Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285895415
CITATIONS READS
30 145
3 authors:
A. Blanco-Ortega
Centro Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo …
76 PUBLICATIONS 254 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by A. Blanco-Ortega on 13 December 2015.
Abstract—In this article, a Generalized Proportional Integral Beltrán et al (See [2]). Combinations of GPI controllers and
(GPI) controller is proposed for the efficient rejection of a fast algebraic identification techniques for adaptive attenuation
completely unknown perturbation input in a controlled mass of vibrations may be found in Beltrán et al. [3], and in [4].
system attached to an uncertain mass-spring-damper mechanical
system. We propose a classical compensation network form of the GPI controllers merge quite well with sliding mode control
GPI controller, including a sufficient number of extra integra- techniques making it unnecessary to know the full state of
tions, which results in a robust perturbation rejection scheme the system, as evidenced in Beltrán et al. [5]. GPI controllers
for a trajectory tracking task on the controlled mass subject have been used in several experimental set ups of power
to the unknown perturbation input. Aside from encouraging electronics problems in the works of Sira-Ramı́rez and Silva-
simulations, the proposed controller is implemented and tested
in a laboratory experimental set up and its robust performance Ortigoza [14] and more recently, for multivariable cases, in
is clearly assessed by using exactly the same controller in three the work Franco et al. [9]. GPI controllers have been found
completely different topological situations. The experiments are to be expressible in proper transfer function form, or in
repeated including infinite dimensional perturbations arising classical compensation network form, in an article by Becedas
from the effects of several added un-modeled flexible appendages et al. [1], where extensive experimental tests were successfully
carrying unknown masses.
carried out, for controlling highly flexible manipulators using
Index Terms—GPI control, Perturbation Rejection, Flatness. a combination of GPI controllers and algebraic identification
techniques as advocated in Fliess and Sira-Ramı́rez in [6].
I. I NTRODUCTION For other developments concerning GPI control of flexible
Generalized Proportional Integral (GPI) control was intro- structures, see also Trapero et al. [17]. It is in this latter
duced, in the context of Predictive Control of Differentially form, of classical compensation networks, that the greatest
Flat systems in an article by Fliess and his coworkers [8]. advantages of GPI control techniques emerge as related to
The main idea is to avoid the explicit use of state observers controller simplicity, ease of implementation, reliability and
by resorting to structural reconstructions of the state on the numerical precision.
basis of iterated integrations of inputs and outputs. The method In this article, we consider a mass, capable of sliding
purposefully ignores initial conditions and classical perturba- along horizontal guidelines, and controlled by an external
tion inputs (constant perturbations, ramps, quadratic pertur- input force. The mass is attached to a train of similar, but
bations, etc., i.e., it ignores possibly unstable time-polynomial unknown, sliding masses joined in cascade by springs of
perturbations). Later on, still at the controller design stage, the unknown values. The number of masses affecting the motions
method proposes a compensation of the effect of the neglected of the directly controlled mass is completely unknown as it
perturbations and initial conditions -in the state reconstruction is unknown whether or not the very first and the very last
task- by adding to the reconstructed state feedback controller masses of the train system are free or are they attached to
a suitable linear combination of iterated output tracking error some fixed point. We propose an output feedback controller
integrals. GPI controllers for state space described linear of the GPI type, for a reference trajectory tracking task, which
systems have been systematically derived in Fliess, Márquez is based on position measurements of the controlled mass
and Delaleau [7]. For time-varying linear systems and some alone. The proposed controller is robust with respect to the
applications in nonlinear Power Electronics we refer the reader perturbation force acting on the first controlled mass as a result
to the work of Sira-Ramı́rez and Silva-Navarro [15] and [16]. of the vibrations of the rest of the uncertain cascaded mass-
In the context of nonlinear systems GPI controllers have been spring-damper system and the spring and damper possibly
proposed, for the regulation of rigid and flexible robots as well attaching the mass to a fixed point. In order to assess the
as inertia pendulum wheels, by Hernández and Sira-Ramı́rez performance and outstanding disturbance rejection capabilities
in [10], [11], [12]. In the context of active vibration absorbers, of the proposed robust GPI controller, we also carry out
GPI controllers have been previously addressed in the work of the same previous experiments including one, two and three,
vertical flexible appendages attached to the moving masses
† H. Sira-Ramı́rez is with the Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados with a mass placed at the free end of the appendage.
