Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1, 2003
1. Introduction
In the section 2, the BMC and the other model control strategies are
depicted with the same representation in order to point out their differences. The
section 3 is devoted to the analysis of the classical BMC with a single control
loop. This principle is extended for process which need cascaded control loop in
the section 4. Finally, the theoretical methods are validated by simulation end
experimental result for a DC machine.
The objective of this section is to present the BMC among other model
control techniques. In order to point out its characteristics, a simplified four-block
representation is proposed for all described control strategies. These simplified
structures allow presenting the principle of each control, but they do not attempt
to make an exhaustive description or classification of them.
The “process” block corresponds to the real plant (Figure 1). It can be
characterized by its input vector u and its output vector y.
ymes
yref u y
Control Process
?
Adaptation
zest
ymod
Model
yref u y yref u y
Control Process Control Process
Adaptation Adaptation
zest
Model
Model
Figure 2: Example of a control structure with observer Figure 3: Example of MRAC structure
the control (Figure 4). The adaptation mechanism can be a simple unitary gain or
a noise filter.
This control strategy has been applied to the induction machine [16, 24]
and to DC/DC converters [23] in order to solve the disturbances of a load
changing.
ymes ymes
yref u y yref u y
Control Process Control Process
Adaptation Adaptation
Model Model
The behavior model control [3] imposes the process to follow the model.
At the opposite of other structures, its adaptation output acts directly on
the process by a supplementary input. The adaptation mechanism can be a simple
gain [19] or a classical controller [25].
Before applying BMC to a double closed-loop system, a general
presentation of the single closed-loop BMC is given.
process
control dmod d
+ ureg u -
yref Cm P y
+ + + +
- +
∆ureg -
CB
adaptation +
dmod model
-
M ymod
+
yref + -
Cm M
+ + +
-
ymod
Figure 7: Equivalent main loop of BMC structure
The model has well-known non-varying parameters and the perturbation is
perfectly defined. So, the main controller tuning leads to a great robustness of this
closed-loop (the perturbation is completely compensated).
In order to simplify (2) let assume a big gain of the behavior controller:
MC B >> 1 (5)
Using (5), the simplified expression of (2) is:
U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 65, No. 1, 2003
PC B P
y= y mod + (d mod − d ) (6)
1 + PC B 1 + PC B
Expression (6) yields to a closed-loop, called “behavior loop”. It consists
of the behavior controller, the process, and the equivalent perturbation d* (a
function of d-dmod).
d*
ymod -
CB P
+ +
-
y
Figure 8: Equivalent behavior loop of BMC structure
If CB is well tuned with the process, y follows its reference ymod. This
condition can be written as:
PC B >> 1 (7)
Using (7), the equivalent perturbation d* becomes:
d* =
1
(d − d mod ) (8)
CB
It can be attenuated, if the perturbation model dmod is close to the process
perturbation d.
As it can be noticed, the output of the main loop is the reference of the
behavior loop. So, the slowest loop imposes the dynamics of the global BMC.
BMC structures
+
Cm2 Cm1 P1 P2
+ + +
- + - +
∆u1reg -
CB1
+
y1mod y2mod
M1 M2
∆y1reg -
+
CB2
In the next structure (Figure 10), a global model is considered, where both
M1 and M2 models are directly connected.
The behavior controllers lead to a global action. The behavior controller
CB1 defines a supplementary output, ∆u1reg, which acts in the inner loop. The other
behavior controller CB2 acts in the same spot, as CB1, through its output ∆u2reg.
y2ref y1ref u1reg y1 y2
Cm2 Cm1 P1 P2
+ + + +
- -
+
∆u2reg -
CB2
+
∆u1reg -
CB1
+
y1mod y2mod
M1 M2
Figure 10: BMC structure with global action and global model.
In order to make y2/y2mod independent of the ratio P2/M2, y1/y1mod must tend
towards M2/P2 ratio. Supplementary simplification assumption is necessary, other
than (4), (5) or (7). This new simplification assumption is more complex and
seems hard to accomplish.
U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 65, No. 1, 2003
∆u1reg -
CB1
+
y1mod
M1
∆y1reg -
CB2
+
y2mod
M2
Figure 11: BMC structure with distributed action and distributed model.
Two other structures, global action-global model (Figure 10) and global
action-distributed model (Figure 12), need new and hard to accomplish
assumptions.
y2ref y1ref u1reg y1 y2
Cm2 Cm1 P1 P2
+ + +
- - +
∆u2reg -
CB2
+
∆u1reg -
CB1
+
M1 y1mod
y2mod
M2
Figure 12: BMC structure with global action and distributed model.
