.
In the previous research [12], the best maximum tracking error was 15 deg based on the four–
loop PI control method, where the performed stick-slip magnitude was 720 deg/s. By applying the
proposed control method, the toolface tracking error was reduced to 4.5 deg with 1400 deg/s stick-
slip magnitude. It is clear that the proposed control method has largely improved the DPRSS toolface
control precision, and these results show the potential of the proposed method to be used in harsher
drilling conditions.
 In the previous research [12], the best maximum tracking error was 15 deg based on the four–
loop PI control method, where the performed stick-slip magnitude was 720 deg/s. By applying the
proposed control method, the toolface tracking error was reduced to 4.5 deg with 1400 deg/s stick-
slip magnitude. It is clear that the proposed control method has largely improved the DPRSS toolface
control2019,
Energies precision,
12, 1831 and these results show the potential of the proposed method to be used in harsher
18 of 20
drilling conditions.

MARDC
CADRC
200

Δϕ =10 Δϕ =7
150 Δϕ =17 185
Toolface(deg)

180
100
175 Δϕ =4.5
4 6 8
50
1st 2nd 3rd 4th

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time(s)
Energies 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Figure 23. Toolface response curves. 19 of 21
Figure 23. Toolface response curves.

ESO output zt 2 of MADRC (deg/s)

ESO output zt 2 of CADRC (deg/s)
Outer Housing Speed(deg/s)

Time(s)
Figure 24. The ESO outputs of MADRC, CADRC, and the outer housing speed.
Figure 24. The ESO outputs of MADRC, CADRC, and the outer housing speed.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusion
In this paper, a DPRSS toolface control method using the MADRC algorithm was proposed
In this paper,
and verified, a DPRSS
to our toolfaceitcontrol
knowledge, is the method
first timeusing
thatthe
theMADRC
MADRC algorithm
has beenwas usedproposed and
for DPRSS.
verified, to ourresponses
The frequency knowledge, and it theissimulation
the first time that
results the MADRC
reveal has beenmethod
that the proposed used for DPRSS.
is robust The
against
frequency
parameter responses andthe
uncertainties: theRMSEs
simulation
in theresults
presencereveal that the
of various proposed
external method are
disturbances is robust against
less than 1 deg.
parameter uncertainties:
The experimental the RMSEs
results also indicatein thethe
that presence
toolfaceof various
control external
system disturbances
satisfies are less thanits
the field requirements; 1
deg. The experimental
maximum tracking errorsresults
are lessalso
thanindicate that the
10 deg under toolface
the four control
typical system
drilling satisfies
conditions. the field
Furthermore,
requirements;
the MADRC shows its maximum tracking rejection
better disturbance errors are less than than
performance 10 degtheunder
CADRC theand
four typical drilling
PI algorithms. This
conditions. Furthermore,
work demonstrated that thethe MADRC
MADRC has shows bettertodisturbance
the potential guarantee therejection performance
DPRSS steering than the
performance in
CADRC and PI algorithms.
harsher drilling conditions. This work demonstrated
Stabilized platform toolface thatcontrol
the MADRC has thetesting
performance potential to guarantee
in actual drilling
the DPRSSare
processes steering performance
considered for future inwork.
harsher drilling conditions. Stabilized platform toolface control
performance testing in actual drilling processes are considered for future work.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.W. and Y.G.; Methodology, W.W.; Software, N.W. and X.P.; Validation,
W.W. and N.W.; Formal Analysis, W.W. and Y.G.; Investigation, N.W. and X.P.; Resources, Y.G.; Data Curation,
Appendix
Y.G.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, W.W.; Writing-Review & Editing, Y.G. and J.d.O.F.; Visualization, W.W.;
G1 =s + 2ω0 + K mp ; G2 =K mp ( s + 2ωmo s + ωmo ) ; G3 = (ωmo s + 2 K mpωmo s + K mpωmo ) ; G4 = ( s + K mp s + 2ωmo s ) ;
Supervision, Y.G.; Project Administration,
2 Y.G.;
2 Funding
2 Acquisition, Y.G. 2 2

