electronics

Article
Research on Active Disturbance Rejection Control
Technology of Electromechanical Actuators
Jing Han * ID
, Hongfu Wang, Guotai Jiao, Liming Cui and Yuren Wang
College of Mechatronic Engineering, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, Shanxi, China;
hflovelin@sohu.com (H.W.); jiaogt@163.com (G.J.); ccuiliming@sohu.com (L.C.); wyrwqx@sohu.com (Y.W.)
* Correspondence: ajingcool@tom.com; Tel.: +86-138-3463-7620




Received: 2 August 2018; Accepted: 30 August 2018; Published: 3 September 2018


Abstract: It has been proven that the properties of non-linearity, multi-disturbance, and time-variation
are the main factors affecting the performance of the electromechanical actuator (EMA) for guided
artillery rockets. In particular, its controller should have good dynamic characteristics and strong
anti-disturbance features when the projectile is maneuvered at the end of its guidance. For these
reasons, an active disturbance rejection controller (ADRC) was designed for a guided artillery rocket’s
EMA with a ball screw drive. Compared to other control methods, it has been shown that the ADRC
had a stronger disturbance rejection ability than PID, Fuzzy-PID, and BP-PID under the condition of
20% maximum control torque disturbance, and it also had a large stability margin and bandwidth.

Keywords: ADRC; electromechanical actuator; guided artillery rocket

1. Introduction
As one of the most important parts of the guided artillery rocket, the control system of
electromechanical actuator (EMA) generates real-time instructions that drive EMA to deflect and
change the flight attitude. Obviously, the control law of EMA directly affects the performance of the
entire guided artillery rocket. However, due to the influence of non-linear factors such as friction,
clearance, structural deformation and the load changes drastically at the end of guidance, traditional
control methods can no longer meet the above requirements of modern military high-precision
guidance [1]. At present, in addition to the PID control approach, there are other ways used in
guided artillery rockets such as the sliding model control (SMC), H∞ control, adaptive control,
and so on. Among them, the main advantages of SMC are order reduction, decoupling design
procedure, disturbance rejection, insensitivity to parameter variations and simple implementation by
means of a power converter. However, it always has the chattering problem, which results from the
high-frequency switching of an SMC exciting unmodelled dynamics in the closed loop [2]. The H∞
control approach has a strong robustness and anti-disturbance ability, but only within the permissible
perturbation range [3,4]. The fuzzy adaptive PID control and BP neural network adaptive PID control,
as two commonly used adaptive control methods for the EMA, have effectively solved the uncertainty
of the PID control parameters and environmental disturbances; it can make the system more adaptable
and an anti-disturbance to the external environment. However, there are still some problems, such as
the Fuzzy-PID approach finding it difficult to determine the fuzzy rules, while the BP-PID approach
converges slowly and is prone to local extremum. However, the ADRC approach does not have the
above problems; it has the characteristics of not relying on the model but combining it to perform
the real-time estimation and subtraction of disturbances. Particularly, it has obvious advantages
under vibration suppression or strong disturbance conditions, so we tried to use ADRC to control
the EMA. Hongyinping Feng, et al. [5] proved mathematically that the ADRC can handle a variety
of disturbances in a variety of uncertain systems. Jie Li, Yuanqing Xia, et al. [6] confirmed the truth

Electronics 2018, 7, 174; doi:10.3390/electronics7090174 www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics

Electronics 2018, 7, 174 2 of 12

that the ADRC has a strong stability in the presence of parameter uncertainty. Studies [7–9] have
respectively proposed ADRC control schemes for time-delay and non-linear systems. At present,
ADRC has been accepted and applied more and more widely. Momir R. Stankovic, et al. [10] realized
the active disturbance rejection control of the multi-axis system based on an FPGA and verified its
tracking performance, stability and robustness through experiments. Bingwei Gao, Junpeng Shao,
et al. [11] proposed a compound control strategy combining velocity compensation with ADRC to
improve the positioning accuracy of the electro-hydraulic position servo system.
Additionally, the ADRC has been widely used in steering the controller such as automatic vehicles,
the AHV model-based autopilot controller, spacecraft’s attitude and position synchronization control
and so on [12–17]. There was no doubting that the application on the ADRC extended to the field of the
controlling missile or guided artillery rocket’s EMA. Based on an improved auto-disturbance controller,
Zhang Mingyue [18] proposed a method of the NSGA-II algorithm which could help to solve the ADRC
parameter tuning problem. An internal and external double closed-loop auto-disturbance-rejection
attitude controller design method was proposed for a certain type of missile [19]. In order to improve
the trajectory tracking accuracy, an improved ADRC was built, which used the reference acceleration
signal of the target trajectory as the feed forward quantity to suppress the uncompensated disturbance
in the system [20]. Our paper focused on the active disturbance rejection control method for an EMA
with a ball screw of a kind of guided artillery rocket, which was systematically analyzed and compared
with several of the most mainstream intelligent control methods. Then the advantages of the active
disturbance rejection control technology were verified. This could provide an important theoretical
basis for the application of the ADRC in the guided artillery rocket.

2. System Description

2.1. Mathematical Model of the EMA

According to the working principle of EMA, we can use Equations (1)–(4) to describe its
mathematical model. They represent the electromechanical conversion equation, the back EMF
equation, the rotor circuit voltage equation, and the mechanical equation, respectively.