del IPN (Cinvestav-IPN), Mexico D.F., Mexico (e-mail: hsira@cinvestav.mx) Our GPI control design rationale is as follows: We first
‡ F. Beltrán-Carbajal and A. Blanco-Ortega are with the Instituto Tec-
nológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Guadalajara, Guadala- design an output feedback trajectory tracking controller of
jara, Jalisco (e-mail: francisco.beltran, andres.blanco@itesm.mx). the GPI type for the controlled mass which is made robust
e-STA copyright 2008 by SEE
Volume 5, N°4, pp 24-32
2
Consider the mass-spring-damper system shown in Figure control x to track a given smooth reference trajectory x∗ (t)
1. irrespectively of the coefficient values of the finite p − 1-th
order time polynomial signal ξ(t) i.e.,
p−1
Suppose this “train” of masses, sprigs and dampers is
X
ξ(t) = γi ti
constituted, after the first, actuated, known mass m, by an i=0
e-STA copyright 2008 by SEE
Volume 5, N°4, pp 24-32
3
Although this is quite an unrealistic problem, given that The following elementary magnitude check on the closed loop
any polynomial signal necessary grows without bound as t controlled system
grows, it will require of a feedback controller action whose
me(2) = eu + ξ(t)
output signal, u, will also grow in a polynomial fashion.
Nevertheless, and in spite of this unstable behavior, let us leads us to conclude that the controller output eu is to be
proceed to synthesize a controller for which the tracking error regarded as an unbounded signal. Indeed, since e exponen-
e = x − x∗ (t) exponentially asymptotically decreases to zero, tially asymptotically decreases to zero, while ξ(t), due to its
even if at the costly expense of the internal feedback controller polynomial character, either grows to plus infinity (when p− 1
instability. We proceed as follows: is even) or to minus infinity (whenever p − 1 is odd), then,
Consider the nominal unperturbed system: necessarily eu will counteract the growing perturbation at the
expense of its own stability. i.e., eu , respectively, grows to
mẍ∗ (t) = u∗ (t) either minus infinity or to plus infinity so that the signal e,
the tracking error e = x − x∗ (t) evolves according to the and its time derivatives, remain bounded and decreasing to
perturbed dynamics zero.
−4
x∗ (t) = 0 for all t and correspondingly, u∗ (t) = 0. Clearly, x 10
1
five time derivatives of the system expression annihilate the
polynomial perturbation input, xi(t). We use the following x(t)
0
GPI controller
k6 s6 + k5 s5 + · · · + k1 s + k0
u = −m x −1
s6 + k12 s5 + · · · + k8 s + k7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
5
The closed loop characteristic polynomial is simply given by u(t)
13 12 0
p(s) = s + k12 s + · · · + k1 s + k0
Equating term by term, the coefficients of the closed loop −5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
characteristic polynomial with the corresponding ones of the
5
following Hurwitz polynomial: ξ(t)
2
pd (s) = (s + 2ζωn s + ωn2 )6 (s + p) 0
u(t)
we obtain the required controller gains {k12 , k11 , · · · , k1 , k0 } −5
as follows: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
k12 = p + 12ζωn Fig. 2. Closed loop response of polynomial perturbed second order system
clearly exhibiting the canceling effect of the unstable control input.
k11 = 12ζωn p + 60ζ ωn2 + 6ωn2
2
k0 = ωn12 p 2
u(t)
For the simulation results shown below we used the follow- 0
ing data for the plant and the controller −2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
m = 1, ζ = 4, ωn = 20, p = 20, x 10
−3
2
The polynomial input was set to be a fourth degree poly- ξ(t)
nomial given by: 0
u(t)
ξ(t) = γ0 + γ1 t + γ2 t2 + γ3 t3 + γ4 t4 −2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
with γi = 1.0 × 10−3 for all i1 .
Clearly, as the polynomial perturbation ξ(t) grows, the con-
trol input u grows in the opposite direction canceling out the Fig. 3. Closed loop response of, bounded, non-polynomial perturbed second
order system depicting the canceling effect of the bounded control input.
1 The only reason we have chosen a small factor for the polynomial per-
turbation is to avoid large signals in the simulated controller output response
which misses the details of how it opposes the polynomial perturbation input The output signal x converges now to the interior of a small
signal radius ball centered around the origin of the error space, while
e-STA copyright 2008 by SEE
Volume 5, N°4, pp 24-32
5
the controller output u remains bounded only approximately equation represents an asymptotically exponentially stable
canceling the effects of the smooth, bounded, perturbation system perturbed by a smooth, uniformly bounded signal of
input ξ(t). The approximate opposite nature of the control very small amplitude. By well known results, (See, for instance
input with respect to the bounded perturbation input is clearly the excellent book by Rugh [13]) the closed loop tracking
due to the simple magnitude balance in the system dynamics: error response trajectory, e(t), remains uniformly bounded by
mẍ = u+ξ(t). Indeed, now x(t) converges to a small vicinity a small radius disk centered around the origin. The robustness
around zero, and its first and second order time derivatives result follows.
remain bounded. It follows that, necessarily, u and ξ(t), nearly
“point-wise” cancel each other in the sum, u + ξ(t), on the III. S IMULATION R ESULTS
right hand side of the system dynamics.
