Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keywords: This article deals with the control of a class of robotic systems with constant input time delay through the
Active disturbance rejection Active Disturbance Rejection paradigm, by means of Generalized Proportional Integral observers. The system is
Time delay systems represented as a linear perturbed system, whose lumped disturbance input is estimated and then compensated
Extended state observers by an Extended State Observer-Based Control, which is implemented on a predictor scheme for the time delay
Generalized proportional integral observers
compensation. A complete Lyapunov Krasovskii functional was used to perform the stability analysis, leading to
Ultralocal models
an ultimate bound trajectory tracking error. The proposal is tested and validated on a two degrees of freedom
robotic manipulator.
1. Introduction the effectiveness of this approach is closely related with the accuracy
with which the model matches the response of the actual system. This
The control of robotic systems subject to time delays in the control aspect has been tackled by means of adaptive tuning schemes as well as
input has been an active topic of research, due to the variety of robust control approaches, see Bolea, Puig, and Blesa (2014) and Kaya
applications in which the lack of immediate communication may cause (2004). Some interesting analysis for a class of predictor based control
instabilities, a reduction of robustness in a controller, poor behavior for disturbed systems can be found in Furtat, Fridman, and Fradkov
in regulation or trajectory tracking tasks, among others. These effects (2017), Li, Zhou, and Lin (2014) and Sanz, Garcia, and Albertos (2016).
can affect a wide variety of robotic systems, from robotic manipulators The case of predictor-based control for nonlinear systems has been
(Imaida & Senda, 2015; Sheridan, 1993), mobile robots (Kim et al., mainly approached through linearizing actions which allows the use of
2016; Ordaz, Salazar, Mondié, Romero, & Lozano, 2013) to a set of multi linear predictors (Kravaris & Wright, 1989). However, the lack of the
agent systems (Lin & Jia, 2010; Olfati-Saber & Murray, 2004). complete state information and the presence of uncertainties or external
Some of the most used control methods to deal with time delay disturbances needs additional actions for accurate control actions. One
in robotic systems are based on passivity (Anderson & Spong, 1989) alternative is to consider the system as a linear perturbed system, whose
leading to a variety of different approaches such as scattering based generalized perturbation input is to be estimated through the use of
controllers which provide delay independent stability, damping in- an Extended State Observer, commonly known as Active Disturbance
jection controllers and adaptive schemes (Nuño, Basañez, & Ortega, Rejection Control (ADRC), see Han (2009). This scheme just needs the
2011). Even when this approach is a good alternative, there is a relative degree of the system and the nominal knowledge of the input
compromise between performance and ensuring passivity since a fixed gain. The application of this methodology has been successfully reported
damping value is derived for guaranteeing passivity under all operating for a set of multivariable linear systems (Xia, Fu, & Shi, 2009), chemical
conditions (Ryu, , Kwon, & Hannaford, 2004). Even when adaptive systems (Zhao & Gao, 2014; Zheng & Gao, 2014), as well as in robotic
approaches can overcome last fact, there is always the necessity of a systems (Ramirez-Neria, Sira-Ramirez, Luviano-Juarez, & Rodriguez-
certain knowledge of the system to control. Angeles, 2013). The stability analysis provided in Xia et al. (2009) and
One of the most important approaches for the control of time delay Zhao and Gao (2014) includes the time delay but it is given for the
systems is the use of Predictor-Based Schemes, see Astrom, Hang, and dominant Linear Time Invariant dynamics, neglecting the nonlinearities.
Lim (1994), Fliess, Marquez, and Mounier (2002), Fridman (2014), The stability proof of the proposal (Ramirez-Neria et al., 2013), assumes
Mondié, Garcia, and Lozano (2002) and Smith (1959). This technique the cancellation of the time delay effect, leading to the stability analysis
allows the compensation of plants with long time delays. However, of a nonlinear delay free system. Both schemes are correct, regarding the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: aluvianoj@ipn.mx (A. Luviano-Juárez).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2018.06.015
Received 2 December 2017; Received in revised form 21 June 2018; Accepted 23 June 2018
0967-0661/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.A. Castañeda et al. Control Engineering Practice 78 (2018) 97–104
ADRC philosophy. However, it is possible to provide a more detailed Definition 3 (Kharitonov, 2012). The matrix 𝐊(𝑡) ̄ ∈ R𝑛×𝑛 is said to be
stability analysis without ignoring either of the effects as a part of the fundamental matrix of (1) if it satisfies the equation
the analysis, which is the main contribution of this manuscript and it ̄̇
𝐊(𝑡) = 𝐊̄⊺ (𝑡)𝐀𝟎 + 𝐊(𝑡
̄ − 𝜏)𝐀𝟏 , 𝑡 ≥ 0,
consists in a stability test, based on the use of complete type Lyapunov–
Krasovskii functionals, which ensures the ultimate bound of the closed ̄ = 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 for 𝑡 < 0 and 𝐊(𝟎)
with the initial conditions 𝐊(𝑡) ̄ = 𝐈.
loop error trajectories.
In this manuscript, the problem of controlling a class of robotic Definition 4 (Kharitonov, 2012). It is said that the matrix
systems with time delay in the input is tackled by means of the Active ∞
𝐔(𝜃) = ̄
𝐊(𝑡)𝐖 ̄ + 𝜃)𝑑𝑡,
𝐊(𝑡
Disturbance Rejection Paradigm through the Extended State Observer of ∫0
Generalized Proportional Integral (GPI) form. Here, it is taken advantage
is the Lyapunov matrix of system (1) (associated to matrix 𝐖 = 𝐖𝟎 +
of the ultralocal model representation of the system as a disturbed
𝐖𝟏 + 𝝉𝐖𝟐 , with 𝐖𝟎 , 𝐖𝟏 , 𝐖𝟐 > 0), if matrix 𝐔(𝜃) is the unique solution
extended dynamics to be compensated by the Extended State Observer-
of the differential equation
Based Control, which is implemented on a predictor scheme for the time
delay compensation. The stability analysis is based on the contribution 𝑑𝐔(𝜃)
= 𝐔(𝜃)𝐀𝟎 + 𝐔(𝜃 − 𝜏)𝐀𝟏 , (2)
of Professor Kharitonov (Kharitonov, 2014), which is adapted to the lin- 𝑑𝜃
ear disturbed case, leading to an ultimate bound convergence of, both, called the dynamic property and satisfies the properties
trajectory tracking and estimation errors. The proposal is illustrated
∙ Symmetric property
by means of an experimental example that consists on the trajectory
tracking task for a robotic manipulator with a communication delay. 𝐔(𝜃) = 𝐔⊺ (−𝜃).
The remainder of the article is the following: Section 2 contains
some basic concepts concerning the Lyapunov matrix function, the ∙ Algebraic property
fundamental matrix for time delay systems, as well as the ultralocal ⊺
− 𝐖 = 𝐀𝟎 𝐔(0) + 𝐔(𝟎)𝐀𝟎
model approximation of the class of systems to be analyzed. Section 3 ⊺
includes the problem formulation and the stability analysis of the closed + 𝐀𝟏 𝐔(𝜏) + 𝐔⊺ (𝜏)𝐀𝟏 . (3)
loop error dynamics. A case of study is provided in Section 4 and some
concluding remarks and potential extensions of this approach ends the 2.2. Ultralocal models for dynamic systems
contribution.
This subsection presents some concepts concerning the treatment of
2. Mathematical preliminaries ultralocal models for the disturbance approximation in control systems.
Further information concerning this topic can be found in Fliess and
2.1. Linear time delay systems Join (2013), Sira-Ramírez, Linares-Flores, Luviano-Juarez, and Cortés-
Romero (2015) and Sira-Ramirez, Luviano-Juárez, Ramírez-Neria, and
In this section, some basic results related to time delay systems are Zurita-Bustamante (2017).
recalled.
Let us consider a linear time delay system of the form: Definition 5 (Coleman, 1965). Two systems
̇ = 𝐟(𝑡, 𝐲(𝑡)),
𝐲(𝑡) 𝐲(𝑡0 ) = 𝐲𝟎 , 𝐲𝟎 ∈ R𝑛
̇ = 𝐀𝟎 𝐱(𝑡) + 𝐀𝟏 𝐱(𝑡 − 𝜏),
𝐱(𝑡) (1)
̇ = 𝐠(𝑡, 𝐲(𝑡)),
𝐳(𝑡) 𝐳(𝑡0 ) = 𝐳𝟎 , 𝐳𝟎 ∈ R𝑛 ,
where 𝐀𝟎 , 𝐀𝟏 ∈ R𝑛×𝑛 , and 𝜏 > 0 is the delay.
Let 𝐱(𝑡0 + 𝜃) = 𝝋(𝑡0 + 𝜃), 𝜃 ∈ [−𝜏, 0] be an initial function that belongs are said to be trajectory equivalent whenever 𝐲(𝑡) = 𝐳(𝑡) for all 𝑡 ≥ 𝑡0 . They
to class of piecewise continuous functions on the interval [−𝜏, 0], and the are asymptotically trajectory equivalent if for 𝐲𝟎 ≠ 𝐳𝟎 , 𝐲(𝑡) − 𝐳(𝑡) tends to
restriction of the solution 𝐱(𝑡, 𝜑) on [𝑡 − 𝜏, 𝑡] for a given initial condition zero as time elapses and they are asymptotically exponentially trajectory
equivalent if the convergence of 𝐲(𝑡) − 𝐳(𝑡) to zero is exponential.
𝝋, is denoted as 𝐱𝐭 (𝜑).
