0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

3 visualizzazioni11 paginecontrol

Apr 19, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

control

© All Rights Reserved

3 visualizzazioni

control

© All Rights Reserved

- The Law of Explosive Growth: Lesson 20 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- Micro: A Novel
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The 6th Extinction
- The Black Swan
- The Art of Thinking Clearly
- The Last Battle
- Prince Caspian
- A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science Even If You Flunked Algebra
- The Theory of Death: A Decker/Lazarus Novel

Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

Lecture 11

Instructor: G R Jayanth

Department of Instrumentation and Applied Physics

Ph: 22933197

E-mail: jayanth@isu.iisc.ernet.in

Over the last four lectures, we have studied feedback control of general 1 DOF plants. In designing controllers, we

assumed a general plant, i.e., we made bare minimum number of assumptions about the nature of the plant.

Nowhere did we use the parameters of the transfer function of the plant. Likewise, we only assumed the general

region in the frequency domain where our reference signal or the disturbance lie without explicitly assuming the

exact frequency content of these signals. This is generally how control problems present themselves to engineers.

We saw that general knowledge of the plant and its various inputs was itself adequate to design controllers.

However, such a minimal knowledge of the system-to-be-controlled enabled us to achieve good control only in the

low frequency region (low relative to the plants poles) where the gain of a general plant is high enough and the

phase is small enough that our controller can readily maximize the gain adequately without destabilizing the

overall system.

On occasion, we might get a bit more lucky-we may be able to model the plant with sufficient precision. Likewise,

we may know the exact frequency/ transfer function of the disturbance or reference signals. We should, in

principle, be able to exploit this extra knowledge to do better in rejecting disturbances or tracking inputs and

possibly achieve perfect control. This lecture is devoted to highlighting a few techniques that enable us to do this.

Why is perfect control important? If we can use the general knowledge of the plant to design controllers that can

suppress the effect of disturbance to, say, 1% of its actual amplitude, we may ask ourselves, what difference does

it make if this gets suppressed to 0.1% or 0.01% instead? The answer depends on the specific area of engineering

where we apply feedback control. A general process/ dynamic system may already work well with 99% disturbance

rejection. However, there are several exceptions. Precision engineers, for example, generally hate disturbances and

noise, no matter how small their value. Indeed, they make it their mission to minimize all such undesired inputs to

as small a value as possible before starting their experiments. Likewise if the tolerances on the output in a process

industry are very narrow, we would need better disturbance rejection/input tracking than what can be achieved

with general controllers.

Let us revisit an example from an earlier lecture and try to gain insight into how we may be able to reject disturbance

perfectly.

10

Example 1: In lecture#8, we considered the control of a plant given by P(s)

( s 10 1)( s 50 1)( s 300 1)

In example#2 of lecture#8, we stipulated that the disturbance to this plant at 10 rad/s was required to be suppressed

s 1 ( s /170 1)

by 98% and went on to design a PID controller C (s) 6[

][

] to do this. We now desire that the

s ( s /1700 1)

disturbance rejection be perfect, i.e., 100%.

Solution: In order to achieve perfect disturbance rejection, we need to examine the closed-loop plants response to

disturbance and identify what could result in non-ideal rejection. This is given by X (s) {1 [1 C(s) P(s)]}D(s). Since we

designed the gain C(j)P(j)>49 at =10rad/s earlier, we were able to achieve 98% rejection of disturbance. We now

examine what factor might have contributed to persistence of the remaining 2% of disturbance: the overall response

is the product of two functions: the closed-loop transfer function 1/(1+C(s)P(s)) and the disturbance transform D(s).

When we take the inverse Laplace transform by expressing D(s)/[1+C(s)P(s)] as a sum of partial fractions, we see that

all the terms arising from 1/[1+C(s)P(s)] result in exponentially decaying responses with zero steady-state value

because the closed-loop system is stable. However, since D(s) is sinusoidal, it results in a sinusoidal response.

Therefore the non-zero steady state response is exclusively because of the denominator polynomial of D(s). If we can

somehow cancel the denominator polynomial of D(s), then the steady-state value of X will be zero.