Funding: This research was funded by [Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China]
grant number T Bλ sand
K m [2016YFC0302800] − J λ[Ministry
s of Education of the People’s Republic of China] grant number
G f1= − ;Gf 2 = − 0 ;
J λ (T0 sand
[15CX06065A] + 1) [15CX08014A].
J λ (T0 s + 1)
G3 + G
Conflicts of G
Interest: The authors
4 f2 G2 declare no conflict of interest.
Gc = ; Gr =
G1 + G4 G f 1 G3 + G4 G f 2
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.W. and Y.G.; Methodology, W.W.; Software, N.W. and X.P.;
Validation, W.W. and N.W.; Formal Analysis, W.W. and Y.G.; Investigation, N.W. and X.P.; Resources, Y.G.;
Data Curation, Y.G.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, W.W.; Writing-Review & Editing, Y.G. and J.F.;
Visualization, W.W.; Supervision, Y.G.; Project Administration, Y.G.; Funding Acquisition, Y.G.
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 19 of 20

Appendix A
     
G1 = s + 2ω0 + Kmp ; G2 = Kmp s2 + 2ωmo s + ω2mo ; G3 = ω2mo s + 2Kmp ωmo s + Kmp ω2mo ; G4 = s2 + Kmp s + 2ωmo s ;
T Bλs−Jλs
G f 1 = − Jλ(TKms+1) ; G f 2 = − Jλ0 (T ;
0 0 s+1)
G3 + G4 G f 2 G2
Gc = G 1 + G 4 G f 1 ; Gr = G3 + G4 G f 2

References
1. Schaaf, S.; Mallary, C.; Pafitis, D. Point-the-bit rotary steerable system: Theory and field results. In Proceedings
of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, USA, 1–4 October 2000; Society of
Petroleum Engineers: Houston, TX, USA, 2000.
2. Zhang, C.; Zou, W.; Cheng, N. Overview of rotary steerable system and its control methods. In Proceedings
of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA), Harbin, China,
7–10 August 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1559–1565.
3. Vadali, M.; Xue, Y.; Song, X.; Dykstra, J. Control of Rotary Steerable Toolface in Directional Drilling.
In Proceedings of the ASME 2015 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference, Columbus, OH, USA,
28–30 October 2015; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
4. Wang, W.; Geng, Y.; Yan, Z. Dynamic Point-the-Bit Rotary Steerable Drilling Tool and Measuring Method
Thereof. U.S. Patent US9587440B2, 7 March 2017.
5. Zhang, Y.; Yi, J. Adaptive Second Sliding Mode Control for Stabilized Platform of Rotary Steering Drilling
Tool. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Mechanical and Automation Engineering
(MAEE), Jiujang, China, 21–23 July 2013; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 140–143.
6. Li, Y.; Cheng, W.; Tang, N.; Huo, A.; Wang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Kang, S. The intelligent PID control of the rotary
navigational drilling tool. China Pet. Mach. 2010, 38, 13–16.
7. Feng, S.; Guanyun, L.; Qingming, M. A strap-down automatic vertical drilling system. Acta Pet. Sin. 2011,
32, 360–363.
8. Kim, J.; Myung, H. Development of a Novel Hybrid-Type Rotary Steerable System for Directional Drilling.
IEEE Access 2017, 5, 24678–24687. [CrossRef]
9. Kremers, N.A.H.; Detournay, E.; van de Wouw, N. Model-based robust control of directional drilling systems.
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2016, 24, 226–239. [CrossRef]
10. Tang, N.; Huo, A.; Wang, Y.; Cheng, W. Experimental study on control function of stabilized platform for
rotary steering drilling tool. Acta Pet. Sin. 2008, 29, 284.
11. Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Kang, S. Output feedback linearization of servo platform for rotary steering drilling
system. Acta Pet. Sin. 2014, 35, 952–957.
12. Wang, K.; Wang, W.; Si, J.; Li, C.; Geng, Y.F. Research on the Measurement and Control System of Dynamic
Point-the-bit Rotary Steerable Drilling Tools. China Pet. Mach. 2018, 46, 35–38, 67.
13. Yong, D.Z.; Yong, P. A Comparative Analysis to Traditional PID and Fuzzy Adaptive PI-Variable Damping
Controlling System of MRST Stabilized Platform. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on
Measuring Technology and Mechatronics Automation, Zhangjiajie, China, 11–12 April 2009; IEEE: Piscataway,
NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 745–748.
14. Huo, A.; He, Y.; Wang, Y.; Tang, N.; Cheng, W. Research of disc valve friction torque modeling and integral
sliding mode adaptive control for rotary steering drilling tool. In Proceedings of the 2010 2nd International
Conference on Computer Engineering and Technology (ICCET), Chengdu, China, 16–18 April 2010; IEEE:
Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010; pp. V1-715–V1-719.
15. Han, J. From PID to active disturbance rejection control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 900–906. [CrossRef]
16. Du, L.; Zhang, K.; Jin, G. Linear auto disturbance rejection controller for vector-controlled PMSM drive
system. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Transportation, Mechanical, and Electrical
Engineering (TMEE), Changchun, China, 16–18 December 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 879–882.
17. Tong, Z.; Hong, G.; Jinquan, X.; Xiaolin, K.; Hao, Q. Research on PMSM active disturbance rejection controller
based on model compensation. In Proceedings of the 2015 18th International Conference on Electrical
Machines and Systems (ICEMS), Pattaya, Thailand, 25–28 October 2015; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015;
pp. 1593–1596.
Energies 2019, 12, 1831 20 of 20

