Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
of an adaptive controller. The tracking error remains within the Property 3: qT [ M (q ) 2C (q, q )]q 0 is always true, based on
prescribed error bound to ensure the stability of the transformed
error system. However, in the constraint method given in the skew-symmetric property between M ( q ) and C (q, q ) .
[11-14], there is a problem, in that the inverse of the Assumption 1 [7]: There exist some unknown finite positive
transformation function to be used to design the controller constants, i 0 , 1 i 4 , and finite nonnegative constants,
might violate the prescribed performance under some specific
5 0, such that q R n , q R n , M (q) 1 , C(q, q ) 2
constraint condition [15]. On the other hand,
Theodorakopoulos et al. [16],[17] verified recently that the 3 q , G ( q ) 4 , and supt 0 Fu 5 .
prescribed performance control can compensate for the The control objectives of the proposed controller are to design a
deadzone input nonlinear effect, which is obstacle for improved control input law such that
control performance in many Lagranian systems, without using 1. The output position vector tracks the desired trajectory
conventional adaptive or neural/fuzzy based approximation
qd (t ) R n and all involved signals in the closed-loop
techniques.
Based on the aforementioned directions, in this paper, a new system remain bounded.
filtered tracking error surface is proposed to guarantee the 2. The tracking errors, e(t ) q (t ) qd (t ) , always remain
prescribed tracking error constraint boundary and deadzone within the prescribed constraint boundaries.
compensation for the Lagrangian systems; it is combined with
robust adaptive control without using a FLS or NN
B. Constrained Tracking Error Boundary Function
approximation for unknown dynamic parameters. Moreover,
deadzone effect is compensated for without requiring any A constrained positive boundary function to prescribe the
additional controller or approximation technique like [16],[17]. tracking performance is selected as follows because this type
Next, finite-time control used in the terminal sliding mode function can regulate conveniently the tracking performances
control is combined with robust adaptive control with unknown such as rising-time, overshoot, and steady-state offset in time-
parameter estimation of the Lagrangian system in order to domain:
obtain a fast- converging response. Therefore, the proposed (t ) ( 0 ss )exp(at ) ss , (2)
control assures the predefined position tracking error
constraints for the Lagrangian systems while not depending on where 0 ss 0 and ss lim (t ) are design constants
t
complex approximation methods and not requiring extra
deadzone compensators [18-20]. As application examples, the and e(0) 0 should be satisfied to guarantee the prescribed
control systems of an XY table and an articulated manipulator constraint conditions. 0 and a 0 determine the rising time
system are utilized to show the effectiveness of the proposed
and overshoot performance of the tracking output. ss
control scheme.
determines the steady-state tracking performance of the given
control system. Each design parameter must be selected
II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION appropriately according to the control system conditions and
capacity of the actuators. Extreme parameter values may cause
A. Dynamics of Lagrangian Systems high gain control and stability problem. The prescribed bounds
The dynamic equation of the Lagrangian systems with n are guaranteed by the following constraint conditions
degrees-of-freedom is as follows:
(t ) e(t ) (t ) if e(0) 0 , (3)
M (q )q C (q, q ) q G (q ) Fu u (1) or
(t ) e(t ) (t ) if e(0) 0 , (4)
n1
where q, q , q R denote the generalized position, and the
where diag ( 1 ,..., n ) and 0 i 1 is a scale factor. Next,
velocity and acceleration vectors, respectively; a positive
a transformed constraint error, i for i 1,..., n , is defined as
definite symmetric matrix, M (q ) R nn , is the moment of
follows:
