aerospace
Article
Observer-Based Backstepping Adaptive Force Control of
Electro-Mechanical Actuator with Improved LuGre
Friction Model
Wensen Zhang 1,2 , Zilong Ping 1,2 , Yongling Fu 1,2, *, Shicheng Zheng 1,2 and Peng Zhang 3
Citation: Zhang, W.; Ping, Z.; Fu, Y.;
Zheng, S.; Zhang, P. Observer-Based
Backstepping Adaptive Force Control
of Electro-Mechanical Actuator with
Improved LuGre Friction Model.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415. https://
doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9080415
Academic Editor: Konstantinos
Kontis
Received: 30 June 2022
Accepted: 25 July 2022
Published: 30 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 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 (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9080415
1 School of Mechanical Engineering and Automation, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China;
wensenzhang@buaa.edu.cn (W.Z.); pingzilongbuaa@163.com (Z.P.); shichengzhengs@buaa.edu.cn (S.Z.)
2 Laboratory of Aerospace Servo Actuation and Transmission, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
3 Beijing Research Institute of Precise Mechatronic Controls, Beijing 100076, China; 13001091127@163.com
* Correspondence: fuyongling@126.com
Abstract: A dynamic load simulator, which can reproduce on-ground aerodynamic hinge moment
of control surface, is an essential rig for the performance and stability test of an aircraft actuation
system. In this paper, an observer-based backstepping adaptive control (OBAC) strategy with an
improved friction model is proposed to deal with the force tracking problem of an electro-mechanical
actuator under the influence of nonlinear friction and lumped disturbances. First, The LuGre friction
model is improved by introducing the load effect of electrical linear load simulator (ELLS), and both
dynamic and static parameters are identified with experimental data. Then, the ELLS system is
divided into a loading subsystem and actuation subsystem for backstepping controller deign. The
estimation of the position disturbance is obtained using an extended state observer and used for
feedforward compensation for the loading subsystem. To reject the disturbance of friction parameter
uncertainties for actuation subsystem, a friction scale factor with a reasonable adaptive updating law
is introduced during the friction compensation process. Finally, the stability of the whole closed-loop
system is demonstrated using a Lyapunov-based method, and experiments are performed to validate
the effectiveness of the developed algorithm.
Keywords: electro-mechanical actuator; friction modelling; parameter identification; adaptive back-
stepping force control; extended state observer
1. Introduction
With the development of power-by-wire (PBW) technology in aerospace field, the
flight actuation system is gradually replaced from hydraulic power to the electrical [1,2].
The electro-mechanical actuator, which belongs to one of the PBW actuator and is capable
of direct conducting the transform from electric to mechanical power, is advantageous
for power management, integration and maintenance [2]. Currently, EMAs have come to
service in the partial systems of civil and military aircrafts, including ram air inlet system,
B787 wheel brake, A350 horizontal stabilizer, etc. [1,3,4].
A great deal of work related to laboratory tests as well as flight tests of EMA has been
conducted to establish the credibility of electric actuation for primary or crucial aircraft
system. NASA conducted the flight test of the EMA performance on the F-18 aileron for the
comparison with the origin hydraulic actuator [5]. At the Covadis project, the researchers
succeeded in introducing EMA for a flight test on an aileron of A320, where a series of
ground tests were finished in advance on an iron bird test bench [6]. The laboratory or
flight tests of EMA for landing gear, spoiler, etc. have already made progress [7,8].
Qualification of EMAs relying on pure fight test is a high-cost, high-risk and time-
consuming process. Therefore, it is essential to develop an on-ground load simulator to
verify the performance of the PBW actuator [9,10]. This is an effective way to foresee and
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/aerospace
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 2 of 19

detect the potential problems of the whole actuation system. Due to the development
of high-performance power electronics, motors and mechanical transmission, electro-
mechanical actuators are suitable for low-power position control applications and cover
different domains [11,12].
The utilization of an electro-mechanical actuator as a dynamic load generator, which
is normally known as an electric linear load simulator (ELLS), has gradually received
increasing attention. Compared to the widely used electro-hydraulic load simulators,
electro-mechanical actuators are advantageous for durability, reliability and suitable appli-
cation on light load simulators [12].
ELLS is generally expected to provide loading force for tested actuator by tracking the
command signal. Its loading accuracy is mainly influenced by the external position distur-
bance and internal nonlinear friction [13]. Research on how to eliminate these influences
and improve the dynamic loading performance has attracted increasing attentions. For
ELLS, the active motion from tested actuator causes strong position disturbance, which can
seriously reduce the tracking accuracy.
To reject this external disturbance, structure invariance compensation approach based
on speed feedforward compensation is widely utilized and recognized as one of the most
effective methods [14]. Additionally, in the situations of low speed or frequently varied
speed directions, the friction nonlinearity may cause dead zone, creep and large steady
state error [15,16]. Its negative effect is more apparent for ELLS, which is usually applied
for simulating light loads. The relevant research can be divided into two categories: model-
based and model-free friction compensation strategies, and the former is based on various
friction models.
Kang et al. conducted friction modelling and identification based on GMS friction
model and designed an adaptive terminal sliding model force control strategy by estimating
the disturbance boundary [3]. Yao et al. proposed a robust LuGre-model-based friction
compensation strategy in which the unmeasurable state is estimated by a dual state observer
for a hydraulic load simulator [17].
Alleyne et al. adopted a novel friction model by combining the Karnopp and Stribeck
friction models and designed an adaptive controller to eliminate the friction influence for
hydraulic load simulator [18]. Wang et al. used the hyperbolic tangent function to describe
the stick-slip friction phenomenon in the backstepping controller development process [19].
The obvious advantage is to successfully obtain the differential calculation of the virtual
control, whereas this friction model cannot sufficiently consider the friction variations in
the pre-slip stage.
The model-based friction compensation approach generally includes parameter iden-
tification, which requires abundant post-experiment data and complex optimization al-
gorithm. In addition, the option of different friction models and parameter identification
accuracy seriously impact the effective of proposed controller. Therefore, some researchers
focus on the model-free method, the overall consideration of which is to treat the friction
nonlinearity as unknown disturbance. Wang et al. designed a proportional resonant con-
troller for electric torque load simulator based on Nyquist diagram and adopted phase
angle compensation technology to optimize the bandwidth [20].
Zhao et al. developed a feedforward inverse model controller to enhance the load
bandwidth without destroying the stability, the key of which is to solve the inverse model
of the system transfer function [21]. Jing et al. designed dual extended state observers
to estimate the friction and position disturbances for compensation for hydraulic load
simulator [22]. Other robust control approaches, including quantality feedback theory
control [23], intelligent control [24,25] and H-Infinity control [26], have been used for load
simulator.
With above overall investigations, the model-based control approach is more attractive
on its less complexity and convenience for engineering practice. At the pre-slip stage, a
minor displacement occurs due to approximate elastic deformation [27]. The load ampli-
tude may show significant influence on friction. However, the mainly dependent friction
 Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of

Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 3 of 19

a minor displacement occurs due to approximate elastic deformation [27]. The load am
plitude may show significant influence on friction. However, the mainly dependent fri
model, such as Stribeck model or traditional LuGre model [27], cannot evaluate these
tion model, such as Stribeck model or traditional LuGre model [27], cannot evaluate the
factors simultaneously. Therefore, an improved friction model will be proposed and used
factors simultaneously. Therefore, an improved friction model will be proposed and use
for friction compensation. Considering the position disturbance, parameter uncertainties
for friction compensation. Considering the position disturbance, parameter uncertainti
and unknown disturbance
and unknown fordisturbance
ELLS, the for
extended state
ELLS, the observer
extended andobserver
state adaptiveandcontrol lawcontrol la
adaptive
will be simultaneously utilized to achieve high accuracy and strong robustness.
will be simultaneously utilized to achieve high accuracy and strong robustness.
The rest of this The
article
restisof
organized asisfollows:
this article Section
organized 2 presents
as follows: the system
Section description
2 presents the system descri
and mathematical tion model of ELLS. Then,
and mathematical model inofSection 3, an improved
ELLS. Then, in Section 3,LuGre based friction
an improved LuGre based fri
model is established and the
tion model friction parameters
is established are identified.
and the friction parametersSection 4, an observer-based
are identified. Section 4, an observe
backstepping adaptive control strategy
based backstepping adaptive is control
proposed to achieve
strategy hightodynamic
is proposed tracking
achieve high dynamic trac
performance. Section 5 conducts the experiment validation to prove the
ing performance. Section 5 conducts the experiment validation to prove the effective of theeffective
propose control algorithm. Finally, conclusions summarize the main contributions
the propose control algorithm. Finally, conclusions summarize the main contributions of
this study. this study.

2. System Description
2. Systemand Mathematical
Description Model
and Mathematical Model
The concernedThe object in this paper
concerned is shown
object in this paperin Figure
is shown 1. in
The left side
Figure is the
1. The left electro-
side is the electr
mechanical actuator underactuator
mechanical test, whereas the right
under test, whereas sidethe
is another
right sideelectro-mechanical actu-
is another electro-mechanical act
ator functioning as functioning
ator the ELLS. The servo
as the drive
ELLS. Themodulus
servo drive accepts
modulusthe control
accepts output signal
the control output sign
from controllerfrom
and drive the motor.
controller and driveThethe
linear force
motor. Theislinear
transformed from the motor
force is transformed fromtorque
the motor torqu
the via the screw-nut
the via mechanism
the screw-nut and applied on
mechanism andthe testedon
applied actuator.
the testedIn actuator.
normal operation,
In normal operatio
the actuator under test is responsible
the actuator under test isfor active motion
responsible by tracking
for active motion by thetracking
desiredtheposition
desired positio
command. For command.
the ELLS, theForsame time as
the ELLS, thethe servo
same timeloading
as the is conducted,
servo loading aispassive pursuit
conducted, a passive pu
suit movement
movement is required is required
along with along with tested actuator.
tested actuator.

Figureof
Figure 1. Architecture 1. the
Architecture
ELLS andoftested
the ELLS and tested actuator.
actuator.

The torque
The torque equilibrium and equilibrium and force
force equilibrium equilibrium
functions are, functions are,expressed
respectively, respectively,as: expresse
as:
dωm
Tm = Jm + Tfm + TLe dω (1)
dt Tm = J m m + Tfm + TLe (
dt
..
Fe = Me xe + Ff + FL (2)
Fe = M e xe + Ff + FL (
where Tm is the motor output torque, TLe is the load torque for motor, Jm is the inertia of mo-
tor, ω m is the motor
whereshaft
Tm isangular
the motor outputFtorque,
velocity, e is the Tdriving
Le is the force
loadof screw-nut
torque mechanism,
for motor, Jm is the inertia
FL is the loading force,ωM
motor, me isisthe
themotor
translational
shaft angular of ELLS, Fxeeisisthe
mass velocity, thedriving
translational
force ofdisplace-
screw-nut mech
ment of ELLS, nism,
and TFLeL is the Floading
and force, Minside
f are frictions e is thethe
translational
motor andmass of ELLS,
screw-nut xe is the translation
mechanism,
respectively. displacement of ELLS, and TLe and Ff are frictions inside the motor and screw-nut mech
Consideringnism,
anrespectively.
ideal screw-nut mechanism with lead ls , which converts the rotary
Considering an ideal screw-nut mechanism with lead ls, which converts the rota
motion into linear movement:
motion into linear movement:.
.
θm = ks xe , ωm = θ m = ks xe , Fe = ks TLe (3)

where ks = (2π)/ls is defined as the transform coefficient of screw-nut mechanism.

Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 4 of 19

Remark 1. The maximum desired loading frequency are generally within 10 Hz, whereas the
current loop natural frequency tuned inside motor servo drive can be up to 500 Hz. Therefore, the
current loop can be represented as pure gain element:

Tm = kt i ≈ kt iref (4)
where i and iref are actual motor current and current command; kt is the torque constant.
The force senor is used for loading force measurement, and its deformation is theoreti-
cally linear with the force amplitude:

FL = kp ( xe − xp ) (5)

where kp is the stiffness coefficient of the force sensor, and xp is the translational displace-
ment of the actuator under test.
Combining Equation (1) to Equation (5), the space-state description of ELLS is:
 . k .

 x1 = kps x2 − kp xp + d0


.
x2 = kJt u − TJf − Jk
x1
s
(6)



T
[ x1 x2 ] = [ FL ωm ]T , u = iref


where J = Jm + Me /k2s is the ELLS total equivalent inertia, Tf = Tfm + Ff /ks is the lumped
friction of ELLS. d0 represents the parameter uncertainties and unknown disturbances,
.
which are temporarily neglected in above mathematical modelling process for ELLS. xp is
the position disturbance from tested actuator for ELLS.
From Equation (6), the active motion of tested actuator leads to strong position distur-
bance. Additionally, there exists nonlinearities in ELLS, including friction and parameters
uncertainties. The design goal of control strategy is to achieve high dynamic performance
tracking of the loading force, when the loaded electro-mechanical actuator is subjected to
these disturbances.

3. Friction Model Improvement and Parameter Identification

To adopt the model-based method to compensate the friction Tf , the widely used
LuGre friction model is referred for subsequent work [27]:

Tf = σ0 z + σ1 dz



 dt + σ2 ωm
σ0 |ωm |

dz
dt = ωm − g(ωm ) z (7)


 2
g(ωm ) = Tc + ( Ts − Tc )e−(ωm /ωst )


where z is the average deformation of bristles; σ0 and σ1 are, respectively, the coefficients
of stiffness and damping; σ2 is the viscous friction coefficient; g(ω m ) represents the Stribeck
effect; Tc is the coulomb friction; Ts is the maximum static friction; and ω st is the Stribeck
angular velocity constant.
Unlike traditional hydraulic load mechanism, the loading force is transmitted by
screw-nut mechanism for ELLS. The variation of loading force magnitude will directly
influence the normal load between the contact surfaces inside screw-nut mechanism, which
lead to the approximately linear change of coulomb friction torque and maximum static
friction torque [28]. The following functions can be used to describe this relationship:
(
Tc = ac | FL | + bc
(8)
Ts = as | FL | + bs
 Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 5 of 19

where as and ac are the respective gradients of static and coulomb friction torques with
respect to load force. bc and bs are the respective static and coulomb friction torques on
unload occasion.
Substituting Equation (8) into Equation (7), the improved LuGre model considering
load effect is:
 dz
 Tf = σ0 z + σ1 dt + σ2 ωm


σ0 |ωm |

dz
dt = ωm − g(ωm ,FL ) z (9)


 2
g(ωm , FL ) = ac | FL | + bc + [( as − ac )| FL | + bs − bc ]e−(ωm /ωst )


where [ac , bc , as , bs , ω st , σ2 ] and [σ0 , σ1 ] are the static and dynamic parameters vectors,
respectively. The differential evolution algorithm will be used for parameter identification,
the algorithm implementation process of which was detailed described in our previous
contribution [29].
The identification of static friction parameter is based on experimental results under
a series of speed and loading force. The actuator under test is commanded to move with
steady speed bidirectionally. The ELLS is controlled to follow the active motion and apply
constant load force at the same time. To more precisely catch the Stribeck curve of ELLS
friction torque, the speed command is more densely distributed at the low speed region.
When the tested actuator moves with different direction, the loading force will present
different load performances, i.e., aiding or opposing. Therefore, the friction parameters may
be dependent on the operation quarters in identification process. Taking position direction
motion as example, the expected static parameter vector is defined as Ip = [ac + , bc + , as + , bs + ,
σ2 + , ω st + ]. With the static parameters identification results, a three-dimensional surface
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEWinvolving friction torque, speed and load force based on the improved LuGre model6 can of 21be
drawn in Figure 2a.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure2.2.Identification
Identificationresults
resultsofoffriction
frictionparameters.
parameters.(a)(a)Experimental
Experimentaland
andidentification
identificationresults
resultsofof
friction with static parameters. (b) Experimental and identification results of pre-slip displacement
friction with static parameters. (b) Experimental and identification results of pre-slip displacement
with
withdynamic
dynamicparameters.
parameters.

TheThedynamic parameters
fitting surface showsare
goodmainly relevant
agreement withwith
the the immeasurable
actual test data. Theinternal state be-
intersection z
attween
the pre-slip stage. The
a determined loadopen-loop experiments
force cross-section are carried
and this surface out with very
becomes slow
Stribeck rampwhile
curve, in-
put
thecurrent underbetween
intersection no-loadacondition to enhance
given velocity the effects
cross-section and ofthedynamic parameters. The
surface demonstrates that
the friction
expected torqueparameter
dynamic shows an approximately linear
vector is defined as Irelationship with
d = [σ0,σ1], and thethe loadfriction
static force. Similarly,
param-
the static
eters, which parameters
have beenidentification results
already available in the
from negative
previous direction can
identification, be be
will obtained.
applied for
dynamic Theparameters
dynamic parameters are In
identification. mainly relevant
Figure 2b, thewith the immeasurable
identification internal dis-
result of pre-slip state
z at the pre-slip stage. The open-loop experiments are carried out
placement with identified dynamic and static parameters shows great consistence with with very slow ramp
input
the current result.
experiment under no-load condition to enhance the effects of dynamic parameters.
TheItexpected dynamic
is noted that parameter vector
the identification is defined
process, which has as Ibeen
d = [σ 0, σ1 ], and
detailed the staticinfriction
addressed liter-
parameters,
ature which
[30], will have
not be been already
repeated here. Theavailable from previous
identification resultsidentification,
of both static willand be applied
dynamic
parameters are collected in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameter identification results of the improved friction model.

Static Parameters Dynamic Parameters

Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 6 of 19

for dynamic parameters identification. In Figure 2b, the identification result of pre-slip
displacement with identified dynamic and static parameters shows great consistence with
the experiment result.
It is noted that the identification process, which has been detailed addressed in litera-
ture [30], will not be repeated here. The identification results of both static and dynamic
parameters are collected in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameter identification results of the improved friction model.

Static Parameters Dynamic Parameters

bc as bs σ2 ωst σ0 σ1
ac (N·m/N)
(N·m) (N·m/N) (N·m) (N·m·s/rad) (rad/s) (N·m/rad) (N·m·s/rad)
P.D. 1.01 × 10−4 0.3317 1.13 × 10−4 0.5189 0.0173 0.3468
351.03 0.9014
N.D. 1.07 × 10−4 0.2755 1.46 × 10−4 0.5006 0.0234 0.3431
P.D.: positive direction; N.D.: negative direction.

4. Observer-Based Adaptive Backstepping Control

The architecture of the proposed observer-based adaptive backstepping controller
is shown in Figure 3. Considering the state functions in Equation (6) and based on the
backstepping design concept, the ELLS can be divided into two subsystems to simplify the
algorithm development process. The first and second differential equations are, respec-
tively, defined as the ‘loading’ subsystem and ‘actuation’ system. The state variable x2 is
treated as the virtual control input of ‘loading’ subsystem. Corresponding control laws are
individually designed for each subsystem. The adaptive friction estimation will be used
for friction compensation for ‘actuation’ subsystem, whereas the disturbance observation
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21
obtained by extender state observer (ESO) will be utilized for disturbance compensation
for ‘loading’ subsystem. The detailed design process will be presented subsequently.

Figure3.3.The
Figure Thearchitecture
architectureofofthe
theproposed
proposedobserver-based
observer-basedadaptive
adaptivebackstepping
backsteppingcontroller.
controller.

Forthe
For thepurpose
purposeof
ofsubsequent
subsequentcontroller
controllerdesign
designand
andanalysis,
analysis,the
the following
following assump-
assump-
tionsare
tions aregiven:
given:
. ..
Assumption 1. The desired tracking signal Fref and its derivatives  Fref , Fref are continuous,
Assumption
smooth 1. The desired tracking signal Fref and its derivatives Fref , Fref are continuous, smooth
and bounded.
and bounded.
Assumption 2. The lumped disturbance and friction disturbance, as well as their first-order
derivative
Assumptionare bounded. It is clear
2. The lumped that the friction
disturbance parameters
and friction in Equation
disturbance, as well (9)asand their
their first-order
first-order de-
derivatives are bounded.
rivative are bounded. It is clear that the friction parameters in Equation (9) and their first-order
derivatives are bounded.
4.1. ‘Loading’ Subsystem
Considering
4.1. ‘Loading’ the ‘loading’ subsystem of ELLS:
Subsystem
Considering the ‘loading’
. kp subsystem . of ELLS:
x1 = x2 − kp xp + d0 , x1 = FL , x2 = ωm (10)
ks k
p
x1 = x2 − kp x p +d0 , x1 = FL , x2 = ωm (10)
ks

The state variable x2 is treated as the virtual control input of ‘loading’ subsystem. The
object of control law is to make x1 track the desired loading command Fref with high dy-
namic performance.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 7 of 19

The state variable x2 is treated as the virtual control input of ‘loading’ subsystem.
The object of control law is to make x1 track the desired loading command Fref with high
dynamic performance.
Define the tracking error and its time derivative:

e1 = x1 − Fref (11)
. . .
e1 = x1 − Fref (12)

4.1.1. Disturbance Estimation

To eliminate the influence of position and unknown disturbances, an extender state
observer (ESO) can be established to obtain the lumped disturbance for feedforward
compensation. Therefore, define the lumped disturbance d:
.
d = − k p x p + d0 (13)

As the force sensor quantized by analog voltage will inevitably couple high frequency
noise signal, which may cause ESO unstable if the origin force signal is utilized for ESO
design. Therefore, a low-pass filter is often recommended in engineering practice:
ωc
x1f (s) = x (s) (14)
s + ωc 1

where x1f is the filter output, and ω c is the cut-off frequency.

The updated state-space form of ‘load’ subsystem is:
( .
x1f = ωc x1 − ωc x1f
. (15)
x1 = kp x2 /ks + d

A three-stage ESO is designed as:



 E1 = Z1 − x1f
.


 Z1 = ωc Z2 − ωc Z1 − β 1 E1


. (16)


 Z2 = Z3 − β 2 E1 + bx2

 .


Z3 = − β 3 E1

where b = kp /ks ; β 1 , β 2 and β 3 are positive gain coefficients; Z1 , Z2 and Z3 are the
estimations of x1f , x1 and disturbance d. .
Define estimation errors: E2 = Z2 − x1 , E3 = Z3 − d. Denote hd = |d|, and hd is bounded
by positive constant L under Assumption 2. Combining Equation (16), the state-space
description of observation error is:
.
Ee = Ae Ee + Be hd (17)
     
E1 −(ωc + β 1 ) ωc 0 0
where Ee =  E2 , Ae =  − β2 0 1, Be =  0 .
E3 − β3 0 0 −1
The method of pole assignment is utilized to tune the ESO gain coefficients [31]. All
eigenvalues of matrix Ae is imposed to −ω 0 :

λ(s) = |sI − Ae | = (s + ω0 )3 (18)

where ω 0 is the bandwidth of ESO. The gain coefficients can be obtained:

β 1 = 3ω0 − ωc , β 2 = 3ω02 /ωc , β 3 = ω03 /ωc (19)

Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 8 of 19

Theorem 1. For the ESO designed as Equation (16) and Equation (19), all the estimation errors
will be ultimately bounded by proper choosing the bandwidth parameter ω 0 .

Proof of Theorem 1. As the real parts of all eigenvalues of Ae are negative, there exists a
positive definite matrix P such that the following equation holds:

ATe P + PAe = −Q (20)

where Q is a positive definite matrix.

A positive-semi definite Lyapunov function is defined:

V = ETe PEe (21)

From Equation (17), the time derivative of V is:

. .T .
V = Ee PEe + ETe PEe = (Ae Ee + Be hd )T PEe + ETe P(Ae Ee + Be hd )
= ETe (ATe P + PAe )Ee + 2ETe PBe hd = −ETe QEe + 2ETe PBe hd (22)

≤ −λmin (Q)kEe k2 + 2LkPBe kkEe k = −kEe k(λmin (Q)kEe k − 2LkPBe k)

.
2LkPB k
Therefore, V ≤ 0 if kEe k ≥ λ (Qe ) . Thus, kEe k is ultimately bounded, and all the
min
estimation errors can grow smaller by proper adjusting the bandwidth parameter ω 0 . 

4.1.2. Control Law Design

Design a Lyapunov function for ‘load’ subsystem:

1 2
V1 = e (23)
2 1
From Equations (10) and (12):

. . . . kp .
V 1 = e1 e1 = e1 ( x1 − Fref ) = e1 ( x2 + d − Fref ) (24)
ks

To guarantee the subsystem stable and the error bounded, the control law can be
.
designed to make the V 1 negative definite. Therefore, choose the command value x2r for
virtual control input x2 :
ks .
x2r = − (− Fref + k1 e1 + Z3 ) (25)
kp
where k1 is the positive constant, and Z3 is the disturbance estimation obtained from ESO.
Define another track error e2 = x2 − x2r . Substitute Equation (25) into Equation (24):

. kp
V 1 = −k1 e12 + e e2 − E3 e1 (26)
ks 1

4.2. ‘Actuation’ Subsystem

Considering ‘actuation’ subsystem for ELLS:
 .
 x2 = kJt u − TJf − x1
Jks
(27)
 [ x x ]T = [ F ω ]T , u = i
1 2 L m ref

The design object for control output u is to guarantee that tracking error e2 of the virtual
control input of ‘loading’ subsystem can converge to a small neighborhood. Considering
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 9 of 19

the friction nonlinearity and parameter uncertainties disturbance, this controller should
possess stability and robustness at the same time.
From Equation (27), the time derivative of tracking error for ‘actuation’ system is:

. . . kt x 1 .
e2 = x2 − x2r = u − 1 − Tf − x2r (28)
J Jks J

4.2.1. Modified Observer for LuGre Model

Section 3 has finished the identification of nominal friction parameters. However,
friction is time-varying with the position and operation duration, and the stability and
robustness of the controller are difficult to ensure, if the nominal parameters are directed
used for control law design. Consequently, the estimation value of parameters can be
considered instead with proper adaptive update laws. However, the proposed improved
friction model includes eight parameters. This is why the traditional approach, which
establishes an observer for each parameter, will seriously increase the complexity. Based
on synthetical considerations, a scale factor ζ is introduced into friction model, the esti-
mation of which will be updated with designed adaptive law. The friction torque and its
observation value can be, respectively, expressed as:
   
σ0 | x2 |
Tf = ζ σ0 z + σ1 x2 − z + σ2 x2 , x2 = ωm (29)
g ( x1 , x2 )
   
σ0 | x2 |
T̂f = ζ̂ σ0 ẑ + σ1 x2 − ẑ + σ2 x2 (30)
g ( x1 , x2 )
where T̂f and ζ̂ are respective estimations of ELLS friction torque and scale factor; ẑ is the
estimation of the immeasurable internal state z. The proposed observer for z is:
 
. 1 σ0 | x2 | σ0 σ1 | x2 |
ẑ∆ = x2 − ẑ − e2 σ0 − (31)
k 3 g ( x1 , x2 ) g ( x1 , x2 )

where k3 is the observer gain coefficient with positive magnitude.

Considering the boundedness of adaptive parameters in practical application, a
projection-based adaptive law is used to modify the observer in Equation (31):
. .
ẑ = Projẑ (ẑ∆ ) (32)

The projection-based function is defined as:

 .
.  0, if ẑ = zmax and ẑ. ∆ > 0

Projẑ (ẑ∆ ) = 0, if ẑ = zmin and ẑ∆ < 0 (33)
 .

ẑ∆ , otherwise

Lemma 1. Denote the parameter estimation error e ∗ as e

∗ = ∗ˆ − ∗ and choose the adaptive law as
. .
∗ˆ = Proj∗ˆ (∗ˆ ∆ ), then a projection-based adaptive observer possesses the following properties [32]:

∗ˆ h∈ Ω∗ , {∗ˆ : ∗min
(
≤ ∗ˆ ≤ ∗max }
. . i (34)
∗ Proj∗ˆ (∗ˆ ∆ ) − ∗ˆ ∆ ≤ 0
e
.
where ∗ˆ ∆ is a designed adaptive function.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 10 of 19

4.2.2. Control Law Design

Define a positive-semi definite Lyapunov function:

1
V2 = V1 + e22 (35)
2
Combining Equations (26), (28) and (29), its time derivative can be written as:

kp
     
. . . kt 1 1 σ0 | x2 | .
V 2 = V 1 + e2 e2 = −k1 e12 − E3 e1 + e2 u + e1 − x1 − ζ σ0 z + σ1 x2 − z + σ2 x2 − x2r (36)
J ks Jks J g ( x1 , x2 )

By using the friction estimation in Equation (30), chose the control output u as:

kp
     
J 1 1 σ0 | x2 | .
u=− − k 2 e2 + e1 − x1 − ζ̂ σ0 ẑ + σ1 x2 − ẑ + σ2 x2 − x2r (37)
kt ks Jks J g ( x1 , x2 )

Substituting Equation (37) into Equation (36):

.  
V 2 = −k1 e12 − k2 e22 + 1J e2 σ0 ζe e 2 − σ0 σ1 | x2 | ζeẑ − σ0 σ1 | x2 | ζe
z + σ0 ζeẑ + σ1 ζx z + σ2 ζx
e 2
g( x1
,x2 ) g( x1 ,x2 ) 
 
σ σ |x |
(38)
− E3 e1 = −k1 e12 − k1 e22 + 1J e2 (ζe
z + ζeẑ) σ0 − g0( x1 ,x 2) + (σ1 + σ2 )ζx e 2 − E3 e1
1 2

4.2.3. Dynamic Surface Control

To avoid direct differential calculation of x2r in Equation (37), which may lead to
so-called differential explosion, the dynamic surface control technique can be employed.
Introducing a first-order filter and letting x2r pass through it to obtain the new command
value x2α of virtual control input [33]:
.
τ x2α + x2α = x2r , x2α (0) = x2r (0) (39)

where x2α is the filter output, and τ is first time constant of filter.
By denoting the filter error as η = x2α − x2r :
.
x2α = η + x2r , x2α = −η/τ (40)

The time derivative of filter error η is given as:

. . . .
η = x2α − x2r = −η/τ − x2r (41)

As the desired value of virtual control input is replaced from x2r into x2α , the tracking
errors and ultimate control output are updated:

e2 = x2 − x2α = x2 − (η + x2r ) (42)

. . kp
. . kp .
e1 = x1 − Fref =x2 + d − Fref = (η + x2r + e2 ) + d − Fref (43)
ks ks
kp
     
J 1 1 σ0 | x2 | .
u=− − k 2 e2 + e1 − x − ζ̂ σ0 ẑ + σ1 x2 − ẑ + σ2 x2 − x2α (44)
kt ks Jks 1 J g ( x1 , x2 )
where the derivative of virtual control command x2α is obtained from filter design in
Equation (40), instead of direct differential calculation.
Combining Equations (25), (27) and (42) to Equation (44), both Lyapunov functions
are rewritten as:
kp kp kp
 
. . .
V 1 = e1 e 1 = e1 (e2 + x2r + η ) + d − Fref = −k1 e12 + e1 e2 + e1 η − E3 e1 (45)
ks ks ks
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 11 of 19

. . . . . . . h  
σ |x |
  . i
V 2 = V 1 + e2 e2 = V 1 + e2 x2 − x2α = V 1 + e2 kJt u − Jk1s x1 − 1J ζ σ0 z + σ1 x2 − g( x0 ,x2 ) z + σ2 x2 − x2α


1 2
. k
 
p 1 | x | | x |
= V 1 − k2 e22 − ks e1 e2 + J e2 σ0 ζe σ 0 σ
e 2 − 1 ζeẑ − 1 ζe
z + σ0 ζeẑ + σ1 ζx 2
g( x1 ,x2 )
σ0 σ 2
g( x1 ,x2 )
z + σ2 ζx
e 2 (46)
   
k σ σ |x |
= −k1 e12 − k2 e22 + kps e1 η + 1J e2 (ζe z + ζeẑ) σ0 − g0( x1 ,x 2) + (σ1 + σ2 )ζx e 2 − E3 e1
1 2

4.3. Stability Analysis

Considering the force control system of Electro-mechanical actuator including im-
proved LuGre friction model, dynamic surface control, parameter observers with adaptive
laws, design a Lyapunov function for proposed observer-based backstepping adaptive
controller (OBAC):
1 1 2 1 e2
V3 = V2 + η 2 + ζe z + ζ (47)
2 2J 2
Its time derivative is:
. . . .
.
   
kp σ σ |x |
V 3 = V 2 + η η + 1J ζez + ζeζe = −k1 e12 − k2 e22 +
ze + 1J e2 (ζe z + ζeẑ) σ0 − g0( x1 ,x 2) + (σ1 + σ2 )ζx
k s e1 η
e 2
1 2
. .
.
2
 
k e σ σ |x |
+η − τ − x2r + 1J ζe
η
ze
η p
z + ζeζe − E3 e1 = −k1 e12 − k2 e22 − τ + ks e1 η + J2 ζe z σ0 − g0( x1 ,x 2)
1 2
. .
.
(48)
η2
  
| x2 | k
+ eJ2 ζe (σ1 + σ2 ) x2 + ẑ σ0 − gσ0(xσ1 ,x + 1J ζez + ζeζ̂ − η x2r − E3 e1 = −k1 e12 − k2 e22 − τ + kps e1 η
ze
1 2)
. .  .
   
ζez σ0 σ1 | x2 | e2 σ0 σ1 | x2 |
+J e z + e2 σ0 − g( x ,x ) + ζ ζ̂ + J (σ1 + σ2 ) x2 + ẑ σ0 − g(x ,x )
e − η x2r − E3 e1
1 2 1 2

. . .
Substitute Equation (7) into the relationship ez = ẑ − z:
.
      
. σ0 | x2 | . σ0 | x2 | σ0 | x2 |
ez=e
ze z ẑ − x2 − z z ẑ − x2 −
=e ẑ − z
e (49)
g ( x1 , x2 ) g ( x1 , x2 ) g ( x1 , x2 )

Design the projection-based adaptive law for ζ as:

. .  .
− e2
   
σ0 | x2 | ζ̂
ζ̂ = Projζ̂ ζ̂ ∆ , ζ̂ ∆ = ( 1
σ + σ x
2) 2 + ẑ σ0 − − (50)
J g ( x1 , x2 ) λ0

where λ0 is adaptive gain coefficient.

. . .
According to Lemma 1, e ∗∗ˆ = e ∗Proj∗ˆ (∗ˆ ∆ ) ≤ e ∗∗ˆ ∆ , ∗ = z, ζ. Therefore, combining
Equations (49), (31) and (50):
.   .    
σ σ |x | σ |x | σ |x | σ σ |x |
z + e2 σ0 − g0( x1 ,x 2)
z e
e ≤e z ẑ∆ − x2 − g( x0 ,x2 ) ẑ − g( x0 ,x2 ) e
z + e2 σ0 − g0( x1 ,x 2)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
  (51)
σ0 | x2 | 2 | x |
z − k1 − 1 g( x0 ,x2 ) e
σ
= − g(x ,x ) e 3
zẑ
1 2 1 2
.   
e2 σ |x | ζeζ̂
ζe ζ̂ + (σ1 + σ2 ) x2 + ẑ σ0 − 1 2 ≤− (52)
J g ( x1 , x2 ) λ0
Substituting inequality (51), inequality (52) and relationship ẑ = z + e z into Equation
(48), the following inequality holds:
. η2 σ |x | 2
 
σ |x | k .
V 3 ≤ −k1 e12 − k2 e22 − τ − ζJ g( x0 ,x2 ) e z − ζJ k1 − 1 g( x0 ,x2 ) e zẑ − λζ ζ̂0 + kps e1 η − η x2r − E3 e1
e
1 2 3 1 2
(53)
2 e2 .
 
k
= −k1 e12 − k2 e22 − ητ − Jkζ gσ(x0 | x,x2 | ) e σ |x |
z2 − λζ 0 − kps e1 η − η x2r − ζJ k1 − 1 g( x0 ,x2 ) e zz − λζζ0 − E3 e1
e
3 1 2 3 1 2
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 12 of 19

Define ε1 and ε2 are respective upper bound of observation error E3 and derivative of
x2r , according to Young’s inequality:
. η2 σ |x | 2 e2 k
z − λζ 0 + 2kps e12 + η 2 + 12 ε22 + η 2
V 3 ≤ −k1 e12 − k2 e22 − τ − Jkζ g( x1 ,x2 ) e



3 1 2
   
1 σ1 | x2 |
z + z ) + 2λ1 0 ζe2 + ζ 2 + 12 e12 + ε21
2 2
ζ

+ 2J k3 − 1 g(x ,x ) (e (54)
1 2

ζe2
     
kp k
= − k1 − 2ks − 12 e12 − k2 e22 − τ1 − 2kps − 12 η 2 − ζJ 12 + 2k1 gσ(x1 | x,x2 | ) e
3
z2 − 2λ0 +γ
1 2

where
ε21 ζ2 ε2
 
ζ 1 σ1 | x2 | 2
γ= + + 2+ −1 z (55)
2 2λ0 2 2J k3 g ( x1 , x2 )
Define ki (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and impose their value as position as positive constant:

kp kp
     
1 1 1 1 1 σ1 | x2 | 1
k1 = k1 − − , k2 = k 2 , k3 = − − , k3 = + ,k = (56)
2ks 2 τ 2ks 2 2 2k3 g( x1 , x2 ) 4 2λ0
Define c = min(k1 , k2 , k3 , k4 ), then:
.
V 3 ≤ −2cV3 + γ (57)
.
The inequality (57) implies that V 3 ≤ 0, if V3 (0) ≤ p and c > γ/2p. Therefore, V3 ≤ p
is an invariant set at present. In addition, the following inequality can be obtained:
γ h γi
V3 ≤ + V3 (0) − (58)
2c 2c
It is concluded that all signals for ELLS are semi-globally uniformly bounded. Fur-
thermore, inequality (58) implies that lim V3 = γ/2c. Therefore, the force tracking error
t→∞
can converge to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the origin by increasing k1 , k2 and
choosing small enough τ, k3 , λ0 .

5. Experiment Validation
5.1. Experimental Setup
The experimental validation platform for ELLS is shown as Figure 4. The ELLS serves
for the dynamic performance evaluation of EMA, responsible for the open/close operation
of ram air inlet deflector door on a military aircraft. The equivalent stroke and maximum
speed of the EMA operation is 30 mm and 4 mm/s, respectively. The left part is the actuator
under test, which is mainly composed of DC motor, planetary reducer and screw-nut
mechanism. The right part is the ELLS.
The motor angle/velocity of ELLS, linear position/speed of tested actuator and the
loading force are, respectively, available from the motor encoder, the linear displacement
sensor and force sensor. The acquisition of all sensor signals and the implementation of
proposed control strategy are finished by DSP based controller. The control outputs are
transmitted to motor servo drives as current command value. The maximum operation
current for ELLS is 10 A, and the supply voltage of its servo drive unit is 270 V. A host
computer is in charge of the command generation, operation state monitoring, data display
and storage.
Aerospace 2022, 9,
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13of
14 of 19
21

Motor servo drive unit DSP controller Host computer

Position
Current command
commands
Force
command
Senor
feedbacks Data
acquisition

Test actuator Load actuator Force, Senor

drive drive Displacement feedbacks

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Experimental
Experimental validation platform for
validation platform for ELLS.
ELLS.

5.2. Experimental Results Analysis

Three comparative
comparativeexperiments
experimentsare areconducted
conducted to to
demonstrate
demonstrate thethe
effectiveness
effectiveness of the
of
proposed
the proposed control scheme.
control scheme.TheThe
tested actuator
tested is command
actuator is command to to
stay stationary
stay stationary orortrack
tracka
sinusoidal
a sinusoidal speed
speed command,
command, which,
which,respectively,
respectively, corresponds
corresponds static and
static dynamic
and dynamic loading
load-
modes. The The
ing modes. ELLSELLSis controlled with the
is controlled withproposed OBAC OBAC
the proposed and widely used PID
and widely plusPID
used velocity
plus
feedforward (PID + VF) methods. To evaluate the importance of
velocity feedforward (PID + VF) methods. To evaluate the importance of adopting the adopting the adaptive
control
adaptive law to suppress
control law to the parameter
suppress uncertainties,
the parameter the fixed friction
uncertainties, the fixedcompensation (FFC)
friction compen-
method is also used for comparison.
sation (FFC) method is also used for comparison.
The
The friction
friction parameters
parameters constantly
constantly hold
hold the
the identified
identified value
value in in FFC
FFC approach.
approach. The The
sinusoidal wave signal
sinusoidal wave signal is is introduced
introduced asas the
the load
load force
force command
command with with amplitude
amplitude 500 500 N,N,
center value − 600 N and frequency 0.5 Hz. To synthetically and quantitively
center value −600 N and frequency 0.5 Hz. To synthetically and quantitively compare the compare the
differences
differences of ofdifferent
differentcontrol
controlapproaches,
approaches, thethe
following
followingperformance
performance indexes are referred,
indexes are re-
including amplitude attenuation (AA), phase lag (PL), maximum
ferred, including amplitude attenuation (AA), phase lag (PL), maximum tracking tracking error (MTE)errorand
mean standard error (MSE):
(MTE) and mean standard error (MSE):
MC − ML
 = M

AA MCC − M×L 100%
 AA = ×100%



M(Ce1 )

 = max

 MTE
 (59)
 MTE = max( s e1 ) (59)
N
 = 1

2
∑

 MSE N ( FLc − FL )
MSE =N 1 i=1 ( F − F )2

 Lc L

 N i =1
where MC and ML are amplitudes of force command and response, respectively. N is the
where
total MCnumbers.
data and ML are amplitudes of force command and response, respectively. N is the
total The
datasystem
numbers.inherent parameters participating the controller design are given as follows:
The
J = 2.6 system
× 10 −3 kginherent parameters
·m2 , kt = 1.65 N·m/A,participating
ls = 2.54 × 10 the
−3 controller design
m. The control areadaptive
and given asgain
fol-
lows: J = 2.6 × 10 −3 kg*m2, kt = 1.65 N*m/A, ls = 2.54 × 10−3 m. The control and adaptive gain
coefficients are set as k1 = 0.003, k2 = 750, λ0 = k3 = 0.001. The filter constant τ of the dynamic
coefficients
surface, the are set frequency
cut off as k1 = 0.003,
ω ckand
2 = 750, λ0 = k3 = 0.001. The filter constant τ of the dynamic
bandwidth of ESO ω 0 are selected as 0.01, 35 and 120,
surface, the
respectively. cut off frequency ω c and bandwidth of ESO ω0 are selected as 0.01, 35 and 120,
respectively.
5.2.1. Static Loading Experiment
5.2.1.The
Static Loadingresults
response Experiment
of static loading experiment are depicted in Figure 5. From
The
Figure 5a,response results
an obvious deadofzone
staticoccurs
loading experiment
at the peak andare depicted
trough inforce
of the Figure 5. From
tracking Fig-
curve
under
ure 5a,PID + VF approach.
an obvious dead zoneBoth FFCatand
occurs OBAC
the peak andapproaches
trough of show improvements
the force on
tracking curve
different
under PID levels.
+ VF approach. Both FFC and OBAC approaches show improvements on dif-
ferent levels.
Aerospace 2022,
Aerospace 9, 415
2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of1421
of 19

Loading force (N) Reference PID+VF FFC OBAC

−3
−100
−6 −150
−200
−9

−12

(a) Loading force tracking

Friction estimation (Nm)

FFC OBAC

(mm/s)
(mm/s)
Disturbance
estimation
destimation
−0.25
−0.5 −0.1
−0.75 −0.2

(b) Friction torque estimation (c) Disturbance estimation

Figure 5. Static loading experiment results with different control methods.
Figure 5. Static loading experiment results with different control methods.
Table 2. Performance indexes at static loading experiment.
However, only with the proposed OBAC approach, the dead zone phenomenon
can be almost eliminated AAby adoptingPL the(°)adaptive friction
MTE (N)compensation. MSE The(N)loading
error and NFCthe phase lag are 7.8%apparently improved
41.0 at the same
345.5time. The above-mentioned
157.4
FFCPL, Em and S2.2%
criteria AA, e are used to further
29.8 evaluate the 277 tracking performance 118.8in Table 2.
This comprehensive
OBAC comparison
–2.2% proves17.8that the OBAC method 155 possesses the74.5 best control
performance at static loading.
The friction toque observation results by FFC and OBAC methods in Figure 5b are
Table 2.
roughly Performance
consistent.indexes at static
The latter shows loading
a smallexperiment.
scale oscillation, which can be explained that
the OBAC considers the friction parameter uncertainties and adopts the parameter adap-
AA PL (◦ ) MTE (N) MSE (N)
tive law to improve robustness. This is why the OBAC presents better friction compensa-
NFC
tion performance 7.8%The lumped position
than FFC. 41.0 disturbance345.5 obtained by ESO in 157.4
Figure
FFC 2.2% 29.8 277
5c is mainly composed of the unknown disturbance with relatively small value in ‘load- 118.8
ing’ OBAC
subsystem, since the −2.2%
tested actuator is17.8 command to stay 155 74.5 that
stationary. It is noted
this disturbance is transformed to impose a speed unit for analysis convenience.
The friction toque observation results by FFC and OBAC methods in Figure 5b are
roughlyDynamic
5.2.2. consistent.Loading Experiment
The latter shows a small scale oscillation, which can be explained that
At the dynamic loading
the OBAC considers the friction experiment,
parameter the actuator under
uncertainties test operates
and adopts under a adaptive
the parameter sinus-
oidal speed command with amplitude 2 mm/s and frequency 0.5 Hz.
law to improve robustness. This is why the OBAC presents better friction compensation The response results
are depicted than
performance in Figure
FFC.6.The
Duelumped
to the active motion
position of the tested
disturbance actuator,
obtained bythe
ESO flat-top phe- 5c
in Figure
isnomenon is weakened
mainly composed comparing
of the unknown to disturbance
static loadingwithexperiment.
relativelyAssmall
shown in Figure
value 6a,
in ‘loading’
the proposed
subsystem, OBAC
since the approach still presents
tested actuator apparent
is command tosuperiority at the loading
stay stationary. It is notederror andthis
that
the phase lag
disturbance indexes than to
is transformed PID + VF and
impose FFC unit
a speed methods. The respective
for analysis experimental re-
convenience.
sults of each index are also obtained and collected in Table 3. It is clear that the dynamic
performance
5.2.2. DynamicisLoading significantly improved via using OBAC method. This comprehensive
Experiment
comparison further demonstrates
At the dynamic loading experiment, the effective
the of the OBAC
actuator method.
under test operates under a sinu-
soidal speed command with amplitude 2 mm/s and frequency 0.5 Hz. The response
results are depicted in Figure 6. Due to the active motion of the tested actuator, the flat-top
phenomenon is weakened comparing to static loading experiment. As shown in Figure 6a,
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 15 of 19

the proposed OBAC approach still presents apparent superiority at the loading error and
the phase lag indexes than PID + VF and FFC methods. The respective experimental results
of each index are also obtained and collected in Table 3. It is clear that the dynamic perfor-
mance is significantly improved via using OBAC method. This comprehensive comparison
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21
further demonstrates the effective of the OBAC method.

Reference PID+VF FFC OBAC

Loading force (N)

−3
−100
−6 −200
−300
−9

−12

(a) Loading force tracking

Friction estimation (Nm)

FFC OBAC Reference OBAC

1 2
estimation (mm/s)

1
Disturbance

0.5

0 0

−0.5
-0.5 −1
-1

−1
-1 −2
-2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
times (s) times (s)
(b) Friction torque estimation (c) Disturbance estimation
Figure 6. Dynamic loading experiment results with different control methods.
Figure 6. Dynamic loading experiment results with different control methods.
Table 3. Performance indexes at dynamic loading experiment.
Table 3. Performance indexes at dynamic loading experiment.
AA PL (°) MTE (N) MSE (N)
AA ◦
NFC 14.4% 41.6 PL ( ) 337.5 MTE (N) MSE (N)
143.5
FFC
NFC 4.8%
14.4% 27.6 41.6 228.5 337.5 93.2 143.5
FFC
OBAC 4.8%
3.2% 18.7 27.6 138.2 228.5 53.6 93.2
OBAC 3.2% 18.7 138.2 53.6
Comparing to FFC, the OBAC approach considers the friction parameter uncertain-
ties and adopts the
Comparing parameter
to FFC, adaptive
the OBAC law to considers
approach improve robustness,
the frictionwhich is whyuncertainties
parameter the sim-
ilar oscillation phenomenon of friction torque estimation exists in Figure 6b.
and adopts the parameter adaptive law to improve robustness, which is why the similar The transition
from static phenomenon
oscillation to coulomb friction, i.e., thetorque
of friction Stribeck curve, is observed,
estimation exists in when
Figurethe motion
6b. speed
The transition
gradually increases.
from static to coulomb friction, i.e., the Stribeck curve, is observed, when the motion speed
gradually increases.
As the improved LuGre model takes the load effect into consideration, instead of an
As the improved LuGre model takes the load effect into consideration, instead of
approximately constant value, the coulomb friction torque amplitude shares similar vari-
an approximately constant value, the coulomb friction torque amplitude shares similar
ation trends with the load force. The lumped position disturbance estimation result ac-
variation trends with the load force. The lumped position disturbance estimation result
complished by ESO in Figure 6c shows great consistence with the tested actuator speed
accomplished by ESO in Figure 6c shows great consistence with the tested actuator speed
command, which proves the designed ESO is stable along with small enough observer
command, which proves the designed ESO is stable along with small enough observer
error. The estimation result implies that the primary source of lumped position disturb-
error. The estimation resultmotion
ance comes from the active impliesofthat theactuator,
tested primary rather
sourcethan
of lumped position
the unknow disturbance
disturbance.
comesItfrom the active
is noted that themotion
phase of tested
and actuator,
frequency rather than
of operation the unknow
command disturbance.
for tested EMA is
It is noted that the phase and frequency of operation command
consistent with the loading force command, which is the most favorable case for for tested EMA is
the load
consistent
simulator. However, to completely validate the effective of the proposed OBAC controlload
with the loading force command, which is the most favorable case for the
simulator.
strategy, theHowever, to completely
disturbances in relationvalidate the effective
to the forced of the proposed
motion, which OBAC
may operate in outcontrol
of
phase or at different frequencies, must be taken into consideration. Therefore, another two
dynamic loading experiments are conducted with modified operation commands for
tested actuator, where the initial phase and frequency are set to pi/3 and 1.5 Hz, respec-
tively.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 16 of 19

strategy, the disturbances in relation to the forced motion, which may operate in out of
Aerospace 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
phase or at different frequencies, must be taken into consideration. Therefore, another 18 oftwo
21

dynamic loading experiments are conducted with modified operation commands for tested
actuator, where the initial phase and frequency are set to pi/3 and 1.5 Hz, respectively.
The experimental
The experimental results,
results, including
including loading
loading force
force tracking
tracking responses,
responses, friction
friction torque
torque
estimations and disturbance estimations, are displayed in Figures 7 and 8.
estimations and disturbance estimations, are displayed in Figures 7 and 8. The perfor-The performance
comparisons
mance of each index
comparisons areindex
of each also collected
are also in Tables 4inand
collected 5. It is4 obvious
Tables and 5. Itthat the dynamic
is obvious that
performance
the via using OBAC
dynamic performance method
via using is superior.
OBAC method isThe designed
superior. TheESO can still
designed ESOaccurately
can still
obtain the obtain
accurately lumped theposition
lumpeddisturbance caused bycaused
position disturbance forcedbymotion
forcedof testedofactuator
motion tested ac-in
Figures 7c and 8c.
tuator in Figures 7c and 8c.

Force Reference Speed Reference PID+VF FFC OBAC

−3

−6 −100 −1000
−
−200
−9 −300
−1100
−

−12

(a) Loading force tracking

Friction estimation (Nm)

FFC OBAC Reference OBAC

2
estimation (mm/s)

1
Disturbance

0
−0.5 −1
-1
−1 −2
-2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
times (s)
(b) Friction torque estimation (c) Disturbance estimation
Figure
Figure 7.
7. Dynamic
Dynamic loading
loading experiment
experiment results
results (out-of-phase
(out-of-phase operation
operation for
for tested
tested EMA).
EMA).

Table 4. Performance indexes for the dynamic loading experiment (out-of-phase operation for
tested EMA).

AA PL (◦ ) MTE (N) MSE (N)

NFC 7.1% 28.8. 293.0 120.3
FFC 0.9% 21.6 271.5 134.8
OBAC 1.8% 13.7 136.2 70.6

Table 5. Performance indexes for the dynamic loading experiment (different frequency operation for
tested EMA).

AA PL (◦ ) MTE (N) MSE (N)

NFC −4.9% 61.2 442.5 196.1
FFC −0.7% 24.3 256.0 136.5
OBAC 2.5% 12.6 117.7 63.6
Aerospace 2022, 9, x415
FOR PEER REVIEW 1917ofof 21
19

Force Reference Speed Reference PID+VF FFC OBAC

−3

−6

−9

−12

(a) Loading force tracking

Friction estimation (Nm)

Reference OBAC

(mm/s)
FFC OBAC

(mm/s)
Disturbance
estimation
destimation
−0.5 −1
−1 −2

(b) Friction torque estimation (c) Disturbance estimation

Figure 8. Dynamic loading experiment results (different frequency operation for tested EMA).
Figure 8. Dynamic loading experiment results (different frequency operation for tested EMA).

TableThere
4. Performance indexes
are certain other for the dynamic
phenomena loading
worth experiment
noting, (out-of-phase
with the existence ofoperation for
phase and
tested EMA).
frequency differences between forced motion command and loading force command. Due
to the phase difference,AA the stick-slip PL
friction
(°) variationMTE is coupled
(N) into the ELLS,
MSE (N)when the
loading force
NFC response experiences
7.1% a peak
28.8. or trough. 293.0 120.3
InFFC
partial enlarged0.9%
drawing of Figure
21.6 7a, if the NFC approach
271.5 is adopted, the ‘flat top’
134.8
and distortion phenomenon of force tracking curve is more apparent than that in Figure 6a.
OBAC 1.8% 13.7 136.2 70.6
In addition, with the forced motion frequency increases to three times of loading frequency,
the friction disturbance is much stronger with high-frequency and complex variations of
Table 5. Performance indexes for the dynamic loading experiment (different frequency operation
direction and magnitude. Therefore, the tracking performance is seriously influenced in
for tested EMA).
Figure 8a, if no friction compensation strategy (NFC method) is used.
Finally, comparedAA to the OBACPL (°)
approach, it canMTE (N)
be observed MSE
that the (N) force
loading
trackingNFCvia FFC controller
−4.9%exist larger61.2
phase lags and distortion
442.5 phenomena196.1in Figures 7a
and 8a,FFCwhich can be explained
−0.7% by friction
24.3 torque estimation256.0 differences in Figures
136.5 7b and
8b. The fundamental reason
OBAC 2.5% is that the12.6
OBAC method utilizes 117.7 the parameter adaptive
63.6 law
to suppress friction parameter uncertainties, which leads to better friction compensation
performance.
There are certain other phenomena worth noting, with the existence of phase and
frequency differences between forced motion command and loading force command. Due
6. Conclusions
to the phase difference, the stick-slip friction variation is coupled into the ELLS, when the
(1) Under
loading forcethe influence
response of friction
experiences nonlinearity,
a peak or trough.position disturbance and parameter
uncertainties, an observer-based backstepping adaptive control (OBAC) strategy was
proposed
In to achievedrawing
partial enlarged high-loadof force
Figuretracking performance
7a, if the for aniselectro-mechanical
NFC approach adopted, the ‘flat
actuator. The whole system was divided into ‘actuation’
top’ and distortion phenomenon of force tracking curve is more apparent and ‘loading’than
subsystems
that in
with the backstepping design concept. The dynamic control surface
Figure 6a. In addition, with the forced motion frequency increases to three times was introduced
of load-
to solve the
ing frequency, theso-called differential is
friction disturbance explosion problem.
much stronger with high-frequency and complex
(2) The estimation of the position disturbance was obtained by an extended stated ob-
variations of direction and magnitude. Therefore, the tracking performance is seriously
server and used for feedforward compensation for the ‘loading’ subsystem. For the
influenced in Figure 8a, if no friction compensation strategy (NFC method) is used.
‘actuation’ subsystem, a friction scale factor with a reasonable adaptive updating law
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 18 of 19

was introduced to reject the disturbance of the friction parameter uncertainties for
both simplified and effective purposes. Combining the observer for internal state of
friction model and an improved LuGre based friction model, which considers the
load influence on friction, adaptive friction compensation was conducted.
(3) The static and three different types of dynamic loading experiments sufficiently
verified that the proposed OBAC control strategy achieved high-precision load force
tracking and strong robustness. The designed ESO accurately obtained the lumped
position disturbance caused by forced motion of the tested actuator. By using the
friction torque estimation for compensation, the ‘flat-top’ or distortion phenomenon
can be eliminated or weakened. Compared to the FFC approach, the proposed
OBAC method utilizes the parameter adaptive law to suppress friction parameter
uncertainties, which leads to superior performance of the loading force control.

Author Contributions: Data curation, S.Z.; Methodology, W.Z.; Project administration, Y.F.; Re-
sources, P.Z.; Validation, Z.P. and W.Z.; Writing—original draft, W.Z.; Writing—review and editing,
Y.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mare, J.C.; Fu, J. Review on signal-by-wire and power-by-wire actuation for more electric aircraft. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2017, 30,
857–870. [CrossRef]
2. Qiao, G.; Liu, G.; Shi, Z.; Wang, Y.; Ma, S.; Lim, T.C. A Review of Electromechanical Actuators for More/All Electric Aircraft
Systems. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Eng. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2017, 232, 4128–4151. [CrossRef]
3. Bajcinca, N.; Schurmann, N.; Bals, J. Two degree of freedom motion control of an energy optimized aircraft ram air inlet actuator.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA), Budapest, Hungary, 26–29 June 2005; pp.
818–821.
4. SAE Aerospace. Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator Descriptions: SAE AIR6052; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2011;
pp. 1–38.
5. Jensen, S.C.; Jenney, G.D.; Dawson, D. Flight Test Experience with an Electromechanical Actuator on the F-18 Systems Research
Aircraft. In Proceedings of the 19th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 7–13 October 2000; pp.
1–10.
6. Todeschi, M. Airbus-EMAs for Flight Controls Actuation System-An Important Step Achieved in 2011; SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-2732;
SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2011; Volume 1.
7. Jiménez, A.; Lasa, J.; Novillo, E.; Eguizabal, I.; Aguado, F.; Lopez, I. Electromechanical Actuator with Anti-Jamming System
for Safety critical aircraft applications. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Recent Advances in Aerospace
Actuation Systems and Components, Toulouse, France, 16–18 March 2016; pp. 27–32.
8. Whitley, C.; Ropert, J. Development, manufacture & flight test of spoiler EMA system. In Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Recent Advances in Aerospace Actuation Systems and Components, Toulouse, France, 13–15 June 2007; pp.
215–220.
9. Bohr, G.; Hamilton, S. Force control is the issue in aerospace structural test lab. Hydraul. Pneum. 2000, 53, 43–47.
10. Nam, Y.; Sung, K. Force control system design for aerodynamic load simulator. Control Eng. Pract. 2002, 10, 549–558. [CrossRef]
11. Arena, M.; Amoroso, F.; Pecora, R.; Ameduri, S. Electro-Actuation System Strategy for a Morphing Flap. Aerospace 2019, 6, 1.
[CrossRef]
12. Mare, J.C. Dynamic loading systems for ground testing of high speed aerospace actuators. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Tec. 2006, 78,
275–282. [CrossRef]
13. Kang, S.; Yan, H.; Dong, L.; Li, C. Finite-time adaptive sliding mode force control for electro-hydraulic load simulator based on
improved GMS friction model. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2018, 102, 117–138. [CrossRef]
14. Matsui, T.; Mochizuki, Y. Effect of positive angular velocity feedback on torque control of hydraulic actuator. Trans. Jpn. Soc.
Mech. Eng. 2008, 57, 1604–1609.
Aerospace 2022, 9, 415 19 of 19

15. Zheng, S.; Fu, Y.; Wang, D.; Zhang, W.; Pan, J. Investigations on system integration method and dynamic performance of
electromechanical actuator. Sci. Prog. 2020, 103, 03685042094092. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Yao, J.; Jiao, Z.; Han, S. Friction compensation for low velocity control of hydraulic flight motion simulator: A simple adaptive
robust approach. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2013, 26, 814–822. [CrossRef]
17. Yao, J.; Jiao, Z.; Yao, B. Robust Control for Static Loading of Electro-hydraulic Load Simulator with Friction Compensation. Chin.
J. Aeronaut. 2012, 25, 954–962. [CrossRef]
18. Alleyne, A.; Liu, R. A simplified approach to force control for electro-hydraulic systems. Control Eng. Pract. 2000, 8, 1347–1356.
[CrossRef]
19. Wang, C.; Jiao, Z.; Quan, L.; Meng, H. Application of adaptive robust control for electro-hydraulic motion loading system. Trans.
Inst. Meas. Control 2018, 40, 873–884.
20. Wang, L.; Wang, M.; Guo, B.; Wang, Z.; Wang, D.; Li, Y. A Loading Control Strategy for Electric Load Simulators Based on
Proportional Resonant Control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2018, 65, 4608–4618. [CrossRef]
21. Zhao, J.; Shen, G.; Zhu, W.; Yang, C.; Yao, J. Robust force control with a feed-forward inverse model controller for electro-hydraulic
control loading systems of flight simulators. Mechatronics 2016, 38, 42–53. [CrossRef]
22. Jing, C.; Xu, H.; Jiang, J. Dynamic surface disturbance rejection control for electro-hydraulic load simulator. Mech. Syst. Signal
Process. 2019, 134, 1026293. [CrossRef]
23. Niksefat, N.; Sepehri, N. Design and experimental evaluation of a robust force controller for an electro-hydraulic actuator via
quantitative feedback theory. Control Eng. Pract. 2000, 8, 1335–1345. [CrossRef]
24. Truong, D.Q.; Ahn, K.K. Force control for hydraulic load simulator using self-tuning grey predictor fuzzy PID. Mechatronics 2009,
19, 233–246. [CrossRef]
25. Li, C.; Pan, X.; Wang, G. Torque tracking control of electric load simulator with active motion disturbance and nonlinearity based
on T-S fuzzy model. Asian J. Control 2018, 22, 1280–1294. [CrossRef]
26. Li, C.; Li, Y.; Wang, G. H-infinity output tracking control of Electric-motor-driven aerodynamic Load Simulator with external
active motion disturbance and nonlinearity. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2018, 82–83, 334–349. [CrossRef]
27. de Wit, C.C.; Olsson, H.; Astrom, K.; Lischinsky, P. A new model for control of systems with friction. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
1995, 40, 419–425. [CrossRef]
28. Fu, J.; Maré, J.C.; Fu, Y. Modelling and Simulation of Flight Control Electromechanical Actuators with Special Focus on Model
Architecting, Multidisciplinary Effects and Power Flows. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2017, 30, 47–65. [CrossRef]
29. Ping, Z.; Zhang, W.; Fu, Y. Improved LuGre-based friction modeling of the electric linear load simulator. In Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Manufacturing Technology and Applied Materials (ICAMMT), Hangzhou, China, 15–17 April 2022.
30. Wang, X.; Wang, S. High Performance Adaptive Control of Mechanical Servo System with LuGre Friction Model: Identification
and Compensation. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2012, 134, 011021. [CrossRef]
31. Chen, Q.; Chen, H.; Zhu, D.; Li, L. Design and Analysis of an Active Disturbance Rejection Robust Adaptive Control System for
Electromechanical Actuator. Actuators 2021, 10, 307. [CrossRef]
32. Xu, D.; Huang, J.; Su, X.; Shi, P. Adaptive command-filtered fuzzy backstepping control for linear induction motor with unknown
end effect. Inf. Sci. 2019, 477, 118–131. [CrossRef]
33. Swaroop, D.; Hedrick, J.K.; Yip, P.P.; Gerdes, J. Dynamic surface control for a class of nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control 2002, 45, 1893–1899. [CrossRef]