View
42
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Robust Nonlinear Observer for a Non-collocated Flexible System. Mohsin Waqar M.S.Thesis Presentation Friday, March 28, 2008 Intelligent Machine Dynamics Lab Georgia Institute of Technology. Agenda. 1. Background: Problem Statement Non-collocation and Non-minimum Phase Behavior - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Robust Nonlinear Observer for a Non-collocated Flexible System
Mohsin Waqar
M.S.Thesis Presentation
Friday, March 28, 2008
Intelligent Machine Dynamics Lab
Georgia Institute of Technology
2
Agenda•Background:
Problem Statement
Non-collocation and Non-minimum Phase Behavior
Observer and Controller Overview
Test-bed Overview
Plant Model
•Optimal Observer – The Kalman Filter
•Robust Observer – Sliding Mode
•Results:Simulation Studies
Experimental Studies
•Conclusions
•Project Roadmap
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3
Problem Statement
•Examine the usefulness of the Sliding Mode Observer as part of a closed-loop system in the presence of non-collocation and model uncertainty.
4
Non-Minimum Phase Behavior
Causes: Combination of non-collocation of actuators and sensors and the flexible nature of robot links
Detection: •System transfer function has positive zeros.
Effects: •Limited speed of response.
•Initial undershoot (only if odd number of pos. zeros).
•Multiple pos. zeros means multiple direction reversal in step response.
•PID control based on tip position fails.
•Limited gain margin (limited robustness of closed-loop system)
•Model inaccuracy (parameter variation) becomes more troubling.
5
Control Overview
Control objective: Accuracy, repeatability and steadiness of the link tip.
Linear Motor
Flexible Link Sensors
ObserverFeedback Gain K
FeedforwardGain F
Commanded
Tip Position
Noise
V
+
-
yδFu
x
6
Test-Bed Overview
NI SCB-68Terminal
Board
Anorad EncoderReadhead
Anorad Interface Module
LS7084Quadrature
Clock Converter
PCB 352aAccelerometer
PCB Power Supply
Anorad DC ServoAmplifier
Linear Motor
LV Real Time 8.5Target PC
w/NI-6052E DAQ
Board
R
C
+-+-
160VDC
PWM-10 to +10VDC
7
Flexible Link Modeling – Assumed Modes Method
A Few Key Assumptions:
•3 flexible modes + 1 rigid-body mode
•Undergoes flexure only (no axial or torsional displacement)
•Horizontal Plane (zero g)
•Light damping (ζ << 1)
•Only viscous friction at slider
m
w(x,t)
x
E, I, ρ, A, L
F
c
8
Flexible Link Modeling – Assumed Modes Method
Mq Cq Kq Q
0K M
12TM
m
x
E, I, ρ, A, L
F w(x,t)
4
EIAL
q 2[ ( )]T TQ C diag
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 1
6 2
7 3
8 4
xxxxxxxx
x Ax Bu
( 0, )( , )
w x ty x Cx Du
w x L t
9
Flexible Link Model vs Experimental
Experimental Data AMM Model Data
Tip Mass (kg) 0.110 0.25
Length (m) 0.32 0.48
Width (m) 0.035 (1 3/8”) 0.04
Thickness (m) .003175 (1/8”) 0.0024
Material AISI 1018 Steel Not Applicable
Density (kg/m3) 7870 9838
Young’s Modulus (GPa) 205 205
First Mode (Hz) 5.5 5.7
Second Mode (Hz) 49.5 49.0
Third Mode (Hz) 130.5 219.3
10
c
y1
m1
m2
k
J2F
y2
Flexible Link Modeling – Lumped Parameter Model
1 1 1 1
22 2 2 2
0 1 0 0000
0 0 0 13
3 3 3 3
k c k cm m m m
x x F
k c k cm
m m m m
Model Data
Tip Mass (kg) 0.110
Base Mass (kg) 20
Stiffness (N/m) 131.4
Damping (N-s/m) 0.04
Resulting First Mode (Hz) 5.5
Resulting Positive Zero 3.06e3
11
Agenda•Background:
Problem Statement
Non-collocation and Non-minimum Phase Behavior
Observer and Controller Overview
Test-bed Overview
Plant Model
•Optimal Observer – The Kalman Filter
•Robust Observer – Sliding Mode
•Results:Simulation Studies
Experimental Studies
•Conclusions
•Project Roadmap
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
12
Steady State Kalman Filter - Overview
Why Use?•Needed when internal states are not measurable directly (or costly).
•Sensors do not provide perfect and complete data due to noise.
•No system model is perfect.
Notable Aspects:•Optimal estimates (Minimizes mean square estimate error)
•Predictor-Corrector Nature
•Designed off-line (constant gain matrix) and reduced computational burden
•Design is well-known and systematic
13
How it works - Kalman Filter
Filter Parameters: Noise Covariance Matrix Q – measure of uncertainty in plant. Directly
tunable.
Noise Covariance Matrix R – measure of uncertainty in measurements. Fixed.
Error Covariance Matrix P – measure of uncertainty in state estimates. Depends on Q.
Kalman Gain Matrix K – determines how much to weight model prediction and fresh measurement. Depends
on P.
Kalman Filter
Plant Dynamics
Measurement & State Relationships
Noise Statistics
Initial Conditions
State Estimates with minimum square of error
Steady State Kalman Filter – How it works
14
+
-
+v
x
1/s
A
B C+
1/s
~A
B C+
K
+
Kc
F-
ur
x y
y
Filter Design:1. Find R and Q
1a) For each measurement, find μ and σ2 to get R
1b) Set Q small, non-zero
2. Find P using Matlab CARE fcn
3. Find K=P*C'*inv(R)
4. Observer poles given by eig(~A-LC)
5. Tune Q as needed
Steady State Kalman Filter – How it works
15
ˆˆ0
CC
CC
BK Kx rA BK KC KCxBKx vBK Ax
+-
+v
x
1/s
A
B C+
1/s
~A
B C+
L
+
K
F-
ur x y
y
0 0ˆ
ˆ 0 0C C
C C
C C
K Kux r
C DK DKyx v
y DK C DK I
ˆˆ ˆ ˆ( )x Ax Bu K y y
Steady State Kalman Filter – How it works
Observer dynamic equation:
Closed-loop system with observer:
16
Steady State Kalman Filter – A Limitation
1 2
2
x xx f
Example: Given a second order dynamic system with a single measurement,
1y x
2 1 11
2 12
ˆˆˆˆ
x K xx
f K xx
Then the Kalman filter in presence of parametric uncertainty is given by
And the observer error dynamics are given by
2 1 11
2 12
x K xxf K xx
ˆf f f
17
Agenda•Background:
Problem Statement
Non-collocation and Non-minimum Phase Behavior
Observer and Controller Overview
Test-bed Overview
Plant Model
•Optimal Observer – The Kalman Filter
•Robust Observer – Sliding Mode
•Results:Simulation Studies
Experimental Studies
•Conclusions
•Project Roadmap
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
18
Sliding Mode Observer – Lit. Review•Walcott and Zak (1986) and Slotine et al. (1987) – Suggest a general design procedure based on variable structure systems (VSS) theory approach. Simulations show superior robustness properties.
•Chalhoub and Kfoury (2004) – Use VSS theory approach. Simulations of a single flexible link with observer in closed-loop show superior robustness properties.
•Kim and Inman (2001) – Use Lyapunov equation approach. Superior robustness properties shown by simulations and experimental results of closed-loop active vibration suppression of cantilevered beam (not a motion system).
•Zaki et al. (2003) – Use Lyapunov approach. Experimental results. Observer in open loop.
19
• Sliding Surface – A line or hyperplane in state-space which is designed to accommodate a sliding motion.
• Sliding Mode – The behavior of a dynamic system while confined to the sliding surface.
• Signum function (Sgn(s)) if • Reaching phase – The initial phase of the closed loop
behaviour of the state variables as they are being driven towards the surface.
