A numerical investigation of direct and indirect closed-loop architectures for estimating nonminimum-phase zeros

References

• Aljanaideh, K. F., & Bernstein, D. S. (2017). Closed-loop identification of unstable systems using noncausal FIR models. International Journal of Control, 90, 168–185. doi: 10.1080/00207179.2016.1172733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aljanaideh, K. F., & Bernstein, D. S. (2018). Initial conditions in time-and frequency-domain system identification: Implications of the shift operator versus the Z and discrete fourier transforms. Control Systems Magazine, 38, 80–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vlugt, E., Schouten, A. C., & van der Helm, F. C. (2003). Closed-loop multivariable system identification for the characterization of the dynamic arm compliance using continuous force disturbances: A model study. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 122, 123–140. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0270(02)00303-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diversi, R. (2008). A bias-compensated identification approach for noisy FIR models. IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 15, 325–328. doi: 10.1109/LSP.2008.919813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhart, D., Boonstra, T., Aarts, R., Schouten, A., & van der Kooij, H. (2016). Comparison of closed-loop system identification techniques to quantify multi-joint human balance control. Annual Reviews in Control, 41, 58–70. doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epperlein, J. P., Bamieh, B., & Åström, K. J. (2015). Thermoacoustics and the Rijke tube: Experiments, identification, and modeling. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 35, 57–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eykhoff, P. (1974). System identification: Parameter and state estimation. London, UK: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Forssell, U., & Ljung, L. (1999). Closed-loop identification revisited. Automatica, 35, 1215–1241. doi: 10.1016/S0005-1098(99)00022-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freudenberg, J. S., Hollot, C. V., Middleton, R. H., & Toochinda, V. (2003). Fundamental design limitations of the general control configuration. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48, 1355–1370. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2003.815017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustavsson, I., Ljung, L., & Soderstrom, T. (1977). Identification of process in closed loop – Identifiability and accuracy aspects. Automatica, 13, 59–75. doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(77)90009-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjalmarsson, H. (2005). From experiment design to closed-loop control. Automatica, 41, 393–438. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2004.11.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjalmarsson, H., Gevers, M., & De Bruyne, F. (1996). For model-based control design, closed-loop identification gives better performance. Automatica, 32, 1659–1673. doi: 10.1016/S0005-1098(96)80003-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hjalmarsson, H., Martensson, J., Rojas, C. R., & Soderstrom, T. (2011). On the accuracy in errors-in-variables identification compared to prediction-error identification. Automatica, 47, 2704–2712. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2011.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, B., & Kalman, R. E. (1966). Effective construction of linear state-variable models from input/output functions. Regelungstechnik, 14, 545–548.
   Google Scholar
• Hoagg, J. B., & Bernstein, D. S. (2007). Nonminimum-phase zeros: Much to do about nothing. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 27, 45–57. doi: 10.1109/MCS.2007.365003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juang, J. N., & Pappa, R. S. (1985). An Eigensystem realization algorithm for modal parameter identififcation and model reduction. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 8, 620–627. doi: 10.2514/3.20031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landau, I. (1999). From robust control to adaptive control. Control Engineering Practice, 7, 1113–1124. doi: 10.1016/S0967-0661(99)00076-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer, J., & Landau, I. (1996). Improvement of robust digital control by identification in the closed loop. Application to a 360 flexible arm. Control Engineering Practice, 4, 1637–1646. doi: 10.1016/S0967-0661(96)00181-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ljung, L. (1976). On the consistency of prediction error identification methods. Mathematics in Science and Engineering, 126, 121–164. doi: 10.1016/S0076-5392(08)60871-1
   Google Scholar
• Ljung, L. (1999). System identification: Theory for the user. 2nd ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Information and Systems Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Ljung, L. (2001). System identification toolbox: For use with Matlab: Computation, visualization, programming. User's guide, version 5. The Mathworks.
   Google Scholar
• Ljung, L. (2002). Prediction error estimation methods. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, 21, 11–21. doi: 10.1007/BF01211648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ljung, L. (2010). Perspectives on system identification. Annual Reviews in Control, 34, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2009.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ljung, L., & Forssell, U. (1999). An alternative motivation for the indirect approach to closed-loop identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44, 2206–2209. doi: 10.1109/9.802946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ljung, L., & Wahlberg, B. (1992). Asymptotic properties of the least-squares method for estimating transfer functions and disturbance spectra. Advances in Applied Probability, 24, 412–440. doi: 10.2307/1427698
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martensson, J., & Hjalmarsson, H. (2005a). Closed loop identificaton of unstable poles and non-minimum phase zeros. Proceedings of the IFAC 16th triennial world congress (pp. 518–523), Prague, Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Martensson, J., & Hjalmarsson, H. (2005b). Exact quantification of the variance of estimated zeros. Proceedings of the conference on decision and control (pp. 4275–4280), Seville, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Martensson, J., & Hjalmarsson, H. (2009). Variance-error quantification for identified poles and zeros. Automatica, 45, 2512–2525. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2009.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martensson, J., Jansson, H., & Hjalmarsson, H. (2005). Input design for identification of zeros. Proceedings of the IFAC 16th triennial world congress (pp. 470–475), Prague, Czech Republic.
   Google Scholar
• Rahman, Y., Xie, A., & Bernstein, D. S. (2017). Retrospective cost adaptive control: Pole placement, frequency response, and connections with LQG control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 35, (pp. 28–69).
   Google Scholar
• Recht, B., Fazel, M., & Parrilo, P. A. (2010). Guaranteed minimum-rank solutions of linear matrix equations via nuclear norm minimization. SIAM Review, 52, 471–501. doi: 10.1137/070697835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivera, D. E., Lee, H., Mittelmann, H. D., & Braun, M. W. (2007). High-purity distillation. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 27, 72–89. doi: 10.1109/MCS.2007.904650
   Google Scholar
• Rojas, C. R., Hjalmarsson, H., Gerencser, L., & Martensson, J. (2011). An adaptive method for consistent estimation of real-valued non-minimum phase zeros in stable LTI systems. Automatica, 47, 1388–1398. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2011.02.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, B., Ding, F., Alsaedi, A., & Hayat, T. (2017). Gradient-based recursive identification methods for input nonlinear equation error closed-loop systems. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, 36, 2166–2183. doi: 10.1007/s00034-016-0394-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. S. (1998). Closed-loop identification of flexible structures: An experimental example. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 21, 435–440. doi: 10.2514/2.4255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. S. (2014). Frequency domain subspace identification using nuclear norm minimization and Hankel matrix realizations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 59, 2886–2896. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2014.2351731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderström, T. (2007). Errors-in-variables methods in system identification. Automatica, 43, 939–958. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2006.11.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Söderström, T., & Stoica, P. (1989). System identification. London, UK: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Söderström, T., & Stoica, P. (2002). Instrumental variable methods for system identification. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, 21, 1–9. doi: 10.1007/BF01211647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. J., Pedregal, D. J., Young, P. C., & Tych, W. (2007). Environmental time series analysis and forecasting with the captain toolbox. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22, 797–814. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Hof, P. (1998). Closed-loop issues in system identification. Annual Reviews in Control, 22, 173–186. doi: 10.1016/S1367-5788(98)00016-9
   Google Scholar
• Van den Hof, P., & Schrama, R. J. (1993). An indirect method for transfer function estimation from closed loop data. Automatica, 29, 1523–1527. doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(93)90015-L
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Huffel, S., & Lemmerling, P. (2013). Total least squares and errors-in-variables modeling: Analysis, algorithms and applications. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• von Wangenheim, L. (2012). Phase margin determination in a closed-loop configuration. Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, 31, 1917–1926. doi: 10.1007/s00034-012-9437-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, P., Jakeman, A., & McMurtrie, R. (1980). An instrumental variable method for model order identification. Automatica, 16, 281–294. doi: 10.1016/0005-1098(80)90037-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, Y., & Butoyi, F. (2002). Case studies on closed-loop identification for MPC. Control Engineering Practice, 10, 403–417. doi: 10.1016/S0967-0661(02)00007-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar