HAN’s ACTIVE

DISTURBANCE
REJECTION CONTROL
(ADRC)
-AN ANALYSIS
ADRC
 INTRODUCTION
 PID CONTROL
 ADRC
◦ TRANSIENT TRAJECTORY GENERATION
◦ NOISE TOLERANT DIFFERENTIATION
◦ NON LINEAR FEEDBACK
◦ TOTAL DISTURBANCE ESTIMATION AND
REJECTION
 STABILITY ANALYSIS
 APPLICATIONS OF ADRC
 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
 CONCLUSION



ADRC
 PASSIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL
◦ Deals with disturbance (internal and external) as
one of the design issues.
◦
 ACTIVE DISTURBANCE REJECTION CONTROL
◦ The disturbances which are mostly external are
estimated by using an observer and thus can
be canceled out thus making the control
design disturbance free.
◦
ADRC
 WHY ADRC?
◦ LIKE PID CONTROL, THE CONTROL LAW IS BASED
ON ERROR AND NOT ON MODEL
◦ IT IS BASED ON STATE OBSERVER, AN EFFICIENT
STRATEGY WHICH IS THE OUTCOME OF
MODERN CONTROL APPROACH
◦ IT USES NON-LINEAR FEEDBACK THUS
ENHANCING PERFORMANCE
◦ IT IS WELL SUITED TO DIGITAL COMPUTER
TECHNOLOGY BASED APPLICATIONS AND IS AN
OUTCOME OF EXPERIMENTAL DIGITAL
SIMULATIONS
PID CONTROL
 DATES BACK TO 1920s
 IT IS DOMINANT IN INDUSTRIAL
APPLICATIONS EVEN TODAY
 SIMPLICITY IS A MERIT
 NOT ABLE TO MEET DEMANDS OF MODERN
INDUSTRY IN TERMS OF
◦ EFFICIENCY
◦ LACK AND COST OF SKILLED LABOUR
◦ DUE TO SIMPLICITY DOES NOT TAKE FULL
ADVANTAGE OF MODERN DAY POWERFUL
DIGITAL PROCESSORS
DISADVANTAGES OF PID
CONTROLLERS
 ERROR COMPUTATION IS A CUMBERSOME
PROCESS FOR INPUT OTHER THAN STEP
SIGNAL.
 NOISE GETS AMPLIFIED DUE TO DERIVATIVE
CONTROL.
 THE CONTROL LAW IS IN THE FORM OF A
LINEAR WEIGHTED SUM REQUIRING OVER-
SIMPLIFICATION AND THUS LOSS OF
PERFORMANCE.
 INTEGRAL CONTROL MAY LEAD TO
COMPLICATIONS OF SATURATION AND
REDUCED STABILITY AMRGIN DUE TO
INTRODUCTION OF PHASE LAG.

ADRC
 TO OVERCOME THE DISADVANTAGES OF
PID CONTROLLERS, ADRC IS
PROPOSED WHICH CONSISTS OF FOUR
STEPS
◦ A SIMPLE DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION IS USED
AS A TRANSIENT TRAJECTORY GENERATOR
◦ THE DIFFERENTIATOR IS DESIGNED TO BE
NOISE TOLERANT
◦ NON LINEAR CONTROL LAWS ARE USED
FOR FEEDBACK
◦ TOTAL DISTURBANCE ESTIMATION AND
REJECTION CONCEPT IS USED
HISTORY OF ADRC
 FIRST SYSTEMATICALLY INTRODUCED IN
2001 [8]
 FURTHER ELABORATED IN [9]
 PRACTICAL APPLICATION IN [11,12][13]
 EQUIVALENT INPUT DISTURBANCE [14] AND
DISTURBANCE INPUT COUPLING [15] ARE
SPECIAL CASES OF ADRC WHERE ONLY
EXTERNAL DISTURBANCE IS CONSIDERED
TRANSIENT TRAJECTORY GENERATION

 FOR A DYNAMICAL SYSTEM, STEP INPUT MAY

NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE OUTPUT TO
TRACK DUE TO ITS SUDDEN JUMP
 INPUT WITH TRANSIENT PROFILE REQUIRED

TRANSIENT TRAJECTORY
GENERATION
 FOR EXAMPLE, THE DOUBLE INTEGRAL
PLANT
 ẋ1 =x2

 ẋ2 =u
 IF |u|≤ r AND v IS THE DESIRED VALUE OF
x1, THEN THE TIME OPTIMAL SOLUTION IS
 u = −r sign(x1 − v + ((x2|x2|)/2r))
TRANSIENT TRAJECTORY
GENERATION
 THUS THE DESIRED PROFILE CAN BE
CHOSEN AS
 v̇1 =v2

 v̇2 = −r sign(v1 − v + ((v2|v2|)/2r))

 THE PARAMETER r CAN BE CHANGED TO
SPEED UP OR SLOW THE PROFILE

NOISE TOLERANT
DIFFERENTIATION
 IN PID CONTROL, DIFFERENTIATION IS
OBTAINED BY THE LAPLACE OPERATOR AS
IN
NOISE TOLERANT
DIFFERENTIATION

 This can be rewritten as




 The time domain solution is obtained by
inverse Laplace Transform operation as


 This can be approximated as

NOISE TOLERANT
DIFFERENTIATION
 Thus, if v(t) contains noise of the form n(t),
y(t) will contain the noise term.

 Since τ is small, this term will amount to
amplification of n(t).

 The amplification of noise in PID control is
undesirable.
NOISE TOLERANT
DIFFERENTIATION
 A different form of Laplace operator for
differentiation is proposed by Han.
 The approximation



 is used.
NOISE TOLERANT
DIFFERENTIATION
 A particular second approximation of a
differentiator is given by
 Or

 Defining r=1/τ, and carrying out inverse
Laplace Transform on above equation gives



 Where y(t) tracks v(t), tracks , and r
determines the speed.

NOISE TOLERANT
DIFFERENTIATION
 Consider that v(t) is the input signal to be
differentiated. Then the previous equation
can be expressed as



 This gives the fastest tracking of v(t) and its
derivative subject to an acceleration limit
in the form of r. The above equation is
denoted as “tracking differentiator”.

NON LINEAR FEEDBACK
 The PID controller employs a linear feedback
which is a combination of present, past
and future samples of the tracking error, e.

 However with this form, the tracking error
approaches zero or converges to origin
with infinite time.
NON LINEAR FEEDBACK
 A non-linear feedback of the form


 is proposed by Han which has the following
advantages:-
NON LINEAR FEEDBACK
 The tracking error can approach zero in finite
time and much more quickly by the choice of
α<1.
 Another advantage of this selection of α is that
the steady state error reduces significantly
without having to resort to integral feedback.
 Thus the disadvantages of integral control can
be avoided.
 An extreme case is when α=0, which is
equivalent to bang-bang control that ensures
zero steady state error without requirement of
integral control term in PID.

TOTAL DISTURBANCE
ESTIMATION AND REJECTION
 Consider the single-input-single-output
(SISO) second order plant represented by
the state equation

TOTAL DISTURBANCE
ESTIMATION AND REJECTION
 To ensure that y tracks the input, the
control, u, is chosen such that it
overcomes the multivariable function f(x1,
x2, w(t), t) in feedback control
architecture.
 Hence the above function can be denoted as


 F(t) is called the “total disturbance”.


TOTAL DISTURBANCE
ESTIMATION AND REJECTION
 F(t) can be treated as an additional state
variable, x3. Thus denoting G(t)=Ḟ(t), the
second order plant can be represented by
a new set of state equations given by

TOTAL DISTURBANCE
ESTIMATION AND REJECTION
 The above plant is observable and hence an
extended state observer (ESO) can be
constructed by defining the tracking error
to be of the form e=z1-y as follows:-




 The gains β01 , β02 and β03 are selected such
that the tracking error, e, approaches zero
in finite time.

TOTAL DISTURBANCE
ESTIMATION AND REJECTION
 It can be shown that by choosing the control law as

 The second order plant reduces to the following set
of equations:-



 This cascaded integral form can be easily controlled
by making u0 as function of the tracking error and
its derivative i.e., a PD controller. Thus the control
problem is converted to a simple problem of
estimation and rejection of the total disturbance.

FORMULATION OF ADRC

TO BE CONTINUED
APPLICATIONS OF ADRC
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
[1] J. Han, “Control theory: Model approach or control approach,” Syst. Sci.
Math., vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 328–335, 1989, (in Chinese).

[2] J. Han andW.Wang, “Nonlinear tracking-differentiator,” Syst. Sci. Math.,

vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 177–183, 1994, (in Chinese).

[3] J. Han, “Nonlinear PID controller,” J. Autom., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 487–

490,
1994, (in Chinese).

[4] J. Han, “Extended state observer for a class of uncertain plants,”

Control
Decis., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 85–88, 1995, (in Chinese).

[5] J. Han, “Auto disturbances rejection controller and its applications,”

Control Decis., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 19–23, 1998, (in Chinese).

[6] J. Han, “From PID to auto disturbances rejection control,” Control Eng.,

vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 13–18, 2002, (in Chinese).

[7] J. Han, “Active disturbances rejection control technique,” Frontier Sci.,

vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 24–31, 2007, (in Chinese).

REFERENCES (CTD..)
[8] Z. Gao, Y. Huang, and J. Han, “An alternative paradigm for control system
design,” in Proc. 40th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control, 2001, vol. 5, pp. 4578–4585.
[9] Z. Gao, “Active disturbance rejection control: A paradigm shift in feedback

control system design,” in Proc. Amer. Control Conf., 2006, pp. 2399–2405.
[10] B. Sun and Z. Gao, “A DSP-based active disturbance rejection control

design for a 1-kW H-bridge DC–DC power converter,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 1271–1277, Oct. 2005.
[11] Y. Su, B. Y. Duan, C. H. Zheng, Y. F. Zhang, G. D. Chen, and J. W. Mi,

“Disturbance-rejection high-precision motion control of a Stewart platform,”

IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 364–374, May 2004.
[12] Y. Su, C. Zheng, and B. Duan, “Automatic disturbances rejection controller

for precise motion control of permanent-magnet synchronous motors,” IEEE

Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 814–823, Jun. 2005.
[13] D. Sun, “Comments on active disturbance rejection control,” IEEE Trans.

Ind. Electron., vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 3428–3429, Dec. 2007.

[14] J.-H. She, F. Mingxing, Y. Ohyama, H. Hashimoto, and M. Wu, “Improving

disturbance-rejection performance based on an equivalentinput-disturbance

approach,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 380–389, Jan. 2008.
[15] M. Valenzuela, J. M. Bentley, P. C. Aguilera, and R. D. Lorenz, “Improved

coordinated response and disturbance rejection in the critical sections of

paper machines,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 857–869, May/Jun.
2007.
[16]Jingqing Han, ”From PID to Active Disturbance Rejection Control,” IEEE

Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 56, No. 3, March 2009.