Adaptive Control + Robust Control - Does it work?
$begingroup$
I have a qurius question! Is it possible to design a robust controller for a system by using algoritms and system identification, which are adaptive control + robust control?
I know there is a lot of math to do this, but is it possible? For example, I create an algorithm which identify the system and then creates a transfer function. With that transfer function, the algorithm designs a $H_{infty}$ controller with integral action. It would be like a PI-controller with guaranteed stability margins and autotuning.
algorithms control-theory optimal-control linear-control system-identification
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a qurius question! Is it possible to design a robust controller for a system by using algoritms and system identification, which are adaptive control + robust control?
I know there is a lot of math to do this, but is it possible? For example, I create an algorithm which identify the system and then creates a transfer function. With that transfer function, the algorithm designs a $H_{infty}$ controller with integral action. It would be like a PI-controller with guaranteed stability margins and autotuning.
algorithms control-theory optimal-control linear-control system-identification
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Neural network control is used when you don't want to explicitly model nonlinearities in the system. Instead, you have the network learn the term over time as it also controls the system. You often have to combine this with a robust control in order for this to work appropriately. A good paper is "Robust-neural network control of rigid-link electrically driven robots" by C. Kwan, F.L. Lewis, and D.M. Dawson. Most other papers by F.L. Lewis are very good in this area as well.
$endgroup$
– Preston Roy
Aug 27 '17 at 15:27
$begingroup$
OK. I assume that is possible to create a robust controller with autotunning. Thank you for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Mårtensson
Aug 27 '17 at 16:29
$begingroup$
you can look into Retrospective Cost Adaptive Control, which circumvents the system ID problem by requiring very little model information. In most cases it tends asymptotically to an $H_{infty}$-optimal LQG controller.
$endgroup$
– SZN
Aug 28 '17 at 2:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a qurius question! Is it possible to design a robust controller for a system by using algoritms and system identification, which are adaptive control + robust control?
I know there is a lot of math to do this, but is it possible? For example, I create an algorithm which identify the system and then creates a transfer function. With that transfer function, the algorithm designs a $H_{infty}$ controller with integral action. It would be like a PI-controller with guaranteed stability margins and autotuning.
algorithms control-theory optimal-control linear-control system-identification
$endgroup$
I have a qurius question! Is it possible to design a robust controller for a system by using algoritms and system identification, which are adaptive control + robust control?
I know there is a lot of math to do this, but is it possible? For example, I create an algorithm which identify the system and then creates a transfer function. With that transfer function, the algorithm designs a $H_{infty}$ controller with integral action. It would be like a PI-controller with guaranteed stability margins and autotuning.
algorithms control-theory optimal-control linear-control system-identification
algorithms control-theory optimal-control linear-control system-identification
asked Aug 26 '17 at 20:48
Daniel MårtenssonDaniel Mårtensson
918316
918316
$begingroup$
Neural network control is used when you don't want to explicitly model nonlinearities in the system. Instead, you have the network learn the term over time as it also controls the system. You often have to combine this with a robust control in order for this to work appropriately. A good paper is "Robust-neural network control of rigid-link electrically driven robots" by C. Kwan, F.L. Lewis, and D.M. Dawson. Most other papers by F.L. Lewis are very good in this area as well.
$endgroup$
– Preston Roy
Aug 27 '17 at 15:27
$begingroup$
OK. I assume that is possible to create a robust controller with autotunning. Thank you for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Mårtensson
Aug 27 '17 at 16:29
$begingroup$
you can look into Retrospective Cost Adaptive Control, which circumvents the system ID problem by requiring very little model information. In most cases it tends asymptotically to an $H_{infty}$-optimal LQG controller.
$endgroup$
– SZN
Aug 28 '17 at 2:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Neural network control is used when you don't want to explicitly model nonlinearities in the system. Instead, you have the network learn the term over time as it also controls the system. You often have to combine this with a robust control in order for this to work appropriately. A good paper is "Robust-neural network control of rigid-link electrically driven robots" by C. Kwan, F.L. Lewis, and D.M. Dawson. Most other papers by F.L. Lewis are very good in this area as well.
$endgroup$
– Preston Roy
Aug 27 '17 at 15:27
$begingroup$
OK. I assume that is possible to create a robust controller with autotunning. Thank you for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Mårtensson
Aug 27 '17 at 16:29
$begingroup$
you can look into Retrospective Cost Adaptive Control, which circumvents the system ID problem by requiring very little model information. In most cases it tends asymptotically to an $H_{infty}$-optimal LQG controller.
$endgroup$
– SZN
Aug 28 '17 at 2:25
$begingroup$
Neural network control is used when you don't want to explicitly model nonlinearities in the system. Instead, you have the network learn the term over time as it also controls the system. You often have to combine this with a robust control in order for this to work appropriately. A good paper is "Robust-neural network control of rigid-link electrically driven robots" by C. Kwan, F.L. Lewis, and D.M. Dawson. Most other papers by F.L. Lewis are very good in this area as well.
$endgroup$
– Preston Roy
Aug 27 '17 at 15:27
$begingroup$
Neural network control is used when you don't want to explicitly model nonlinearities in the system. Instead, you have the network learn the term over time as it also controls the system. You often have to combine this with a robust control in order for this to work appropriately. A good paper is "Robust-neural network control of rigid-link electrically driven robots" by C. Kwan, F.L. Lewis, and D.M. Dawson. Most other papers by F.L. Lewis are very good in this area as well.
$endgroup$
– Preston Roy
Aug 27 '17 at 15:27
$begingroup$
OK. I assume that is possible to create a robust controller with autotunning. Thank you for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Mårtensson
Aug 27 '17 at 16:29
$begingroup$
OK. I assume that is possible to create a robust controller with autotunning. Thank you for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Mårtensson
Aug 27 '17 at 16:29
$begingroup$
you can look into Retrospective Cost Adaptive Control, which circumvents the system ID problem by requiring very little model information. In most cases it tends asymptotically to an $H_{infty}$-optimal LQG controller.
$endgroup$
– SZN
Aug 28 '17 at 2:25
$begingroup$
you can look into Retrospective Cost Adaptive Control, which circumvents the system ID problem by requiring very little model information. In most cases it tends asymptotically to an $H_{infty}$-optimal LQG controller.
$endgroup$
– SZN
Aug 28 '17 at 2:25
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A very effective implementation of this is using a combined sliding mode control (SMC) and adaptive control law. This combines the resistance to uncertainties that SMC offers, with the reduction in uncertainties that results from adaptive control. Keep in mind though that this is of limited practical use. A quick example could is detailed as follows:
Consider the system of the form, $$ x^{(n)} = sum_{i = 1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + butag{1}$$
$begin{align}text{where, }\&textbf{x} = begin{bmatrix}x dot{x} ... x^{(n-1)}end{bmatrix}^Ttext{ is the state vector} \ & phi_i(textbf{x}) text{ are some known functions} \ & gamma_i, btext{ are constant unknown parameters}end{align}$
It is assumed that the sign of $b$ is known and is assumed positive. Now consider, as in all SMC formulations, a Hurwitz stable linear combination of the system error. Here I will take a combination as suggested in Slotine and Li, $$s = left(dfrac{d}{dt} + lambdaright)^{n - 1}e$$
where, $e = x - x_d$ given some suitably differentiable desired trajectory $x_d$
Now if we take derivative of $s$, $$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + bu - vtag{2}$$
where, $v = x_d^{(n)} - lambda x^{(n-1)} - text{ ....}$
Using parameter estimates, let $u = hat{b}^{-1}(v - Ksgn(s)) - sum_{i=1}^{m}hat{gamma_i}phi_i$, where $K > 0$
Substituting this in (2) and rearranging we get,
$$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})phi_i + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)(v - Ksgn(s)) - Ksgn(s)tag{3}$$
Consider the Lyapunov function, $ V = frac{1}{2}(s^2 + b^{-1}(bhat{b}^{-1} -1)^2 + b^{-1}sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})^2phi_i) $. Taking its derivative,
$$begin{align}& dot{V} = sdot{s} + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)dot{hat{b}}^{-1} - sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})dot{hat{gamma_i}} \ & dot{V} = (bhat{b}^{-1} - 1)(vs - Kmid smid + dot{hat{b}}^{-1})
+ sum_{i=1}^{m}(sphi_i - dot{hat{gamma_i}})(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i}) - Kmid smidtag{from (3)}end{align}$$
Choosing adaptation laws as:
$$begin{align}&dot{hat{b}}^{-1} = Kmid smid - vs \ & dot{hat{gamma_i}} = sphi_iend{align}$$
we are ensured that $dot{V} < 0$ and hence we have global asymptotic stability.
As is obvious, to use above formulation the dynamics of the system must be linear in unknown parameters. If that is not the case, one can make use of adaptive fuzzy control (as direct or indirect adaptive fuzzy control) to solve the problem. This again can be coupled with sliding mode control.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes it is.
The idea of indirect adaptive control, often called certainty-equivalence, is to estimate parameters in real time, and design a controller for the estimated plant model as if they were the real plant parameters. The control design method is left open - robust control is a possibility, as are many others. The resulting controller is unlikely to be a PI-controller because 1) it is adaptive, thus nonlinear and time-varying; and 2) H infinity controllers are most often of high order.
Caveat: adaptive controllers tend to be somewhat complex, and their performance in practice is very much dependent on the prior knowledge available about the plant. It is not realistic to expect good behavior if your initial estimates are far off the reality. More complicated methods such as adaptive neural networks and model-free controllers, as suggested in the comments, make even more stringent requirements on prior knowledge and controllers training, otherwise their performance is even more pitiful.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2407037%2fadaptive-control-robust-control-does-it-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A very effective implementation of this is using a combined sliding mode control (SMC) and adaptive control law. This combines the resistance to uncertainties that SMC offers, with the reduction in uncertainties that results from adaptive control. Keep in mind though that this is of limited practical use. A quick example could is detailed as follows:
Consider the system of the form, $$ x^{(n)} = sum_{i = 1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + butag{1}$$
$begin{align}text{where, }\&textbf{x} = begin{bmatrix}x dot{x} ... x^{(n-1)}end{bmatrix}^Ttext{ is the state vector} \ & phi_i(textbf{x}) text{ are some known functions} \ & gamma_i, btext{ are constant unknown parameters}end{align}$
It is assumed that the sign of $b$ is known and is assumed positive. Now consider, as in all SMC formulations, a Hurwitz stable linear combination of the system error. Here I will take a combination as suggested in Slotine and Li, $$s = left(dfrac{d}{dt} + lambdaright)^{n - 1}e$$
where, $e = x - x_d$ given some suitably differentiable desired trajectory $x_d$
Now if we take derivative of $s$, $$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + bu - vtag{2}$$
where, $v = x_d^{(n)} - lambda x^{(n-1)} - text{ ....}$
Using parameter estimates, let $u = hat{b}^{-1}(v - Ksgn(s)) - sum_{i=1}^{m}hat{gamma_i}phi_i$, where $K > 0$
Substituting this in (2) and rearranging we get,
$$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})phi_i + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)(v - Ksgn(s)) - Ksgn(s)tag{3}$$
Consider the Lyapunov function, $ V = frac{1}{2}(s^2 + b^{-1}(bhat{b}^{-1} -1)^2 + b^{-1}sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})^2phi_i) $. Taking its derivative,
$$begin{align}& dot{V} = sdot{s} + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)dot{hat{b}}^{-1} - sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})dot{hat{gamma_i}} \ & dot{V} = (bhat{b}^{-1} - 1)(vs - Kmid smid + dot{hat{b}}^{-1})
+ sum_{i=1}^{m}(sphi_i - dot{hat{gamma_i}})(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i}) - Kmid smidtag{from (3)}end{align}$$
Choosing adaptation laws as:
$$begin{align}&dot{hat{b}}^{-1} = Kmid smid - vs \ & dot{hat{gamma_i}} = sphi_iend{align}$$
we are ensured that $dot{V} < 0$ and hence we have global asymptotic stability.
As is obvious, to use above formulation the dynamics of the system must be linear in unknown parameters. If that is not the case, one can make use of adaptive fuzzy control (as direct or indirect adaptive fuzzy control) to solve the problem. This again can be coupled with sliding mode control.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A very effective implementation of this is using a combined sliding mode control (SMC) and adaptive control law. This combines the resistance to uncertainties that SMC offers, with the reduction in uncertainties that results from adaptive control. Keep in mind though that this is of limited practical use. A quick example could is detailed as follows:
Consider the system of the form, $$ x^{(n)} = sum_{i = 1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + butag{1}$$
$begin{align}text{where, }\&textbf{x} = begin{bmatrix}x dot{x} ... x^{(n-1)}end{bmatrix}^Ttext{ is the state vector} \ & phi_i(textbf{x}) text{ are some known functions} \ & gamma_i, btext{ are constant unknown parameters}end{align}$
It is assumed that the sign of $b$ is known and is assumed positive. Now consider, as in all SMC formulations, a Hurwitz stable linear combination of the system error. Here I will take a combination as suggested in Slotine and Li, $$s = left(dfrac{d}{dt} + lambdaright)^{n - 1}e$$
where, $e = x - x_d$ given some suitably differentiable desired trajectory $x_d$
Now if we take derivative of $s$, $$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + bu - vtag{2}$$
where, $v = x_d^{(n)} - lambda x^{(n-1)} - text{ ....}$
Using parameter estimates, let $u = hat{b}^{-1}(v - Ksgn(s)) - sum_{i=1}^{m}hat{gamma_i}phi_i$, where $K > 0$
Substituting this in (2) and rearranging we get,
$$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})phi_i + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)(v - Ksgn(s)) - Ksgn(s)tag{3}$$
Consider the Lyapunov function, $ V = frac{1}{2}(s^2 + b^{-1}(bhat{b}^{-1} -1)^2 + b^{-1}sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})^2phi_i) $. Taking its derivative,
$$begin{align}& dot{V} = sdot{s} + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)dot{hat{b}}^{-1} - sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})dot{hat{gamma_i}} \ & dot{V} = (bhat{b}^{-1} - 1)(vs - Kmid smid + dot{hat{b}}^{-1})
+ sum_{i=1}^{m}(sphi_i - dot{hat{gamma_i}})(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i}) - Kmid smidtag{from (3)}end{align}$$
Choosing adaptation laws as:
$$begin{align}&dot{hat{b}}^{-1} = Kmid smid - vs \ & dot{hat{gamma_i}} = sphi_iend{align}$$
we are ensured that $dot{V} < 0$ and hence we have global asymptotic stability.
As is obvious, to use above formulation the dynamics of the system must be linear in unknown parameters. If that is not the case, one can make use of adaptive fuzzy control (as direct or indirect adaptive fuzzy control) to solve the problem. This again can be coupled with sliding mode control.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A very effective implementation of this is using a combined sliding mode control (SMC) and adaptive control law. This combines the resistance to uncertainties that SMC offers, with the reduction in uncertainties that results from adaptive control. Keep in mind though that this is of limited practical use. A quick example could is detailed as follows:
Consider the system of the form, $$ x^{(n)} = sum_{i = 1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + butag{1}$$
$begin{align}text{where, }\&textbf{x} = begin{bmatrix}x dot{x} ... x^{(n-1)}end{bmatrix}^Ttext{ is the state vector} \ & phi_i(textbf{x}) text{ are some known functions} \ & gamma_i, btext{ are constant unknown parameters}end{align}$
It is assumed that the sign of $b$ is known and is assumed positive. Now consider, as in all SMC formulations, a Hurwitz stable linear combination of the system error. Here I will take a combination as suggested in Slotine and Li, $$s = left(dfrac{d}{dt} + lambdaright)^{n - 1}e$$
where, $e = x - x_d$ given some suitably differentiable desired trajectory $x_d$
Now if we take derivative of $s$, $$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + bu - vtag{2}$$
where, $v = x_d^{(n)} - lambda x^{(n-1)} - text{ ....}$
Using parameter estimates, let $u = hat{b}^{-1}(v - Ksgn(s)) - sum_{i=1}^{m}hat{gamma_i}phi_i$, where $K > 0$
Substituting this in (2) and rearranging we get,
$$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})phi_i + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)(v - Ksgn(s)) - Ksgn(s)tag{3}$$
Consider the Lyapunov function, $ V = frac{1}{2}(s^2 + b^{-1}(bhat{b}^{-1} -1)^2 + b^{-1}sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})^2phi_i) $. Taking its derivative,
$$begin{align}& dot{V} = sdot{s} + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)dot{hat{b}}^{-1} - sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})dot{hat{gamma_i}} \ & dot{V} = (bhat{b}^{-1} - 1)(vs - Kmid smid + dot{hat{b}}^{-1})
+ sum_{i=1}^{m}(sphi_i - dot{hat{gamma_i}})(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i}) - Kmid smidtag{from (3)}end{align}$$
Choosing adaptation laws as:
$$begin{align}&dot{hat{b}}^{-1} = Kmid smid - vs \ & dot{hat{gamma_i}} = sphi_iend{align}$$
we are ensured that $dot{V} < 0$ and hence we have global asymptotic stability.
As is obvious, to use above formulation the dynamics of the system must be linear in unknown parameters. If that is not the case, one can make use of adaptive fuzzy control (as direct or indirect adaptive fuzzy control) to solve the problem. This again can be coupled with sliding mode control.
$endgroup$
A very effective implementation of this is using a combined sliding mode control (SMC) and adaptive control law. This combines the resistance to uncertainties that SMC offers, with the reduction in uncertainties that results from adaptive control. Keep in mind though that this is of limited practical use. A quick example could is detailed as follows:
Consider the system of the form, $$ x^{(n)} = sum_{i = 1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + butag{1}$$
$begin{align}text{where, }\&textbf{x} = begin{bmatrix}x dot{x} ... x^{(n-1)}end{bmatrix}^Ttext{ is the state vector} \ & phi_i(textbf{x}) text{ are some known functions} \ & gamma_i, btext{ are constant unknown parameters}end{align}$
It is assumed that the sign of $b$ is known and is assumed positive. Now consider, as in all SMC formulations, a Hurwitz stable linear combination of the system error. Here I will take a combination as suggested in Slotine and Li, $$s = left(dfrac{d}{dt} + lambdaright)^{n - 1}e$$
where, $e = x - x_d$ given some suitably differentiable desired trajectory $x_d$
Now if we take derivative of $s$, $$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}gamma_iphi_i(textbf{x}) + bu - vtag{2}$$
where, $v = x_d^{(n)} - lambda x^{(n-1)} - text{ ....}$
Using parameter estimates, let $u = hat{b}^{-1}(v - Ksgn(s)) - sum_{i=1}^{m}hat{gamma_i}phi_i$, where $K > 0$
Substituting this in (2) and rearranging we get,
$$dot{s} = sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})phi_i + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)(v - Ksgn(s)) - Ksgn(s)tag{3}$$
Consider the Lyapunov function, $ V = frac{1}{2}(s^2 + b^{-1}(bhat{b}^{-1} -1)^2 + b^{-1}sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})^2phi_i) $. Taking its derivative,
$$begin{align}& dot{V} = sdot{s} + (bhat{b}^{-1} -1)dot{hat{b}}^{-1} - sum_{i=1}^{m}(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i})dot{hat{gamma_i}} \ & dot{V} = (bhat{b}^{-1} - 1)(vs - Kmid smid + dot{hat{b}}^{-1})
+ sum_{i=1}^{m}(sphi_i - dot{hat{gamma_i}})(gamma_i - bhat{gamma_i}) - Kmid smidtag{from (3)}end{align}$$
Choosing adaptation laws as:
$$begin{align}&dot{hat{b}}^{-1} = Kmid smid - vs \ & dot{hat{gamma_i}} = sphi_iend{align}$$
we are ensured that $dot{V} < 0$ and hence we have global asymptotic stability.
As is obvious, to use above formulation the dynamics of the system must be linear in unknown parameters. If that is not the case, one can make use of adaptive fuzzy control (as direct or indirect adaptive fuzzy control) to solve the problem. This again can be coupled with sliding mode control.
answered Jun 27 '18 at 10:13
BabaYagaBabaYaga
494
494
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes it is.
The idea of indirect adaptive control, often called certainty-equivalence, is to estimate parameters in real time, and design a controller for the estimated plant model as if they were the real plant parameters. The control design method is left open - robust control is a possibility, as are many others. The resulting controller is unlikely to be a PI-controller because 1) it is adaptive, thus nonlinear and time-varying; and 2) H infinity controllers are most often of high order.
Caveat: adaptive controllers tend to be somewhat complex, and their performance in practice is very much dependent on the prior knowledge available about the plant. It is not realistic to expect good behavior if your initial estimates are far off the reality. More complicated methods such as adaptive neural networks and model-free controllers, as suggested in the comments, make even more stringent requirements on prior knowledge and controllers training, otherwise their performance is even more pitiful.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes it is.
The idea of indirect adaptive control, often called certainty-equivalence, is to estimate parameters in real time, and design a controller for the estimated plant model as if they were the real plant parameters. The control design method is left open - robust control is a possibility, as are many others. The resulting controller is unlikely to be a PI-controller because 1) it is adaptive, thus nonlinear and time-varying; and 2) H infinity controllers are most often of high order.
Caveat: adaptive controllers tend to be somewhat complex, and their performance in practice is very much dependent on the prior knowledge available about the plant. It is not realistic to expect good behavior if your initial estimates are far off the reality. More complicated methods such as adaptive neural networks and model-free controllers, as suggested in the comments, make even more stringent requirements on prior knowledge and controllers training, otherwise their performance is even more pitiful.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes it is.
The idea of indirect adaptive control, often called certainty-equivalence, is to estimate parameters in real time, and design a controller for the estimated plant model as if they were the real plant parameters. The control design method is left open - robust control is a possibility, as are many others. The resulting controller is unlikely to be a PI-controller because 1) it is adaptive, thus nonlinear and time-varying; and 2) H infinity controllers are most often of high order.
Caveat: adaptive controllers tend to be somewhat complex, and their performance in practice is very much dependent on the prior knowledge available about the plant. It is not realistic to expect good behavior if your initial estimates are far off the reality. More complicated methods such as adaptive neural networks and model-free controllers, as suggested in the comments, make even more stringent requirements on prior knowledge and controllers training, otherwise their performance is even more pitiful.
$endgroup$
Yes it is.
The idea of indirect adaptive control, often called certainty-equivalence, is to estimate parameters in real time, and design a controller for the estimated plant model as if they were the real plant parameters. The control design method is left open - robust control is a possibility, as are many others. The resulting controller is unlikely to be a PI-controller because 1) it is adaptive, thus nonlinear and time-varying; and 2) H infinity controllers are most often of high order.
Caveat: adaptive controllers tend to be somewhat complex, and their performance in practice is very much dependent on the prior knowledge available about the plant. It is not realistic to expect good behavior if your initial estimates are far off the reality. More complicated methods such as adaptive neural networks and model-free controllers, as suggested in the comments, make even more stringent requirements on prior knowledge and controllers training, otherwise their performance is even more pitiful.
answered Aug 28 '17 at 10:04
PaitPait
1,187916
1,187916
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2407037%2fadaptive-control-robust-control-does-it-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Neural network control is used when you don't want to explicitly model nonlinearities in the system. Instead, you have the network learn the term over time as it also controls the system. You often have to combine this with a robust control in order for this to work appropriately. A good paper is "Robust-neural network control of rigid-link electrically driven robots" by C. Kwan, F.L. Lewis, and D.M. Dawson. Most other papers by F.L. Lewis are very good in this area as well.
$endgroup$
– Preston Roy
Aug 27 '17 at 15:27
$begingroup$
OK. I assume that is possible to create a robust controller with autotunning. Thank you for the answer.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Mårtensson
Aug 27 '17 at 16:29
$begingroup$
you can look into Retrospective Cost Adaptive Control, which circumvents the system ID problem by requiring very little model information. In most cases it tends asymptotically to an $H_{infty}$-optimal LQG controller.
$endgroup$
– SZN
Aug 28 '17 at 2:25