Professional Documents
Culture Documents
error. 0 .0 1
-0 . 0 3
H G O
3.1 Open-loop Comparison -0 . 0 4
-0 . 0 5
-0 . 0 6
• Nominal plant; -0 .2 N E S O
•
S M O
Nominal plant plus coulomb friction; -0 .4
-1 .2
-1 .8
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5
For all three observers perform well in steady state and have T im e (s e c .)
Co ulo mb frictio n
more robust than HGO and SMO in the presence of disturbance. -1 0
T im e (s e c .)
0 .0 1 5
0 .0 1
S M O Figure 5: Disturbance and its estimation
H G O
0 .0 0 5
Y-Z1 estim ation error
0
Figure 6 and 7 illustrate the simulation results for the plant with a
-0 .0 0 5
100% increase of inertia. Once again NESO provides an overall
- 0 .0 1
-0 .0 1 5
superior performance, followed by SMO.
N E S O
- 0 .0 2
0 .0 2
-0 .0 2 5
0 1 2 3 4 5
T im e ( s e c .) 0 .0 1
N E S O
0 .3 0
Y1-Z1 estimatio n erro r
S M O -0 . 0 1
0 .2
H G O
-0 . 0 2
0 .1
Y2-Z2 estim ation error
-0 . 0 3
0 S M O
-0 . 0 4
- 0 .1 H G O
-0 . 0 5
- 0 .2
-0 . 0 6
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5
N E S O T im e (s e c .)
- 0 .3
- 0 .4
0 1 2 3 4 5
T im e ( s e c .) 0 .4
-0 .2
5
-0 .4
S M O
0 -0 .6
-0 .8
-5
-1
-1 0
-1 .2 H G O
-1 5 -1 .4
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5
Z 3 ( t)
T im e (s e c .)
-2 0
a ( t)
-2 5
0 1 2
T im e
3
( s e c .)
4 5
Figure 6: Estimated error with 100% change of inertia
-5
Z 3 (t)
-1 5
conditions.
-2 0 a (t)
-2 5
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5 3.3 Closed-loop Comparison
T im e (s e c .)
Figure 7: Disturbance and its estimation Based on their open loop performance, NESO and SMO are
evaluated in a closed-loop feedback setting, such as that shown in
3.2 Effects of NESO Gains Adjustment with Unknown Initial Figure 9 for NESO. The profile generator provides the desired
Conditions
state trajectory in both y and y& , using an industry standard
Simulations reveal that NESO achieves better performance trapezoidal profile. Based on the separation principle, the
among these observers. However, if the plant has unknown controller is designed independently, assuming that all states are
initial conditions, it may produce significant transient estimation accessible in the control law.
errors. The following simulation tests were performed for the
comparisons of three gain functions for NESO as shown in
w(t)
Figure 1. The initial conditions are set as y (0) =10 (rev) r(t) v2(t) u0(t) u(t) y(t)
and y& (0) = 0 . The observer poles used in simulation are placed
+_
Profile
PD +_ Plant
Generator
+_
z3(t)
4
z2(t) Extended
3 .5 State Observer
(ESO)
3
z1(t)
2 .5
Y1-Z1 estimatio n error
1 .5
-.-.-. f i(.)
1
g 1 (.)
0 .5 ...... g 2 (.)
Figure 9: Observer Based State Feedback Control Configuration
0
-0 .5
-1
0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6
In the case of NESO, the extended state information, z3, which
T im e (s e c .)
converges to x3=f (y, y& , w), is used to compensate for the
2
-4
T
-6
where e= [v1-z1 v2-z2] and K is the state feedback gain that is
-.-.-. f i(.)
-8
......
g 1 (.) equivalent to a proportional-derivative (PD) controller design.
g 2 (.)
-1 0
Substituting (14) in (5),
-1 2
y = ( f ( y, y& , w) − z3 ) + Ke
&& (15)
-1 4
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2
-1 0
velocity estimates, z1 and z2 are available and the corresponding
Y3-Z3 estimation error
-1 5
PD design yields the following closed-loop system,
-2 0
-.-.-.
......
f i(.)
g 1 (.) y = f 0 ( y, y& , w) + Ke =-1.41 y& +Ke
&& (16)
g 2 (.)
-2 5
-3 0
Note that the extended state, z3, is not available in SMO. The
-3 5
poles of observers are selected as –12 rad/sec. For the controller
0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 1 .2 1 .4 1 .6 1 .8 2
0 .2
DC Singal DC drive
P o sitio n erro r (rev.)
0 .1 5 DAC
Conditioning (2 channels)
0 .1
N E S O PC-based
Electro-
....... S M O ADRC
mechanical
0 .0 5 Plant
Quadrature
0 Counting Encoders
Board
-0 . 0 5
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5
T im e (s e c .)
N E S O ....... S M O
1 .4
0 .2 5
1 .2
0 .2
Po sition erro r (rev.)
1
0 .1 5
0 .8
0 .1
N E S O
Po sition (rev.)
....... S M O 0 .6
0 .0 5
0 .4
0
0 .2
-0 . 0 5
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5
T im e (s e c .) 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
0 .3
0 .3
0 .2 5
0 .2 5
0 .2 0 .1 5
Po sitio n erro r (rev.)
0 .1
0 .1 5
0 .0 5
0 .1
N E S O 0
....... S M O
0 .0 5
-0 . 0 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
0
-0 .0 5 3
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 3 .5 4 4 .5 5
T im e (s e c .) 2 .5
1 .5
1
C o ntro l (vo ltage)
0 .5
-1
-1 .5
An industrial motion control test bed is used to verify the -2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0
0 .2 5
robot manipulators using high-gain observer”,
Proceedings of 1999 IEEE International Conference on
Position error (rev.)
0 .2
0 .1 5
Control Application. Hawaii, USA. August 22-27, 1999.
0 .1 [5] J.J.E. Slotine, J.K .Hedrick, and E.A. Misawa, “On
0 .0 5 sliding observers for nonlinear systems”, Journal of
0
Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control. Vol.109,
-0 . 0 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1987, pp: 245-252.
3 .5
[6] V.I. Utkin. Sliding-modes in control optimization.
3
Springer-Verlag, 1992.
2 .5 [7] R.Sreedhar, B.Fernandez and G.Y.Masada. “Robust fault
2
1 .5
detection in nonlinear systems using sliding-mode
observers”, Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Control
C o ntro l (voltage)