This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
Disturbance-Observer-Based Position Tracking Controller in the Presence of
Biased Sinusoidal Disturbance for Electrohydraulic Actuators
Wonhee Kim, Donghoon Shin, Daehee Won, and Chung Choo Chung
Abstract— A nonlinear position tracking controller with a
disturbance observer (DOB) is proposed to track the desired
position in the presence of the disturbance for electrohydraulic
actuators (EHAs). The DOB is designed in the form of a second-
order high-pass filter in order to estimate the disturbance. The
nonlinear controller is designed for position tracking as a near
input–output linearizing inner-loop load pressure controller and
a backstepping outer-loop position controller. Variable structure
control is implemented in order to compensate for the error in
disturbance estimation. The desired load pressure is designed
to generate the pressure using the differential flatness property
of the EHA’s mechanical subsystem. The disturbance within
the bandwidth of the DOB can be cancelled by the proposed
method. The performance of the proposed method is validated
via simulations and experiments.
Index Terms— Disturbance observer (DOB), electrohydraulic
actuator (EHA), position tracking.
I. I NTRODUCTION
E LECTROHYDRAULIC ACTUATORS (EHAs) are used
in a variety of positioning and force generation appli-
cations, e.g., robot and aircraft actuators and rolling mills.
When compared to their electrical counterparts, they have a
high power-to-weight ratio [1]. Furthermore, EHAs are able to
rapidly generate very strong forces. However, the nonlinearity
of the dynamic behavior of EHAs, i.e., flow–pressure char-
acteristics, makes EHAs difficult to control. Feedback control
methods are necessary to obtain satisfactory performance in
the presence of these nonlinearities.
Various methods have been attempted for controlling the
position or the force of the EHA. Local linearization of
the nonlinear dynamics about a nominal operating point was
proposed in [1], and variable structure control (VSC) strategies
have been studied for the control of EHA in [2] and [3]. Input–
output (IO) linearization has also been used in the design of
EHAs [4]–[6]. Since EHA dynamics are in strict feedback
form, controllers based on the Lyapunov method have been
developed, specifically a backstepping and passivity-based
Manuscript received April 26, 2012; accepted July 26, 2012. Manuscript
received in final form January 2, 2013. Recommended by Associate Editor
G. Cherubini.
W. Kim and D. Shin are with the Department of Electrical Engineering,
Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea (e-mail: alukard@hanyang.ac.kr;
shin211@hanyang.ac.kr).
D. Won is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Hanyang Uni-
versity, Seoul 133-791, Korea, and also with the Division for Applied Robot
Technology, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology, Ansan 426-171, Korea
(e-mail: daehee@kitech.re.kr).
C. C. Chung is with the Division of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering,
Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea (e-mail: cchung@hanyang.ac.kr).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCST.2013.2237909
1063–6536/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE
1
controller [7]–[11]. Robust control methods under parameter
uncertainties have been proposed [12], [13]. Recently, the
controller design in the presence of friction and internal
leakage was designed [14]. This method requires the knowl-
edge of the friction. All these methods improve the position
tracking performance without considering their disturbances or
the friction and load torque. However, when the disturbance
significantly affects the position tracking performance, the
tracking is degraded since the force or torque available for
the systems is diminished. Therefore, a method for compen-
sating for the disturbance is needed in order to improve the
EHA performance. In practice, since direct measurements of
the disturbance are not possible, it is necessary to estimate
the disturbance using adaptation or estimation algorithms
[15]–[19].
Several disturbance estimation methods for EHA have been
proposed [16]–[19]. A constant friction estimator was pro-
posed in [16], and this method was found to be effective for
estimating nonconstant friction when the velocity is nonzero.
Adaptation methods based on the Friedland method were
proposed for for friction estimation [17], [18], and in [19], the
constant load torque was estimated by an observer based on a
mathematical model and compensated by a feedforward loop.
If both sinusoidal load torque and constant friction are con-
sidered, the disturbance becomes a biased sinusoidal signal.
Although all the methods are effective in compensating either
a constant or pure sinusoidal disturbance, they cannot be used
to estimate the biased sinusoidal disturbance. Furthermore, if
structural vibrations exist, the disturbance cannot be rejected
by previous approach methods perfectly.
The main contribution of this brief is the design and
implementation of a nonlinear position tracking controller with
a disturbance observer (DOB) for use in EHAs. The proposed
method is designed for implementation on a rotational joint
driven by a linear EHA, as shown in Fig. 1. In this type of
EHA, the main disturbance consists of constant friction and
sinusoidal load torque and is thus a biased sinusoidal signal
with unknown frequency. The DOB is designed in the form of
a second-order high-pass filter for estimating the disturbance
without any added algorithm and requires only mechanical
parameters so that it is simple. The nonlinear controller is
designed to track the desired position as a near IO linearizing
inner-loop load pressure controller and a backstepping outer-
loop position controller. VSC is implemented in order to
compensate for the error in the disturbance estimation. The
desired load pressure is generated using the differential flatness
property of the EHA mechanical subsystem. The disturbance,
which includes not only the biased sinusoidal signal but
also effects of the assumptions for the modeling and the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