5. Application to a DC machine
Where R and L are the resistance and the inductance of the rotor windings,
J and f are the total inertia and friction coefficients, i the current, u the supply
voltage and e the back EMF.
The coupling equations link electrical variables with the mechanical one
through the flux coefficient KΦ:
U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 65, No. 1, 2003
⎧T = K Φ i
⎨ (10)
⎩e = K Φ Ω
A classical control of the DC machine is depicted in Figure 13 (the dashed
rectangle).
The behavior model (distributed action-distributed model structure) is
applied to both electrical and mechanical parts (M1 and M2 are the models of the
electrical and mechanical process and CBI and CBΩ the behavior controllers). The
electrical and mechanical part of the DC machine are represented by theirs
corresponding transfer functions, P1 and P2. The back EMF and the load torque
can be compensated by their estimations, eest and TL_est, if it is possible.
The DC machine parameters are:
⎧ 1 ⎧ 1
⎪ K M = f = 0.202 rad / s / Nm
−1
⎪⎪ K E = R = 0.416 Ω ⎪
⎨ ⎨
⎪τ = L = 16.67 ms ⎪τ = J = 8.34 s
⎪⎩ E
R ⎪⎩ M f
K C = K Φ = 0.139 Nm / A
The main controllers, CmI and CmΩ, are the same in BMC as in a classical
control. They are Integral Proportional controllers [18]. Its set the current settling
time at (trM)I = 12 ms and the speed settling time at (trM)Ω = 400 ms. The damping
factor is imposed to 1, in both main loops. The assumption of decoupling modes is
accomplished by the choice of the settling times.
The behavior controllers, CBi and CBΩ, are classical Proportional Integral
⎛ 1 + sτ ⎞
controllers: K ⎜ ⎟ . Their gains are chosen to ensure (5). Increasing theses
⎝ s ⎠
gains, the robustness of the control increases, but the noise too.
The τ constants are chosen in order to have a good dynamics of the
external perturbation rejections:
Robustness test
TL_mod emod TL
Ωref + Tref Treg 1 +
ureg KE
ir -
KM Ω
CmΩ + CmI KC
- +
KC + - - 1 + sτ E + 1 + sτ M
+
e KC
∆ureg
CBI
emod
-
K E _ mod imod
1 + sτ E _ mod
∆Treg
CBΩ
TL_mod
- K E _ mod Ωmod
+ 1 + sτ E _ mod
120 15
Speed Reference
100 Ideal Trajectory 10
Real Trajectory
80
5
Speed Error (%)
Speed (rad/s)
60
0
40
−5
20
0 −10
−20 −15
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time (s) Time (s)
Both classical control and BMC work well (Figure 15). Using (11), the
errors between the ideal speed trajectories and the real ones are less than 1%,
(Figure 15). The same result is obtained for inductance saturation: L=1.4Lmod.
Even the error is small, BMC works better.
1 1
Classical Control Classical Control
BMC BMC
0.5 0.5
Speed Error (%)
−0.5 −0.5
−1 −1
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 15: Electrical parameter variation (R=1.5Rmod) effect Figure 16: Back EMF effect
15 25
Classical Control Classical Control
10
BMC 20
BMC
5 15
Speed Error (%)
0 10
−5 5
−10 0
−15 −5
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 17: Mechanical parameter variation (J=0.5Jmod) effect Figure 18: Load torque effect
U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 65, No. 1, 2003
A physical friction variation does not affect the classical control, nor the
BMC significantly.
Finally, the machine was subjected to a step load change of 0.32 Nm (25%
of rated load torque) to allow load rejection to be analyzed. The load torque step
in at t = 1 s and it is not compensated in any controls. The BMC reduces the
transient error from 22% to 4%. The error level can be decrease increasing the
gain of the speed behavior controller. The transient of the error is controlled by
the τBΩ constant of the speed behavior controller.
120 15
Classical Control Classical Control
100 BMC 10
BMC
80
5
Speed Error (%)
Speed (rad/s)
60
0
40
−5
20
0 −10
−20 −15
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Time (s) Time (s)
Conclusion
REFERENCES
[1] B.K. Bose, Power electronics and motion control - Technology and recent trends, IEEE Trans.
on Industry Applications, vol. 29, 1993, pp 902-909.
[2] R.D. Lorenz, T.A. Lipo, D. Nowotny, Motion control with induction motors, Proceeding of the
IEEE, vol. 82, August 1994, pp 1215-1240.
[3] J.P. Hautier, J.P. Caron, Systèmes automatiques. Tome 2: Commande des processus, Edition
Ellipses, Paris, 1997.