Tm = Km · I A (1)

Em = Ke ·ωm (2)
dI A
Um = R· I A + L· + Em (3)
dt
dωm
Tm = J · + T f + Th + Tω (4)
dt
After ignoring the motor armature inductance, the equations of the EMA’s dynamics can be
obtained by combining Equations (1)–(4).

dθ Um ·Km Tf T Tω Ke ·Km dθ
= − − h− − · (5)
dt2 R· J J J J R· J dt

2.2. EMA’s Active Disturbance Rejection Controller Design

In the 1980s, Han Jingqing firstly proposed the concept of active disturbance rejection control
technology. The ADRC actively extracts the disturbance information from the input/output signal of
the controlled object before the disturbance significantly affects the final output of the system, and then
eliminates it by controlling the signal as soon as possible. In this way, it can greatly reduce its impact
on the amount of control [21]. The core of the system is to sum up the unmodeled section and the
unknown external disturbances of the system to estimate and compensate the “total disturbance” of
Electronics 2018, 7, 174 3 of 12

the system [22]. The non-linear ADRC is composed of an extended state observer (ESO), a tracking
differentiator (TD), and a non-linear state error feedback control law (NLSEF).
According to Equation (5), we could obtain the EMA’s equation of state.
 .
 x1 = x2
 x. = x + b·U


2 3 m
. . (6)


 x 3 = f
y = x1


Ke · Km T Th Tω Km
where x2 = ωm = dθ f
dt , f = − R· J · x2 − J − J − J , b = R· J , x1 = θ. Um represents the input voltage,
y represents the output angle of the motor shaft.
The ADRC observes the disturbance f by establishing an ESO and eliminates it by the NLSEF to
achieve the function of anti-disturbance. Therefore, we have designed a state observer of the form of
Equation (7). 
 ε 1 = z1 − y
.


 z1 = z2 − β 01 ·ε 1
. (7)
 z 2 = z 3 − β 02 · f al (ε 1 , α1 , δ) + b·Um
.


z3 = − β 03 · f al (ε 1 , α2 , δ)


According to the definition of ADRC, the discrete form of the designed controller is as follows.

• The Tracking Differentiator (TD) algorithm is given by Equation (8):


 f h = f han(v1 (k) − v(k), v2 (k), r0 , h0 )

v1 ( k + 1) = v1 ( k ) + h · v2 ( k ) (8)
v2 ( k + 1) = v2 ( k ) + h · f h



• The Extended State Observer (ESO) algorithm has the following form:


 ε 1 = z1 ( k ) − y ( k )

 z1 (k + 1) = z1 (k) + h·[z2 (k ) − β 01 ·ε 1 ]
(9)

 z 2 ( k + 1 ) = z2 (k) + h·[z3 (k) − β 02 · f al (ε 1 , 0.5, δ) + b·Um ]

z3 (k + 1) = z3 (k) − h· β 03 · f al (ε 1 , 0.25, δ)


• Non-linear state error feedback control law (NLSEF) algorithm is


 e1 = v 1 − z 1 , e2 = v 2 − z 2

u0 = − f han(e1 , c·e2 , r, h1 ) (10)
 U = (u − z (k))/b

m 0 3 0

where v(k) is the input instructions of the system, y(k) is the output deflection angle of the
EMA, the expression of the speed synthesis function f han( x1 , x2 , r0 , h0 ) is Equation (11), and the
expression of the filter function fal(x, a, δ) is Equation (12).
d = r0 ·h0 2 , ap 0 = h0 · x2 , y = x1 + a0



a1 = d·(d + 8·|y|)




a0 + sign(y)·( a1 − d)/2



 a 2 =
sy = [sign(y + d) − sign(y − d)]/2 (11)
−




 a = ( a 0 + y a 2 )· s y + a 2
s a = [sign( a + d) − sign( a − d)]/2




f han = −r · da + sign( a) ·s a − r0 ·sign( a)
  
(
x
, |x| ≤ δ
fal(x, a, δ) = δ (1− a ) (12)
sign( x )·| x | a , | x | > δ
Electronics 2018,7,7,174
Electronics2018, x FOR PEER REVIEW 44of
of12
13
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 13