Servo valve Actuator

x1 the differential pressure between PA and PB [N/m2 ], and ρ
is the density of hydraulic oil [kg/m3]. By applying the law
of continuity to each actuator chamber, the load flow rate
Rotational continuity equation is given by [1]
joint
Vt ˙
Q L = A ẋ p + Ctl PL + PL (3)
4βe
where x p is the piston position [m], A is the pressure area of
the piston [m2 ], Ctl = Cil + C2el is the total leakage coefficient
Load [m5 /Ns], Cil is the internal leakage coefficient [m5 /Ns], Cel
is the external leakage coefficient [m5 /Ns], Vt is the total
Fig. 1. Schematic of EHA with rotational joint.
actuator volume [m3 ], and βe is the effective bulk modulus of
the system [N/m2 ]. Combining the control flow rate equation
(2) and the load flow rate continuity equation (3), the fluid
dynamic equation of the actuator is given by
4βe A 4βe Ctl
ṖL = − ẋ p − PL
Vt Vt
4βe Cd w 
+ √ (Ps − sgn(x v )PL )x v . (4)
Vt ρ
Finally, by applying Newton’s Second Law, the actuator’s
force balance equation is given by

m ẍ p = −kx p − b ẋ p + A PL (5)

Fig. 2. EHA structure.
parameter uncertainties, within the bandwidth of the DOB can
be canceled by the proposed method. The performance of the
proposed method is validated via simulations and experiments.
II. M ODELING
An EHA designed by the Korea Institute of Industrial Tech-
nology is shown in Fig. 2. In many EHA applications, the valve
dynamics is much faster than the dynamics of the remaining
parts of the system such that valve dynamics can be neglected
without significant reduction of control performance [4]–[6].
Therefore, for simplicity, we use the following approximation:
x v = kv i
where x v is the spool position of the servo valve [m], i is the
input current of the torque motor [mA], and kv is the torque
motor gain [m/mA]. The control flow equation of the hydraulic
valve for the load flow rate can be written as
 ẋ 3 = −αx 2 − βx 3 + γ Ps − sgn(u)x 3 u (7)
1 
Q L = Cd wx v Ps − sgn(x v )PL (2)
ρ
where Q L is the load flow rate [m3 /s], Cd is the discharge
coefficient, w is the area gradient of the servo-valve spool
[m], Ps is the supply pressure of the pump [N/m2 ], PL is
where m is the mass of the piston [kg], k is the load spring con-
stant [N/m], and b is viscous damping coefficient [N/(m/s)].
The goal is to make the piston position track the desired
position with disturbance compensation. In the problem to
be studied as depicted in Fig. 1, the load torque is in the
form of a sinusoidal signal. Generally, the main friction is the
Coulomb friction in EHA [18]. Therefore, the disturbance d
in our system is in the form of a biased sinusoidal signal,
given by
d = asgn(x 2 ) + m L sin(r x 1 ) (6)
where a is the constant friction coefficient, m L is the amplitude
of the load torque, and r is the rate of angle of the pendulum.
We assume that a, m L , and r are unknown but the upper
bound of m L , m L max , is known. The upper bound of the load
torque frequency is also known. The assumption that the upper
bound of the load torque frequency is known is reasonable
since the frequency of the load torque is determined by the
desired position profile.
Combining (1)–(6), the dynamics of the EHA can be
(1) formulated as the following state-space representation:

