See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241170662

Active noise control in a duct using output feedback robust control techniques

Article  in  Proceedings of the American Control Conference · June 2010

DOI: 10.1109/ACC.2010.5530942

CITATIONS READS
6 163

3 authors:

Tansel Yucelen Arjun Sadahalli

Missouri University of Science and Technology Southern Illinois University Carbondale
273 PUBLICATIONS   1,866 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   16 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

F. Pourboghrat
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
57 PUBLICATIONS   647 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Resilient Decentralized Estimation and Control for Cooperative Rigid Body Multivehicle Systems View project

Set-Theoretic Model Reference Adaptive Control View project

All content following this page was uploaded by F. Pourboghrat on 22 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Active Noise Control in a Duct using
Output Feedback Robust Control Techniques
Tansel Yucelen, Student Member, IEEE, Arjun Shekar Sadahalli, Student Member, IEEE, and
Farzad Pourboghrat, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract —  An active noise control (ANC) system generally
uses speakers and microphones as inputs and outputs. The
ANC is effective in regions around the error microphones,
known as the zones of quiet. In this paper, a linear matrix
inequality (LMI) based robust control method is used to
enlarge the zones of quiet around the microphones. This is
achieved by considering microphones to have fictitious
uncertain locations around their nominal positions, and by
designing a controller to guarantee robustness against all these
location-based uncertainties. As a result, noise reduction in a
wider region is achieved. The control is developed based on a
non-minimal state-space realization (NSSR) scheme that allows
one to generate an equivalent set of states for the ANC system,
using only the measured inputs and outputs, without any
differentiation. Actual hardware experiments using a digital
signal processor (DSP) have been carried out to show the
applicability of the method.
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, active noise control (ANC) has become an
important area of control research for reducing the effects of
unwanted audio noise. This is due to the fact that passive
noise cancellation (PNC) techniques are ineffective and
expensive when they deal with low-frequency noise [1]–[5].
The methods reported in the literature for ANC can be
classified as feedforward and feedback methods. The basic
principle of the feedforward method, patented by Leug in
1936 [6], involve a search for control gains to reject
undesirable external disturbances. Feedforward ANC
approach, that can deal with both narrowband and broadband
noise attenuation, still remains an active area of research [7],
[8]. However, the main disadvantages of feedforward
solutions are their inability to deal with structural variations
and the requirements of at least two sensors (microphones);
one at the disturbance source and one where the noise is to
be attenuated. Moreover, in a real-time experiment, it is not
always possible to measure the signal directly from the
disturbance source [4], [5].
Another method for active noise reduction uses feedback
control schemes [4], [5], [9]–[11]. In 1953, an ANC system
using feedback control was developed by Olson and May
[12]. This first practical feedback approach, the output
T. Yucelen is with the School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 (e-mail: tansel@gatech.edu).
A. S. Sadahalli is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC),
Carbondale, IL 62901-6603 USA (e-mail: arjunsid@siu.edu).
F. Pourboghrat is with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (SIUC),
Carbondale, IL 62901-6603 USA (e-mail: pour@siu.edu).
(microphone) response to disturbance is minimized by
adjusting the gain of the controller (speaker) [13]. However,
noise control using speakers are effective only in small
regions around the microphones, known as the zones of
quiet. In addition, the undesired noise may generally
increase outside these regions. . This calls for a control
algorithm which widens the effective zone of quiet around
the microphones.
In the late 70’s, introduction of the robust control
techniques led to significant achievements in the area of
control synthesis. However, it is not until recent years that
these control techniques have been considered for ANC
applications [14]–[17]. Specifically, it is known that the H∞
control concentrates on making the system robust to all
bounded destabilizing disturbances affecting the system. In
this paper, the problem of enlarging the zones of quiet
around the microphones is handled by H∞ control method
derived using linear matrix inequality (LMI) formulation.
The LMI techniques offer tractable solutions to convex
optimization problems that can be efficiently solved by
various numerical algorithms [18]. We consider the error
microphones to have fictitious uncertain locations around
their nominal positions and the proposed ANC method is
designed such that the noise is reduced at all these uncertain
locations. As a result, due to the robustness of the designed
H∞ controller to these uncertainties, noise reduction can be
achieved in a larger region, i.e., larger zones of quiet.
It is known that state-feedback control methods are
generally more robust than output-feedback control methods
[5] and that H∞ optimal control provides a robust control
scheme. In order to increase the robustness of the output
feedback H∞ controller, a continuous-time non-minimal
state-space realization (NSSR) scheme is employed as
proposed in [5] and [19]. This NSSR technique allows one to
generate an equivalent set of states for the system, using the
measured inputs and outputs. The method does not require
differentation, despite perturbations, uncertainties and even
unknown parameters in the system model [4, 5, 19].
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents
theoretical background and Section 3 presents active noise
control experiments in an acoustic duct as a suitable real-
time platform to test the proposed LMI based approach.
Finally, conclusions are summarized in Section 4.
II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
A. Duct ANC system
Consider a semi open-ended duct ANC system depicted in
Figure 1, where the speaker (Sd) is for generating a
disturbance noise d(t) and the speaker (Sc) is for applying the
control signal u(t) to cancel/reduce the noise y1(t) at the error
microphone M1. Moreover, M2 and M3 are additional noise
measurement microphones with outputs y2(t), y3(t),
respectively. The objective is to design a robust control u(t)
such that in a large neighborhood of M1 the acoustic noise is
reduced over a wide frequency band. Most ANC algorithms
result in a small zone of quiet only around the error
microphone M1. The robust control u(t) in this paper is
designed based on the acoustic measurements at M1, such
that the acoustic noise is reduced at M1 and also at M2 and
M3, which results in a zone of quiet stretching effectively
from point a to b, as shown in Figure 1. Note that M1 is the
only microphone to be used in the closed-loop for control
implementation. Microphones M2 and M3 are only for
monitoring the noise levels at their fixed locations and for
the verification of the control performance.
other, due to the location-based uncertainties, they belong to
a convex set constrained between some upper and lower
bound Bode magnitude plots, as shown in the figure. The
problem here is to design a noise reducing control for a
system whose Bode plot varies between these upper and
lower frequency-domain bounds. If such a control structure
exists, then it would be robust against such location-
dependent uncertainties and the undesired w(t) will be
reduced in the region between locations a and b. We address
this problem in Section 2.3.
Figure 2. Block diagram of acoustic duct for active noise control

