Active disturbance-rejection methods are effective in estimating and rejecting disturbances in both transient and steady-state responses.This paper presents a deep observation on and a comparison between two of those ...Active disturbance-rejection methods are effective in estimating and rejecting disturbances in both transient and steady-state responses.This paper presents a deep observation on and a comparison between two of those methods:the generalized extended-state observer(GESO)and the equivalent input disturbance(EID)from assumptions,system configurations,stability conditions,system design,disturbance-rejection performance,and extensibility.A time-domain index is introduced to assess the disturbance-rejection performance.A detailed observation of disturbance-suppression mechanisms reveals the superiority of the EID approach over the GESO method.A comparison between these two methods shows that assumptions on disturbances are more practical and the adjustment of disturbance-rejection performance is easier for the EID approach than for the GESO method.展开更多
Because variations of ultra-capacitor voltage and battery voltage generate subharmonic and chaotic behaviors in hybrid energy storage system (HESS) application when a DC-DC converter is under the peak current control,...Because variations of ultra-capacitor voltage and battery voltage generate subharmonic and chaotic behaviors in hybrid energy storage system (HESS) application when a DC-DC converter is under the peak current control, a novel digital control strategy, i.e., peak current control with extended-state tracking compensator, is introduced to deal with the stability. The gains of the control algorithm are selected based on pole locations formulated from the Bessel filter. The simulation results validate that under the peak current control strategy with compensator, the DC-DC converter does not have the subharmonic and chaotic behaviors. The response time under the peak current control with compensator is the same as that under the peak current control. The ripple voltage and ripple current of battery are less. The tracking error of inductor current tends to zero.展开更多
基金This work was supported in part by the JSPS(Japan Society for the Promotion of Science)KAKENHI(20H04566,22H03998)the National Natural Science Foundation of China(61873348)+1 种基金the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province,China(2020CFA031)Wuhan Applied Foundational Frontier Project(2020010601012175).
文摘Active disturbance-rejection methods are effective in estimating and rejecting disturbances in both transient and steady-state responses.This paper presents a deep observation on and a comparison between two of those methods:the generalized extended-state observer(GESO)and the equivalent input disturbance(EID)from assumptions,system configurations,stability conditions,system design,disturbance-rejection performance,and extensibility.A time-domain index is introduced to assess the disturbance-rejection performance.A detailed observation of disturbance-suppression mechanisms reveals the superiority of the EID approach over the GESO method.A comparison between these two methods shows that assumptions on disturbances are more practical and the adjustment of disturbance-rejection performance is easier for the EID approach than for the GESO method.
基金Research Fund on the Cutting-Edge Technology of Electrical Vehicles towards the Sino-US clean Energy Cooperation
文摘Because variations of ultra-capacitor voltage and battery voltage generate subharmonic and chaotic behaviors in hybrid energy storage system (HESS) application when a DC-DC converter is under the peak current control, a novel digital control strategy, i.e., peak current control with extended-state tracking compensator, is introduced to deal with the stability. The gains of the control algorithm are selected based on pole locations formulated from the Bessel filter. The simulation results validate that under the peak current control strategy with compensator, the DC-DC converter does not have the subharmonic and chaotic behaviors. The response time under the peak current control with compensator is the same as that under the peak current control. The ripple voltage and ripple current of battery are less. The tracking error of inductor current tends to zero.
