Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220387268
CITATIONS READS
7 31
2 authors, including:
Quan Quan
Beihang University (BUAA)
71 PUBLICATIONS 260 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Quan Quan on 08 March 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
1
E s
+
+
Quan Quan and Kai-Yuan Cai B s
This work was supported by the 973 Program (2010CB327904), the II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION AND A N EW M ODEL OF
National Natural Science Foundation of China (60904066), and the Innovation P ERIODIC S IGNALS
Foundation of BUAA for PhD Graduates.
The authors are with National Key Laboratory of Science and Tech- A. Problem Formulation
nology on Holistic Control, Department of Automatic Control, Bei-
jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing 100191, China To illustrate the generality of FRC, we consider the follow-
(qq buaa@asee.buaa.edu.cn; kycai@buaa.edu.cn) ing error dynamics examined in [7],[8]:
1 In this note we have replaced the term modified in [1] with the more
descriptive term filtered. e (t) = f (t, e (t)) + b (t, e (t)) [v (t) v (t)] . (1)
2
Here e (t) Rn is a tracking error vector, v (t) Rm is a Example 1: Let A0, = Im and A1, = (1 ) Im . Then
disturbance, v (t) Rm is a signal designed to compensate for (5) becomes
v (t) . For simplicity, we set the initial time t0 = 0. Throughout
xp (t) = xp (t) + (1 ) xp (t T ) + (t)
this note, we assume the following for the system (1).
Assumption 1[7],[8]: The functions f : [0, ) Rn v (t) = xp (t) + (t)
R and b : [0, ) Rn Rnm are bounded when e (t)
n
xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] . (6)
is bounded on R+ . Moreover, there exists a differentiable
The system (6) is a retarded system driven by a bounded
function V0 : [0, )Rn [0, ) , a positive definite matrix
external signal (t) , t [0, ). We examine the bound on
M (t) = M T (t) Rnn with 0 < M In < M (t) and a
k (t)k by the frequency response method. By (6), the Laplace
matrix R (t) Rnm such that
transform from v (s) to (s) is defined by
2
V0 (t,e (t)) c0 ke (t)k (2)
(s) = G (s) v (s)
T
V0 (t,e (t)) e (t) M (t) e (t)
where (s) and v (s) are the Laplace transforms of (t) and
+ eT (t) R (t) [v (t) v (t)] (3) 1+s(1) exp(sT )
v (t), respectively; here G (s) = 2+s(1) exp(sT ) . The
where c0 > 0. frequency responses of G (s) with T = 2 and = 0.01, 0.001
Assumption 2: The disturbance v satisfies v are shown in Fig.2.
CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ).
x (t) = x (t T )
v (t) = x (t)
x () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (4) Fig. 2. Frequency responses of G (s)
where t R+ and x (t) Rm is the state. By the internal As shown in Fig.2, G (s) has a comb shape with notches
model principle [9], it is expected that asymptotic rejection of matching the frequencies of the periodic signal v (t) , t
a periodic disturbance can be achieved by incorporating the [0, ). This makes the frequency response of G (s) close to
above model (4), i.e. 1e1sT Im (the transfer function of (4)), 0 at k, k = 0, 1, 2, . As the parameter decreases, the
into the closed-loop system. This is also the basic idea of RC periodic components, especially in the low frequency band,
[1]. will be attenuated by G (s) more strongly. Since the low
A new model to describe v CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ), which frequency band is dominant in most periodic signals, this will
will help in design of the FRC for the nonlinear system (1), result in a smaller upper bound on k (t)k. In particular, if
is given in Lemma 1. = 0, then (t) 0 by Lemma 1.
Lemma 1: If A0, > 0 and kA1, k < 1, then for any v
CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ) there exists a signal CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ) III. C ONTROLLER D ESIGN AND S TABILITY A NALYSIS
such that
A. Controller Design
A0, xp (t) = xp (t) + A1, xp (t T ) + (t) According to (5), to compensate for the disturbance v (t) ,
v (t) = xp (t) + (t) the FRC is designed as
xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (5) A0, v (t) = v (t) + A1, v (t T ) + ke RT (t) e (t) (7)
mm +
where A0, , A1, R . If A0, = 0 and A1, = Im , with v () = 0, for [T, 0] , where t R , A0, , A1,
then any v CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rm ) can be generated by (5) with Rmm , ke R+ , and R (t) is as in (3). The FRC (7) can
(t) 0. be considered not only as a repetitive controller, but also as a
Proof: See Appendix B. modified repetitive controller as described in [1].
3
1) In particular, the controller (7) with A0, = 0 and A1, = Lemma 2[10]: Assume that there exists a continuously
Im reduces to differentiable functional V (t, zt ) : [0, )C ([T, 0] ; Rn )
[0, ) such that
v (t) = v (t T ) + ke RT (t) e (t) (8) Z t
2 2 2
Therefore, the controller (7) with A0, = 0 is a repetitive 1 kz (t)k V (t, zt ) 2 kz (t)k + kz (s)k ds (12)
tT
controller.
2) Denote the Laplace transforms of v (t) and where 1 , 2 are positive real numbers. If there exists b R+
ke RT (t) e (t) , by v (s) and re (s) respectively. such that
2
Then the Laplace transform from re (s) to v (s) is V (t, zt ) 3 kz (t)k + b (13)
defined by
where 3 is a positive real number, then the solutions of
1 (11) are
v (s) = 1 Q (s) esT B (s) re (s) . (9) q uniformly ultimately bounded with respect to the
bound (1 + ) 1b3 (2 + T ), where is an arbitrarily small
1
Here Q (s) = (sA0, + I) A1, is called the Q-filter positive real number.
1
in [1] and B (s) = (sA0, + I) . This controller is
therefore a modified repetitive controller in the sense With the help of Lemma 2, we have
of [1]. Theorem 1: For the error dynamics (1), suppose Assump-
tions 1-2 hold, and v (t) is generated by the FRC (7) in
Subtracting (7) from (5) yields which the parameters satisfy ke > 0, A0, = AT0, 0
and A1, = I A0, . We claim that 1) if A0, = 0, then
A0, v (t) = v (t) + A1, v (t T ) lim e (t) = 0; 2) if A0, > 0, ensures kA1, k < 1,
t
ke RT (t) e (t) + (t) (10) and if V0 (t,e) in (2) further satisfies V0 (t,e) c1 ke (t)k
2
where v , xp v. In (10), the initial condition on v is with c1 > 0, then, for any value of e (0), e (t) is uniformly
bounded. We do not concern ourselves with the concrete value ultimately bounded.
of the initial condition as the following results hold globally. Proof: For (11), choose the nonnegative function V (t, zt )
Combining (1) and (10) yields a closed-loop error dynamics to be
in the form V (t, zt ) = 2ke V0 (t, e (t))
Z t
E z (t) = fa (t, z (t)) + fd (z (t T )) + ba (t, z (t)) (t) . T
+ v (t) A0, v (t) + v T (s) v (s) ds (14)
(11) tT
Here
where V0 satisfies Assumption 2 and A0, = AT0, 0. Under
v m+n Assumption 2, taking the time derivative V (t, zt ) along (11)
z= R , = Rm+n ,
e 0n1 yields
v (t) ke RT (t) e (t)
fa (t, z (t)) = Rm+n , V (t, zt ) 2ke eT (t) M (t) e (t)
f (t, e (t)) + b (t, e (t)) v (t)
+ v T (t) H v (t) + g (t) + 2v T (t) (t) (15)
A1, v (t T )
fd (z (t T )) = Rm+n ,
0n1 where
A0, 0mn
E= R(m+n)(m+n) , H = Im + AT1, A1,
0nm In
g (t) = v T (t) AT1, A1, v (t) + 2v T (t) AT1, v (t T )
Im 0mm
ba (t, z (t)) = R(m+n)2m . v T (t T ) v (t T ) .
0nm b (t, e (t))
Remark 1: The closed-loop error dynamics (11) is a retarded Under Assumptions 1-2, using the fact that g (t) 0, we obtain
type system if A0, is nonsingular; whereas it will become a
V (t, zt ) 2ke eT (t) M (t) e (t) + v T (t) H v (t)
neutral type system if A0, = 0.
+ 2 kv (t)k k (t)k . (16)
B. Verification of Assumptions
Define the positive definite function
1
V0 (t,e (t)) = eT (t) D (q (t)) e (t) .