3.3. ADRC
ADRC Control Control Model Model for for the the EMAEMA
3. ADRC Control Model for the EMA
According to
According to Equation
Equation (5), (5), itit could
could be be considered
considered a second-order time-varying time-varying non-linear non-linear system system
According to Equation (5), it could be considered aa second-order
second-order time-varying non-linear system
with
with the the constant
theconstant
constantchange change
changeofofthe of the friction
thefriction torque,
frictiontorque,
torque,hinge hinge
hinge moment,
moment, and
and external
external disturbance
disturbance in the
in the EMA
EMA
with moment, and external disturbance in the EMA In
In this section, an electric canard rudder with a ball screw drive (as shown in Figure 1) was a
this section, an electric canard rudder with a ball screw drive (as shown in Figure 1) was a controlleda
In this section, an electric canard rudder with a ball screw drive (as shown in Figure 1) was
controlled object
controlled object and and its its control
control principle
principle was shown shown in in Figure
Figure 2. 2. More
More specifically,
specifically, the the signal
signal
object and its control principle was shown inwas Figure 2. More specifically, the signal generated by the
generated
generatedisbysent by the controller
thetocontroller is sent to the driver for the aim of driving the motor. Furthermore, the
controller the driverisfor sent thetoaimtheofdriverdriving forthe
themotor.
aim ofFurthermore,
driving the motor. the output Furthermore,
torque of the the
output torque
output torque of of the
the motor
motor is is continually
continually increasedincreased by the the reduction
reduction gear gear and and the the ball
ball screw, which which
motor is continually increased by the reduction gearby and the ball screw, which convertsscrew, the circular
converts
convertsinto the
thethe circular
circular motion
motion into
into the
the linear
linear motion
motion of the
of drives nut.
the nut. Then, the nut drives the shift fork to
motion
deflect the rudder linearshaft motion
through of the nut.
linear Then,
displacement.the nut At the theThen,
same shift
time,
the nut
fork
the to drives the
deflect
position
therudder
signal
shift fork
is fed shaft
back
to
deflect the
through rudder
linear shaft through
displacement. Atlinear
the samedisplacement.
time, the At the same
position signaltime, is the
fedtheposition
back to thesignal is fed back
controller by
toto the
the controller
controller by
by the
the potentiometer.
potentiometer. It
It should
should be
be specially
specially noted
noted that
that the linear
linear potentiometer
potentiometer in
in
the
Figurepotentiometer.
1 measures It should
the displacementbe specially of the noted
screw that
nut, the linear
which can potentiometer
be converted intoin the
Figure 1 measures
deflection angle
Figure
the 1 measuresof
displacement thethe displacement
screw nut, of the screw
which can benut, which can
converted betheconverted intoangle the deflection angle
ofof the
the rudder shaft
rudder shaft by by Equation
Equation (13).
(13). Additionally,
Additionally, we usedinto
we used a rotarydeflection
a rotary potentiometer in
potentiometer
of Figure
in the rudder
Figure 22 for
for
shaft by Equation
convenience of (13).
of illustration; Additionally,
illustration; itit is is used
used to we used
to measure
measure thea rotary potentiometer
the rudder
rudder deflection in
deflection angle. Figure
angle. The 2 for
The model convenience
structureof
model structure of
convenience
illustration; it is used to measure the rudder deflection angle. The model structure of the EMA based of
the
thethe EMA
EMA based
based on the
on shown
the ADRCADRC was
was shown shown in Figure
in Figure 3. Firstly,
3. Firstly, the ADRC
the ADRC generates
generates a control
a control instruction
instruction
onbased ADRC
on the was
potentiometer’s in Figure 3. Firstly,
feedback angle theand ADRC generates
transmits it toa control
the driver,instruction
which based
amplifies on the the
based on
potentiometer’s the potentiometer’s
feedback feedback
angle voltage.
and transmits angle and
it tothe transmits
thecontrol it
driver,voltage to the
which amplifies driver, which
the amplifies
control signal the
to
control
control signal
signal to to form a control
form aSecondly,
control voltage. Secondly,
Secondly, theiscontrol voltage is added
is added to the back
to thepassing
back EMF EMF after
after
form a control
passing through
through thevoltage.
the limiting
limiting module, the
module, whichcontrol voltage
which represents
represents the added to
the range the
range of back
of its EMF
its control after
control voltage,
voltage, then through
then actsacts on on
passing
the limiting module, which represents the range of its control voltage, then acts on the motor winding
the motor
the motor winding
winding to to form
form aa current,
current, at at the
the samesame time,
time, thethe electromechanical
electromechanical conversion conversion is is performed
performed
toto form
form aa current,
torque. at the
Thirdly, samethe time, the
torque is electromechanical
added to the motor conversion
output shaft isbyperformed
the friction to torque
form a and
torque. the
to form the
Thirdly, a torque.
torque Thirdly,
is added theto torque
the motoris added
output toshaft
the motor
by the output
friction shaft
torque byandthe thefriction torque and
disturbance torque,the
disturbance torque, it is converted into angular acceleration by the mechanical equation. After two
itdisturbance
is convertedtorque,
integrations, intooutput
the
it is converted
angular acceleration
angle of the
intoby
motor
angular
theshaft
acceleration
mechanical
is obtained.
by theAfter
equation.
Furthermore,
mechanical
twoit
equation.the
integrations,
is multiplied by
After
output
the
two
total
integrations,
angle of the motor the output shaft angle
isthe of the motor shaft is it
obtained. obtained. Furthermore, it isdeceleration
multiplied by the total
deceleration
deceleration to become
to become the rudderFurthermore,
rudder deflection radians,
deflection
is multiplied
radians, which needs
which
by thetototal
needs to be converted
be converted to totoananbecome
angle,
angle,
the rudder
finally. Thedeflection
friction torque radians,
torque which and
equation needs thetohinge
be converted
hinge to an angle,
torque equation
equation are as finally.
as shown The infriction
Equations torque (14)
finally.
equation Theand friction
the hingetransfer equation
torque equation and are theas shown(16). torque are shown
in Equations (14) and (15). The driver’s transfer in Equations (14)
and (15).
and (15).isThe The driver’s
driver’s(16). function is
transfer function is Equation (16). Equation
function Equation

Figure1.
Figure
Figure 1.The
1. Theprototype
prototypeof
prototype ofEMA.
of EMA.
EMA.

Figure
Figure 2. The
Figure2.
2. The schematic
The schematicdiagram
schematic diagramof
diagram ofEMA
of EMAwith
EMA withball
with ballscrew
ball screwbased
screw basedon
based onADRC.
on ADRC.
ADRC.

Conversion equation
Conversion equation of
of screw
screw nut
nut displacement
displacement and
and rudder
rudder deflection
deflection angle
angle
Electronics 2018, 7, 174 5 of 12
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 13

Figure 3. The ADRC control model Schematic of EMA.

Figure 3. The ADRC control model Schematic of EMA.

