0
Research Papers

Describing Functions for Scalar Information Channels Subject to Quantization and Packet Loss

[+] Author and Article Information
Eric Gilbertson

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: egilbert@alum.mit.edu

Franz Hover

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139
e-mail: hover@mit.edu

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT, AND CONTROL. Manuscript received September 4, 2013; final manuscript received January 30, 2015; published online March 23, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Evangelos Papadopoulos.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 137(7), 071006 (Jul 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: DS-13-1342; doi: 10.1115/1.4029717 History: Received September 04, 2013; Revised January 30, 2015; Online March 23, 2015

Many of today's robot applications depend on wireless communications, whose performance can impact the whole system. To support analysis of feedback control through limited channels, we develop describing functions (DFs) for three variations on the series interconnection of a quantizer, a binary erasure channel, and decoder for a single input single output (SISO) system. The key steps in our derivation hold when the decoder is a linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG)-type control, a zero-output decoder, or a hold-output decoder. We confirm the accuracy of the new formulas and provide an example showing limit cycle behavior.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tsumura, K., Ishii, H., and Hoshina, H., 2009, “Tradeoffs Between Quantization and Packet Loss in Networked Control of Linear Systems,” Automatica, 45(1), pp. 2963–2970. [CrossRef]
Niu, Y., Jia, T., Wang, X., and Yang, F., 2009, “Output Feedback Control Design for NCSs Subject to Quantization and Dropout,” Inf. Sci., 179(1), pp. 3804–3813. [CrossRef]
Dai, J., 2010, “A Delay System Approach to Networked Control Systems With Limited Communication Capacity,” J. Franklin Inst., 347(1), pp. 1334–1352. [CrossRef]
Liu, M., Wang, Q., and Li, H., 2011, “State Estimation and Stabilization for Nonlinear Networked Control Systems With Limited Capacity Channel,” J. Franklin Inst., 348(1), pp. 1869–1885. [CrossRef]
Yang, R., Shi, P., Liu, G., and Gao, H., 2011, “Network-Based Feedback Control for Systems With Mixed Delays Based on Quantization and Dropout Compensation,” Automatica, 47(12), pp. 2805–2809. [CrossRef]
Rasool, F., and Nguang, S., 2010, “Quantised Robust H Infinity Output Feedback Control of Discrete-Time Systems With Random Communication Delays,” IET Control Theory Appl., 4(11), pp. 2252–2262. [CrossRef]
Jiang, C., and Cai, M., 2011, “H Infinity Control of Networked Control Systems With State Quantisation,” Int. J. Syst. Sci., 42(6), pp. 959–966.
Gao, H., and Chen, T., 2008, “A New Approach to Quantized Feedback Control Systems,” Automatica, 44(2), pp. 534–542. [CrossRef]
Seiler, P., and Sengupta, R., 2005, “An H Infinity Approach to Networked Control,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 50(3), pp. 356–364. [CrossRef]
Zhang, L., Gao, H., and Kaynak, O., 2013, “Network Induced Constraints in Networked Control Systems—A Survey,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf., 9(1), pp. 403–416. [CrossRef]
Guckenheimer, J., and Holmes, P., 1990, Nonlinear Oscillations Dynamical Systems and Bifurcations (Applied Mathematical Sciences), Vol. 42, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Mallet-Paret, J., and Smith, H., 1989, “The Poincare-Bendixson Theorem for Monotone Cyclic Feedback Systems,” J. Dyn. Differ. Equations, 2(4), pp. 367–422. [CrossRef]
Basiri, M., Bishop, A., and Jensfelt, P., 2010, “Distributed Control of Triangular Formations With Angle Only Constraints,” Syst. Control Lett., 59(2), pp. 147–154. [CrossRef]
Wang, W., and Slotine, J.-J., 2004, “On Partial Contraction Analysis for Coupled Nonlinear Oscillators,” Biol. Cybern., 92(1), pp. 38–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gelb, A., and Velde, W. V., 1968, Multiple-Input Describing Functions and Nonlinear System Design, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
Sanders, S., 1993, “On Limit Cycles and the Describing Function Method in Periodically Switched Circuits,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst.-I: Fundam. Theory Appl., 40(9), pp. 564–573. [CrossRef]
Peterchev, A., and Sanders, S., 2003, “Quantization Resolution and Limit Cycling in Digitally Controlled PWM Converters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., 18(1), pp. 301–309. [CrossRef]
Kim, E., Lee, H., and Park, M., 2000, “Limit-Cycle Prediction of a Fuzzy Control System Based on Describing Function Method,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 8(1), pp. 11–23. [CrossRef]
Kim, M.-S., and Chung, S.-C., 2006, “Friction Identification of Ball-Screw Driven Servomechanisms Through the Limit Cycle Analysis,” Mechatronics, 16(2), pp. 131–140. [CrossRef]
Yoerger, D., Cooke, J., and Slotine, J.-J., 1990, “The Influence of Thruster Dynamics on Underwater Vehicle Behavior and Their Incorporation Into Control System Design,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., 15(3), pp. 167–179. [CrossRef]
Tang, D., Dowell, E., and Virgin, L., 1998, “Limit Cycle Behavior of an Airfoil With a Control Surface,” J. Fluids Struct., 12(1), pp. 839–858. [CrossRef]
Noiray, N., Durox, D., Schuler, T., and Candel, S., 2008, “A Unified Framework for Nonlinear Combustion Instability Analysis Based on the Flame Describing Function,” J. Fluid Mech., 615(1), pp. 139–167. [CrossRef]
Sinopoli, B., Schenato, L., Franceschetti, M., Poolla, K., and Sastry, S., 2008, “Optimal Linear LQG Control Over Lossy Networks Without Packet Acknowledgment,” Asian J. Control, 10(1), pp. 3–13. [CrossRef]
Nilsson, J., Bernhardsson, B., and Wittenmark, B., 1998, “Stochastic Analysis and Control of Real-Time Systems With Random Time Delays,” Automatica, 34(1), pp. 57–64. [CrossRef]
Riskin, E., Boulis, C., Otterson, S., and Ostendorf, M., 2001, “Graceful Degradation of Speech Recognition Performance Over Lossy Packet Networks,” Eurospeech, pp. 2715–2719.
Slotine, J.-J. E., and Li, W., 1991, Applied Nonlinear Control, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of LF (top), LH (middle), and LZ (bottom) blocks showing input and decoded signals. For LF, the system has 70% packet loss. The optimal DF parameters are gain Alf = 0.40 and delay Tlf = 0.14 time steps. For LH, the system has 90% packet loss, and the fit has gain Alh = 0.9 and delay Tlh = 8. For LZ DF, the system has 50% packet loss; Alz = 0.5; and Tlz = 0.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Block diagram for a control system with a quantizer, binary erasure channel, and simple decoder. For the QLH, the decoder is a hold-output device, and for the QLZ system the decoder is zero-output device.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Block diagram for a feedback control system with a quantizer, binary erasure channel, linear filter decoder, and constant-gain controller. The input to the QLF block is a scalar sensor signal, and the output a scalar control command.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Convergence of the LH DF phase formula with g, for different values of α and ωτ = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

LF DF gain (top plot) and phase (bottom plot) from analysis and Monte Carlo simulation, for the contact task example

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Gain (top) and phase (bottom) of the QLF for the contact task model: α = 10%, h = 46, and τ = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Gain (top) and phase (bottom) of the QLF for the contact task model; α = 60%, h = 10, and τ = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

DF gain N(a/h) for the uniform quantizer [15] with bin width h and input signal amplitude a

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Gain (top) and phase (bottom) of QLH; as with LH, these properties are independent of the plant or controller: α = 10%, h = 46, and τ = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Gain (top plot) and phase ω of the LH model. These curves are universal: they do not depend on the plant model or the controller.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Gain (top) and phase (bottom) of QLH: α = 60%, h = 10, and τ = 0.1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Closed-loop step response of double-integrator example system, with LQG design and a one-step delay

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Input amplitudes a and quantization levels h that result in a limit cycle for the double-integrator example system. Plots are made for Q, QLZ, QLH, and QLF blocks based on the DF formulas and on and simulation. Thick lines represent stable limit cycles and dashed lines unstable ones. No stable limit cycle solutions exist for the QLZ case when h < 45 (α > 11%), for QLF when h < 50 (α > 8%), or for QLH at low h.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Time series for the QLZ system with quantization level h = 70

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Time series for the QLH system with quantization level h = 35. Horizontal lines are drawn for reference at amplitude ratios ± 38.5, and ±70 as predicted with the QLH DF.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Frequency ω of limit cycles from the analysis and from simulation. The QLZ model curve is nearly on top of the Q line.

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