Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tsatoh@akita-pu.ac.jp (T. Satoh).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2019.02.006
Received 24 August 2018; Received in revised form 14 December 2018; Accepted 19 February 2019
Available online xxxx
0967-0661/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
2
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
is observable. Then a prediction estimator is given by the following 2.4. Control law of PFC_ EBIM
equation (Franklin et al., 1998):
The free and forced responses must be considered to derive the
𝒙̂ (𝑘 + 1) = Φ𝒙̂ (𝑘) + 𝜸𝑢 (𝑘) + 𝒍𝑝 [𝑦 (𝑘) − 𝒉𝒙̂ (𝑘)] , (7) optimal control law in the PFC scheme. When the current sampling
instant is 𝑘, the predicted 𝑖-step-ahead free response is written as,
where 𝒙̂ ∈ R𝑛 is the estimate of 𝒙, and 𝒍𝑝 ∈ R𝑛 is the estimator gain
vector. As the name implies, a measurement at time 𝑘 results in an 𝑦̂𝑈 𝐹 (𝑘 + 𝑖) = 𝒄 𝒂 𝑨𝑖𝒂 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘) . (16)
estimate of the state vector that is valid at time 𝑘 + 1. Now we define
If the predictive estimator given in Eq. (15) is utilized as the internal
the error in the estimate as,
model, then the total forced response is obtained as the result of the
𝒆 ∶= 𝒙 − 𝒙.
̂ (8) superposition of the one originated from 𝑢 over that originated from 𝜖.
The control input is assumed to be composed of the sum of weighted
Then a difference equation describing the behavior of 𝒆 is given by, basis functions in the PFC scheme as given in Eq. (4). The following
[ ] time-dependent polynomial basis is utilized in this study:
𝒆 (𝑘 + 1) = Φ − 𝒍𝑝 𝒉 𝒆 (𝑘) . (9)
𝑈𝐵𝑙 (𝑖) = 𝑖𝑙−1 . (17)
It can be understood from Eq. (9) that the error 𝒆 will converge to
The polynomial basis has been used in the design of the standard PFC.
zero for any value of 𝒆 (0) if Φ − 𝒍𝑝 𝒉 is a stable matrix. In general, the
Then the forced response originated from 𝑢 is computed as,
estimator gain vector 𝒍𝑝 is chosen such that the poles of the system in
𝑛𝐵
Eq. (9) are sufficiently fast. ∑
𝑦̂𝐹1 (𝑘 + 𝑖) = 𝜇𝑙 (𝑘) 𝑦1𝐵𝑙 (𝑖) , (18)
𝑙=1
∑
2.3. Augmented internal model for PFC_ EBIM where 𝑦1𝐵𝑙 (𝑖) = 𝑖−1 𝑖−1−𝑞
𝑞=0 𝒄 𝒂 𝑨𝒂 𝒃𝒂 𝑞 𝑙−1 . Next, the forced response orig-
inated from the error 𝜖 is considered. Let 𝒆𝒙 (𝑘) be defined as the
estimation error 𝒙𝒂 (𝑘) − 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘). Suppose that the estimator gain vector
The plant to be controlled is assumed to be linear and stable in what 𝒍 is designed such that the matrix 𝑨𝒂 − 𝒍𝒄 𝒂 is stable. Then the predicted
follows. The state-space description of the plant is given as, error 𝒆̂ 𝒙 (𝑘 + 𝑖) is computed as,
{ ( )𝑖
𝒙𝑴 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝑨𝑴 𝒙𝑴 (𝑘) + 𝒃𝑴 𝒖 𝑢 (𝑘) + 𝒃𝑴 𝒅 𝑑 (𝑘) , 𝒆̂ 𝒙 (𝑘 + 𝑖) = 𝑨𝒂 − 𝒍𝒄 𝒂 𝒆𝒙 (𝑘) . (19)
