New Approaches in

Automation and Robotics

 New Approaches in
Automation and Robotics

Edited by
Harald Aschemann

I-Tech
Published by I-Tech Education and Publishing

I-Tech Education and Publishing

Vienna
Austria

Abstracting and non-profit use of the material is permitted with credit to the source. Statements and
opinions expressed in the chapters are these of the individual contributors and not necessarily those of
the editors or publisher. No responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of information contained in the
published articles. Publisher assumes no responsibility liability for any damage or injury to persons or
property arising out of the use of any materials, instructions, methods or ideas contained inside. After
this work has been published by the I-Tech Education and Publishing, authors have the right to repub-
lish it, in whole or part, in any publication of which they are an author or editor, and the make other
personal use of the work.

© 2008 I-Tech Education and Publishing

www.i-techonline.com
Additional copies can be obtained from:
[email protected]

First published May 2008

Printed in Croatia

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Austrian Library.
Automation and Robotics, New Approaches, Edited by Harald Aschemann
p. cm.
ISBN 978-3-902613-26-4
1. Automation and Robotics. 2. New Approaches. I. Harald Aschemann
 Preface

The book at hand on “New Approaches in Automation and Robotics” offers in

22 chapters a collection of recent developments in automation, robotics as well as
control theory. It is dedicated to researchers in science and industry, students, and
practicing engineers, who wish to update and enhance their knowledge on modern
methods and innovative applications.

The authors and editor of this book wish to motivate people, especially under-
graduate students, to get involved with the interesting field of robotics and mecha-
tronics. We hope that the ideas and concepts presented in this book are useful for
your own work and could contribute to problem solving in similar applications as
well. It is clear, however, that the wide area of automation and robotics can only be
highlighted at several spots but not completely covered by a single book.

The editor would like to thank all the authors for their valuable contributions to
this book. Special thanks to Editors in Chief of International Journal of Advanced
Robotic Systems for their effort in making this book possible.

Editor
Harald Aschemann
Chair of Mechatronics
University of Rostock
18059 Rostock
Germany
[email protected]
 VII

Contents

Preface V

1. A model reference based 2-DOF robust Observer-Controller design 001

methodology
Salva Alcántara, Carles Pedret and Ramon Vilanova

2. Nonlinear Model-Based Control of a Parallel Robot Driven by Pneumatic 025

Muscle Actuators
Harald Aschemann and Dominik Schindele

3. Neural-Based Navigation Approach for a Bi-Steerable Mobile Robot 041

Azouaoui Ouahiba, Ouadah Noureddine, Aouana Salem and Chabi Djeffer

4. On the Estimation of Asymptotic Stability Region of Nonlinear Polynomial 055

Systems: Geometrical Approaches
Anis Bacha, Houssem Jerbi and Naceur Benhadj Braiek

5. Networked Control Systems for Electrical Drives 073

Baluta Gheorghe and Lazar Corneliu

6. Developments in the Control Loops Benchmarking 093

Grzegorz Bialic and Marian Blachuta

7. Bilinear Time Series in Signal Analysis 111

Bielinska Ewa

8. Nonparametric Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics of Systems Based on 133

the Active Experiment
Magdalena Bockowska and Adam Zuchowski

9. Group Judgement With Ties. Distance-Based Methods 153

Hanna Bury and Dariusz Wagner

10. An Innovative Method for Robots Modeling and Simulation 173

Laura Celentano

11. Models for Simulation and Control of Underwater Vehicles 197

Jorge Silva and Joao Sousa
VIII

12. Fuzzy Stabilization of Fuzzy Control Systems 207

Mohamed M. Elkhatib and John J. Soraghan

13. Switching control in the presence of constraints and unmodeled dyna- 227
mics
Vojislav Filipovic

14. Advanced Torque Control 239

C. Fritzsche and H.-P. Dünow

15. Design, Simulation and Development of Software Modules for the Con- 261
trol of Concrete Elements Production Plant
Georgia Garani and George K. Adam

16. Operational Amplifiers and Active Filters: A Bond Graph Approach 283
Gilberto González and Roberto Tapia

17. Hypermobile Robots 315

Grzegorz Granosik

18. Time-Scaling of SISO and MIMO Discrete-Time Systems 333

Bogdan Grzywacz

19. Models of continuous-time linear time-varying systems with fully adap- 345
table system modes
Miguel Ángel Gutiérrez de Anda, Arturo Sarmiento Reyes,
Roman Kaszynski and Jacek Piskorowski

20. Directional Change Issues in Multivariable State-feedback Control 357

Dariusz Horla

21. A Smith factorization approach to robust minimum variance control of 373

nonsquare LTI MIMO systems
Wojciech P. Hunek and Krzysztof J. Latawiec

22. The Wafer Alignment Algorithm Regardless of Rotational Center 381

HyungTae Kim, HaeJeong Yang and SungChul Kim
 1

A Model Reference Based 2-DOF Robust

Observer-Controller Design Methodology
Salva Alcántara, Carles Pedret and Ramon Vilanova
Autonomous University of Barcelona
Spain

1. Introduction
As it is well known, standard feedback control is based on generating the control signal
u by processing the error signal, e = r − y , that is, the difference between the reference
input and the actual output. Therefore, the input to the plant is

u = K (r − y ) (1)

It is well known that in such a scenario the design problem has one degree of freedom (1-
DOF) which may be described in terms of the stable Youla parameter (Vidyasagar, 1985).
The error signal in the 1-DOF case, see figure 1, is related to the external input r and d by
−1
means of the sensitivity function S =& (1 + Po K ) , i.e., e = S ( r − d ) .

r u y
K Po
-

Fig. 1. Standard 1-DOF control system.

Disregarding the sign, the reference r and the disturbance d have the same effect on the
error e . Therefore, if r and d vary in a similar manner the controller K can be chosen to
minimize e in some sense. Otherwise, if r and d have different nature, the controller has to
be chosen to provide a good trade-off between the command tracking and the disturbance
rejection responses. This compromise is inherent to the nature of 1-DOF control schemes. To
allow independent controller adjustments for both r and d , additional controller blocks
have to be introduced into the system as in figure 2.
Two-degree-of-freedom (2-DOF) compensators are characterized by allowing a separate
processing of the reference inputs and the controlled outputs and may be characterized by
means of two stable Youla parameters. The 2-DOF compensators present the advantage of a
complete separation between feedback and reference tracking properties (Youla &
Bongiorno, 1985): the feedback properties of the controlled system are assured by a feedback
2 New Approaches in Automation and Robotics

Fig. 2. Standard 2-DOF control configuration.

controller, i.e., the first degree of freedom; the reference tracking specifications are
addressed by a prefilter controller, i.e., the second degree of freedom, which determines the
open-loop processing of the reference commands. So, in the 2-DOF control configuration
shown in figure 2 the reference r and the measurement y, enter the controller separately and
are independently processed, i.e.,

⎡r ⎤
u=K⎢ ⎥ = K 2 r − K1 y (2)
⎣ y⎦
As it is pointed out in (Vilanova & Serra, 1997), classical control approaches tend to stress
the use of feedback to modify the systems’ response to commands. A clear example, widely
used in the literature of linear control, is the usage of reference models to specify the desired
properties of the overall controlled system (Astrom & Wittenmark, 1984). What is specified
through a reference model is the desired closed-loop system response. Therefore, as the
system response to a command is an open-loop property and robustness properties are
associated with the feedback (Safonov et al., 1981), no stability margins are guaranteed
when achieving the desired closed-loop response behaviour.
A 2-DOF control configuration may be used in order to achieve a control system with both a
performance specification, e.g., through a reference model, and some guaranteed stability
margins. The approaches found in the literature are mainly based on optimization problems
which basically represent different ways of setting the Youla parameters characterizing the
controller (Vidyasagar, 1985), (Youla & Bongiorno, 1985), (Grimble, 1988), (Limebeer et al.,
1993).
The approach presented in (Limebeer et al., 1993) expands the role of H ∞ optimization tools
in 2-DOF system design. The 1-DOF loop-shaping design procedure (McFarlane & Glover,
1992) is extended to a 2-DOF control configuration by means of a parameterization in terms
of two stable Youla parameters (Vidyasagar, 1985), (Youla & Bongiorno, 1985). A feedback
controller is designed to meet robust performance requirements in a manner similar as in
the 1-DOF loop-shaping design procedure and a prefilter controller is then added to the
overall compensated system to force the response of the closed-loop to follow that of a
specified reference model. The approach is carried out by assuming uncertainty in the
normalized coprime factors of the plant (Glover & McFarlane, 1989). Such uncertainty
description allows a formulation of the H∞ robust stabilization problem providing explicit
formulae.
A frequency domain approach to model reference control with robustness considerations
was presented in (Sun et al., 1994). The design approach consists of a nominal design part
plus a modelling error compensation component to mitigate errors due to uncertainty.
A Model Reference Based 2-DOF Robust Observer-Controller Design Methodology 3

