Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 61

Nonlinear EGR Valve Control

By

Nicholas P. Teske

B.S. (University of New Mexico, Albuquerque) 2002

A report submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree of

Masters of Science, Plan II in Mechanical Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley

Committee in Charge:

Professor J. Karl Hedrick, Chairman Professor Pravin Varaiya

Fall 2003

To Sidnee

Abstract

Nonlinear EGR Valve Control

by

Nicholas P. Teske

Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Controls

University of California, Berkeley

Professor J. Karl Hedrick, Chair

The

main

function

of

an

exhaust

gas

recirculation

(EGR)

valve

is

to

allow

post-

combustion gases to reenter the intake air stream and influence the combustion process.

By doing this, engineers have achieved reduced emissions and increased fuel economy.

There are three main types of EGR valves: pressure differential valves, solenoid driven

valves and variable-position electronic valves.

project.

The latter of the three is the basis of this

Several types of controllers are derived and their performances are compared.

The three

main controllers derived are a PID controller, an Input/State Linearization controller and

a Sliding Mode controller.

Also, an Adaptive Sliding Mode controller is derived for

unknown

parameter

estimation.

Both

Observer are derived and compared.

a

Luenberger

Observer

and

a

Sliding

Mode

After the full controller/observer combination is

designed, it is then converted to C code and run on an external processor.

This is done to

verify the ability of the controller/observer in a hardware setup.

4

Acknowledgements

Professor J. Karl Hedrick, my advisor and professor, for providing the knowledge to

study the topic of nonlinear control.

I would also like to thank him for providing the

funding required to attend such an incredible University.

 

Daniel M. Lamberson, my research partner, for everything ranging from help with

homework to career advice. Good luck as a dad!

 

Carlos Zavala for all his help with the hardware- in- the- loop experiment.

 

Paul,

Yvonne

and

Lauren

Teske,

for

their

unconditional

support

and

guidance

throughout this experience.

5

Contents

Acknowledgements

5

List of Tables

9

1 Introduction

10

1.1 Background

10

1.2 Motivation

11

1.3 Organization

12

2 EGR Valve Model

13

2.1 Introduction

13

2.2 Plant

13

2.3 System Equations

14

2.4 System Nonlinearity

15

2.5 Model Uncertainty

17

3 Controllers

18

3.1 Introduction

18

3.2 PI and PID Control

19

3.2.1 System Linearization

19

3.2.2 Application of the PID Controller

20

3.3

Input/State Linearization

21

3.3.1 Input/State Linearization Controller Design

21

3.3.2 Application of Input/State Linearization Controller

22

3.4

Sliding Mode Control

24

3.4.1 Sliding Mode Controller Design

24

3.4.2 Application of the Sliding Mode Controller

25

3.5

Adaptive Sliding Mode Control

27

3.5.1 Adaptive Sliding Mode Controller Design

28

3.5.2 Application of the Adaptive Sliding Mode Controller

29

3.5.3 Persistency of Excitation Requirement

31

3.6

Conclusion

32

4 State Estimation

33

4.1 Introduction

33

4.2 Luenberger Observer

34

6

4.2.1

Accessibility

34

4.2.2

Observability

35

4.2.3

Observer Pole Placement

35

4.2.4

Application of the Luenberger Observer

38

4.2.4

Model Uncertainty

39

4.3

Sliding Observer

41

4.3.1 Observer Design

42

4.3.2 Model Uncertainty

42

4.3.3 Application of the Sliding Observer

43

4.4

Conclusion

44

5 Hardware-In-The-Loop

46

5.1 Introduction

46

5.2 Hardware-In-The-Loop Setup

46

5.3 Controller Code Generation

47

5.4 Hardware-In-The-Loop Simulation

48

5.5 Hardware-In-The-Loop Results

51

5.6 Conclusion

54

6 Conclusion

55

7 Appendices

57

Appendix A.) Parameter values used in EGR model

57

Appendix B.) Controller/Observer Performance Comparison

58

Appendix C.) Simulink Model of System and Controllers

59

Appendix D.) Simulink Model Used In the HWIL Setup

60

8

References

7

61

List of Figures

Figure 1.) Plant diagram with simplified model

14

Figure 2.) Magnetic flux (lambda) in Webers

16

Figure 3.) The effect of coil resistance on open-loop performance

17

Figure 4.) PI control vs. PID control

20

Figure 5.) I/S Linearization with an accurate and inaccurate coil resistance

23

Figure 6.) Effects of modeling error with a 50% bounded coil resistance parameter

26

Figure 7.) The effect on the system input of coil resistance parameter uncertainty

27

Figure 8.) Adaptation law converges to 20.5 O, the value of the actual plant

30

Figure 9.) Adaptation law does not converge without constant system excitation

31

Figure 10.) Estimated states converge to the actual states of the

37

Figure 11.) Results with a perfect observer and controller model

38

Figure 11.) Loss of parameter convergence due to small model error

40

Figure 12.) Model error in observer and controller

41

Figure 13.) State variables converge regardless of model error

43

Figure 14.) State convergence and acceptable control regardless of model error

44

Figure 15.) Hardware-In- The-Loop setup

47

Figure 16.) Simulink schematic of simulated PWM

48

Figure 17.) The intersection of the lines indicates when the voltage is shut off

49

Figure 18.) Simulated system performance with PWM

50

Figure 19.) Problems with the implementation of the PWM controller

52

Figure 20.) 5mm step input with controller running on

53

8

List of Tables

Table 1.) System initial conditions

16

Table 2.) Model parameter values

57

Table 3.) Controller/Observer performance comparison

58

9

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Exhaust

gas

recirculation

(EGR)

systems

have

long

been

used

in

diesel

applications.