Mechanical ẋ 1 = x 2
subsystem ẋ 2 = m1 (−kx 1 − bx 2 + Ax 3 − d)
Hydraulic  
subsystem
where x 1 is the position of the piston [m], x 2 is the velocity
of the piston [m/s], x 3 is the load pressure [N/m2 ], d is the
disturbance, u is the current input [mA], α := (4βe A/Vt ),
√
β := (4βe Ctl /Vt ), and γ := (4βe Cd wkv /Vt ρ), and all states
are measurable.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

KIM et al.: POSITION TRACKING CONTROLLER FOR ELECTROHYDRAULIC ACTUATORS 3

Bode Diagram
III. C ONTROLLER D ESIGN
0
A. Disturbance Observer
The DOB is designed in the form of a second-order high- −20
pass filter in order to estimate a disturbance d that is biased on
a sinusoidal signal with an unknown frequency. The dynamics

Magnitude (dB)
−40
of x̂ 2 are defined as
1 
x̂˙2 = − kx 1 − bx 2 + Ax 3 − d̂ (8) −60
m
where x̂ 2 and d̂ are the estimations of x 2 and d, and x̂ 2 (0) = 0
−80
and d̂(0) = 0. The d̂ is defined by
 t
d̂ = −K P (x 2 − x̂ 2 ) − K I (x 2 − x̂ 2 )dt. (9) −100
0
Then, the estimation
t error is defined as d̃ = d − d̂ whereas d̃ I −120
is defined as 0 d̃dt with d̂ I (0) = 0. Next, we will summarize 10
−1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3

the result of the estimation error boundedness analysis. Frequency (rad/sec)

Theorem 1: Consider the EHA (7). Suppose that DOB (8) Fig. 3. Bode plot of H (s).
and (9) are used. If the cutoff frequency ωc of the high pass-
filter
s2 Since |d̃| ≤ ed 2
H (s) = 2 (10)
s + KPs + KI
γ Adi 2 (a + m L max )
is above the maximum frequency of the disturbance, then d̃ is |d̃| ≤ γ e−λt ed (0) + a + m L max + . (20)
λ
bounded and T > 0 exists such that
This means that d̃ is bounded in the transient state and the
|d̃| ≤ d̃max = |H (s)|s= j ωc × m L max (11)
boundedness depends on K I , K P . In order to analyze the
for t > T . 3 upper bound on d̃ in the steady state, d̃ is studied from
Proof: We study the estimation error boundedness in the the perspective of the frequency domain. Differentiating twice
transient state and the steady state. We assume that x 1 (0) = 0. both sides of (9) gives
Then d(0) = 0 and d̃(0) = 0. First, the estimation error
boundedness in the transient state is studied. Differentiating d̈ = d̃¨ + K P d̃˙ + K I d̃. (21)
(9) with respect to time gives
 t From (21), we obtain the error transfer functions H (s) as
ḋ = d̃˙ + K P d̃ + K I d̃dt. (12) s2
0 d̃ = d (22)
Then from (12), we get s2 + K P s + K I

   
    
d̃˙I
H (s)
0 1 d̃ I 0
= + ḋ. (13)
d̃˙ 
−K I −K P

d̃ 1
     
where s is the Laplace operator. From (22), we see that
   the frequency response of the estimation error is a typical
ėd Ad ed Bd
second-order high-pass filter. The cutoff frequency ωc of H (s),
Then the solution ed becomes [20] determined by the observer parameters K P and K I , should be
 t
above the maximum frequency of the disturbance. Then the
ed (t) = (e Ad (t −τ ) Bd ḋ(τ ))dτ (14) estimation error d̃i is suppressed by the high-pass filter (22).
0
t  t Thus T exists such that

= e Ad (t −τ )Bd d(τ) − (Ad e Ad (t −τ ) Bd d(τ ))dτ (15)
 t
0 0
|d̃(t)| ≤ d̃max = |H (s)|s= j ωc × m L max (23)
= Bd d(t) − (Ad e Ad (t −τ ) Bd d(τ ))dτ. (16) for t > T . 
0
Fig. 3 shows the frequency response of H (s) when K P
Since Ad is Hurwitz, γ exists such that e Ad (t −τ ) 2 ≤
and K I are 10π and (6π)2 , respectively. Although the DOB
γ e−λ(t −τ ), where λ is the minimum singular value of Ad .
is able to suppress the estimation error of the disturbance and
Note that supt |d(t)| = a + m L max . Thus
 t perfectly reject the biased signal, it does not guarantee that the
ed 2 ≤ Bd 2 |d(t)|+ (Ad 2 eλi (t −τ ) Bd |d(τ )|)dτ (17) estimation error of the disturbance asymptotically converges to
0 zero. Thus, compensation for the estimation error is needed.
γ Ad 2 Remark 1: Actually, the assumptions for the modeling and
≤ sup |d(t)| + sup |d(t)| (18)
t λ t the parameter uncertainties exist in our EHA. Thus, d may
γ Ad 2 (a + m L max ) include not only biased sinusoidal signal but effects of the
≤ a + m L max + . (19) assumptions for the modeling and the parameter uncertainties.
λ
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

