Abstract

Feedforward control is widely used in control systems since it can achieve high tracking performance by effectively compensating for known disturbances before they affect the system. For traditional feedforward control methods, the performance improvement highly depends on the model quality of the system model and the accuracy of the model-inversion. However, on one hand, in practice, the modeling error is inevitable, especially for precision motion systems with complex dynamics, on the other hand, the nonminimum phase (NMP) systems often lead to a problem that plant inversion is unstable and non- causal. Therefore, this paper proposes an approach that combines the benefits of data-driven feedforward control and the gradient descent method. This integrated approach aims to address challenges related to laborious model identification and unstable plant inversion simultaneously. The main idea is to replace the model with dedicated experiments on the system and to avoid calculating plant inversion by applying the gradient descent method to the learning process. The simulation and experimental results show that the algorithm can achieve the optimal point-to-point tracking performance without relying on model-inversion.

1 Introduction

Feedforward control is widely used in the high-precision and high-speed motion control because it can effectively compensate for tracking errors induced by reference trajectories and disturbance [13]. There are two kinds of feedforward control commonly applied in the field of high-speed and high-precision motion control, one is iterative force injection-based feedforward control (IFIFC) and the other one is model-based feedforward control (MFC).

Iterative force injection-based feedforward control updates the feedforward force by learning from previous tasks and injects it into the control system to obtain optimal tracking performance. Article [4] analyzed three convergence rate design methods for IFIFC and conducted experiments on ABB industrial robots. It proves that the approximation degree between model inversions of the plant directly affects the convergence. Moreover, Articles [49] show that theoretically, IFIFC can achieve zero-error tracking performance for the entire trajectory in repetitive tasks. However, when the trajectory or the regular disturbances change, a reiterative calculation of the optimal feedforward force is necessary. Otherwise, the tracking performance will deteriorate.

The ideal controller of MFC is the inverse of the plant, aiming to compensate the tracking error caused by the trajectory. In contrast to IFIFC, MFC does not exhibit significant performance degradation due to changes in the reference trajectory. The parameterized feedforward control is one of the common MFC methods, including a filant, aiming to compensate the tracking error caused by the trajectory. In 1014] introduced basis functions to parameterize the feedforward controller and converted the design of the controller to the identification of the controller parameters. In article [10], the optimal parameters are identified by the least squares method, and it was verified that the fixed structure parameterized feedforward control method could achieve high trajectory tracking performance. However, the premise of this method is that the system model has a unit molecule; otherwise, the parameter optimization process will lead to a nonanalytic problem. In view of this problem, a parameterization method, combined with input shaping and feedforward control, was proposed in Ref. [12]. The method solves the nonanalytic optimization problem caused by the system model with a nonunit molecule and ensures the stability of both the feedforward controller and input shaper. The optimal parameters were identified by the least squares method. However, in the process of iteration, the model inverse composed of basis functions needs to be calculated, too. The accuracy of the inverse will affect the performance [15].

No matter what design method, the extent of approximation between the nominal model and the true plant significantly affects the performance of the feedforward controller [1623]. Actually, the acquisition of an accurate system mathematical model is often complex and expensive in practice. In addition, for NMP systems, the existence of NMP zeros often leads to a problem that the plant inversion is unstable and noncausal. Butterworth [24] et al. reviewed three preview-based stable inversion methods, including the nonminimum-phase zero ignore (NPZ-Ignore) method, the zero phase error tracking (ZPETC) method, and the zero amplitude error tracking (ZMETC) method. However, these methods use a stable approximate inverse ignoring or approximating the kinetic of the unstable part, which affects the actual feedforward compensation effect [25].

The gradient descent method with the first derivative could remove the need for calculating the model inverse in the iterative process. The data-driven methods update the feedforward force through the system input and output data collected in the previous task and avoid the process of tedious model identification. Therefore, an adjoint-based data-driven inverse-free iterative feedforward control method is proposed in this paper to solve the problem of complex model identification and unstable model inversion, simultaneously.

This paper will verify the tracking performance of the proposed method on a parameterized feedforward control framework. The main contributions can be summarized as follows:

  1. A feedforward control algorithm based on the gradient descent method is introduced to address the parameter optimization challenges in fixed-structure feedforward control. The method avoids calculating the plant inverse throughout the entire learning process. Furthermore, the convergence of the algorithm is thoroughly analyzed.

  2. A data-driven method based on an adjoint system is introduced in this paper to remove the need for model identification. This method eliminates the need for laborious model identification. Instead, before the commencement of each iteration, an additional experiment is conducted to gather data information from the system. Subsequently, this acquired data is incorporated into the learning process.

  3. The simulation results and experimental findings on a brushless DC motor indicate that the proposed algorithm achieves optimal trajectory tracking without requiring model inversion information.