They allow post combustion exhaust to reenter the intake stream and mix with the fresh

air/fuel mixture.

The effect is reduced NO x levels by the reduction of overall combustion

temperatures.

Recently

EGR

has

been

applied

to

gasoline

engines

for

the

primary

purpose

of

reducing

fuel

consumption

in

partial

throttle

ranges,

and

secondarily,

in

reducing the level of NO x produced [5].

EGR requires precise valve control over a wide range of engine operating conditions

combined with reliable operation and maintained tolerances over the life of the vehicle.

As government emission and fuel consumption requirements grow tighter and tighter the

need for higher tolerance EGR valve control arises.

The modern open-loop controllers

for

gasoline

engine

EGR

valves

will

soon

become

obsolete.

With

this

precision

requirement

the

need

for

closed-loop control arises.

The

basis

of

this

thesis

is

the

10

exploration

and

application

tolerance EGR valve control.

1.2 Motivation

of

different

control

theories,

all

with

the

goal

of

high-

One style of EGR valve that was popular in the past was the pressure differential valve.

It consisted of a diaphragm that would flex due to a pressure difference across it.

The

vacuum source was typically the intake manifold.

This flex would raise and lower a

valve allowing exhaust in the intake manifold.

fairly

well,

over

time

its

performance

would

from the valve and therefore the vehicle.

While the diaphragm could be tuned

degrade

causing

unwanted

performance

One solution to this problem, introduced with the advent of the computer controlled fuel

injection system, used the same diaphragm valve but in a different manner.

A separate

computer controlled valve would regulate the amount of vacuum supplied to one side of

the diaphragm, in effect controlling the valve.

mass produced vehicles to this day.

This setup is still commonly used in many

One issue with this setup is the fact that the computer is not supplied with position data

from the valve.

It simply supplies a specified vacuum and monitors the air-to-fuel ratio.

The approach taken in this study is the application of an electronic actuator.

By using a

valve position sensor, the computer will then have exact information on the position of

the EGR valve and will be able to control more closely the effect of EGR on the engine.

11

1.3 Organization

Chapter 2 discusses the 3 rd order plant dynamics and the nonlinearity associated with the

actuator windings.

Chapter 3 compares the performances of several types of controllers.

The controllers

discussed in this thesis are a PI/PID controller, an Input/State Linearization controller and

a Sliding Mode Controller.

Each controller is used to actuate the valve in the same

manner and the performances are compared.

Chapter 3 also investigates the application

of an adaptive controller to account for error in the resistance value of the nonlinear

controller

model.

Very

little

change

in

resistance

causes

large

changes in the plant

dynamics, making it very important to know the exact value of the winding’s resistance.

Chapter 4 looks at the application of two different types of observers: a Luenberger

Observer and a Sliding Observer. The two observer’s performances are compared.

Chapter 5 studies the effect of the controller in a hardware- in- the- loop scenario.

The

controller and observer that were derived in chapters 3 and 4 will be compiled to C code

and run on an external processor.

MATLAB will be used to run a simulation of the valve

that will be controlled by this external processor. Issues and results will be discussed.

12

2 EGR Valve Model

2.1 Introduction

An accurate model is necessary for both the nonlinear controllers and also both the

observers discussed later in this thesis.

This chapter discusses the plant, the system

equations and the nonlinearities of the system.

Also discussed are the effects of small

model changes and the large effects they can have on the system, reinforcing the need for

an accurate model.

2.2 Plant

The valve consists of a simple electric solenoid with a resistive and inductive element.

Figure 1 shows the plant schematic and the simplified model used for analysis:

13

Figure 1.) Plant diagram with simplified model A voltage (V) is placed across the coil

Figure 1.) Plant diagram with simplified model

A voltage (V) is placed across the coil and current (i) is developed in its windings. This

current creates a magnetic field that causes the plunger to rise into the gap, compressing

the spring. The plunger’s motion is a function of the downward force created by the

compressed spring and any upward force from the magnetic field.

2.3 System Equations

The following differential equations [1] describe the EGR valve model in Figure 1.

14

dv

dt

=

È

Í

Î

di

dt

dl

d

x

=

È

Í

Î

i

-

V

-

Kx

dx =

dt

-

mg

v

-

F

f

sgn(

v

)

˘

˙

˚

Ri

-

dl

d x ˘

1

˙

d x d t

˚

L +

dl

d i

y = x

1

m

(1.)

