You are on page 1of 15

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-

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

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

about 43% of the 0.1 0.7 Figure 4: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller. The step command to motor 1 is 600[cnt/sec].Elmo Position Control The robot was tested for several speed reference commands.6 0.3 Sec. for motors 1 and 2.2 0. 600 400 200 0 -200 0 10 6 Am pere 2 -2 -6 -10 0 0. respectively.1 0.2 0. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the step response of PI plus low-pass controller and of an advanced controller against the reference step. -4- .6 0. Clearly for motor 1 (Figure 4).5 reference PI+low pass Advanced 0.3 0.04 seconds rise time of the PI plus low-pass. The prices for the higher performance of the advanced controller are twice the current peak and larger high frequency noise.5 PI+low pass Advanced 0.4 0.7 0.4 0. rise time and settling time of the advanced controller are much lower than the corresponding results of the PI plus lowpass. The rise time of the advanced controller is 0. 1000 800 Cnt/sec.017seconds. and to motor 2 zero. 0. The same relation holds for the settling time. the tracking error.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 compare between our advanced controller and the PI plus lowpass controller for a smooth acceleration limited speed command. In most real applications however.2 0.5 reference PI+low pass Advanced 0. the racking error. and the current consumption is about the same for both controllers. and to motor 1 is zero. For motor 2. Again.6 0.3 Sec. The rise time of the advanced controller is 0.1 0. the tracking error for the advanced controller is much lower than for the PI plus low-pass.7 Figure 5: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller. This is emphasized by the next comparison.5 0.Elmo Position Control 1000 800 Cnt/sec.1 0. (Figure 5). The price for the higher performance of the advanced controller is again the current peak. -5- . which compares the controllers for acceleration-limited step response. 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. 0.1 seconds rise time of the PI plus low-pass.4 0. 600 400 200 0 -200 0 3 2 Am pere 1 0 -1 -2 0 0. about 20% the 0. The same relation holds for the settling time. the reference command is smooth and the peak current is dictated by the reference command rather then by the controller.6 0.2 0.02 seconds.3 0. The step command to motor 2 is 600[cnt/sec].4 0. The overshoot of the advanced controller is by far lower.

1 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.7 PI+low pass Advanced 0.4 0.1 0.2 0. Motor 2 is commanded to stop.4 0.2 0. acceleration limitation 20000[cnt/sec^2]. acceleration limitation 20000[cnt/sec^2].6 0.3 0.3 0. Trajectory command on motor 2 is 2000[cnt/sec].2 0. -6- .5 0.5 0.7 reference PI+low pass Advanced Figure 7: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller.1 0.7 Figure 6: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller.3 Sec.3 Sec.6 0.6 0. 0.6 0. 3000 2200 C nt/sec 1400 600 -200 0 3 2 Am pere 1 0 -1 -2 0 0.5 reference PI+low pass Advanced 0. 0.4 0.1 0.7 0. Trajectory command to motor 1 is 2000[cnt/sec]. Motor 2 is commanded to stop.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.

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 . Open Loop The robot has two motors and four sensors. and the design margins taken. We subjected the controller to abrupt reference waveforms. two tachometers and two encoders. The frequency plots provide an estimate for settling time and overshoot. from input j to integral of the tachometer on link i -7- . The time domain tests of Section 2 show the final result. generating eight transfer functions from the current commands introduced into each of the motors to each of the sensors. 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.Elmo Position Control Speed Control Comparison by Frequency Domain Analysis In section 2 the robot's tracking performance for different controllers has been studied. This estimate confirms the result of Section 2. and rij denote the transfer function from the current command introduced into motor j to the encoder coupled to the shaft of motor i. but they offer no explanation to the difference in the results achieved. Figure 8 and Figure 9 depict these eight discrete Bode plots. 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 tachometer located on motor 2 reads a signal up to 5 times larger than the tachometer located on motor 1. Figure 9. In some frequencies the coupling between the axes is so large that the reaction to current injected to motor 1 on its shaft. The transfer functions from current commands to encoders. whereas the tachometers are mounted rigidly on the motor shaft. whose spectral densities are mainly around 200Hz and/or 300Hz. from input j to the encoder located on link i Figure 8 shows that link 1 has four dominant resonances. Advanced controllers can attenuate the resonant frequencies using notch or low-pass filters. with frequencies ranging from 200 to 3000 rad/sec. but much lower in size. but their effect on PI controllers is most marked. Link 2 has a dominant resonance at about 100 rad/sec. -8- . or they can actively damp some resonant modes. is much lower than the reaction of the shaft of motor 2. happens when motor 2 is driven. The ratio between these reactions is depicted in Figure 10. 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 . For currents injected to motor 1. A similar phenomenon. These resonance frequencies would limit the performance of any controller.