This article mainly analyzes the theoretical performance of the algorithm and conducts preliminary verification on brushless DC motors. This method will be applied in practical applications in servosystems on the x-y motion platform and industrial robotic arms in the future.

The article is organized as follows: In Sec. 1, the dependence of the existing inverse model feedforward control methods on the inverse quality of the plant is analyzed. Section 2 illustrates the process of parameter identification and proves the feasibility of the algorithm in theory. In Sec. 3, an adjoint-based data-driven method is proposed. The optimal parameters are identified and the convergence of the algorithm is analyzed. In Sec. 4, the simulation results show that the proposed algorithm has higher tracking performance when compared to the ZPETC method. Section 5 details experiments conducted with a brushless DC motor, demonstrating that the proposed algorithm achieves optimal point-to-point trajectory tracking without the necessity of calculating plant inversion. Section 6 provides the articles's conclusion.

Notation: Let wRN×N is defined a positive definite matrix. For a vector xRN, the ith element of the vector x is denoted as x(i), ||x||w=xTwx.

2 Problem Formulation

The framework of parameterized input shaping and feedforward control is shown in Fig. 1. The control configuration consists of an input shaper Cy, a feedforward controller Cff, and a discrete-time stabilizing feedback controller Cfb for ensuring the stability of a closed-loop system. uff is the feedforward control signal and ey is the error signal, r is a known trajectory as shown in Fig. 2, in which is the execution section and is the settling section. Motion starts at t1 and ends at t2. ry denotes the filtered reference signal after input shaping by Cy. The system executes point-to-point reference trajectory tasks, so the control goal is to obtain zero-settling behavior at the settling section.

Fig. 1
Framework of parameterized input shaping and feedforward control
Fig. 1
Framework of parameterized input shaping and feedforward control
Close modal
Fig. 2
Reference trajectory
Fig. 2
Reference trajectory
Close modal
Assuming that the true unknown plant is a discrete time, single input and single output linear time invariant system, which can be described as
(1)
Definition 1. By introducing the basis functions, the input shaping filterCyand feedforward controllerCffcan be parameterized as
(2)
A(z1,θ) and B(z1,θ) are the parameterized polynomial of Cy and Cff, respectively.
(3)
(4)
where θ is the parameter vector to be identified
(5)
and φ represents the selected basis function vector
(6)
Generally speaking, the servo-error represents the tracking performance of the algorithm. The smaller e is, the higher the trajectory tracking performance is. Therefore, the two-norm of error ||e|| is used as the objective function in article [11,12] and [14]. However, the actuator has the problem of the saturation limit and the performance will deteriorate if the actuator force exceeds actuator saturation. Considering the actual conditions, article [26] adds constraints on the actuator force u to the objective function. Furthermore, to enhance the stability of the control system, a constraint on the rapid variation of the control force u has been introduced by adding the norm of Δu, which can ensure a smoother output from the controller. Therefore, the objective function can be recast as
(7)

In Fig. 1, the shaped reference trajectory ry is equal to Cyr. Note that ry is delayed with respect to r in the settling section with the delay length of na, i.e., ry=r when t[t2+na,t3]. Similarly, e=ry=ryy=ey in this period of time. Moreover, the goal for point-to-point trajectory tasks is to minimize the positioning errors at settling section. Thus, e in the objective function can be replaced by ey.

The transfer from r to ey is given by
(8)
Combining Eqs. (3), (4), and (8), the relationship between ey and the parameters vector θ can be formulated as follows:
(9)

with Ψ=r1+PCfb[φy,Pφff].

There exists a linear relationship between ey and θ as shown in Eq. (9). Similarly, there is such a relationship between u and θ. In Fig. 1 
(10)

where, uff=rφffθff.

This indicates that both ey and u can be expressed as polynomials in terms of θ. Consequently, we can directly impose constraints on θ to achieve limitations on the controller force and introduce constraints on Δθ to prevent rapid parameter changes that may lead to system instability. Therefore, the objective function can be modified as the following equation:
(11)

Remark 1. According to Eq. (8), it becomes clear that ey=0 if CyCff1=P. This implies that the numerator and denominator of $P$ are described by Cy and Cff, respectively. Therefore, the process of determining the optimal parameter vector θ in Cy and Cff can be regarded as model identification for P.

In Ref. [12], a feedforward control method based on the least squares method is proposed. It employs a data-driven approach, iteratively learning from collected data of e, u, and y during task execution. The objective function is defined as the norm of the error
(12)
Then, minimization of Eq. (12) with respect to θ*
is equivalent to the least squares solution to
θ has the unique solution to
Then, it can be obtained that
where

Remark 2. The update law of θ is obtained through the data of the previous iteration, where C is polynomials composed of feedforward controllers and shapers. According to Remark 1, it can be seen that the exactness of C−1 affects the optimal value of θ and the accuracy of the approximate model of the plant. An article with a similar controller structure using Newton's method further verifies this view, see, e.g., [27].

