Advertisement

Analysis of Effort Constraint Algorithm in Active Noise Control Systems

  • F. TaringooEmail author
  • J. Poshtan
  • M. H. Kahaei
Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

In ANC systems, in case of loudspeakers saturation, the adaptive algorithm may diverge due to nonlinearity. The most common algorithm used in ANC systems is the FXLMS which is especially used for feed-forward ANC systems. According to its mathematical representation, its cost function is conventionally chosen independent of control signal magnitude, and hence the control signal may increase unlimitedly. In this paper, a modified cost function is proposed that takes into account the control signal power. Choosing an appropriate weight can prevent the system from becoming nonlinear. A region for this weight is obtained and the mean weight behavior of the algorithm using this cost function is achieved. In addition to the previous paper results, the linear range for the effort coefficient variation is obtained. Simulation and experimental results follow for confirmation.

Keywords

Cost Function Control Signal Linear Range Coefficient Variation Signal Power 

References

  1. 1.
    Kuo SM, Morgan D: Active Noise Control Systems. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA; 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elliott SJ, Nelson PA: Active noise control. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 1993, 10(4):12–35. 10.1109/79.248551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elliott SJ: Optimal controllers and adaptive controllers for multi-channel feed-forward control of stochastic disturbances. IEEE Transaction on Signal Processing 2000, 48(4):1053–1060. 10.1109/78.827539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Costa MH, Bermudez JCM, Bershad NJ: Stochastic analysis of the LMS algorithm with a saturation nonlinearity following the adaptive filter output. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 2001, 49(7):1370–1387. 10.1109/78.928691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elliott SJ, Stothers IM, Nelson PA: A multiple error LMS algorithm and its application to the active control of sound and vibration. IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 1987, 35(10):1423–1434. 10.1109/TASSP.1987.1165044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elliott SJ, Baek KH: Effort constraints in adaptive feedforward control. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 1996, 3(1):7–9. 10.1109/97.475821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Qui X, Hansen CH: A study of time domain FXLMS algorithm with control output constraint. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2001, 109(6):2815–2823. 10.1121/1.1367247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qui X, Hansen CH: Applying effort constraints on adaptive feed forward control using the active set method. Journal of Sound and Vibration 2003, 260(4):757–762. 10.1016/S0022-460X(02)01105-7MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tobias OJ, Bermude JCM, Bershad NJ: Mean weight behavior of the filtered-X LMS algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 2000, 48(4):1061–1075. 10.1109/78.827540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sanchez RS, Sznaier M: Robust System Theory and Application. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA; 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Taringoo et al. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringIran University of Science and TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations