Elmo Position Control

High Order Control Design – Advantage Over PI and PID Controllers reference
Yaniv O.1, Theodor Y. and Safonov S.

Abstract A robotic application is used to show that advanced controllers are much capable than PI controllers. They can achieve higher bandwidth, lower settling time and better disturbance rejection. The increased performance costs little in sensor noise amplification. We show using true-life design examples that advanced control algorithms improve equally well both speed and position controllers. Introduction Consider an electrical motor with shaft angle the shaft speed,

θ (t ) , driven by the current i (t ) . We want

θ (t ) , to follow a given trajectory, θ T (t ) . For this purpose, we embed the

motor in a feedback structure as described schematically in Figure 1. The controller in Figure 1 generates a correcting current command, i (t ) , so as to keep the speed error,

e(t ) , minimal.

θT +

e

-

Controller

Amplifier

i

Motor
+Load

θ

Sensor noise
Sensor

Figure 1: Speed control feedback structure around a motor

The controller is required to minimizing the speed error and in the same time the synthesized current command must remain smooth enough so that (i) no excessive stresses will shorten the system life, and (ii) the current amplifier will be able to effectively follow the current command. The controller design must consider both small and large signals behavior. The small signal design cares for the behavior when the tracking error is small, and thus the required correction current (torque) is within the amplifier limits. Large signal (nonlinear) design must maintain good stability and performance while the current (torque) requirement goes beyond the amplifier limits. Out of range current (torque) requirements may develop due to extreme reference signal changes or due to extreme disturbances. This article focuses on the small signal (linear) design.
Address for correspondence: O. Yaniv, Elmo Position Control, Shidlovskey 1, Yavne, 81101, POB 13081, Israel and Faculty of Eng. Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. oyaniv@elmo.co.il
1

-1-

however. Some commercial motion controllers add low-pass filters to their PI controllers. so that users will be able to tune it to their specific applications. We use the term advanced-controllers for controllers of almost free structure and order. or within degraded. An advanced controller can get the desired performance out of a lighter structure.Elmo Position Control The controller must have a parameterization. to improve the high frequency attenuation. The worst drawback of PI and PID controllers is their poor high frequency attenuation. Section 2 compares PI controllers and advanced controllers. The advanced controllers are shown to do much better than the P PI or PID controllers. In this paper. that is. and a technician can tune them effectively using simple "cut and try" methods. guy better than you trust your senses. A P (proportional) controller keeps the current i (t ) proportional to the speed error. The P term which is proportional to the speed error. The most common controller parameterizations are P. by a laboratory test. PI or PID controller have one big advantage – they are very simple. and the I term which is proportional to the integral of the speed. The position controller is required to follow a trajectory θ PT (t ) . a symptom of too generous mechanics and sensors design. cheaper sensors. A PI controller generates i (t ) as the sum of two terms. PI and PID. so that you wont have vibrations when the load changes a bit. For the same mechanics-sensors set. Moreover. you have to believe that the tuning suite does take appropriate design margins. The traditional P. A PID controller is a PI controller plus the D term. and require an automated design suite for effective tuning. Advanced controllers do not preserve the PI simplicity. d dt + - Position Controller + θ + - PT Speed Controller Plant θ ³ dt θP Figure 2: Cascaded position control feedback loop -2- . an advanced controller can increase the speed range in which accurate enough motions are possible. The decision to use advanced controllers is psychologically not easy. You have to trust the tuning suite of the Ph. θ T (t ) − θ (t ) . Section 3 extends the comparison of Section 2 to frequency domain. They have many parameters. Section 4 shows similar comparison results for cascaded position control. controlling a robotic arm. and good enough mechanics and sensors. These simple controllers suffice for simple applications – moderate or low performance requirements. A very simple control problem is.D. Embedding the speed controller of Figure 1 in an outer position feedback loop makes a cascaded position controller – see Figure 2. a term proportional to the speed error derivative. we compare the performance of advanced and traditional controllers. More complicated controllers can push the tracking and disturbance attenuation performance to the physical limits of the system.

since the robot became unstable for very low gains. Motor 1 Link 1 Motor 2 Link 2 Figure 3: Robot for laboratory tests a two joint robot with two motors. If one use traditional PI tuning methods to optimize each axis when the other axis is inactive. two tachometers and two encoders. If on the other hand. For each motor.Elmo Position Control Speed Control Comparison by Laboratory Tests Our design example deals with a two-join robot. An electrical motor drives each joint. The upper motor (motor 1) drives the internal link. The PI plus low-pass performance shown in the next figures is probably better than what an experienced technician could achieve. The robot is lightweight. This is since this robot exhibits high coupling between its articulated axes. We helped the PI with an additional high frequency low-pass pole. a PI speed controller proved useless. stability of the integrated system is guaranteed but again the closed loop might loose some of its gain and phase margins. For this robot. the integrated system may become unstable or might loose some of its gain and phase margins due to the two axes interaction. a tachometer measures the motor shaft speed and an encoder measures the motor shaft angle. -3- . one use traditional PI tuning methods to optimize each axis when the other axis is active. see Figure 3. and the lower motor (motor 2) drives the external link. and pays for the lightweight with high link compliances.

4 0. The same relation holds for the settling time. Clearly for motor 1 (Figure 4). for motors 1 and 2.7 Figure 4: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller. 600 400 200 0 -200 0 10 6 Am pere 2 -2 -6 -10 0 0. rise time and settling time of the advanced controller are much lower than the corresponding results of the PI plus lowpass. about 43% of the 0.2 0.5 PI+low pass Advanced 0.017seconds.3 0. The step command to motor 1 is 600[cnt/sec]. -4- .Elmo Position Control The robot was tested for several speed reference commands. The rise time of the advanced controller is 0.1 0.04 seconds rise time of the PI plus low-pass. 0. The prices for the higher performance of the advanced controller are twice the current peak and larger high frequency noise.2 0.1 0.3 Sec.7 0. and to motor 2 zero.6 0. 1000 800 Cnt/sec.4 0. respectively.5 reference PI+low pass Advanced 0. the tracking error. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the step response of PI plus low-pass controller and of an advanced controller against the reference step.6 0.

which compares the controllers for acceleration-limited step response. Again. the reference command is smooth and the peak current is dictated by the reference command rather then by the controller. For motor 2.02 seconds. Figure 6 and Figure 7 compare between our advanced controller and the PI plus lowpass controller for a smooth acceleration limited speed command.4 0.5 reference PI+low pass Advanced 0. -5- .1 0. 600 400 200 0 -200 0 3 2 Am pere 1 0 -1 -2 0 0. rise time and settling time of the advanced controller are much lower than that of the PI plus low-pass.7 PI+low pass Advanced 0.1 0. In most real applications however.2 0.Elmo Position Control 1000 800 Cnt/sec.3 Sec.7 Figure 5: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller.2 0. The rise time of the advanced controller is 0. The overshoot of the advanced controller is by far lower.5 0. the tracking error for the advanced controller is much lower than for the PI plus low-pass. 0. about 20% the 0. and the current consumption is about the same for both controllers. and to motor 1 is zero. This is emphasized by the next comparison. the racking error. The price for the higher performance of the advanced controller is again the current peak.6 0. (Figure 5).6 0. The step command to motor 2 is 600[cnt/sec].4 0.1 seconds rise time of the PI plus low-pass. The same relation holds for the settling time.3 0.

6 0.4 0.7 Figure 6: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller.3 Sec.5 0.1 0.2 0.5 reference PI+low pass Advanced 0. Trajectory command on motor 2 is 2000[cnt/sec].6 0.Elmo Position Control 3000 2200 C nt/sec 1400 600 -200 0 10 6 Am pere 2 -2 -6 -10 0 PI+low pass Advanced 0. 0.6 0.1 0.3 0. acceleration limitation 20000[cnt/sec^2].5 0. 3000 2200 C nt/sec 1400 600 -200 0 3 2 Am pere 1 0 -1 -2 0 0.3 0.2 0. Motor 2 is commanded to stop. 0. Motor 2 is commanded to stop. Trajectory command to motor 1 is 2000[cnt/sec].6 0.2 0.4 0.7 PI+low pass Advanced 0.4 0.3 Sec.7 0.5 0.7 reference PI+low pass Advanced Figure 7: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller. -6- .2 0.4 0. acceleration limitation 20000[cnt/sec^2].1 0.1 0.

and the design margins taken. This estimate confirms the result of Section 2. The frequency domain analysis of this section grants insight to questions such as the feasibility of better designs. which expose the transient behavior of the closed loop. The frequency plots provide an estimate for settling time and overshoot. but they offer no explanation to the difference in the results achieved. The time domain tests of Section 2 show the final result. Figure 8 and Figure 9 depict these eight discrete Bode plots.Elmo Position Control Speed Control Comparison by Frequency Domain Analysis In section 2 the robot's tracking performance for different controllers has been studied. from input j to integral of the tachometer on link i -7- . two tachometers and two encoders. Open Loop The robot has two motors and four sensors. and rij denote the transfer function from the current command introduced into motor j to the encoder coupled to the shaft of motor i. We subjected the controller to abrupt reference waveforms. Let pij denote the transfer function from current introduced into motor j to the integral of the angle (integral of speed) measured by the tachometer on the shaft of motor i. generating eight transfer functions from the current commands introduced into each of the motors to each of the sensors. p -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 1 10 dB 11 p -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 12 p 21 p 22 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 10 10 ω [rad/sec] pij 2 3 -120 1 10 10 10 ω [rad/sec] 2 3 Figure 8: Bode plot of .

The ratio between these reactions is depicted in Figure 10. but much lower in size. The transfer functions from current commands to encoders. whereas the tachometers are mounted rigidly on the motor shaft. Figure 9. with frequencies ranging from 200 to 3000 rad/sec. happens when motor 2 is driven. Link 2 has a dominant resonance at about 100 rad/sec. or they can actively damp some resonant modes. from input j to the encoder located on link i Figure 8 shows that link 1 has four dominant resonances. In some frequencies the coupling between the axes is so large that the reaction to current injected to motor 1 on its shaft. These resonance frequencies would limit the performance of any controller. -8- . but their effect on PI controllers is most marked. is much lower than the reaction of the shaft of motor 2. whose spectral densities are mainly around 200Hz and/or 300Hz. differ from the transfer function of Figure 8 since the encoders are mounted on flexible couplings.Elmo Position Control r -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 1 10 Figure 9: Bode plot of 11 r -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 12 dB r 21 r 22 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 10 10 ω [rad/sec] 2 3 -120 1 10 10 10 ω [rad/sec] 2 3 rij . A similar phenomenon. Advanced controllers can attenuate the resonant frequencies using notch or low-pass filters. For currents injected to motor 1. the tachometer located on motor 2 reads a signal up to 5 times larger than the tachometer located on motor 1.

Controller Design Advanced control design techniques are based on the controlled plant transfer function. and if it is possible to improve the closed loop performance. respectively. respectively. amplification of sensor noise. rise time.Elmo Position Control p /p 21 11 30 15 0 -15 -30 -45 1 10 30 15 0 -15 -30 -45 1 10 10 2 dB 2 10 p 12 /p 22 10 3 dB 10 3 ω [rad/sec] Figure 10: Bode plot relative cross talk. The major properties of a closed loop feedback system can be concluded from the open loop transfer function. Lower plot is the ratio of tachometer 1 to tachometer 2 due to current injected to motor 2. The upper plot is the ratio of tachometer 2 to tachometer 1 due to current injected to motor 1. Bode plots of the open loop for motor 1 and motor 2 for the advanced controllers are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. -9- . for example. Following the plant identification process. robustness to plant changes. knowledge and skills. settling time. Bode plots of the open loop for motor 1 and motor 2 for the PI plus low-pass controllers are shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12. the process of achieving this transfer function is called identification. the control engineer designs a controller using his own experience.

Elmo Position Control 30 10 dB -10 -30 -50 1 10 90 Phase[deg] 0 -90 -180 -270 -360 1 10 10 2 10 2 10 3 10 3 ω [rad/sec] Figure 11: Open loop Bode plot of motor 1 (PI and low-pass) 30 10 dB -10 -30 -50 1 10 90 Phase[deg] 0 -90 -180 -270 -360 1 10 10 2 10 2 10 3 10 3 Figure 12: Open loop Bode plot of motor 2 (PI and low-pass) ω [rad/sec] -10- .

Elmo Position Control 30 15 0 -15 -30 -45 1 10 dB 10 2 10 3 60 0 -60 -120 -180 -240 -300 -360 1 10 Phase[deg] 10 2 10 3 Figure 13: Open loop Bode plot of motor 1 (advanced controller) ω [rad/sec] 30 15 0 -15 -30 -45 1 10 dB 10 2 10 3 60 0 -60 -120 -180 -240 -300 -360 1 10 Phase[deg] 10 2 10 3 ω [rad/sec] -11- .

2. It is impossible to increase the gain of the PI (right) and maintain the same margins since: (i) the phase margin will be less than the required 35deg and (ii) the resonance whose gain is about 9dB is highly phase uncertain.5 larger than the – 5. Figure 13 and Figure 14. almost 2. The low frequency disturbance attenuation of the advanced controller for motor 1 is 5 times better than that of the PI controller. The low frequency disturbance attenuation of the advanced controller for motor 2 is 10 times better than that of the PI controller. The bandwidth of the advanced controller for motor 2 is about 13Hz. Figure 16 compares the open loop on motor 2 for advanced controller (left) and PI plus low-pass (right). -12- . almost 2. about 8dB and 35deg. we have the following conclusion: 1.Elmo Position Control 30 15 0 -15 -30 -45 1 10 dB 10 2 10 3 60 0 -60 -120 -180 -240 -300 -360 1 10 Phase[deg] 10 2 10 3 Figure 14: Open loop Bode plot of motor 2 (advanced controller) ω [rad/sec] Comparing Figure 11. Figure 15 is the same comparison for motor 1. The bandwidth of the advanced controller for motor 1 is about 15Hz. Figure 12. Clearly both have the same phase and gain margins. We present a Nichols chart in order to convince the reader that a fair comparison was made. The margins of the advanced controller are similar.7Hz of the PI controller. 4. in the sense that similar gain and phase margins were taken for the PI plus lowpass and the advanced controllers.5 larger than the – 6. 3.2Hz of the PI controller.

30 20 10 dB co 30 20 10 dB ω 0 -10 -20 =16 0 -10 -20 ω co =5.2 -30 -360 -270 -180 -90 Phase[Deg] 0 -30 -360 -270 -180 -90 Phase[Deg] 0 Figure 16: Comparison by open loop Nichols plot of speed controller of motor 2. Gain and phase margins are about the same.2 -30 -360 -270 -180 -90 Phase[Deg] 0 -30 -360 -270 -180 -90 Phase[Deg] 0 Figure 15: Comparison by open loop Nichols plot of speed controller of motor 1. left advanced.2[Hz]. left advanced.Elmo Position Control 30 20 10 dB co 30 20 10 dB ω 0 -10 -20 =14 0 -10 -20 ω co =6.2[Hz]. right PI plus low-pass. crossover frequencies are 16[Hz] and 5. right PI plus low-pass. -13- . respectively. Crossover requencies are 14[Hz] and 6. respectively.

4 0. The comparison shows that the advanced controller tracks the reference command much better than the PI plus low-pass. reference PI+low pass Advanced 0. respectively.2 0.5 0. -14- . 600 450 C nt 300 150 0 0 2 1. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show test results for that cascaded position controller.1 0.6 0. The current consumed by both controllers is about the same with about the same peak value.2 0.5 -1 0 0.4 0.3 Sec.7 PI+low pass Advanced 0.7 The trajectory command for motor 1 is 500[cnt] with speed and acceleration limitation of 2000[cnt/sec] and 20000[cnt/sec^2].Elmo Position Control Cascaded Position Control Comparison Laboratory Tests measures the motor shaft speed and an encoder measuring the motor shaft angle.5 Am pere 1 0.6 0.1 0. A cascaded position controller has been designed where the speed loop is the PI plus lowpass or the advanced controllers of sections 2 and 3 and the position controller is a simple gain.5 0 -0.5 0. Figure 17: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller.3 0. Motor 2 commanded to stop.

6 0.5 0. For this compliant mechanic system.3 Sec. and the results of the controller design are directly fed to program the motion controller.Elmo Position Control 600 450 C nt 300 150 0 0 2 1. the PI controllers were left behind the more advanced controllers.1 0. we need a frequency domain system model.7 The trajectory command on motor 2 is 500[cnt] with speed and acceleration limitation of 2000[cnt/sec] and 20000[cnt/sec^2]. Copyright © 2001 Elmo Position Control. The same environment also designs automatically the large signal control policy. and an automated controller design system. respectively.1 0. Conclusions We used a robotic application to compare the performance of a traditional PI-PID controller versus more advanced controllers.4 0. settling time and low frequency disturbance rejection. including inter-axis coupling.5 -1 0 0. reference PI+low pass Advanced 0.5 0 -0.5 0. We developed an identification & design environment that can identify the dynamics of complex mechanical systems. -15- . Figure 18: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller.4 0. PI controllers are not enough.3 0. where to get the most out a mechanical system. in the criteria of bandwidth.2 0. Motor 1 commanded to stop.5 Am pere 1 0. All rights reserved. To effectively design an advanced controller. Complex control problems deserve an advanced controller. Large signal advanced controllers are out of the scope of this paper – they deserve their own paper.2 0. The identification results are directly fed to an automatic controller design environment. This is just another case.6 0.7 PI+low pass Advanced 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful