Friction compensation using a

reduced-order observer for a

2-dof system
F. Kamalizadeh
DCT 2004.86
DCT report
Supervisor: Dr. Ir. L. Moreau
T L&LLLL~SWIC. -I..-: rhn T V A * ~ Tn; Vnr g; t n; + , . I I c L ~ L Ei nrl hnxr~n - I z I u I a v I L A -
Department Mechanical Engineering
Dynamics and Control Technology Group
Eindhoven, July zoo4
Contents
Introduction 2
1 Friction and Model Identification 1
1.1 Friction identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Model identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Control Strategy 4
2.1 Controller design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Friction compensation strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Observer Design 6
4 Simulation and Results 11
4.1 Strategy layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2 Simulation results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3 Practical results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Conclusion 14
Bibliography 15
Introduction
Nowadays speed and mainly accuracy of mechanical systems are becoming more and more
important. In an effort to achieve high accuracy the negative effect of friction must be taken
into account. The objective of this internship is to derive a friction compensation strategy for
a two-degree-of-freedom (2-dof) system, which reduces steady-state errors. The design of this
friction compensation strategy is based on the passivity theory. Because friction generally
has a velocity dependency and in this case no velocity sensors are available an estimate of the
velocities must be made; this is done by means of a reduced-order observer. Finally simulation
and experimental results of the observer based friction compensation strategy are presented.
Chapter 1
Friction and Model Identification
1.1 Friction identification
To perform friction compensation it is essential that first information about the friction
model must be obtained. The friction model for this system is determined by applying
several constant velocities to the PD-controlled system and furthermore measuring the
applied torque. This torque is then assumed to be equal to the friction torque at that
specific velocity. &om experiments it becomes clear that the friction is not only
velocity-dependent, but that position also has influence on the present friction. To simplify
the friction model this effect has been neglected, by averaging the friction torque over a
whole rotation. The results of this experiment are presented in figure 1.1. The dashed lines
represent the maximum and minimum friction torque, which is calculated by averaging the
friction torque over multiple rotations. Hence the area between the two lines can be seen as
an uncertainty band. From the figure it becomes clear that we are dealing with a Coulomb
friction profile in combination with viscous friction.
Figure 1.1: Friction model: averaged measurement data (dots), fitted curve (line) and uncertainty band (dashed
line)
CHAPTER 1. FRJCTION AND MODEL IDENTIFICATION 2
1.2 Model identification
The specific system is a two-degree-of-freedom (2-dof) system (see figure 1.2). The motor
Figure 1.2: The experimental setup
and the load section are modelled as single inertias, respectively J1 and J2. ql and q2
represent the orientation of J1 and J2. The axle between the motor and load is modelled as
a parallel coupling of a iinear spring (with stiffness kl) and a h e a r damper (with damping
constant bl). On J1 an external input torque T can be applied, by providing a voltage u
(u=Kmi). Here Km [Nm/V] represents the torque constant of the DC-motor. Moreover it is
assumed that the motor is subjected to a coulomb friction force with magnitude Ffri, and
the motor and load are subjected to viscous friction,with respective friction coefficients 61
and 62. All this leads to the following model for the system
with Fk = k1 (q2 - q1) and Fd = bl (q2 - ql).
It is clear that we are dealing with a nonlinear system. For identification purposes there is
chosen to make use of the transfer function from u to ql. To analytically determine this
transfer function, (1.1) must be linearised. The system is linearized around q1 = q2 = C,
where C is a nonzero scalar. This leads to the following transfer function
- K,
--
~ 2 s ~ + hf s + Icl
4.1
J1J2s4 + (J15zf + J2blf)s3 + ((d5 $ J2) l ci + bljb2f - b?)s2 + (ki(bif + bzf) - 2biIcl)~
(1.2)
with bl f = bl + 61, bzf = bl + 62.
