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
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.