It is well known that noncollocated sensors and actuators [28], and fast sampling to a continuous-time plant with a relative degree greater than or equal to 2 [29] can lead to NMP systems. For these conditions, the inverse dynamics of C are usually unstable. The existing algorithms cannot avoid the influence caused by approximate inverse on the results. Therefore, a feedforward control algorithm based on the gradient descent method is proposed in this paper to solve the problem. Actually, the proposed algorithm removes the need for computing inversion during the whole iterative learning process so as to eliminate the possible impact on the final result caused by approximate inverse. Meanwhile, a special experiment is carried out on the real system to replace the need for the mathematical model of the plant.

3 Parameter Identification

The feedforward control framework is shown in Fig. 1, ignoring the disturbance v for the sake of analysis convenience. eyj and yj in jth task can be given by
(13)
(14)
where G is the transfer from u to y
(15)
According to Eqs. (13) and (14), the error eyj+1 in j + 1th task can be given by
(16)
where
The shaper and feedforward controller are interpreted in terms of basis functions and identification parameters. Therefore, eyj+1 and yj+1 can be described as the following equations:
(17)
(18)
The objective function J(θj+1) is defined as the following equation:
(19)
with ||x||w=xTwx, we,wf,wdRN×N are positive definite weighted matrices.
The purpose is to minimize J(θj+1) at the (j+1)th task by using the data of the jth $ task. The gradient of parameter vector θ can be obtained by taking the derivative of Eq. (19), the gradient descent method is to perform the learning update on the steepest descent direction which is obtained by substituting θj+1=θj, the derivative direction at θ
(20)
with Mc and Mr as follows:
It can be seen from Eq. (20) that the steepest descent direction does not depend on ||Δθ||wd.The iterative update law of parameter vector θ can be expressed as the following equation:
(21)

where ξR(na+nb)×(na+nb) is a gain diagonal matrix that determinates the iteration rate, and ξ meets the condition that ξ[0,ξ¯]. The range of ξ is discussed in Sec. 4.2.

According to Eq. (15), it is clear that G in Eq. (21) contains the unknown plant P. In the traditional inverse model feedforward control methods, P needs to be identified to obtain an exact mathematical model. The system performance is determined by the extent of approximation between the nominal model and the true plant. However, for complex systems, it is difficult to obtain exact models, and high uncertainty worsens the control performance. Therefore, in Sec. 4, a data-driven method based on an adjoint system is adopted to replace the plant with an experiment on the system.

4 Data-Driven Learning: Adjoint-Based Feedforward Control

Section 3 completed the introduction of the feedforward control algorithm based on gradient descent method. In this section, to eliminate the algorithm's dependence on the approximate model of the system, a data-driven method based on adjoint is first introduced. Then, the convergence of the algorithm is analyzed in detail, and the detailed process of algorithm implementation is summarized.

4.1 Adjoint System.

It can be seen that the data of θj and eyj in Eq. (21) can be obtained by the last experiment except for GTweeyj. Therefore, a data-driven approach based on adjoint systems is discussed to get GTweeyj in this section.

Stable time reversal of the input and output signals can be obtained according to an adjoint operation on a linear time invariant single-input single-output system. This property has been applied to the research of system identification [3032] and iterative learning [33,34]. As shown in Fig. 1, the Toeplitz matrix corresponding to Eq. (15) is as follows:
Supposing that two given signals x,yRN exist. Then, for a linear operator G, the adjoint G* satisfies the condition
(22)
The inner product of the two signals can be expressed as <x,y>=xTy, then according to Eq. (22), Eq. (23) can be obtained
(23)
It is proved that the adjoint G* of G satisfies G*=GT. Therefore, the gradient descent method shown in (18) can be elaborated by the adjoint method
(24)
where τ is an antidiagonal matrix of size N×N
(25)

It is expected that GTweeyj can be measured without the parameters of the system mathematical model in this paper. As mentioned earlier, the method of adjoint operators can represent the transfer function related to the controlled object G. Using the above conditions, an extra experiment can be designed for the control system to obtain the data information about the system and complete the data required for parameter update formulas. The experiment steps are shown in Procedure 1.

Procedure 1

GTweeyj Is obtained according to the adjoint method

(1) Get the time reverse of eyj :e¯yj=τweyj;
(2) Take e¯yj is used as the input signal for the experiment. Without adding trajectory signals, it is injected into the closed-loop control system to obtain Ge¯yj;
(3) Calculate GTweeyj=τGe¯yj.
(1) Get the time reverse of eyj :e¯yj=τweyj;
(2) Take e¯yj is used as the input signal for the experiment. Without adding trajectory signals, it is injected into the closed-loop control system to obtain Ge¯yj;
(3) Calculate GTweeyj=τGe¯yj.

