Abstract:Active disturbance rejection control (ADRC) can be summarized as follows: it inherits from proportional–integral–derivative (PID) the quality that makes it such a success: the error driven, rather than model-based, control law; it takes from modern control theory its best offering: the state observer; it embraces the power of nonlinear feedback and puts it to full use; it is a useful digital control technology developed out of an experimental platform rooted in computer simulations. ADRC is made possible only when control is taken as an experimental science, instead of a mathematical one. It is motivated by the ever increasing demands from industry that requires the control technology to move beyond PID, which has dominated the practice for over 80 years. Specifically, there are four areas of weakness in PID that we strive to address: 1) the error computation; 2) noise degradation in the derivative control; 3) oversimplification and the loss of performance in the control law in the form of a linear weighted sum; and 4) complications brought by the integral control. Correspondingly, we propose four distinct measures: 1) a simple differential equation as a transient trajectory generator; 2) a noise-tolerant tracking differentiator; 3) the nonlinear control laws; and 4) the concept and method of total disturbance estimation and rejection. Together, they form a new set of tools and a new way of control design. Times and again in experiments and on factory floors, ADRC proves to be a capable replacement of PID with unmistakable advantage in performance and practicality, providing solutions to pressing engineering problems of today. With the new outlook and possibilities that ADRC represents, we further believe that control engineering may very well break the hold of classical PID and enter a new era, an era that brings back the spirit of innovations.

A Comparison Study of a High Order System with Different ADRC Control Strategies

Improved 2-Order Active Disturbance Rejection Control for PMSM

Active Disturbance Rejection Controller for High-Order System

Active Disturbance Rejection Control Design for High-Order Integral Systems

Robust Compensation for Active Disturbance Rejection Control of a Class of High‐order Systems with Large Time Delay: Simulation and Experimental Studies

Development status of active disturbance rejection control

2-DOF Active Disturbance Rejection Controller Design for High Order System Based on Expected Dynamics

Performance Robustness Comparison of ADRC and GPC

Active Disturbance Rejection Control for a class of parallel systems

Performance Analysis of Improved ADRCs for a Class of High-Order Processes with Verification on Main Steam Pressure Control

Comparison of the Phase Margins of Different ADRC Designs

On Comparison of Modified ADRCs for Nonlinear Uncertain Systems with Time Delay

Design of linear active disturbance rejection controller for high-order large inertia system

A modified active disturbance rejection control strategy based on cascade structure with enhanced robustness

From PID to ADRC and back: expressing error-based active disturbance rejection control schemes as standard industrial 1DOF and 2DOF controllers

From PID to Active Disturbance Rejection Control

Quantitative Analysis on the Phase Margin of ADRC

Tuning Method for Second-Order Active Disturbance Rejection Control

Performance Comparison of ADRC and SMC Based Attitude Control

From PID to ADRC and back: Expressing error‐based active disturbance rejection control schemes as standard industrial 1DOF and 2DOF controllers

Simulation Study on Auto-disturbance rejection Control for Unstable Systems and Non-minimum Phase Systems