(2.)

(3.)

(4.)

Conveniently, the variable to be controlled (position) is directly measurable from the

position sensor.

This makes the application of a linear controller fairly easy, but the lack

of

remaining state information makes the application of a nonlinear controller a little

more involved. This will be further discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.

See reference Table 2 in Appendix A for a complete list of parameters and their values.

The parameters were based on models discussed in [2] and [3].

2.4 System Nonlinearity

The magnetic flux (lambda) term is a nonlinear function of current and position and is

given by:

l =

dl

d

dl

x

d

i

(

-

87.5i

2

= -

87.5

i

+

105i)x

2

+

105

i

=

( i

-175 +105

)x

15

(5.)

(6.)

(7.)

This

nonlinearity

emerges

from

two

different

sources.

First

is

the

basic

relationship

between current in the windings and magnetic flux.

The second source of nonlinearity is

from the non-uniform medium in the middle of the coils.

That is, the

further out the

plunger is the more air (and less steel) is in the center of the windings.

Figure 2 is

a

surface plot of the magnetic flux curve used in this analysis.

plot of the magnetic flux curve used in this analysis. Figure 2.) Magnetic flux (lambda) in

Figure 2.) Magnetic flux (lambda) in Webers

When x is at 10mm the plunger is fully plunged and the entire medium within the coils is

steel.

Lambda, for this system, was approximated with methods discussed in [1].

1 shows the initial conditions used for this analysis.

Table 1.) System initial conditions.

Table

State

 

Initial Value

Depth of plunger (x)

0

[m]

Velocity of plunger (v)

0

[m/s]

Current in coils (i)

0.101 [amps]

16

This puts the EGR valve closed with the spring at its free-length and the coil holding

simply the weight of the plunger.

plant dynamics.

2.5 Model Uncertainty

See Appendix C for the Simulink schematic of the

In order to demonstrate the robustness of the following nonlinear control methods the

parameter R (coil resistance) was chosen to be uncertain.

R, in reality, would probably

be known with some confidence but in the interest of discussion the plant value will be

assumed different than our controller value.

Another reason it is important to be robust

with respect to variations in R is because very little change in R causes large changes in

plant behavior.

Figure 3 represents the difference in open-loop response with the coil

resistance set at two different values.

with the coil resistance set at two different values. Figure 3.) The effect of coil resistance

Figure 3.) The effect of coil resistance on open-loop performance

As shown, with approximately 15% increase in coil resistance the plunger has moved

2mm less than with the lower resistance.

17

3 Controllers

3.1 Introduction

As stated in the introduction the need for feed-back control of the EGR valve will soon

become necessary due to the ever tightening government regulations on emissions and

fuel consumption.

Open-loop control meets these current standards, but will soon be

obsolete.

The following section explores a linear controller (PID) and two nonlinear

controllers as a solution to the growing needs of EGR valve control.

In an effort to quantitatively compare the following controllers an error was defined as

follows:

E

1000 * (

x

-

x

d

)

2

(8.)

This error was evaluated for 100ms at a constant period of 10µs once the system had

reached steady state.

Also, the error was calculated over the same trajectory for all the

controllers; a 7Hz sine wave with 4.5mm bias.

This trajectory represents the fastest

18

response possible from the valve due to physical constraints.

This error definition will let

the performance of the different controllers be compared on the same basis and identify

which controller is actually performing the best.

comparison of all the following controllers.

Refer to Appendix B for a complete

3.2 PI and PID Control

3.2.1 System Linearization

To begin, a PI controller was derived for the system.

The main application of a PI

controller is to a linear system.

A Jacobian Linearization can be performed about an

operating point, but for our application this may be unusable.

We are interested in the

full

range

of

motion

of

the

valve,

not

just

small

motion

about

an

operating

point.

Regardless,

a

Jacobian

Linearization

was

performed

around

the

following

equilibrium

point.

x = 0.0045 [m], v = 0 [m/s], i = 0.281 [A] and V = 5.78 [V]

This linearization yielded the following system matrix.

A =

È

12000

Í

Í 5055.08

Í

0

Î

-

-

1

0

89.75

0

˘

˙

˙

152.76 ˙

˚

383.34

-

The real parts of the eigenvalues of this A matrix are all negative, indicating that the

system is stable at this operating point.

Using this linearization the closed loop poles can

be placed based on the desired performance.

19

3.2.2 Application of the PID Controller

After

the

PI

controller

was

designed

and

implemented

it

was

found

that

the

linear

controller was not able to control the nonlinear system to the desired performance.

The

nonlinearities of the system overpowered the ability of the PI controller away from the

operating point.

To address this problem derivative control was added.

The derivative

term causes the controller to increase control effort initially, reducing the error more

quickly than with just the proportional and integral terms.

adding derivative control.

Figure 4 shows the effect of

adding derivative control. Figure 4 shows the effect of Figure 4.) PI control vs. PID control

Figure 4.) PI control vs. PID control

As shown, the PID controller controlled fairly well.

for the PID control was 10.6.

The error as defined by equation (8)

20

The only problem with PID control is that the derivative term can be very hard to deal

with.

When differentiating a sensor output any noise in the signal is amplified.

For this

system a perfect sensor was assumed.

Also, with the small error signals, large gains were

needed to attain the necessary actuation.

These large gains will also amplify any noise

from the position sensor.

nonlinear controllers.

The two preceding issues were significant enough to consider

3.3 Input/State Linearization

The next methodology used to derive a controller was Input/Output Linearization.

The

object of I/O Linearization is to use the control input to cancel out the nonlinearities of

the system and then control the system with a synthetic input to achieve the desired

output.

3.3.1 Input/State Linearization Controller Design

The following are the first three derivatives of the output, x, which yield the input (V) in

the third derivative.

&&& y =

-

K

m

v

+

(

-

y = x

y& = x& = v

Ê

Á

dl

 

i

 

Kx

 

F

f

sgn(

 

ˆ

)˜

 

1

 

-

-

mg

-

v

 

Ë

d

x

 

¯

m

 

3

+

105

i

2

-

Kx

-

-

F

 

sgn(

 

)

)

1

     

mg

f

v

-

)

Ê Á ˜ Á V

Ê

1

ˆ

-

Ri

-

dl

d x ˆ

˜

1

 

-

m

1

d

(

F

f

sgn(

v

)

)

Ë

m

¯

Ë

 

d x d t

¯

L +

dl

 

m

d

t

 

d

i

 

21

=

i

&& y

=

(

&& = -

y

2 +

v &

87.5

210

i

262

i

(9.)

(10.)

(11.)

(12.)

= u

(13.)

Since the system is a third-order system with a relative degree of three, Input/State and

Input/Output

Linearization

are

essentially

the

same

analyses

[6].

Typically

I/S

Linearization is not ideal for tracking control because the output is chosen to make the

system a desired relative degree [6].

For this system it was convenient that the ideal

output happened to be the parameter of interest. This is not always the case.

The

following

equations

feedback), respectively.

represent

the

input,

V,

and

 

K

d

(

F

f

sgn(

v

)

)

 

u +

v

+

 

m

d

t

+

Ri

-

 

ab

   

1

a

=

(

-

262

i

2

+

210 )

i

 

m

 

b =

 

1

 
 
 

L

-

(175

i

-

 

105)

x

1

(z

1

- x

d

) - K

2

(z

2

- x&

d

) - K

3

(87.5

(z

3

V =

u = -K

the

synthetic

i

2

-

105 )

i v

- x&& ) +&x&&

d

d

input,

u

(state

(14.)

(15.)

(16.)

(17.)

After I/S Linearization was performed the converted controllable canonical states are:

z 3 =

(

87.5 i

3

-

105

i

2

z 1 = x

z

2 = v

-

Kx

-

mg

-

F

f

sgn(

v

)

)

)

1

m

(18.)

(19.)

(20.)

K 1 , K 2 and K 3 were chosen to place the poles at –122.95. This gave the controller desired

performance with minimal actuator saturation.

3.3.2 Application of Input/State Linearization Controller

Robustness to model uncertainty is one of the main problems with I/S Linearization.

The

method is based on the assumption that the model is an accurate representation of the

22

actual plant.

Figure 5 shows the effect of uncertain coil resistance.

In this

case, the

resistance in the plant was 15% more than the actual system.

resistance in the plant was 15% more than the actual system. Figure 5.) I/S Linearization with

Figure 5.) I/S Linearization with an accurate and inaccurate coil resistance

With the plant resistance more than the model resistance, not enough current is being

produced and friction is causing the plunger to hang up.

The

error for each plot,

calculated by (8), was 0.0458 and 21.9, respectively.

From these results we can see that

I/S Linearization with a perfect model does achieve near perfect tracking.

But, with 15%

error in the resistance model the error definition increases over 450 times.

This result,

like the PID, was unacceptable.

uncertainty.

The controller must be immune to any coil resistance

23

3.4 Sliding Mode Control

Often with highly nonlinear systems it can be very difficult to find an accurate model.

And in some cases it is necessary to use this uncertain model for control.

Our second

type of nonlinear controller is a Sliding Mode Controller, which allows for bounded error

in parameters while providing low- error tracking.

It operates on the simple principle

“push in the opposite direction of the error”.

This principle is achieved by reducing the

higher-order system to a first-order stabilization problem of a user-defined surface S.

Once the system reaches S the desired control objective will be reached asymptotically

[6].

3.4.1 Sliding Mode Controller Design

In general, surfaces are defined as follows.

With this the surface becomes:

S = x ~ && +

2

lx ~ & + l

2

S =

Ê

Á

Ë

d

dt

= x&&- x&&

d

+ l

+

2

ˆ

˜

¯

l

n -1

~

x

(

x& - x&

d

)

+ l

2

(

x - x

d

 

(21.)

)

(22.)

In order to make this surface attractive it was made to satisfy the following Lyapunov

function candidate.

24

L &

=

SS &

L =

1

2

= - h

S

S

2

= -

h S sgn( S )

(23.)

(24.)

& To reach this relation a control input (V) must be defined to make S
&
To reach this relation a control input (V) must be defined to make
S = -h sgn( S ) .
The
following was that control input.
Kv
1
d
F
ˆ
f
2
2
-
h
sgn(
S
)
+
Riab
-
(87.5
i
-
105)
vab
+
+
+&&&
x
-
c
-
l
(
v
-
x &
)
d
d
m
m
d t
V =
(25.)
ab
1
2
a
=
(
-
262
i
+
210 )
i
(26.)
m
1
b =
(27.)
L
-
(175
i
-
105)
x
È
1
(
3
2
)
˘
c
=
2
l
-
87.5
i
+
105
i
-
Kx
-
mg
-
F
sgn(
v
)
-
&& x
(28.)
Í
f
d
˙
Î
m
˚
ˆ
The input contains an
" R
"
term that represents the uncertain coil resistance.
This term is

assumed to be bounded with a 50% error and entered in the input with the worst-case

scenario in mind

(

ˆ

R -

0.5

ˆ

R

sgn(

S

))

.

error up to 50% of the modeled value.

This makes the controller immune to coil resistance

3.4.2 Application of the Sliding Mode Controller

Once the controller was applied to the system the robustness ability to model error was

tested.

Figure 6 shows how exceeding the defined boundary causes the system to loose

accuracy.

25

Figure 6.) Effects of modeling error with a 50% bounded coil resistance parameter The first

Figure 6.) Effects of modeling error with a 50% bounded coil resistance parameter

The first two plots demonstrate the ability of the controller within the set error bounds.

The third plot shows the plant resistance exceeding the 50% error bounds and friction

starting to cause plunger hang-ups.

This demonstrates the controller’s robustness up to

the set bounds.

The errors based on (8) for the first two plots were .0222 and .0949,

respectively.

The error associated with the incorrect resistance model is over four times

higher

than

with

the

correct

model.

While

this

is

significantly

higher,

overall

both

controllers perform very well when compared to the 21.9 error associated with the I/S

Linearization controller with only 15% resistance inaccuracy.

complete listing of all the controller errors.

26

Refer to Appendix B for a

While these results are very good, the robustness to uncertainty does cause the controller

to chatter with higher amplitude and frequency.

For our system there was no unmodeled

dynamics so the excess chatter was no problem.

activity from the increase in model uncertainty.

Figure 7 shows the increase in input

in model uncertainty. Figure 7 shows the increase in input Figure 7.) The effect on the

Figure 7.) The effect on the system input of coil resistance parameter uncertainty

This

increase

in

input

activity

can

be

difficult

to

implement.

The

following

section

discusses Adaptive Sliding Control, a method used to reduce model uncertainty in an

attempt to reduce control effort.

3.5 Adaptive Sliding Mode Control

The previous section explored three separate ways of applying closed-loop control to the

EGR valve.

The last of these, Sliding Mode Control, even presented a method of dealing

27

with model uncertainty.

parameters

over

time,

it

possible premature failure.

While this is very useful because of the possibility of changing

can

cause

unwanted

performance

such

as

excess

heat

and

The following section explores the use of adaptive control to

accurately estimate unknown or changing parameters on-line, with the end goal being

reduced motor actuation and increasing the overall life of the motor.

If the parameter that

contains the uncertainty is constant or slowly changing, adaptive control can be used to

identify the value of the parameter and reduce the control effort.

3.5.1 Adaptive Sliding Mode Controller Design

For this section the uncertain parameter will be the coil resistance.

The parameter update

law is found by redefining a Lyapunov function candidate with

&

plugging the input (V) into S

yields

L =

1

2

(

S

L &

SS &

=

L & = SS & +

2

+ rDR

2

)

+ rD

r

R

Ê

Á

Ë

DR

D

- R ˜

R &

ˆ

&

ˆ

¯

D

R

& ˆ

S = Riab - Riab -h

sgn(

S

)

= -DRiab -h

&

plugging S

back into the Lyapunov function candidate yields

 
 

&

 

&

ˆ

L

= -

hS sgn( S)

- D

R(iabS

+

Rr

)

 

&

ˆ

&

The term

"

- D

R(iabS

+

Rr

)"

is then

set to zero, making

L

 

ˆ

=

R

-

R

 

.

(29.)

 

(30.)

(31.)

sgn(

S

)

(32.)

 

(33.)

negative semidefinite and

returning the parameter update law

28

&

ˆ

R = -

iabS

r

with “a” and “b” defined in (26) and (27).

(34.)

Barbalat’s lemma can be used to show that the surface does converge to zero as time goes

 

&

 

&

ˆ

to infinity.

It is known that

L

is negative semidefinite because we defined

R

to force it

 

ˆ

that way.

This guarantees that

R

and S are bounded.

After finding

L && , Barbalat’s lemma

can be used to prove L &&

&

is bounded and L

goes to zero [6]. We know, from section 3.4.1,

 

&

ˆ

that S goes to zero.

But since

R

is a function of S there is no guarantee that DR goes to

zero, unless that system is constantly excited.

S

has to be nonzero in order for

DR to

converge and persistent excitation provides this non-zero (but still near zero) S.

3.5.2 Application of the Adaptive Sliding Mode Controller

Once the controller was applied to the system the parameter tracking capability was

 

ˆ

tested.

Figure 8 shows the system response with an initial model resistance

( R

)

of

30.75O and a plant resistance ( R) of 20.5 O.

29

Figure 8.) Adaptation law converges to 20.5 O, the value of the actual plant As

Figure 8.) Adaptation law converges to 20.5 O, the value of the actual plant

As shown, the adaptive parameter eventually converges to the actual value in the plant.

The error associated with (8) for the adaptive sliding mode controller is .0462.

This is a

50% reduction in error when compared to the sliding mode controller with the inaccurate

resistance model.

It should be noted that the adaptive sliding mode controller started

with

an

initial

resistance

with

50%

error

in

order

to

compare

it

the

sliding

mode

controller that also had 50% resistance error.

comparison of all the controller errors.

Refer to Appendix B for a complete

30

3.5.3 Persistency of Excitation Requirement

One issue with adaptive control is the need for persistent excitation.

If the plant were to

receive a step input as opposed to a sinusoid, the adaptation law might not converge due

ˆ

to the lack of system excitation. Figure 9 shows the non-converging R

with a step input.

Figure 9 shows the non-converging R with a step input. Figure 9.) Adaptation law does not

Figure 9.) Adaptation law does not converge without constant system excitation

As shown, the parameter update law does not converge to the proper value due to the lack

of system excitation.

This is not a problem for the system because the EGR valve keeps

all states constantly changing as the driver requests varying levels of performance from

the vehicle.

31

3.6 Conclusion

Three different types of controllers were used to control the EGR valve, all yielding

different performance.

First PI control was implemented, but was unable to achieve low

error tracking without the addition a derivative term, D, which is often problematic to

implement.

entire

state

Because of the need for higher tolerance control and also control over the

space, Input/State Linearization was used.

While I/S Linearization could

theoretically

achieve

zero

error

tracking,

with

any

model

error

the

tracking

ability

degraded quickly.

Because of this Sliding Mode Control was introduced.

Sliding Mode

Control offers low error tracking even with model error.

But, the benefit does not come

without

a

price.

The

controller

robustness

comes

from

a

raised

level

of

actuation.

Because

of

the

need

to

lower

the

level

of

actuation

while

still

achieving

low

error

tracking

was

important,

Adaptive

Sliding

Mode

Control

was

introduced.

 

Adaptive

Sliding

Mode

Control

tracks

the

unknown

parameter

in

effect

reducing

the

level

of

actuation.

32

4 State Estimation

4.1 Introduction

The

four

control

analyses

performed

above

leave

out a very important issue: sensor

measurements for state information.

A wide range of sensors could be used to collect

state information.

These sensor readings will contain noise and may have to be filtered.

Also, sensors can be expensive and unreliable.

A method of dealing with the lack of state

information is state observers.

Two common deterministic observers are the Luenberger

Observer and the Sliding Observer.

As with the controllers, an error definition is defined to compare the following observers.

The error function is defined as follows:

E

ˆ -

x

x

2

+

ˆ -

v

v

2

+

ˆ

i

-

i

2

(35.)

This definition allows for the error in each state to be accounted for and compared.

This

error was evaluated for 100ms at a constant period of 10µs.

Also, the error was

calculated over the same desired trajectory for both the observers; a 7Hz sine wave with

4.5mm bias.

This error definition will let the performance of the observers be compared

33

on the same basis and identify which observer is actually predicting more accurate state

information. Refer to Appendix B for a complete comparison of the following abservers.

4.2 Luenberger Observer

The Luenberger Observer is a linear observer that can be applied to a linearized nonlinear

system.

As with the PI control, the nonlinearities can often be too great or the desired

operating range can be too large to usefully implement a linear observer.

The following

analysis discusses the process for the application of a Luenberger Observer to our system.

First,

the

Accessibility

and

Controllability

around

the

equilibrium

point

have

to

be

verified.

 

4.2.1 Accessibility

 

The

accessibility

matrix,

when

full

rank

indicates

that

the

system

is

controllable,

is

calculated using Lie brackets [6]. The rank of the following matrix was checked.

C = [f, [f,g], [f,[f,g]]]

(36.)

But we are only concerned about this matrix at the following equilibrium point.

x = 0.0045 [m], v = 0 [m/s], i = 0.281 [A] and V = 5.78 [V]

After applying this equilibrium point the C matrix is now as follows.

È 0

0

1519.6

C =

-

Í Í 1519.6

0

41480.4

Í 3.96

Î

322.14

-

˘

˙

˙

133244 ˙

˚

This matrix is full rank, therefore the system fully accessible at the equilibrium point.

34

4.2.2

Observability

The observability matrix is calculated using Lie derivatives [6].