11
Sliding Mode Observer – Definitions
00
ss
20
Sliding Mode Observer – Overview
(0,0)x
12,n y x
Error Vector Trajectory
Sliding Surface
1 1 1ˆs x x x
x0, 0x x
1 1 1s s s
Example:
If Single Sliding Surface:
Then Dynamics on Sliding Surface:
Sliding Condition:
21
Sliding Mode Observer – Form
ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ( ) (sgn( ))L sx Ax Bu K y y K y y
Example: Given a second order dynamics system with a single measurement,
1 2
2
x xx f
1y x
The error dynamics in the presence of parametric uncertainty are given by
2 1 1 1 11
2 1 2 12
sgn( )sgn( )
x L x k xxf L x k xx
ˆf f f
22
Sliding Mode Observer – VSS Theory Approach
Notable Aspects:
•Sliding mode gains are selected individually one gain at a time.
•Gains are dependent on one another.
•Must select upper bounds on parametric uncertainties.
•Must select upper bounds on estimate errors.
Limitations:
•As number of measurements increase, higher likelihood of more unknowns than constraint equations. Some gains must be set to zero.
•If measurements are not directly states, approach becomes unmanageable.
•Sliding mode gain Ks is time-varying.
23
ˆ( ) (sgn( ))L sx A K C x K y y Ax Given the SMO error dynamics
Walcott and Zak show that the following implementation assures stable error dynamics:
1 TsK P C
( ) ( )TL L pA K C P P A K C Q
Sliding Mode Observer – Lyapunov Approach
Formally, the Lyapunov function candidate can be used to show that is negative definite and so error dynamics are stable.
TV e PeV
AxDepends on
24
1
1
ˆsgn( )
ˆ
T
T
P C y yS y y
P C
ˆ
ˆ
y y
y y
Boundary Layer Sliding Mode Observer
Notable Aspects:
•As width of B.L. decreases, BLSMO becomes SMO.
•As estimate error tends to zero, so does S.
IF
25
Agenda•Background:
Problem Statement
Non-collocation and Non-minimum Phase Behavior
Observer and Controller Overview
Test-bed Overview
Plant Model
•Optimal Observer – The Kalman Filter
•Robust Observer – Sliding Mode
•Results:Simulation Studies
Experimental Studies
•Conclusions
•Project Roadmap
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
26
B
A
C
KL
KC
F
D
v
r
G
w
u x
x y
y
+
+
+
-+
+
-
+
+
+
εKsρ
+
A
B C
D
Simulation Studies - Overview
•Noise statistics inherited from experimental test-bed.
•Feedback gain designed to keep control signal u < 62 N.
Parameter Variation Studies:
•Vary tip mass.
•Observer design parameters: ρ, Qp , and λ.
•Parameter variation from +60% to -60%.
27
B
A
C
KL
KC
F
Dv
r
Gw
u x
x y
y
+
+
+-
+
+
-++
+
εKsρ
+
A
B C
D
Simulation Studies - Overview
Performance Metric:(For lumped-parameter models)
•Position Mean Square Estimate Error:Norm of vector
•Velocity Mean Square Estimate Error:Norm of vector
Similar approach for assumed modes method model.
1
3
( )( )
MSE xMSE x
2
4
( )( )
MSE xMSE x
28
Simulation Studies – Results
•Sliding mode behavior seen in error space.
•SMO (Qp = 4, ρ = 1) and BLSMO (Qp = 4, ρ = 1, λ = 0.005).
29
•Discontinuous state function for SMO.
•Smoothed state function for BLSMO.
Simulation Studies – Results
30
Simulation Studies – Results
•Kalman Filter vs. BLSMO (Qp = 2.2e3, ρ = 2.5, λ = 150)
•30% parameter variation.
•Lumped parameter model.
•Result:
Reduced error estimates from BLSMO.
Tip Position:
Tip Velocity:
31
1.E-09
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60Parameter Variation (%)
SMO (roe=0.5,Q=1e5) BLSMO (roe=0.5,Q=1e5,lambda=10)
SMO (roe=0.6,Q=5e3) BLSMO (roe=0.6,Q=5e3,lambda=195)
SMO (roe=0.25,Q=2.2e3) BLSMO (roe=0.25,Q=2.2e3,lambda=150)
1.E-09
1.E-08
1.E-07
1.E-06
1.E-05
1.E-04
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Parameter Variation (%)
Posi
tion
Mea
n Sq
uare
Es
timat
e Er
ror (
m)
BLSMO (roe=1,Q=4,lambda=0.005) BLSMO (roe=1,Q=7.5,lambda=0.003)
BLSMO (roe=1,Q=19,lambda=0.001) Kalman Filter
Simulation Studies – Results
•Lumped parameter model.