The proposed DOB is in the form of second order high pass- positive number in order to avoid the problem of dividing by
filter. Thus, disturbance within the bandwidth of the DOB can zero [7]. 3
be estimated by the DOB. 3 Remark 4: It is important to note that (27) cannot be
solved “as is,” since it contains the control variable u on both
B. Tracking and Flatness Controller sides of an equation involving the sgn function. However, u
in the right side is used for only the sgn function. We can
The controller is designed to track the desired profile x 1d . see that the signof u is determined by [αx 2 + βx 3 − K 3 (x 3 −
In EHA, the piston motion is obtained by the load pressure. x 3∗ )+ ẋ 3∗ ] since Ps − sgn(u)x 3 > 0. Therefore, for the digital
Therefore, the load pressure becomes the desired load pressure implementation of the control law (27), the modified control
by the current input, and then the piston position moves to law is written as
the desired position by the load pressure. In the mechanical  
1
subsystem, we regard the position x 1 and the load pressure u=  αx 2 + βx 3 − K 3 e3 + ẋ 3∗ (29)
x 3 as the output and the input, respectively. Then, since all γ Ps − sgn(u b )x 3
variables in the mechanical subsystem can be parameterized in where u b = αx 2 + βx 3 − K 3 e3 + ẋ 3∗ is used in practice. 3
terms of differential functions of the position and the velocity Substituting (27) in (7) yields
except the disturbance, the mechanical subsystem is clearly
differentially flat ẋ 3 = −K 3 (x 3 − x 3∗ ) + ẋ 3∗ . (30)
m ẍ 1 + b ẋ 1 + kx 1 = Ax 3 . (24) From (24)–(30), the tracking error dynamics is given by
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
Thus the use of flatness determines the desired load pressure ė0 0 1 0 e0
x 3d such that ⎣ė1 ⎦ = ⎣ 0 −K 1v 1 ⎦ ⎣e1 ⎦
1 d  ė2
   
−K 0 −K 1 −K 2

e2
   
x 3d = m ẍ 1 + b ẋ 1d + kx 1d . (25)
A em Am em
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
The tracking errors are defined as 0 0
 t +⎣ 0 ⎦ + ⎣ 0 ⎦ e3
e0 = (x 1 − x 1d )dt −d̃ − d̃max sgn( p0 e0 + p1e1 + p2e2 ) A
0     m