The following process

was used to find and check the rank of the observability matrix.

The Lie derivative matrix, G, was calculated as follows.

0 È L x ˘ f Í ˙ 1 G = L x Í f
0
È L
x
˘
f
Í
˙
1
G =
L
x
Í
f
˙
Í
2
L
x
˙
Î
f
˚
È
˘
x
Í
˙
Í
˙
v
Í
3
2
˙
( 87.5
-
i
+
105
i
-
kx
-
mg
)
Í
˙
Î
m
˚
È
˘
1
0
0
Í
˙
Í
˙
=
0
1
0
Í
2
˙
k
210
i
-
262.5
i
Í
-
0
˙
Î
m
m
˚

G =

The observability matrix is the gradient of G.

O

= — G

(37.)

(38.)

From observation the system is observable everywhere but at i = 0 [A] and i = 0.8 [A].

Our system is operating at an equilibrium point with i = 0.281 [A].

Also, our system will

never reach zero current because there is always a small amount to hold the valve in the

zero position. Therefore O is full rank and the system is observable.

4.2.3 Observer Pole Placement

Now that we know the system is accessible and observable we can implement the

Luenberger Observer. The following equation shows the form of the observer [8].

35

ˆ

x&

ˆ

= Ax + BV + L y - Cx

[

ˆ]

(39.)

ˆ

&

(40.)

x

= ( A - LC) xˆ + Ly + BV

 

e& = ( A - LC)e

(41.)

If all the eigenvalues of (A-LC) have negative real parts the equation is asymptotically

stable.

It should be noted that this means asymptotically stable for the linearized system,

not the nonlinear system. For this system (A-LC) is as follows.

Ê

Á

Á

Á

Ë Í Î 5055.08

12000

È

Í

Í

-

0

-

1

0

89.75

-

0

383.34

˘

˙

˙

152.76 ˙

˚

-

L 1 ˘

È

Í

Í

Í L 3 ˙

Î

˙

˙

˚

2

L

[

1

0

ˆ

˜

]

0 ˜ =

˜

¯

-

12000

Í 5055.08

Î

Í

Í

È

L 1

-

-

-

L

L

2

3

The characteristic equation of (A-LC) is as follows.

l

3

+

(

L

1

+

152 .76)

l

2

+

(152 .76 1

L

+ L

2

+

46406 .6)

l +

34406 .6 1

L

+

152 .76

1

0

0

383.34

˘

˙

˙

152.76 ˙

˚

-

89.75

-

L

2

+

383 .34

L

3

-

104711

We are going to put the real parts of all three of our poles at -100.

This will keep the

poles symmetric about the real axis.

like:

Therefore the characteristic equation needs to look

l

3

+

292.8

l

2

+

68104.4

l +

4882836

=

0

(42.)

To achieve the characteristic equation in (42) L 1 = 140, L 2 = 311.41 and L 3 = 321.

The next step is to apply these gains to the nonlinear system.

The following equations

represent the new Luenberger system that will estimate the states of the original system.

36

ˆ

v

 

ˆ

ˆ

x& = v + L

1

(

~

)

 

x

 

ˆ

3

 

ˆ

 
 

(

-

87.5 i

+

105

i

2

-

ˆ

kx

-

gm )

ˆ

&

i

 

m

 
 

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

 
 

V

-

Ri

 

+

(87.5

i

2

-

105

i

v

) ˆ

 

=

 

+

 

ˆ

 

L

-

(175

i

-

x

105) ˆ

 

~ =

x

y

-

Cxˆ

+ L

2

(

~

x )

L

3

(

~

x )

(43.)

(44.)

(45.)

(46.)

The following plots show the actual states and the estimated states.

plots show the actual states and the estimated states. Figure 10.) Estimated states converge to the

Figure 10.) Estimated states converge to the actual states of the system.

As expected, the estimated states converge to the actual states.

The error defined by (35)

for the Luenberger Observer is 0.

an observer with a perfect model.

This zero error is purely theoretical and is expected for

37

During the simulation the system did not move far from the equilibrium point that was

used to linearize the system and solve for the observer gains.

If the system were to leave

this envelope there would be no performance guarantee.

4.2.4 Application of the Luenberger Observer

The

Luenberger

Observer

is

applied

by

replacing

the

state

information,

previously

collected directly and unrealistically from the plant model, by the observed states.

These

observed states will then be used to calculate the controller output.

The following plot

shows the output of the system with the I/S Linearization controller running on observed

states.

the I/S Linearization controller running on observed states. Figure 11.) Results with a perfect observer and

Figure 11.) Results with a perfect observer and controller model

38

As you can see near perfect tracking is achieved.

The error calculated from (8) is 0.0458,

which is identically equal to the I/S Linearization controller with actual state information.

This is to be expected because of the zero error state tracking provided by the Luenberger

Observer with the perfect model.

This assumption of a perfect model is almost never possible, though.

Now that the

control is based on two independent but identical models any error will now have an even

larger effect. Model uncertainty and its effects on control will now be discussed.

