Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220387268
Article in IEEETransactionsonAutomaticControl·February2011
DOI:10.1109/TAC.2010.2089379·Source:DBLP
CITATIONS
7
2authors,including:
71 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS
READS
31
AllcontentfollowingthispagewasuploadedbyQuanQuanon08March2014.
Theuserhasrequestedenhancementofthedownloadedfile.Allintextreferencesunderlinedinblueareaddedtotheoriginaldocument
andarelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.
1
A Filtered Repetitive Controller for a Class of Nonlinear Systems
Quan Quan and KaiYuan Cai
Abstract— In this note, a ﬁltered repetitive controller (FRC) is designed to compensate for periodic disturbances in a class of nonlinear systems. First, a new model of periodic disturbances is proposed. By this model, the FRC is designed and the resulting closedloop error dynamics are analyzed with the help of a LyapunovKrasovskii functional. Finally the method is applied to periodic disturbance rejection in a class of robotic manipulators. Compared with repetitive controllers, the FRC provides the ﬂexibility to choose ﬁlter parameters to achieve a tradeoff between tracking performance and stability. More importantly, FRC can deal with small input delay while the corresponding RC cannot.
Index Terms— Repetitive control, nonlinear systems, robotic manipulator, additive decomposition.
I. INTRODUCTION
Repetitive control (RC) is an internalmodelbased control
approach in which the inﬁnitedimensional internal model
1
_{−}_{s}_{T} gives rise to an inﬁnite number of poles on the imagi nary axis. It was proved in [1] that, for a class of general linear plants, exponential stability of RC systems could be achieved only when the plant is proper but not strictly proper. Moreover,
1−e
_{−}_{s}_{T} may destabilize the system. To
the internal model
enhance stability, a suitable ﬁlter is introduced as shown in
Fig. 1, forming a ﬁltered repetitive controller ^{1} (FRC, or ﬁltered repetitive control, also designated FRC) in which the loop gain
is reduced at high frequencies. Stability results only with some
sacriﬁce of high frequency performance. With appropriate design, however, an FRC can often achieve an acceptable tradeoff between tracking performance and stability, a tradeoff which broadens the application of RC in practice.
In fact, RC can also be considered as a special case of FRC with an allpass ﬁlter. In the past two decades or more, FRC for linear timeinvariant systems has reached maturity [2]–[4]. There has been little research, however, on RC, let alone FRC,
for nonlinear systems. This is the initial objective of this note.
A linear RC system is a neutral type system in a critical case
[5],[6]. The characteristic equation of the neutral type system has an inﬁnite sequence of roots with negative real parts
approaching zero, i.e. sup{Re s F (s) = 0 } = 0 where F (s)
is the characteristic equation. This implies that a sufﬁciently
small uncertainty may lead to sup{Re s F (s) = 0 } > 0.
It is proved that a linear RC system will lose its stability
when subject to an input delay no matter how small the delay is (see Appendix A). Therefore, the stability of RC
1
1−e
This work was supported by the 973 Program (2010CB327904), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (60904066), and the Innovation Foundation of BUAA for PhD Graduates. The authors are with National Key Laboratory of Science and Tech nology on Holistic Control, Department of Automatic Control, Bei jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100191, China (qq buaa@asee.buaa.edu.cn; kycai@buaa.edu.cn)
^{1} In this note we have replaced the term “modiﬁed” in [1] with the more descriptive term “ﬁltered”.
E
E
(a) Repetitive Controller
Q s : a suitable filter
(b) Filtered Repetitive Controller
Fig. 1. A suitable ﬁlter Q(s) is introduced into a repetitive controller to form an FRC
systems is insufﬁciently robust. On the other hand, with a
lowpass ﬁlter, an FRC system is a retarded type system. For
a stable FRC system, we have sup{Re s F (s) = 0 } < 0.
Continuity arguments would suggest that for a sufﬁciently small uncertainty, the FRC system is still stable. Therefore,
it is expected that, with a lowpass ﬁlter, a nonlinear FRC
system with a small input delay is still stable. This is our second objective.
To achieve the two objectives we must analyze the tracking performance of a closedloop system composed of an FRC and a nonlinear plant. The theory of FRC proposed in [1]
is derived in the frequency domain and can be applied only
with difﬁculty, if at all, to nonlinear systems. For this reason, tracking performance needs to be analyzed in the time domain. The contributions of this note are: 1) a method to design
and analyze an FRC for a class of nonlinear systems; 2) the ability of our FRC to cope with small input delay; and, 3) a tradeoff achieved by tuning ﬁlter parameters between tracking performance and stability. We use the following notation. R ^{n} is Euclidean space of dimension n and R ^{+} denotes the space of nonnegative reals in R. · denotes the Euclidean vector norm or induced matrix norm. C ([−T, 0] ; R ^{n} ) denotes the space of contin uous ndimensional vector functions on [−T, 0] . x _{t} _{c}
θ∈[−T,0] x (t + θ) , where
[−T, 0] . C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{m} ) is the space of nthorder contin uously differentiable functions g : [0, ∞) → R ^{m} which are T periodic, i.e. g (t + T ) = g (t) . λ _{m}_{i}_{n} (X) and λ _{m}_{a}_{x} (X) denote the minimum and maximum eigenvalues respectively of a positive semideﬁnite matrix X. I _{n} is the identity matrix with dimension n.
sup
x _{t}
x _{t} (θ)
=
x (t + θ) ,
θ
∈
n
II. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND A NEW MODEL OF
PERIODIC SIGNALS
A. Problem Formulation
To illustrate the generality of FRC, we consider the follow ing error dynamics examined in [7],[8]:
e˙ (t) = f (t, e (t)) + b (t, e (t)) [v (t) − vˆ (t)] .
(1)
2
Here e (t) ∈ R ^{n} is a tracking error vector, v (t) ∈ R ^{m} is a disturbance, vˆ (t) ∈ R ^{m} is a signal designed to compensate for v (t) . For simplicity, we set the initial time t _{0} = 0. Throughout this note, we assume the following for the system (1). Assumption 1[7],[8]: The functions f : [0, ∞) × R ^{n} → R ^{n} and b : [0, ∞) × R ^{n} → R ^{n}^{×}^{m} are bounded when e (t) is bounded on R ^{+} . Moreover, there exists a differentiable function V _{0} : [0, ∞)×R ^{n} → [0, ∞) , a positive deﬁnite matrix M (t) = M ^{T} (t) ∈ R ^{n}^{×}^{n} with 0 < λ _{M} I _{n} < M (t) and a matrix R (t) ∈ R ^{n}^{×}^{m} such that
V _{0} (t,e (t)) 
≥ c _{0} e (t) ^{2} 
(2) 

˙ V _{0} (t,e (t)) ≤ −e ^{T} (t) M (t) e (t) 

+ e ^{T} (t) R (t) [v (t) − vˆ (t)] 
(3) 

where c _{0} > 0. Assumption 
2: 
The 
disturbance 
v 
satisﬁes 
v 
∈ 
0
C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{m} ).
Under Assumptions 12, our objective is to design a single
FRC with the following two properties: 1) with certain ﬁlter
_{t}_{→}_{∞} e (t) = 0; 2) with another set of appropriate
ﬁlter parameters, for any value of e (0), e (t) is uniformly ultimately bounded (for the deﬁnition see Deﬁnition 1 below), and the FRC can cope with small input delay.
parameters, lim
B. A New Model of Periodic Signals
A new model to describe periodic signals is proposed. In
order to show the difference, the usual model of periodic signals is given ﬁrst. Any v ∈ C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{m} ) can be
generated by the model [1]
0
x 
(t) 
= x (t − T) 

v 
(t) 
= x (t) 

x 
(θ) = v 
(T + θ) , θ ∈ [−T, 0] 
(4) 
where t ∈ R ^{+} and x (t) ∈ R ^{m} is the state. By the internal model principle [9], it is expected that asymptotic rejection of
a periodic disturbance can be achieved by incorporating the
above model (4), i.e.
into the closedloop system. This is also the basic idea of RC
[1].
new model to describe v ∈ C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{m} ), which
will help in design of the FRC for the nonlinear system (1),
is given in Lemma 1.
Lemma 1: If A _{0}_{,} _{} > 0 and A _{1}_{,} _{} < 1, then for any v ∈ C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{m} ) there exists a signal δ ∈ C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{m} ) such that
_{−}_{s}_{T} I _{m} (the transfer function of (4)),
1
1−e
A
0
0
0
A _{0}_{,} _{} x˙ _{p} (t) 
= 
−x _{p} (t) + A _{1}_{,} _{} x _{p} (t − T) + δ (t) 
v (t) 
= 
x _{p} (t) + δ (t) 
x _{p} (θ) = v (T + θ) , θ ∈ [−T, 0] 
(5) 

where A _{0}_{,} _{} , A _{1}_{,} _{} ∈ R ^{m}^{×}^{m} . If A _{0}_{,} _{} 
= 
0 
and A _{1}_{,} _{} 
= 
I _{m} , 
0
then any v ∈ C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{m} ) can be generated by (5) with δ (t) ≡ 0.
Proof: See Appendix B.
Example 1: Let A _{0}_{,} _{} = I _{m} and A _{1}_{,} _{} = (1 − α) I _{m} . Then (5) becomes
x˙ _{p} (t) 
= 
−x _{p} (t) + (1 − α) x _{p} (t − T) + δ (t) 
v (t) 
= 
x _{p} (t) + δ (t) 
(6)
The system (6) is a retarded system driven by a bounded external signal δ (t) , t ∈ [0, ∞). We examine the bound on δ (t) by the frequency response method. By (6), the Laplace transform from v (s) to δ (s) is deﬁned by
δ (s) = G (s) v (s)
where δ (s) and v (s) are the Laplace transforms of δ (t) and
v (t), respectively; here G (s) =
_{)} . The
x _{p} (θ) = v (T + θ) , θ ∈ [−T, 0] .
1+ s−(1− α) exp(−sT ) 2+ s−(1− α) exp(−sT
frequency responses of G (s) with T = 2π and = 0.01, 0.001 are shown in Fig.2.
Fig. 2.
Frequency responses of G (s)
As shown in Fig.2, G (s) has a comb shape with notches matching the frequencies of the periodic signal v (t) , t ∈
[0, ∞). This makes the frequency response of G (s) close to 0 at k, k = 0, 1, 2, · · · . As the parameter decreases, the periodic components, especially in the low frequency band,
will be attenuated by G (s) more strongly. Since the low frequency band is dominant in most periodic signals, this will result in a smaller upper bound on δ (t) . In particular, if = 0, then δ (t) ≡ 0 by Lemma 1.
III. CONTROLLER DESIGN AND STABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Controller Design
According to (5), to compensate for the disturbance v (t) , the FRC is designed as
(7)
with vˆ (θ) = 0, for θ ∈ [−T, 0] , where t ∈ R ^{+} , A _{0}_{,} _{} , A _{1}_{,} _{} ∈ R ^{m}^{×}^{m} , k _{e} ∈ R ^{+} , and R (t) is as in (3). The FRC (7) can be considered not only as a repetitive controller, but also as a “modiﬁed” repetitive controller as described in [1].
A 0,
vˆ(t) ˙ = −vˆ(t) + A _{1}_{,} _{} vˆ(t − T) + k _{e} R ^{T} (t) e (t)
3
1)
In particular, the controller (7) with A _{0}_{,} _{} = 0 and A _{1}_{,} _{} = I _{m} reduces to
(8)
Therefore, the controller (7) with A _{0}_{,} _{} = 0 is a repetitive controller.
and
respectively.
k _{e} R ^{T} (t) e (t) ,
vˆ(t) = vˆ(t − T) + k _{e} R ^{T}
the
Laplace
transforms
by
vˆ (s)
and
(t) e (t)
of
r _{e} (s)
2) Denote
vˆ (t)
Then the 
Laplace transform 
from r _{e} (s) 
to 
vˆ (s) 
is 
deﬁned by 
vˆ(s) = ^{} 1 − Q (s) e ^{−}^{s}^{T} ^{} ^{−}^{1} B (s) r _{e} (s) .
(9)
Here Q (s) = (sA _{0}_{,} _{} + I) ^{−}^{1} A _{1}_{,} _{} is called the Qﬁlter
in [1] and B (s) = (sA _{0}_{,} _{} + I) ^{−}^{1} . This controller is therefore a “modiﬁed repetitive controller” in the sense of [1].
Subtracting (7) from (5) yields
˙
A 0,
v˜(t) = −v˜(t) + A _{1}_{,} _{} v˜(t − T)
(10)
where v˜ x _{p} − v.ˆ In (10), the initial condition on v˜ is bounded. We do not concern ourselves with the concrete value of the initial condition as the following results hold globally. Combining (1) and (10) yields a closedloop error dynamics in the form
Ez˙ (t) = f _{a} (t, z (t)) + f _{d} (z (t − T )) + b _{a} (t, z (t)) σ (t) .
(11)
Here
− k _{e} R ^{T} (t) e (t) + δ (t)
z =
f _{a} (t, z (t)) =
f _{d} (z (t − T ))
=
E =
b _{a} (t, z (t)) =
^{v}^{˜}
e
∈ R ^{m}^{+}^{n} , σ =
δ
0 n×1
^{∈} ^{R} m+n ^{,}
(t, e (t)) + b (t, e (t)) v˜ (t) ^{∈} ^{R} ^{m}^{+}^{n} ^{,}
−v˜(t) − k _{e} R ^{T} (t) e (t)
f
^{A} ^{1}^{,} ^{} ^{v}^{˜}^{(}^{t} ^{−} ^{T}^{)}
0
A 0, 0 n×m
I m
0 _{n}_{×}_{m}
∈ R ^{m}^{+}^{n} ,
n×1
0 m×n
I n
0 m×m
b (t, e
_{∈} _{R} (m+n)×(m+n) _{,}
(t)) ^{} _{∈} _{R} (m+n)×2m _{.}
Remark 1: The closedloop error dynamics (11) is a retarded type system if A _{0}_{,} _{} is nonsingular; whereas it will become a neutral type system if A _{0}_{,} _{} = 0.
B. Stability Analysis
The closedloop error dynamics (11) will be analyzed with the help of a LyapunovKrasovskii functional, with the results stated in Theorem 1 below. The following preliminary result is needed.
Deﬁnition 1[10]: A solution z (t, z _{t} _{0} ) of (11) with z _{t} _{0} ∈ C ([−T, 0] ; R ^{n} ) is said to be ultimately bounded with bound
, uniformly with respect to t ≥ 0, if for each δ
exists T ^{}
when z _{t} _{0} _{c} < δ, then z (t, z _{t} _{0} ) ≤ for all t ≥ t _{0} + T ^{} .
> 0 there 0 such that,
= T ^{} ( , δ)
> 0 independent of t _{0}
≥
Lemma 2[10]: Assume that there exists a continuously differentiable functional V (t, z _{t} ) : [0, ∞)×C ([−T, 0] ; R ^{n} ) → [0, ∞) such that
γ _{1} z (t) ^{2}
t
≤ V (t, z _{t} ) ≤ γ _{2} z (t) ^{2} + t−T z (s) ^{2} ds
(12)
where γ _{1} , γ _{2} are positive real numbers. If there exists b ∈ R ^{+} such that
(13)
V ˙ (t, z _{t} ) ≤ −γ _{3} z (t) ^{2} + b
where γ _{3} is a positive real number, then the solutions of (11) are uniformly ultimately bounded with respect to the
bound
_{γ} _{3} (γ _{2} + T ), where µ is an arbitrarily small
positive real number.
(1 + µ)
γ
1
^{b}
With the help of Lemma 2, we have
Theorem 1: For the error dynamics (1), suppose Assump
in
^{0}
then
1,
and if V _{0} (t,e) in (2) further satisﬁes V _{0} (t,e)
with c _{1}
ultimately bounded. Proof: For (11), choose the nonnegative function V (t, z _{t} ) to be
> 0, then, for any value of e (0), e (t) is uniformly
c _{1} e (t) ^{2}
which the parameters satisfy k _{e}
and A _{1}_{,} _{}
_{t}_{→}_{∞} e (t) =
tions 12 hold, and
= I − αA _{0}_{,} _{} .
lim
0;
2)
if
vˆ (t) is generated
We claim
A _{0}_{,} _{}
>
0,
>
0,
that 1)
α
by
the FRC (7)
A _{0}_{,} _{}
if
= A ^{T}
0,
A _{0}_{,} _{}
= 0,
^{≥}
ensures A _{1}_{,} _{}
≤
<
V (t, z _{t} ) = 2k _{e} V _{0} (t, e (t))
t
+ v˜ ^{T} (t) A _{0}_{,} _{} v˜(t) + t−T v˜ ^{T} (s) v˜ (s) ds
(14)
where V _{0} satisﬁes Assumption 2 and A _{0}_{,} _{} = A ^{T} _{0}_{,} _{} ≥ 0. Under
Assumption 2, taking the time derivative V (t, z _{t} ) along (11)
yields
˙
V (t, z _{t} ) ≤ −2k _{e} e ^{T} (t) M (t) e (t)
+ v˜ ^{T} (t) Hv˜ (t) + g (t) + 2˜v ^{T} (t) δ (t)
where
H = −I _{m} + A ^{T}
1, ^{A} 1,
g (t) = −v˜ ^{T} (t) A _{1}_{,} ^{T} _{} A _{1}_{,} _{} v˜ (t) + 2˜v ^{T} (t)
− v˜ ^{T} (t − T) v˜(t − T) .
A _{1}_{,} ^{T} _{} v˜(t − T)
(15)
Under Assumptions 12, using the fact that g (t) ≤ 0, we obtain
V (t, z _{t} ) ≤ −2k _{e} e ^{T} (t) M (t) e (t) + v˜ ^{T} (t) Hv˜(t)
(16)
Based on the results above, conclusions 1) and 2) will be proved in detail in the Appendix C.
˙
+ 2 v˜ (t) δ (t) .
IV. ROBOTIC MANIPULATOR TRACKING
To show its effectiveness, we apply the proposed controller design to the tracking problem for a class of robotic manipu lators. The latter are described by
D (q (t)) q¨(t) + C (q (t) , q˙ (t)) q˙ (t)
+ G (q (t)) + τ _{d} (t) = τ (t)
(17)
4
where 
q (t) 
∈ 
R ^{n} 
is 
the vector of generalized coordi 

nates, τ (t) 
∈ 
R ^{n} 
is 
the vector of 
input torques, τ _{d} 
∈ 
C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{n} ) is the vector of T periodic disturbances, D (q (t)) ∈ R ^{n}^{×}^{n} is the symmetric inertia matrix satisfying
0
C (q (t) , q˙ (t)) ∈ R ^{n}^{×}^{n} is the centripetalCoriolis matrix, and
G (q (t)) ∈ R ^{n} is the gravity vector.
∈ R ^{+} ,
0
<
λ _{D} I _{n}
≤
D (q (t))
≤
¯
λ _{D} I _{n}
<
∞ for
t
A. Error Dynamics
In this section, the tracking problem will ﬁrst be converted into error dynamics as in (1). Deﬁne the ﬁltered tracking error as in [11]:
e (t) = q˜(t) + q˜(t)
where q˜(t) = q _{d} (t) − q (t) and q _{d} (t) is a desired trajectory. Our control design is based on the fact that the parameters appear linearly in the robot dynamics (17). For convenience of control synthesis, the linearintheparameters property [11] is written as [12]–[14]:
˙
D (q (t)) q¨ _{e} (t) + 
C (q 
(t) , q˙ (t)) q˙ _{e} (t) 

+ 
G (q 
(t)) = Ψ (q, q,˙ q˙ _{e} , q¨ _{e} , t) p 
(18) 
˙
where q˙ _{e} (t) = q˙ _{d} (t)+˜q (t) and q¨ _{e} (t) = q¨ _{d} (t)+ q˜(t) , p ∈ R ^{m}
is the vector of constant parameters, and Ψ (q, q,˙ q˙ _{e} , q¨ _{e} , t) ∈ R ^{n}^{×}^{m} , denoted by Ψ (t) for brevity. Design τ (t) according to
τ (t) = M (t) e (t) + Ψ(t) pˆ(t) + τˆ _{d} (t) . (19)
Here M (t) ∈ R ^{n}^{×}^{n} is a positive deﬁnite matrix, pˆ(t) is the designer’s estimate of p, and τˆ _{d} (t) ∈ R ^{n} is the designer’s estimate of τ _{d} (t) . By employing (18) and (19), the ﬁltered error dynamics are obtained as follows
D (q (t)) e˙ (t) + C (q (t) , q˙ (t)) e (t)
= −M (t) e (t) + Ψ (t) [p − pˆ(t)] + [τ _{d} (t) − τˆ _{d} (t)] .
Furthermore, the system above can be written in the form of (1) with
f
b
(t, e (t)) = (t, e (t)) = D ^{−}^{1} (q (t)) ^{} Ψ(t)
−D ^{−}^{1} (q (t)) [C (q (t) , q˙ (t)) + M (t) e (t)]
I _{n} ^{}
v (t) =
p
τ
d
_{(}_{t}_{)}
, vˆ(t) =
pˆ(t)
τˆ _{d}
_{(}_{t}_{)}
.
(20)
B. Veriﬁcation of Assumptions
Deﬁne the positive deﬁnite function
V _{0} (t,e (t)) =
1
_{2} e ^{T} (t) D (q (t)) e (t) .
Then
c _{0} e (t) ^{2} ≤ V _{0} (t,e (t)) ≤ c _{1} e (t) ^{2} ,
^{1} λ _{D} are positive reals. By
the
time derivative of V _{0} (t,e) along (1) with (20) is evaluated as (3) with R (t) = ^{} Ψ(t) I _{n} ^{} . Therefore, Assumption 1 is satisﬁed. Since p is a vector of constant parameters and
skewsymmetry of matrix
where c _{0}
=
1
_{2} λ _{D}
and c _{1}
=
˙
2
¯
D (q (t)) − 2C (q (t) , q˙ (t)) ,
τ _{d} (t) is the vector of T periodic disturbances, v (t) in (20) satisﬁes v ∈ C _{P}_{T} ([0, ∞) ; R ^{n}^{+}^{m} ). Therefore, Assumption 2 is
satisﬁed.
0
C. Numerical Simulation
The robot, the initial condition and tracking task used
for this
disturbance is
example are the same as in [11]. We assume the
τ _{d} (t) =
0.5 ^{} 1 − cos ^{} ^{2}^{π}^{t}
0.5 sin ^{} ^{2}^{π}^{t} t ^{} 0.5 ^{} cos ^{} ^{2}^{π}^{t} ^{} − 1 ^{}
3
3
3
which is unknown for the controller design except for the fact that τ _{d} ∈ C _{P}_{T} ^{} [0, ∞) ; R ^{3} ^{} . According to the dynamics in [11], we obtain the expressions:
0
p = ^{}
Ψ =
J p
q¨ e,1
0
0
l 2
l 3 ^{} ^{T}
0
q¨ _{e}_{,}_{2} + g
0
^{q}
2
3
q¨ e,1 + q 3 q˙ 3 q˙ e,1
+q _{3} q˙ _{1} q˙ _{e}_{,}_{3}
q¨ _{e}_{,}_{2} + g q¨ _{e}_{,}_{3} − q _{3} q˙ _{1} q˙ _{e}_{,}_{1}
^{.}
9.8
m ^{2} /s and x _{j} denote the jth element in the vector x, x = {q, q,˙ q˙ _{e} , q¨ _{e} } . The parameters J _{p} , l _{2} , l _{3} are assumed unknown for the controller design.
Here J _{p} = 0.8 kg/m ^{2} , l _{2}
=
2
m,
l _{3}
=
1
m,
g
=
In (19), choose M (t) to be M (t) ≡ 10I _{3} and design vˆ (t)
as (7) with k _{e} = 1, A _{0}_{,} _{} = I _{3} and A _{1}_{,} _{} = (1 − 0.0001 ) I _{3} . For tracking performance comparison, we introduce the per
t∈[(k−1)T,kT ] q˜(t) , where k =
1, 2, ··· . 1) Without Input delay: If = 0, then these parameters above satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1. As seen in Fig.3, the performance index J _{k} approaches 0 as k increases. It implies that q˜(t) approaches 0 as t → ∞. This result is consistent with conclusion 1) in Theorem 1. If = 2, 1, 0.5, then the chosen parameters satisfy the conditions of Theorem 1. As seen in Fig.3, the performance index J _{k} is bounded. This result is consistent with conclusion 2) in Theorem 1.
formance index as J _{k} =
sup
Fig. 3.
Tracking performance with different
As seen in Fig.3, the tracking performance improves as decreases. This is consistent with the conclusion for linear
5
systems that, recalling (9), as the bandwidth of Q (s) = I _{3} increases, i.e. decreases, the tracking performance
improves, and vice versa [1],[4]. 2) With Input delay: Consider the robotic manipulator with an input delay as follows:
1−2
s+1
D (q (t)) q¨(t) + C (q (t) , q˙ (t)) q˙ (t)
+ G (q (t)) + τ _{d} (t) = τ
(t − d _{ε} )
where d _{ε} > 0 is the input delay. The controllers are designed as above. When RC is adopted ( = 0) and d _{ε} = 0.001s, it is observed from Fig.4 that a state of the closedloop system diverges at about 30s. This conﬁrms that the stability of RC systems is insufﬁciently robust. Using the FRC with = 0.5 and prolonging the input delay from d _{ε} = 0.001s to d _{ε} = 0.01s, it is observed from Fig.4 that the closedloop system can still track the desired trajectory. This shows that an FRC system is more robust than its corresponding RC system.
Fig. 4.
dotted–desired trajectory]
Time response of q _{d}_{,}_{3} (t) and q _{3} (t) with input delay. [solid–response,
Remark 2: From the simulations, the FRC provides the ﬂexibility to choose ﬁlter parameters to achieve a tradeoff between tracking performance and stability. More importantly, it is shown that FRC is effective because input delay exists widely in practice.
V.
C ONCLUSIONS
Compared with existing repetitive controllers, the FRC provides ﬂexibility to choose different ﬁlter parameters such as A _{0}_{,} _{} to satisfy performance requirements and tolerate some small uncertainties, such as input delay. If a periodic distur bance is present, then the proposed controller with A _{0}_{,} _{} = 0 causes the tracking error to approach 0 as t → ∞. In order to demonstrate its effectiveness, the proposed method is applied to periodic disturbance rejection in a class of robotic manipulators. Simulation data show that a tradeoff between tracking performance and stability can be achieved by tuning the ﬁlter parameters. Furthermore, simulation data show that
FRC can deal with small input delay while the corresponding RC cannot, which demonstrates the effectiveness of FRC.
APPENDIX
A. RC Systems with an Input Delay
Consider the following simple RC system:
x˙ 
(t) 
= 
−x (t) + u (t) 

u 
(t) = u (t − T ) − x (t) 
(21) 
where x (t) , u (t) written as
∈ R. The RC system above can be also
x˙ (t) − x (t − T ) = −2x (t) + x (t − T ) .
(22)
From [6], the system above is asymptotically stable. In the following, we claim that the RC system (21) with an input delay τ _{ε} > 0, namely
x˙ 
(t) 
= 
−x (t) + u (t − τ _{ε} ) 

u 
(t) = u (t − T ) − x (t) 
(23) 
will lose its stability no matter how small τ _{ε} is.
For simplicity, let τ _{ε} =
_{2}_{N} T , where N is a positive integer.
The characteristic equation of (23) is
1 − e ^{−}^{T}^{s} = −e ^{−}
T
2N ^{s}
^{1}
_{s} _{+} _{1} .
(24)
From [15, p. 28, Lemma 7.1], the roots of (24) will approach
j as k → ∞. Therefore, if k is sufﬁciently large, then a
root of (24) is
_{±} 2kπ
T
_{s} _{∗} _{=} 2kπ
T
j + α _{ε} + β _{ε} j
with sufﬁciently small α _{ε} , β _{ε} ∈ R. Setting k = 2N k ^{} + N, where k ^{} is a positive integer, and substituting s ^{∗} into (24) results in
1 − e ^{−}^{T}^{α} ^{ε} (cos (T β _{ε} ) − j sin (T β _{ε} ))
= e ^{−}
_{2}_{N} _{α} _{ε} cos ^{} _{2}_{N} β _{ε} ^{} − j sin ^{}
T
T
T
2N ^{β} ^{ε}
2kπ
T
j + α _{ε} + β _{ε} j + 1
^{.}
Setting k ^{} to be large enough, and then neglecting the higher order inﬁnitesimal, we have
1 − e ^{−}^{T}^{α} ^{ε} cos (T β _{ε} ) ≈ e ^{−}
_{2}_{N} _{α} _{ε} 1 − sin ^{}
T
2N _{β} ε ^{} 2kπ
T
T
^{} 2kπ
T
2
e ^{−}^{T}^{α} ^{ε} sin (T β _{ε} ) ≈ − ^{e} ^{−}
T 2N ^{α} ^{ε}
2kπ
T
.
Furthermore, we can obtain
α _{ε} ≈
T (N + 1)
2N (2kπ) ^{2} ^{.}
Therefore, we can conclude α _{ε} > 0. This implies the RC system (21) with an input delay τ _{ε} > 0 is unstable no matter how small τ _{ε} is (or how large N is).
6
B. Proof of Lemma 1
Let (4) be the original system. To apply Additive Decom position[16], choose the primary system as follows:
A _{0}_{,} _{} x˙ _{p} (t) 
= 
−x _{p} (t) + A _{1}_{,} _{} x _{p} (t − T) + δ (t) 

x _{p} (θ) 
= v (T + θ) , θ ∈ [−T, 0] 
(25) 
where A _{0}_{,} _{} , A _{1}_{,} _{} ∈ R ^{n}^{×}^{n} , δ (t) ∈ R ^{n} . From the original system (4) and the primary system (25), the secondary system is determined by Additive Decomposition[16]:
−A _{0}_{,} _{} x˙ _{p} (t) =
−x _{s} (t) + x _{s} (t − T)
+ (I − A _{1}_{,} _{} ) x _{p} (t − T) − δ (t)
x _{s} (θ) = 0, θ ∈ [−T, 0] .
(26)
x (t) = x
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.