In order to identify the specific system parameters, a frequency response function (frf)
measurement is performed. By adding a random signal, which contains a broad frequency
spectrum, as a disturbance to the input of the system, the sensitivity function
S(s) = l+C(:)H(s) can be estimated(see figure 1.2). And with information about the
controller, finally the transfer fiinction H( s) = 910 can be determimd. With the we ef a
4 s )
fitting procedure in Matlab the parameters in (1.2) can be identified. This leads t o the
foiiowing fit of Hj s j figure i.4
CHAPTER 1. FRICTION AND MODEL IDENTIFICATION
Figure 1.3: FRF measurement
frequency Infflr]
Figure 1.4: fitted H(s) (black) and measured H(s) (red)
The estimated parameters are
Chapter 2
Control Strategy
In this chapter first the controller design will be presented. After that the friction
compensation strategy will be treated.
2.1 Controller design
By means of the reduced-order observer the velocities q1 and q2, which are part of the state
x (see (3.1)), can be estimated. With these estimates a reconstructed state 2, which consists
-
of the positions ql and q2 and the estimated velocities $ and i j 2 can be obtained. Because
now the estimated state 2 can be obtained, there is chosen to make use of the so-called pole
placement technique. Here the control law consists of a linear combination of the state
variables, 2 = - Kg with K = [ K1 K2 K3 K4] . Result of this controller is that the
system dynamics transforms to
x = A g + B u
-
==%$= ( A- B K ) g
u = - Kg
Choosing all roots in the left-half plane results in an asymptotically stable system.
Arbitrarily all the roots are placed at -10. This choice leads to the following controller gains
K = [-27.2857 27.2857 0.0070 - 0.00771.
2.2 Friction compensation strategy
The friction compensation strategy is depicted in figure 2.1. The strategy consists of a
classic observer configuration with an additional friction compensation part. With this
strategy is tried t o stabilize the plant at the equilibrium point g = 0; Physically this is when
system is in rest and the positions ql and q2 are zero. Due to the fact that two position
encoders are present, the positions ql and q2 can be directly measmed. Wher: the system is
located at a place outside the equilibrium point the friction compensation strategy works as
foiiows: initiaiiy oniy the positions ql,q2 are considered nomero. These are used as input for
the observer, which in turn produces the estimated velocities & and 4 2 . These estimated
velocities are both fed to the controller and besides this also is fed to the friction
compensation-system. The controller and the friction compensation box use these estimates
to calculate their outputs, respectively the controller output u, and friction compensation
CHAPTER 2. CONTROL STRATEGY
5
term uf,. The plant input u will be processed and this Ieads to new positions ql and qa.
This process is repeated untiI the overall system is stabiIized at (g, 2,) = (0,O) E R6.
Figure 2.1: the friction compensation strategy
Chapter - 3
Observer Design
The system of figure 1.2 contains two encoders, with which it is possible to measure the
orientation of the motor and the load.
For feedback control piirposea and in order to be &!e to per f ~r m fricti~r, c ompens ~i t i m t he
positions as well as the velocities are needed. So we must find a way to determine the
velocities of the system. This can be done by a differentiating procedure of the position
measurements, but a drawback of this method is that it is sensitive to noise. An alternative
estimation can be achieved by making use of an observer. In the present case a
reduced-order observer is chosen. An advantage of such an observer to a full-order observer
is that it is of a lower order and thus has less design parameters. With a reduced-order
observer only states will be estimated which are not measured. Outcome of this choice is
that only the velocities dl and 42 will be estimated (by 4; and 42 respectively). The state g
can be divided into a measured part gm and an unmeasured part gu
Because gu can't be measured directly, it will be estimated by 2,. By defining the error as
The reduced-order observer dynamics we propose is
where zu is the observer state and L1 and L2 represent the observer gains. Equation (3.3)
consists of a p&ia! copjj of the actual p!ar,t (f i rst three t er zs or, the righthand side) - I 7 i~
which gu is substituted by 2, and the linear controller output u, = Vz is taken along
instead of the total system input u = V2 + Ffric(23) - Ffric(z3). Furthermore an additional
observer error term (last term) is present. There is chosen to use only two observer gains L1
and La in the reduced-order observer dynamics. Since (3.3) contains the unknown velocities
CHAPTER 3. OBSERVER DESIGN 7
x3 and x4 (via e3 and e4), it is not directly applicable in practice. To make it applicable a
new observer state z is introduced
The new reduced-order observer dynamics then becomes
which only contains the measured positions xl and x2 and the estimated velocities g3 and
gq. For implementation (3.5) will be applied, but for theoretical purposes (3.3) will be used
in the remainder of this report .
With (3.3) the error dynamics become
To prove passivity an extra parameter X is introduced. This parameter represents the
minimum slope of the friction level. In this specific case we are dealing with Coulomb
friction and so X=O. Therefore there is no need for using A, but by taking it with us allows
to deal with more general friction models, such as for example Stribeck curves. By adding
and subtracting [i 0ITXe3 from the above equation, (3.6) becomes
In the passivity theory this is known as a loop transformation. The errordynamics (3.7) can
be seen as a feedback interconnection of a linear part with a nonlinear passive part in the
feedbackloop (see figure (3)). Hereto we write (3.7) in the following form
C = [ 1 0 ] , D = [ 0 ]
Our objective now is to find a region in the Ll-L2 plane for which the linear part of this
system is strictly passive, thus guaranteeing uniform global exponential stability of the error
dynamics. According to [Khalil Lemma 6.41 a linear dynamical system is strictly passive if
its transfer function G(s) is strictly positive real (SPR). And for a transfer function G(s) to
be SPR it must satisfy the following conditions
CHAPTER 3. OBSERVER DESIGN
Figure 3.1: errordynamics written as a feedback interconnection of a linear part (upper box) with a nonlinear
passive part (lower box)
1. G( s ) is Hurwitz
2. Re[ G( j w) ] > 0 for all w 6 R
3. G( j c a) > 0 or G( j ca) = 0 and l i ~ , , w2 ~ e [ G( j w) ] > 0
The above conditions will now be analyzed one by one.
The transfer function G( s ) for this specific problem is
To be Hurwitz all coefficients in the denominator must have the same sign; since the
denominator is s2 - ( a + d) s + (ad - bc), -(a + d ) and (ad - bc) must both be positive. This
leads respectively to the following conditions
Since b and c are both scalars and a and d contain respectively the variables L1 and L2 the
conditions (3.11) and (3.12) can visualized as in figure 2.2.
The real part of G( j w) is
- ( a+dj w2 - E(ad - Ec - w2j
Re[G( j w) ] =
( a + d ) 2 ~ 2 + (ad - bc - w ~ ) ~
The second SPR condition simplifies to stating that the numerator of (3.13) must be
positive, since the denominator is always strictly larger than zero (sum of squares not
simultaneously equal to zero).
CHAPTER 3. OBSERVER DESIGN
a-d plane
Figure 3.2: a-d plane; (3.11) blue, (3.12) red. For G(s) t o be Hurwitz, a and d must lie in cross shaded area
Reordering the numerator of (3.13) gives -aw2 - d(ad - be). So to meet the demand that
the numerator of (3.13) is strictly larger than zero, the following conditions must be satisfied
where we have used the assumption that ad > bc (equation (3.12)). Remarkably these last
two demands do not add extra restrictions for strictly positive realness of the transfer
function G(s). So can be concluded that when stability of the loop in figure 2.1 is satisfied,
also passivity of the system is holds. The last SPR condition is satisfied, but doesn't add
extra restrictions for strictly positive realness of the transfer function G(s). Rewriting the
obtained conditions to observer gains gives that G(s) is strictly positive real if and only if
the chosen observer gains L1 and L2 satisfy the restrictions summarized below
Plotting these conditions in the L1 - L2 plane (figure 2.3) gives us a clearer view of the
restrictions on the observer gains. From the figure it becomes clear that when the chosen
observer gains L1 and L2 lie in the shaded area in the above figure, the (A B C D)-I' inear
system in (3.8) is strictly passive.