Figure 3. Upper and lower vertices of G1(s), G2(s) and G3(s)

B. Non-minimal state-space realization

Figure 1. Acoustic duct for active noise control Robust optimal control design requires the measurement of
As in [20], let P(s) and G1(s) be the transfer functions of all state variables. Linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) and H∞
the primary and secondary path dynamics from Sd to M1 and optimal control techniques require state estimation, leading
from Sc to M1, respectively. Then, assuming that the duct is to solving two algebraic Riccati equations simultaneously.
a one-dimensional acoustic channel, P(s) can be written as Here, we consider a nonminimal state-space realization of
P(s)=H(s)G1(s). The block diagram of the duct ANC system the system where the state variables of the system are found
is shown in Figure 2, where w(t) is the bounded disturbance directly from only the input and output measurements,
due to noise d(t) passing through H(s). The disturbance without any differentiation.
signal w(t) then enters the secondary path G1(s), between the For this purpose, consider a system model in state space as
control speaker Sc and the measurement microphone M1, x = Ak x + Bk u
where its effect at microphone M1 must be minimized. Here, (1)
y = Ck x
without any loss of generality, all modeling errors and other
discrepancies can also be lumped in the disturbance w(t) [4]. where Ak ∈ℜnxn , Bk ∈ℜnxm , Ck ∈ℜ pxn are constant
Now let G2(s) and G3(s) denote the transfer models from Sc
matrices, and x, u , y are the state, input and output vectors,
to M2 and from Sc to M3. These, however, can be written as
G2(s)=G1(s)Δ2(s) and G3(s)=G2(s)Δ3(s), where Δ2(s) and respectively. Also, u (t ) = u (t ) + w(t ) , since both control
Δ3(s) are the multiplicative uncertainty transfer models signal u(t) and disturbance w(t) enter the duct ANC system
corresponding to the locations of microphones M2 and M3 via the secondary path. Equation (1) represents the upper
relative to the nominal microphone M1, as shown in Figure and lower bound vertex models of the duct ANC system
2. Now, assume that the location of the active error where subscript k=1,2 denotes the upper and lower bound
microphone M1 is uncertain and that it could be at either models, respectively. An equivalent state-space
locations M1, M2 or M3, but that its nominal location is M1. representation of (1) can be given as
In other words, the duct ANC system with speaker (input) at ⎡ 0 I " 0 ⎤ ⎡ Ck Bk ⎤
Sc and active microphone (output) at M1, is assumed to have ⎢ # % % # ⎥ ⎢ C AB ⎥
x = ⎢ x + ⎢ k k k ⎥u
a transfer model G(s) that could take the forms G1(s), G2(s) 0 " 0 I ⎥ #
or G3(s), depending on the uncertain location of the ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ (2)
− a I −
⎣  a I " − a I ⎢ n −1
Bk ⎥⎦

⎦
0, k 1, k n −1, k C
⎣A
microphone M1, and that its nominal transfer model is G1(s). 

k k

Ak Bk
The situation is depicted in Figure 3 which shows the typical
y = [I 0 " 0] x
Bode magnitude plots for the three models, G1(s), G2(s) or 
 

G3(s). Since these models are slightly different from each Ck

where ai,k’s are the coefficients of the characteristic sn s n − (s + λ )n + (s + λ )n
polynomial of matrix Ak. Using (2), we can now define u f (n) = u= u
(s + λ ) n
(s + λ )n (11)
a0,k y = a0,k Ck x ( )
= s n − ( s + λ ) n u f + u = P ( s ) n −1 u f + u
a1,k y = a1,k ( Ck Ak x + Ck Bk u )
(3) where
#
( )
T
P ( s ) n −1 u f = [ −λ0 ... −λn −1 ] ⎡u f T ... u f( n −1) ⎤ = −λ Tf U f (12)
T
( n−1) n−1 n−2 ( n−2)
an−1,k y = an−1,k Ck Ak x + Ck Ak Bk u + ... + Ck Bk u ⎣ ⎦
n−1 ( n−2) ( n−1)
y = Ck Ak x + Ck Ak Bk u + ... + Ck Ak Bk u
( n) ( n)
+ Ck Bk u
and λ f = [ λ0 ... λn −1 ]T with λk = ⎛⎜
n ⎞ k +1
k +1
⎟ λ . Similarly,
Summation of all the rows in (3) gives, ⎝ ⎠

[a 0, k
I a1, k I " an −1, k I ]Y + y (n)
= Ck ⎡⎣ a0,k I + a1, k Ak + ...
(4)
y (n)
f = P( s)n −1 y f + y = −λ Y f + y T
f (13)
+an−1,k Ak n −1
+ Ak ⎤⎦ x + [ B0, k
n
B1, k ... Bn −1, k ]U Then, we get
where (
y = y (fn ) + λ Tf y f = Cζ , k + ⎡⎣ λ Tf )
0 ⎤⎦ ζ f (14)
(
B0, k = Ck a1, k I + a2, k Ak + ... + an −1, k Ak n−2
+ Ak n −1
) Bk
Now, we can rewrite (9) using (10) – (14), as
(
B1, k = Ck a2, k I + a3, k Ak + ... + an −1, k Ak n −3 + Ak n − 2 Bk )
#
(5)
(
ζ f = Aζ , k − ⎡⎣ 0, Bζ , k λ Tf ⎤⎦ ζ f + Bζ , k u
 

)
Bn −1, k = Ck Bk Aζ ,k
(15)
And that Y and U are defined as
 

(
y = Cζ + ⎡⎣ λ 0 ⎤⎦ ζ T
f ) f
T
Y = ⎡y ⎤
T
T
y ... y T ( n −1) Cζ ,k
⎣ ⎦ (6)
T
and also from the first element of equation (10), we have
U = ⎡u T u T ... u ( n −1) ⎤
T

