0
Technical Briefs

An Analysis Framework for Evaluating Dropout Compensation Strategies in Wireless Servo Systems

[+] Author and Article Information
Paul A. Kawka

 Procter and Gamble, Cincinnati, OH 45224kawka.pa@pg.com

Andrew G. Alleyne

Department of Mechanical Science & Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801alleyne@uiuc.edu

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 130(3), 034506 (May 12, 2008) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2907376 History: Received April 30, 2006; Revised October 29, 2007; Published May 12, 2008

This paper presents an approach for analyzing the performance of dropout compensation strategies for linear servo control systems operating over communication channels with losses. A loss of communication causes the normal control action to be replaced by an appropriately designed dropout compensation action. A linear matrix inequality based approach is given for examining H and/or H2 performance of wireless feedback systems using dropout compensation where we assume a two-state Markov model for the communication network. To illustrate the analysis method, we introduce two specific data dropout compensation schemes: zero order hold and estimation. These two schemes are compared in simulation and experiment to validate the effectiveness of the performance analysis.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Typical tracking plots for the two loss treatment strategies. Packets were dropped when the loss signal was high and were successful when the loss signal was low.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Hydraulic servo test bed

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Comparison of theoretical H2 input to output norms for ZOH and estimation. Shaded area has <5% performance difference between the strategies. Light area has estimation performance >5% better than ZOH.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Comparison of theoretical H∞ reference to error norms for ZOH and estimation. Shaded area has <5% performance difference between the strategies. Light area has estimation performance >5% better than ZOH.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Two-state Markov chain network model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Wireless loop structure with separate controller and actuator/sensor nodes

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In