(10)
𝑦𝑀 (𝑘) = 𝒄 𝑴 𝒙𝑴 (𝑘) ,
Therefore, the predicted 𝑖-step-ahead output error can be written as,
where 𝒙𝑴 ∈ R𝑛 denotes the state vector, 𝑢 ∈ R indicates the control ( )𝑖
𝜖̂ (𝑘 + 𝑖) = 𝒄 𝒂 𝑨𝒂 − 𝒍𝒄 𝒂 𝒆𝒙 (𝑘) . (20)
input, 𝑦𝑀 ∈ R represents the model output, and 𝑑 ∈ R signifies the
disturbance at the plant input. Here, it is assumed that 𝑨𝑴 , 𝒃𝑴 𝒖 and It can be seen from Eq. (20) and the definition of 𝒆𝒙 (𝑘) that 𝜖̂ (𝑘 + 𝑖)
𝒄 𝑴 satisfy the following condition to prevent the plant from having can be computed if 𝒙𝒂 (𝑘) is completely measurable, which enables
zeros at 1: the computation of the forced response due to 𝜖 (𝑘). However, only
( ) some of the state variables in 𝒙𝒂 (𝑘) are measurable in general, and
𝑨𝑴 − 𝑰 𝒃𝑴 𝒖
det ≠ 0. (11) it is impossible to apply the relation in Eq. (20) directly to compute
𝒄𝑴 0
the forced output. To get rid of the difficulty, the use of the following
( )
It is also assumed that 𝒄 𝑴 , 𝑨𝑴 is observable. The state-space descrip- approximation is suggested (Satoh et al., 2016):
tion of the disturbance 𝑑 is assumed to be given as, 𝜖̂ (𝑘 + 𝑖) ≃ 𝜖 (𝑘) = 𝒄 𝒂 𝒆𝒙 (𝑘) = 𝑦𝑃 (𝑘) − 𝒄 𝒂 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘) , ∀𝑖. (21)
( ) ( )( )
𝑑 (𝑘 + 1) 1 1 𝑑 (𝑘) It is clear from the right-hand side of Eq. (21) that only 𝑦𝑃 (𝑘), 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘)
= , (12)
𝛥𝑑 (𝑘 + 1) 0 1 𝛥𝑑 (𝑘) and 𝒄 𝒂 are required to utilize this approximation. Here, 𝑦𝑃 (𝑘) and 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘)
where 𝛥𝑑 (𝑘) ∶= 𝑑 (𝑘) − 𝑑 (𝑘 − 1). The following augmented system is are measurable, and 𝒄 𝒂 is a predefined constant vector. Thus, Eq. (21)
constructed using Eqs. (10) and (12): can be computed easily, and then used to compute the forced response
{ due to 𝜖.
𝒙𝒂 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝑨𝒂 𝒙𝒂 (𝑘) + 𝒃𝒂 𝑢 (𝑘) , Now, similarly to 𝑢 (𝑘 + 𝑖) in Eq. (4), 𝜖̂ (𝑘 + 𝑖) is assumed to be
(13)
𝑦𝑎 (𝑘) = 𝒄 𝒂 𝒙𝒂 (𝑘) , composed of the sum of weighted basis functions. However, only the
step basis function is used in this case from the assumption that 𝜖̂ (𝑘 + 𝑖)
where can be approximated as shown in Eq. (21). Hence 𝜖̂ (𝑘 + 𝑖) can be
⎛𝒙𝑴 (𝑘)⎞ ⎛𝑨𝑴 𝒃𝑴 𝒅 𝟎⎞ expressed as,
𝒙𝒂 (𝑘) ∶= ⎜ 𝑑 (𝑘) ⎟ ∈ R𝑛+2 , 𝑨𝒂 ∶= ⎜ 𝟎 1 1⎟ ∈ R(𝑛+2)×(𝑛+2) ,
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ 𝜖̂ (𝑘 + 𝑖) = 𝜖 (𝑘) 𝑈𝐵1 (𝑖) , (22)
⎝ 𝛥𝑑 (𝑘) ⎠ ⎝ 𝟎 0 1⎠
(14) where 𝑈𝐵1 (𝑖) = 1. The forced response due to the error 𝜖 is expressed
⎛𝒃𝑴 𝒖 ⎞ ( )
𝒃𝒂 ∶= ⎜ 0 ⎟ ∈ R𝑛+2 , 𝒄 𝒂 ∶= 𝒄 𝑴 0 0 ∈ R1×(𝑛+2) . as,
⎜ ⎟
⎝ 0 ⎠ 𝑦̂𝐹2 (𝑘 + 𝑖) = 𝜖 (𝑘) 𝑦2𝐵1 (𝑖) , (23)
The following predictive state estimator for the augmented system ∑𝑖−1 𝑖−1−𝑞
where 𝑦2𝐵1 (𝑖) = 𝑞=0 𝒄 𝒂 𝑨𝒂 𝒍. The total forced response is therefore