However, the approach inherits the restriction to minimum-phase plants from the Model
Reference Adaptive Control theory in which it is based upon.
In this chapter we present a 2-DOF control configuration based on a right coprime
factorization of the plant. The presented approach, similar to that in (Pedret C. et al., 2005),
is not based on setting the two Youla parameters arbitrarily, with internal stability being the
only restriction. Instead,
1. An observer-based feedback control scheme is designed to guarantee robust stability.
This is achieved by means of solving a constrained H∞ optimization using the right
coprime factorization of the plant in an active way.
2. A prefilter controller is added to improve the open-loop processing of the robust closed-
loop. This is done by assuming a reference model capturing the desired input-output
relation and by solving a model matching problem for the prefilter controller to make
the overall system response resemble as much as possible that of the reference model.
The chapter is organized as follows: section 2 introduces the Observer-Controller
configuration used in this work within the framework of stabilizing control laws and the
Youla parameterization for the stabilizing controllers. Section 3 reviews the generalized
control framework and the concept of H∞ optimization based control. Section 4 displays the
proposed 2-DOF control configuration and describes the two steps in which the associated
design is divided. In section 5 the suggested methodology is illustrated by a simple
example. Finally, Section 6 closes the chapter summarizing its content and drawing some
conclusions.

2. Stabilizing control laws and the Observer-Controller configuration

This section is devoted to introduce the reader to the celebrated Youla parameterization,
mentioned throughout the introduction. This result gives all the control laws that attain
closed-loop stability in terms of two stable but otherwise free parameters. In order to do so,
first a basic review of the factorization framework is given and then the Observer-Controller
configuration used in this chapter is presented within the aforementioned framework. The
Observer-Controller configuration constitutes the basis for the control structure presented in
this work.

2.1 The factorization framework

A short introduction to the so-called factorization or fractional approach is provided in this
section. The central idea is to factor a transfer function of a system, not necessarily stable, as
a ratio of two stable transfer functions. The factorization framework will constitute the
foundations for the analysis and design in subsequent sections. The treatment in this section
is fairly standard and follows (Vilanova, 1996), (Vidyasagar, 1985) or (Francis, 1987).

2.1.2 Coprime factorizations over RH∞

A usual way of representing a scalar system is as a rational transfer function of the form

n( s )
Po ( s ) = (3)
m( s )
4 New Approaches in Automation and Robotics

where n ( s ) and m( s ) are polynomials and (3) is called polynomial fraction representation
of Po ( s ) . Another way of representing Po ( s ) is as the product of a stable transfer function
and a transfer function with stable inverse, i.e.,

−1
Po ( s ) = N ( s ) M ( s ) (4)

where N ( s ), M ( s ) ∈ RH∞ , the set of stable and proper transfer functions.