We simulated the following mechanical system which co-
incided with the topology of the experimental set up,
D. Main Result
Theorem 1: Consider the perturbed system: m1 ẍ1 = u + ξ(t)
ξ(t) = −k1 x1 − c1 ẋ1 − k2 (x1 − x2 )
mẍ = u + ξ(t)
m2 ẍ2 = −k2 (x2 − x1 ) − c2 ẋ2 − k3 (x2 − x3 )
with m being the known mass, u is the externally applied force m3 ẍ3 = −k3 (x3 − x2 ) − cẋ3
acting as a control input and let ξ(t) be an uniformly bounded,
sufficiently smooth signal such that, given any integer p > 1, The unknown state-dependent perturbation input ξ(t) was
ξ(t) can be written as follows: modeled as a fourth order time polynomial 2 . A trajectory
1 2 1 tracking task was adopted to have the controlled mass position
ξ(t) = ξ0 + ξ1 t + ξ2 t + · · · + ξp−1 tp−1 + op (t) x track, a Bézier polynomial smoothly interpolating between
2! (p − 1)!
zero and a final position located at one centimeter from the
with initial rest position in approximately 3 [sec]. The controller
di ξ(t)
ξi = , i = 0, 1, · · · , p − 1 was set to be:
dti t=0
k6 s6 + k5 s5 + · · · + k1 s + k0
and |op (t)| is a bounded signal uniformly contained within a u = u (t)−m 5 6
∗
(x−x∗ (t))
s (s + k12 s5 + · · · + k8 s + k7 )
disk of small radius ǫp centered at the origin with op (0) =
ȯp (0) = ... = 0. Given a smooth, desired, reference trajectory, The controller gains {k12 , ...k0 } were set to coincide with
2
x∗ (t), for the controlled position x, the robust GPI feedback those of the desired characteristic polynomial (s + 2ζωn s +
2 6
controller including p extra integrations: ωn ) (s + p) with
kp+1 sp+1 + · · · + k1 s + k0
ζ = 7, ωn = 60, p = 60.
u = u∗ (t)−m p p+1 (x−x∗ (t))
s (s + k2p+2 sp + · · · + kp+2 )
The various coefficients were set to be approximately those of
with u∗ (t) = mẍ∗ (t) being the nominal input of the sec- the experimental system:
ond order mass system, globally asymptotically exponentially
stabilizes the position tracking error e = x − x∗ (t), for k1 = 525.25 [N/m], m1 = 2.78 [Kg],
the closed loop perturbed system, towards the interior of a c1 = 3.8122 [N − s/m]
small neighborhood of zero, provided the set of coefficients k2 = 328.34 [N/m], m2 = 2.56 [Kg],
{k2p+2 , k2p+1 , · · · , k1 , k0 } of the output GPI feedback track-
c2 = 1.11 [N − s/m]
ing controller are chosen so that the closed loop characteristic
polynomial, pcl (s), is a Hurwitz polynomial given by, k3 = 185.69 [N/m], m3 = 2.56 [Kg],
c3 = 1.11 [N − s/m]
pcl (s) = s2p+3 + k2p+2 s2p + · · · + kp+2 sp+2
+kp+1 sp+1 + · · · + k1 s + k0
IV. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
Proof A. Perturbation input arising from a finite dimensional system
The following picture depicts the experimental ECPr sys-
d
Let e(t) = x − x (t) and let
∗
pcl ( dt )
denote the differential tem on which we tested the proposed output feedback tracking
d
polynomial obtained from pcl (s) after letting s = dt . Consider control strategy of the GPI type with disturbance rejection fea-
the closed loop system in the time domain. We have after some tures based on iterated integrations arising from a polynomial
elementary manipulations: perturbation model annihilation via repeated differentiations
p+1
of the simplified input output relation.
