water

Article
Water Pump Control: A Hybrid Data-Driven and
Model-Assisted Active Disturbance
Rejection Approach
Guanru Li 1 , Lei Pan 1, * , Qingsong Hua 2, * , Li Sun 1, * and Kwang Y. Lee 3
1 Key Lab of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control of Ministry of Education, School of Energy and
Environment, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China; liguanru@seu.edu.cn
2 College of Nuclear Science and Technology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
3 Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Baylor University, Waco, TX 76798, USA;
Kwang_Y_Lee@baylor.edu
* Correspondence: panlei@seu.edu.cn (L.P.); qhua.bnu@gmail.com (Q.H.); sunli12@seu.edu.cn (L.S.)




Received: 20 April 2019; Accepted: 17 May 2019; Published: 22 May 2019


Abstract: Water pump control, prevalent in various industrial plants, such as wastewater treatment
and steam generator facilities, plays a significant role in maintaining economic efficiency and stable
plant operation. Due to its slow dynamics, strong nonlinearity, and various disturbances, it is also
widely studied as a typical benchmark problem in process control. The current control strategies can
be categorized into two aspects: one branch resorts to model-based design and the other to data-driven
design. To merge the merits and overcome the deficiencies of each paradigm, this paper proposes a
hybrid data-driven and model-assisted control strategy, namely modified active disturbance rejection
control (MADRC). The model information regarding water dynamics is incorporated into an extended
state observer (ESO), which is used to estimate and mitigate the limitations of slow dynamics, strong
nonlinearity, and various disturbances by analyzing the real-time data. The tuning formula is given
in terms of the desired closed-loop performance. It is shown that MADRC is able to produce a
satisfactory control performance while maintaining a low sensitivity to the measurement noise
under general parametric setting conditions. The simulation results verify the clear superiority of
MADRC over the proportional-integral (PI) controller and the conventional ADRC, and the results
also evidence its noise reduction effects. The experimental results agree well with the simulation
results based on a water tank setup. The proposed MADRC approach is able to improve the control
performance while reducing the actuator fluctuation. The results presented in this paper offer a
promising methodology for the water control loops widely used in the water industry.

Keywords: water pump control; MADRC; noise reduction

1. Introduction
Water pump control, which is widely used in various chemical industries [1–3], such as in
regenerative heaters [4] and drum boilers [5], petrochemical processes [6], open channels [7], surge
tanks of hydropower stations [8], and steam generators [9–12], plays a significant role in maintaining
economic efficiency and stable plant operation. For instance, in thermal power plants, the drum boiler
water level is a key parameter in monitoring boiler operational conditions, which indirectly reflects
the balance between the steam load and water supply. An appropriate pump control design is able
to maintain the water level and thus guarantee the safe operation of the boiler [13]. Furthermore,
for nuclear steam supply systems, one of the most important control strategies of such a system is
steam generator water level regulation to preserve the level around programmed setpoint, because the

Water 2019, 11, 1066; doi:10.3390/w11051066 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 1066 2 of 25

reduction of the water level jeopardizes the heat removal from the reactor, and increasing the level will
cause the humidity of the generated steam to rise, causing severe erosion of the turbine blades [11].
However, water control is challenging due to slow dynamics, strong nonlinearity, and various
disturbances. There are many proposed control strategies in the literature to design water level
control systems (see e.g., [14–16]). Among the most widely used techniques are simple fixed gain
proportional-integral (PI) controllers. A model-free control has also been proposed to address the
multivariable nonlinear finite-dimension and important unknown disturbances and to ensure that the
water level reaches the setpoint [7]. Additionally, a new global water level control of horizontal steam
generator was designed using the quantitative feedback theory [9]. A gain scheduled fractional-order
proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control system has also been used to control steam generator
levels over an entire operating range [11]. Moreover, an adaptive estimator-based dynamic sliding
mode control method was developed to address the level control problem [10].
It is regrettable that none of the above controllers combine model information with real-time
input and output data, such that disturbances affecting these models cannot be compensated by
real-time data. In addition, it is well known that noise has a negative impact on the executing agencies
in industrial processes, but the noise generated by fluctuations in water level has not drawn much
attention in the above literature. Therefore, this paper introduces a new controller with the above two
problems taken into account. The proposed controller can compensate for disturbances in real time so
as to control the water level accurately and suppress the influence of noise in the system.
The current process control strategies can be categorized in two aspects. One branch utilizes
model-based control design, in which much effort is put into developing a class of accurate models
under different operation conditions. Then, the controller is designed by taking into consideration the
detailed dynamics, nonlinearity, and uncertainty information. To overcome the robustness deficiency
of the model-based design, the other branch chooses to avoid the tough modeling work and adopts a
data-driven method, such as active disturbance rejection control (ADRC) [17]. Under this data-driven
paradigm, the unknown dynamics, nonlinearity, and uncertainty are treated as a lumped disturbance
term that can be estimated and mitigated by analyzing real-time data. A combination of two data-driven
techniques—the virtual reference feedback tuning and model-free control—was proposed to serve
as a control system [18]. A novel multi-agent-based data-driven distributed adaptive cooperative
control method was also investigated for multi-direction queuing strength balance with changeable
cycles in urban traffic signal timing [19]. Two new control structures referred to as second-order,
data-driven active disturbance rejection control combined with proportional-derivative Takagi-Sugeno
fuzzy control are proposed, which consists of a second-order, data-driven active disturbance rejection
control and a proportional-derivative Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy logic controller [20].
Although robust, this new method may suffer from strong sensitivity to the measurement noise,
which is harmful for the actuator. Relatively large inertia and strong measurement noise are often
encountered in industrial water pump control processes that challenge the precision and stability of
industrial water pump control, especially in terms of the following aspects:
1. For a large inertia of the system, it is difficult for the conventional proportional–integral–derivative
(PID) controller to achieve good control performance. Specifically, for the reference tracking
control, the conventional PID control suffers from integral saturation, which leads to large
overshoot and even sustained oscillation.
2. The measurement noise will directly influence the output control variable in the closed-loop
control. In particular, the high-frequency noise caused by the low resolution of the measurement
device in the industrial process will cause large fluctuation to the control variables, which may
cause irreversible damage and shorten the life span of the actuator under serious conditions.
In order to solve the second problem mentioned above, a low-pass filter is usually added at
the output terminal to reduce the fluctuation of output control variables and protect the actuators.
However, it is well known that the introduction this filter will attenuate the control variables and thus
weaken the controller performance.
Water 2019, 11, 1066 3 of 25

Simple yet effective, the PID controller has flourished in industry in recent years [21]. However, the
ever-increasing demands on accuracy, robustness, and efficiency, coupled with the inherent limitations
of the PID, have driven engineers to seek better control methods elsewhere. In recent years, the
ADRC as a promising new control design framework has emerged as a viable alternative. It offers a
timely, if not conventional, solution to practical problems [22]. The essence of the ADRC is an effective
control strategy for dealing with unknown disturbances and uncertainties. Its robustness property
to changes in dynamics and external disturbances has been repeatedly demonstrated in practical
applications [23,24].
In the ADRC application, the influence of the model uncertainty and the external unknown
disturbances is observed by the extended state observer (ESO) based on the input-output data of the
system. The control is then given to compensate for these disturbances, thereby greatly reducing the
effect of the disturbance. From the frequency domain point of view, such a control method is far ahead
of the general “error-based” controller in terms of phase, namely, the control function is ahead of the
ordinary PID control, thereby having a better control effect.
The flourishing achievements in both academia and industry applications of the ADRC, for
instance, in motion control [25,26] and process control [27,28], can be attributed to its simple structure,
ease of tuning, and excellent control performance [29].
A combined structure of the feedforward and the ADRC is proposed in [30] to address the
difficulties in controlling the non-minimum phase (NMP) systems. Inspired by this, along with the
characteristics of practical controlled systems, the information on the system model is added to the ESO,
resulting in an improved ESO for the ADRC. Compared with the conventional ADRC, the modified
ADRC (MADRC) proposed in this paper features as the following itemized points:

• The estimation accuracy is improved by incorporating the model information;

• The control performance is improved in terms of both set-point tracking and disturbance rejection;
• The control action is experimentally demonstrated to be less sensitive to the measurement noise.

In this paper, on the basis of theoretical deduction, we will verify two remarkable performances
of the proposed MADRC compared with ADRC and PID through experiments: (1) excellent set-point
tracking ability and (2) noise suppression ability. It is worth noting that in this paper, we first deduce a
theoretical noise reduction condition for the controller and then verify it in simulation experiments
and practical experiments. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the
structure of the modified ESO and the MADRC. The noise problem in the close-loop is formulated
in Section 3, and the noise suppression ability of the MADRC is analyzed. The controller design
and simulation experiment are given in Section 4. A comparative study is carried out by hardware
experiment in Section 5, and the conclusions are reached in Section 6.

2. Structure of Modified ADRC

In this section, we will gradually introduce the structure of MADRC in theory. For the sake of
universality and verifiability, the controller structure and noise reduction conditions mentioned in this
paper are not specific to any system or object.

2.1. Fundamentals of ADRC

Recognizing the fact that most of the industrial processes are represented by second-order systems,
the objective of this paper is also to design controllers for second-order systems. The structure of the
second-order ADRC is shown in Figure 1, where r is the reference input; y denotes the system output;
u0 is the control variable of controller; s is the Laplacian operator; kp , kd , and b0 are the controller
parameters; b is a gain parameter; G(s) represents controlled object; u is control variable for G(s); and z1 ,
z2 , and z3 are the estimation of system state variables.
Water2019,
Water 11,x1066
2019,11, FOR PEER REVIEW 44ofof25
25

r u0 u
kp 1/b0 G(s) y
_ _ _
b
kd z3
z1
z2

ESO

Figure 1. The block diagram of the second-order active disturbance rejection control ADRC.
Figure 1. The block diagram of the second-order active disturbance rejection control ADRC.
Consider G(s) as a second-order system with single-input u and single-output y,
Consider G(s) as a second-order .. system  with. single-input  u and single-output y,
y(t) = f y(t), y(t), w(t) + bu(t) (1)
y(t) = f ( y(t), y (t), w(t)) + bu(t)
 (1)
where w is the external disturbance, b is a gain parameter, and f denotes an unknown combination of
where w is the
the system statesexternal disturbance, bBy
and disturbances. is aextending
gain parameter, and
the ‘total f denotes anf unknown
disturbance’ combination
as an additional of
state, the
the system states and disturbances. By extending
system (1) can be represented as an augmented state-space model. the ‘total disturbance’ f as an additional state, the
system (1) can be represented as an augmented state-space model.
.
x = Ax + Bu + Eh
x = Ax + Bu + Eh (2)
y = cT x (2)
y=c x T

h . iT .
TT , =cT[1=
= [[xx1, ,xx,2x, x]3 ] = =
[ ]  0 0[1] ,0T0]denotes
where xx = y, y, Tf , h = f , T denotes transposition
where 1 2 3 y , 
y , f , h = f , c T
transposition andand

 0 01 1 0 0  00  0   0 

     
 
 =0 00 0 1 1, , BB=       0 

A =A    = bb , E, =E=0    (3) (3)
0 00 0 0 0   0 0 1  1
     
 
Anextended
An extendedstate
stateobserver
observer(ESO)
(ESO)isisdesigned
designedfor
forsystem
system (2)
(2) accordingly
accordingly as
as follows:
follows:
.
zz =
= Az ++Bu Bu++β β( y( y−−z1z)1 )
(4) (4)
ˆy = c T z ŷ = cT z

where,zz==[z[z
where, 1 2 , z3 ] aims at tracking x, and β = [β1 , β2 , β3 ] is the observer gain. The observability
1, z,2z
, z3]T aims
T at tracking x, and β = [β1, β2, β3]T is the
T observer gain. The observability and
controllability of theofextended
and controllability plantplant
the extended (3) as(3)
well as the
as well asconvergence
the convergenceof ESO (4) are
of ESO (4) analyzed
are analyzed in [30].
in [30].
For
Forsimplicity
simplicityofoftuning,
tuning,referring
referringtotothe
thebandwidth
bandwidthparameterization
parameterizationmethod
method[31], [31],the
theobserver
observer
gain
gaincan
canbe
beobtained
obtainedby bysetting
settingthe
the characteristic
characteristic equation
equation of of (4)
(4) as ϕ(s) =
as φ(s) (s ++ ω
= (s whereωωo oisisthe
ωoo))33, ,where the
desired
desiredobserver
observerbandwidth.
bandwidth.Accordingly,
Accordingly,the thecharacteristic
characteristicequation
equationof of (4) is
(4) is

( s (+sω+o )ωo )3
3
φ(φs()s)== ss3 ++ ββ1 ss22 ++ββ2 ss++β 3β ==
3
(5) (5)
1 2 3

from
fromwhich
whichthe
theobserver
observergain
gainisiscalculated
calculatedas
as
  β1 = 3ωo
β1 = 3ω 2o
  β 2 = 3ωo 2

(6)

β

 2 = 3ω
3 o
(6)
  ββ3 ==ωoω3



3 o
The convergence of ESO was proved in [32]. By compensating the estimated total disturbance z3
The convergence of ESO was proved in [32]. By compensating the estimated total disturbance z3
in real time as
in real time as
u0 − z3
u =u0 − z 3 (7)
u= b (7)
b

the original system (1) can be reduced to

Water 2019, 11, 1066 5 of 25

the original system (1) can be reduced to

..
y = f + bu = f + u0 − z3 ≈ u0 (8)

which is the enforced plant with the disturbance estimate, approximated as cascaded integrators. Then,
the controller for the enforced plant (8) can be determined simply as a state feedback law, as follows:

u0 = kp (r − z1 ) − kd z2 (9)

where r is the reference output. The tracking error of the control law is proved to be bounded in [32],
provided that the derivative of f is bounded. The observer gain β and feedback gain kp and kd can be
easily tuned based on the bandwidth parameterization method in [33].

2.2. Treating the Problem of Uncertainties as That of Disturbance

This part is introduced as the basis for the modification of the ESO in the next section. Consider a
second-order system, as follows:
b
G(s) = 2 (10)
s + a2 s + a1
and an uncertain system in frequency domain, as follows:

Y(s) = G0 (s)(U (s) + D(s)) = G(s)(1 + ∆(s))(U (s) + D(s)) (11)

where G(s) is the nominal model (10), G0 (s) is the real plant, ∆(s) is the modelling uncertainty, Y(s) is
the system output and D(s) is the signal uncertainty, i.e., unknown disturbance. Rewrite (11) as

Y(s) = G(s)(U (s) + D0 (s)) (12)

where D0 (s) = ∆(s)U(s) + ∆(s)D(s) + D(s) denotes a new ‘total disturbance’ consisting of both modelling
and signal uncertainties. Note that the multiplicative uncertainty ∆(s) is used in (12) to make the total
disturbance applied via the same channel as the control input.

2.3. The Modified ESO

The ESO can be designed anywhere between almost model-free (with f completely unknown)
and fully model-based (with f fully described mathematically), because any or all knowledge of f can
be incorporated into the augmented model to improve performance [30]. In this paper, the observable
canonical model is chosen for the ESO design of the second-order system (10), as follows:
.
z1 = z2 + β1 ( y − z1 )


 .

z2 = −a1 z1 − a2 z2 + bu + z3 + β2 ( y − z1 )

 (13)
 .
z = β (y − z )


3 3 1

where, z1 and z2 are the estimation for y and y0 , respectively, and z3 is the estimate of the ‘total
disturbance’ consisting of both modelling and signal uncertainties. It differs from the cascaded
integrators in that the model information is incorporated into the canonical model, as indicated in a1
and a2 .
Again, referring to the bandwidth parameterization method [33] for the original ESO, the
characteristic equation of (13) is determined as φ(s) = (s + ωo )3 , where ωo is the desired observer
bandwidth. Accordingly, the characteristic equation of (13) is

φ(s) = s3 + (a2 + β1 )s2 + (a2 β1 + β2 + a1 )s + β3 = (s + ωo )3 (14)

Water 2019, 11, 1066 6 of 25

from which the observer gain is calculated as follows:

β1 = 3ωo − a2



β 2 = 3ωo − 3a2 ωo − a1 + a2
 2 2 (15)



 β = ω3

3 o

By compensating the estimated ‘total disturbance’ in the control action,

1
u= (u0 − (z3 − a1 z1 − a2 z2 )) (16)
b
the observable canonical model (11) becomes
 .
 z1 = z2 + β1 ( y − z1 )
 .

z2 = u0 + β2 ( y − z1 )

 (17)
 z. = β ( y − z )


3 3 1

which implies that the enhanced plant may behave like the canonical form, as follows:

Y(s) = G(s)(u + d0 ) ≈ G(s)u0 (18)

where d0 is the total disturbance.

Until now, the modification of the disturbance rejection part is done and the enhanced plant (18)
needs a suitable controller, to which we turn next.

2.4. The Modified ADRC

It follows from (18) that the enhanced plant may behave like the nominal model. Thus, now
it is possible to replace the original model (10) with the enhanced plant and then employ the
Proportional-derivative (PD) control law in the ADRC to achieve a minimum settling time, subject to a
prescribed undershoot constraint.
On the basis of state feedback law (9), the canonical form (18) can be converted into the
state-space format:
( .
x1 = x2
. (19)
x2 = u0 = kp (r − x1 ) − kd x2
Similarly, for simplicity of tuning, referring to the bandwidth parameterization method [33] for
PD control law, the characteristic equation of (19) is determined as ϕ(s) = (s + ωc )2 , where ωc is the
desired controller bandwidth. Accordingly, the closed-loop transfer function can be derived as follows:

y(s) ω2c
Gcy (s) = = (20)
r(s) (s + ωc )2

and the controller gain is calculated as follows:

kp = ω2c
(
(21)
kd = 2ωc

Comparing formula (20) with the standard model of classical second-order systems,

ω2n
Φ= (22)
s2 + 2ζωn s + ω2n
 Water 2019, 11, 1066 7 of 25

where
Water ζ 11,
2019, is damping
x FOR PEERfactor
REVIEW ωn denotes natural frequency, a quantitative relationship between
and 7 of 25
derivative gain kd and ζ can be deduced as follows:

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW kkdd 7 of 25

ζ=
= (23)(23)
ωn n
22ω
k
ItItcan
canbebeconsidered
consideredthatthatζζincreases
increases with ζincreasing
= d
with increasing kkdd, ,namely,
namely,increasing thekkddweakens
increasingthe weakens
(23) the
the
2ωn
overshootof
overshoot ofthe
thesystem
systemin inaccordance
accordancewith withthetheclassical
classical controltheory.
control theory.
Accordingly,
Accordingly, combinedwith
It can be combined
considered withζthe
that the modified
modified
increases ESO
withESO above,kwe
above,
increasing dwe haveimproved
have
, namely, improved structure
increasingstructure ofthe
of
the kd weakensthethe
ADRC
ADRC
totothat overshoot
thatofofthe of the
theMADRC. system
MADRC.The in
TheMADRCaccordance
MADRCstill with the
stillconforms classical
conformstotothe control
thetype theory.
typeofofdisturbance-rejection
disturbance-rejectionandandcontroller
controller
pair,as
pair, Accordingly,
asshown
shown combined
inFigure
in Figure 2.
2. with the modified ESO above, we have improved structure of the ADRC
to that of the MADRC. The MADRC still conforms to the type of disturbance-rejection and controller
pair, as shown in Figure 2.
r u0 u
kp 1/b0 G(s) y
r _ _ u0 _ u
kp
_
1/b0 b G(s) y
_ _
+ +b
kd f(z1,z2)
z1 + +
kd f(z1,z2)
z1 z2 z3
z2 z3
ESO
ESO
Figure 2. The modified active disturbance rejection control (MADRC) block diagram for the
second-order
Figure system. active disturbance rejection control (MADRC) block diagram for the second-
2. The modified
Figure 2. The modified active disturbance rejection control (MADRC) block diagram for the second-
order order
system.
system.
So far, the derivation and description of the MADRC structure has been completed. In the next
section, we
So far, will
Sothe
derive theand
far,derivation
noise
the derivation
reduction
description
and
conditions
descriptionofofthe
theMADRC
of MADRC based
structure
MADRC structure
on completed.
hasbeen
has been this section.
completed. In next
In the the next
section, we will
section, we derive the the
will derive noise reduction
noise reductionconditions
conditions of
of MADRC basedonon
MADRC based this
this section.
section.
3. The Noise Reduction Performance of MADRC
3.Noise
3. TheAs The Noise
mentioned Reduction
Reductionabove, Performance ofofMADRC
strong fluctuation
Performance MADRC
of control variables is caused by measurement noise.
However,As introducing
mentioned above, strong fluctuation ofcontrol
the filter will attenuate the controlvariables, thus
variables is weakening
caused the control
by measurement strength.
noise.
As mentioned above, strong fluctuation of control variables is caused by measurement noise.
On this basis, this
However, paper will
introducing theshow
filter that
will the MADRC
attenuate the has depressing
control variables,capacity to some the
thus weakening extent.
control
However, introducing the filter will attenuate the control variables, thus weakening the control
strength. On this basis, this paper will show that the MADRC has depressing capacity to some extent.
strength. On this
3.1. Problem basis, this paper will show that the MADRC has depressing capacity to some extent.
Formulation
3.1. Problem Formulation
FiguresFormulation
3.1. Problem 3 and 4 show the ADRC structure in the presence of measurement noise at the measurement
Figure
end, where y denotes3 and Figure 4 show
the real output theandADRCy0 isstructure in the presence
the measurement. Asofwe
measurement
can see from noise at thethere
figures,
Figure 3
measurementand Figure 4
end, where show the
y denotes ADRC
the realstructure
output and in y’the presence
is the of
measurement.
are two inputs in the whole closed-loop systems: reference r and noise n. The factors affecting measurement
As we can see noisefromat the
figures, there
measurement end, are two inputs
where y in thethe
denotes whole
real closed-loop
output and systems:
y’ is reference
the r and noise
measurement. As n.
we The
can factors
see from
the control variables u are r and n. Besides, it is revealed in [34,35] that the ADRC is actually of
affecting
figures, there the
are control
two variables
inputs in u
the are r
wholeand n. Besides,
closed-loop it is revealed
systems: in [34,35]
reference that
r the
and ADRC
noise is
n. actually
The factors
two-degrees-of-freedom
of two-degrees-of-freedomstructure; therefore, we converted the above structure to the structure shown
affecting
in Figure the
5. control
For variables
simplicity and ustructure;
are r andtherefore,
generality, n.we
Besides,
define
weitconverted
is revealed
the transfer
theinabove
[34,35]
function
structure
that ythe
from
toADRC
to u
the
as
structure
G is actually
shown in Figure 5. For simplicity and generality, we define the transfer function from y to u as y Gy(s) the
(s) and
of two-degrees-of-freedom
transfer structure;
r to ufrom
as Gr(s). therefore, we converted the above structure to the structure
andfunction from
the transfer function to u as Gr(s).
shown in Figure 5. For simplicity and generality, we define the transfer function from y to u as Gy(s)
and the transfer function from r to u as Gr(s). n

y n
r u0 u
kp 1/b0 G(s) y’
_ _ _
r u0 u y
kp 1/b0
b
G(s) y’
_ _ kd _ z3
z1
z2
kd z3 b
z1 ESO
z2
Figure 3. The ADRC block diagram with measurement noise.
Figure 3. The ADRC block diagram withESO
measurement noise.

Figure 3. The ADRC block diagram with measurement noise.

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25

Water 2019, 11,

11, 1066
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25
n

y n
r u0 u
kp 1/b0 G(s) y’
_ _ u0 _ y
r
kp 1/b0 u b G(s) y’
_ _ _
z1 kd +
f(z1,z2)
+ b
kdz2 z3+ +
z1 f(z1,z2)
z2 z3 ESO
ESO
Figure 4. The MADRC block diagram with measurement noise.
Figure 4. The MADRC block diagram with measurement noise.
Figure 4. The MADRC block diagram with measurement noise.
n

r + u y + n+
Gr(s) _ G(s) y’
r + u y + +
Gr(s) _ G(s) y’
Gy(s)
Gy(s) for ADRC.
Figure 5. Block diagram of the system

Converting
Converting the
theADRC Figure
ADRCequations 5. Block
equations to diagram
to the frequency
the of the system
domain
frequency for ADRC.
using
domain the Laplace
using transform,
the Laplace the control
transform, the
variable is
control variable is
Converting the ADRC equations u(s)to= theGr (sfrequency
)r − G y (s)(domain
y + n) using the Laplace transform, (24) the
control variable is u( s) = Gr ( s)r − Gy ( s) ( y + n ) (24)
As Figure 5 shows, the transfer function from n to u is equivalent to the transfer function from y to
y u (is
u. The Ascomparison
Figure 5 shows, the transfer
in noise reduction s) = Grfrom
function ( s)r −nGwill
u(performance to( s) be n ) by discussing
+given
y equivalent to the transfer
the function (24) ofy
from
polynomials
toy (s)
G u. The comparison
between ADRC and in noise reduction performance will be given by discussing the polynomials of
MADRC.
As Figure 5 shows, the transfer function from n to u is equivalent to the transfer function from y
Gy(s) between ADRC and MADRC.
to u.Derivation
3.2. The comparison in noise
of Transfer reduction
Function for ADRC performance will be given by discussing the polynomials of
G y(s) between ADRC and MADRC.
3.2. Derivation of Transfer Function
Based on the introduction of for ADRC
Section 3.1, this section will derive the transfer function from y to
u forDerivation
3.2. ADRC.
Based onSame as theFunction
theTransfer
of introduction controller
of Section described
for ADRC 3.1, this above,
section forwill thederive sake of theuniversality and verifiability,
transfer function from y to u
the noise reduction
for ADRC. Same as conditions
the controller deduced describedlaterabove,
are notfor specific
the sake to any system or object.
of universality For clarity and
and verifiability, the
Basedwe
simplicity, on will
the introduction
introducededuced theofderivation
Section 3.1, this section
process step by will derive the transfer function from y to u
step.
noise reduction conditions later are not specific to any system or object. For clarity and
for ADRC. Same as the
(1) Structural controller described
transformation for ESO:processabove, for the sake of universality and verifiability, the
simplicity, we will introduce the derivation step by step.
noiseAs reduction conditions
defined in (4), the conventional deduced later ESOare not specific
structure is to any system or object. For clarity and
simplicity, we will introduce
1) Structural transformation the derivation
for ESO: process step by step.
 .  .
As defined in  z1 the
(4), 2 + β1 ( y − z1 )ESO structure
= zconventional  z1is= −β1 z1 + z2 + β1 y
 .  .
 
1) Structural transformation for ESO:
β 2 = −β2 z1 + z3 + bu + β2 y
 
z2 = z 3 + bu + 2 ( y − z1 ) ⇒ z (25)
= z2 +z β)1 ( y −ESO
= zβconventional z1 ) structure

 . 
 zz. = − β + + β

As defined in  (4),z3the 13 ( y −
 is
= −β z z z
+ β y y
 1

13 1 31 1 2 31
  = + + β
 z12 = z23 + β1 ( y −2 z1 ) 1
z z bu ( y − z )   
z = − β z +
z12 = − β12z11 + z23 + β1 y 2
z + bu + β y (25)
represented in matrix format,  z = β ( y − z )  z3 = − β 3 z1 + β 3 y

z 23 = z33 + bu +1β 2 ( y −z z=
.
 z Bu
1 ) Az + 2
= − β 2 z1 + z3 + bu + β 2 y (25)
(26)
  z = − β z + β y
represented in matrix format,
where  z
 . 3 3 
 = β ( 1) y − z  3 3 1 3

 0 β1 
    
 z1   −β1 1 0z = Az + Bu z1 
(26)
" #
represented in matrix. format,
 .  u
z =  z2  A =  −β2 0 1  z =  z2  B =  b β2  u =
     
(27)
 .  y
where −β3 0 0z = Az + Bu 0 β3
     
z3 z3 (26)
(2)
where Laplace transformation for ESO, as follows:
Water 2019, 11, 1066 9 of 25

The observer gain β are calculated from (6), as follows:

β1 = 3ωo



β
 2
2 = 3ωo (28)



 β = ω3

3 o

and the estimates z1 , z2 , and z3 are then deduced using the Laplace transform of (25) to yield

(3ωo )s2 +(3ω2o )s+ω3o


bs
z1 = u + y



 d1 d1
(3ω2o )s2 +ω3o s

bs2 +(3bωo )s

(29)


 z2 = d1 u+ d1 y

ω3o s2 bω3o


 z3 =
d1 y − d1 u


where
d1 = s3 + (3ωo )s2 + (3ω2o )s + ω3o (30)

(3) Transfer function acquisition, as follows:

According to the control variable u expressed in (7) and (9),

1 
u= kp (r − z1 ) − kd z2 − z3 (31)
b
where the controller gain kp and kd are calculated from (20), as follows:

kp = ω2c
(
(32)
kd = 2ωc

Meanwhile, from (20), u is deduced, as follows:

n1 n2
u = Gr1 (s)r − G y1 (s)( y + n) = r − ( y + n) (33)
d2 d2

where Gr1 (s) and Gy1 (s) stand for transfer functions for ADRC with respective polynomials. Furthermore,
Gy1 (s) can be simplified as
 
N1 s2 + 3ω2c ω2o + 2ωc ω3o s + ω2c ω3o
G y1 (s) = (34)
d2

The detailed expression of the polynomials N1 , n1 , n2 , d1 , and d2 in the transfer functions are given
in Appendix A.

3.3. Derivation of Transfer Function for MADRC

The derivation of transfer function for MADRC is generally similar to that of ADRC; this section
gives a brief description in order to avoid repetition and redundancy.
(1) Structural transformation and Laplace transformation for ESO, as follows:
Similarly, the modified ESO structure (13) is
 .  .
 z1 = z2 + β1 ( y − z1 )  z1 = −β1 z1 + z2 + β1 y
 .  .
 
β z2 = (−a1 − β2 )z1 − a2 z2 + z3 + bu + β2 y
 
 z 2 = −a z
1 1 − a z
2 2 + bu + z3 + 2 ( y − z1 ) ⇒  (35)
 z. = β ( y − z )  z. = −β z + β y

 

3 3 1 3 3 1 3
Water 2019, 11, 1066 10 of 25

The observer gain β are calculated from (15), as follows:

β1 = 3ωo − a2



β2 = 3ω2o − 3a2 ωo − a1 + a22

(36)



 β = ω3

3 o

The estimates z1 , z2, and z3 are then deduced using the Laplace transform of (35) to yield:

(3ωo −a2 )s2 +(3ω2o −a1 )s+ω3o


z1 = y + dbs u




 d3 3
2
bs +(3bωo −a2 b)s
n3

(37)


 z2 = d3 y + d3 u

ω3o s2 +(a2 ω3o )s+a1 ω3o bω3

y− d ou

 z3 =

d3 3

(2) Transfer function acquisition, as follows:

The control variable u is expressed in (9) and (16), as follows:

1 
u= kp (r − z1 ) − kd z2 − (z3 − a1 z1 − a2 z2 ) (38)
b
which is deduced as follows:
n4 n5
u = Gr2 (s)r − G y2 (s)( y + n) = r − ( y + n) (39)
d4 d4

where Gr2 (s) and Gy2 (s) stand for transfer functions for MADRC. Furthermore, Gy2 (s) can be simplified as

N2 s2 + n6
G y2 (s) = (40)
d4

The detailed expression of the polynomials N2 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 , d3 , and d4 of the transfer functions

are given in Appendix A.

3.4. Analysis of Noise Reduction Conditions

Before the analysis and proof on noise reduction performance, we have to clarify the following
aspects:

1. The noise discussed in this paper is usually the high-frequency noise in industrial applications,
namely, ω is set to infinite;
2. We consider the second-order system as a stable system, namely, a1 > 0, a2 > 0;
3. The subject discussed in this paper is based on the condition that the observer and the controller
bandwidths of the two types of ADRC (ωo and ωc ) are equal.
4. According to explicit point 1, when discussing the gain of the two kinds of ADRC with
high-frequency noise, on the basis of the corresponding relation between frequency domain and
complex domain G(jω) = G(s)|s = jω , it becomes clear that the discussion focuses on the higher
order terms of the transfer function, namely, the N1 and N2 in Formula (34) and (40).
5. Assuming that the MADRC has the capability of noise reduction, N2 must be less than N1 , that is
to say, the inequality N = N1 − N2 ≥ 0 should be proved.

For the point 5,

N = a32 − 2a22 ωc − 3a22 ωo + a2 ω2c + 6a2 ωc ωo + 3a2 ω2o

−2a1 a2 + 2a1 ωc + 3a1 ωo (41)
= a1 f1 + a2 f2 (a1 > 0, a2 > 0)
Water 2019, 11, 1066 11 of 25

where
f1 = −2a2 + 2ωc + 3ωo (42)

f2 = (a2 − ωc )2 + 3ω2o + 6ωc ωo − 3a2 ωo (43)

Since both a1 and a2 are positive, only f 1 and f 2 need to be discussed.

Note that f 1 > 0 as long as the following condition is satisfied:

2
ωo ≥ ωc ≥ a2 (44)
5
Similarly, f 2 > 0, as long as the following condition is satisfied:

1
ωo ≥ ωc ≥ a2 (45)
3
Combining condition (44) and condition (45), we get the following:

2
ωo ≥ ωc ≥ a2 (46)
5
That is to say, as long as the condition ωo ≥ ωc ≥ 0.4a2 is satisfied, the MADRC has a better noise
reduction ability compared to the ADRC. For simplicity and generality, the condition is called the noise
reduction condition hereinafter.

3.5. Reflections on the Condition

As shown in (46), the simplicity of the condition is beyond one’s expectation. Moreover, this is a
very conservative or even stricter condition obtained by mathematical deduction. In other words, in
practical control applications, this condition is extremely easy to meet:

(a) In general, the observer bandwidth ωo must be greater than the controller bandwidth ωc , that is,
the observer frequency must be greater than the controller operating frequency. Even in most
ADRC applications, ωo is ten times or even larger than ωc ;
(b) On the other hand, the ADRC closed-loop characteristic polynomial is as follows:

s2 + 2ωc s + ω2c = 0 (47)

and the open-loop characteristic polynomial of the plant is as follows:

s2 + a2 s + a1 = 0 (48)

Obviously, since the closed-loop control response must be faster than the open-loop, namely, ωc
≥ 0.5a2 . Even in the actual control, the closed-loop response is required to be much faster than the
open-loop response: ωc  0.5a2 .
To sum up, the strict condition obtained under the rigorous mathematical derivation is extremely
easy to be satisfied in most control applications, and the margin of satisfaction is quite large.
This section completed the derivation of noise reduction condition of MADRC, and obtained a
“strict noise reduction condition” that can be easily met in application. Through the theoretical parts
of the Sections 2 and 3, we have a preliminary understanding of the structure and noise reduction
ability of MADRC. The next section will verify control quality of MADRC and noise reduction ability
compared with ADRC through simulations and experiments.
reduction ability compared with ADRC through simulations and experiments.

4. Controller Design and Simulation

4.1. Model-Based System Identification

Water 2019, 11, 1066 12 of 25
As introduced in the previous section, the water tank systems in industrial applications usually
have large inertia. To this end, we have developed an experimental platform consisting of three water
tanks whose structural
4. Controller Design and diagram is shown in Figure 6. In order to emulate the large inertia, we have
Simulation
made full use of the inertia of the tank by making water flow through three water tanks in cascade.
4.1. Model-Based
The upper System
computer Identification
receives the signal of the communicator through the data bus. The
communicator receives the signal of
As introduced in the previous the pressure
section, transducer
the water and outputs
tank systems the control
in industrial signalusually
applications to the
frequency converter to adjust the rotational speed of the pump. The steady-state range
have large inertia. To this end, we have developed an experimental platform consisting of three water of the
controlled
tanks whosewater level isdiagram
structural obtainedisby testing
shown at an operating
in Figure point.
6. In order Thus, the
to emulate thestep-input experiment
large inertia, we have
and the control experiment are carried out in the steady-state range. For simplicity and
made full use of the inertia of the tank by making water flow through three water tanks in cascade. generality,
the voltage signal received by the inverter is used as a control variable in the following description.