defined in Eq. (13) is constructed: given as follows:
𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝑨𝒂 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘) + 𝒃𝒂 𝑢 (𝑘) + 𝒍𝜖 (𝑘) , (15) 𝑦̂𝐹 (𝑘 + 𝑖) = 𝑦̂𝐹1 (𝑘 + 𝑖) + 𝑦̂𝐹2 (𝑘 + 𝑖)
𝑛𝐵
where 𝜖 (𝑘) ∶= 𝑦𝑃 (𝑘) − 𝒄 𝒂 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘) = 𝑦𝑃 (𝑘) − 𝒄 𝑴 𝒙̂ 𝑴 (𝑘), 𝒍 ∈ R𝑛+2
is the ∑
= 𝜇𝑙 (𝑘) 𝑦1𝐵𝑙 (𝑖) + 𝜖 (𝑘) 𝑦2𝐵1 (𝑖) . (24)
estimator gain vector, and 𝑦𝑃 ∈ R is the plant output. Unlike the 𝑙=1
standard PFC in which Eq. (10) is utilized as the internal model, this ( )
The predicted output 𝑦̂𝑃 𝑘 + ℎ𝑗 in Eq. (2) is then written as,
estimator is used as the internal model in the PFC_ EBIM to compute
( ) ( ) ( )
the free and forced responses. 𝑦̂𝑃 𝑘 + ℎ𝑗 = 𝑦̂𝐹 𝑘 + ℎ𝑗 + 𝑦̂𝑈 𝐹 𝑘 + ℎ𝑗 . (25)
3
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
Table 1 where 𝑀𝑡 is the mass of the table, and 𝐷𝑡 is the viscous damping
Specifications of single-axis positioning system. coefficient. The following equation is obtained using Eqs. (27) and (30):
Parameter Specification
Ball screw lead 10 mm { }
𝑀𝑡 𝑥̈ (𝑡) + 𝐷𝑡 𝑥̇ (𝑡) + 𝐾𝑛 𝑥 (𝑡) − 𝐾𝑅 𝜃 (𝑡) = 0. (31)
Stroke 500 mm
Rail length 670 mm
If a DC servo amplifier is used in the torque control mode instead of
Rated speed 700 mm/s
manipulating the motor current directly, then the motor torque 𝜏 is
proportional to the command voltage applied to the motor driver 𝑒𝑎 ,
Table 2 and can be expressed as,
Specifications of DC motor.
Parameter Specification 𝜏 (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑆 𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) , (32)
Nominal voltage 24 V
where 𝐾𝑆 represents the proportional constant. Using Eqs. (29), (31)
Rated current 2.96 A
Rated torque 0.28 N m and (32), the transfer function from the command voltage 𝑒𝑎 to the
Rated speed 1810 r/min table displacement 𝑥 is computed as,
𝑋 (𝑠) 𝐾𝑆
= ( ) . (33)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 𝐽𝑀 𝑀𝑡 4 𝐽𝑀 𝐷𝑡 3 𝐽𝑀 1 1
𝑠 + 𝑠 + + 𝐾𝑅 𝑀𝑡 𝑠2 + 𝐾𝑅 𝐷𝑡 𝑠
Then the optimal control law that minimizes the performance index 𝐾𝑛 𝐾𝑅 𝐾𝑛 𝐾𝑅 𝐾𝑅 𝜂 𝜂
given in Eq. (2) can be obtained by setting 𝜕𝐽 (𝑘) ∕𝜕𝝁 (𝑘) = 0. The If the stiffness 𝐾𝑛 is very high, then by taking the limit 𝐾𝑛 to infinity,
optimal control input is given as follows (Satoh et al., 2016): Eq. (33) can be rewritten as,
( )
𝑢 (𝑘) = 𝑘0 𝑐 (𝑘) − 𝑦𝑃 (𝑘) + 𝝂 𝑇𝒙 𝒙̂ 𝒂 (𝑘) + 𝑘𝜖 𝜖 (𝑘) , (26) 𝑋 (𝑠) 𝐾𝑆
= {( ) }. (34)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 𝐽𝑀 1 1
where 𝑘0 ∈ R, 𝝂 𝒙 ∈ R𝑛+2 , and 𝑘𝜖 ∈ R are defined as shown in the 𝑠 + 𝐾𝑅 𝑀𝑡 𝑠 + 𝐾𝑅 𝐷𝑡
𝐾𝑅 𝜂 𝜂
Appendix.
Hence, it can be seen that the simplest model of a single-axis posi-
tioning system consists of a first-order lag system plus an integrator.
3. Plant description and modeling
Although Eq. (34) ignores vibration characteristics and, as a result,
the model becomes a one-inertia system, it is enough for our purpose
3.1. Plant description
in this paper. When 𝐾𝑛 goes to infinity, 𝑥 (𝑡) approaches 𝐾𝑅 𝜃 (𝑡), and
𝑋 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝑅 𝛩 (𝑠). Hence the transfer function between 𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) and 𝜃 (𝑡)
As a single-axis positioning system, the Monocarrier MCM08050H10K
becomes
(NSK, Ltd.) shown in Fig. 2 was used. As an actuator, an 80 W DC
𝛩 (𝑠) 𝐾𝑆
servomotor (Maxon Motor AG, F2260.885) equipped with an optical = {( ) }. (35)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 1 1
encoder (1000 p/rev) was used, together with a DC servo amplifier 𝑠 𝐽𝑀 + 𝐾𝑅2 𝑀𝑡 𝑠 + 𝐾𝑅2 𝐷𝑡
(Maxon Motor AG, ADS 50/5). The allowable command voltage to the 𝜂 𝜂
amplifier was limited within ±10 V, which defined the hard constraints Let 𝐽 and 𝐷 be defined as follows:
on the control input. Tables 1 and 2 list the primary specifications of 1 2
𝐽 ∶= 𝐽𝑀 + 𝐾 𝑀, (36)
the single-axis positioning system and the DC motor. 𝜂 𝑅 𝑡
1 2
𝐷 ∶= 𝐾 𝐷. (37)
3.2. Plant modeling 𝜂 𝑅 𝑡
Then Eq. (35) can be expressed as,
This section is dedicated to the derivation of the dynamic model of 𝛩 (𝑠) 𝐾𝑆
a single-axis positioning system. = . (38)
𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) 𝑠 (𝐽 𝑠 + 𝐷)
It is presumed that a servomotor is connected to the feed screw of
Eq. (38) means that the position control of a single-axis positioning
a table drive system through a coupling. The force generated by the
system can be cast as the angle control of a motor, which is called a
screw is given by
semi-closed-loop control.
{ }
𝑃 = 𝐾𝑛 𝐾𝑅 𝜃 (𝑡) − 𝑥 (𝑡) , (27) The dominant disturbance in a single-axis positioning is friction, and
it can be regarded as a disturbance torque for the system in Eq. (38).
where 𝜃 is the motor angle, 𝑥 is the table position, 𝐾𝑛 is the stiffness Let 𝑇𝑑 be the disturbance torque other than the viscous friction torque,
between the table and the screw, and 𝐾𝑅 is the coefficient of trans- such as the Coulomb friction and breakaway torque. Also, let us assume
formation from the motor angle 𝜃 to the table position 𝑥. 𝐾𝑅 can be that 𝑇𝑑 is expressed using the equivalent voltage disturbance 𝑑 as
expressed as 𝐿∕2𝜋 where 𝐿 is the lead of the screw. The torque due to 𝑇𝑑 (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑆 𝑑 (𝑡). Then, the equation of motion of the motor is given
the force 𝑃 can be written as, by
1
𝑇𝑏 = 𝐾 𝑃, (28) 𝐽 𝜃̈ (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑆 𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) − 𝐷𝜃̇ (𝑡) + 𝑇𝑑 (𝑡) = 𝐾𝑆 𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) − 𝐷𝜃̇ (𝑡) + 𝐾𝑆 𝑑 (𝑡) . (39)
𝜂 𝑅
4
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
⎧ (𝑥̇ (𝑡)) (0 1
)(
𝑥1 (𝑡)
) (
0
) (
0
)
⎪ 1 = + 𝑒𝑎 (𝑡) + 𝑑 (𝑡) ,
⎪ 𝑥̇ 2 (𝑡) 0 −𝐷∕𝐽 𝑥2 (𝑡) 𝐾𝑆 ∕𝐽 𝐾𝑆 ∕𝐽
⎨ ( )
⎪ ( ) 𝑥1 (𝑡)
𝑦 (𝑡) = 1 0 ,
⎪ 𝑥2 (𝑡)
⎩
(40)
( )𝑇
where 𝑥1 𝑥2 ∶= (𝜃 𝜃) ̇ 𝑇 and 𝑦 ∶= 𝜃. A semi-closed-loop control system
is designed on the basis of Eq. (40) in this paper.
To use the plant model in Eq. (40), the values of the following
physical parameters of the single-axis positioning system need to be
known: 𝐽𝑀 , 𝑀𝑡 , 𝐷𝑡 and 𝜂. Unfortunately, they are not known exactly,
so 𝐽 in Eq. (36) and 𝐷 in Eq. (37) are identified directly, instead of 𝐽𝑀 , Fig. 4. Payload placed on slider.