e1 = x 1 − x 1d Ad Bm
ė3 = −K 3 e3 . (31)
e2 = x 2 − x 2∗
e3 = x 3 − x 3∗ (26) Now we study the stability of the tracking error dynamics (31).
Theorem 2: Consider the EHA (7). Suppose that the
where x 2∗ = ẋ 1d − K 1v (x 1 − x 1d ), K 1v > 0 and x 3∗ is yet to be DOB (8), (9) and the controller (27), (28) are used, and
defined. ωc of H (s) is greater than the maximum frequency of the
Remark 2: If e2 is defined as e2 = x 2 − ẋ 1d , then controllers disturbance. If Am is Hurwitz, K 3 > 0, and p0 , p1 , and p2
were designed to make the position tracking error e1 and are chosen such that
the velocity tracking error e2 to become zero. However, the ⎡ ⎤
position tracking error e1 and the velocity tracking error e2 ∗ ∗ p0
cannot simultaneously converge to zero in physical systems. Pm = ⎣ ∗ ∗ p1 ⎦
Therefore, in order to improve the position tracking perfor- p0 p1 p2
mance, e2 = x 2 − x 2∗ is designed using backstepping instead where Q m is negative definite and Q m = Am TP + P A ,
m m m
of e2 = x 2 − ẋ 1d . 3 then T > 0 exists such that the tracking error is bounded for
The controller is designed as t ≤ T and converges to zero for t > T . 3
1   Proof: e3 exponentially converges to zero since K 3 > 0.
u=  αx 2 + βx 3 − K 3 e3 + ẋ 3∗ (27)
γ Ps − sgn(u)x 3 For t ≤ T , since Ad is bounded, em converges to the bounded
ball. Then we study the stability for t > T . A Lyapunov
where candidate function V is defined as
1
x 3∗ = x 3d + − m K 0 e0 + (k − bK 1 + m K 12v − m K 1 )e1 V = em
T
Pm em (32)
A
+(b − m K 1v − m K 2 )e2 + d̂ where Pm is positive definite such that Q m = AmT P +P A ,
 m m m
−d̃max sgn( p0 e0 + p1 e1 + p2 e2 ) . (28) which is negative definite. The derivative of V with respect to
time is given by
Note that the term −sgn( p0 e0 + p1 e1 + p2 e2 )d̃max is imple-
mented to compensate for the estimation error of the distur- V̇ = em
T
Q m em + 2em
T
Pm Ad (em ) + 2em
T
Pm Bm e3 . (33)
bance using VSC.  Since d̃max ≥ |d̃| for t > T , em
T P A (e ) ≤ 0 for t > T .
m d m
Remark 3: In practice, Ps − sgn(u)x 3 is seldom zero, Thus
since
 |x 3 | is seldom close
 to Ps . In the rare case that
Ps − sgn(u)x 3 = 0, Ps − sgn(u)x 3 is set to a small V̇ ≤ em
T
Q m em + 2em
T
Pm Bm e3 . (34)
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

KIM et al.: POSITION TRACKING CONTROLLER FOR ELECTROHYDRAULIC ACTUATORS 5

10 d
x1

Position [mm]
5 x
1

−5

−10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s]
(a)
Fig. 4. Block diagram of the controller structure. 1

Position error [mm]

0.5
If we define 2Pm Bm e3 as the input and em as the output in
(34) and (34) can be rewritten as 0

T T
em 2Pm Bm e3 ≥ V̇ − em Q m em . (35) −0.5
       
−1
output input <0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s]
Equation (35) shows that the relationship between em and (b)
2Pm Bm e3 is strictly output passive, and ėm = Am em + 1
Ad (e) is zero-state observable. Therefore, (31) is bounded-
0.5
input bounded-output stable. e3 exponentially converges to

Force [N]
zero. Therefore, em asymptotically converges to zero for 0

t > T. −0.5
Remark 5: In (27), the derivative of x 3∗ is used. The
−1
derivative of sgn(x) function is infinite at the zero point. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s]
Since the sgn(x) function can be replaced with tanh(hx),
(c)
where h is a sufficiently large positive constant [21],
4
[22], d̃max tanh(h( p0 e0 + p1 e1 + p2 e2 )) is used instead of
d̃max sgn( p0 e0 + p1 e1 + p2 e2 ) for the digital implementation 2
Current [mA]

of the control law (28). 3 0

Fig. 4 shows the block diagram of the controller structure.
−2
The desired load pressure is generated using flatness con-
cept (25) by the desired position. The disturbance is estimated −4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
using the DOB (8) and (9). Then the current input is obtained Time [s]
by the control law (27) and (28). (d)

Fig. 5. Position tracking performance of only the position tracking controller

IV. S IMULATION R ESULTS without disturbance compensation when there is no disturbance [Case 1].
(a) Position tracking performance. (b) Position tracking error (x1d − x1 ).
Simulations were performed using MATLAB/Simulink in (c) Force ( Ax3 ). (d) Control input (u).
order to evaluate the proposed method. For the verification
of the proposed method, we compare it with the Friedland controller with Friedland adaptive algorithm in the presence
adaptation algorithm [16] as defined by of the disturbance; and 4) using the proposed method in the
d̂ = asgn(x 2 ) presence of the disturbance.
â = z − K a |x 2 |μ
  A. Case 1
μ−1 1
ż = K a μ|x 2 | (−kx 1 −bx 2 + Ax 3)− âsgn(x 2 ) sgn(x 2 ). Since there was no disturbance in Case 1, only position
m
(36) tracking controller (37) is used as follows:
1  
The SimHydraulic model in SimScape was used as a hydraulic u=  αx 2 + βx 3 − K 3 (e3 ) + ẋ 3∗
servo system. The parameters of the EHA and the control γ Ps − sgn(u)x 3
gains are m = 0.5, A = 5.058 × 10−4 , k = 0, b = 0, Ps = 1 
x 3∗ = x 3d + − m K 0 e0 + (k − m K 1 )e1 + (b − m K 2 )e2
2.1 × 107 , α = 3.257 × 1010 , β = 2.146, γ = 7.169 × 109 , A
K v = 1.333 × 10−5 , K 0 = 1000, K 1 = 200 000, K 2 = 1 d 
x3 =
d
m ẍ 1 + b ẋ 1d + kx 1d . (37)
2500, K 3 = 600, K 1v = 100, K P = 10π, K I = (6π)2 , A
and d L max = 5. The desired profile, x 1d (t) = 0.008 sin(2πt), Fig. 5 shows the simulation results for Case 1. In Fig. 5(c),
and disturbance, d(t) = 294 sin(62.83x 1) + 20sgn(x 2 ), were the force means F = Ax 3 . When there was no disturbance,
used. Simulations were performed for the following four cases: the position successfully tracked the desired position using
1) using only position tracking controller in the absence of only the position tracking controller (37). Note that a small
the disturbance; 2) using only position tracking controller in force was required to move the actuator when there was no
the presence of the disturbance; 3) using the position tracking disturbance.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

10 d 10 d
x1 x1
Position [mm]

Position [mm]
5 x 5 x
1 1

0 0

−5 −5

−10 −10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
(a) (a)
1 1
Position error [mm]

Position error [mm]

0.5 0.5

0 0

−0.5 −0.5

−1 −1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
(b) (b)
200 200

100 100

Force [N]
Force [N]

0 0

−100 −100

−200 −200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
(c) (c)
4 200
d
Estimated d
Disturbance [N]

2 100
Current [mA]

0 0

−2 −100

−4 −200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] Time [s]
(d) (d)
4
Fig. 6. Position tracking performance of only position tracking con-
troller without disturbance compensation when there is disturbance [Case 2]. 2
Current [mA]

(a) Position tracking performance. (b) Position tracking error (x1d − x1 ).

(c) Force ( Ax3 ). (d) Control input (u). 0

−2
B. Case 2
The simulation results for Case 2 are shown in Fig. 6. −4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
In Case 2, only the position tracking controller (37) in the Time [s]
proposed method was also used. Because of the load, which is (e)
heavier than the actuator mass, the force increased to overcome Fig. 7. Position tracking performance of the position tracking controller
the disturbance as compared with Case 1. Furthermore, the with Friedland algorithm when there is disturbance [Case 3]. (a) Position
force increased near zero velocity because of the friction. tracking performance. (b) Position tracking error (x1d − x1 ). (c) Force ( Ax3 ).
However, since the disturbance was not completely compen- (d) Estimated disturbance (d̂). (e) Control input (u).
sated for, the position tracking error was greater than that of
Case 1. Because of the Coulomb friction, the peak appeared method was designed to estimate constant friction. In (36),
in the control input. ż = 0 when x 2 = 0. Therefore, it was observed that the
estimation error appeared when the velocity was near zero.
C. Case 3 The estimation error resulted in position tracking error when
Fig. 7 shows the simulation results for Case 3. In [16], it the velocity was near zero. Thus, the peak and the oscillation
was shown that the Friedland method is effective to estimate a appeared near zero-velocity points in the position and the
time-varying disturbance when x 2 = 0 although the Friedland control input.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

KIM et al.: POSITION TRACKING CONTROLLER FOR ELECTROHYDRAULIC ACTUATORS 7

10 d
x1
Position [mm]

5 x
1

−5

−10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s]
(a)
1
Position error [mm]

0.5

0
Fig. 9. Photograph of the EHA test rig.

−0.5 10 Reference
Actual Position

Position [mm]
5
−1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] 0

(b) −5
200 −10
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
100
Time [second]
Force [N]

(a)
0
1
Position error [mm]

−100 0.5

−200 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s]
−0.5
(c)
200 −1
d 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Estimated d Time [second]
Disturbance [N]

100
(b)
200
0

100
−100
Force

0
−200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time [s] −100
(d)
−200
4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time [second]
2 (c)
Current [mA]

0 Fig. 10. Position tracking performance of the PI and feedforward controller.

(a) Position tracking performance. (b) Position tracking error (x1d − x1 ).
−2 (c) Force ( Ax3 ).