2p+1−j
d X d
pcl ( )e(t) = k2p+3−j 2p+1−j op (t) 2 Clearly, one can take the bounded time perturbation to be state dependent,
dt j=0
dt
in this case, because we know that the neglected contribution of the state
function, considered as part of the unknown perturbation, still produces a
with k2p+3 = 1. Clearly, under the hypothesis of a small stable system. Unknown expressions of the state which cause unstable open
residual, op (t), in the vicinity of the current time t, the above loop behavior must, in general, be known and exactly canceled on line.
e-STA copyright 2008 by SEE
Volume 5, N°4, pp 24-32
6
0.015
0.01 x(t),x*(t) x(t),x*(t)
0.01
0.005
[m]
0 0.005
0 1 2 3 4 5
5 0
u(t) 0 2 4
time [s]
6 8 10
6
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 u(t)
0 4
[N]
ξ(t) 2
−5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10
time [s]
Fig. 4. Simulated closed loop response of a robust GPI controlled mass Fig. 7. Closed loop experimental response for the controlled mass perturbed
position undergoing a state-dependent dynamic, bounded, perturbation. by the attachment of a second unknown mass via unknown spring and damper.
0.015
x(t),x*(t)
0.01
[m]
0.005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
time [s]
6
u(t)
4
[N]
2
0
Fig. 5. Experimental ECPr laboratory set up of mass-spring-damper system. 0 2 4 6 8 10
time [s]
Fig. 8. Closed loop experimental response for the controlled mass perturbed
by the attachment of two unknown masses in tandem via unknown springs
and dampers.
We first run the tracking controller when no masses were
attached to the first controlled mass. Figure 6 shows the
obtained closed loop response. We then run the experiment
again using exactly the same controller as before, but, this B. Perturbation inputs arising from an infinite dimensional
time, with only one (unknown) mass attached to the controlled system
system. The corresponding closed loop responses are shown in In view of the successful experimental performance of the
Figure 7. Finally, we run a third experiment using exactly the closed loop finite dimensional perturbed mechanical system
same previous controller, but, this time, placing two unknown and the proposed robust GPI controller, we set out to repeat
masses in tandem attached to the first controlled mass. The some of the previous experiments with an added complexity in
results are shown in Figure 8. the unknown perturbation signal generation. A rather flexible
appendage, topped with a significant mass, was built and
firmly attached to the top of one of the moving cars in the
train as shown in the following picture.
0.015
x(t),x*(t) The experimental results regarding the controlled mass
0.01
[m]
0.005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
time [s]
6
u(t)
4
[N]
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
time [s]
0.015
x(t),x*(t)
0.01
[m]
0.005
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time [s]
4
3 u(t)
[N]
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time [s]
Fig. 13. Mass-spring-damper system with flexible appendages on the three
carts.
Fig. 10. Closed loop experimental response for the controlled mass perturbed
by the attachment of two unknown masses in tandem via unknown springs
and dampers and one flexible appendage placed on the second mass.
0.015
x(t),x*(t)
0.01
[m]
0.005
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time [s]
4
3 u(t)
[N]
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time [s]
Fig. 14. Closed loop experimental response for the controlled mass perturbed
by the attachment of two unknown masses in tandem via unknown springs
Fig. 11. Mass-spring-damper system with a flexible appendage on the second
and dampers and three flexible appendage placed on the controlled mass and
and third carts.
in the second and third carts.
position and the applied control input force are depicted in Finally, we placed a flexible appendage on each one of the
Figure 10 tree cars in the ECPr system, as shown in the picture of Figure
Since the results were rather encouraging, we placed one 13. The closed loop performance is depicted in Figure 14
such flexible appendage on the second and third carts and For these experiments the values of the springs, dampers and
proceeded to control the first mass motion, as done before, cart masses were modified to allow for further oscillations. We
with the same previously used controller. Figure 11 depicts the set:
arrangement. Figure 12 depicts the corresponding controlled
position and control input signals. k1 = 191.31 N/m, c1 = 3.64 N/m/s, m = 2.82 kg
k2 = 391.16 N/m, c2 = 1.75 N/m/s, m2 = 2.59 kg
0.005
ζ = 7, ωn = 70, p = 70.
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
time [s]
4
C. Robustness with respect to mass uncertainty
3 u(t) As stated in the proposed robust output feedback GPI
controller design, given by
[N]
1
k6 s6 + k5 s5 + · · · + k1 s + k0
0 u = u∗ (t)−m 5 6 (x−x∗ (t))
0 1 2
time [s]
3 4 5 s (s + k12 s5 + · · · + k8 s + k7 )
the only parameter that needs to be known, with certitude,
Fig. 12. Closed loop experimental response for the controlled mass perturbed is the controlled mass parameter, m, associated with the first
by the attachment of two unknown masses in tandem via unknown springs and
dampers and two flexible appendages placed on the second and third carts.
cart. Clearly, it is possible that such a mass is not perfectly
e-STA copyright 2008 by SEE known. We carried out an experimental study on the effects of
Volume 5, N°4, pp 24-32
8
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Becedas, V. Feliu and H. Sira-Ramı́rez “GPI Control for a Single-
Link Flexible Manipulator” International Conference on Modeling, Sim-
ulation and Control (ICMSC’07). San Francisco, USA, 24-26 October,
2007.