CHAPTER 3. OBSERVER DESIGN
Figure 3.3: shaded area represents are for which strict passivity is proven
Chapter - 4
Simulation and Results
4.1 Strategy layout
The proposed friction compensation strategy in chapter 2 is build in a MatiabjSimuiink
environment, to check its effectiveness in reducing the position error. The strategy layout is
depicted in the figure below.
friction model
Figure 4.1: strategy layout in Sirnulink; total (upper figure), plant (lower figure)
CHAPTER 4. SIMULATION AND RESULTS 12
4.2 Simulation results
First a simulation is performed in which friction compensation is switched off, after which a
simulation is done with friction compensation. To see the performance improvement both
simulations are displayed in the figure below
Figure 4.2: simulation results; positioning task to 0 radians
The corresponding tracking error in the case of no friction compensation results from the
fact that the linear feedback controller is not able to overcome the Coulomb friction near
the setpoint properly. The above simulations are done with correctly chosen observer gains
(conditions (2.16) and (2.17) are met). It is easy to see that the friction compensation
reduces the position error considerably. Of course this result generally will not represent the
practical outcome; in the simulation the assumption is made that the fitted plant and
friction model represent the real system and friction curve perfectly. The simulations are
only of value, when looking at the qualitative behavior. According to these simulations,
practical implementation of the friction compensation strategy should lead to a decrease in
positioning error.
4.3 Praetiea! results
To see the effect of the control strategy on the real system, also practical experiments were
performed. With a reference trajectory generator (ref-3) a smooth trajectory was given for
the system to go from initially 0 radians to 1 radians. The results of this experiment are
shown in figure 4.3. The experiments show good results, but when reaching the end position
a chattering phenomena can be observed. This behavior can be explained by looking at the
estimated velocities from the observer. From the experiments can be observed that these
estimated velocities are noisy, irrespective of velocity. This effect is not clearly seen when
performiiig friction compensation 0:: a system ir, m~t i cr , with 1 c d ~ x b friction profi!e;
regardless of the velocity, besides the sign of the velocity, the friction forces are equal. It
becomes clear when the system is at rest; The estimated velocities vary around 0, changing
signs and thus leading to a chattering effect due to changing positive and negative friction
forces.
CHAPTER 4. SIMULATION AND RESULTS
Figure 4.3: Practical results of a positioning task from 0 to 1 radians. figure b zooms into last part of figure a
Conclusion
In this report a friction compensation strategy is derived for a two-degree-of-freedom
system. Because of the absence of velocity sensors and the dependence of friction on
velocity a reduced-order observer is derived to estimate the velocities.
From chapter 3 can be concluded that the nonlinear reduced-order observer errordynamics
can be made asymptotically stable with a correct choice of the observer gains. Striking
nnint ~ h n ~ ~ t t+ i c that demanding qtrirt passivity doesn't add extra conditions on the
p"'II" ",V"U" U l lU &U UI ACY -.J--i..
observer gains; simple stability is sufficient.
In chapter 4 simulations are done with the friction compensation strategy and the presented
results show a considerable error reduction.
Experiments were done on the real system, but problems arised when converting the
theoretical derivation to a practical environment. The estimated velocities were too noisy to
perform efficient friction compensation. A explanation of this problem could be that the
adopted friction model in chapter 1 is too simple; position dependence could have a
innegligible influence on the present friction. Another explanation for this practical problem
could be the sensitivity of reduced-order observers to measurement noise. This could be
solved by using a full-order observer, which besides estimating the entire state : , als filters
the measurements. These points could be interesting subjects for further work on this
project.
Bibliography
G.F. Franklin, J.D. Powell, A. Emami-Naeini, 'Feedback control of dynamic
systems;third edition', Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1995
0 H. Khalil, 'Nonlinear Systems', Prentice-Hall Inc., 1996
0 N. Mallon, N. v.d. Wouw, D. Putra, H. Nijmeijer, 'Friction compensation in a
controlled one-link robot using a reduced-order observer', IEEE Transactions on Control
system technology, t o appear
0 D. Putra, L. Moreau, H. Nijmeijer, 'Observer-Based Compensation of Discontinuous
Friction', Paper from Technische Universiteit Ezndhoven