•Result:
Larger variation in performance between different SMO designs.
Little variation in performance between different BLSMO designs.
BLSMO estimate errors are lower than SMO.
BLSMO estimate errors are lower than Kalman filter.
32
Simulation Studies – Results
1.0E-08
5.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.5E-05
2.0E-05
2.5E-05
3.0E-05
3.5E-05
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
Parameter Variation (%)
Velo
city
Mea
n Sq
uare
Est
imat
e Er
ror (
m/s
)
BLSMO
Kalman Filter
•Lumped parameter model.
•Result:
With Gaussian white measurement noise, BLSMO (Qp = 2.2e3, ρ = 0.01, λ = 5) outperforms Kalman filter.
33
Simulation Studies – Results
•Modified inertia lumped parameter model.
•Result:
Unstable error dynamics for Kalman filter in presence of 21% parameter variation.
Stable error dynamics for BLSMO (Qp = 3.65e6, ρ = 60, λ = 1) under same conditions, up to 32% parameter variation.
34
Simulation Studies – Results
Closed-Loop Tip Response:
•Lumped parameter model with 30% parameter variation.
•BLSMO (Qp = 2e3, ρ = 2.5, λ = 150).
•Result:
Due to improved estimation, commanded tip excitation decreases.
•Modified inertia lumped parameter model with 25% parameter variation.
•BLSMO (Qp = 3.65e6, ρ = 60, λ = 1).
•Result:
Due to improved estimation,
Unstable tip response is stabilized.
35
1.0E-08
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50Parameter Variation (%)
BLSMO
Kalman Filter
Simulation Studies – Results
•Assumed modes method model.
•Result:
BLSMO (Qp = 2.5e11, ρ = 5, λ = 37) offers no estimation advantage.
Closed-loop tip response could not be improved.
•Why? -No state directly measured.
-Parameter variation effects A, B, C and D.
-According to Matlab, observability depends on link parameters.
36
Simulation Studies – Summary of Results
The Good:
•SMO estimates are superior to Kalman filter.
•BLSMO estimates are superior to SMO.
•In presence of Gaussian white noise, BLSMO estimates remain superior to Kalman filter.
•Improved estimation can stabilize an unstable tip response or at the very least reduce closed-loop tip tracking error.
37
The Bad:
•Robust observer with assumed mode method model not any more robust than Kalman filter.
•Anomaly at +60% parameter variation in many results.
•All parameters selected by trial and error manner.
Simulation Studies – Summary of Results
38
Agenda•Background:
Problem Statement
Non-collocation and Non-minimum Phase Behavior
Observer and Controller Overview
Test-bed Overview
Plant Model
•Optimal Observer – The Kalman Filter
•Robust Observer – Sliding Mode
•Results:Simulation Studies
Experimental Studies
•Conclusions
•Project Roadmap
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
39
Experimental Studies – Overview
•Controller and observer based on lumped parameter model.
•Model outputs tip acceleration. (accelerometer signal not integrated)
•Noise covariance matrix for Kalman filter reflects:
A standard deviation of 1.97e-5 meters in the position measurement.
A standard deviation of 0.0161 m/s2 in the acceleration measurement.
•Tip position is commanded in closed-loop control by penalizing state x1 in the method of symmetric root locus and in design of the feed-forward gain F.
40
Experimental Studies – Overview
•Allows direct control over hardware at run-time.
•Relays status information to developer.
•Updates at 10hz to minimize overhead.
LabVIEW GUI
41
Experimental Studies – Results
•Loop rate 1khz.
•Kalman filter.
•First mode suppressed by state-feedback in 1.5 seconds.
•A filtered square wave trajectory is tracked by link tip.
Base Position:
Tip Acceleration:
42
Experimental Studies – Results
•Tip acceleration displayed.