⎣ ⎦
y f = Cζ , k ζ f (16)
It should be noted that according to Cayley-Hamilton
theorem in [21], the coefficient of x in (4) is zero. That is, Equation (15) represents a non-minimal state-space
realization (NSSR) of (1). Here, the NSSR reformulates the
Ck ⎡⎣ a0, k I + a1, k Ak + ... + an −1, k Ak n −1 + Ak n ⎤⎦ = 0 (7) output feedback problem to a state-feedback control problem
with full-state measurement, ζf, which is available even
Let ζ be a new state vector using Y and U as,
when the parameter matrices in system (1) are unknown.
T T
ζ = ⎡⎣Y T ,U T ⎤⎦ = ⎡⎣ y T ... y ( n −1) u T ... u ( n −1) ⎤⎦
T T
(8) C. Robust state-feedback H∞ control using LMI
Then, a new state-space representation can be defined using In this section, a new H∞ control approach for active noise
(4) and (8) as, control with fictitious sensor location uncertainty is
presented using linear matrix inequality. The full state H∞
⎡ 0 I 0 ... ... 0 ⎤ ⎡0 ⎤ control design [23] used here is the state feedback version of
⎢ # % # ⎥ ⎢# ⎥
⎢ 0 ... 0 I 0 ... ... 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ the output feedback H∞ control theory [5], [22]. This
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
− a I ... ... − a I B ... ... B (9) method results in a control u (t ) = − K χ for the system (17),
ζ = ⎢ 0, k n −1, k 0, k n −1, k ⎥
ζ + ⎢ ⎥ u (n)
⎢ 0 ... ... 0 I 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ so that the inequality (18) is satisfied. That is,
⎢ # % # ⎥ ⎢# ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢0 ⎥ χ = Fk χ + Gk u + Gw,k w
⎢ 0 ... ... 0 I ⎥
⎢ ⎥ (17)
⎣⎢ 

0 ... ... 0 ⎦⎥ ⎣N
I⎦
z = C z χ + Dz u
Aζ ,k Bζ , k

y = [I 0 ... ... 0]ζ Tzw ( s ) <γ (18)


 

∞
Cζ ,k

where ζ, the states of (9) are formed using direct derivatives where γ is the performance bound. Here, Fk = Aζ , k and
of inputs and outputs. However, it is not practical to Gk = Bζ , k are the non-minimal state space system matrices,
differentiate these measured signals [5]. To avoid
χ =ζf is the full-state measurement, and Gw, k = Gk .
differentiation and to eliminate u(n), the system’s inputs and
outputs are filtered by the transfer function 1/Λ(s) [4], where Moreover, C z and Dz are the H∞ control design matrices,
Λ(s)=(s+λ)n, λ>0, is an arbitrary monic and Hurwitz
where it is assumed that Dz DzT = I [22]. Equation (17), with
polynomial of degree n, as
T T
k=1,2, represents the frequency-domain upper and lower
ζ f = ⎡⎣Y fT ,U Tf ⎤⎦ = ⎡ y f T ... y f ( n −1) u f T ... u f ( n −1) ⎤
T T
(10) bound models of the duct ANC system, respectively. The
⎣ ⎦
H∞ control solution is achieved by solving a minimization
where subscript f denotes filtered version of the signal. Also problem with the cost function given as
 ∞ this experiment that had an approximately flat frequency
J ( χ , u , w) = ∫ ( z T z − γ 2 wT w)dt (19) response in the frequency range from 30 Hz to 18000 Hz.
0 The purpose of this active noise control experiment was to
where one needs to find the positive-definite and symmetric reduce the noise in a region from a to b, using only
matrix P and the control gain K from (20) to realize microphone M1 (see Figure 1), by applying the proposed
u (t ) = − K χ [5], [22], where we must have control to the speaker Sc at the middle of the duct. The other
microphones were used for monitoring and verification.
(Fk − Gk K )T P + P(Fk − Gk K ) + PGk Gk T P
(20)
+ γ −2 PGw,k Gw,kT P + CzT Cz < 0
This inequality is nonlinear in the unknown variables P and
K. To remove the nonlinearity from (20), first let P = P −1 .
Then, after multiplying both sides by P , (20) becomes,
P(Fk − Gk K )T + (Fk − Gk K )P + Gk GkT
(21)
+ γ −2Gw,k Gw,k T + PCzT Cz P < 0 Figure 4. Experimental setup

