» Download Article

Authors
Nilsson, Magnus; Egardt, Bo

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.3182/20100826-3-TR-4015.00026

Page Numbers:
128-133

Index Terms
adaptive control,recursive algorithms,identification algorithms

Abstract
Indirect recursive identification algorithms have been suggested for robust control design in the literature. The purpose of this contribution is to clarify that such algorithms need proper calculation of the update direction in undermodeled situations. An indirect pseudolinear regression is compared to a (more suitable) indirect recursive prediction-error method. Their asymptotic properties are examined through simulations, using a specific control structure.

References

[1] Devasia, S. (2002). Should model-based inverse inputs
    be used as feedforward under plant uncertainty. IEEE
    Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(11), 1865-1871.
[2] Forssell, U. and Ljung, L. (2000). Some result on optimal
    experiment design. Automatica, 36(5), 749-756.
[3] Goodwin, G., Ramadge, P., and Caines, P. (1980).
    Discrete-time multivariable adaptive control. IEEE
    Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-25, 449-456.
[4] Hjalmarsson, H., Gunnarsson, S., and Gevers, M. (1995).
    Optimality and sub-optimality of iterative identification
    and control design schemes. In Proceedings of the
    American Control Conference, volume 4, 2559-2563.
    Seattle, WA.
[5] Horowitz, I.M. (1993). Quantitative Feedback Theory
    (QFT), volume 1. Colorado Press.
[6] Karimi, A. and Landau, I.D. (1998). Comparison of the
    closed-loop identification methods in terms of the bias
    distribution. Systems & Control Letters, 34(4), 159-167.
[7] Landau, I. (1980). An extension of a stability theorem applicable
    to adaptive control. Transactions on Automatic
    Control, 25(4), 814-817.
[8] Landau, I. (1999). From robust control to adaptive control.
    Control Engineering Practice, 7(9), 1113-1124.
[9] Landau, I., Rey, D., Karami, A., Voda, A., and Franco, A.
    (1995). A flexible transmission system as a benchmark
    for robust digital control. European Journal of Control,
    1(2), 77-96.
[10] Landau, I.D. and Karimi, A. (1997a). An output error
     recursive algorithm for unbiased identification in closed
     loop. Automatica, 33(5), 933-938.
[11] Landau, I.D. and Karimi, A. (1997b). Recursive algorithms
     for identification in closed loop: A unified approach
     and evaluation. Automatica, 33(8), 1499-1523.
[12] Ljung, L. (1977). On positive real transfer functions
     and the convergence of some recursive schemes. IEEE
     Transactions on Automatic Control, 22(4), 539-551.
[13] Ljung, L. (1999). System Identification: Theory for the
     User. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. USA,
     second edition.
[14] Ljung, L. and Söderström, T. (1983). Theory and Practice
     of Recursive Identification. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
     MA.
[15] Nilsson, M. and Egardt, B. (2010a). Adaptive tracking
     for linear plants under fixed feedback. Submitted to the
     European Journal of Control.
[16] Nilsson, M. and Egardt, B. (2010b). On the performance
     of recursive estimators for adaptive control with fixed
     feedback in the presence of unmodeled dynamics. Technical
     report.
[17] Nordin, M. and Gutman, P.O. (1995). Digital QFT
     design for the benchmark problem. European Journal
     of Control, 1(2), 97-103.
[18] Regalia, P.A., Mboup, M., and Ashari, M. (1999). Existence
     of stationary points for pseudo-linear regression
     identification algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
     Control, 44(5), 994-998.
[19] Skogestad, S. (2001). Probably the best simle PID tuning
     rules in the world. In AIChE Annual Meeting. Reno,
     Nevada.