2
Then
2 2
c0 ke (t)k V0 (t,e (t)) c1 ke (t)k ,
where c0 = 12 D and c1 = 12 D are positive reals. By
skew-symmetry of matrix D (q (t)) 2C (q (t) , q (t)) , the
time derivative of V0 (t,e) along (1) with (20) is evaluated
as (3) with R (t) = (t) In . Therefore, Assumption 1
is satisfied. Since p is a vector of constant parameters and Fig. 3. Tracking performance with different
d (t) is the vector of T -periodic disturbances, v (t) in (20)
satisfies v CP0 T ([0, ) ; Rn+m ). Therefore, Assumption 2 is As seen in Fig.3, the tracking performance improves as
satisfied. decreases. This is consistent with the conclusion for linear
5
systems that, recalling (9), as the bandwidth of Q (s) = FRC can deal with small input delay while the corresponding
12
s+1 I3 increases, i.e. decreases, the tracking performance RC cannot, which demonstrates the effectiveness of FRC.
improves, and vice versa [1],[4].
2) With Input delay: Consider the robotic manipulator with
A PPENDIX
an input delay as follows:
A. RC Systems with an Input Delay
D (q (t)) q (t) + C (q (t) , q (t)) q (t)
Consider the following simple RC system:
+ G (q (t)) + d (t) = (t d )
where d > 0 is the input delay. The controllers are designed x (t) = x (t) + u (t)
as above. When RC is adopted ( = 0) and d = 0.001s, it u (t) = u (t T ) x (t) (21)
is observed from Fig.4 that a state of the closed-loop system
diverges at about 30s. This confirms that the stability of RC where x (t) , u (t) R. The RC system above can be also
systems is insufficiently robust. Using the FRC with = 0.5 written as
and prolonging the input delay from d = 0.001s to d =
x (t) x (t T ) = 2x (t) + x (t T ) . (22)
0.01s, it is observed from Fig.4 that the closed-loop system
can still track the desired trajectory. This shows that an FRC From [6], the system above is asymptotically stable. In the
system is more robust than its corresponding RC system. following, we claim that the RC system (21) with an input
delay > 0, namely
x (t) = x (t) + u (t )
u (t) = u (t T ) x (t) (23)
B. Proof of Lemma 1 for all (t, e (t)) [0, ) K. Let t1 and t2 be any real
Let (4) be the original system. To apply Additive Decom- numbers such that 0 < t2 t1 h. Then we have
position[16], choose the primary system as follows: Z t2
ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k =
e (s) ds
A0, xp (t) = xp (t) + A1, xp (t T ) + (t) t1
Z t2
xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (25) = [f (s, e (s)) + b (s, e (s)) v (s)] ds
t1
where A0, , A1, Rnn , (t) Rn . From the original Z t2
system (4) and the primary system (25), the secondary system bf (t2 t1 ) + bb kv (s)k ds. (32)
is determined by Additive Decomposition[16]: t1
A0, xp (t) = xp (t) + A1, xp (t T ) + (t) where N = b (t2 t1 )/ T c + 1 and b (t2 t1 )/ T c represents
v (t) = xp (t) + (t + T ) the floor integer of (t2 t1 )/ T . By the Cauchy-Schwarz
xp () = v (T + ) , [T, 0] (28) inequality, we have
Z t2 Z t2 21 Z t2 21
In the following, we will discuss the bound on (t) , t 2 2
kv (s)k ds 1 ds kv (s)k ds .
[0, ) . From (26) and (27), we obtain t1 t1 t1
A0, xp (t) = xp (t) (I A1, ) xp (t T ) + v (t) (29) Consequently, ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k in (32) is further bounded by
If A0, > 0 and kA1, k < 1, then A0, xp (t) = ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k bf h + h1 h
xp (t) (I A1, ) xp (t T ) is exponentially stable[17].
Consequently, there exists a bounded and T -periodic function where (33) is utilized and h1 = N bV bb . Therefore, for any
xp (t) which satisfies (29)[18]. Note that (t) v (t T ) > 0 there exists
xp (t T ) is also a bounded and T -periodic function. Conse- " p #2
quently, (28) can be rewritten in the form of (5). h1 + h21 + bf
h= >0
If A0, = 0 and A1, = Im , then (4) can be rewritten as (5) 2bf
with (t) 0.
such that ke (t2 ) e (t1 )k < for any 0 < t2 t1 < h. This
implies that e (t) is uniformly continuous.
C. Detailed Proof of Theorem 1 2) By noticing the form of V (t, zt ) in (14), the inequality
1) If A0, = 0, then (t) 0 by Lemma 1. Thus (16) (12) is satisfied with 1 = min [2ke c1 , min (A0, )] and 2 =
becomes max [2ke c2 , max (A0, )] . If A0, > 0, then L by
Lemma 2. Then, the inequality (16) becomes
V (t, zt ) 2ke eT (t) M (t) e (t) . (30) 2
V (t, zt ) 21 kz (t)k + 22 kz (t)k .