Consider the following system:
Definition 1 (Bellman & Cooke, 1963). System (1) is said to be
exponentially stable if there exist constants 𝛾 > 1 and 𝜎 > 0 such that ̇ = 𝐀𝐲(𝑡) + 𝝓(𝑡, 𝐲(𝑡)),
𝐲(𝑡)
the solution 𝐱(𝑡, 𝜑) satisfies the condition 𝐲(𝑡0 ) = 𝐲𝟎 , 𝐲(𝑡) ∈ R𝑛 , (4)
Definition 2 (Bellman & Cooke, 1963). The characteristic function of ̇ = 𝐀𝐳(𝑡) + 𝜉(𝑡),
𝐳(𝑡) 𝐳(𝑡0 ) = 𝐲𝟎 ,
the system (1) is defined as viewed as
𝑓 (𝑠, 𝜏) = det(𝑠𝐈 − 𝐀𝟎 − 𝑒−𝑠𝜏 𝐀𝟏 ). ̇ = 𝐀𝐲(𝑡) + 𝜉(𝑡),
𝐲(𝑡) 𝐲(𝑡0 ) = 𝐲𝟎 , (5)
A value 𝑠0 ∈ C that satisfies 𝑓 (𝑠0 , 𝜏) = 0 is called an eigenvalue of system which lacks of the state dependent nonlinear structure. The linear per-
and the spectrum of the system, written as 𝛬, is defined as the set of turbed system (5) is addressed as the ultralocal model of the nonlinear
all distinct eigenvalues of the system. Then, system (1) is exponentially system (4). In this article, the ultralocal model approximation is based
stable if and only if ∀𝑠0 ∈ 𝛬, the condition Re(𝑠0 ) < 0 is satisfied. on an extended state structure of integrator chain form.
98
L.A. Castañeda et al. Control Engineering Practice 78 (2018) 97–104
3. Problem formulation Thus, the extended system including the linear dynamics as well as the
ultralocal model approximation of the generalized disturbance input is
Euler–Lagrange systems are commonly used to describe a wide given as follows:
variety of robotic systems, and are represented as a class of coupled [ ]
̃ 𝑡)
̇ = 𝐀𝐱(𝑡) + 𝐁 𝐆(𝐱𝐚 )𝐮(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝚽𝟏 𝝆(𝑡) + 𝜉(𝐱,
𝐱(𝑡)
second order nonlinear systems with uncertain structure as follows
𝝆(𝑡)
̇ = 𝚽𝜌(𝑡),
𝐱̇ 𝐚 (𝑡) = 𝐱𝐛 (𝑡)
and a linear observer for the extended system is defined as:
𝐱̇ 𝐛 (𝑡) = 𝐟(𝐱) + 𝐆(𝐱𝐚 )𝐮(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝐃(𝑡), (6) [ ]
̂̇ = 𝐀𝐱(𝑡)
𝐱(𝑡) ̂ + 𝐁 𝐆(𝐱𝐚 )𝐮(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝚽𝟏 𝝆(𝑡)
̂
where 𝐱𝐚 (𝑡) ∈ R𝑛 is the vector of joint positions, 𝐱𝐛 (𝑡) ∈ R𝑛 stands for
[ ⊺ ⊺ ]⊺
̂
+ 𝚪𝟏 𝚵 (𝐱(𝑡) − 𝐱(𝑡))
the articular velocities vector and 𝐱(𝑡) ∶= 𝐱𝐚 (𝑡) 𝐱𝐛 (𝑡) ∈ R2𝑛 denotes the
𝝆̂̇ (𝑡) = 𝚽𝝆(𝑡) ̂
̂ + 𝚪𝟐 𝚵 (𝐱(𝑡) − 𝐱(𝑡)) , (8)
state vector. Function 𝐟(𝐱) represents the nominal dynamics and 𝐮(𝑡 − 𝜏)
the delayed control input, being 𝜏 > 0 the time delay. 𝐃(𝑡) ∈ R𝑛 denotes where 𝚪𝟏 ∈ R2𝑛×𝑛 , 𝚪𝟐 ∈ R𝑛(𝑝+1)×𝑛 , are the injection observer gain
the set of disturbance inputs, and 𝐆(𝐱𝐚 ) ∈ R𝑛×𝑛 is the gain matrix which matrices, 𝐱(𝑡)
̂ and 𝝆(𝑡)
̂ are the estimates of 𝐱(𝑡) and 𝝆(𝑡) respectively,
[ ]
is invertible for all 𝐱𝐚 . and the auxiliary matrix 𝚵 ∶= 𝐈𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ∈ R𝑛×2𝑛 .
∗ 2𝑛
Now, let 𝐱 (𝑡) ∈ R be the smooth reference trajectory for the state
The non-modeled dynamics and the external disturbance terms can
be lumped into a generalized disturbance input 𝝃(𝐱, 𝑡) ∶= 𝐟(𝐱) + 𝐃(𝑡). vector 𝐱(𝐭) and 𝐮∗ (𝑡) the feedforward input, that is, the desired dynamics
Then, the system (6) can be re-written in terms of the extended vector of 𝐱∗ (𝑡) is given by:
𝐱(𝑡) as 𝐱̇∗ (𝑡) = 𝐀𝐱∗ (𝑡) + 𝐁𝐆(𝐱𝐚∗ )𝐮∗ (𝑡).
[ ]
̇ = 𝐀𝐱(𝑡) + 𝐁 𝐆(𝐱𝐚 )𝐮(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝜉(𝐱, 𝑡) ,
𝐱(𝑡) (7) Following the classic definition of predictor schemes, the output
based controller is proposed as:
where ( )−1
[ ] [ ] 𝐮(𝑡) = 𝐮∗ (𝑡 + 𝜏) − 𝐆 𝐗𝐚 (𝑡 + 𝜏)
𝟎 𝐈𝐧×𝐧 𝟎 [ ⊤ ]
𝐀 = 𝐧×𝐧 ∈ R2𝑛×2𝑛 , 𝐁 = 𝐧×𝐧 ∈ R2𝑛×𝑛 . × 𝐊 𝜀(𝑡 + 𝜏) + 𝚽𝟏 𝝆(𝑡)̂ , (9)
𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝐈𝐧×𝐧
In order to implement the Active Disturbance Rejection method- with
ology, see Han (2009), the behavior of the generalized disturbance 0
input is approximated by means of an extended dynamics, which in this 𝜺(𝑡 + 𝜏) = 𝐞𝐀𝜏 𝜺(𝑡) + 𝐞𝐀𝑠 𝐁𝐮(𝑡 − 𝑠)𝑑𝑠,
∫−𝜏
approach, are defined as follows:
̂ − 𝐱∗ (𝑡). For the time 𝑡 − 𝜏 is
where the tracking error 𝜺(𝑡) = 𝐱(𝑡)
[
Assumption 1 (Martínez-Fonseca, Castañeda, Uranga, Luviano-Juárez, & ( )−1 ⊤ 𝐀𝜏
𝐮(𝑡 − 𝜏) = 𝐮∗ (𝑡) − 𝐆 𝐗𝐚 (𝑡) 𝐊 𝐞 𝜀(𝑡)
Chairez, 2016). The function 𝜉(𝑥, 𝑡), evaluated over the system trajec-
0 ]
̃ 𝑡), being 𝐚⊺ ∈ R(𝑝+1)×𝑛
tories can be represented as 𝜉(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝐚⊺ 𝜅(𝑡) + 𝜉(𝑥,
+ 𝚽𝟏 𝜌(𝑡
̂ − 𝜏) + 𝐊 𝐞𝐀𝑠 𝐁𝐮(𝑡 − 𝑠)𝑑𝑠 .
a constant parameter vector that must be adjusted to approximate the ∫−𝜏
̃ 𝑡) is the approximation error that
generalized disturbance input and 𝜉(𝐱, The reference trajectory is assumed to be bounded, that is ‖𝐱∗ (𝑡)‖ ≤
is assumed to satisfies ∗ , 𝐱∗ + 𝑛×2𝑛
𝐱𝐦𝐚𝐱 𝐦𝐚𝐱 ∈ R < ∞ for all 𝑡 ≥ 0. The control gain matrix 𝐊 ∈ R
̃ 𝑡)‖ ≤ 𝜉𝑚 ∈ R+ < ∞, is proposed such that the matrix 𝐀 − 𝐁𝐊 has its eigenvalues deep in the
‖𝜉(𝑥, ∀𝑡 ≥ 0.
left-hand half of the complex plane.
The vector 𝜿(𝑡) is composed of a time polynomial basis of the form: Let us define the tracking error 𝜀(𝑡), the state estimation error 𝚫(𝑡)
[ ]⊺
𝜅(𝑡) = 1 𝑡 𝑡2 𝑡3 ⋯ 𝑡𝑝 (Sira-Ramírez, Núñez, & Visairo, 2010). and the extended state estimation error 𝜹(𝑡) as follows:
̂
𝚫(𝑡) = 𝐱(𝑡) − 𝐱(𝑡)
This representation defines an ultralocal model approximation of the
form 𝜹(𝑡) = 𝝆(𝑡) − 𝝆(𝑡)
̂
̂ − 𝐱∗ (𝑡),
𝜺(𝑡) = 𝐱(𝑡)
𝐚⊺ 𝜅(𝑡) = 𝜌0 (𝑡)
𝜌̇ 𝑖 (𝑡) = 𝜌𝑖+1 (𝑡) 𝑖 = 0, 1, … , 𝑝 − 1 whose dynamics are of the form:
𝜌̇ 𝑝 (𝑡) = 0 ̇
𝚫(𝑡) ̃ 𝑡))
= (𝐀 − 𝚪𝟏 𝚵)𝚫(𝑡) + 𝐁(𝚽𝟏 𝜹(𝑡) + 𝝃(𝐱,
𝜌𝑗 (0) = 𝑎𝑗 , 𝑗 = 0, 1, … , 𝑝, ̇ = 𝚽𝜹(𝑡) − 𝚪𝟐 𝚵𝚫(𝑡)
𝜹(𝑡) (10)
( )[
or, equivalently, by defining ̇ = 𝐀𝜺(𝑡) + 𝐁𝐆 𝐗𝐚 (𝑡) − 𝐆(𝐗𝐚 (𝑡))−1
𝜺(𝑡)
(
[ ⊺ ⊺ ]⊺
⊺
𝝆(𝑡) ∶= 𝝆𝟎 (𝑡) 𝜌1 (𝑡) ⋯ 𝜌𝑝 (𝑡) × 𝐊⊤ 𝐞𝐀𝜏 𝜺(𝑡) + 𝚽𝟏 𝝆(𝑡
̂ − 𝜏)
−𝜏 )]
𝝆(𝑡)
̇ = 𝚽𝝆(𝑡), +𝐊 𝐞𝐀𝑠 𝐁𝐮(𝑡 − 𝑠)𝑑𝑠
∫−2𝜏
where 𝚽 ∈ R𝑛(𝑝+1)×𝑛(𝑝+1)
+ 𝐁𝚽𝟏 𝝆̂ + 𝚪𝟏 𝚵𝚫(𝑡).
⎡𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝐈𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ⋯ 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ⎤
⎢𝟎 Now, let us introduce the vector 𝐳(𝑡)
𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝐈𝐧×𝐧 ⋯ 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ⎥
⎢ 𝐧×𝐧 ⎥ [ ]⊺
𝚽=⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥, 𝐳(𝑡) = 𝚫(𝑡)⊺ 𝜹(𝑡)⊺ 𝜺(𝑡)⊺ ,
⎢𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ⋯ 𝐈𝐧×𝐧 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ and
⎣𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ⋯ 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ⎦
−𝜏
then 𝜾𝒖 (𝑡) ∶= 𝐞𝐀𝑠 𝐁𝐮(𝑡 − 𝑠)𝑑𝑠
∫−2𝜏
𝝆𝟎 (𝑡) = 𝚽𝟏 𝝆(𝑡) (11)
𝜹𝝆 (𝑡) ∶= 𝝆(𝑡) − 𝝆(𝑡 − 𝜏)
[ ] 𝑛×𝑛(𝑝+1)
𝚽𝟏 = 𝐈𝐧×𝐧 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ⋯ 𝟎𝐧×𝐧 ∈ R .
𝜹𝜺 (𝑡) ∶= 𝜺(𝑡) − 𝜺(𝑡 − 𝜏).
99
L.A. Castañeda et al. Control Engineering Practice 78 (2018) 97–104
Then, from (10) and (11), the time derivative of 𝐳(𝑡) is expressed as: From the procedure presented in Kharitonov (2014), the time deriva-
tive of 𝑉 (𝐳) is:
̇ = 𝚿𝐳(𝑡) + 𝚼𝐳(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝜉0 (𝑡),
𝐳(𝑡) (12) 𝑑𝑉 (𝐳, 𝐲)
= −𝐳⊺ (𝑡)𝐖𝟎 𝐳(𝑡) − 𝐳⊺ (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝐖𝟏 𝐳(𝑡 − 𝜏)
where 𝑑𝑡
𝑡
⎡𝐀 − 𝚪𝟏 𝚵 𝐁𝚽𝟏 𝟎𝟐𝐧×𝟐𝐧 ⎤ − 𝐳⊺ (𝜃)𝐖𝟐 𝐳(𝜃)𝑑𝜃
∫𝑡−𝜏
𝚿 = ⎢ −𝚪𝟐 𝚵 𝚽 𝟎𝐧(𝐩+𝟏)×𝟐𝐧 ⎥ , [ ]
⎢ ⎥ + 2𝐳⊺ (𝑡)𝐔(𝟎) 𝐁𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝜉0 (𝑡)
⎣ 𝚪𝟏 𝚵 𝟎𝟐𝐧×𝐧(𝐩+𝟏) 𝟎𝟐𝐧×𝟐𝐧 ⎦
[ ]⊺
⎡ 𝟎𝟐𝐧×𝟐𝐧 𝟎𝟐𝐧×𝐧(𝐩+𝟏) 𝟎𝟐𝐧×𝟐𝐧 ⎤ + 2 𝐁𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝜉0 (𝑡)
𝚼 = ⎢𝟎𝐧(𝐩+𝟏)×𝟐𝐧 𝟎𝐧(𝐩+𝟏)×𝐧(𝐩+𝟏) 𝟎𝐧(𝐩+𝟏)×𝟐𝐧 ⎥ , 𝑡
⎢ ⎥ × 𝐔(𝑡 − 𝜏 − 𝜃)𝚼𝐳(𝜃)𝑑𝜃
⎣ 𝟎𝟐𝐧×𝟐𝐧 𝐁𝚽𝟏 𝐀 − 𝐁𝐊 ⎦ ∫𝑡−𝜏
[ 𝑡 ]
⎡ ̃
𝐁𝝃(𝐗, 𝑡) ⎤ 1
+ ‖𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏)‖2 − ‖𝐲(𝜃)‖2 𝑑𝜃 .