Figure 6.
Figure Structural diagram
6. Structural diagram of
of the
the water
water tanks
tanks platform
platform..

The upper computer receives the signal of the communicator through the data bus. The
The form of transfer function of the platform is denoted as
communicator receives the signal of the pressure transducer and outputs the control signal to the
frequency converter to adjust the rotational speed Y ( s)
G( s)of
= the pump. The steady-state range of the controlled
(49)
U
water level is obtained by testing at an operating point.( s) Thus, the step-input experiment and the
control experiment are carried out in the steady-state range. For simplicity and generality, the voltage
As mentioned above, U is the voltage signal received by the inverter and Y is the water level of
signal received by the inverter is used as a control variable in the following description.
the controlled plant. Figure 7 depicts the open-loop water level step response in the steady-state
The form of transfer function of the platform is denoted as
range, based on which the following transfer function was identified by using MATLAB System
Identification Tool Box: Y (s)
G(s) = (49)
U (s)

As mentioned above, U is the voltage signal received by the inverter and Y is the water level of
the controlled plant. Figure 7 depicts the open-loop water level step response in the steady-state range,
based on which the following transfer function was identified by using MATLAB System Identification
Tool Box:
30.34
G= (50)
(1 + 780.75s)(1 + 219.33s)
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25

100
Water 2019, 11, 1066 13 of 25
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 25
80

(mm)Level (mm)
60
100
40 Target
80

U (mv) Water LevelWater

20
60
0
40 Target
10
20
90

8
10

79
U (mv)

80 1000 2000 3000

Time (s)
7
Figure 7. Open-loop step response.
0 1000 2000 3000
Time (s)
30.34
G=
(
7.+Open-loop
Figure 1
Figure 7. )(
+ 219.33
step
780.75s 1step
Open-loop )
response.
s
response.
(50)

Figure 88 shows
Figure shows thethe fitting
fitting of
of the
the experimental
experimental data data with
with the
the identified
identified model.
model. According
According to
to the
the
degree of
degree of fitting
fittingshown
shown in in
thethe
figure, it canitbe
figure, can be 30.34
concluded that thethat
concluded identified
the transfer function
identified transferrepresents
function
G=
the systemthe
represents very well.very
system In addition,
well. In addition, (1 + 780.75
by comparing )(1 +and
s(10)
by comparing s )and formula
formula
219.33
(10) (50), it can be itobtained
(50),
(50)
that b =
can be obtained
1.77176
that b = 1.77176 =−45.8397
× 10−4 , ×a110 × 10−6×, 10
, a1 = 5.8397 −6, a
and 2 = 5.8401
and × 10×−310
a2 = 5.8401 . −3.
Figure 8 shows the fitting of the experimental data with the identified model. According to the
degree of fitting shown100 in the figure, it can be concluded that the identified transfer function
represents the system very well. In addition, by comparing (10) and formula (50), it can be obtained
that b = 1.77176 × 10−4, a1 = 5.8397 × 10−6, and a2 = 5.8401 × 10−3.
80
100
Level (mm)

60
80
(mm)

40 Experimental Data
Water

60 Identified Model
Water Level

20
40 Experimental Data
Identified Model
0
20
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
0 Time (s)
Figure8.
Figure Thefitting
8.The fittingof
ofexperimental
experimentaldata
datawith
withthe
theidentified
identified model.
model.
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000
Time (s)
Figure 8. The fitting of experimental data with the identified model.
Water 2019, 11, 1066 14 of 25

4.2. PI Controller Parameters Tuning

As empirical setting, the proportional-integral (PI) controller without differentiation is adequate
to control the second-order system in industrial processes. Accordingly, we applied PI controller to the
experiments. The form of PI controller is denoted as

Ki
Gc (s) = Kp + (51)
s
In order to design an engineering friendly controller for the system, we tuned the parameters
based on the following method: SIMC-PID tuning rules widely used in industry, here SIMC means
“Simple Internal Model Control” [36]. According to the identified result, the PI parameters are tuned as

Kp = 0.070715, Ki = 0.00008719 (52)

The PI control performance has fast response with good robustness, namely, fast transient period
and reasonable overshoot, which will be further exhibited in Section 4.4.

4.3. ADRC Controller Parameters Tuning

According to the theoretical deduction above for ADRC, there is a quantitative relationship
between derivative gain kd and the damping factor ζ as shown in (23). Moreover, in order to compare
the control performance between ADRC and MADRC, we set the ωo and ωc of the two types of ADRC
to be equal to satisfy the unique variable principle.
In this experiment, the value of ωo and ωc are tuned as

ωo = 0.03, ωc = 0.0035 (53)

On this basis, the parameters of ADRC and MADRC are as follows:

(1) ADRC: β1 = 0.09, β2 = 2.7 × 10−3 , β3 = 2.7 × 10−5 , kp = 1.225 × 10−5 , kd = 7 × 10−3 ;
(2) MADRC: β1 = 0.08416, β2 = 2.2026 × 10−3 , β3 = 2.7 × 10−5 , kp = 1.225 × 10−5 , kd = 7 × 10−3 .

Obviously, since the improvement of ADRC mainly focuses on the ESO, the difference of parameters
setting between ADRC and MADRC is mainly concentrated on the observer parameters β1 and β2 ,
while the controller parameters are identical.
The superiority of MADRC is fully explicated in the following sections.

4.4. Simulation Comparison on Control Effects

To evaluate and compare the robustness against parameter perturbation, PI, ADRC, and MADRC
are simulated based on the identified model. Several sets of step-input experiments of water level
are given to prove the validity of tuned parameters and the control effect of the MADRC compared
with the ADRC and PI controller. The amplitude of control variable is limited within [0, 10], which
considers the working voltage of actuator used in the experiment.
Figure 9 shows the result of reference tracking control. The step-changes in the water-level
reference happened at 0 s, 5003 s, 7009 s, and 9310 s with amplitudes of +235, −35, −50, and +70,
respectively. Compared with the PI and ADRC controller, the MADRC controller yields shorter
transient period and smaller overshoot. It is generally known that such control performance is the
goal of industrial control processes. From this point of view, the simulation results validate one of the
capabilities of the MADRC mentioned above.
Water 2019,11,
Water2019, 11,1066
x FOR PEER REVIEW 15
15of
of25
25

240
Water Level (mm)
210

180 Set-Point
ADRC
MADRC
150
PI

120
10

8
U (mV)

6
ADRC
4 MADRC
PI
2
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (s)
Figure 9. Simulation of reference tracking. Steps occur at 0 s, 5003 s, 7009 s, and 9310 s.
Figure 9. Simulation of reference tracking. Steps occur at 0 s, 5003 s, 7009 s, and 9310 s.
4.5. Noise Reduction Simulation Comparison
4.5. Noise Reduction Simulation Comparison
To compare and verify the capability of noise reduction, the ADRC and MADRC are simulated
basedTooncompare and verify
the identified model.the capability of noise
High-frequency whitereduction, the ADRCinto
noise is introduced andthe
MADRC are to
close-loop simulated
explore
based on the identified model. High-frequency white noise is introduced into the close-loop
the influence of noise on the control variable. As mentioned above, the identified model is (50) to
explore the influence of noise on the control variable. As mentioned above, the identified model is
(50) 30.34
G(s) = (54)
(1 + 780.75s)(1 + 219.33s)
30.34
G ( s) =
namely, the system parameter a2 = 5.84 × ( )( 1 +in
10−3 ) system (10). We adopted the (54)
780.75 1 + 219.33s
the ssecond-order same
controller parameters of ADRC and MADRC, i.e., ωo = 0.03 and ωc = 0.0035, which satisfy the noise
namely, the system parameter a2 = 5.84 × 10−3 in the second-order system (10). We adopted the same
reduction condition ωo ≥ ωc ≥ 0.4a2 .
controller parameters of ADRC and MADRC, i.e., ωo = 0.03 and ωc = 0.0035, which satisfy the noise
Figures 10 and 11 show the result of noise-reduction simulation experiments. Figure 10 shows
reduction condition ωo ≥ ωc ≥ 0.4a2.
the output values of the two ADRC step experiments in the presence of noise, and highlights the
Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the result of noise-reduction simulation experiments. Figure 10
fluctuation of output values after introducing white noise.
shows the output values of the two ADRC step experiments in the presence of noise, and highlights
the fluctuation of output values after introducing white noise.
 300

250
Water 2019, 11, 1066 16 of 25

Water Level (mm)

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 25
200

150
300

100
250 White
Noise
Water Level (mm)
50
200 ADRC
Set Point
MADRC
1500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Time (s)
100 White
Noise
Figure 10. Simulation of noise reduction and the fluctuation of output values.
50 ADRC
Figure 11 shows the fluctuation of Set Point variables of the two ADRC relative to their noise-free
control
MADRC
conditions. Since the settings of the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the two figures are the
0
same, it can be seen intuitively that the fluctuation of output control variable is much smaller in the
MADRC than in the ADRC. 0 1000
This preliminarily 2000 the idea 3000
verifies proposed in this4000paper, that is, the
Time (s)
MADRC has a better noise reduction ability compared with the ADRC under the same noise
interference andFigure 10. Simulation
the same bandwidth of settings.
noise reduction and the fluctuation of output values.
Figure 10. Simulation of noise reduction and the fluctuation of output values.
16
Figure 11 shows the fluctuation of control variables of the two ADRC relative to their noise-free
conditions. Since the settings of the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the two figures are the
14
same, it can be seen intuitively that the fluctuation
ADRCofwith
output
noisecontrol variable is much smaller in the
U (mV)

MADRC than in the ADRC. This preliminarilyADRC without

verifies the noise
idea proposed in this paper, that is, the
MADRC has a better 12 noise reduction ability compared with the ADRC under the same noise
interference and the same bandwidth settings.
10
16

16
14
ADRC with noise
U (mV) U (mV)

ADRC without noise

14
12 MADRC with noise
MADRC without noise

12
10

10
16

148 MADRC with noise

0 1000 2000 3000 4000
MADRC without
Time (s) noise
U (mV)

12 Figure 11. The fluctuations of control variables of the two ADRC.

Figure 11. The fluctuations of control variables of the two ADRC.

Figure 11 shows the fluctuation of control variables of the two ADRC relative to their noise-free
10
conditions. Since the settings of the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the two figures are the same,
it can be seen intuitively that the fluctuation of output control variable is much smaller in the MADRC
than in the ADRC.8This0 preliminarily 1000verifies the idea
2000proposed in3000
this paper, that4000
is, the MADRC has
a better noise reduction ability compared with the Time (s) under the same noise interference and the
ADRC
same bandwidth settings.
Figure 11. The fluctuations of control variables of the two ADRC.
 In order to demonstrate the noise reduction ability of the MADRC quantitatively, we introduced
the integral absolute error (IAE) to evaluate the fluctuations of control variable, which is defined as
T
IAE =  y − r dt (55)
0

Water 2019, 11,experiment,

In this 1066 17 of 25
y denotes the control variable under noise and r denotes noise-free reference.
Obviously, the smaller the IAE, the smaller the fluctuation. Calculation results of the two ADRC are
as follows:
In order to demonstrate the noise reduction ability of the MADRC quantitatively, we introduced
the integral absolute error (IAE) to evaluate the fluctuations of control variable, which is defined as
1. ADRC:
Z T
= = 449.9305
IAEADRC (56)

IAE y − rdt (55)

0

2. In this experiment, y denotes the control variable under noise and r denotes noise-free reference.
MADRC:
Obviously, the smaller the IAE, the smaller the fluctuation. Calculation results of the two ADRC are as
follows: IAEMADRC = 223.0452 (57)

1. By comparing (56) and (57), IAEMADRC < IAEADRC, and we can draw the same conclusion that
ADRC:
MADRC indeed has a better noise reduction ability.
IAE ADRC = 449.9305 (56)
So far, the validity and feasibility of the proposed MADRC have been demonstrated by
2. MADRC:
simulation experiments with the identified model. Therefore, the prerequisite for the hardware
IAEMADRC = 223.0452 (57)
experiment is readily met. The water pump control experiment in hardware will be carried out in the
next section.
By comparing (56) and (57), IAEMADRC < IAEADRC , and we can draw the same conclusion that
MADRC indeed has a better noise reduction ability.
5. Experimental Results
So far, the validity and feasibility of the proposed MADRC have been demonstrated by simulation
experiments
5.1. ExperimentalwithSetup
the identified model. Therefore, the prerequisite for the hardware experiment is
readily met. The water pump control experiment in hardware will be carried out in the next section.
The picture of water pump control experimental platform is shown in Figure 12, where some
critical
5. equipments
Experimental are labeled. To avoid distraction, some irrelevant components in the experiment,
Results
such as lift of pump, pipe diameter, relays, and opening of each valve, are not detailed in the figure,
5.1. Experimental
but they Setup
are indispensable for the experiment.
The experimental scheme
The picture of water pump is control
to change the rotational
experimental speed is
platform of shown
the pump by adjusting
in Figure 12, wherethe input
some
control signal of the variable frequency pump, so as to adjust the flow of water, and
critical equipments are labeled. To avoid distraction, some irrelevant components in the experiment,then adjust the
wateraslevel
such of pump,
lift of the tank. It needs
pipe to berelays,
diameter, emphasized that theoffactors
and opening affecting
each valve, arethe
notwater level
detailed inof
thethe tank
figure,
are not only the inlet water volume but
but they are indispensable for the experiment. also its own water level, because the increase of the water
level will lead to the increase of the output water yield.

Figure 12. Photo of water pump experimental platform.

The experimental scheme is to change the rotational speed of the pump by adjusting the input
control signal of the variable frequency pump, so as to adjust the flow of water, and then adjust the
water level of the tank. It needs to be emphasized that the factors affecting the water level of the tank
are not only the inlet water volume but also its own water level, because the increase of the water level
will lead to the increase of the output water yield.
Water 2019, 11, 1066 18 of 25
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 25

The
The host
host computer
computer controls
controls the
the system,
system, and
and the
the control
control algorithm
algorithm is
is realized
realized by
by building
building control
control
module
module structures and tuning
structures and tuning parameters.
parameters. The
The communication
communication between
between the
the platform
platform and
and the host
the host
computer is via MODBUS module.
computer is via MODBUS module.

5.2. Experimental
Experimental Results
Based on the previous simulation work in Section 4, we applied the well-tuned controller
parameters to control the water level of the experimental platform. In order to verify the quantitative
relationship between kkdd and ζζ and take Tss into account, kdd is
relationship between is set
set in
in discrete
discrete steps. The
The other
other parameters
parameters
and the
the structure
structureofofthe
thecontrollers areare
controllers thethe
same as mentioned
same as mentioned in the
in simulation experiment.
the simulation In order
experiment. In
to fully
order to reflect the effect
fully reflect of the
the effect controller,
of the thethe
controller, experiments
experiments were
weresetsetup
upwith
withmultiple
multiple groups
groups of
positive/negative steps in different amplitudes. Figures 13 and 14 represent the water level tracking
performance of ADRC and MADRC controllers, controllers, respectively.
respectively.

90
Controled Water Level
75 Setpoint
Water Level (mm)

60
45
30
15 Kd=25 Kd=30
0

9
U (mV)

0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500
Time (s)
Figure 13. Water level tracking experiment with conventional ADRC controller.
Figure 13. Water level tracking experiment with conventional ADRC controller.
Similarly, in order to demonstrate the control effect more quantitatively, we introduced some
Similarly,
evaluation in order
indices, such to
as demonstrate the control
integral absolute error pereffect
time,moreIAETquantitatively, we introduced
, overshoot O, and some
transient time Ts
evaluation
with indices,
2% error band.such as integral absolute error per time, IAET, overshoot O, and transient time Ts
with The
2% error band.of IAE is
definition T
The definition of IAET is R T 
 y − r

dt
IAET = 0T (58)
IAE =
0
yT − r dt
(58)
where y and r denote the actual water level and
T set point, respectively.
T
The overshoot is defined as
where y and r denote the actual water level ( yand
max −setytpoint,
=∞ ) respectively.
O= × 100% (59)
The overshoot is defined as yt=∞
where ymax denotes maximum output value( yand −yty=t =∞∞) is the stable value.
O= × 100%
max
(59)
yt =∞

where ymax denotes maximum output value and yt = ∞ is the stable value.
Water 2019, 11, 1066 19 of 25

The definition of transient time is the time required for the response curve to reach and stay within
a range of certain percentage (usually 2% or 5%) of the final value [34]. The error band is the range
between the ±2%/±5% amplitude around the reference value.
Each of the three evaluation indices focuses on different aspects. The transient time Ts is a
comprehensive index reflecting the response speed and damping degree of the system. Simply
speaking,
Water it can
2019, 11, bePEER
x FOR considered
REVIEW as the minimum time required to complete the specified control function. 19 of 25
The overshoot is the most commonly used control index to partially depict the robustness of a controller.
In some
The specific
definitionindustrial processes,
of transient time isthe
theovershoot is strictly
time required for therestricted
responsetocurve reachIAE
nearlytozero; andT is an
stay
auxiliary
within evaluation
a range index
of certain in this paper.
percentage It represents
(usually 2% or 5%)the of real-time error between
the final value [34]. The the actual
error bandoutput
is the
value between
range and the reference value,
the ±2%/±5% which is used
amplitude aroundto indicate the accuracy
the reference value. of the control performance.

