Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
zjphyq@163.com
Jiangpeng Zhao
Ia
1
Mm
1
1
C
G1 K M
m
S
La s + Ra
Js
Ce
I. INTRODUCTION
Many works have been done on the study of the
controller design about the servo loop of line-of-sight
stabilization system of opto-electronic load for UAV, and the
correction frequency Domain method is widely used. It has a
series of advantages such as mature theory, simple arithmetic,
high reliability and good real-time performance. Whats more,
it can be realized by both analog and digital control methods.
Unfortunately it has some shortcoming at the same time, bad
robustness is one of them which occurs when the model
parameters of system are uncertain. We can use robust control
method such as quantitative feedback theory to solve this
problem which is also based on the frequency domain.
Quantitative feedback theory was delivered in 1972 by
Horowitz and Sidi, which is developed and improved all the
while. This method aims at the controlled object which has
parameter variation, the given time domain indexes will be
transferred to frequency domain ones, and the boundary
satisfied with frequency domain indexes will be built up in
Nichols diagram, the loop gain will be designed to located in
the proper position, thus the output response of system can fit
the performance index. By adopting this method, controller
will meet the requirement of system even if the parameters of
controlled object have changed in the allowable range. In
other words, we can realize the robust control by using QFT
method.
Researchers of American air-force college have done a
lot of research work about QFT method from the middle age
*
1
ds + 1
This work is partially supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities(HEUCF041210)
Kg
1982
Ne
1
K PWM
Td
com
1
K PWM Ce
1
K PWM Pa
Gg Gv
K PWM Pp Pa
Ce Pp Pa + 1
Ng
Fig2 QFT standard structure diagram of azimuth axis stabilization loop
112.4( s + 280.5)
38648200
, Tl ( s ) =
s 2 + 258.48s + 31925
( s + 721.2)( s + 295.4)( s + 181.5)
1983
which include tracking bound, robust stability bound and antijamming bound. Each kind of bound have several bounds
corresponding to the different frequency point, which is
selected according to the system bandwidth.
50
1.4
0
Magnitude (dB)
1.2
Amplitude
-50
-100
0.8
-150
0
0.6
Phase (deg)
60
0.4
0.2
40
-270
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
10
10
10
10
10
10
Frequency (rad/sec)
Time (sec)
20
-90
-180
7
0
7
7
-20
7
-40
-350
6s
( s + 150)( s + 250)
To improve the stability margin of this control system,
the frequency characteristic of open-loop transfer function
o
must be kept away from points which located in (-180
0dB), so the resonant peek value of close-loop transfer
function should be less than M p , in this example we
choose the value of it as 2 dB. Which is also can be
expressed as follow:
TD1U ( s ) =
-300
-250
-200
Phase (degrees)
-150
-100
-50
20
10
1
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-350
P = Pp Pa K pwm /(1 + Pp Pa Ce )
-300
-250
-200
Phase (degrees)
-150
-100
-50
1984
(a) simulation result without pre-filter (b) simulation result with pre-filter
Fig6 Frequency response of QFT controller
(a) PID
(b) QFT
Fig.8 Step response comparison of PID and QFT controller
TABLE 1 STEP RESPONSE COMPARISON BETWEEN
QFT CONTROLLER AND PID CONTROLLER
QFT controller
PID controller
Peek
time
overshoot
settling
time
Peek time
overshoot
settling
time
0.022
0.362
0.12
0.02
0.321
0.06
0.013
0.237
0.05
0.02
0.197
0.06
0.022
0.248
0.06
0.02
0.311
0.06
0.013
0.211
0.05
0.02
0.182
0.06
0.022
0.363
0.12
0.02
0.322
0.06
0.013
0.238
0.05
0.02
0.198
0.06
0.022
0.249
0.06
0.02
0.313
0.06
0.014
0.215
0.05
0.02
0.190
0.06
0.020
0.364
0.12
0.02
0.315
0.06
0.012
0.239
0.05
0.02
0.194
0.06
0.022
0.245
0.06
0.02
0.316
0.06
0.013
0.213
0.05
0.02
0.190
0.06
0.020
0.367
0.12
0.02
0.317
0.06
0.012
0.239
0.05
0.02
0.199
0.06
0.022
0.249
0.06
0.02
0.318
0.06
0.013
0.214
0.05
0.02
0.191
0.06
1985
V. CONCLUSION
1986