In the Single-Input Single-Output (SISO) case, it is easy to get a fractional representation in
the polynomial form (3). Let δ ( s ) be a Hurwitz polynomial such that
deg δ ( s ) = deg m( s ) and set

n( s ) m( s )
N (s) = M (s) = (5)
δ (s) δ (s)
The factorizations to be used will be of a special type called Coprime Factorizations. Two
polynomials n ( s ) and m ( s ) are said to be coprime if their greatest common divisor is 1 (no
common zeros). It follows from Euclid’s algorithm – see for example (Kailath, 1980) – that
n( s ) and m( s ) are coprime iff there exists polynomials x ( s ) and y ( s ) such that the
following identity is satisfied:

x ( s ) m( s ) + y ( s ) n( s ) = 1 (6)

Note that if z is a common zero of n ( s ) and m ( s ) then x ( z ) m ( z ) + y ( z ) n ( z ) = 0 and

therefore n ( s ) and m ( s ) are not coprime. This concept can be readily generalized to transfer
functions N ( s ), M ( s ), X ( s ), Y ( s ) in RH∞ . Two transfer functions M ( s ), N ( s ) in RH∞ are
coprime when they do not share zeros in the right half plane. Then it is always possible to
find X ( s ), Y ( s ) in RH∞ such that X ( s ) M ( s ) + Y ( s ) N ( s ) = 1 .
When moving to the multivariable case, we also have to distinguish between right and left
coprime factorizations since we lose the commutative property present in the SISO case.
The following definitions tackle directly the multivariable case.
Definition 1. (Bezout Identity) Two stable matrix transfer functions N r and M r are right

coprime if and only if there exist stable matrix transfer functions X r and Yr such that

⎡M r ⎤
[X r
Yr ] ⎢ ⎥ = X r M r + Yr N r = I (7)
⎣ Nr ⎦
Similarly, two stable matrix transfer functions N l and M l are left coprime if and only if

there exist stable matrix transfer functions X l and Yl such that

A Model Reference Based 2-DOF Robust Observer-Controller Design Methodology 5

⎡ Xl ⎤
[M l
Nl ] ⎢ ⎥ = M l X l + N l Yl = I (8)
⎣ Yl ⎦
The matrix transfer functions X r , Yr ( X l , Yl ) belonging to RH∞ are called right (left) Bezout
complements.
Now let Po ( s ) be a proper real rational transfer function. Then,
Definition 2. A right (left) coprime factorization, abbreviated RCF (LCF), is a factorization
−1 −1
Po ( s ) = N r M r ( Po ( s ) = M l N l ), where N r , M r ( N l , M l ) are right (left) coprime over
RH∞ .
With the above definitions, the following theorem arises to provide right and left coprime
factorizations of a system given in terms of a state-space realization. Let us suppose that

⎡A B⎤
Po ( s ) =& ⎢C D ⎥ (9)
⎣ ⎦
is a minimal stabilisable and detectable state-space realization of the system Po ( s ) .
Theorem 1. Define

⎡ A + BF B −L⎤
⎡M r −Yl ⎤ ⎢ F I 0⎥
=&
⎢⎣ N Xl ⎥
⎦ ⎢ ⎥
r
⎢⎣C + DF −D I⎥
⎦
(10)
⎡ A + LC − ( B + LD ) −L⎤
⎡ Xr Yr ⎤ ⎢
F I 0 ⎥
=&
⎢⎣ − N Ml ⎥
⎦ ⎢ C ⎥
l
⎢⎣ −D I ⎥⎦
−1
where F and L are such that A + BF and A + LC are stable. Then, Po ( s ) = N r ( s ) M r ( s )
−1
( Po ( s ) = M l ( s ) N l ( s ) ) is a RCF (LCF).
Proof. The theorem is demonstrated by substituting (1.10) into equation (1.7).
Standard software packages can be used to compute appropriate F and L matrices
numerically for achieving that the eigenvalues of A + BF are those in the vector

T
pF = ⎡⎣ pF L pF ⎤⎦
1 n
(11)

Similarly, the eigenvalues of A + LC can be allocated in accordance to the vector

T
pL = ⎡⎣ pL L pL ⎤⎦
1 n
(12)
6 New Approaches in Automation and Robotics

By performing this pole placement, we are implicitly making active use of the degrees of
freedom available for building coprime factorizations. Our final design of section 4 will
make use of this available freedom for trying to meet all the controller specifications.