However, the above inequality in terms of the variables P A. Modeling results

and K is still nonlinear. Now let K = KP and apply schur Figure 5 shows experimental frequency responses of G1(s):
complement, then (21) becomes a linear inequality, as Sc → M1, G2(s): Sc → M2, and G3(s): Sc → M3. Due to the
PFk T + Fk P − Gk K − K T Gk T + Gk Gk T uncertain transfer functions, Δ1(s) and Δ2(s) (see Figure 2),
(22) G2(s) and G3(s) slightly differ from the nominal model G1(s).
+ γ −2Gw,k Gw,k T + PCzT Cz P < 0 As mentioned in Section 2.1, the ANC system with
As explained in [18] and [25], χ = ( Fk − Gk K ) χ + Gw, k w uncertainties can be approximated as upper and lower bound
frequency-based models (vertex models) as in Figure 5.
would be quadratically stable if and only if there exists Since the upper and lower vertex models envelop
P = P T > 0 , γ > 0 , and K such that the inequality (22), or experimental frequency responses of G1(s), G2(s), and G3(s),
equivalently (23), is feasible. That is, a controller that is designed using these vertices is said to be
robust, if the inequality in (23) is feasible. That is, if a
⎡⎛ PFk T + Fk P − Gk K − K T Gk T ⎞ ⎤
⎢⎜ T ⎟ PC z T ⎥ controller exists, then the undesired noise is reduced from a
+ G G T
+ γ −2
G G < 0 (23)
⎢⎝ k k w , k w, k ⎠
⎥ to b (see Figure 1).
⎣⎢ • − I ⎥⎦
where • denotes the corresponding parts of the symmetric
matrix. Then, the gain of the state-feedback control
u (t ) = − K χ , will be given as
K = KP −1 (24)
That is, one must first solve the above multi-model (MM)-
LMI problem for P = P T > 0 , γ > 0 , and K , using LMI
software tools [18], [24]. Then, the stabilizing H∞ control
can be found from calculating (24). The resulting control
will then satisfy Tzw ( s ) ∞ < γ for both the upper and lower Figure 5. Modeling results
bound frequency-domain models of the uncertain system [5],
In this experiment, the upper and lower vertex models are
and hence the resulting ANC control will be robust with
found to be of 8th order. Applying the non-minimal state
respect to the uncertainties in microphone locations.
space realization (NSSR) technique resulted in 16th order
models of the duct ANC system, with known states, despite
III. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS perturbations and uncertainties. For this experiment, the
The proposed multi-model linear matrix inequality (MM- roots of the monic polynomial Λ(s)=(s+λ)n for the filter used
LMI) based robust H∞ control technique was implemented in the NSSR algorithm was selected as λ=0.05. Here, the
for a duct active noise control (ANC) system, in real-time, NSSR technique doubles the order of the duct ANC system
using dSPACE DS1104 digital signal processor (DSP), with model for the controller design. On the other hand, it should
Matlab/Simulink support. The DSP sampling rate was be noted that the LQG and H∞ based output-feedback
chosen to be 10kHz. The experimental setup is as shown in controllers also double the order of the controlled system,
Figure 4. The experimental apparatus included a 100cm due to the existence of an observer. However, the NSSR
long, 18cm wide, 18cm high, and 1.5cm thick rectangular allows one to generate an equivalent set of states, using
Plexiglas duct with two speakers fixed to it as depicted in the measured inputs and outputs, which increase the robustness
figure. Three omni-directional microphones were used in
of the control. The observer-based controllers are not
generally as robust as state-feedback controllers [5], [22].
For the purpose of comparison, a non-LMI based
controller was also implemented using only the nominal
model of the system, while ignoring all model uncertainties.
For both the multi-model LMI (MM-LMI) and non-LMI
control designs the same 8th order transfer function G1(s)
was considered as the nominal model of the ANC system. In
both cases, after applying the NSSR technique the resulting
transfer function became of 16th order. The next section
presents the results for active noise control for both the
proposed MM-LMI based robust control and the non-LMI
based H∞ control approaches.
B. Robust active noise control results
The proposed approach was implemented using the upper
and lower frequency domain models (vertex models) that are
given in Section 3.1. The H∞ control design matrices were
selected as C z = Cζ , k and Dz = 1 . The MM-LMI based H∞
control design resulted in a performance bound of γ=2.371.
Using the identified nominal model G1(s), a non-LMI based
H∞ control [23] was also implemented without considering
the uncertainties Δ1(s) and Δ2(s). Figure 6 presents noise
reduction for G1(s): Sc → M1. From this figure, both LMI
based control and non-LMI based control achieve noise
reduction at M1 as compared with the open-loop frequency
response of G1(s) (without any control). However, the
proposed LMI-based method attenuated the undesired noise
better than the non-LMI based method.
Figure 6. Frequency responses: G1(s) without control (open-loop) (solid
line), G1(s) under proposed LMI based control (dashed line), G1(s) under
non-LMI based control (dotted line)
Figure 7. Frequency responses: G2(s) without control (open-loop) (solid
line), G2(s) under proposed LMI based control (dashed line), G2(s) under
non-LMI based control (dotted line)
Figure 7 shows the noise reduction at M2. Since the non-
LMI based method does not consider the uncertainty Δ2(s),
the undesired noise at M2 is increased after 700 rad/sec, as
compared to the open-loop frequency response for G2(s).
However, the proposed LMI based method reduced the noise
at M2 in all frequency values, successfully.
Figure 8 presents noise reduction performance at M3.
Since the non-LMI based method does not consider
uncertainties Δ2(s) and Δ3(s), its performance at M3 became
noticeably worse, as compared with the open-loop frequency
response for G3(s). However, the proposed method achieved
an acceptable noise reduction at M3 in all frequency values,
successfully.
Figure 8. Frequency responses: G3(s) without control (open-loop) (solid
line), G3(s) under proposed LMI based control (dashed line), G3(s) under
non-LMI based control (dotted line)
Although, from Figures 6-8, the results are clear in the
frequency-domain, the noise attenuation performance of the
proposed LMI-based control is also apparent in time-
domain, as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Active noise control using LMI-based control method (upper
figure) and non-LMI based control method (lower figure) at 500 rad/sec of
central frequency and 200 rad/sec of bandwidth