−4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 estimated accurately. Therefore, the position tracking error was
Time [s] improved when compared with that of Cases 2 and 3 and
(e) the position tracking performance was recovered. Note that
the estimated disturbance was similar to the force since the
Fig. 8. Position tracking performance of the proposed method with
disturbance compensation when there is disturbance [Case 4]. (a) Position required force to move the actuator was much smaller than
tracking performance. (b) Position tracking error (x1d − x1 ). (c) Force ( Ax3 ). that required to overcome the disturbance, but the disturbance
(d) Estimated disturbance (d̂). (e) Control input (u). is not the same as the force.

D. Case 4 V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS

Fig. 8 shows the simulation results for Case 4. The distur- Experiments were executed in order to evaluate the per-
bance estimation is shown in Fig. 8(d). The cutoff frequency formance of the proposed method. In the experiments, the
of the DOB was chosen to be much higher than the frequency proposed method was compared with the proportional-integral
of the disturbance, which means that the disturbance was (PI) controller with the velocity feedforward used in industrial
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY

10 Reference the methods are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. The forces of
Position [mm] 5
Actual Position
both methods were asymmetric, since the zero angle of the
0 load and the zero position of the actuator were not identical.
−5 Furthermore, oscillations in the force appeared because of the
−10 structural vibration. Therefore, static friction was obscured
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 since the amplitude of the static friction was smaller than
Time [second] that of the oscillations. Fig. 11(d) shows the disturbance
(a) estimation result. The estimated disturbance includes biased
1 sinusoidal signal, effects of the assumptions for the modeling
Position error [mm]

0.5 and the parameter uncertainties, and structural vibration whose

frequencies are below the cutoff frequency of the DOB. Since
0
the estimated disturbance was similar to the force, we can
−0.5 conclude that the disturbance was estimated well according
−1 to the simulation result. Although there were harmonics and
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 mechanical oscillations in the disturbance, the disturbance was
Time [second]
(b)
estimated correctly since the proposed DOB is in the form of
a second-order high-pass filter. Therefore, the position track-
200
ing performance is improved by the proposed method when
100
Force [N]

compared with the PI controller with velocity feedforward.

0
−100 VI. C ONCLUSION
−200 In this brief, we proposed a DOB-based position tracking
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 controller. The DOB was designed in the form of a second-
Time [second] order high-pass filter in order to estimate the disturbance. The
(c) nonlinear controller was designed to track the desired profile
200
and compensate for the estimation error of the disturbance
Disturbance [N]