𝑀𝑡 , 𝐷𝑡 and 𝜂. The standard system identification techniques (Ljung,
1999) can be applied to identify these parameters. However, care
should be exercised in the case of single-axis positioning systems when 4.2. Industrial P – PI controller
the system identification is conducted using the pseudo random binary
signal (PRBS) input, since the stroke of the slider is limited and the use
The industrial P – PI controller for a plant with the transfer function
of the PRBS input often moves the slider to the left or right end. To
of the form in Eq. (38) consists of a proportional–integral (PI) con-
avoid such an undesirable situation, the chirp signal was used as the
troller 𝐶PI in the inner velocity loop, and a proportional (P) controller
external input instead of the PRBS input. The prediction error method
in the MATLAB System Identification Toolbox (Mathworks, 2018) was 𝐶P in the outer position loop. These controllers are defined in the
utilized to identify the continuous-time model given in Eq. (40). The continuous-time domain as follows:
( )
identified values of these parameters are as follows: 𝐽 = 1.5219 × 𝐷
𝐶P (𝑠) ∶= 𝐾P , 𝐶PI (𝑠) ∶= 𝐾PI 1 + , (43)
10−4 kg m2 ; and, 𝐷 = 5.6201 × 10−4 Nm/(rad/s). The value of 𝐾𝑆 was 𝐽𝑠
excluded from the system identification since we were able to obtain where 𝐾P and 𝐾PI are the proportional gain and the integral gain,
the value experimentally as 𝐾𝑆 = 0.04 Nm/V. respectively. Fig. 3 contains a block diagram of the control system
The vectors and matrix appeared in the discrete-time state-space using the P – PI controller with the anti-windup scheme. It is clear from
model in Eq. (10) in this case are given as follows: Eq. (43) that the PI controller 𝐶PI (𝑠) cancels the nominal plant dynam-
( ) ( ) ics and forces the open-loop transfer function to become 𝐾𝑆 𝐾PI ∕𝐽 𝑠.
⎧ 1 0.9982 × 10−3 0.1314 × 10−3
⎪ 𝑨𝑴 = , 𝒃𝑴 𝒖 = , The closed-loop transfer function from the set-point to the plant output
⎨ 0 0.9963 0.2627 (41)
(
⎪𝒄 = 1 0 , ) becomes the following second-order system:
⎩ 𝑴 𝐾P 𝐾PI 𝐾𝑆
where the sampling period is taken to be 𝑇𝑠 = 1 ms. The vector 𝒃𝑴 𝒅 is 𝐽
𝑇 (𝑠) = (44)
the same as 𝒃𝑴 𝒖 . 𝐾PI 𝐾𝑆 𝐾 𝐾 𝐾
2
𝑠 + 𝑠 + P PI 𝑆
𝐽 𝐽
4. Position controllers for comparison Hence, the DC gain of the closed-loop system becomes 1, and the
steady-state position error is zero. According to the Routh–Hurwitz
4.1. Standard PFC stability criterion, the closed-loop system in Eq. (44) is stable in theory
as long as 𝐾P > 0 and 𝐾PI > 0, since 𝐾𝑆 > 0 and 𝐽 > 0. However,
The standard PFC differs from the PFC_ EBIM in that it does not
due to unmodeled dynamics, uncertainties, and nonlinear friction, the
use the augmented states and the state estimator. The plant model in
closed-loop system may become unstable, depending on the choice of
Eq. (10), the reference trajectory in Eq. (1), the performance index in
𝐾P and 𝐾PI . Therefore, fine tuning of these gains using the real plant
Eq. (2) are used, and the control law of the standard PFC is given as
will be necessary.
follows:
( )
𝑢 (𝑘) = 𝑘0 𝑐 (𝑘) − 𝑦𝑃 (𝑘) + 𝝂̃ 𝑇𝑥 𝒙𝑴 (𝑘) , (42) 5. Design and experimental evaluation
where 𝑘0 ∈ R and 𝝂̃ 𝑥 ∈ R𝑛 are defined as Appendix. In the
standard PFC, constrained control input produced by passing through In this section, the PFC_ EBIM is applied to the position-control
an appropriate limiter is supplied to the internal model to handle input of the single-axis positioning system, and its control performance is
constraints (Richalet & O’Donovan, 2009). compared with that of the standard PFC and the P – PI control system.
5
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
Table 3
Values of integral absolute error (IAE) and root of integral squared error (RISE) for
Experiment 1.
Control method Reference
Rectangular Sinusoidal Trapezoidal
IAE RISE IAE RISE IAE RISE
PFC_EBIM 13.8499 22.6866 21.2157 11.7927 10.8166 6.4490
PFC 27.7328 23.1315 32.1401 17.4888 26.9776 14.5877
P–PI 16.5331 22.8063 29.2778 16.2414 15.4489 9.0076
The number of the basis function required in the PFC_ EBIM and
PFC is taken as 𝑛𝐵 = 2, and the desired closed-loop time response
is set to be 𝑇CLTR = 0.1. The approaching ratio is taken as 𝛼 =
𝑒−3𝑇𝑠 ∕𝑇CLRT , and the following three coincidence points are used in the
( )
PFC_ EBIM and PFC: ℎ1 , ℎ2 , ℎ3 = (33, 50, 100), which corresponds to
( )
𝑇CLRT ∕3𝑇𝑠 , 𝑇CLRT ∕2𝑇𝑠 , 𝑇CLRT ∕𝑇𝑠 , respectively. Constraint handling in
the PFC_ EBIM is accomplished in the same way as the standard PFC.