Figure 9 presents the results for a narrowband bounded
noise signal with central frequency of 500 rad/sec and a
bandwidth of 200 rad/sec. Similar results have been obtained
for central frequency of 250 rad/sec and a bandwidth of 100
rad/sec. As seen from the figure, the proposed control is
applied at 2.35 seconds and is successful in reducing the
noise around all three microphones. However, as it is evident
from this figure, the non-LMI based control is not able to
reduce the noise as successfully as the proposed method.
Moreover, with non-LMI based control method, the noise
reduction performance became worse from first to third
microphones, due to reliance on only the nominal model of
the system.
To sum up, as clearly evident from Figure 6, the non-LMI
based control method was able to achieve a sufficient noise
reduction performance around microphone M1. However, its
performance was not completely satisfactory around M2 and
M3, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. On the other hand, from
the same Figures 6-8, the proposed multi-model LMI
method achieved a significant noise reduction in all relevant
frequencies, and performed consistently better than the non-
LMI based method in all frequencies over a reasonably wide
bandwidth. This is also evident from Figure 9 where the
time-domain performance of the LMI-based control is seen
to be significantly better that that of the non-LMI control.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
A new control method is reported and implemented for
active noise control (ANC) in a duct by introducing fictitious
microphone location-based model uncertainty. The proposed
control employs a non-minimal state-space realization
(NSSR) of the system and is derived using multi-model
LMI-based state-feedback robust H∞ control method. The
proposed approach was applied and was successful in
reducing the effect of audio noise over a significantly larger
region, hence, enlarging the zone of quiet. The experimental
tests with the proposed control method shows a significant
reduction in noise level, as compared with a robust H∞
control approach without considering the microphone
location-based uncertainty. The implementation results were
compatible with the presented theory and showed
improvement over previous results.
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was partially supported by the Illinois
Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity
(DCEO) through Illinois Clean Coal Institute (ICCI).
REFERENCES
[1] M. R. Bai, H. H. Lin, “Comparison of active noise control structures
in the presence of acoustical feedback by using the H∞ synthesis
technique”, Jour. Sound and Vibration, Vol. 206, pp. 453-471, 1997.
[2] S. M. Kuo, D. R. Morgan, “Active noise control: a tutorial review”,
Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 943-973, 1999.
[3] C. N. Hansen, Understanding active noise cancellation, Taylor-
Francis, 2001.
[4] T. Yucelen, F. Pourboghrat, “Kalman filter based modeling and
constrained H∞ optimal control for active noise cancellation” IEEE
View publication stats
Proc. of Control and Decision Conference, pp. 5401-5406, New
Orleans, LA, December, 2007.
[5] T. Yucelen, F. Pourboghrat, “Active noise blocking: Non-minimal
modeling, robust control, and implementation”, Proc. of IEEE
American Control Conference, St. Louis, MO, 2009.
[6] P. Leug, “Process of silencing sound oscillations”, U.S. patent no.
2,043,416, 1936.
[7] C. N. Wang, C. C. Tse, C. W. Wen, “A study of active noise