2.2 The Youla parameterization and the Observer-Controller configuration

A control law is said to be stabilizing if it provides internal stability to the overall closed-
loop system, which means that we have Bounded-Input-Bounded-Output (BIBO) stability
between every input-output pair of the resulting closed-loop arrangement. For instance, if
we consider the general control law u = K 2 r − K1 y in figure 3a internal stability amounts to

being stable all the entries in the mapping ( r , d i , d o ) → ( u , y ) .

Let us reconsider the standard 1-DOF control law of figure 1 in which u = K ( r − y ) . For
this particular case, the following theorem gives a parameterization of all the stabilizing
control laws.
−1
Theorem 2. (1-DOF Youla parameterization) For a given plant P = N r M r , let
Cstab ( P ) denote the set of stabilizing 1-DOF controllers K1 , that is,

C stab ( P ) =& { K1 : the control law u = K1 ( r − y ) is stabilizing} . (13)

The set Cstab ( P ) can be parameterized by

⎧ X r + M rQ ⎫
C stab ( P ) = ⎨ : Q y ∈ RH∞ ⎬
y
(14)
⎩ Yr − N r Q
y ⎭
As it was pointed out in the introduction of this chapter, the standard feedback control
configuration of figure 1 lacks the possibility of offering independent processing of
disturbance rejection and reference tracking. So, the controller has to be designed for
providing closed-loop stability and a good trade-off between the conflictive performance
objectives. For achieving this independence of open-loop and closed-loop properties, we
added the extra block K 2 (the prefilter) to figure 1, leading to the standard 2-DOF control
scheme in figure 2. Now the control law is of the form

u = K 2 r − K1 y (15)

where K1 and K 2 are to be chosen to provide closed-loop stability and meet the performance
specifications. This control law is the most general stabilizing linear time invariant control
law since it includes all the external inputs ( y and r ) in u .
Because of the fact that two compensator blocks are needed for expressing u according to
(15), 2-DOF compensators are also referred to as two-parameter compensators. It is worth
emphasizing that (15) represents the most general feedback compensation scheme and that,
for example, there is no three-parameter compensator.
A Model Reference Based 2-DOF Robust Observer-Controller Design Methodology 7

(a)

di
r z u -1
Nl,K2 Ml,C Mr
-
x
do
y
Nl,K1 Nr

(b) (c)
Fig. 3. (a) 2-DOF control diagram. (b) An unfeasible implementation of the 2-DOF control
law u = K 2 r − K 1 y . (c) A feasible implementation of the control law u = K 2 r − K 1 y .

It is evident that if we make K1 = K 2 = K , then we have u = K ( r − y ) and recover the

standard 1-DOF feedback configuration (1 parameter compensator) of figure 1. Once we
have designed K1 and K 2 , equation (15) simply gives a control law but it says nothing about
the actual implementation of it, see (Wilfred, W.K. et al., 2007). For instance, in figure 3b we
can see one possible implementation of the control law given by (15) which is a direct
translation of the equation into a block diagram. It should be noted that this implementation
is not valid when K 2 is unstable, since this block acts in an open-loop fashion and this
would result in an unstable overall system, in spite of the control law being a stabilizing
one. To circumvent this problem we can make use of the previously presented factorization
−1
framework and proceed as follows: define C = [ K1 K 2 ] and let K1 = M l ,C N l , K 1 and
−1
K 2 = M l ,C N l , K 2 such that ( M l ,C ,[ N l , K 1 N l , K 2 ]) is a LCF of C . Once C = [ K1 K 2 ] has
been factorized as suggested, the control action in (15) can be implemented as shown in
−1
figure 3c. In this figure the plant has been right-factored as N r M r . It can be shown that the
mapping ( r , d i , d o ) → ( z1 , z 2 , u , y ) remains stable (necessary for internal stability) if and

only if so it does the mapping ( r , d i , d o ) → (u , y ) . The following theorem states when the
system depicted in figure 3c is internally stable.
Theorem 3. The system of figure 3c is internally stable if and only if

−1
R := M l ,C M r + N l , K 2 N r ∈ RH∞ , R ∈ RH∞ (16)

We can proceed now to announce the 2-DOF Youla Paramaterization.