• rectangular wave
• sinusoidal wave
• trapezoidal curve
The name of the trapezoidal curve comes from the fact that the shape
of the second derivative of the curve (equivalently, acceleration) con-
stitutes a trapezoid. The following experimental conditions are used:
Experiment 1 the amplitude of the reference is 50 mm; no payload is Fig. 5. Results of experiment 1 for rectangular reference (top: plant output, middle:
used tracking error, bottom: control input).
6
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
Fig. 6. Results of experiment 1 for sinusoidal reference (top: plant output, middle: Fig. 7. Results of experiment 1 for trapezoidal reference (top: plant output, middle:
tracking error, bottom: control input). tracking error, bottom: control input).
the controller tying to further reduce the position error under friction and P – PI. The values of the integral absolute error (IAE) and the root
in the same way as the hunting or limit cycles induced by an integral of the integral squared error (RISE) are computed from the tracking
controller. error data and shown in Table 3.
Fig. 6 shows the experimental results for the sinusoidal reference.
The plant output results appear similar. However, taking a look at the Experiment 2
tracking error, it can be seen that the PFC_ EBIM has better tracking A payload of 4075.8 g is introduced on the slider to investigate the
performance than the PFC or the P – PI. When the reference is close to robustness against model variation and disturbance rejection property
the extreme value, the PFC_ EBIM and P – PI achieve similar tracking of each control scheme. In addition, the amplitude of the reference
performance. Still, the PFC_ EBIM is slightly better than the P – PI (see is reduced from 50 mm to 10 mm. As a result, the effect of stiction
the close-up in Fig. 6). becomes relatively large, and position control in this experiment is
Fig. 7 shows the experimental results for the trapezoidal curve more difficult than that in Experiment 1.
reference. The tracking performance for the trapezoidal reference is Figs. 8–10 show the experimental results. In all cases, the PFC_ EBIM
more susceptible to stiction than that for the sinusoidal reference since achieves the fastest response and the smallest tracking error, even in
the rate of change of the trapezoidal curve is small, and hence the the presence of model variation and large stiction. On the other hand,
control input also becomes small, especially when the velocity is close performance degradation of other two control strategies is apparent.
to zero. Even for the trapezoidal reference, it can be seen from Fig. 7 For example, the response of the P – PI control for the rectangular
that the PFC_ EBIM achieves better tracking performance than the PFC reference is slow and has only a little overshoot, which is in contrast to
7
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
Fig. 8. Results of experiment 2 for rectangular reference (top: plant output, middle: Fig. 9. Results of experiment 2 for sinusoidal reference (top: plant output, middle:
tracking error, bottom: control input). tracking error, bottom: control input).
the result in Experiment 1. The responses of the standard PFC are far results showed that the PFC_ EBIM works well and achieved the best
worse than those in Experiment 1. It can be noticed that a large offset tracking performance of the three control strategies.
arises even for the sinusoidal and trapezoidal references, as well as for It turned out that small oscillation appears in the control input of
the rectangular reference. Again, oscillation in the control input of the the PFC_ EBIM especially for the case of the rectangular reference at the
PFC_ EBIM for the rectangular reference can be observed at the steady- steady-state. This issue will be addressed in future work.
state (see Fig. 8). The values of the integral absolute error (IAE) and
the root of the integral squared error (RISE) are presented in Table 4.
Acknowledgments
6. Conclusions
8
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
( ) ( ( ) ( ))𝑇
where 𝒚 𝟏𝑩 ℎ𝑗 = 𝑦1𝐵1 ℎ𝑗 ⋯ 𝑦1𝐵𝑛 ℎ𝑗 ∈ R𝑛𝐵 , and 𝒖𝑩 (0) =
𝐵
(1 0 ⋯ 0)𝑇 ∈ Z𝑛𝐵 .