90 Controled Water Level

75 Setpoint
Water Level (mm)

60
45
30
15
Kd=25 Kd=30
0

9
U (mV)

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (s)
Figure 14. Water level tracking experiment with MADRC controller.
Figure 14. Water level tracking experiment with MADRC controller.
The calculation results of evaluation indices are tabulated in Table 1. In the next section, the
analysis
Eachwill
of be
thecarried out according
three evaluation to thefocuses
indices evaluation indicatorsaspects.
on different in the table.
The transient time Ts is a
comprehensive index reflecting the response speed and damping degree of the system. Simply
speaking, it can be considered as the minimum time required to complete the specified control
function. The overshoot is the most commonly used control index to partially depict the robustness
of a controller. In some specific industrial processes, the overshoot is strictly restricted to nearly zero;
IAET is an auxiliary evaluation index in this paper. It represents the real-time error between the actual
output value and the reference value, which is used to indicate the accuracy of the control
performance.
The calculation results of evaluation indices are tabulated in Table 1. In the next section, the
analysis will be carried out according to the evaluation indicators in the table.
Water 2019, 11, 1066 20 of 25

Table 1. Evaluation indices.

Step 1: +30 Step 2: +30 Step 3: −30 Step 4: +55 Step 5: −60
Controller
(0–30 mm) (30–60 mm) (60–30 mm) (30–85 mm) (85–25 mm)
Index ADRC MADRC ADRC MADRC ADRC MADRC ADRC MADRC ADRC MADRC
Ts (Error Band: 2%) 2181.4 s 2052 s 2094.8 s 1359 s 2157.8 s 968 s 2332.4 s 1506.8 s 2140.6 s 1364 s
Overshoot (O) 10.17% 9.07% 7.33% 4.03% 6.67% 0.80% 3.96% 1.18% 5.95% 2.48%
IAET 5.8258 9.872 6.5226 8.3018 7.1263 9.6148 13.2314 13.323 11.6147 11.1421
5.3. Result Analysis
According to the values in Table 1, it is obvious that Ts and overshoot is smaller in MADRC than
in ADRC in each step experiment, which reflects the excellent control performance of the MADRC
compared with the ADRC in terms of water pump control. As for IAET, the IAET of the ADRC is less
Water that11,
than2019, of 1066
the MADRC in smaller steps and almost equal in larger steps. Reasons for this can21 beofthe
25

overshoot of the ADRC is similar to that of the MADRC when the step is small, but the rising speed
of the
5.3. ADRC
Result controlled signal is faster than that of the MADRC, thus leading to smaller real-time
Analysis
error. During large steps, although the ADRC is more powerful than the MADRC, the overshoot of
According
the ADRC is also to larger
the values
thanin Table
that 1, itMADRC,
of the is obvioussothatthe TIAE
s and overshoot is smaller in MADRC than
T of the ADRC and the MADRC become
in ADRC in
almost the same.each step experiment, which reflects the excellent control performance of the MADRC
compared with the ADRC
The comparison in terms
of control of water pump
performance in the control.
aboveAs for IAEcan
analysis beIAE
T , the T of thein
observed ADRC is less
the figures.
than that of the MADRC in smaller steps and almost equal in larger
Overall, the MADRC has an excellent control performance compared to the ADRC in terms of water steps. Reasons for this can be the
overshoot of the ADRC is similar to that of the MADRC when the
pump control, showing great potential in its application to water pump control in industrial step is small, but the rising speed
of the ADRC controlled signal is faster than that of the MADRC, thus leading to smaller real-time
processes.
error.Noise
During large steps,
reduction although
analysis the ADRC
is achieved mainlyis more
throughpowerful than the MADRC,
the comparison of the ADRC the and
overshoot
MADRC of
the ADRC is also larger than that of the MADRC,
control variables, namely, the output signal of the pump speed. so the IAE T of the ADRC and the MADRC
Since the two sets of experiments become
almost the same.
have the same step amplitudes, it is feasible to compare the control variables. Figure 15 shows the
The comparison
comparison of controlofvariables.
control performance in the above analysis can be observed in the figures.
Overall, the MADRC
Valuable insightshas cananbeexcellent
obtained control
from performance
the experimental compared to the
results: whenADRC in terms
we have of water
to deal with
pump control, showing great potential in its application to water pump
some objects with the attributes of slow dynamics, strong nonlinearity, and various disturbances, control in industrial processes.
MADRCNoiseisreduction
indeed aanalysis is achieved
trustworthy choice, mainly
which through the comparison
can effectively of thevarious
deal with ADRC and MADRC
uncertainties.
control variables,
Meanwhile, namely,
its noise the output
reduction signal of the
performance pump speed. Since
is advantageous the two
to various sets of experiments
executing agencies in
have
industry, especially mechanical equipment. All in all, MADRC has excellent application15prospects
the same step amplitudes, it is feasible to compare the control variables. Figure shows the in
comparison of control variables.
the field of industrial process control.

10.5

9.0

7.5
U (mV)

6.0
ADRC
4.5

3.0
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500
Time (s)
10.5

9.0

7.5
U (mV)

6.0

4.5 MADRC

3.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Time (s)
Figure 15. Comparison of control variable fluctuations.
Figure 15. Comparison of control variable fluctuations.
Valuable insights can be obtained from the experimental results: when we have to deal with some
objects with the attributes of slow dynamics, strong nonlinearity, and various disturbances, MADRC is
indeed a trustworthy choice, which can effectively deal with various uncertainties. Meanwhile, its
noise reduction performance is advantageous to various executing agencies in industry, especially
mechanical equipment. All in all, MADRC has excellent application prospects in the field of industrial
process control.
Water 2019, 11, 1066 22 of 25

It clearly depicted in Figure 15 that when control variable undergoes a large numerical change,
severe fluctuation will occur. However, according to the corresponding circled plots, it is obvious
that the fluctuation of control variable is smaller for the MADRC than for the ADRC. Moreover, on
the basis of model information and controller parameters, the parameters satisfy the noise reduction
conditions mentioned in this paper: ωo ≥ ωc ≥ 0.4a2 . This shows that the MADRC indeed has a better
noise reduction capability compared with the ADRC under the same noise reduction condition. As
in the simulation experiments, the feasibility of the noise reduction condition is also demonstrated,
which is quite useful in industrial applications for its friendliness to actuators.

6. Conclusions
This paper verifies the promising application of the modified model-assisted ADRC control
methodology on a practical water pump control system by analysis, simulation, and well-designed
hardware experiment. This paper focuses on the tracking performance and noise reduction capability
of the MADRC. The superiority of the MADRC in these two aspects has been verified by simulation
and practical hardware experiment.
On the one hand, the MADRC has better control performance, especially in the reference tracking
with large step changes. It can be clearly seen from the simulation results in Figure 9 and the actual
experimental results in Table 1 that MADRC is superior to ADRC and PID in both overshoot and
transient time. Specifically, in the case of a smaller overshoot, it also has faster transient time, which is
essential for the control process under specific requirements.
On the other hand, the MADRC has better noise reduction capability compared to the ADRC
under the same noise reduction condition. Furthermore, the strict condition derived under the rigorous
mathematical analysis is extremely easy to satisfy in the most practical control processes, and the
satisfactory margin is quite large. The control variables with weakened fluctuation after noise reduction
will benefit the actuator and prolong its life, which is especially critical for systems with complex
installation procedure.
To sum up, the proposed MADRC method is able to achieve a better control performance and
better noise reduction capability by sacrificing some structure conciseness and ease of use.
This paper provides a hybrid data-driven and model-assisted active disturbance rejection
control for precise control of water level in industrial process, and it could even be carried out
in extensive industrial control problems. More importantly, this paper provides an idea of designing
control algorithm: by combining model information with real-time input and output data, better
control effects could be achieved by using both steady state data and dynamic data in the control
process. Moreover, the best disturbance-rejection performance of the MADRC control approach can
contribute to pumped-storage distributed energy-supply systems like combined cooling, heating and
power-generating systems [37] and also to a study on robust optimization of the distributed generating
units [38] in the future.

Author Contributions: Data curation, G.L.; Formal analysis, L.P.; Investigation, Q.H.; Resources, K.Y.L.; Software,
L.S.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant no.
51576040&51806034; the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China, under grant no. BK20170686;
and the open funding of the state key lab for engines, Tianjin University.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Water 2019, 11, 1066 23 of 25

Appendix A

Table A1. Polynomials in transfer functions Gr (s) and Gy (s).

Polynomial Expressions of Symbols

 
d1 = s3 + (3ωo )s2 + 3ω2o s + ω3o
 
d2 = bs3 + (2bωc + 3bωo )s2 + bω2c + 6bωc ωo + 3bω2o s
 
d3 = s3 + (3ωo )s2 + 3ω2o s + ω3o
 
d4 = bs3 + (2bωc − a2 b + 3bωo )s2 + ba22 − 2ba2 ωc − 3ba2 ωo + bω2c + 6bωc ωo + 3bω2o − a1 b s
n1 = s3 ω2c + 3s2 ω2c ωo + 3sω2c ω2o + ω2c ω3o
n2 = 3s2 ω2c ωo + 6s2 ωc ω2o + s2 ω3o + 3sω2c ω2o + 2sωc ω3o + ω2c ω3o
   
n3 = a22 − 3a2 ωo + 3ω2o − a1 s2 + ω3o − 3a1 ωo + a1 a2 s
n4 = s3 ω2c + 3s2 ω2c ωo + 3sω2c ω2o + ω2c ω3o
n5 = a21 s − a1 a22 s + 2a1 a2 s2 + 2a1 a2 sωc + 3a1 a2 sωo − 2a1 s2 ωc − 3a1 s2 ωo − a1 sω2c
−6a1 sωc ωo − 3a1 sω2o − a32 s2 + 2a22 s2 ωc + 3a22 s2 ωo − a2 s2 ω2c − 6a2 s2 ωc ωo − 3a2 s2 ω2o
+3s2 ω2c ωo + 6s2 ωc ω2o + s2 ω3o + 3sω2c ω2o + 2sωc ω3o + ω2c ω3o
−a21 + a1 a22 − 2a1 a2 ωc − 3a1 a2 ωo + a1 ω2c
!
n6 = − s + ω2c ω3o
+6a1 ωc ωo + 3a1 ω2o − 3ω2c ω2o − 2ωc ω3o
N1 = 3ω2c ωo + 6ωc ω2o + ω3o
N2 = −(a32 − 2a22 ωc − 3a22 ωo + a2 ω2c + 6a2 ωc ωo + 3a2 ω2o
−2a1 a2 − 3ω2c ωo − 6ωc ω2o + 2a1 ωc − ω3o + 3a1 ωo )

References
1. Ullah, I.; Kim, D. An Optimization Scheme for Water Pump Control in Smart Fish Farm with Efficient Energy
Consumption. Processes 2018, 6, 65. [CrossRef]
2. Rinas, M.; Tränckner, J.; Koegst, T. Sedimentation of Raw Sewage: Investigations for a Pumping Station in
Northern Germany under Energy-Efficient Pump Control. Water 2019, 11, 40. [CrossRef]
3. Carravetta, A.; Antipodi, L.; Golia, U.; Fecarotta, O. Energy Saving in a Water Supply Network by Coupling
a Pump and a Pump as Turbine (PAT) in a Turbopump. Water 2017, 9, 62. [CrossRef]
4. Hu, K.; Pan, F.; Sun, L.; Li, D.; Lee, K.Y. On Tuning and Practical Implementation of Active Disturbance
Rejection Controller: A Case Study from a Regenerative Heater in a 1000 MW Power Plant. Ind. Eng. Chem.
2016, 55, 6686–6695.
5. Pawlak, M. Active Fault Tolerant Control System for the Measurement Circuit in a Drum Boiler Feed-Water
Control System. Meas. Control 2018, 51, 4–15. [CrossRef]
6. Mystkowski, A.; Kierdelewicz, A. Fractional-Order Water Level Control Based on PLC: Hardware-In-The-Loop
Simulation and Experimental Validation. Energies 2018, 11, 2928. [CrossRef]
7. Join, C.; Robert, G.; Fliess, M. Model-Free Based Water Level Control for Hydroelectric Power Plants. IFAC
Proc. Vol. 2010, 43, 134–139. [CrossRef]
8. Guo, W.; Wang, B.; Yang, J.; Xue, Y. Optimal control of water level oscillations in surge tank of hydropower
station with long headrace tunnel under combined operating conditions. Appl. Math. Model. 2017, 47,
260–275. [CrossRef]
9. Safarzadeh, O.; Khaki-Sedigh, A.; Shirani, A. Identification and robust water level control of horizontal steam
generators using quantitative feedback theory. Energy Convers. Manag. 2011, 52, 3103–3111. [CrossRef]
10. Ansarifar, G.; Talebi, H.; Davilu, H. Adaptive estimator-based dynamic sliding mode control for the water
level of nuclear steam generators. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2012, 56, 61–70. [CrossRef]
11. Salehi, A.; Safarzadeh, O.; Kazemi, M.H. Fractional order PID control of steam generator water level for
nuclear steam supply systems. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2019, 342, 45–59. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1066 24 of 25

12. Salehi, A.; Kazemi, M.H.; Safarzadeh, O. The µ-synthesis and analysis of water level control in steam
generators. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2019, 51, 163–169. [CrossRef]
13. Riccardo, V.; Luca, R. Overshoots in the water-level control of hydropower plants. Renew. Energy 2019, 131,
800–810.
14. Na, M.G.; Sim, Y.R.; Lee, Y.J. Design of an adaptive predictive controller for steam generators. IEEE Trans.
Nucl. Sci. 2003, 50, 186–193.
15. Rust, J.H. Nuclear Power Plant Engineering, 2nd ed.; S.W. Holland: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1979.
16. Na, M.G. Auto-tuned PID controller using a model predictive control method for the steam generator water
level. IEEE Trans. Sci. 2001, 48, 1664–1671.
17. Han, J. From PID to Active Disturbance Rejection Control. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2009, 56, 900–906.
[CrossRef]
18. Roman, R.-C.; Precup, R.-E.; Petriu, E.M.; Dragan, F. Combination of Data-Driven Active Disturbance
Rejection and Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Control with Experimental Validation on Tower Crane Systems. Energies
2019, 12, 1548. [CrossRef]
19. Zhang, H.; Liu, X.; Ji, H.; Hou, Z.; Fan, L. Multi-Agent-Based Data-Driven Distributed Adaptive Cooperative
Control in Urban Traffic Signal Timing. Energies 2019, 12, 1402. [CrossRef]
20. Roman, R.-C.; Radac, M.-B.; Precup, R.-E.; Petriu, E.M. Virtual Reference Feedback Tuning of Model-Free
Control Algorithms for Servo Systems. Machines 2017, 5, 25. [CrossRef]
21. Veronesi, M.; Visioli, A. Deterministic Performance Assessment and Retuning of Industrial Controllers Based
on Routine Operating Data: Applications. Processes 2015, 3, 113–137. [CrossRef]
22. Li, S.; Li, J. Output Predictor-Based Active Disturbance Rejection Control for a Wind Energy Conversion
System with PMSG. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 5205–5214. [CrossRef]
23. Hou, Y.; Gao, Z.; Jiang, F.; Boulter, B.T. Active disturbance rejection control for web tension regulation. IEEE
CDC Conf. 2001, 5, 4974–4979.
24. Su, Y.; Duan, B.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, G.; Mi, J. Disturbance-Rejection High-Precision Motion Control
of a Stewart Platform. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2004, 12, 364–374. [CrossRef]
25. Yang, J.; Chen, W.-H.; Li, S.; Guo, L.; Yan, Y. Disturbance/Uncertainty Estimation and Attenuation Techniques
in PMSM Drives—A Survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2017, 64, 3273–3285. [CrossRef]
26. Madoński, R.; Herman, P. Survey on methods of increasing the efficiency of extended state disturbance
observers. ISA Trans. 2015, 56, 18–27. [CrossRef]
27. Sun, L.; Hua, Q.; Shen, J.; Xue, Y.; Li, D.; Lee, K.Y. Multi-objective optimization for advanced superheater
steam temperature control in a 300 MW power plant. Appl. Energy 2017, 208, 592–606. [CrossRef]
28. Song, K.; Hao, T.; Xie, H. Disturbance rejection control of air–fuel ratio with transport-delay in engines.
Control Eng. Pract. 2018, 79, 36–49. [CrossRef]
29. Dong, J.; Sun, L.; Li, D.; Lee, K.Y. A Practical Multivariable Control Approach Based on Inverted Decoupling
and Decentralized Active Disturbance Rejection Control. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2016, 55, 2008–2019.
30. Sun, L.; Li, D.; Gao, Z.; Yang, Z.; Zhao, S. Combined feedforward and model-assisted active disturbance
rejection control for non-minimum phase system. ISA Trans. 2016, 64, 24–33. [CrossRef]
31. Sun, L.; Shen, J.; Hua, Q.; Lee, K.Y. Data-driven oxygen excess ratio control for proton exchange membrane
fuel cell. Appl. Energy 2018, 231, 866–875. [CrossRef]
32. Zheng, Q.; Chen, Z.; Gao, Z. A practical approach to disturbance decoupling control. Control Eng. Pract.
2009, 17, 1016–1025. [CrossRef]
33. Gao, Z. Scaling and bandwidth-parameterization based controller tuning. Proc. Am. Control Conf. 2003, 6,
4989–4996.
34. Yang, J.; Li, S.; Yu, X. Sliding-Mode Control for Systems with Mismatched Uncertainties via a Disturbance
Observer. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2013, 60, 160–169. [CrossRef]
35. Xue, W.; Bai, W.; Yang, S.; Song, K.; Huang, Y.; Xie, H.; Yi, H. ADRC With Adaptive Extended State Observer
and its Application to Air–Fuel Ratio Control in Gasoline Engines. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 2015, 62,
5847–5857. [CrossRef]
36. Skogestad, S. Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning. J. Process Control 2003, 13,
291–309. [CrossRef]
37. Chen, C.; Lin, J.; Pan, L.; Lee, K.Y.; Sun, L. Improving Simultaneous Cooling and Power Load-Following
Capability for MGT-CCP Using Coordinated Predictive Controls. Energies 2019, 12, 1180. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1066 25 of 25

38. Peng, C.; Xu, L.; Gong, X.; Sun, H.; Pan, L. Molecular Evolution Based Dynamic Reconfiguration of
Distribution Networks With DGs Considering Three-Phase Balance and Switching Times. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf.
2019, 15, 1866–1876. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).