Model Reference

Adaptive Control
Survey of Control Systems (MEM
800) by
Presented
Keith Sevcik
 Concept
ymodel
Model

Controller Adjustment
Parameters Mechanism

uc
u yplant
Controller Plant

Design controller to drive plant response to mimic

ideal response (error = yplant-ymodel => 0)
Designer chooses: reference model, controller
structure, and tuning gains for adjustment
mechanism
 MIT Rule
Tracking error: e y plant ymodel
1 2
Form cost function: J ( ) e ( ) sensitivity

2 derivative

d J e
Update rule: e
dt
Change in is proportional to negative J
gradient of
 MIT Rule
Can chose different cost functions
EX: J ( ) e( )
d e
sign(e)
dt
1, e 0

where sign(e) 0, e 0
1, e 0

From cost function and MIT rule, control law can
be formed
 MIT Rule
EX: Adaptation of feedforward gain
Reference
Model
ymodel
Gm ( s ) koG ( s )

Adjustment
Mechanism -


s +
Plant

uc u yplant
G p (s) k G (s)
 MIT Rule
For
Y ( s)
system kG ( s ) where
k is
U (s)
unknown
Y (s)
koG ( s)
U c (s)
Goal: Make it look like
Gm ( s ) koG ( s )
using plant (note, plant
model is scalar multiplied by plant)
 MIT Rule
Choose cost function:
1 2 d e
J ( ) e ( ) e
2 dt
Write equation for error:
e y ym kGU GmU c kGU c koG U c
Calculate sensitivity derivative:
e k
kGU c ym
ko
Apply MIT rule:
d k
' ym e ym e
dt ko
 MIT Rule
Gives block diagram:
Reference
Model
ymodel
Gm ( s ) koG ( s )

Adjustment
Mechanism -


s +
Plant

uc u yplant
G p (s) k G (s)

considered tuning parameter

 MIT Rule
NOTE: MIT rule does not guarantee
error convergence or stability

usually kept small

Tuning crucial to adaptation rate

and stability.
 MRAC of Pendulum
System
J c mgd c sin d1 T
d2
(s) d1
dc d1
2
T ( s ) Js cs mgd c

T
(s) 1.89
2
T ( s ) s 0.0389 s 10.77
 MRAC of Pendulum
Controller will take form:
ymodel
Model

Controller Adjustment
Parameters Mechanism

uc
u 1.89 yplant
Controller s 0.0389 s 10.77
2
 MRAC of Pendulum
Followingprocess as before, write
equation for error, cost function, and
update rule:
e y plant ymodel
1 2
J ( ) e ( ) sensitivity

2 derivative

d J e
e
dt
 MRAC of Pendulum
Assuming controller takes the form:
u 1uc 2 y plant
e y plant ymodel G p u Gmuc

1uc 2 y plant
1.89
y plant G pu 2
s 0.0389 s 10.77
1.891
y plant 2 uc
s 0.0389 s 10.77 1.89 2
 MRAC of Pendulum
1.891
e 2 uc Gmuc
s 0.0389s 10.77 1.89 2
e 1.89
2 uc
1 s 0.0389 s 10.77 1.89 2
e 1.89 1
2
uc
2
s 2 0.0389 s 10.77 1.89 22

1.891
2 y plant
s 0.0389 s 10.77 1.89 2
 MRAC of Pendulum
Ifreference model is close to plant,
can approximate:
s 0.0389 s 10.77 1.89 2 s a1m s a0 m
2 2

e a1m s a0 m
2 uc
1 s a1m s a0 m
e a1m s a0 m
2 y plant
2 s a1m s a0 m
 MRAC of Pendulum
From MIT rule, update rules are then:
d1 e a1m s a0 m
e 2 uc e
dt 1 s a1m s a0 m
d 2 e a1m s a0 m
e 2 y plant e
dt 2 s a1m s a0 m
 MRAC of Pendulum
Block Diagram
Reference
Model
bm ymodel
s a1m s a0 m
2

-
uc + 1.89 yplant +

s 2 0.0389 s 10.77
-
1 Plant e

2
s s
a1m s a0 m a1m s a0 m
s a1m s a0 m
2 s a1m s a0 m
2
 MRAC of Pendulum
Simulation
block diagram (NOTE:
Modeled to reflect control of DC
motor)
 MRAC of Pendulum
Simulation
with small gamma =
UNSTABLE!
150
ym
g=.0001

100

50

-50

-100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
 MRAC of Pendulum
Solution: Add PD feedback
 MRAC of Pendulum
Simulation results with varying
gammas 45

ym
g=.01
g=.001
40
g=.0001

3.56 35

ym 2
s 2.67 s 3.56 30

25

Designed such that : 20

Ts 3 sec
15

.707
10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
LabVIEW VI Front Panel
LabVIEW VI Back Panel
Experimental Results
 Experimental Results
PD feedback necessary to stabilize
system
Deadzone necessary to prevent updating
when plant approached model
Often went unstable (attributed to
inherent instability in system i.e. little
damping)
Much tuning to get acceptable response
 Conclusions
Given controller does not perform well
enough for practical use
More advanced controllers could be
formed from other methods
Modified (normalized) MIT
Lyapunov direct and indirect
Discrete modeling using Euler operator
Modified MRAC methods
Fuzzy-MRAC
Variable Structure MRAC (VS-MRAC)