Then
V (t, zt ) 2c3 ke (t)k
2 where 1 = min M ke , 21 min (A0, ) and 2 = kk .
Since 1 > 0, the following inequality holds
From the inequality above, we obtain
2
1 kz (t)k + 22 kz (t)k 1 2
1 2 0.
V (t, zt ) V (0, z0 ) . (31)
Therefore (13) is satisfied with 3 = 1 and b = 1 2
1 2 .
Also Z Note the fact that ke (t)k kz (t)k by the definition of z (t) ,
t
2 1
ke (s)k ds V (0, z0 ) . then e (t) is globally uniformly ultimately bounded with the
0 2c3 ultimate bound
Therefore, e L L2 . Next, we prove that e (t) is uniformly v
u
continuous. If this is true, then lim e (t) = 0 by Barbalats u (1 + ) ( + 1)2 kk2 {max [2ke c2 , max (A0, )] + T }
t
t 2 ,
Lemma [19]. min [2ke c1 , min (A0, )] min M ke , 12 min (A0, )
Since e L , e (t) K Rm for a compact set K. By (34)
Assumption 2, there exists bf R+ such that kf (t, e)k bf where is an arbitrarily small positive real number.
7
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank Prof. W.M. Wonham of the
University of Toronto, together with the editor and anonymous
reviewers, for helpful comments on this note.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Hara, Y. Yamamoto, T. Omata, and M. Nakano, Repetitive control
system: a new type servo system for periodic exogenous signals, IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 659667, Jul. 1988.
[2] G. Weiss and M. Hafele, Repetitive control of MIMO system using
H design, Automatica, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 11851199, Jul. 1999.
[3] R.W. Longman, Iterative learning control and repetitive control for
engineering practice, Int. J. Control, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 930954, Jul.
2000.
[4] J. Li and T.C. Tsao, Robust performance repetitive control systems,
J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control-Trans. ASME, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 330337,
2001.
[5] R. Rabaha, G.M. Sklyarb, and A.V. Rezounenkoc, Stability analysis of
neutral type systems in Hilbert space, J. Differ. Equ., vol. 214, no. 2,
pp. 391428, Jul. 2005.
[6] Q. Quan, D. Yang and K.-Y. Cai, Linear matrix inequality approach
for stability analysis of linear neutral systems in a critical case, IET
Contr. Theory Appl., vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 1290-1297, Jul. 2010.
[7] W. Messner, R. Horowitz, W. W. Kao, and M. Boals, A new adaptive
learning rule, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 188197,
Feb. 1991.
[8] W.E. Dixon, E. Zergeroglu, and B.T. Costic, Repetitive learning control:
A Lyapunov-based approach, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B-
Cybern., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 538545, Aug. 2002.
[9] B.A. Francis and W.M. Wonham, The internal model principle of
control theory, Automatica, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 457465, Sep. 1976.
[10] S. Oucheriah, Robust tracking and model following of uncertain
dynamic delay systems by memoryless linear controllers, IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 14731577, Jul. 1999.
[11] M. Sun, S.S. Ge, and I.M.Y. Mareels, Adaptive repetitive learning
control of robotic manipulators without the requirement for initial
repositioning, IEEE Trans. Robot., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 563568, Jun.
2006.
[12] M.W. Spong and M. Midyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control, New
York: Wiley, 1989.
[13] F.L. Lewis, C.T. Abdallah, and D.M. Dawson, Control of Robot Manip-
ulators, New York: Macmillan, 1993.
[14] S.S. Ge, T.H. Lee, and C.J. Harris, Adaptive Neural Network Control of
Robotic Manipulators, London, U.K.: World Scientific, 1998.
[15] J.K. Hale, Theory of Functional Differential Equations, New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1977.
[16] Q. Quan and K.-Y. Cai, Additive decomposition and its applications
to internal-model-based tracking, in Joint Proc. 48th IEEE CDC and
Proc. 28th CCC, Shanghai, China, December 16-18, 2009, pp. 817822.
[17] L. Dugard and E.I. Verriest, Stability and Control of Time-delay Systems,
London: Springer, 1998.
[18] T.A. Burton and S. Zhang, Unified boundedness, periodicity, and
stability in ordinary and functional differential equations, Annali di
Matematica Pura ed Applicata, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 129158, Dec. 1986.
[19] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied Nonlinear Control, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1991.