𝝃 𝟎 (𝑡) = ⎢ 𝟎𝐧(𝐩+𝟏) ⎥. 𝜖 ∫𝑡−𝜏
⎢ ⎥
⎣𝐀𝜹𝜺 (𝑡) + 𝐁𝚽𝟏 𝜹𝝆 (𝑡) + 𝐁𝐊𝜾𝐮 (𝑡)⎦ Let us define the auxiliary terms
Theorem 1. Consider the class of uncertain time delayed systems (7), where 𝐉𝟏 ∶= 2𝐳⊺ (𝑡)𝐔(𝟎)𝐁𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏)
the lumped disturbance input 𝜉(𝑥, 𝑡) fulfills Assumption 1. Let 𝐱∗ (𝑡) be a 𝑡
state reference trajectory and define an output feedback control (9) such + 2𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏)⊺ 𝐁⊺ 𝐔(𝑡 − 𝜏 − 𝜃)𝚼𝐳(𝜃)𝑑𝜃
∫𝑡−𝜏
that the control gain 𝐊 renders the matrix 𝐀 − 𝐁𝐊 Hurwitz. If the injection ⊺
𝐉𝟐 ∶= 2𝜉0 (𝑡)𝐔(𝟎)𝐳(𝑡)
matrices 𝚪𝟏 , 𝚪𝟐 are chosen such that the linear dominant part of the closed
𝑡
loop dynamics (12) is exponentially stable, then the Extended State Observer + 2𝜉0 (𝑡)
⊺
𝐔(𝑡 − 𝜏 − 𝜃)𝚼𝐳(𝜃)𝑑𝜃,
based Controller (8), (9), renders the trajectory tracking error 𝐞(𝑡), the state ∫𝑡−𝜏
𝚫(𝑡) and extended state estimation 𝜹(𝑡) errors ultimate bounded with an upper then, the following inequality holds for 𝐉𝟏
bound given by 𝛽𝜗 , which satisfy the conditions
1
𝐉𝟏 ≤ ‖𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏)‖2 + 2𝜖𝝌 2 𝛼12 ‖𝐳(𝑡)‖2
1 𝜖
𝛽≥ max ‖𝜉 (𝑠)‖2 ( 𝑡 )2
𝜖 𝑠∈[0,𝜏] 0
1 ≥ 2𝜗(1 + 𝜏) + 2𝜖𝝌 2 𝛼12 𝛼22 ‖𝐳(𝜃)‖𝑑𝜃
∫𝑡−𝜏
𝜆min (𝐖𝟎 ) − 2𝜇𝜒 2 (𝛼12 + 1) ≥ 2𝜗𝛿0 1
≤ ‖𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏)‖ + 2𝜖𝝌 2 𝛼12 ‖𝐳(𝑡)‖2
2
𝜖
𝜆min (𝐖𝟐 ) − 2𝜇𝜒 2 𝜏𝛼22 (𝛼12 + 1) ≥ 2𝜗𝛿1 , 𝑡
+ 2𝜖𝝌 2 𝛼12 𝜏𝛼22 ‖𝐳(𝜃)‖2 𝑑𝜃. (17)
for positive definite matrices 𝐖𝟎 , 𝐖𝟐 , positive constants 𝜖, 𝜇, 𝜗, 𝛿0 , 𝛿1 and ∫𝑡−𝜏
Here 𝜒, 𝛼1 and 𝛼2 are defined as
𝜒 = max ‖𝐔(𝑠)‖, 𝛼1 = ‖𝐁‖, 𝛼2 = ‖𝚼‖. (13)
𝑠∈[0,𝜏]
𝜒 = max ‖𝐔(𝑠)‖, 𝛼1 = ‖𝐁‖, 𝛼2 = ‖𝚼‖.
𝑠∈[0,𝜏]
Proof. Using the following backstepping transformation of the control
Now, let 𝐅 be such that
variable (Krstic & Smyshlyaev, 2008),
[ ] [ ]
𝐳(𝑡) 𝐳(𝑡) ‖𝐅‖ ≥ max 𝜉0 (𝑠), (18)
→ , 𝑠∈[0,𝜏]
𝐮(𝑡) 𝐲(𝑡)
then 𝐉𝟐 satisfies the inequality
where 𝑦(𝑡) is defined as:
[ ] 1
𝐉𝟐 ≤ ‖𝐅‖2 + 2𝜖𝜒 2 ‖𝐳(𝑡)‖2
𝐲(𝑡) = 𝐮(𝑡) − 𝐆(𝐱𝐚 )−1 𝐊⊺ 𝜀(𝑡 + 𝜏) − 𝚽𝟏 𝝆(𝑡)
̂ . 𝜖
𝑡
Then, system (12) takes the form + 2𝜖𝜒 2 𝜏𝛼22 ‖𝐳(𝜃)‖2 𝑑𝜃. (19)
∫𝑡−𝜏
̇ = 𝚿𝐳(𝑡) + 𝚼𝐳(𝑡 − 𝜏) + 𝜉0 (𝑡) + 𝐁𝐲(𝑡 − 𝜏)
𝐳(𝑡) Thus, from (17), (19) it follows that
𝐲(𝑡) = 0, 𝑡 ≥ 0. (14) 𝑑𝑉 (𝐳, 𝐲) [ ]
≤ −𝐳⊺ (𝑡) 𝐖𝟎 − 2𝜖𝜒 2 (1 + 𝛼12 )𝐈 𝐳(𝑡)
Let us consider 𝜖 > 0 and the Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional: 𝑑𝑡
𝑡 [ ]
1
𝑡 − 𝐳⊺ (𝜃) 𝐖𝟐 − 2𝜖𝜒 2 𝜏𝛼22 (1 + 𝛼12 )𝐈 𝐳(𝜃)𝑑𝜃
𝑉 (𝐳, 𝐲) = 𝑉̄ (𝐳) + (1 + 𝜏 + 𝜃 − 𝑡)‖𝐲(𝜃)‖2 𝑑𝜃. ∫𝑡−𝜏
𝜖 ∫𝑡−𝜏 𝑡
1 1
Here 𝑉̄ (𝐳) is defined as: − ‖𝐲(𝜃)‖2 𝑑𝜃 + ‖𝐅‖2 .
𝜖 ∫𝑡−𝜏 𝜖
𝑉̄ (𝐳) = 𝐳⊺ (𝑡)𝐔(𝟎)𝐳(𝑡) Let consider 𝜇 > 0 such that 𝜆min (𝐖𝟎 ) > 2𝜇𝜒 2 (𝛼12 + 1) and 𝜆min (𝐖𝟐 ) >
𝑡 2𝜇𝜒 2 𝜏𝛼22 (𝛼12 + 1), then, there exists 𝜗 > 0 such that the following
+ 2𝐳⊺ (𝑡) 𝐔(𝑡 − 𝜃 − 𝜏)𝚼𝐳(𝜃)𝑑𝜃 (15) inequalities hold
∫𝑡−𝜏
𝑡 [ 𝑡 ]
1 ≥ 2𝜗(1 + 𝜏)
+ 𝐳⊺ (𝜃1 )𝚼 𝐔(𝜃1 − 𝜃2 )𝚼𝐳(𝜃2 )𝑑𝜃2 𝑑𝜃1
∫𝑡−𝜏 ∫𝑡−𝜏
𝜆min (𝐖𝟎 ) − 2𝜇𝜒 2 (𝛼12 + 1) ≥ 2𝜗𝛿0 (20)
𝑡 [ ] 2
+ 𝐳⊺ (𝜃) 𝐖𝟏 + (𝜏 − 𝑡 + 𝜃)𝐖𝟐 𝐳(𝜃)𝑑𝜃, 𝜆min (𝐖𝟐 ) − 2𝜇𝜒 𝜏𝛼22 (𝛼12 + 1) ≥ 2𝜗𝛿1 .
∫𝑡−𝜏
and satisfies the following quadratic upper bound By defining
𝑡 1
𝛽≥ ‖𝐅‖2 ,
𝑉̄ (𝐳) ≤ 𝛿0 ‖𝐳(𝟎)‖2 + 𝛿1 ‖𝐳(𝜃)‖2 𝑑𝜃, (16) 𝜖
∫𝑡−𝜏
inequalities (16), (18) and (20) lead us to the following upper bound of
for positive constants 𝛿0 , 𝛿1 , see Kharitonov (2014). 𝐔(⋅) is the Lyapunov the time derivative
matrix associated with the symmetric matrix 𝐖 > 𝟎 ∈ R𝑛(𝑝+5)×𝑛(𝑝+5) ,
𝑑𝑉 (𝐳, 𝐲)
defined in Definition 4. ≤ −2𝜗𝑉 (𝐳, 𝐲) + 𝛽,
𝑑𝑡
100
L.A. Castañeda et al. Control Engineering Practice 78 (2018) 97–104
101
L.A. Castañeda et al. Control Engineering Practice 78 (2018) 97–104
The ADRC defined by Eqs. (8) and (9) was proposed for an approx-
imation degree 𝑝 = 2, which implied three extended states for each
articulation. The gain selection process for the observer was made in
terms of a model matching, using as estimation error reference dynamics
a set of two fifth order stable subsystems, that is:
or equivalently
where
Fig. 6. Trajectory tracking behavior comparison with 𝜏 = 0.07 [s].
𝜓4,𝑖 = 4𝜁𝑖 𝜔𝑖𝑛 + 𝑃𝑖
𝜓3,𝑖 = 4𝜁𝑖2 𝜔2𝑖𝑛 + 4𝜁𝑖 𝜔𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑖 + 2𝜔2𝑖𝑛
( )
𝜓2,𝑖 = 4𝜁𝑖 𝜔3𝑖𝑛 + 4𝜁𝑖2 𝜔2𝑖𝑛 + 2𝜔2𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑖 out using a conventional ADRC approach (without predictor), and a
𝜓1,𝑖 = 4𝑃𝑖 𝜁𝑖 𝜔3𝑖𝑛 + 𝜔4𝑖𝑛 predictor-based Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) control.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the experimental tracking results for joint 𝑞1
𝜓0,𝑖 = 𝑃𝑖 𝜔4𝑖𝑛 .
with an input delay 𝜏 = 0.03 [s] and 𝜏 = 0.07 [s] respectively. All the
for 𝑖 = 1, 2. Then, the injection matrices 𝛤1 , 𝛤2 are of the form: trajectories hold a similar performance with the delay 𝜏 = 0.03 [s],
where the predictor free ADRC scheme achieved the best response.