100 based on the flatness concept. In the experiments, although

0 the disturbance was not a purely biased sinusoidal signal,
−100
−200
10 11 12 13
Time [second]
(d)
Fig. 11. Position tracking performance of the proposed method. (a) Position
tracking performance. (b) Position tracking error (x1d − x1 ). (c) Force ( Ax3 ).
(d) Force (estimated disturbance d̂).
applications, as follows:
 t
u = 1500(x 1d − x 1 ) + 200
0 electrohydraulically actuated control systems,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas.
The gains of the PI controller with velocity feedforward
were well tuned for tracking the sinusoidal signal. The EHA
designed for the quadruped robot and a flapper-type servo
valve manufactured by Star Hydraulic Ltd. were used. The
effective stroke of the piston range was ±0.026 m. The
position and force feedback were measured by a potentiometer
and load cell, respectively. The velocity was obtained by
differentiating the position. The derivatives were calculated
by Tustin method. For experiments, the control algorithms
(the proposed method and PI controller with velocity feed-
forward) coded in C by an S-function were used in real-
time operating systems. The derivatives in the control law
formulation were calculated by the Tustin method. A sampling
rate of 1 kHz was used. Also used were 16-b A/D and
16-b D/A converters. A photograph of the EHA test rig is
shown in Fig. 9. The position tracking performances of both
the disturbance was successfully canceled by the proposed
method. Therefore, the position tracking performance of the
14 15 16 proposed method was better than that of a PI controller with
velocity feedforward.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. E. Merrit, Hydraulic Control System. New York: Wiley, 1967.
[2] T. Chen and Y. Wu, “An optimal variable structure control with integral
compensation for electrohydraulic position servo control systems,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 460–463, Oct. 1992.
[3] M. Jerouane and F. Lamnabhi-Lagarrigue, “A new sliding mode con-
troller for a hydraulic actuators,” in Proc. IEEE Conf. Dec. Control,
vol 1. Dec. 2001, pp. 908–913.
(x 1d − x 1 )dt + 100 ẋ 1d . (38) [4] G. Vossoughi and M. Donath, “Dynamic feedback linearization for
Control, vol. 117, no. 4, pp. 468–477, Dec. 1995.
[5] B. Eryilmaz and B. H. Wilson, “Improved Tracking Control of
Hydraulic Systems,” J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 123, no. 3,
pp. 457–462, Sep. 2001.
[6] B. Ayalew and B. T. Kulakowski, “Cascade tuning for nonlinear position
control of an electro-hydraulic actuator,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf.,
Jun. 2006, pp. 4627–4632.
[7] A. Alleyne and R. Liu, “A simplified approach to force control
for electro-hydraulic systems,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 8, no. 12,
pp. 1347–1356. Dec. 2000.
[8] C. Kaddissi, J. Kenne, and M. Saad, “Identification and real-time control
of an electrohydraulic servo system based on nonlinear backstepping,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 12–22, Feb. 2007.
[9] H. Zeng and N. Sepehri, “Tracking control of hydraulic actuators using
a LuGre friction model compensation,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas.,
Control, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 014502-1–014502-7, Jan. 2008.
[10] C. Guan and S. Pan, “Nonlinear adaptive robust control of single-rod
electro-hydraulic actuator with unknown nonlinear parameters,” IEEE
Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 434–445, May 2008.
[11] W. Kim, D. Won, D. Shin, and C. C. Chung, “Output feedback nonlinear
control for electro-hydraulic systems,” Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 6,
pp. 766–777, 2012.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
KIM et al.: POSITION TRACKING CONTROLLER FOR ELECTROHYDRAULIC ACTUATORS
[12] V. Pommier, R. Musset, P. Lanusse, and A. Oustaloup, “Study of two
robust controls for an hydraulic actuator,” in Proc. Eur. Control Conf.,
Sep. 2003, pp. 1–6.
[13] R. Nandakumar, G. D. Halikias, and A. Zolotas, “Robust control of a
hydraulic actuator using the QFT method,” in Proc. Eur. Control Conf.,
2007, pp. 1–8.
[14] M. F. Rahmat, Zulfatman, A. R. Husain, K. Ishaque, Y. M. Sam, R.
Ghazali, and S. M. Rozali, “Modeling and controller design of an
industrial hydraulic actuator system in the presence of friction and
internal leakage,” Int. J. Phys. Sci., vol. 6, no. 14, pp. 3502–3517,
2011.
[15] K.-S. Kim, K.-H. Rew, and S. Kim, “Disturbance observer for estimating
higher order disturbances in time series expansion,” IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1905–1911, Aug. 2010.
[16] B. Friedland and Y. J. Park, “On adaptive friction compensa-
tions,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 163–166,
Oct. 1993.
9
[17] Q. P. Ha, A. Bonchis, D. C. Rye, and H. F. Durrant-Whyte, “Variable
structure systems approach to friction estimation and compensation,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Robot. Autom., Apr. 2000, pp. 3543–3548.
[18] A. Bonchis, P. I. Corke, D. C. Rye, and Q. P. Ha, “Variable structure
methods in hydraulic servo systems control,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 4,
pp. 589–595, 2001.
[19] C. S. Kim and C. O. Lee, “Speed control of an overcentered variable
displacement hydraulic motor with a load torque observer,” Control Eng.
Pract., vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 1563–1570, 1996.
[20] C. T. Chen, Linear System Theory and Design, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1999.
[21] B. Yao, F. P. Bu, and G. T. C. Chiu, “Nonlinear adaptive robust control of
electro-hydraulic servo system with discontinuous projection,” in Proc.
IEEE Conf. Dec. Control, Dec. 1998, pp. 2265–2270.
[22] K. D. Do and J. Pan, “Boundary control of transverse motion of marine
risers with actuator dynamics,” J. Sound Vibrat., vol. 318, nos. 4–5,
pp. 768–791, 2008.