4.2 Analysis of Algorithm Convergence.

If an iterative learning control algorithm is monotonically convergent, it should satisfy the following equation:
(26)

With δ[0,1) See [35] for equivalent definitions.

According to Eq. (9), Eq. (26) can be written as
(27)
Since Ψ remains constant, we only need to examine the convergence of θ to determine the convergence of ey. The value of θ tends to be constant when the number of iterations tends to infinity. Considering Eq. (21), the identified parameters θ in the iterative learning process meet the following inequalities:
Let Φ=MrGMc, the parameter vector θ can be given by
(28)

Set ε=IξwfξΦTweΦ, and the following equation is obtained: ||θj+1θ||||θjθ||=||εθjεθ||||θjθ||. According to the compatibility of matrix norm, ||εθjεθ||||ε||||θjθ||. If δ=||ε||<1, the convergence of the algorithm is guaranteed. According to the triangle inequality property of norm, it can be obtained that ||Iξ(wf+ΦTweΦ)||1||ξ(wf+ΦTweΦ)||, and the constraint on ξ is given by ξξ¯=2||wf+ΦTweΦ||1, the closer ξ is to ξ¯, the faster the algorithm converges.

If ||ε||<1, the algorithm shown in Eq. (21) will converge to a unique fixed point θ. By setting θj+1=θj=θ, convergent signal can be expressed as the following equations:
(29)

4.3 Algorithm Implementation Procedure.

Sections 3 and 4 implement a data-driven feedforward controller algorithm, which is divided into two parts. The first step is to obtain data information through a separate experiment on the system, as shown in Procedure 1. The second part is to feed the obtained data into the iterative learning process to find the optimal parameters of the feedforward controller, as shown in Procedure 2.

Procedure 2

Point-to-point trajectory tracking motion

1) Initialization Procedure
 a) Select the initial value of the identification parameter vector θ
 b) Determine the appropriate we and wf
 c) Calculate ξ
2) Measurement and calculation program
 a) Get eyj in jth task
 b) Get GTweeyj according to Procedure 1
 c) Update θj+1 in Eq. (18)
3) Calculate Cffj+1,Cyj+1
Cyj+1=1+k=1naφk(z1)θkj+1
Cffj+1=1+k=na+1na+nbφk(z1)θkj+1
4) set jj+1, and repeat step 2) and 3) until the error is small enough.
1) Initialization Procedure
 a) Select the initial value of the identification parameter vector θ
 b) Determine the appropriate we and wf
 c) Calculate ξ
2) Measurement and calculation program
 a) Get eyj in jth task
 b) Get GTweeyj according to Procedure 1
 c) Update θj+1 in Eq. (18)
3) Calculate Cffj+1,Cyj+1
Cyj+1=1+k=1naφk(z1)θkj+1
Cffj+1=1+k=na+1na+nbφk(z1)θkj+1
4) set jj+1, and repeat step 2) and 3) until the error is small enough.

5 Simulation

In this section, Matlab/Simulink is applied to complete the simulation. ZPETC and the other two methods are commonly used feedforward model-inverse control techniques in discrete-time systems. Compared to the ZMETC method, ZPETC is more conducive to reducing the impact of high-frequency noise on the system. At the same time, compared to the NPZ ignore method, it has a higher order and retains more nonminimum phase zero dynamic characteristics. In addition, ZMETC may transform the overall function of the system into an infinite-impulse-response filter, which remains a finite-impulse-response filter when using ZPETC technology, making ZPETC advantageous for various applications [24]. Therefore, the ZPETC method is used for comparison to verify the theoretical control performance of the proposed feedforward control algorithm. The results show that the proposed method achieves higher tracking performance than ZPETC and avoids calculating approximate inverse (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
Reference trajectory
Fig. 3
Reference trajectory
Close modal
The discrete time transfer function of the linear time invariant system P(z) is given by
where the sampling time is Ts=0.0005s and the discrete time transfer of Cfb(z) is given by
The fourth-order point-to-point reference trajectory is shown in Fig. 4. The parameterized polynomials for Cy and Cff are as follows:
with the basis functions corresponding to the 1st to 4th derivatives of the trajectory
Fig. 4
The two-norm of tracking error in settling section when γ=1 (dashed dot line), γ=0.5 (dotted line), and γ=0.1 (solid line)
Fig. 4
The two-norm of tracking error in settling section when γ=1 (dashed dot line), γ=0.5 (dotted line), and γ=0.1 (solid line)
Close modal
The initial parameters of the feedforward controller have no effect on the final convergence result. Therefore, at the beginning of simulation, there are no constraints on the selection of feedforward controller parameters, and their updates are generated by algorithm iteration. The initial value of the identification parameter vector θ yield
If a reference trajectory is discretized, the first n sampling points are the execution section, and the remaining N − n sampling points are the settling section trajectory, then the weighting matrix we can be described as
Let

ρ and λ limit the influence weight of the errors in the execution section and the settling section, respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the smaller γ is, the higher the tracking performance is.

The algorithm proposed in the article is suitable for point-to-point trajectory tracking tasks, and its control objective is more inclined toward achieving a sufficiently small positioning error in the settling section of the trajectory. Therefore, when determining the corresponding weight matrix we, it is necessary to increase the weight proportion of the settling section. wf can limit the step size of θ, ξ can adjust the convergence rate of θ. At ξ[0,1), the larger the ξ is, the faster the convergence rate is, and vice versa. However, the matrix singularity problem will occur when ρ=0, which affects the experiment. Therefore, the selection of we, wf, and ξ in simulation is as follows:

In order to compare under the same conditions, the ZPETC method used in the comparison selects the same parameters as the proposed algorithm when setting the initial values. At the same time, to ensure the optimal performance that the two methods can achieve, the wf and wd in the objective function are set to 0, and only the convergence performance of the two algorithms is compared.

Both algorithms undergo 100 iterations. The simulation comparison results between the ZPETC method (black dashed line) and the proposed method (solid line) are shown in Fig. 5. Obviously, the proposed method has better convergence performance.

Fig. 5
The comparison of tracking performance between the proposed method (solid line) and the ZPETC method (dashed line)
Fig. 5
The comparison of tracking performance between the proposed method (solid line) and the ZPETC method (dashed line)
Close modal

The curve of tracking error ey in the whole section is shown in Fig. 6, and the curve of tracking error e in the settling section is shown in Fig. 7. As can be seen from Fig. 7, the maximum tracking error in the first iteration is of the order of magnitude 10 deg, and is reduced to 10−2 at the 100th iteration. The variation trend of the error in the first, second and 100th iteration indicates that the tracking error has been significantly suppressed. Simulation results show that the proposed feedforward control algorithm can obtain the optimal trajectory tracking performance without calculating the inverse of the plant.

Fig. 6
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking error
Fig. 6
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking error
Close modal
Fig. 7
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking error in settling section
Fig. 7
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking error in settling section
Close modal

The change curve of θ is shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen from the figure that θ converges to the optimal value after 40 iterations. θ1θ4 are the identification parameters of the shaping filter, and θ5θ7 are the identification parameters of the feedforward controller. The optimal values are shown in Table 1. θ5 in feedforward controller corresponds to the parameter of acceleration. Since its order of magnitude is far larger than other parameters, it plays a key role in the whole simulation experiment. The simulation results prove the convergence performance of the algorithm.

Fig. 8
The variation of θ
Fig. 8
The variation of θ
Close modal
Table 1

The optimal value of θ1θ7

ParameterOptimal value
θ11.17 × 10−7
θ28.09 × 10−8
θ31.05 × 10−7
θ41.81 × 10−11
θ51.24
θ61.76 × 10−4
θ7−5.81 × 10−6
ParameterOptimal value
θ11.17 × 10−7
θ28.09 × 10−8
θ31.05 × 10−7
θ41.81 × 10−11
θ51.24
θ61.76 × 10−4
θ7−5.81 × 10−6

6 Experiment

In the simulation, the following tasks have been accomplished: (1) selection of the reference trajectory and determination of basis functions; (2) investigation of the impact of different γ values on the convergence of the norm of the final error, with the selection of appropriate parameters for experimentation; and (3) simulation of the proposed algorithm and comparison with other methods to validate the practical performance of the algorithm.

In this section, the chosen task trajectories and basis functions are consistent with those used in the simulation. The γ value yielding the best results in the simulation is selected for experimentation.

The primary goal of this experiment is to further validate the tracking performance of the proposed algorithm in simulation task 3. The experimental platform is composed of a motion control card and a brushless DC motor, as shown in Fig. 9. The rated voltage of the motor is 24 V, the rated current is 1.17 A, and the rated speed is 6000 r/min. The maximum rotor torque is 104 mN·m, the torque constant is 27.8 mN·m/A, and the encoder is 2000 lines. The host is a PC, and the slave is a four-axis motion control board with a current-loop servodrive in it and designed with an advanced RISC machines chip.

Fig. 9
Experiment platform
Fig. 9
Experiment platform
Close modal

The proportional-integral-derivative control controller serves as a feedback controller, and its parameters are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

The parameters setting of proportional-integral-derivative

ParameterValue
Kp37.5
Ki0.39
Kd1250
ParameterValue
Kp37.5
Ki0.39
Kd1250
The fourth-order reference trajectory is shown in Fig. 10. The servosampling time is set to 0.0005 s, and the number of iterations is 100. In order to control the weight of error in the execution section and the settling section, the number of sampling points N=2048, and n=1024
Fig. 10
Reference trajectory of experiment
Fig. 10
Reference trajectory of experiment
Close modal

The initial value of θ is θ=[0,0,0,0,0,0,0]T. The selected basis functions of Cy and Cff are consistent with the simulation. During the experiment, tracking error, output trajectory, control signal, and other data are collected through the experimental platform.