18. Wang, L.; Zhang, H.; Liu, X. Robust sensorless of ADRC controlled PMSM based on MRAS with stator
resistance identification. In Proceedings of the 2011 30th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Yantai, China,
22–24 July 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 3575–3579.
19. Pillay, P.; Krishnan, R. Control characteristics and speed controller design for a high performance permanent
magnet synchronous motor drive. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 1990, 5, 151–159. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, S.; Bai, W.; Huang, Y. ADRC for systems with unobservable and unmatched uncertainty. In Proceedings
of the 2016 35th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Chengdu, China, 27–29 July 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ,
USA, 2016; pp. 337–342.
21. Guo, B.; Bacha, S.; Alamir, M. A review on ADRC based PMSM control designs. In Proceedings of the IECON
2017—43rd Annual Conference of the Industrial Electronics Society, Beijing, China, 29 October–1 November
2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1747–1753.
22. Gao, Z. Scaling and bandwidth-parameterization based controller tuning. In Proceedings of the American
Control Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 4–6 June 2006; pp. 4989–4996.
23. Zhao, Z.-L.; Guo, B.-Z. A nonlinear extended state observer based on fractional power functions. Automatica
2017, 81, 286–296. [CrossRef]
24. Li, J.; Xia, Y.; Qi, X.; Gao, Z. On the necessity, scheme, and basis of the linear–nonlinear switching in active
disturbance rejection control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 1425–1435. [CrossRef]
25. Zhao, Z.-L.; Guo, B.-Z. A novel extended state observer for output tracking of MIMO systems with mismatched
uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 2018, 63, 211–218. [CrossRef]
26. Pavone, D.; Desplans, J. Application of high sampling rate downhole measurements for analysis and cure of
stick-slip in drilling. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
LA, USA, 25–28 September 1994; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Houston, TX, USA, 1994.
27. Barton, S. Development of stable PDC bits for specific use on rotary steerable systems. In Proceedings of
the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11–13 September 2000; Society of
Petroleum Engineers: Houston, TX, USA, 2000.
28. Chen, S.; Blackwood, K.; Lamine, E. Field investigation of the effects of stick-slip, lateral, and whirl vibrations
on roller cone bit performance. In Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 October 1999; Society of Petroleum Engineers: Houston, TX, USA, 1999.
29. Ersoy, A.; Waller, M. Wear characteristics of PDC pin and hybrid core bits in rock drilling. Wear 1995, 188,
150–165. [CrossRef]
30. Sun, Z. Research on Performance and Temperature Rise of Permanant Magnet Synchronous Motor in High Temperature
Environment; Harbin Institute of Technology: Harbin, China, 2017.
31. Tian, G.; Gao, Z. Frequency response analysis of active disturbance rejection based control system.
In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE International Conference on Control Applications, Singapore, 1–3 October
2007; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 1595–1599.
32. Wang, W.; Geng, Y.; Wang, K.; Si, J.; Fiaux, J. Dynamic Toolface Estimation for Rotary Steerable Drilling System.
Sensors 2018, 18, 2944. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).