inertia matrix; C (q, q ) R nn is the centripetal Coriolis
matrix; G (q ) R n1 is the gravity vector; Fu R n1 is the i (t )
ei (t )
, (5)
uncertainty vector including the external disturbance and the i (t )
friction; and u R n1 is the control input vector. i hi p li (1 p) , (6)
Property 1: M (q) and G (q) are uniformly bounded and
uniformly continuous for a uniformly bounded and uniformly where p 1 if ei (t ) 0 , and p 0 if ei (t ) 0 . The parameters
continuous generalized position vector q . hi and li are defined as follows:
Property 2: C (q, q ) is uniformly bounded and uniformly
continuous for a uniformly bounded and uniformly continuous hi i (t )
, if ei (0) 0 , (7)
generalized velocity vector q . li i i (t )
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
hi i i (t ) 5
1
, if ei (0) 0 . (8) r T ( mT m u ) k ˆ k . (15)
li i (t ) k 1 k
In (3) and (4), determines the symmetry or not of the The control input and adaptive law can be chosen as follows:
constraint condition. In this paper, we assume that I to 5
r ˆ k k2
u Kr sign(r ) , (16)
consider only the symmetric constraint condition. k 1 r k k
Lemma1: The following condition regarding the transformed 2
error defined in (2) holds: k r k2
ˆ k k ˆ k , k 1,...,5 , (17)
r k k
0 i 1 , t 0, i 1,..., n (9)
where K diag (k1 ,..., kn ) 0 R nn , k 0 and k 0 are
if and only if 0i , ssi , and ai are selected such that they satisfy
constants, [ q 1 1]T , and diag ( 1 ,...,
(3) and (4).
Proof: See [15]. n ) 0 is a constant matrix. (15) can be written as
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
Therefore, all error signals are semiglobally, uniformly, and (ii) when ˆ , the filtered tracking errors then converge to
ultimately bounded [21] and e 0 and e 0 as t by the
the regions r f min(1 , 2 ) of the neighborhood in
Barbalat’s lemma [22].
rf 0 in finite time if min and m are selected
B. Adaptive Finite-Time Control without Constraint as min / V2 and min / V2 m , respectively, where
Control
1/ 2 m
The command vector f and its derivative f for finite time 1 2 / min and 2 2 m / min .
performance are defined as follows: Proof: Theorem 1 can be verified easily from similar results in
[23],[24] and proof is omitted.
From Theorem 1, it follows that e and e also converge to
f qd 1e 2 e sign(e) , (21) zero or the neighborhood in e 0 and e 0 in finite time.
f qd 1e 2 diag ( ei
1
)e , (22) Remark 1: In (22), to avoid singularity because of 0 1 ,
the following condition is used as
where 1 diag (11 ,..., 1n ) 0 and 2 diag (21 ,..., 2n ) 0
e 1 e, if e 0 and e 0
are a constant matrix and 0 1 is constant. The filtered
1
error surface r f and its derivative rf for finite time e e, if e 0 and e 0 , (27)
0, otherwise e 0
performance are defined as r f q f and rf q f ,
respectively. A Lyapunov function candidate for finite time where 0 is some small constant.
performance is defined as follows:
1 T 5
1 2 C. Adaptive Error-Constrained Finite-Time Control
V2 r f M (q)rf k . (23) In this section, a new filtered error surface that guarantees
2 k 1 2 k
the error-constrained condition defined in the section II is
proposed. From (5) and (6), a command error vector with a
The following finite-time-based control and adaptive law are
constraint function (t ) and its derivative (t ) are defined as
proposed as follows:
5 rf ˆ k 2fk c d
1 2 e sign(e) ,
u Kr f rf sign(r f ) , (24)
k 1 rf fk k (28)
1
2 c d
1 2 diag ( ei )e , (29)
k rf 2fk
ˆ k k ˆ k , k 1,...,5 , (25)
r f fk k where [ 1 ,..., n ]T is a transformed error vector, i
(1 i )1i , d 1qd [d1,...,dn ]T , and di i1qdi .
where f [ f f q f T
1 1] . Similarly to (18), it
Defining q 1q [ q1 ,..., qn ]T and qi i1qi , we then
follows that
have
2 n i 1 5
k 2
V2 min ( K ) r f i r fi k q d , (30)
i 1 k 1 2 k
2 ( i 1)/2 k
2 n 5
min ( K ) rf i rfi k2 where [1,..., n ]T and diag (1,...,n ) . The constrained
i 1 k 1 2k filtered error surfaces rc and its derivative rc are defined as
m
V2 mV2 , (26)
rc q c , (31)
m m
where m 2 min[ i / max(max (M (q)) )] and m ( i min
rc q c . (32)
1) / 2 .
Theorem 1 (finite-time stability): Consider the closed-loop of a Based on the terms of (28)-(32), the dynamics in (1) can be
system consisting of the plant in (1), and following the control written as
and adaptive laws in (24) and (25). If Assumption 1 holds, then
the following conditions are satisfied:
M (q)rc M (q)q M (q) c
(i) when ˆ , the filtered tracking errors converge to zero in
a finite time. 1[C (q, q )q G (q) Fu u ] M (q) q M (q) c
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
C (q, q )[rc c 1q] 1[G(q) Fu u ] Remark 3: The achievement of the properties (3) and (4)
provides that the desired tracking error performance
M (q ) q M ( q ) c specifications can be explicitly determined by appropriately
T
C (q, q )rc mcmc 1u , (33) selecting the parameters of the function ; maximum
overshoot, minimum convergence rate, and maximum
steady-state error are determined by combination
where mc [ M (q ) C (q, q ) G ( q ) Fu ]T , mc [ c c 1
of 0 and a , a , and ss , respectively. If the evolution of the
1]T , mc [ M (q) C (q, q ) G (q) Fu ]T [ c1 c 2 tracking error violates the constrained boundaries or required
c3 q c4 c5 ] , ci i , i 1,..., 4, Fu c5 , Fu 1 Fu control effort is not reasonable, the values of K , , and as
well as , which are specific to the application consideration,
1C(q, q)q M (q) q , q [ qi ,..., qn]T , and qi
need to be adjusted.
i1 (qii qii ) i2 (qii qii2 ) . Considering the The graphical presentation for the error constraint in (28) and
following Lyapunov function candidate (31) is illustrated in Fig. 1.
5
1 T 1
V2 rc M (q) rc ck2 , (34)
2 k 1 2ck
5
1 1
V2 rcT C (q, q )rc rcT M (q )rc ck ck
2 k 1 ck
2 m
ck
n 5
equation of the Lagrangian systems with deadzone input
i rfi
2
min ( K ) rc ck2 c , (38)
i 1 k 1 2 ck
nonlinearity is written as
5
where c ck ck ck
k 1
2
ck / 2ck . Therefore, finite-time M (q)q C (q, q ) q G (q ) Fu D(u ) . (40)
stability is obtained, similarly to the case of Theorem 1. The deadzone function D : R R is defined as
Remark 2: In order to satisfy the given constrained tracking
performance, and should be selected such that
gl (u ) , u bl
D (u ) 0, bl u br . (41)
(0) e(0) , if q(0) qd (0)
. (39) g r (u ) , u br
0, if q(0) qd (0)
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
The constants bl , br 0 are not necessarily equal and known. depend on the signal rc . In this respect, the proposed constraint
Their values determines the dead-band size. The functions gl : control scheme is highly robust against the dead-band size, i.e.,
( , bl ] R , g r : [bl , ) R are locally Lipschitz, strictly the value of b 0 . However, as the dead-band size increases,
the price to be paid is the increase of the corresponding control
increasing and unknown to guarantee that D (u ) is locally
effort only by adjusting the value of K and .
Lipschitz as well. The constraint control problem under
deadzone input nonlinearity is that the error-constrained
IV. APPLICATION EXAMPLES
condition defined in the section II is satisfied by using the
control scheme proposed in (36) without considering any
additional deadzone compensator. In this section, a solution for In this section, simulated and experimental evaluations of the
this problem is presented simply. More rigorous verifications proposed control scheme applied to the XY table and the
for compensating deadzone effect by the prescribed error articulated manipulator systems are described.
control scheme were presented in [17]. Defining F2 M (q) c A. Simulation and Experiment for the XY Table System
1
C (q, q ) c G (q ) Fu , (35) is written as Fig. 1 shows the structure of the XY table control system, for
which the dynamic equation is written as
V2 rcT [ M (q ) c C (q, q ) c 1G ( q ) Fu 1 D (u )]
5
M ( q)q C (q, q)q Fu D(u) , (43)
1
ck ˆ ck
k 1 ck where deadzone appears due to misalignment between the
5
1 motor axis and the ball-screw. In the XY table system, the
rcT F2 1 D(u ) ck ˆ ck gravity dynamics do not appear in (43) because the XY table
ck k 1
5
lies on the horizontal plane. In this system, M ( q) contains the
1
rcT 1 F2 D(u ) ck ˆck . (42) unknown moment of inertia of each axis, which contains the
k 1 ck inertia of the servo motors. The friction dynamics of the
ball-screws, linear motion guides, and servo motors are
Owing to the boundedness of M ( q) , C (q, q ) , G (q) from the included in Fu . The controller is designed not to include any
properties1, 2 and the boundeness by construction of c , c , dynamics or identify any of the parameters of the XY table
with assumption of the boundedness of ck , Fu , it follows system. The specifications of the ball-screw, servo motor, and
sensor are given in Table 1. Three controllers are designed to
that F2 is bounded as well. Then, the existence of an unknown evaluate the proposed control scheme: the filtered-error-based
positive constant * such that F2 * , t [0, ) is adaptive controller without finite-time and constraint control
guaranteed. By continuity of D and the monotonicity of (WO-FC), the filtered-error-based adaptive controller without
functions g r and gl , there always exists an unknown positive constraint control (WO-C), and the proposed controller
(Proposed). The WO-FC controller is designed as follows:
constant d * such that u d * D(u ) * .Thus, V 2 c
u d * or, rc
1
K1d *
5
r ˆ k k2
when equivalently when u Kr tanh(r ) . (44)
* k 1 r k k
because fro u rc K d ,
5
1
where K K ˆckck
2
/ ( rc ck ck ) rc .
k 1
Therefore, rc and u are bounded. The boundedness of signal
1
rc implies that rc max{rc (0), K1d * } .
Remark 4: Similar to the statements of [16], to obtain insight on
the operation of the proposed constraint scheme, deadzone is
assumed to have the symmetric and linear slope that
br bl b , g r (u ) u b , and gl (u ) u b . It is not difficult Fig. 2. Structure of the XY table control system
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
WO-C scheme in the y-axis. (f) Tracking errors of Proposed scheme in 1 60 , 2 40 , 1 0.2 , 2 0.2 , c11 0.2 , c12 0.2 ,
the y-axis. 2) Experimental results: (g) Tracking error of WO-FC, WO-C,
and Proposed schemes in the x-axis. (h) WO-FC, WO-C, and Proposed cx3 0.8 , c14 1 , c15 0.8 , c 21 1.5 , c 22 2 ,
schemes in the y-axis. (i)Tracking errors using the Proposed scheme
with(W)/without(WO) deadzone compensation in the x-axis. (j) The c 23 2 , c14 3 , c 25 3 , c11 0.01 , c12 0.01 ,
control inputs of each scheme in the x-axis. c13 0.001 , c14 0.035 c15 0.025 , c 21 0.02 ,
of the WO-FC system because they use finite-time and c 22 0.01 , c 23 0.001 , c 24 0.03 , c 25 0.025 1 0.1 ,
constraint control implemented in the controller. As mentioned and 2 0.1 . The joint position commands are selected
previously and shown in Figs. 3 (j), no excessive chattering
as qd 1 0.1sin(0.8 t ) ( rad ) and qd 2 0.1sin(0.8 t ) (rad ) .
appears in the control inputs.
The designed controllers are implemented using the Matlab
TABLE II RTI system via a MF624 board and the sampling time is
RMS TRACKING ERROR OF THE XY TABLE SYSTEM selected as 0.001 sec.
Axis WO-FC WO-C Proposed
Fig. 5 shows the simulated (Figs. 5 (a)-(f)) and experimental
X-axis 0.128 mm (100 %) 0.094 mm (73 %) 0.043 mm (34%) (Figs. 5 (g)-(n)) results for the manipulator system. The joint
Y-axis 0.152 mm (100 %) 0.087 mm (57 %) 0.037 mm (24%)
position tracking errors for the variations of the dead-band in
the control input are shown in Figs. 5 (a)-(f) according to the
B. Simulation and Experiment for the Articulated joint position sine-wave commands. In the proposed scheme,
Manipulator System the tracking errors remain within the prescribed bound and, and
As a second application example, the articulated manipulator the constraint performance is satisfied in spite of the variations
of the dead-band. On the other hand, the tracking errors of the
shown in Fig. 4 is selected. Among the four links of the robot
WO-FC and the WO-C systems violate the prescribed error
manipulator, only two links (upper arm = link1, forearm=link2)
bounds and the tracking performances of both schemes are
were selected and the manipulator parameters are presented in
sensitive to the variations of the dead-band. In the experimental
Table III. From (1), the dynamic parameters for two degree-of results shown in Figs 5. (g)-(j), the proposed scheme satisfies
- freedom links of the manipulator are described as M (q )q the prescribed tracking performance, while other systems do
C(q, q)q G(q) Fu D(u) , where Fu contains the unknown not. Similarly to the XY table system, the proposed control
joint friction and the external disturbance. The prescribed scheme has robustness to deadzone as shown in Figs. 5 (k) and
(l), where the tracking errors remains within the constraint
constraint functions are selected as 1 (0.3 0.006)e 5t boundary regardless of deadzone compensation via the inverse
0.006(rad) and 2 (0.3 0.005)e5t 0.005(rad ) . deadzone method. Figs. 5 (m) and (n) show the control inputs
with no excessive chattering problem.
Next, the experiment for the step input command was
executed in order to ascertain finite-time convergence
performance of the WO-C and the proposed control scheme.
The command inputs are selected as qd1 0.2 0.1e3t 0.05e6t
( rad ) and qd 2 0.1 0.06e3t 0.015e12t ( rad ) with the initial
condition q1 (0) 0.18( rad ) and q2 (0) 0.14 (rad ) . The
Fig. 4. Photograph and diagram of the articulated manipulator control
system. constraint functions were selected as 1 (t ) (0.3 0.0005)e 5t
TABLE III 0.0005(rad ) and 2 (t ) (0.3 0.0005)e 5t 0.0005(rad ) .
MANIPULATOR PARAMETERS Figs. 6 (a) and (b) show the tracking output of each control
Symbol Parameter Value system, where the WO-C and the proposed systems show faster
response than the WO-FC system because of finite time control.
m1, m2 mass of link1 and 2 12.1kg , 3.59kg However, the WO-C system still violates the constraint bound,
L1, L2 mass of link1 and 2 0.3m, 0.41m but the proposed control scheme satisfies the constraint
ni gear ratio of reduction gear 65.5 conditions as shown in Figs. 6 (c) and (d). The RMS error sizes
Rmi resistance of motor 0.8294 of the WO-C and proposed systems are small, reaching a
torque constant 0.0182 Nm/A
maximum of 17% and 29% that of the WO-FC system because
kti
they use finite-time and constraint control implemented in the
kbi back emf constant 0.0182 V/rad/sec
controller.
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
TABLE IV
RMS TRACKING ERROR FOR SINE-WAVE COMMAND OF THE ROBOT SYSTEM
Link WO-FC WO-C Proposed
Link1 0.012 rad (100 %) 0.006 rad (50 %) 0.002 rad (17%)
Link2 0.013 rad (100 %) 0.008 rad (86 %) 0.003 rad (29%)
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIE.2016.2613990, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics
0278-0046 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.