4.2.4 Model Uncertainty

The application of the Luenberger Observer to a nonlinear system assumes a perfect

observer

model.

Any

small

error

in

the

model

causes

the

estimated

states

to

not

converge.

This

violates

the

whole

basis

of

an

observer;

to

predict

accurate

state

information. The following plots show the performance of the observer with a 10% error

in the resistance model of the windings.

39

Figure 11.) Loss of parameter convergence due to small model error The error defined by

Figure 11.) Loss of parameter convergence due to small model error

The error defined by (35) is 2.59.

This is a huge increase in error, which is visually

noticeable from Figure 11.

When these estimated states are used with the controller any

deviation from the real states would cause unwanted performance.

The controller would

be driving the system to an incorrect setpoint with minimal error.

This adds an element

of guaranteed error to the system.

The need for accurate state information is crucial. The

following plots show the effect of 10% error in the coil windings resistance model in both

the observer and controller model.

40

Figure 12.) Model error in observer and controller The model error in the observer causes

Figure 12.) Model error in observer and controller

The model error in the observer causes it to predict flawed state information.

The model

error

in

the

controller

causes

the

incorrect

tracking

of

the

already

incorrect

state

information.

This error build-up leads to poor control and possibly instability.

The error

as defined by (8) is 39.2.

This is an increase in error of over 850 times the perfect model

I/S Linearization controller.

This error increase and the need for guaranteed performance

away from the equilibrium point force us to pursue a different avenue of state estimation.

4.3 Sliding Observer

The

Sliding

Observer

is

another

tool

used

to

predict

state

information.

 

The

major

difference

between

the

Sliding

Observer

and

the

Luenberger

Observer

is

the

Sliding

 

41

Observer’s ability to deal with model uncertainty.

Using the same basis as the Sliding

Mode Controller, the Sliding Observer capitalizes on a discontinuous model.

4.3.1 Observer Design

The Sliding Observer design is similar to the Luenberger design.

In fact, the Luenberger

Observer is the basis for the Sliding Observer.

The following equations represent the

Sliding Observer [4].

ˆ

x& = v + L

ˆ

1

(

~

x

)

+ K

1

sgn(

~

x

)

(47.)

ˆ

v &

 

ˆ

3

 

ˆ

 
 

(

-

87.5 i

+

105

i

2

-

ˆ

kx

-

gm )

=

ˆ

&

i

 

m

 
 

ˆ

ˆ

2

 

ˆ

 

V

-

Ri

 

+

(87.5

i

-

105

i

v

) ˆ

 

=

 

+

 

ˆ

 

L

-

(175

i

-

x

105) ˆ

 

+

L

L

2

(

3

(

~

x

~

x

)

)

+

+

K

2

sgn(

~

x )

K

3

sgn(

~

x )

(48.)

(49.)

~ =

x

y

-

Cxˆ

(50.)

As you can see the only difference is the “sign” term at the end of each estimated state.

This “sign” term is the key to dealing with model uncertainty.

The gains L 1 , L 2 and L 3

are taken directly from the Luenberger observer to place the poles of the linearized

system at -100.

4.3.2 Model Uncertainty

The discontinuous “sign” function changes the sign of a portion of the state estimation,

constantly adjusting states to track the proper value.

Essentially it applies the same

principle as the Sliding Mode controller: “Push in the opposite direction of the error”.

Figure 13 shows the ability of the observer to correctly track states regardless of model

integrity.

42

Figure 13.) State variables converge regardless of model error The sliding observer is able to

Figure 13.) State variables converge regardless of model error

The sliding observer is able to accurately track the states.

The error defined by (35) is

0.1467. This is a 94% increase in performance over the Luenberger observer with similar

conditions.

This reduction in error is important because this information will be applied

via a model based controller that requires correct state information.

4.3.3 Application of the Sliding Observer

Now that we have verified that the sliding observer is converging to accurate state

information it can be applied to the Sliding Mode Controller.

It

is applied in the same

fashion as the Luenberger Observer.

The state information, taken directly from the

system and used in the controller, is replaced by the state information produced by the

observer. Figure 14 shows the output of the system with all observed state information.

43

Figure 14.) State convergence and acceptable control regardless of model error The control with the

Figure 14.) State convergence and acceptable control regardless of model error

The control with the model error is not perfect, but demonstrates the ability of the sliding-

surface controller in dealing with model uncertainty. The error defined by (8) is 4.8.

This

is an 88% increase in performance over the I/S Linearization control with the Luenberger

Observer values.

This small amount of error stems from the error build up discussed

earlier.

4.4 Conclusion

The

application

of

the

nonlinear

controllers

discussed

in

section

3

requires

full

state

information.

To outfit the plant with sensors could be costly and difficult, in addition to

having to deal with noisy data.

Because of these issues, state estimators were used to

44

predict

the

state

information

used

in

the

nonlinear

controllers.

Two

types

of

state

estimators were used, first being the Luenberger Observer.

The Luenberger observer

uses a linear model to calculate the gains that are applied to the nonlinear observer.

This

observer

will

predict

zero-error

state