⎡𝜓2,1 0 ⎤
However, when the time delay increased to 𝜏 = 0.07 [s], the predictor
⎡ 𝜓4,1 0 ⎤ ⎢ 0 𝜓2,2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ free ADRC was not capable of track the reference without overshoots and
0 𝜓4,2 ⎥ 𝜓 0 ⎥
𝚪𝟏 = ⎢ , 𝚪𝟐 = ⎢ 1,1 . oscillations. The predictor based schemes were able to keep an ultimate
⎢4𝜓3,1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 𝜓1,2 ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢𝜓 ⎥ error bound in the trajectory tracking task despite the increase in the
⎣ 𝜓3,2 ⎦ ⎢ 0,1 0 ⎥
time delay value. Also, these figures show that the proposal leads to
⎣ 0 𝜓0,2 ⎦
better results than the predictor-based PID. It is worth noting that even
Even though this procedure seems to be equivalent to the one described when an integral action is considered in the control design, a perfect
in Ramirez-Neria et al. (2013), the obtained gains need to satisfy the tracking cannot be reached due to the lack of a perfect knowledge of
stability conditions of the proposed theorem (the model matching is not the plant, as well as the presence of non modeled nonlinearities such as
a sufficient condition). static friction, dead zones in the motors, but in the present contribution,
The design parameters was selected as: 𝑃1 = 𝑃2 = 5, 𝜁1 = 𝜁2 = 1, mainly due backlash. As stated in the theoretical result, the proposal
𝜔1𝑛 = 𝜔2𝑛 = 35, while the control gain matrix selection 𝐾 was setted as: leads to a partial mitigation of these effects leading to ultimate bounded
[ ] tracking errors.
300 0 300 0
𝐊= . To present a performance analysis under different operating condi-
0 35 0 35
tions, a quadratic error index of the form
To verify the roots of the characteristic equation of the dominant lin- 𝑡
ear part, a MATLAB tool for the computation of rightmost characteristic 𝐽𝑖 (𝑒𝑖 (𝑡)) = (𝑞𝑖 (𝜃) − 𝑞𝑖∗ (𝜃))2 𝑑𝜃, 𝑖 = 1, 2,
roots of time-delay systems was used. This tool was developed by Zhen ∫0
Wu and Wim Michiels and it is based on the study reported in Wu and is selected to compare the behavior of each controller. Fig. 7 shows
Michiels (2012). The dominant roots satisfy the Hurwitz condition as the experimental performance of the proposed scheme. Figs. 8 and 9
shown in Fig. 4. show the experimental performance of the conventional ADRC scheme
The initial time delay 𝜏 was 0.01[s] and it was increased by 0.01[s] and the predictor-based PID respectively. The best performance was
with each passing test, the final value considered was 𝜏 = 0.07 [s]. To obtained from the conventional ADRC for values of 𝜏 below 0.05 [s],
compare the performance of the scheme (9), a comparison was carried with index values up to 0.13, with larger values, the index rise up
102
L.A. Castañeda et al. Control Engineering Practice 78 (2018) 97–104
Fig. 7. Error performance index evolution of the predictor based ADRC scheme
for 𝑞1 (𝑡) as the input time delay time increases to 0.07 [s].
Fig. 10. Trajectory tracking and tracking error for 𝑞1 (𝑡), for a circular reference
in the workspace, 𝜏 = 0.01 [s].
Fig. 11. Trajectory tracking and tracking error for 𝑞1 (𝑡), for a circular reference
in the workspace, 𝜏 = 0.03 [s].
time delays were used to illustrate the behavior of the controllers. The
first time delay was 𝜏 = 0.01 [s], and the second test was carried
out with a time delay 𝜏 = 0.03 [s]. Figs. 10, 11 show the tracking
response for the coordinate 𝑞1 , and Figs. 12, 13 show the corresponding
behavior of 𝑞2 . Both figures include the error trajectories. In this case,
the proposal shows a reduction of the error with respect to the ADRC
without predictor. The behavior of the predictor based PID are similar to
Fig. 9. Error performance index evolution of predictor based PID for 𝑞1 (𝑡) as
the proposal for 𝜏 = 0.01, however, when 𝜏 is increased, the behavior of
the input time delay time increases to 0.07 [s].
the proposal is less affected than, both, ADRC without predictor and the
predictor-based PID. Thus, for a practical tracking task the error remains
in an acceptable error bound and the improvement of the ADRC response
to values near 4.5, as shown in Fig. 8. The predictor based schemes is shown.
had similar performance, with starting values of 0.18, both showed a
constant growing rate until the end of the test. 5. Conclusions and future work
Finally, a circular reference trajectory was implemented to show
the behavior of the proposed controller in a continuously varying An alternative stability proof by means of a Lyapunov–Krasovskii
reference. The circular reference was set to be according to the following functional of complete type was presented for the problem of Active
parametrization: Disturbance Rejection Control by means of high order Extended State
𝑥∗𝑟 = 𝑥𝑟0 + 𝑟 cos(𝜔𝑟 𝑡) Observers of GPI type. Experimental results proved the use of this
approach for a class of fully actuated robotic systems for competitive
𝑦∗𝑟 = 𝑦𝑟0 + 𝑟 sin(𝜔𝑟 𝑡)
time delay values, where the increase of extended states for the distur-
with 𝑥𝑟0 = 0.2 [m], 𝑦𝑟0 = 0.2 [m], 𝑟 = 0.05 [m], 𝜔𝑟 = 𝜋∕4 [rad/s]. bance approximation was proven to be more effective. The possibility
The inverse kinematics was used to construct the references in the of designing a robust state estimator which achieves, both, zero state
manipulator space. The same gains of the first test were used. Two tracking and disturbance estimation must be detailed discussed and
103
L.A. Castañeda et al. Control Engineering Practice 78 (2018) 97–104
104