Sensor Physical Interpretation, Signal and Artificial Intelligence Processing
View this Special IssueResearch Article  Open Access
Lijuan Peng, Jian Wang, Guicheng Yu, Zuoxue Wang, Aijun Yin, Hongji Ren, "Active Vibration Control of PID Based on Receptance Method", Journal of Sensors, vol. 2020, Article ID 8811448, 8 pages, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8811448
Active Vibration Control of PID Based on Receptance Method
Abstract
Active vibration control approaches have been widely applied on improving reliability of robotic systems. For linear vibratory systems, the vibration features can be altered by modifying poles and zeros. To realize the arbitrary assignment of the closedloop system poles and zeros of a linear vibratory system, in this paper, an active PID input feedback vibration control method is proposed based on the receptance method. The establishment and verification of the proposed method are demonstrated. The assignable poles during feedback control are calculated and attached with importance to expand the application of the integral control. Numerical simulations are conducted to verify the validity of the proposed method in terms of the assignment of closedloop poles, zeros, and both. The results indicate that the proposed method can be used to realize the active vibration control of closedloop system and obtain the desired damping ratio, modal frequency, and dynamic response.
1. Introduction
Nowadays, the demand for lower vibration and higher reliability in robotic systems is increasing [1]. Extensive studies have been conducted to optimize the controlling of various nonlinear systems [2–6]. A common vibration control approach is to modify system dynamics using controllers [7]. PIDbased approaches have been widely applied on motion control of robotic systems [8, 9]. Generally, the vibration characteristics of a linear vibratory system are determined by its zeros and poles, and the assignment of eigenvalues in a system is of great importance in improving system reliability.
Traditionally, the solutions of pole assignment are solved by using the information of mass, damping, and stiffness matrices acquired from the finite element (FE) models [10]. However, FE models are generally limited by the incapability in obtaining precise damping models of real structures. Ram and Mottershead [11] developed an active vibration control method for linear system based on receptance method to accurately assign the system poles and zeros to specified values. One considerable advantage of this method is that it is entirely based on data from modal testing rather than the exact mass, damping, and stiffness matrices. Mottershead et al. assigned part of the system poles to the predetermined values while keeping nonimportant poles unchanged by making the nonimportant poles uncontrollable or unobservable [12]. Zhang et al. presented the theory of applying acceleration feedback and position feedback to the nondamping system to assign part of poles [13]. Ouyang proposed a method of using acceleration feedback and velocity feedback in active vibration control [14]. Recently, neural network (NN) based polezero assignment methods have gained a lot of attention [15–18]. However, NNbased approaches may fail to yield desired results on practice due to the blackbox nature of NN and the requirement of NN parameter optimization skills.
Previous studies indicate that various combinations of acceleration, velocity, and position make it flexible and applicable to select the type of feedback when implementing active vibration control. However, a vibration system will inevitably become a singular system when the acceleration feedback is applied, which leads to the unavailability of the receptance method. In this paper, integral control is introduced to overcome this limitation. The contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: (1) A PID input feedback active vibration control method is proposed based on the receptance method. (2) The numerical solutions for assignment of closedloop poles and zeros by applying the proposed method are demonstrated.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The assignments of poles and zeros in PID control systems are demonstrated in Section 2 and Section 3, respectively. Then, numerical simulations are conducted to verify the validity of the proposed method in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper.
2. Pole Assignment of PID Control Systems
2.1. Formulation of Pole Assignment
The equation of a degree freedom linear system can be described in secondorder form as follows according to [19]: where are mass, damping, and stiffness matrices, respectively; is the displacement vector. , , , and for any nonzero vector , there is , , and .
Integrate PID feedback control to the system and the closedloop system can be written as follows: where is the force distribution vector and is the input control vector: where are input control gain vectors for displacement, differential, and velocity, respectively.
Express Equation (2) in the Laplace space:
Then,
Equation (5) shows that the highest order of the system stiffness matrix is a positive definite matrix, so the closedloop system must be a nonsingular system. Therefore, the system receptance matrix exists.
The receptance matrix can be obtained by applying the Sherman–Morrison formula for Equation (5): where is the receptance matrix of the openloop system, which can be obtained in practice by measuring the receptance [20]. The characteristic polynomial can be derived from Equation (6) at the same time:
Thus, the roots of Equation (8) are the pole of the closedloop system:
Given , , and Equation (9):
The problem of assigning the poles of a closedloop system to setpoints can be transformed to the solution of input control gain vectors , and . Where , , is closed under conjugation, is the number of closedloop system poles that can be assigned.
2.2. Minimum Number of Assignable Poles
Given a positive definite system with closedloop conjugate poles , suppose that the adjoint matrix of is and the determinant is . can be expressed as follows:
Since for any , , Equation (10) can be written as follows:
Set
The highest degree of in is and the highest degree of in is . Since the number of closedloop poles is equal to the degree of Equation (10) and the highest degree of in Equation (10) is , the number of characteristic polynomial root is . It should be noted that due to the introduction of integral control, the closedloop system will produce an extra nonzero pole.
In fact, the introduction of integral control into closedloop system will lead to a nonregular and generalized system. The closedloop system is stable if (1) it is regular and (2) all of its assigned poles have negative real components [21]. The regularity of the closedloop system in this method is guaranteed by the positive definiteness of the mass matrix. The values of the assigned poles can be arranged to stabilize the closedloop system given that their real components are negative and is selfconjugate.
2.3. Calculate Vectors and Minimum Sensor Layout Method
The solution of can be realized by the following equation: where and ,, and .
The pole assignment problem raised by Equation (2) can be solved by applying Equation (13) and Equation (14). One solution for Equation (13) is as follows: where is the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of . When the assigned closedloop poles are selfconjugate, , and can be calculated according to Equations (13)–(15).
Considering the limitation of the additional mass in the actual control system, the number of sensors used to measure the motion parameters of the system should be as small as possible. Therefore, the value of some items in can be assigned to zero by setting the values of the corresponding columns of the to be zero. In practice, the solution means that fewer sensors are involved. Due to the integration of PID input feedback control and , the number that can be allocated to zero in has at most columns. Therefore, the number of sensors can be reduced accordingly in practice to minimize the effect of the additional mass on the system.
2.4. Validity Analysis
When the value of the preset poles and the optional column vector to be replaced by the 0 in the are determined, a specific PID input feedback solution is derived, identified as . From Equations (13)–(15), can be calculated in this specific PID input feedback solution. Below we will show how to verify whether is valid or not.
The closedloop receptance matrix can be derived from Equation (5) as follows: where is as follows:
The problem of verifying whether a particular is valid is equivalent to verifying whether is a nonsingular matrix for any under the determined case. The verification process of is as follows: Firstly, the real vectors are calculated according to Equations (13)–(15). Then, substitute into Equation (17) and obtain the determinant of . For any , if is zero, the closedloop system poles cannot be assigned to the designated values, meaning that is invalid. Otherwise, the closedloop system poles can be assigned to the specified desired values, indicating that is valid.
3. Zero Assignment of PID Control Systems
3.1. Formulation of Zero Assignment
The characteristic polynomial for the zeros of receptance can be realized when the denominator matrix (i, j) of Equation (6) is zero: where are the unit vectors obtained from the corresponding columns of the identity matrix.
Therefore, the problem of assigning zeros of the closedloop system receptance to the setpoints can be realized as follows:
Given , b, i, j, and
Calculate the input control gain vectors . Where , , is the number of poles in a closedloop system that can be assigned.
Equation (19) can be written in the following form: where is the openloop receptance value at the openloop system coordinate of (i, j). Transform Equation (20) to . Since is a scalar, set
We have . Since is scalar, after transposing we get , i.e., . Therefore, for preset closedloop system zeros , we have where
It can be seen from Equation (22) that the inverse of the matrix can be obtained when the preset zeros are given, and then the real vectors can also be obtained. In particular, when and are overlapped, the distribution of zeros will affect the closedloop pole assignment of the system, which is significant [22].
3.2. Pole and Zero Assignment
We can assign the zeros and poles in the closedloop system at the same time according to Equation (13) and Equation (22). In this case, the total number of zeros and poles follows . Similarly, by assigning columns in Equation (13) and Equation (22) to zero, we can get the optimized allocation scheme.
4. Numerical Simulations
4.1. Pole Assignment Simulation
Consider a threedegreeoffreedom system with matrices:
The openloop poles are , , and .