Conversion equation of screw nut displacement and rudder deflection angle

x
θ = arctan (13)
L
π
T f = K f ·θ · ◦ (14)
180
Kδ · θ
Th = (15)
N
K
GD (S) = PW M (16)
T ·s + 1
US 1
where K PW M = U , T = f pwm .
C
In our paper, the ADRC adopted the dynamic parameter adjustment method [21] (pp. 58–59) to
adjust the control parameters. In this way, TD, ESO, and NLSEF are regarded as mutually independent
three parts. In the TD part, the input signal v0 is followed by v1 and the differential signal of the input
signal v0 is followed by v2. Moreover,
Figure 4. The h is the
theADRC simulation
simulation stepofsize
model EMA.and the h0 could be an integer
multiple of it. In addition, the TD’s tracking speed is determined by r. In regard to the ESO, the three
outputs z1, z2, and
of which areAnalysis
4. Anti-Disturbance z3. Thefor
of ADRC v1,EMAv2 is tracked by z1, z2 and the disturbance volume is
tracked by z3 almost simultaneously. For a servo system with such large inertia and large time lag,
β 01 , βMany uncertain factors are inevitable during the flight of missiles and these random disturbance
02 and β 03 should also be correspondingly large. According to its empirical method with the
factors have a decisive weinfluence
can makeon its=own
1 movement, 1 the stability,
1 and the final hit accuracy [23].
Fibonacci sequence, β 01 h , β 02 = 3h2 , β 03 = 82 h3 . Normally, the linear interval δ is
In the theory
generally of ADRC,
desirable fromthe
5 hunmodeled partsthe
to 10 h, besides of the system
control and theofunknown
accuracy the NLSEFdisturbances
is affected should be
by the h1.
regarded as total disturbances. The ESO is used as a way to estimate the total
Additionally, the rapid response of the ADRC control system is influenced by the damping coefficient
disturbances in real
time and eliminate them.
c. The response speed of the system is also affected by the control gain r which needs to be adjusted
The fin of the guided artillery rocket or missile would be subjected to great aerodynamic loads
according to specific conditions.
when it is flying in the air, and that is often referred to as a hinge torque. The hinge torque acts as the
In the structure of the EMA, a Maxon DCX26L GB KL 24 V was used as the servo motor.
main load torque of the servo, and the working performance of the servo will be affected by its wide-
The motor’s parameters and ADRC’s parameters, which were used in the model, are shown in
range changes which even destroy its movement law sometimes. When the fin of the EMA is
Table 1. The data in the table were brought into Figure 3 to obtain the ADRC simulation model of the
disturbed by gusts or the projectile is maneuvered at the end of the guidance, the missile will be
EMA, as shown in Figure 4, where the b01, b02, and b03 represent the β 01 , β 02 , and β 03 respectively.
disturbed by the load. According to the length of the action, the disturbance received by the missile
is divided into frequent disturbance and instantaneous disturbance; frequent disturbance such as
friction, and instantaneous disturbance such as gust. It should be emphasized that in this paper, two
non-linear factors, gust disturbance, and friction, are mainly considered. The friction mainly
Electronics 2018, 7, 174 6 of 12

Table 1. The servo system’s parameters.

Parameter/Symbol Value/Unit ADRC’s Parameters Value

Terminal resistance (R) 0.74 Ohm TD Integral step (h0) 0.001
Terminal Inductance (L) 0.129 mH TD Tracking speed factor (r0) 12.0000
Torque constant (Km ) 21.4 mN·m/A NLSEF Integral step (h1) 0.001
Speed constant (Ke ) 445 rpm/v Control quantity replenishment factor (r) 200
Equivalent load moment of inertia (J) 31.35 g·cm2 Damping factor (c) 1.2
Total reduction ratio (N) 277.776 Compensation factor (b0) 150
Potentiometer conversion factor (K P ) 0.086 V/◦ β 01 1000
Drive magnification (K PW M ) 7.3 β 02 33.3333
Drive time constant (T) 10−4 s β 03 3125.0000
Hinge torque load factor (Kδ ) 0.667 N·m/◦ Linear interval (delta) 0.005
Frictional moment factor (K f ) 1.154
Figure 3. The ADRC N·m/rad Simulation
control model Schematic of EMA. step (h) 0.001

Figure 4. The
Figure 4. The ADRC
ADRC simulation
simulation model of EMA.
model of EMA.

4. Anti-Disturbance
4. Anti-Disturbance Analysis Analysis of of ADRC
ADRC for EMA
for EMA
Many uncertain
Many factors are
uncertain factors are inevitable during the
inevitable during the flight
flight of
of missiles
missiles and
and these
these random
random disturbance
disturbance
factors have a decisive influence on its own movement, the stability, and the final hit
factors have a decisive influence on its own movement, the stability, and the final hit accuracy
accuracy [23].
[23].
In the theory of ADRC, the unmodeled parts of the system and the unknown
In the theory of ADRC, the unmodeled parts of the system and the unknown disturbances should be disturbances should be
regarded as total disturbances. The ESO is used as a way to estimate the total
regarded as total disturbances. The ESO is used as a way to estimate the total disturbances in real time disturbances in real
timeeliminate
and and eliminate them.them.
The fin
The fin of
of the
the guided
guided artillery
artillery rocket
rocket or or missile
missile would
would be be subjected
subjected to to great
great aerodynamic
aerodynamic loads loads
when it is flying in the air, and that is often referred to as a hinge torque. The hinge torque actsthe
when it is flying in the air, and that is often referred to as a hinge torque. The hinge torque acts as as
main load torque of the servo, and the working performance of the servo
the main load torque of the servo, and the working performance of the servo will be affected by itswill be affected by its wide-
range changes
wide-range whichwhich
changes even even
destroy its movement
destroy its movement law lawsometimes.
sometimes. When Whenthe the
fin fin
of the EMA
of the EMA is
disturbed by gusts or the projectile is maneuvered at the end of the guidance,
is disturbed by gusts or the projectile is maneuvered at the end of the guidance, the missile will be the missile will be
disturbed by
disturbed by the
the load.
load. According
Accordingto tothe
thelength
lengthofofthetheaction,
action,thethedisturbance
disturbancereceived
received byby the
the missile
missile is
is divided into frequent disturbance and instantaneous disturbance; frequent
divided into frequent disturbance and instantaneous disturbance; frequent disturbance such as friction, disturbance such as
friction,
and and instantaneous
instantaneous disturbancedisturbance suchItas
such as gust. gust. be
should It should
emphasizedbe emphasized
that in thisthat in this
paper, twopaper, two
non-linear
non-linear
factors, gustfactors, gust and
disturbance, disturbance,
friction, are and friction,
mainly are mainly
considered. considered.
The friction mainlyThe friction
manifests mainly
as viscous
friction acting in the system without interruption, while the gust disturbance can be reflected by the
torque acting on the fin of EMA [24]. Zhiqiang Gao, Shaohua Hu, et al. [25] use 20% of the maximum
control torque of the servo as disturbance torque to study the Anti-disturbance performance of the
controller. Therefore, we used a similar method to apply disturbance because the maximum control
torque of this type of rocket is about 10 N·m in each channel, so we use the moment disturbance which
 Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13

manifests as viscous friction acting in the system without interruption, while the gust disturbance
can be reflected by the torque acting on the fin of EMA [24]. Zhiqiang Gao, Shaohua Hu, et al. [25]
Electronics 20% 7,of174
use 2018, the maximum control torque of the servo as disturbance torque to study the Anti-7 of 12
disturbance performance of the controller. Therefore, we used a similar method to apply disturbance
because the maximum control torque of this type of rocket is about 10 N∙m in each channel, so we
·m the
is 2 Nuse with a duration
moment of 0.1 swhich
disturbance as theisdisturbance
2 N∙m with amodel (as of
duration shown inthe
0.1 s as Figure 5). Thenmodel
disturbance we compare
(as
it withshown in Figure 5). Then we compare it with a well-tuned PID controller, fuzzy adaptivestructure)
a well-tuned PID controller, fuzzy adaptive PID controller [26] and BP-PID (3-5-3 PID
controller [27] [26]
controller to study the EMA’s
and BP-PID (3-5-3anti-disturbance.
structure) controller [27] to study the EMA’s anti-disturbance.

Figure5.5.The
Figure The disturbance model.
disturbance model.

4.1. Time
4.1. Time Domain
Domain Performance
Performance Analysis
Analysis
Under the elastic load condition which was replaced by a hinge torque, each controller
Under the elastic load condition which was replaced by a hinge torque, each controller responded
responded to a command of 1 degree in 0.5 s. At the same time, we applied 20% of the maximum
to a command of 1 degree in 0.5 s. At the same time, we applied 20% of the maximum control
control torque (2 N∙m) as a load disturbance in the fin position of the model within 0.2 to 0.3 s to
torque (2 N
study ·m)
the as a load disturbance
anti-disturbance in the fin
of each controller. Theposition
observed of andthe model
tracked withinof0.2
situation to 0.3 s tobystudy
disturbances
the anti-disturbance of each controller. The observed and tracked situation
the ADRC was shown in Figure 6a. It could be seen that the torque disturbances applied between 0.2 of disturbances by the
ADRC andwas0.3shown in Figure
s were well tracked6a.byIt the
could
ESO.beAs
seen thatinthe
shown torque
Figure 6b,disturbances
the control torqueapplied
was between
adjusted by0.2 and
0.3 s the
were ADRC
wellto compensate
tracked by the forESO.
the disturbance.
As shown Furthermore,
in Figure 6b,the theresponses of each was
control torque control model to
adjusted by the
ADRC thetocommand
compensate and disturbance were shown
for the disturbance. in Figure 7, which
Furthermore, reflected the
the responses response
of each of themodel
control systemto the
commandwithout and disturbance
disturbance in the
werefirst 0.2 s. We
shown could find
in Figure that the
7, which rise time
reflected of response
the ADRC was of0.05
the s, however,
system without
that of the other controllers were between 0.055 and 0.08 s. Apart from this, the ADRC’s overshoot
disturbance in the first 0.2 s. We could find that the rise time of ADRC was 0.05 s, however, that of the
was almost zero, while that of the other controllers were between 0.5 and 2.4 percent. As Figure 7
other controllers were between 0.055 and 0.08 s. Apart from this, the ADRC’s overshoot was almost
showed that the ADRC controller was only experienced in the appearance and disappearance of the
zero, disturbance,
while that of the other controllers were between 0.5 and 2.4 percent. As Figure 7 showed that
it is attributed to the compensation mechanism of ADRC, in which the sudden
the ADRC controller was only experienced
appearance and disappearance in the appearance
of the interference and disappearance
are both regarded as ‘disturbances’of forthe
thedisturbance,
ADRC.
it is attributed to thethe
More specifically, compensation
maximum disturbancemechanism of ADRC,
of ADRC was 0.002in degrees,
which the sudden
whereas that appearance
of the others and
disappearance
were between of the interference
0.012 are bothWhen
and 0.024 degrees. regarded as ‘disturbances’
the disturbance disappearedfor the
from ADRC. More
0.3 to 0.5 specifically,
s, only the
ADRC could
the maximum keep the system’s
disturbance of ADRC steady-state
was 0.002error at zero,
degrees, however,
whereas thatthe
ofother controllers
the others werecould only0.012
between
keep it
and 0.024 betweenWhen
degrees. 0.004 and 0.013 degrees.disappeared
the disturbance In addition, the
fromquantified
0.3 to 0.5time domain
s, only theindexes
ADRC were couldfilled
keep the
in Table 2.
system’s steady-state error at zero, however, the other controllers could only keep it between 0.004 and
0.013 degrees.
Electronics 2018, 7,Inxaddition, the quantified time domain indexes were filled in Table 2.
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

(a) (b)
Figure6. The
Figure observational
6. The tracking
observational of disturbances
tracking by extended
of disturbances by state observer
extended (ESO);
state (a) Observations
observer (ESO); (a)
ofObservations
disturbance; of
(b)disturbance;
The control (b)
torque
The generated by the
control torque ADRC based
generated by theon the disturbance.
ADRC based on the disturbance.
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13

Electronics 2018, 7, 174 8 of 12

Table 2. The performance of each control model under the 2 N·m moment disturbance.