The vector 𝝂̃ 𝑥 in the standard PFC is defined as follows:
( ) 𝑇
ℎ
⎛ 𝒄 𝑴 𝑨𝑴1 − 𝑰 ⎞
⎜ ⎟
𝝂̃ 𝑥 = − ⎜ ⋮ 𝝂̃ ∈ R𝑛 ,
( ℎ )⎟
⎜ 𝑛ℎ ⎟
⎝𝒄 𝑴 𝑨𝑴 − 𝑰 ⎠
where
(𝑛 )−1
( ( ) ( ))𝑇 ∑ ℎ
( ) ( )𝑇
𝝂̃ = 𝒚 𝑩 ℎ1 ⋯ 𝒚 𝑩 ℎ 𝑛ℎ 𝒚 𝑩 ℎ𝑗 𝒚 𝑩 ℎ𝑗 𝒖𝑩 (0) ∈ R𝑛ℎ
𝑗=1
( ) ( ( ) ( ))𝑇
and 𝒚 𝑩 ℎ𝑗 = 𝑦𝐵1 ℎ𝑗 ⋯ 𝑦𝐵𝑛 ℎ𝑗 ∈ R𝑛𝐵 and
𝐵
∑
𝑖−1
𝑦𝐵𝑙 (𝑖) = 𝒄 𝑴 𝑨𝑖−1−𝑞
𝑴
𝒃𝑴 𝒖 𝑞 𝑙−1 .
𝑞=0
The vector 𝒖𝑩 (0) and the scalar 𝑘0 in the standard PFC are the same as
those in the PFC_ EBIM.
References
Abdelghani-Idrissi, M. A., Arbaoui, M. A., Estel, L., & Richalet, J. (2001). Predictive
functional control of a counter current heat exchanger using convexity property.
Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification, 40(5), 449–457.
Anzehaee, M. M., Behnam, B., & Hajihosseini, P. (2018). Augmenting armarkov-pfc
predictive controller with pid-type iii to improve boost converter operation. Control
Engineering Practice, 79, 65–77.
Abu el Ata-Doss, S., Fiani, P., & Richalet, J. (1991). Handling input and state constraints
in predictive functional control. In Proceedings of the 30th conference on decision and
control (pp. 985–990).
Bigdeli, N., & Haeri, M. (2009). Predictive functional control for active queue
management in congested tcp/ip networks. ISA Transactions, 48(1), 107–121.
Bouhenchir, H., Cabassud, M., & Lann, M. V. L. (2006). Predictive functional control
for the temperature control of a chemical batch reactor. Computers and Chemical
Engineering, 30, 1141–1154.
Camacho, E. F., & Bordons, C. (2007). Model predictive control (2nd ed.).
Springer-Verlag.
Dieulot, J. Y., Benhammi, T., Colas, F., & Barre, P. J. (2008). Composite predictive
functional control strategies, application to positioning axes. International Journal
of Computers Communications & Control, 3(1), 41–50.
Dovžan, D., & Škrjanc, I. (2010). Predictive functional control based on an adaptive
fuzzy model of a hybrid semi-batch reactor. Control Engineering Practice, 18,
979–989.
Franklin, G. F., Powell, J. D., & Workman, M. L. (1998). Digital control of dynamic
systems (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
Friebel, T., Zabet, K., Haber, R., & Jelali, M. (2015). Predictive functional control
of tandem cold metal rolling. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on control
applications (pp. 324–329).
Fig. 10. Results of experiment 2 for trapezoidal reference (top: plant output, middle: Kuntze, H. B., Jacubasch, A., Richalet, J., & Arber, C. (1986). On the predictive
tracking error, bottom: control input). functional control of an elastic industrial robot. In Proceedings of the 25th conference
on decision and control (pp. 1877–1881).
Lepetič, M., Škrjanc, I., Chiacchiarini, H. G., & Matko, D. (2003). Predictive functional
control based on fuzzy model: magnetic suspension system case study. Artificial
Appendix
Intelligence, 16, 425–430.
Liu, H., & Li, S. (2012). Speed control for pmsm servo system using predictive functional
The vectors and matrices in the PFC_ EBIM are defined as follows: control and extended state observer. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
( ) 𝑇 59(2), 454–460.
ℎ
⎛ 1 − 𝛼 ℎ1 ⎞ ⎛ 𝒄 𝒂 𝑨𝒂1 − 𝑰 ⎞ Ljung, L. (1999). System identification: Theory for the user (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
⎜ ⎟
𝑘0 ∶= 𝝂 𝑇 ⎜ ⋮ ⎟ ∈ R, 𝝂 𝒙 ∶= − ⎜ 𝑛+2 Maciejowski, J. M. (2002). Predictive control with constraints. Pearson Education.
⋮ ⎟ 𝝂∈R ,
⎜ ⎟ ( ) Mathworks (2018). System identification toolbox.
ℎ𝑛
⎝1 − 𝛼 ⎠ ℎ ⎜ ℎ𝑛
ℎ ⎟
⎝𝒄 𝒂 𝑨𝒂 − 𝑰 ⎠ Matsubara, A. (2008). Design and control of precision positioning and feed drive systems
( ) (in Japanese). Tokyo: Morikita Publishing.
⎛ 𝑦2𝐵 ℎ1 ⎞ Muñoz, W. A. P., Sellier, A. G., & Castro, S. G. (2018). The predictive functional control
⎜ 1
⋮ )⎟⎟ ∈ R.
𝑘𝜖 ∶= −𝝂 𝑇 ⎜ ( and the management of constraints in guanay ii autonomous underwater vehicle
⎜𝑦2𝐵 ℎ𝑛 ⎟ actuators. IEEE Access, 6, 22353–22367.
⎝ 1 ℎ ⎠ Nagase, J., Hamada, K., Satoh, T., Saga, N., & Suzumori, K. (2013). Comparison between
pfc and pid control system for tendon-driven balloon actuator. In Proceedings of the
Therein,
39th annual conference of the IEEE industrial electronics society (pp. 3396–3401).
(𝑛 )−1
( ( ) ( ))𝑇 ∑ ℎ
( ) ( )𝑇 Nagase, J., Satoh, T., Saga, N., & Suzumori, K. (2013). Predictive functional control
𝝂 ∶= 𝒚 𝟏𝑩 ℎ1 ⋯ 𝒚 𝟏𝑩 ℎ𝑛ℎ 𝒚 𝟏𝑩 ℎ𝑗 𝒚 𝟏𝑩 ℎ𝑗 of tendon-driven actuator using pneumatic balloon. Journal of Advanced Mechanical
𝑗=1 Design, Systems, and Manufacturing, 7(4), 752–762.
Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model predictive control
𝒖𝑩 (0) ∈ R𝑛ℎ , technology. Control Engineering Practice, 11(7), 733–764.
9
T. Satoh, N. Saito, J. Nagase et al. Control Engineering Practice 86 (2019) 1–10
Richalet, J. (1993). Industrial applications of model based predictive control. Satoh, T., Saito, N., Nagase, J., & Saga, N. (2016). Predictive functional control using
Automatica, 29(5), 1251–1274. state estimator-based internal model for ramp disturbance rejection. International
Richalet, J., Abu el Ata-Doss, S., Arber, C., Kuntze, H. B., Jacubasch, A., & Schill, W. Journal of Automation and Control, 10(3), 267–285.
(1987). Predictive functional control - application to fast and accurate robot. In Satoh, T., Saito, N., Nagase, J., & Saga, N. (2017). An application of predictive
Proceedings of the IFAC 10th world congress (pp. 251–258). functional control with a state observer-type internal model. In Proceedings of the
Richalet, J., Darure, T., & Mallet, J. (2014). Predictive functional control of counter IEEE 24th international conference on mechatronics and machine vision in practice (pp.
current heat exchangers. In Proceedings of the IFAC 19th world congress (pp. 266–271).
5345–5350). Satoh, T., Saito, N., & Saga, N. (2010). Predictive functional control with distur-
Richalet, J., & O’Donovan, D. (2009). Predictive functional control: principles and industrial bance observer for pneumatic artificial muscle actuator. In Proceeding of the 1st
applications. London, England: Springer-Verlag. international conference on applied bionics and biomechanics.
Rossiter, J. A. (2002). Predictive functional control: more than one way to prestabilise. Vivas, A., & Poignet, P. (2005). Model based predictive control of a fully parallel robot.
In Proceedings of the IFAC 15th world congress (pp. 289–294). Control Engineering Practice, 13(7), 863–874.
Rossiter, J. A. (2004). Model-based predictive control - a practical approach. CRC press. Zabet, K., & Haber, R. (2017). Robust tuning of pfc (predictive functional control) based
Rossiter, J. A., Haber, R., & Zabet, K. (2016). Pole-placement predictive functional on first- and aperiodic second-order plus time delay models. Journal of Process
control for over-damped systems with real poles. ISA Transactions, 61, 229–239. Control, 53, 25–37.
Satoh, T., Kaneko, K., & Saito, N. (2012). Improving tracking performance of predictive Zhang, R., Xue, A., Wang, S., & Zhang, J. (2012). An improved state-space model
functional control using disturbance observer and its application to table drive structure and a corresponding predictive functional control design with improved
systems. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 7(3), 550–564. control performance. International Journal of Control, 85(8), 1146–1161.
Zhang, B., Yang, W., Zong, H., Wu, Z., & Zhang, W. (2011). A novel predictive control
algorithm and robust stability criteria for integrating processes. ISA Transactions,
50, 454–460.
10