Now use pole assignment method proposed in this paper to modify the closedloop response of the system. Set . For , according to Section 2.2. Since the original system has a lower characteristic frequency and a smaller damping ratio, the closedloop system characteristic values ate assigned as , , , and to increase the damping of the system and enhance the stability.
Obtain according to Equations (13)–(15):
The above PID input feedback solution is valid according to Section 2.4. In order to visualize the effect of this method, the frequency response curve, zeropole distribution, and Nyquist plot of the of original system and the modified system are given, shown in Figures 1–5. Figures 2 and 3 show that the poles of the modified system are assigned to the specified positions, and an additional pole is added to the modified system due to the integration of integral feedback. The introduction of the extra pole improves the flexibility to handle the closedloop systems in engineering applications. We can see from Figure 1, Figure 4, and Figure 5 that after pole reassignment, system features such characteristic frequency, damping, and stability have been changed, and the overall performances have been improved.
4.2. Minimum Sensor Configuration for Pole Assignment
Based on the pole assignment in Section 4.1 and the minimum sensor layout in Section 2.3, a minimum sensor configuration scheme for pole assignment simulation is developed and verified according to Section 2.4. Table 1 shows all solutions that can assign the poles of the closedloop system to preset values , , and , while keeping the closedloop system stable at the same time for the case in Section 4.1. The PID feedback gains for the 2 solutions are given in Table 2 (only the control gains of the first method in each are given). The system performance may destabilize when the number of assigned poles is less than (i.e., when the lacked poles are assigned, the number of assigned poles in Table 3 is ). This highlights the importance of determining the number of assignments. The specific results are demonstrated in Tables 1–3.



4.3. Zero Assignment Simulation
Considering the threedegreeoffreedom system in Section 4.1, we use zero assignment method in Section 3 to modify the closedloop system zeros and the closedloop response of the system.
Set and the closedloop system zeros as , . Obtain according to Equation (22):
The closedloop poles calculated are , , , and . The poles are distributed in the left half plane of the imaginary axis and the closedloop system is stable. The frequency response curve, the zeropole distribution diagram, and the Nyquist diagram of the modified system are illustrated in Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8, respectively. Comparing Figure 2 with Figure 7, we can see that the zeros of the system are accurately assigned to the desired values. Figure 4, Figure 6, and Figure 8 indicate that, after the assignment of zeros, the system stability increases.
4.4. Pole and Zero Assignment Simulation
Based on the threedegreeoffreedom system in Section 4.1, set , the closedloop system zeros as , and the closedloop system poles as . Obtain according to Equations (13)–(15) and Equation (22):
The closedloop poles calculated at this time are , , , and . The poles are distributed in the left half plane of the imaginary axis and the closedloop system is stable. The frequency response curve, the zeropole distribution diagram, and the Nyquist diagram of the modified system are illustrated in Figure 9, Figure 10, and Figure 11, respectively. Figure 2 and Figure 10 indicate that the system zeros and poles are accurately assigned to the desired values. After the assignment, an increased system stability is observed according to Figure 4, Figure 9, and Figure 11. The validity of the proposed method is verified by the simulation results.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a PIDactive vibration control method is proposed based on the receptance method. The proposed method can be utilized to assign the poles and zeros of closedloop systems in order to improve the performances. Due to the integration of integral control, the proposed method guarantees the positive definiteness of the system and avoids the appearance of a nonsingular system. The proposed method also extends the application of the dynamic flexibility method. The procedures of assigning poles and zeros to a system are demonstrated. Numerical simulations for pole and zero assignments are conducted. Simulation results indicate that the proposed method is generally effective. The proposed method in this paper can be utilized to improve performance and reliability on robotic systems such as flexible robots, robot arms, and intelligent vehicles. In future work, the proposed method will be expanded to handle vibration control tasks for nonlinear systems with multi inputs and outputs.
Data Availability
No data was used to support this study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Key Science and Technology Research Project of Chongqing (cstc2018jszxcyztzxX0032).
References
 J. J. Lima, J. M. Balthazar, R. T. Rocha et al., “On positioning and vibration control application to robotic manipulators with a nonideal load carrying,” Shock and Vibration, vol. 2019, Article ID 5408519, 14 pages, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Chang, Y. Wang, F. E. Alsaadi, and G. Zong, “Adaptive fuzzy outputfeedback tracking control for switched stochastic purefeedback nonlinear systems,” International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1567–1582, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Wang, Y. Chang, A. F. Alkhateeb, and N. D. Alotaibi, “Adaptive fuzzy outputfeedback tracking control for switched nonstrictfeedback nonlinear systems with prescribed performance,” Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, vol. 39, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Ma, N. Xu, X. Huo, and X. Zhao, “Adaptive finitetime outputfeedback control design for switched purefeedback nonlinear systems with average dwell time,” Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems, vol. 37, p. 100908, 2020. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. H. Chang, Y. Liu, and M. Shen, “Resilient control design for lateral motion regulation of intelligent vehicle,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 2488–2497, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Ma, G. Zong, X. Zhao, and X. Huo, “Observedbased adaptive finitetime tracking control for a class of nonstrictfeedback nonlinear systems with input saturation,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Mou, L. Hou, Y. Jiang, Y. Zhao, and Y. Wei, “Study of automobile suspension system vibration characteristics based on the adaptive control method,” International Journal of Acoustics & Vibration, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 101–106, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
 J. de Jesus Rubio, P. Cruz, L. A. Paramo, J. A. Meda, D. Mujica, and R. S. Ortigoza, “PID antivibration control of a robotic arm,” IEEE Latin America Transactions, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 3144–3150, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Sekhar and C. Vinothkumar, Ieee. Development of a Lab View Based Controller for Active Vibration Control of Panel Structures Using PiezoElectric Wafers, Ieee, New York, 2016.
 M. L. Xia and S. Li, “A combined approach for active vibration control of fluidloaded structures using the receptance method,” Archive of Applied Mechanics, vol. 88, no. 10, pp. 1683–1694, 2018. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. M. Ram and J. E. Mottershead, “Receptance method in active vibration control,” AIAA Journal, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 562–567, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. E. Mottershead, M. G. Tehrani, and Y. M. Ram, “Assignment of eigenvalue sensitivities from receptance measurements,” Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1931–1939, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. F. Zhang, H. J. Ouyang, and J. Yang, “Partial eigenstructure assignment for undamped vibration systems using acceleration and displacement feedback,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 333, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. Ouyang, “Pole assignment of frictioninduced vibration for stabilisation through statefeedback control,” Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 329, no. 11, pp. 1985–1991, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. M. Gharghory and A. E. Ebrahim, “Selfadaptive firefly algorithm with pole zero cancellation method for controlling SMIB power system,” International Journal of Computational Intelligence and Applications, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 1950013, 2019. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. S. Chopade, S. W. Khubalkar, A. S. Junghare, M. V. Aware, and S. Das, “Design and implementation of digital fractional order PID controller using optimal polezero approximation method for magnetic levitation system,” IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 977–989, 2018. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Fengxia, Z. Xuejie, S. Xiaohui, and W. Shanshan, “Composite control of RBF neural network and PD for nonlinear dynamic plants using Umodel,” Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 565–575, 2018. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Song and S. Chen, “A selftuning proportionalintegralderivativebased temperature control method for drawtexturingyarn machine,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2017, Article ID 1864321, 17 pages, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. E. Ciotirca, O. Bernal, J. Enjalbert et al., “New stability method of a multirate controller for a threeaxis highQ MEMS accelerometer with simultaneous electrostatic damping,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 6106–6114, 2018. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Samin, M. G. Tehrani, and J. E. Mottershead, “Active vibration suppression by the receptance method: partial pole placement, robustness and experiments,” in Vibration Problems Icovp 2011, J. Naprstek, J. Horacek, M. Okrouhlik, B. Marvalova, F. Verhulst, and J. T. Sawicki, Eds., vol. 139 of Springer Proceedings in Physics, pp. 371–377, SpringerVerlag Berlin, Berlin, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
 J. Y. Ishihara and M. H. Terra, “On the Lyapunov theorem for singular systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 47, no. 11, pp. 1926–1930, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. M. Ram, “Polezero assignment of vibratory systems by state feedback control,” Journal of Vibration and Control, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 145–165, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Lijuan Peng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.