Index Rise Time Overshoot Maximum Disturbance Steady-State Error

Controller (s) (%) (deg) (deg)
PID 0.08 0.5 0.024 0.0042
(a) (b)
Fuzzy-PID 0.07 0.4 0.012 0.0125
FigureBP-PID 0.055 tracking of
6. The observational 2.4 disturbances by 0.02
extended state observer0.006
(ESO); (a)
ADRC 0.05 0 ± 0.002 0
Observations of disturbance; (b) The control torque generated by the ADRC based on the disturbance.

Figure
Figure 7. The comparison
7. The comparison of
of step
step response
response and
and disturbance
disturbance to
to each
each control
control model.
model.

Table 2.model
Each control The performance
was usedoftoeach
trackcontrol
and model under
respond to athe 2 N∙m
sine moment with
command disturbance.
the frequency of
1 Hz and the amplitude
Index of
Rise Time1 degree in 1 s.
Overshoot Similarly, we also imposed
Maximum Disturbance a 2 N · m of torque
Steady-Statedisturbance
Error
between
Controller0.2 and 0.3 s. The
(s) Response conditions
(%) were shown in Figure
(deg) 8. It is obvious that the tracking
(deg)
of ADRC PIDhas not been significantly
0.08 affected,
0.5 while that of the0.024
other controllers has obvious disturbance
0.0042
responses at the peak, 0.07
Fuzzy-PID where the largest 0.4 amplitude deviation 0.012is about 0.05 degrees.0.0125 Although the
BP-PID
anti-disturbance of the0.055 2.4
Fuzzy-PID controller and the BP-PID0.02controller are slightly better 0.006
than that of
ADRC 0.05 0 ±0.002
the ordinary PID controller, the overall effect is not obvious. In the second half of each cycle, it could 0
Electronics
be seen that2018,the
7, x ADRC
FOR PEER hasREVIEW
the smallest amplitude error in the command tracking. 9 of 13
Each control model was used to track and respond to a sine command with the frequency of 1
Hz and the amplitude of 1 degree in 1 s. Similarly, we also imposed a 2 N∙m of torque disturbance
between 0.2 and 0.3 s. The Response conditions were shown in Figure 8. It is obvious that the tracking
of ADRC has not been significantly affected, while that of the other controllers has obvious
disturbance responses at the peak, where the largest amplitude deviation is about 0.05 degrees.
Although the anti-disturbance of the Fuzzy-PID controller and the BP-PID controller are slightly
better than that of the ordinary PID controller, the overall effect is not obvious. In the second half of
each cycle, it could be seen that the ADRC has the smallest amplitude error in the command tracking.

Figure 8. The anti-disturbance performance of the sinusoidal instruction tracking for each
Figure 8. The anti-disturbance performance of the sinusoidal instruction tracking for each control model.
control model.
4.2. Frequency Domain Performance Analysis
In the case of the 2 N∙m moment disturbance, the open-loop bode diagram for each control model
was shown in Figure 9, and the closed-loop bode diagram was shown in Figure 10. According to the
former, we could find that the amplitude margin of the ADRC control model was 61.6 dB, while that
Electronics 2018, 7, 174 9 of 12

4.2. Frequency Domain

Figure 8. The Performance
anti-disturbance Analysisof the sinusoidal instruction tracking for each control model.
performance

In
4.2.the case of Domain
Frequency ·m momentAnalysis
the 2 NPerformance disturbance, the open-loop bode diagram for each control model
was shown in Figure 9, and the closed-loop bode diagram was shown in Figure 10. According to the
In the case of the 2 N∙m moment disturbance, the open-loop bode diagram for each control model
former, we could find that the amplitude margin of the ADRC control model was 61.6 dB, while that
was shown in Figure 9, and the closed-loop bode diagram was shown in Figure 10. According to the
of the other three control models were between 24.8 and 50.2 dB. Furthermore, the phase margin of the
former, we could find that the amplitude margin of the ADRC control model was 61.6 dB, while that
ADRC of control
the othermodel was 87.8
three control degrees,
models were but that of
between 24.8the
andother
50.2 control models were
dB. Furthermore, between
the phase margin18.5
of and
62.3 degrees.
the ADRCIncontrol
addition,
modelthewas
phase
87.8 margin
degrees,and amplitude
but that margin
of the other of the
control Fuzzy-PID
models control
were between model
18.5
and the
andBP-PID’s wereInalmost
62.3 degrees. thethe
addition, same,
phase which showed
margin the similar
and amplitude frequency
margin characteristics
of the Fuzzy-PID at this
control
frequency From the closed-loop bode diagram, we could see that the −
model and the BP-PID’s were almost the same, which showed the similar frequency characteristicsof the
band. 3 dB bandwidth
ADRC at model
this frequency
was 67.1 band.
Hz,From the closed-loop
moreover, bode diagram,
the Fuzzy-PID’s and we
thecould see that
BP-PID’s the −3
were bothdB 46
bandwidth
Hz, and the
PID’sof the102
was ADRCHz.model was 67.1 Hz,
The quantified moreover,
frequency the Fuzzy-PID’s
domain indicators and
arethe BP-PID’s
filled were
in Table 3.both 46 Hz,
So, we and that
believe
the PID’s was 102 Hz. The quantified frequency domain indicators are filled in
the ADRC had a better instruction tracking performance than the other two methods, and a strongerTable 3. So, we believe
that the ADRC had a better instruction tracking performance than the other two methods, and a
high-frequency signal suppression capability than the PID controller. These high-frequency signals
stronger high-frequency signal suppression capability than the PID controller. These high-frequency
were generally considered as “noise”, compared with the other two control models, ADRC had a
signals were generally considered as “noise”, compared with the other two control models, ADRC
weakerhadsuppression of high-frequency
a weaker suppression signals signals
of high-frequency in the range
in the of 0~2000
range Hz, while
of 0~2000 having
Hz, while the the
having highest
suppression ability of high-frequency signals in the range of 2000 Hz
highest suppression ability of high-frequency signals in the range of 2000 Hz or above. or above. Simultaneously,
we could also find that
Simultaneously, wethe Fuzzy-PID
could also find control
that the model and control
Fuzzy-PID the BP-PID’s
model and resonated when resonated
the BP-PID’s the frequency
was around
when the 30frequency
Hz. was around 30 Hz.