cancellation in ducts”, Jour. Mech. Syst. and Signal Processing, Vol.
11, No. 6, pp.779-790, 1997.
[8] F. Jiang, H. Tsuji, H. Ohmori, A. Sano, “Adaptation for active noise
control”, IEEE Control Syst. Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 36-47,
1997.
[9] A. J. Hull, C. L. Radcliffe, S. C. Southward, “Global active noise
control of a one-dimensional acoustic duct using a feedback
controller”, Jour. of Dyn. Sys., Meas., and Control, Vol. 115, No. 3,
pp.488-494, 1993.
[10] J. Hong, J. C. Akers, R. Venugopal, M. N. Lee, A.G. Sparks, P. D.
Washabaugh, D. S. Bernstein, “Modelling, identification, and
feedback control of noise in an acoustic duct”, IEEE Proc. of
American Control Conference, pp. 3669-3673, Seattle, WA, June,
1995.
[11] Z. Wu, V. K. Varadan, V.V. Varadan, “Active absorption of acoustic
waves using state-space model and optimal control theory”, J. Acoust.
Soc. America, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 1078-1087, 1997.
[12] H. F. Olsen, E. F. May, “Electronic sound absorver”, J. Acoust. Soc.
America, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 135-139, 1953.
[13] V. Toochinda, Fundemental limitations of ANC in one-dimensional
ducts using two sensors and one actuator, Dissertation, Univ. of
Massachusetts Amherst, 2002.
[14] R. T. O’Brien, J. M. Watkins, G. E. Piper, D. C. Baumann, “H∞ active
noise control of fan noise in an acoustic duct”, IEEE Proc. of
American Contr. Conference, pp. 3028-3032, 2000.
[15] J. C. Carmona, V. M. Alvarado, “Active noise control of a duct using
robust control theory”, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technology, Vol. 8,
No. 6, pp. 930-938, 2000.
[16] M. O’Brien, P. Pratt, “Active noise control using robust feedback
techniques”, IEEE Proc. of Int. Conf. On Acoustics, Speech, and
Signal Processing, pp. 3209-3212, 2001.
[17] D. Xiaoming, Y. Tao, S. Huihe, “A study of hybrid control based on
H-infinity synthesis technique of active noise control”, IEEE Proc. of
Conf. on Decision and Control, pp. 2586-2591, 2001.
[18] S. Boyd, L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, V. Balakrishnan, Linear matrix
inequalities in system and control theory, SIAM Studies in Applied
Mathematics, 1994.
[19] T. Yucelen, F. Pourboghrat, “Adaptive H∞ optimal control strategy
based on nonminimal state space realization” ASME International
Mech. Engr. Congr. And Exposition, Seattle, WA, November, 2007.
[20] M. N. Belur, R. N. Banavar, A. D. Mahidrakar, “Active noise
cancellation using H∞ control techniques”, IEEE Proc. Int. Conf. on
Industrial Technology, pp. 192-195, 2000.
[21] M. Braun, Differential equations and their applications: An
introduction to applied mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[22] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, Essentials of robust control, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.
[23] J. C. Doyle, K. Glover, P. P. Khargonekar, B. A. Francis, “State-space
solutions to standard H2 and H∞ control problems” IEEE Trans. on
Automatic Control, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 831-847, 1989.
[24] C. Scherer, P. Gahinet, M. Chilali, “Multiobjective output-feedback
control via LMI optimization”, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control,
Vol. 42, No. 7, pp. 896-911, 1996.
[25] S. Da Silva, V. J. Junior, M. J. Brennan, “Design of a control system
using linear matrix inequalities for the active vibration control of a
plate”, Jour. Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 17, No.
1, pp. 81-93, 2006.