[2] F. Beltrán Carbajal, G. Silva-Navarro and H. Sira-Ramı́rez, H.,
“Adaptive-like active vibration suppression for a nonlinear mechanical
system using on line algebraic identification”, The Thirteen International
Congress on Sound and Vibration (ICSV13-Vienna), Vienna, Austria,
July 2-6, 2006.
[3] F. Beltrán-Carbajal, G. Silva-Navarro, H. Sira-Ramı́rez and J. Quezada-
Andrade, “Active vibration control using on-line algebraic identification
of harmonic vibrations” American Control Conference, 2005. Portland,
Oregon, USA, June 8-10, 2005.
[4] F. Beltrán-Carbajal, G. Silva-Navarro and H. Sira-Ramı́rez, “Application
of on-line algebraic identification in active vibration control” Proceed-
ings of the ISMA-2004, Conference on Noise and Vibration Engineering,
Leuven, Belgium, September 20-22, 2004.
[5] F. Beltrán, H. Sira-Ramı́rez, G. Silva-Navarro, “Robust active vibration
absorption using sliding modes, delta-modulators and generalized PI
control” 10th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, July 7-10,
2003. Stockholm, Sweden.
[6] M. Fliess, H. Sira-Ramı́rez, “An algebraic framework for linear identifi-
cation”. ESAIM Contr. Optim. and Calc. of Variat. Vol. 9, pp. 151-168,
2003.
[7] M. Fliess, R. Márquez and E. Delaleau, “State Feedbacks withou
asymptotic observers and Generalized PID Regulators” in Nonlinear
Control in the Year 2000, A. Isidori,, F. Lamnabhi-Lagarrigue and W.
Respondek (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences,
Vol 258, pages 367-384. Springer-Verlag, London, 2000.
[8] M. Fliess, R. Marquez, E. Delaleau and H. Sira-Ramı́rez, “ Correcteurs
Proportionnels-Intègraux Généralisés, ESAIM: Control, Optimization
and Calculus of Variations, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 23-41, 2002.
[9] A. Franco-González, R. Márquez and H. Sira-Ramı́rez “On the
Generalized-Proportional-Integral Sliding mode Control of the ”Boost-
Boost” Converter” International Conference on Electrical and Elec-
tronics Engineering (ICEEE-2007), Ciudad de México, September 5-7,
2007.
[10] V. Hernández, H. Sira-Ramı́rez “On the robustness of generalized PI
control with respect to parametric uncertainties” 2003 European Control
Conference, Cambridge, England U.K., September 2003.
[11] V. M. Hernández and H. Sira-Ramı́rez, “Generalized PI control for
global robust position regulation of rigid robot manipulators” 2003
American Control Conference. Denver Colorado, June 2003.
[12] V. M. Hernández and H. Sira-Ramı́rez, “Generalized PI control for
swinging up and balancing the inertia wheel pendulum” 2003 American
Control Conference. Denver Colorado, June 2003.
[13] W. J. Rugh, “Linear System Theory” (2nd ed.), Prentice-Hall Inc. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. 1996.
[14] H. Sira-Ramı́rez and R. Silva-Ortigoza,Control Design Techniques in
Power Electronics Devices, Springer-Verlag, Power Systems Series,
London, 2006. ISBN: 1-84628-458-9.
[15] H. Sira-Ramı́rez and G. Silva-Navarro “Generalized PID control of the
Average Boost Converter” in Adaptive and Nonlinear Control NCN4,
2001. A. Zinober and D. Owens (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, London, 2003,
pp. 301-310.
[16] H. Sira-Ramı́rez y G. Silva-Navarro, “ Regulation and Tracking for the
Average Boost Converter Circuit: A Generalized Proportional Integral
Approach” International Journal of Control Vol. 75, No. 13, pp. 988-
1001, September 2002.
[17] J.R. Trapero, H. Sira-Ramı́rez and V. Feliu Batlle, “A fast on-line
frequency estimator of lightly damped vibrations in flexible structures”
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 307, pp. 365-378, 2007.