Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Graduate School of Information Science and Electrical Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
(Tel: +81-92-802-3691; E-mail: see http://terra.ees.kyushu-u.ac.jp)
Abstract: This paper considers an implementation of model predictive controller for an electromechanical valve. At
each sampling time instants, the controller sends optimum control input to the system. In order to simplify the calculation process within controller, we solve the control input as algebraic calculation rather than two-point boundary value
problem. We also use a disturbance observer to provide information of armature valve velocity, and to improve EMV
robustness. The proposed control scheme is demonstrated on experimental testbed. The performance model predictive
controller with a disturbance observer is compared experimentally to model predictive controller with a regular full order
observer.
Keywords: Electromechanical valve train control, Optimal control, Robust control, Model Predictive Control, Automotive engine control.
1. INTRODUCTION
abling it to move at high speed. In open valve operation, the current of the at the right-side electromagnet is
stopped, which make armature moves to the left electromagnet by spring power. When armature moves close to
the left electromagnet, current ows this electromagnet,
so that pull control force is available. The closing valve
operation, the electromagnets system works conversely.
The springs are attached to make the armature balanced
at middle position. This motion of engine valve can be
use a conventional way by the application of voice coil.
However, the conventional way needs a large amount of
power, that will enlarge the size of engine valve.
The armature moves a short distance (9 mm) over a
short amount of time (3 msec or 4 msec). This short
amount of time is desirable in order to meet maximum
engine speeds of 5000 6000 rpm. Impact/collision velocity between armature to magnet surface also one of
big issue. Impact velocity should be controlled less than
0.1 m/s for maintaining acceptable engine acoustic noise
level, and ensuring valve seating and wear requirements
are met. However, there are many difculties of controlling EMV, some of them are follows:
1. Nonlinearity of electromagnet characteristic.
2. The push-pull control is not available from the electromagnets.
3. Magnetic force is only effective when the armature is
very close to the pulling / catching magnet.
4. The delay of response of electromagnet.
5. The valve should be open/closed within the desired
time in synchronization with the engine revolution.
6. Control input should be calculated over a short amount
of time.
In this paper we will implement Model Predictive
Controller (EMV) [6] to control laboratory-scale EMV
system. This approach is pioneer on the eld, in term of
controlling EMV by using the advantages of MPC control
strategy. This solution approach is quite challenging, because we have very short time control time to control the
EMV. The simplicity of control strategy is the important
- 3559 -
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Downloaded on April 19,2010 at 02:22:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1 tf 2
u (t)dt,
J=
2 t0
MPC
v
OBSERVER
z0
zf
, x(tf ) =
,
x(t0 ) =
z0
0
EMV
where z0 is the initial position of the armature, z0 is initial velocity, and zf is the desired position of armature at
terminal time.
The necessary condition of our optimal control problem are given in the following equation.
1 = k 2 ,
m
(3)
2 = 1 + c 2 ,
m
2
= 0,
(4)
u+
m
x = f.
1 and 2 are costate variables that can be found by
solving co-state equation (3), as the following.
1 = A1 e1 t + A2 e2 t ,
m
m
2 = 1 = (A1 1 e1 t + A2 2 e2 t ).
k
k
2. ELECTROMECHANICAL VALVE
MODEL
The mathematical model of the EMV system can be
represented as simple single mass-spring-damper system,
written in following equation.
m
z + cz + kz = u + d.
c + c2 4mk
c c2 4mk
1 =
, 2 =
.
2m
2m
(1)
0
z
x=
, A=
k
z
m
1
c
m
, B=
0
1
m
1
2
= (A1 1 e1 t + A2 2 e2 t ).
m
k
(5)
(2)
z = B1 e1 t + B2 e2 t + A1 e1 t + A2 e2 t .
3. CONTROLLER DESIGN
(6)
Here,
c2 4mk
.
2m
1 =
The expressions B1 and B2 are calculated later. The relation among A1 , A2 , A1 , and A2 are satised the follow.
c +
c2 4mk
,
2m
A1 =
2 =
1 A1
1
c
2
km 1 + m
1 +
A2 =
2 A2
1
c
km 22 + m
2 +
1
A1 ,
2kc
k
m
k
m
1
A2 .
2kc
- 3560 Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Downloaded on April 19,2010 at 02:22:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Parameter
Value
0.285
Kg
1330
N/m
1.6239
N sec/m
1.1 104
Larger
mm
3.900
mm
3.980
mm
3.59
1.3779
Final time
0.058075
sec
2
Smaller
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Time (sec)
0.035
0.04
0.045
sec
2.980
tf
4
0
Unit
0.05
= (A LC)
x
x + L(y y) + Bu,
C = [ 1 0 ].
T w = [ z0 z0 zf 0 ] .
The gain L is designed by using pole placement procedure. The real parts of closed loop poles should be designed large enough to make velocity estimation faster
than the response of the MPC.
Where,
T
w = [ B1 B2 A1 A2 ] ,
e1 t0
e2 t0
e1 t0
t
1 e 1 0 2 e 2 0 1 e1 t0
T =
e1 tf
e2 tf
e1 tf
1 tf
2 tf
1 e
2 e
1 e1 tf
with
e2 t0
2 e2 t0
.
e2 tf
2 e2 tf
= (A LC )
x
x + L (y y) + B u.
w = T 1 [ z0 z0 zf 0 ] .
Here,
A =
x
=
A
0
B
0
z z d
B =
B
0
C = [ C 0 ] ,
y = C x
.
MPC
3.2 Observer
We use an disturbance observer to obtain information
the velocity (z or v) of the EMV armature. We will use
two type observers, i.e., full order observer and disturbance observer.
DISTURBANCE
OBSERVER
u'
EMV
- 3561 Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Downloaded on April 19,2010 at 02:22:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
k1 i2
.
F =
2(x + k2 )2
5. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
The experiment setup is shown in Fig. (8). A realtime implementation of control law is coded in C by using dSPACE DS1104 control board. The experiment parameters are given in Table 1. Within sampling instants,
the control board reads armature position as analog in calculate the
put, give prediction of armature velocity (z),
MPC algorithm, and send the control input to EMV system. We xed tf as stated in Table 1. tf decided by using
simulation results to ensure optimal control command al-
3
x 10
5
Position(m)
Ideal tf
Too small tf
Too large tf
5
0
Velocity(m/sec)
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
5
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
Time(sec)
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.4
0.2
Force(N)
10
5
0
- 3562 Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Downloaded on April 19,2010 at 02:22:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Position Sensor
EMV System
Current Sensor
Audio Amplifier
Power Supply
DSpace System
Position sensor
3
9 mm
Pos. (m)
Armature
shaft
x 10
2.5
0
2.5
5
0
EMV armature
65 mm
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
Time (sec)
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
8
Pushing
magnet
Pulling
magnet
u (N)
Lower
spring
Vel. (m/sec)
Upper
spring
6
4
2
0
Input (A)
4
3
2
1
0
- 3563 Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Downloaded on April 19,2010 at 02:22:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
u (N)
Vel. (m/sec)
Pos. (m)
3
x 10
5
2.5
0
2.5
5
0
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
6
4
2
0
0
6
4
2
0
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
4
3
2
1
0
0
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.02
0.03
Time (sec)
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.0233
0.0584
No control
0.5098
6. CONCLUSION
Input (A)
d (N)
u (N)
0.01
Control method
REFERENCES
0.7
With disturbance observer
With full order observer
Without control
0.6
Velocity (m/sec)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.03
Time (sec)
0.04
0.05
0.06
Fig. 12 Experiment results comparison for impact velocities under various control conguration.
18
Mean Velocity = 0.0233 (m/sec)
16
Frequency (m/sec)
12
10
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
The EMV Armatures Impact Velocity (m/sec)
0.03
[1] T. Kawabe, Initial condition-adaptive Robust Control for a High-speed Magnetic Actuator, Control
Engineering Practice, vol. 11, no.6, pp. 675685,
2003.
[2] S. K. Chung, et. al, Flatness-Based Feedback Control of an Automotive Solenoid Valve, IEEE Journal
of Contr. Sys. Technology, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 394
401, 2007.
[3] K. Uchida, et. al, Sliding Mode Servo Control
for Electromagnetic Engine Valve, Proc. of SICEICASE Int. Joint Conf. 2006, pp. 36583663, 2006.
[4] M. Montanari, et. al, Control of Camless Engine
Electromechanical Actuator: Position Reconstruction and Dynamic Performance Analysis, IEEE
Trans. on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp.
299311, 2004.
[5] K. Yan, et. al, Modeling and Control of Electromechanical Valve Actuator, SAE 2002-01-1106, 2002.
[6] D. Q. Mayne, et. al,Constrained Model Predictive Control: Stability and Optimality, Automatica,
vol.36, no.6, pp. 790814, 2000.
[7] M. Mukai, et. al, A Model Predictive Control
Method for a High-speed Magnetic Actuator, Proc.
in Chinese Control Conference 2007, pp. 623626,
2007.
[8] M. Mukai, et. al, Output Feedback Model Predictive Control for a Electromechanical Valve Actuator, Proc. in SICE Annual Conf. 2007, pp. 1734
1738, 2007.
0.035
- 3564 Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Downloaded on April 19,2010 at 02:22:51 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.