The upper plot is the ratio of tachometer 2 to tachometer 1 due to current injected to motor 1. the process of achieving this transfer function is called identification. respectively. Lower plot is the ratio of tachometer 1 to tachometer 2 due to current injected to motor 2. Following the plant identification process. for example. The major properties of a closed loop feedback system can be concluded from the open loop transfer function. Bode plots of the open loop for motor 1 and motor 2 for the advanced controllers are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14. the control engineer designs a controller using his own experience. rise 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. amplification of sensor noise. settling time. knowledge and skills. Controller Design Advanced control design techniques are based on the controlled plant transfer function. respectively.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. robustness to plant changes. -9- . and if it is possible to improve the closed loop performance.

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- .

The bandwidth of the advanced controller for motor 2 is about 13Hz. The bandwidth of the advanced controller for motor 1 is about 15Hz.5 larger than the – 6. 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. Figure 13 and Figure 14.2Hz of the PI controller. we have the following conclusion: 1. The margins of the advanced controller are similar. in the sense that similar gain and phase margins were taken for the PI plus lowpass and the advanced controllers. -12- . almost 2. almost 2. The low frequency disturbance attenuation of the advanced controller for motor 1 is 5 times better than that of the PI controller. 3. Figure 15 is the same comparison for motor 1. Figure 12. Clearly both have the same phase and gain margins. Figure 16 compares the open loop on motor 2 for advanced controller (left) and PI plus low-pass (right).7Hz of the PI controller. 2. about 8dB and 35deg. We present a Nichols chart in order to convince the reader that a fair comparison was made. 4. The low frequency disturbance attenuation of the advanced controller for motor 2 is 10 times better than that of the PI controller.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 11.5 larger than the – 5.

right PI plus low-pass.2[Hz]. respectively. respectively. -13- . 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. left advanced.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 2.2 -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. Gain and phase margins are about the same. crossover frequencies are 16[Hz] and 5. 30 20 10 dB co 30 20 10 dB ω 0 -10 -20 =16 0 -10 -20 ω co =5. right PI plus low-pass.2[Hz]. Crossover requencies are 14[Hz] and 6.

2 0. 600 450 C nt 300 150 0 0 2 1.4 0.Elmo Position Control Cascaded Position Control Comparison Laboratory Tests measures the motor shaft speed and an encoder measuring the motor shaft angle.7 The trajectory command for motor 1 is 500[cnt] with speed and acceleration limitation of 2000[cnt/sec] and 20000[cnt/sec^2]. The current consumed by both controllers is about the same with about the same peak value. reference PI+low pass Advanced 0.5 -1 0 0.1 0. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show test results for that cascaded position controller. respectively.5 0.1 0. Motor 2 commanded to stop.3 Sec.6 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 -0.6 0. -14- .3 0. Figure 17: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller.7 PI+low pass Advanced 0.5 Am pere 1 0. The comparison shows that the advanced controller tracks the reference command much better than the PI plus low-pass.4 0.2 0.5 0.

6 0. Conclusions We used a robotic application to compare the performance of a traditional PI-PID controller versus more advanced controllers.5 0. PI controllers are not enough.1 0. Complex control problems deserve an advanced controller. The identification results are directly fed to an automatic controller design environment.6 0. Copyright © 2001 Elmo Position Control.5 -1 0 0. The same environment also designs automatically the large signal control policy. reference PI+low pass Advanced 0. in the criteria of bandwidth.5 Am pere 1 0. -15- .7 PI+low pass Advanced 0.7 The trajectory command on motor 2 is 500[cnt] with speed and acceleration limitation of 2000[cnt/sec] and 20000[cnt/sec^2].2 0. and the results of the controller design are directly fed to program the motion controller.3 Sec. Large signal advanced controllers are out of the scope of this paper – they deserve their own paper. For this compliant mechanic system. Figure 18: Comparison between PI plus low-pass controller and advanced controller. respectively.5 0 -0.4 0. where to get the most out a mechanical system. We developed an identification & design environment that can identify the dynamics of complex mechanical systems.3 0. we need a frequency domain system model. Motor 1 commanded to stop. To effectively design an advanced controller.Elmo Position Control 600 450 C nt 300 150 0 0 2 1. This is just another case. and an automated controller design system. the PI controllers were left behind the more advanced controllers.4 0. including inter-axis coupling.2 0.1 0. settling time and low frequency disturbance rejection.5 0. All rights reserved.