Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

CHAPTER SEVEN

NEED FOR OBSERVERS – UNKNOWN INPUT OBSERVER (UIO)

1. Most modern control laws need the full state vector for their
implementation. In general, the full state is not accessible making these laws
unimplementable. Even when the states are accessible the cost of the sensors
could be very high. This makes the use of state estimators mandatory. Another
problem that real plants present is that their models are not known accurately.
For such plants the classical Luenberger observer does not work, thus further
compounding the problem of state estimation.

2. The problem of designing an observer for a multivariable linear system


partially driven by unknown inputs is of great interest. Such a problem arises in
systems subject to disturbances or with inaccessible/unmeasurable inputs and in
many applications such as fault detection and isolation, parameter identification
and cryptography. This problem has been studied extensively for the last two
decades. One approach has been to design linear observers (both full order and
reduced order). In the literature, linear observers which are completely
independent of the unmeasurable disturbances are known as unknown input
observers (UIOs) [1–5]. In particular, easily verifiable system theoretic conditions,
which are necessary and sufficient for the existence of UIOs, have been
established (see for example [6] or [5]). One possible statement of these
conditions is that the transfer function matrix between the unmeasurable input
and the measured outputs must be minimum phase and relative degree one.

3. The concept of sliding mode control [7–9] has been extended to the
problem of state estimation by an observer, for linear systems [9], uncertain
linear systems [10, 11] and nonlinear systems [12–14]. Using the same design
principles as for variable structure control, the observer trajectories are
constrained to evolve after a finite time on a suitable sliding manifold by the use
of a discontinuous output injection signal (the sliding manifold is usually given by
the difference between the observer and the system output). Subsequently the
sliding motion provides an estimate (asymptotically or in finite time) of the system
states. Sliding mode observers have been shown to be efficient in many
applications, such as in robotics [15, 16], electrical engineering [17–19], and fault
detection [20, 21].

4. The Lyapunov based approach of Walcott and Zak [2, 3, 4] considered the
problem of state observation in presence of bounded uncertainties/UI. Slotine [5]
examined the potential use of sliding surfaces for observer design for systems in
companion form with extension to non-linear systems. Lopez in [6] formulated an
alternative form of sliding mode observer wherein the output disturbances are
transformed into state disturbances, avoiding noise amplification. Similar work
was seen in [7] wherein the UI and model uncertainties were considered as a
fictitious state added to the slotine like structure [5]. Although, the methods based
on this category [5, 7] only require the output information, they suffer drawbacks.
As, choosing gains, for eg. k1 to ensure sliding depends on the estimation error |
ex2|max which is unknown. The control requires switching terms to deal with
unknown inputs thereby introducing chatter and complicating the analysis. It can
be shown that the second order PIO could bring about the same improvements
that the switching terms used in [7] brought in while being added to the first order
PIO, thereby simplifying the analysis and design. Chen [1] proposed a
disturbance observer which required the states of the system. There are other
disturbance observers also in literature [8] which also require the states in order
to estimate the disturbances. In general, the states are not available. The state
estimator is possible using Luenberger type [9] of observers provided the system
does not have uncertainties. Thus, we have a situation that the state estimation
can be done in the absence of disturbances and disturbance estimation is
possible if the states are available.
5. Luenberger Observer

The classical Luenberger observer is the fundamental state observer and all
other observers are extensions of this basic structure. Consider a plant defined
by,

x = Ax + Bu
___________________________________ (7.1)
y = Cx
Assuming the state x to be approximated by the state ˆx of the dynamic model,

  
_________________________________ (7.2)
x  A x  Bu  L( y  x)
and denoting e = x − ˆx, the state error dynamics is deduced as,

e  ( A  LC )e _____________________________ (7.3)

Thus, the dynamic behavior of the error vector is determined by the eigen values
of (A − LC). Thus, by choosing L such that (A − LC) is stable, the error dynamics
will reduce to zero asymptotically.

6. Limitations of Luenberger Observer

The problem with this observer is that it fails when the output is sensed in
presence of model uncertainties and/or sensor noise. To examine the reason
consider the plant with lumped uncertainties d as,
.
x  Ax  Bu  Bd __________________________ (7.4)

y  Cx  n0

and the observer modeled as eqn. 2.3, the error dynamics is thus deduced as,

e  ( A  LC )e  Ln0  Bd ____________________ (7.5)

The last terms shows that the proportional gain observer tends to amplify the
measurement noise by L and that the lumped uncertainty d affects the
convergence.
7. Chen’s Disturbance Observer

In [1], the non linear disturbance observer is considered. The general description
of the plant for a SISO system is given as,
.
x = f(x) + g1 (x)u + g 2 (x)d
___________________ (7.6)
y = h(x)
Where, f(x), g1(x) and g2(x) are the vector of nonlinear functions of states x, u is
the control input and d the unknown disturbance whose estimate is given by,
z1    p ( x ) ________________________ (7.7)

z1   l(x)g2(x)-  l(x)(g2(x)p(x) + f(x) + g1(x)u) ____ (7.8)

Where, z1 and  are the estimates of the unknown disturbance and the internal
state of the nonlinear observer respectively and p(x) is a nonlinear function to be
designed. The nonlinear observer gain l(x) is defined as,
p(x)
l(x) = ______________________________ (7.9)
x
Let, the disturbance estimation error be defined as,
  d  z1 ___________________________ (7.10)
Thus, it can be shown that, under the assumption that the disturbances are slow
varying, z1 approaches d exponentially if p(x) is chosen such that,
 p(x)
+ g2(x) =0 _______________________ (7.11)
x
is globally exponentially stable for all x 2 <n. As far as the stability of the

p(x)
estimation error is concerned, any nonlinear vector-valued function l(x) =
x
such that equation (7.11) is asymptotically stable and can be chosen. After l(x)
has been chosen, p(x) is found by integration.

8. Limitations of Chen’s DO
.
The problem with this observer is that it fails when the assumption of d  0 is
.
violated. Thus, under the assumption that d  0 we can write,
g g 
  d  z1
g g
_____________________________________________ (7.12)
  d  C1
or
g g
  C1  d ___________________________________________ (7.13)
g
Thus, if C1 > 0, then   d .

10. Extended State Observer (ESO)

Many controllers need information of complete state vector. In this circumstance,


it is desired to have estimation of uncertainties as well as the complete state
vector. This requirement of obtaining the estimate of uncertainty as well as states
in an integrated manner is met by the Extended State Observer (ESO) [17], [18].
The ESO is an observer which can estimate the uncertainties along with the
states of the system enabling disturbance rejection or compensation. Unlike
traditional (linear or nonlinear) observers, the ESO estimates the effect of
uncertainties, un-modeled dynamics and external disturbances acting on the
system as an extended state of the original system. the ESO is an observer
which can estimate the uncertainty along with the states of the system enabling
disturbance rejection or compensation. The ESO regards all factors affecting the
plant, including the nonlinearities, uncertainties, the coupling effects and the
external disturbances as the total uncertainty to be observed and in that sense, it
can be viewed as an unknown input observer or disturbance observer. Since the
observer estimates the uncertainty as an extended state of the original system, it
is designated as Extended State Observer. Its merit is that it is relatively
independent of mathematical model of the plant, performs better and is simpler to
implement. The robustness is inherent in its structure as will be obvious in next
section. In Ref. [17], a comparison study of performances and characteristics of
three advanced state observers namely high gain observer, ESO and Sliding
Mode Observer is presented and it is shown that over all the ESO is much
superior in dealing with uncertainties, disturbances and sensor noise. Several
diverse applications of ESO based control strategies have appeared in literature.
Control of induction motor drive [21], aircraft attitude control [22], hydraulic
position servo system [23], and torsional vibration control of main drive system of
a rolling mill [24] are some examples to mention.

11. Proportional Integral Observer (PIO)

In literature [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] we see copious results where simultaneous
state and disturbance observation is reported using proportional integral type of
observers. Most of these results are given for systems in which the UI is a
function of time and the intended application is fault diagnosis or fault tolerance.
It is seen from these results that it is the integral term that makes the estimation
of UI possible. Although, all these papers give the mathematical proof for the
convergence of error in estimation of UI to zero, but these treatments do not
appeal to explain as to why the integral term indeed gives an estimate of the UI.
Chang [16] proposed the discrete time PIO for a condition when the disturbance
input is constant for a MIMO system. The structure is firstly, discrete based and
hence requires an entirely different formulation for continuous implementation.
Secondly, the formulation fails when the disturbance is time varying, hence, is not
practical for implementation.

S-ar putea să vă placă și