The two-norm of the error in the settling section is shown in Fig. 11. At the 20th iteration, the error converges to the optimal value. The convergence performance of the proposed algorithm is better than that of the approximate inverse method. Figures 12 and 13 show the variation curves of the entire trajectory tracking error ey and the settling section trajectory positioning error e, respectively.

Fig. 11
The comparison of tracking performance between the proposed method (solid line) and the ZPETC method (dashed line)
Fig. 11
The comparison of tracking performance between the proposed method (solid line) and the ZPETC method (dashed line)
Close modal
Fig. 12
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking errors
Fig. 12
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking errors
Close modal
Fig. 13
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking errors in settling section
Fig. 13
The 1st (solid line), 2nd (dotted line), and 100th (dashed dot line) tracking errors in settling section
Close modal

It becomes clear that the order of magnitude of the maximum error in the settling section in the first iteration is 10 deg, and drops to 10−2 at the 100th iteration. As can be seen from the variation trend of errors during the first, second, and last iterations in the figure, the error is significantly suppressed. Figure 14 shows the convergence learning process of the parameter vector θ and the optimal values are shown in Table 3. The experimental results are consistent with the simulation, which proves the convergence of the proposed algorithm.

Fig. 14
The variation of θ
Fig. 14
The variation of θ
Close modal
Table 3

The optimal value of θ

ParameterOptimal value
θ14.57 × 10−4
θ26.57 × 10−6
θ36.77 × 10−9
θ49.84 × 10−11
θ53.78 × 10−2
θ66.24 × 10−5
θ7−1.09 × 10−7
ParameterOptimal value
θ14.57 × 10−4
θ26.57 × 10−6
θ36.77 × 10−9
θ49.84 × 10−11
θ53.78 × 10−2
θ66.24 × 10−5
θ7−1.09 × 10−7

7 Conclusion

In this article, a data-driven parameterized feedforward control algorithm based on the gradient descent method is proposed in this paper. It is verified that the proposed method can obtain higher tracking performance than the preview-based stable inversion methods through simulation and experiments on the servomotor platform.

The proposed feedforward control method combined the advantages of the data-driven control and the gradient descent method. On one hand, the complex model identification process is avoided, according to replacing the model with dedicated experiments; on the other hand, the proposed algorithm with gradient method removes the need for calculating plant inverse so that it can effectively eliminate the influence on the experimental results caused by approximate inverse when dealing with NMP systems.

In the subsequent work, we plan to continue the improvement of the algorithm from the following two points: first, the proposed algorithm is carried out under the premise of ignoring disturbances. In fact, most working environments cannot avoid the impact of colored noise on system control performance. Therefore, we will discuss how to improve the performance of the algorithm under the influence of external disturbances in the future. Second, the optimization of the parameters of the proposed algorithm feedforward controller is carried out independently, but there is coupling between the parameters. Subsequent work will discuss how to eliminate the coupling between the parameters.

Funding Data

  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 5227068; Funder ID: 10.13039/501100001809).

  • Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Science and Technology Department (Grant Nos. 2023C01159, 2024C01230, and 2022C01242).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and supporting the findings of this article are obtainable from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

1.
Butterworth
,
J. A.
,
Pao
,
L. Y.
, and
Abramovitch
,
D. Y.
,
2009
, “
A Comparison of Control Architectures for Atomic Force Microscopes
,”
Asian J. Control
,
11
(
2
), pp.
175
181
.10.1002/asjc.93
2.
Clayton
,
G. M.
,
Tien
,
S.
,
Leang
,
K. K.
,
Zou
,
Q.
, and
Devasia
,
S.
,
2009
, “
A Review of Feedforward Control Approaches in Nanopositioning for High-Speed SPM
,”
ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas., Control
,
131
(
6
), p.
061101
.10.1115/1.4000158
3.
Butler
,
H.
,
2011
, “
Position Control in Lithographic Equipment [Applications of Control]
,”
IEEE Control Syst.
,
31
(
5
), pp.
28
47
.10.1109/MCS.2011.941882
4.
Boerlage
,
M.
,
Tousain
,
R.
, and
Steinbuch
,
M.
,
2004
, “
Jerk Derivative Feedforward Control for Motion Systems
,”
Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference
,
Boston, MA
, June 3–July 2, pp.
4843
4848
.10.23919/ACC.2004.1384080
5.
van der Meulen
,
S. H.
,
Tousain
,
R. L.
, and
Bosgra
,
O. H.
,
2008
, “
Fixed Structure Feedforward Controller Design Exploiting Iterative Trials: Application to a Wafer Stage and a Desktop Printer
,”
ASME J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control
,
130
(
5
), p.
051006
.10.1115/1.2957626
6.
Boerlage
,
M.
,
2006
, “
MIMO Jerk Derivative Feedforward for Motion Systems
,”
2006 American Control Conference
,
Minneapolis, MN
, June 14–16, p.
6
.10.1109/ACC.2006.1657326
7.
Fu
,
X.
,
Yang
,
X.
,
Zanchetta
,
P.
,
Liu
,
Y.
,
Ding
,
C.
,
Tang
,
M.
, and
Chen
,
Z.
,
2021
, “
Frequency-Domain Data-Driven Adaptive Iterative Learning Control Approach: With Application to Wafer Stage
,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
,
68
(
10
), pp.
9309
9318
.10.1109/TIE.2020.3022503
8.
Chen
,
S.-L.
,
Li
,
X.
,
Teo
,
C. S.
, and
Tan
,
K. K.
,
2017
, “
Composite Jerk Feedforward and Disturbance Observer for Robust Tracking of fiexible Systems
,”
Automatica
,
80
, pp.
253
260
.10.1016/j.automatica.2017.02.024
9.
Dai
,
L.
,
Li
,
X.
,
Zhu
,
Y.
, and
Zhang
,
M.
,
2020
, “
Auto- Tuning of Model-Based Feedforward Controller by Feedback Control Signal in Ultraprecision Motion Systems
,”
Mech. Syst. Signal Process.
,
142
, p.
106764
.10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.106764
10.
Boeren
,
F.
, and
Oomen
,
T.
,
2013
, “
Iterative Feedforward Control: A Closed-Loop Identification Problem and a Solution
,”
52nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
, Firenze, Italy, Dec. 10–13, pp.
6694
6699
.
11.
Boeren
,
F.
,
Oomen
,
T.
, and
Steinbuch
,
M.
,
2015
, “
Iterative Motion Feedforward Tuning: A Data-Driven Approach Based on Instrumental Variable Identification
,”
Control Eng. Pract.
,
37
, pp.
11
19
.10.1016/j.conengprac.2014.12.015
12.
Boeren
,
F.
,
Bruijnen
,
D.
,
van Dijk
,
N.
, and
Oomen
,
T.
,
2014
, “
Joint Input Shaping and Feedforward for Point-to-Point Motion: Automated Tuning for an Industrial Nanopositioning System
,”
Mechatronics
,
24
(
6
), pp.
572
581
.10.1016/j.mechatronics.2014.03.005
13.
van de Wijdeven
,
J.
, and
Bosgra
,
O. H.
,
2010
, “
Using Basis Functions in Iterative Learning Control: Analysis and Design Theory
,”
Int. J. Control
,
83
(
4
), pp.
661
675
.10.1080/00207170903334805
14.
Phan
,
M. Q.
, and
Frueh
,
J. A.
,
1996
, “
Learning Control for Trajectory Tracking Using Basis Functions
,”
Proceedings of 35th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
, Kobe, Japan, Dec. 13, pp.
2490
2492
.10.1109/CDC.1996.573465
15.
Uchiyama
,
M.
,
1978
, “
Formulation of High-Speed Motion Pattern of a Mechanical Arm by Trial
,”
Trans. Soc. Instrum. Control Eng.
,
14
(
6
), pp.
706
712
.10.9746/sicetr1965.14.706
16.
Arimoto
,
S.
,
Kawamura
,
S.
, and
Miyazaki
,
F.
,
1984
, “
Bettering Operation of Robots by Learning
,”
Robot. Syst.
,
1
, pp.
123
140
.10.1002/rob.4620010203
17.
Kim
,
D. I.
, and
Kim
,
S.
,
1996
, “
An Iterative Learning Control Method With Application for CNC Machine Tools
,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.
,
32
(
1
), pp.
66
72
.10.1109/28.485814
18.
Moore
,
K. L.
,
2001
, “
An Observation About Monotonic Convergence in Discrete-Time, P-Type Iterative Learning Control
,” Proceeding of the 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control (
ISIC '01
) (Cat. No.01CH37206),
Mexico City, Mexico
, Sept. 5–7, pp.
45
49
.10.1109/ISIC.2001.971482
19.
Liu
,
G.
, and
Hou
,
Z.
,
2019
, “
Iterative Learning Based Model Free Adaptive Control for Subway Trains With Speed and Input Constraints
,” 2019 Chinese Control Conference (
CCC
),
Guangzhou, China
, July 27–30, pp.
2436
2441
.10.23919/ChiCC.2019.8866193
20.
Norrlof
,
M.
, and
Gunnarsson
,
S.
,
2002
, “
Experimental Comparison of Some Classical Iterative Learning Control Algorithms
,”
IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom.
,
18
(
4
), pp.
636
641
.10.1109/TRA.2002.802210
21.
Ge
,
X.
,
Stein
,
J. L.
, and
Ersal
,
T.
,
2018
, “
Frequency Domain Analysis of Robust Monotonic Convergence of Norm-Optimal Iterative Learning Control
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
,
26
(
2
), pp.
637
651
.10.1109/TCST.2017.2692729
22.
Liu
,
L.
,
Dai
,
X.
,
Zhang
,
W.
, and
Zhang
,
F.
,
2018
, “
A Data- Driven Model of Optimal Iterative Learning Control for Distributed Parameter Systems
,” 2018 5th International Conference on Information, Cybernetics, and Computational Social Systems (
ICCSS
),
Hangzhou, China
, Aug. 16–19, pp.
495
498
.10.1109/ICCSS.2018.8572311
23.
Zhang, X., Li, M., Ding
,
H., and Yao
, X.,
2019
, “
Data-Driven Tuning of Feedforward Controller Structured With Infinite Impulse Response filter Via Iterative Learning Control
,”
IET Control Theory Appl.
,
13
(
8
), pp.
1062
1070
.10.1049/iet-cta.2018.5616
24.
Butterworth
,
J. A.
,
Pao
,
L. Y.
, and
Abramovitch
,
D. Y.
,
2012
, “
Analysis and Comparison of Three Discrete-Time Feedforward Model-Inverse Control Techniques for Nonminimum-Phase Systems
,”
Mechatronics
,
22
(
5
), pp.
577
587
.10.1016/j.mechatronics.2011.12.006
25.
van Zundert
,
J.
, and
Oomen
,
T.
,
2018
, “
On Inversion-Based Approaches for Feedforward and ILC
,”
Mechatronics
,
50
, pp.
282
291
.10.1016/j.mechatronics.2017.09.010
26.
Yang
,
L.
, and
Zhang
,
H.
,
2022
, “
Data-Driven Feedforward Parameter Tuning Optimization Method Under Actuator Constraints
,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron.
,
27
(
5
), pp.
3429
3439
.10.1109/TMECH.2022.3141738
27.
Bruijnen
,
D.
, and
van Dijk
,
N.
,
2012
, “
Combined Input Shaping and Feedforward Control for fiexible Motion Systems
,” American Control Conference (
ACC
), Montreal, QC, June 27–29, pp.
2473
2478
.10.1109/ACC.2012.6315055
28.
Miu
,
D. K.
,
1993
,
Mechatronics: Electromechanics and Control Mechanics
,
Springer-Verlag
,
New York
.
29.
Åström
,
K. J.
,
Hagander
,
P.
, and
Sternby
,
J.
,
1984
, “
Zeros of Sampled Systems
,”
Automatica
,
20
(
1
), pp.
31
38
.10.1016/0005-1098(84)90062-1
30.
Rojas
,
C.
,
Oomen
,
T.
,
Hjalmarsson
,
H.
, and
Wahlberg
,
B.
,
2012
, “
Analyzing Iterations in Identification With Application to Nonparametric Hinf-Norm Estimation
,”
Automatica
,
48
(
11
), pp.
2776
2790
.10.1016/j.automatica.2012.08.025
31.
Wahlberg
,
B.
,
Syberg
,
M.
, and
Hjalmarsson
,
H.
,
2010
, “
Non-Parametric Methods for L2-Gain Estimation Using Iterative Experiments
,”
Automatica
,
46
(
8
), pp.
1376
1381
.10.1016/j.automatica.2010.05.012
32.
Oomen
,
T.
,
van der Maas
,
R.
,
Rojas
,
C.
, and
Hjalmarsson
,
H.
,
2014
, “
Iterative Data-Driven Hinf Norm Estimation of Multivariable Systems: With Application to Robust Active Vibration Isolation
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
,
22
(
6
), pp.
2247
2260
.10.1109/TCST.2014.2303047
33.
Freeman
,
C.
,
Lewin
,
P.
, and
Rogers
,
E.
,
2007
, “
Further Results on the Experimental Evaluation of Iterative Learning Control Algorithms for Non-Minimum Phase Plants
,”
Int. J. Control
,
80
(
4
), pp.
569
582
.10.1080/00207170601136726
34.
Butcher
,
M.
,
Karimi
,
A.
, and
Longchamp
,
R.
,
2008
, “
Iterative Learning Control Based on Stochastic Approximation
,”
IFAC Trienn. World Congr.
,
17
, pp.
1478
1483
.10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.00253
35.
Bristow
,
D.
,
Tharayil
,
M.
, and
Alleyne
,
A.
,
2006
, “
A Sur- Vey of Iterative Learning Control: A Learning- Based Method for High-Performance Tracking Control
,”
IEEE Control Syst. Mag.
,
26
(
3
), pp.
96
114
.10.1109/MCS.2006.1636313