Figure
Figure 9. The
9. The open-loop
open-loop bode
bode diagramofofeach
diagram eachcontrol
control model
modelunder
undera a2 N∙m moment
2 N·m disturbance.
moment disturbance.
Electronics 2018, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13

Figure
Figure 10. The
10. The closed-loop
closed-loop bodediagram
bode diagramof
of each
each control
controlmodel
modelunder
undera 2aN∙m
2 N·moment disturbance.
m moment disturbance.

Table 3. The stability margins and bandwidth of each control model under a 2 N∙m moment
disturbance.

Controller
PID ADRC Fuzzy-PID BP-PID
Index
Amplitude margin (dB) 50.2 61.6 24.8 25.2
Phase margin (deg) 62.3 87.8 18.5 19.2
Bandwidth (Hz) 102 67.1 46 46
Electronics 2018, 7, 174 10 of 12
Figure 10. The closed-loop bode diagram of each control model under a 2 N∙m moment disturbance.

Table
Table 3. The
3. The stability
stability margins
margins and bandwidth
and bandwidth of eachofcontrol
each control modela 2under
model under a 2 N∙mdisturbance.
N·m moment moment
disturbance.
Controller
Controller ADRCFuzzy-PID
PID ADRC
PID Fuzzy-PID BP-PID
BP-PID
IndexIndex
Amplitude
Amplitude margin
margin (dB)
(dB) 50.2
50.2 61.6
61.6 24.824.8 25.2 25.2
Phase
Phase margin
margin (deg)
(deg) 62.3
62.3 87.8
87.8 18.518.5 19.2 19.2
Bandwidth
Bandwidth (Hz)(Hz) 102
102 67.1
67.1 46 46 46 46

The closed-loop zero-pole distribution map of the ADRC control model under a 2 N∙m torque
The closed-loop zero-pole distribution map of the ADRC control model under a 2 N·m torque
disturbance was shown in Figure 11. The poles are −10.1, −3.750 ± 459i, −0.1921 ± 3i, −0.786, −0.5,
disturbance was shown in Figure 11. The poles are −10.1, −3.750 ± 459i, −0.1921 ± 3i, −0.786, −0.5,
−0.319. It obvious that this system does not have poles in the right half-plane, so it is stable without
−0.319. It obvious that this system does not have poles in the right half-plane, so it is stable without
any doubt.
any doubt.

Figure 11. The closed-loop zero-pole distribution of the ADRC control model under a 2 N·m
moment
Figure 11.disturbance.
The closed-loop zero-pole distribution of the ADRC control model under a 2 N∙m moment
disturbance.
5. Conclusions
The ADRC control model was established for the guided artillery rocket’s electric canard rudder
with a ball screw drive. The ADRC’s anti-disturbance performance was systematically analyzed by
comparison with the PID’s, the Fuzzy-PID’s, and the BP-PID’s. So, the following conclusions were
drawn:

(1) Comparing with the traditional PID control model, the Fuzzy-PID’s and the BP-PID’s, the ADRC
control model has made the response faster and the overshoot less, while it has a smaller
steady-state error and stronger anti-disturb ability.
(2) In the frequency domain, the ADRC control model has superiorities with a large stability margin,
a large bandwidth, and a strong high-frequency signal suppression capability. That means that
the system could still remain stable under certain disturbance conditions.
(3) Although the Fuzzy-PID controller and the BP-PID controller enhanced the adaptability of
the controller through the real-time adjustment of parameters, it did not essentially solve
the disadvantages caused by the way of eliminating the error of the PID controller. As a
Electronics 2018, 7, 174 11 of 12

result, the anti-disturbance of the controllers was not really improved. However, ADRC could
solve the contradiction between “fastness” and “overshoot” through TD. It also observed the
“unknown disturbance” in real time through the ESO and makes compensations. Therefore,
its anti-disturbance performance is superior. Of course, the tuning of non-linear ADRC is a
complex process. The constraints between the parameters are not clear enough and the relevant
empirical formulas do not have a universal guiding significance. Therefore, it is difficult to find
the optimal parameters of ADRC, furthermore, it also puts higher requirements on the MCU due
to the calculation of so many parameters.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.J. and J.G.; Methodology, H.J.; Validation, W.H., C.L. and W.Y.;
Formal Analysis, W.H.
Acknowledgments: This research is financially supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
(2015 M571289).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Symbolic Abbreviated