8 New Approaches in Automation and Robotics

−1
Theorem 4. (2-DOF Youla parameterization) For a given plant P = N r M r , let C stab ( P )

denote the set of stabilizing 2-DOF controllers C = [ K 1

K ] , that is,
2

C stab ( P ) =& {C = [ K1 , K 2 ] : the control law u = K 2 r − K1 y ) is stabilizing} . (17)

The set C stab ( P ) can be parameterized as follows

⎧⎛ X r + M r Qy Qr ⎞ ⎫
C stab ( P ) =& ⎨⎜ , ⎟ : Q , Qr ∈ RH ⎬ (18)
⎩⎝ Yr − N r Qy Yr − N r Qy ⎠
y ∞

⎭
Proof. Based on theorem 2, it follows that the transfer function R will satisfy theorem 3 if
−1 −1
and only if M l , C N l , K 1 equals (Yr − Q y N r ) ( X r + Q y M r ) for some Qy in RH∞ such that

Yr − Qy N r ≠ 0 . Moreover, R is independent of N l , K1 . This leads at once to (18).

Following with figure 3c, let us assume that we take

N l , K 1 = 1, N l , K 2 = K1 X r , M l , C = 1 + K1Yr (19)

where K1 ∈ RH∞ . Then the two-parameter compensator can be redrawn as shown in figure
4a. For reasons that will become clear later on, this particular two-parameter compensator is
referred to as the Observer-Controller scheme.
r -1
x y
Mr Nr
-

Xr Yr
o
x
K1
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. (a) Observer-Controller in two blocks form. (b) Observer-Controller in three blocks
−1
form where Po = N r M r is a RCF.

Applying theorem 3 for the particular case at hand the stability condition for the system of
figure 4a reduces to

−1
R = (1 + K1 X r ) M r + K1Yr N r = M r + K1 ∈ RH∞ , R ∈ RH∞ (20)

It can be verified that the relation between r and y is given by N r R . In order to Tyr being
−1
stable, we have to require R to be stable. On the other hand, R is given by M r + K1 which
A Model Reference Based 2-DOF Robust Observer-Controller Design Methodology 9

is stable having chosen K1 stable. Choosing such an R for our design the stability
requirements for the overall system to be internally stable are satisfied.
It is easy to see that figure 4a can be rearranged as in figure 4b, where the plant appears in
−1
right-factored form ( Po = N r M r ). Now it is straightforward to notice that the relation

between x and xo is given by

x = ( X r M r + Yr N r ) x = x
o
(21)

where the Bezout identity applies. This way, the X r and Yr blocks can be though of as an
observer for the fictitious signal x appearing in the middle of the RCF. So, feeding back the
observation of x lets to place the close-loop eigenvalues at prescribed locations since the
achieved input to output relations is given by y = N r Rr and the stable poles of both N r
and R are freely assignable. This may remind of a basic result coming from state-space
control theory associated with observed state feedback: assuming a minimal realization of
the plant, state feedback using observers let you change the dynamics of the plant by
moving the closed-loop poles of the resulting control system to desired positions in the left
half plane. Let us assume the following situation for the figure 4b

b a b nx ny
P= , Mr = , Nr = , Xr = , Yr = (22)
a pK pK pL pL

Now let us take K1 to be of the form

m
K1 = (23)
pK

being m an arbitrary polynomial in s of degree n-1. With p K and p L we refer here to monic
polynomials in s having as roots the entries of the vectors in (11) and (12), respectively .The
dependence of s has been dropped to simplify the notation. By choosing this stable K1 the
relation between the input r and the output y remains as follows

b
Tyr = (24)
a+m
So we have achieved a reallocation of the closed-loop poles leaving the zeros of the plant
unaltered, as it happens in the context of state-space theory when one makes use of
observed state feedback.
What follows is intended to fully understand the relationship between the scheme of figure
4 and conventional state-feedback controllers. For this purpose, we will remind here results
 Thank You for previewing this eBook
You can read the full version of this eBook in different formats:

 HTML (Free /Available to everyone)

 PDF / TXT (Available to V.I.P. members. Free Standard members can

access up to 5 PDF/TXT eBooks per month each month)

 Epub & Mobipocket (Exclusive to V.I.P. members)

To download this full book, simply select the format you desire below