•Loop rate 1khz.
•Tracking filtered square wave.
Tip mass increased by 426%
Tip mass decreased by 70%
43
Experimental Studies – Results
•Link base position displayed.
•Tracking filtered square wave trajectory for link tip.
•Parameter variation of 91% in link length.
•SMO (Qp=1.5e7, ρ=10) shows estimate chatter.
•BLSMO (Qp=1.5e7, ρ=10, λ=5) shows no estimate chatter.
•Damping effect on base motion apparent.
44
Experimental Studies – Results
•Link tip acceleration displayed.
•Tracking filtered square wave trajectory for link tip.
•Parameter variation of 91% in link length.
•SMO (Qp=1.5e7, ρ=10) shows estimate chatter.
•BLSMO (Qp=1.5e7, ρ=10, λ=5) shows no estimate chatter.
•Damping effect on tip motion apparent.
45
Experimental Studies – Results
•Control signal is displayed.
•Tracking filtered square wave trajectory for link tip.
•Parameter variation of 91% in link length.
•SMO (Qp=1.5e7, ρ=10) shows very high control activity.
•BLSMO (Qp=1.5e7, ρ=10, λ=5) shows reduced control activity.
46
Experimental Studies – Results
•Studies could not be completed because of restrictive bounds placed on observer design parameters ρ and λ.
•The structure of the output matrix C in combination with large sliding mode gain Ks and large feedback gain Kc can lead to discontinuities in the estimates which can cause discontinuities in the control signal:
For ρ > 50 For λ < 1
Base Position:
47
Experimental Studies – Summary of Results
•Robust observer parameter Qp fixed off-line while ρ and λ can be tuned on-line.
•Small computational over-head.
•SMO and BLSMO have an apparent damping effect on motor when tracking a time-varying reference signal in presence of parametric uncertainty.
•Kalman filter is surprisingly robust to parameter variation. Although room for estimate improvement does exist.
•Marginal stability resulting for parameter variation appears to be caused more by degraded performance of controller than of the Kalman filter.
•Estimation chatter lead to chatter in control signal and overheated motor.
48
Agenda•Background:
Problem Statement
Non-collocation and Non-minimum Phase Behavior
Observer and Controller Overview
Test-bed Overview
Plant Model
•Optimal Observer – The Kalman Filter
•Robust Observer – Sliding Mode
•Results:Simulation Studies
Experimental Studies
•Conclusions
•Project Roadmap
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
49
Scoring the Sliding Mode Observer
What is a useful observer anyway?
•Robust (works most of the time)
•Accuracy not far off from optimal estimates
•Not computationally intensive
•Straightforward design
•Straightforward implementation
50
Strong points:•Simulations indicate optimality is not sacrificed for robustness.
•Simulations show that improving estimates alone can improve closed-loop tip tracking errors significantly.
•On physical system, operates at fast control rates and is applicable to real-time control of fast motion systems.
•On physical system, offers high tunability at run-time. (can even revert to Kalman filter on-the-fly)
•In simulations and on physical system, easy to design.
Scoring the Sliding Mode Observer
51
Weak points:
•In simulations and on physical system, more particular about linear system model than Kalman filter.
•On physical system, more difficult to implement than Kalman filter. Significantly more trial and error tuning needed.
•On physical system, without boundary layer, can harm hardware.
Scoring the Sliding Mode Observer
Robust Nonlinear Observer for a Non-collocated Flexible System
Mohsin Waqar
M.S.Thesis Presentation
Friday, March 28, 2008
Intelligent Machine Dynamics Lab
Georgia Institute of Technology
53
ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ( ) (sgn( ))L sx Ax Bu K y y K y y
1.01 4 0.056 4 3.25 6 0.066 4cK e e e e
1.2 4 0.343.2 8 4.5 5
2.8 4 0.481.1 7 1.9 4
s
ee e
Kee e
ˆcu Fr K x
0 0 1 01.195 3 0.391 1.195 3 0.391
Ce e
528 0.863713 0.184
1.08 3 0.9831.06 3 0.965
LKee
F = 2.24e4
Recommended