Representative Meaning Symbols Representative Meaning Symbols

Total friction torque converted to
Motor torque Tm Tf
the motor shaft
The hinge torque that is converted
Torque constant Km Th
to the motor shaft
Disturbing torque that is converted
Armature current IA Tω
to the motor shaft
Back electromotor force Em Displacement of screw nut x
Vertical distance from the screw axis
Speed constant Ke L
to the center of the rudder shaft
Rotor angular velocity ωm Frictional moment factor Kf
Input voltage across the motor Um Hinge torque load factor Kδ
Terminal resistance R Total reduction ratio N
Terminal Inductance L Drive magnification K PW M
Equivalent load moment of inertia J Working power supply voltage US
Rudder deflection angle θ Input voltage of PWM controller UC
Potentiometer conversion factor KP Drive time constant T
Representative Meaning Acronyms Representative Meaning Acronyms
Active Disturbance Rejection
ADRC BP neural network adaptive PID BP-PID
Controller
Electromechanical Actuator EMA Extended state observer ESO
Proportion-integral-derivative PID Tracking differentiator TD
Fuzzy adaptive PID Fuzzy-PID Non-linear state error feedback NLSEF

References
1. Wang, Z. Fuzzy PID Control in Electric Steering Engine for Nonlinear Factor. Master’s Thesis, University of
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, China, 2015. (In Chinese)
2. Panchade, V.M.; Chile, R.H.; Patre, B.M. A survey on sliding mode control strategies for induction motors.
Annu. Rev. Control 2013, 37, 289–307. [CrossRef]
3. Ren, Y.; Wang, W.; Wang, Y. Incremental H ∞ control for switched nonlinear systems. Appl. Math. Comput.
2018, 331, 251–263. [CrossRef]
4. Monneta, D.; Ninin, J.; Clement, B. A global optimization approach to H ∞ synthesis with parametric
uncertainties applied to AUV control. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 3953–3958. [CrossRef]
Electronics 2018, 7, 174 12 of 12

5. Feng, H.; Guo, B. Active disturbance rejection control: Old and New results. Annu. Rev. Control 2017, 44,
238–248. [CrossRef]
6. Li, J.; Xia, Y.; Qi, X.; Zhao, P. Robust absolute stability analysis for interval nonlinear active disturbance
rejection based control system. ISA Trans. 2017, 69, 122–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Hao, S.; Liu, T.; Wang, Q. Enhanced active disturbance rejection control for time-delay systems.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 7541–7546. [CrossRef]
8. Wu, Z.; Guo, B. Approximate decoupling and output tracking for MIMO nonlinear systems with mismatched
uncertainties via ADRC approach. J. Frankl. Inst. 2018, 355, 3873–3894. [CrossRef]
9. Fu, C.; Tan, W. Control of unstable processes with time delays via ADRC. ISA Trans. 2017, 71, 530–541.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Stankovic, M.R.; Manojlovic, S.M.; Simić, S.M.; Mitrović, S.T.; Naumović, M.B. FPGA system-level based
design of multi-axis ADRC controller. Mechatronics 2016, 40, 146–155. [CrossRef]
11. Gao, B.; Shao, J.; Yang, X. A compound control strategy combining velocity compensation with ADRC of
electro-hydraulic position servo control system. ISA Trans. 2014, 53, 1910–1918. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Chu, Z.; Sun, Y.; Wu, C.; Sepehri, N. Active disturbance rejection control applied to automated steering for
lane keeping in autonomous vehicles. Control Eng. Pract. 2018, 74, 13–21. [CrossRef]
13. Tian, J.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Li, T. Active disturbance rejection control based robust output feedback
autopilot design for airbreathing hypersonic vehicles. ISA Trans. 2018, 74, 45–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Gao, C.; Yuan, J.; Zhao, Y. ADRC for spacecraft attitude and position synchronization in libration point orbits.
Acta Astronaut. 2018, 145, 238–249. [CrossRef]
15. Huang, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zheng, H.; Wang, S.; Ma, J.; Liu, Y. A self-searching optimal ADRC for the pitch angle
control of an underwater thermal glider in the vertical plane motion. Ocean Eng. 2018, 159, 98–111. [CrossRef]
16. Balajiwale, S.; Arya, H.; Joshi, A. Study of performance of ADRC for longitudinal control of MAV.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 2016, 49, 585–590. [CrossRef]
17. Zhang, Y.; Cao, B.; Kang, L.; Xu, J. Controller design for small wind generator with ADRC.
Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 11, 1128–1134.
18. Zhang, M. Nonlinear Analysis and Control of EMA with Ball Screw Drive. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, China, 2014. (In Chinese)
19. Chen, X.; Yang, D.; Geng, B. Application of Auto-Disturbance-Rejection-Controller to a Missile. Flight Dyn.
2006, 24, 81–84. (In Chinese)
20. Cui, Y. Research on Rolling Control Technology of Guided Artillery Rocket’s Fixed Canard Rudder.
Ph.D. Thesis, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, Nanjing, China, 2014. (In Chinese)
21. Zhu, B. Introduction to Active Disturbance Control; Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics Press:
Beijing, China, 2017; pp. 19–59. ISBN 978-7-5124-2383-1. (In Chinese)
22. Han, J. From PID to active disturbance rejection control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 900–906.
[CrossRef]
23. Yang, C. The Stability of Projectile under Stochastic Disturbance. Master’s Thesis, Nanjing University of
Science & Technology, Nanjing, China, 2016. (In Chinese)
24. Han, Z. Exterior Ballistics of Projectiles and Rockets; Beijing Institute of Technology Press: Beijing, China, 2014;
p. 506. ISBN 978-7-5640-8709-8. (In Chinese)
25. Gao, Z.; Hu, S.; Jiang, F. A novel motion control design approach based on active disturbance rejection.
In Proceedings of the Conference on Decision and Control, Orlando, FL, USA, 24–27 December 2001;
Volume 40, pp. 4877–4882.
26. Hou, X. Design of the Steering Engine Control System for Missiles Based on DSP. Master’s Thesis,
Xidian University, Xi’an, China, 2008. (In Chinese)
27. Liu, S. Research on Neural Network Control System of Hybrid Stepping Motor. Master’s Thesis,
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, 2013. (In Chinese)

© 2018 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).