[4] I.D. Landau, Adaptive Control: The Model Reference Approach, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1979.
[5] M. Morari, E. Zafiriou, Robust Process Control, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
1989.
[6] G. Verghese, S. Sanders, Observers for flux estimation in induction machines, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 35, no 1, February 1988.
[7] M. Elbuluk, N. Langovsky, D. Kankam, Design and implementation of a closed-loop observer
and adaptive controller for induction motor drives, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
Vol. 34, no 3, May/June 1998, pp 435-443.
[8] P. Jansen, R. Lorenz, A physically insightful approach to the design and accuracy assessment
of flux observers for field oriented induction machine drives, IEEE Transactions on Industry
Application, vol. 30, no 1, January/February 1994, pp 101-109.
[9] R. Nielsen, M. Kazmierkowski, Reduced-order observer with parameter adaptation for fast
rotor flux estimation in induction machines, IEE Proceeding D, vol. 136, no 1, January 1989, pp
35-43.
[10] T. Orlowska-Kowalska, Application of extended Luenberger observer for flux and rotor time-
constant estimation in induction motor drives, IEE Proceeding D, vol. 136, no 6, November 1989,
pp 324-330.
U.P.B. Sci. Bull., Series D, Vol. 65, No. 1, 2003
[11] T. Du, P. Vas, F. Stronach, Design and application of extended observers for joint state and
parameter estimation in high-performance AC drives, IEE Electronics Power Applications, vol.
142, no 2, March 1995, pp 71-78.
[12] W. Wang, C. Wang, A rotor-flux-observer-based composite adaptive speed controller for an
induction machine, IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 12, no. 4, December 1997, pp
323-329.
[13] C. Schauder, Adaptive speed identification for vector control of induction motors without
rotational transducers, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 28, no 5,
September/October 1992, pp 1054-1061.
[14] L. Zhen, L. Xu, Sensorless field orientation control of induction machines based on a mutual
MRAS scheme, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 45, no. 5, October 1998, pp 824-
830.
[15] T. Rowan, R. Kerkman, D. Leggate, A simple on-line adaptation for indirect filed orientation
of an induction machine, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, vol. 27, no.4, July/August
1991, pp 720-727.
[16] L. Harnefors, H.P. Nee, Model-based current control of AC machines using the internal
model control method, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 34, no 1,
January/February 1998, pp 133-141.
[17] B. Robyns, Y. Fu, F. Labrique, H. Buyse, Commande numérique de moteurs synchrones à
aimants permanents de faible puissance (in French), Journal de Physique III, vol. 5, no 3, August
1995, pp 1255-1268.
[18] P.K. Nandam, P.C. Sen, Analogue and digital speed control of DC drives using proportional-
integral and integral-proportional control techniques, IEEE Ton Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. IE-34, May 1987, pp 227-233.
[19] P.J. Barre, J.P. Hautier, X. Guillaud, B. Lemaire-Semail, Modelling and axis control of
machine tool for high speed machining, Proceeding of IFAC'97, Belfort,1997, pp. 63-68.
[20] H. Naitoh, M. Hirano, S. Tadakuma, Microprocessor-based adjustable speed dc motor drives
using model reference adaptive control, Proceeding of IAS Annual Meeting, 1985, pp 524-528.
[21] F. Palis, A. Buch, U. Ladra, R. Kurrich, Q. Ila, M. Negnevitsky, Fuzzy and neuronal control
of drive systems with changing parameters and load, Proceeding of EPE-EDDA Conference,
Nancy 1996, pp 183-185.
[22] I. Stefan, C. Forgez, B. Lemaire-Semail, X. Guillaud, Comparison between neural
compensation and internal model control for induction machine drive, ICEM'97 Conference,
Istanbul September 1997, pp 1330-1334.
[23] I. Gadoura, T. Suntio, K. Zenger, P. Vallitu, Internal model control for DC/DC converters,
EPE'99 Conference, Lausanne (Switzerland), September 1999.
[24] J.L. Thomas, M. Boidin, An internal model control structure in field oriented controlled VSI
induction motors, Proceeding of EPE'91, Firenze (Italy), 1991, vol. 2, pp 202-207.
[25] B. Vulturescu, A. Bouscayrol, J.P. Hautier, X. Guillaud, F. Ionescu, Behaviour model control
of a DC machine, ICEM'2000, Conference Espoo (Finland), August 2000.
[26] J. Pierquin, P. Escané, A. Bouscayrol, M. Pietrzak-David, J.P. Hautier, B. de Fornel,
Behaviour model control of a high speed traction system, EPE-PEMC'2000 Conference, Kocise
(Slovak Republic), September 2000.