In general this cannot be done because the model of the disturbance is now known well. Here however, we know

that the disturbance is a sinusoid of frequency 10 rad/s. So, its Laplace transform is of the form D(s)=(a1s+a2)/(s2+2) ,

where a1 and a2 are constants that determine the magnitude and the phase of the disturbance, both of which may

be unknown. Now, if C(s) is chosen to be of the form C(s)=C1(s)/(s2+2) , i.e., we explicitly include 1/(s2+2) into the

model for the controller, we see that 1/(1+C(s)P(s))=(s2+2)/[s2+2+C1(s)P(s)]. Thus

X (s)

a1s a2

a1s a2

s 2 2

2

2

2

2

2

s C1 ( s) P( s) s

s 2 C1 (s ) P(s )

Now if the controller C1(s) is designed such that s 2 2 C1 (s) P(s) has only stable roots, then we see that the inverse

Laplace transform of X(s), which is the response to the disturbance D(s), would decay exponentially to zero, with the

rate of decay decided by the dominant closed-loop poles.

In order to reject disturbance perfectly in the specific example that was chosen, while retaining the other

characteristics of the controller, we multiply the controller transfer function with the term (s )2 (s 2 2 ) , where is

close to , instead of just 1 (s 2 2 ) . This is done because (s )2 (s 2 2 ) has gain close to 1 and phase close to zero

at all frequencies except around . Near , the dynamics is dominated by 1 (s 2 2 ). This will leave our original control

design intact everywhere other than at . We choose =7. Thus our controller is now chosen to be C(s), where

s 1 ( s /170 1) ( s 7) 2

C ( s ) 6

2

2

s ( s /1700 1) s 10

Bode Diagram

1

Previous

Disturbance

Output

0.5

Disturbance

rejection

400

Present

Disturbance

Output

-0.5

-0.5

200

100

0

-100

-1

0.5

1.5

Time(s)

2.5

-1

0.5

1.5

Time(s)

2.5

Disturbance

300

0.5

Magnitude (dB)

(plant+controller) in lecture# 8

-200

90

Step Response

Step Response

1.5

1.6

0

Phase (deg)

1.4

1.2

Step

response

Amplitude

The figure below compares the response to the disturbance of the controller designed in Lecture#8 with the new

controller. We see that disturbance rejection is indeed perfect!

The bode-plot of the overall open-loop system shows why we can achieve perfect disturbance rejection. The effect of

including the model of the disturbance into the controller is to increase the gain of system at that frequency alone to

infinity. This is what achieves the seemingly miraculous performance. However, we note that the controller changes

phase by 180 about =10rad/s. So, we need to be careful to ensure that this does not result in phase cross-over. The

zero added at =7 partially addresses this issue by adding phase of +90 near =10rad/s.

The step responses demonstrate slightly lesser damping, but the lead compensator can be redesigned to improve this.

Amplitude

0.5

1

0.8

0.6

-180

0.4

0.2

-270

-2

10

0

0

-90

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

-1

10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

10

10

10

Disturbance rejection: We see that the trick that we employed to completely reject the disturbance earlier was

to incorporate the model of the disturbance dynamics, i.e., the denominator polynomial of the disturbance,

into that of the controller. The applicability of this trick is not confined to sinusoidal disturbances alone. For any

disturbance D(s) (=ND(s)/DD(s)) that the plant may experience, if we include the denominator polynomial of the

disturbance DD(s) as one of the factors of the denominator polynomial of the controller i.e., C(s)=C1(s)/DD(s),

then the closed-loop system will asymptotically reject that disturbance perfectly. The argument to demonstrate

this is exactly the same as before: the denominator polynomial of the controller will be part of the numerator

polynomial of the closed-loop system. Thus, the numerator polynomial would cancel the denominator of the

disturbance input. What remains is a stable transfer function, whose inverse Laplace transform decays to zero

with time. This neat trick is called internal model principle.

Input tracking: We note here that the condition for achieving perfect disturbance rejection is the same as the

condition for ensuring perfect input tracking: namely, high open-loop gain at the signal frequency. Thus, in the

previous example, the same controller that rejects disturbance at 10 rad/s perfectly also tracks an input at 10

rad/s perfectly, i.e., with zero steady state error. Thus, if, instead of wanting to reject a given disturbance

perfectly, we wish to track a given input R(s) (=NR(s)/DR(s)) perfectly, we need to incorporate DR(s) into the

denominator of the controller.

Generalization: More generally, if we have disturbances of know type (i.e., DD(s) is known), and input of known

type (i.e., DR(s) is known and does not share any factor with DD(s)) , and we want to both reject the disturbance

and track the input perfectly, we need to ensure that the denominator of C(s) contains both DD(s) and DR(s), i.e.,

C(s)=C1(s)/[DD(s)DR(s)]. If DD(s) and DR(s) have some factors in common, then the denominator of C(s) should

have the least common multiple of DR(s) and DD(s). Finally, we should design C1(s) such that the closed loop

transfer function has the desired stable response.

Note that internal model principle assumes that we know the denominator polynomials DD(s) or DR(s) of the

input or reference respectively. While the latter is plausible, in general, the former is not. Therefore, the

applicability of internal model principle is not as wide as that of the tools introduced in earlier lectures.

Nevertheless, it is quite general, since we need not know the numerator polynomial of the disturbance and

thus do not require information about the amplitude or phase of the disturbance in order to reject it.

Example 2: Suppose we want our system to track an input at =50rad/s. This frequency is not low compared

to the bandwidth of the control system. So, the tracking performance of the controller developed in Lecture 8 is

relatively poor: it shows both amplitude and phase errors. It is not possible to improve the tracking

performance with a general controller any further due to stability constraints.

Solution: Since we know the frequency of the input, we can turn to internal model principle. The denominator

polynomial of the input is s2+2. We now incorporate this into the denominator polynomial of the controller.

As before, to minimize the effect of the new term on the rest of the control design, we employ a controller of

2

the form (s )2 (s 2 2 ) , where ~. We choose the controller to be C (s) 6 s 1 (s /170 1) ( s 35)

s ( s /1700 1) s 2 502

The tracking response, shown below, demonstrates that the input can be tracked perfectly after a brief

transient.

1.5

1.5

Reference

Output

1

0.5

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

-1

-1

-1.5

-1.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Reference

Output

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Truxals rules

Hitherto, we have not assumed that the plant model is known well enough for it to be used for modeling. However, if

we know the plant dynamics G(s) well enough, we can put that too to use to improve control performance. Here we

assume that P(s) is a stable plant with no right half plane zeros or time delays (i.e., a minimum phase plant).

We have Gcl(s)=C(s)P(s)/[1+C(s)P(s)]. Thus, if we want a desired Gcl(s), we note that desired controller should be

C(s)=Gcl(s)/{[1-Gcl(s)]P(s)}. Since 1/P(s) appears as part of the controller, we see that we are, in effect, canceling the

plant dynamics and replacing it with the desired dynamics. This is very good (and absurdly simple!), since we can

directly design our closed-loop dynamics Gcl(s) and use that to calculate the required controller that guarantees it

(Note that this is possible only if we know P(s) well). However, as control engineers, we need to know what Gcl(s) to

select.

Choosing Gcl(s): We remember that the control objective is to ensure that x(t)=r(t). Thus, ideally we would like our

closed-loop transfer function to be Gcl(s)=X(s)/R(s)=1. We will never be able to achieve this ideal, because, for this case,

C(s)=Gcl(s)/{[1-Gcl(s)]P(s)}=. However, we can approach close to the ideal by choosing Gcl(s) to possess unity gain over

as high a bandwidth as possible. This is the first guideline.

The second guideline in choosing Gcl(s) is the physical realizability of the controller, i.e., the controller should be causal.

Since Gcl(s)=C(s)P(s)/[1+C(s)P(s)], we note that if the numerator polynomials of C(s), P(s) are of degrees mc, mG, and

their denominators are of order nc, nG respectively then the numerator of Gcl is of order mGcl= mc+mG, and the

denominator polynomial of Gcl is of order nGcl= nc+nG. Thus the relative degree of Gcl = nGcl mGcl=[nG mG]+[nc mc]. In

order for the controller to be causal, we need nc mc0. Thus, we have the second constraint on Gcl : (nGcl mGcl) (nG

mG), i.e., the relative degree of the closed loop system should at least be equal to that of the open loop system.

The third and final guideline is to choose Gcl such that the controller is stable. There is no easy way to confirm this.

However, we note from the expression of C(s) that it is composed of 3 transfer functions: Gcl(s), 1-Gcl(s), and P(s). Of

these we already know that P(s) and Gcl(s) are stable (the former by assumption and the latter by choice). Thus only

1-Gcl(s) is suspect. Since it occurs in the denominator, we need to ensure that the zeros of this transfer function are not

in the right half plane (RHP). Here we can use the principles of Nyquist stability theory: Since we need to check if the

zeros of 1-Gcl(s) are in the RHP, we plot the Nyquist plot of Gcl(j) and verify if it encircles the +1 point (instead of the -1

point as is usually done). If it does not encircle the +1 point then Nyquist stability logic can be applied to conclude that

there are no RHP zeros for 1-Gcl(s).

If these three simple guidelines are used, we can directly design, i.e., synthesize the controller C(s). These guidelines

are part of truxals rules.

In principle unity gain closed-loop transfer functions of any bandwidth can be realized using Truxals rules.

In practice however, there are a couple of constraints.

Firstly, we notice that design via Truxals rules is dependent on one crucial assumption-the plant model

P(s) is known well over the entire closed-loop bandwidth. It is reasonable to assume that high accuracy is

possible in identifying the plant at low frequencies. This is because the plant gain is high at these

frequencies. However, beyond a few plant poles, the uncertainty in characterizing plant dynamics

becomes increasingly pronounced. This is because the plant gain begins to attenuate and very soon, its

output will be comparable to the measurement noise. Thus, unless we have very good sensors with very

low noise floor (and there do exist a few such sensors!), Truxals rules cannot be used to achieve closedloop bandwidth that is excessively larger than that of the plant itself (maybe a ten-fold improvement in

bandwidth is possible).

Secondly, at frequencies that are much greater than the plant bandwidth, the plant gain would very low. In

order to ensure high overall open-loop gain at these frequencies, so that the closed-loop gain Gcl(j) is

close to unity, the controller itself should have exceedingly large gains. If the gains are too high, then the

output of the controller can saturate easily when tracking a given input. Thus, issues due to controller

nonlinearities begin to dominate the high frequency response.

Before we conclude it is worth mentioning that Truxals rules can also be applied to non-minimum phase

plants. However, more conditions need to be imposed in such cases to avoid instability. This will be

covered in later lectures.

We have thus far discussed design of control systems in the one degree of freedom

control configuration. This is the simplest configuration in which to design feedback

systems for single-input-single output (SISO) plants. Despite the impressive range of

benefits, this configuration has its drawbacks.

d

Measurement noise: Since the use of a sensor is central to feedback, one of the

+ x

r

u

P( j)

C ( j)

unintended consequences of feedback control is to bring measurement noise into the

system and cause it to affect the output. The closed-loop transfer function on the right - e

shows that the input-output relationship for reference and noise are the same. Thus,

+

our desired goal to track input perfectly also leads to the undesired result of letting in a

n

1

1

X

N

lot of noise. If the noise is too large, there would be tradeoff between control

1

1

1

1

C

(

j

)

P

(

j

)

C

(

j

)

P( j)

performance and output precision.

1

D

Sensitivity to plant parameter variations: If we hark back to lecture#5 where we laid

1 C ( j) P( j)

the foundation for feedback control, we note that the purpose of feedback is not really

to track references: that can be accomplished with a much simpler open-loop modelinversion based strategy. Rather, it is to cope with uncertainties, such as disturbances

CP

L

T

and variation in the plants parameters (i.e., of DC gain, poles etc). Disturbance

1 CP 1 L

attenuation is achieved by choosing a high loop gain L(j)=C(j)P(j) since the closed

1

dT

dL

loop transfer function for disturbance is 1/(1+C(s)P(s)). Likewise, we need to know how

(1 L)2

feedback facilitates minimization of the effect of plant parameter variations. The

dT

1 dL

T 1 L L

derivation on the right shows that the fractional change (dT/T) in the closed-loop

dL d (CP) CdP dP

transfer function between the output and the reference (T(s)=CP/(1+CP)), also called

L

CP

CP

P

the loop transmission or simply the transmission, is related to the fractional change

in the transfer function of the plant dP/P by the term 1/(1+L).

Therefore,

dT

1

dP

Therefore, having a high loop gain L minimizes sensitivity to plant parameter variations.

( j)

( j)

T

1 L( j) P

-20

140rad/s

S(j)

-40

-60

90

45

0

0

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

Bode Diagram

10

S(j)

T(j)

0

-10

f-3dB=315 hz

-20

-30

180

0

-180

-360

-1

10

10

10

10

10

Frequency (rad/sec)

Step Response

1.5

K=10

Amplitude

-45

Phase (deg)

Bode Diagram

135

Phase (deg)

In view of the central importance of the term 1/(1+L) for achieving the benefits of

feedback, it is given a special name, viz., the sensitivity S. A low sensitivity is desired

in order to minimize the effects of unwanted influences (disturbances) and variations

in plant parameters on the closed-loop system.

The figure on the right plots the sensitivity S(j) for the control system that was

designed using Bode plots in Lecture#8. We note that beyond 140 rad/s the

sensitivity of the closed-loop system to plant parameter variations is greater than 1

(0dB) . Therefore, the closed-loop system T is more sensitive to plant parameter

variations than the plant P itself for reference inputs in this frequency range. This

makes feedback counter productive in this frequency range.

Things would not be so bad if the magnitude of T was small in this frequency range,

i.e., the closed-loop system was anyway ineffective in tracking inputs so that the

heightened sensitivity would not affect tracking performance. However, the second

plot, which plots T(j) along with S(j) , shows that T has a large magnitude in this

frequency range. Indeed, the -3dB frequency (whose value also gives the bandwidth)

of T is about 315 rad/s. Thus, from 140rad/s to 315 rad/s, i.e., over 50% of the

bandwidth of the closed-loop system, feedback is ineffective in minimizing sensitivity

to variation in plant parameters. This is evident in the large variation of the system

transient response when the plant gain varies by 50% (figure right bottom).

Can T be independently reduced to a small value in this range? Another look at the

transmission (T=L/(1+L))and sensitivity functions (S=1/(1+L)) reveals that they satisfy

T+S=1. Thus, it is impossible to independently realize the two functions and thus

achieve low sensitivity to plant parameter variations for a significant range of

frequencies near the -3dB frequency of the closed-loop system. This is another

significant drawback of 1 DOF control configuration.

Magnitude (dB)

Magnitude (dB)

K=15

0.5

K=5

0

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

References

(1) G C Goodwin, S E Graebe, M E Salgado, Control System design, Prentice-Hall of India (2001)

(2) I M Horowitz, Synthesis of Feedback Systems, Academic Press (1963)

- 1727.UCD3138 Control TheoryCaricato dawwahib2
- 3 transfer function.pdfCaricato daisteboi
- XE220_2009Caricato daFernando VL
- Control Systems 2Caricato daparamkusam
- Control of a TwoCaricato daIir Mnemonis
- ps4Caricato daSundaram
- IJSETR-VOL-7-ISSUE-7-467-472Caricato daDana Chalyng's
- CH8(Q)Caricato davare222
- Control Systems Assignment QuestionsCaricato daVishnu Tammineni
- chap9traCaricato damarcum01
- TC 9 2 Respuesta en FrecuenciaCaricato daCardoza Johnmel
- Week 8 assignment.pdfCaricato daArun Sharma
- Chemical ControlCaricato daingjojeda
- Chapter 7-1Caricato daKo Thiha
- ee357-lab-manualCaricato daSreedevi Krishnan
- CS R-16 SyllabusCaricato daSai tejaswi
- Bode Plot ExamplesCaricato daMarko Agassi
- control lab report experiment no. 01.pdfCaricato daSiam Hasan
- Assignment 1Caricato daRonak Choudhary
- Periodic Compensation of Continuous-Time PlantsCaricato daAkila Krishnankutty Padmalatha
- Lab4Caricato daNaga Abhishek Bollapragada
- l102en.pdfCaricato dajose
- Report Lab12Caricato daMickey Singh
- Lecture 2-Block Diagram Reduction TechniquesCaricato daNoor Ahmed
- Wind Energy 1Caricato dazahid
- 4.IC1251,EE1253-May 2013finCaricato danaveeth11
- control objective bitsCaricato daRamesh Dongara
- 01 Review of Closed Loop ControlCaricato daferrarivca
- A transfer function approach to fault diagnosis for linear systems: inversion and low-pass filtersCaricato daLamine Algeria
- EEE 352 Automatic Control Systems General Course InformationCaricato daZeynal Abidin Şabaş

- 1219_IBPS PO Model Paper 6Caricato daAbhinav
- Http Questionpaperspdf.ibpsexamguru.in Public Images Epapers 97783_IBPS PO Model Paper 17Caricato daAbhinav
- 64462_IBPS PO Model Paper 12Caricato daAbhinav
- 24015_IBPS PO Model Paper 14Caricato daAbhinav
- 87416_IBPS PO Model Paper 11Caricato daAbhinav
- 20901_IBPS PO Model Paper 13Caricato daAbhinav
- 45401_IBPS PO Model Paper 8Caricato daAbhinav
- 27129_ibps Po Moel Paper 4Caricato daAbhinav
- 98175_IBPS PO Model Paper Prelims 9Caricato daAbhinav
- 91647_IBPS PO Model Paper 5Caricato daAbhinav
- 41022_IBPS PO Model Paper 3Caricato daAbhinav
- 17176_IBPS PO Model Paper 7Caricato daAbhinav
- 36231_IBPS PO Model Paper 2Caricato daAbhinav
- 3534_IBPS PO Model Paper 1Caricato daAbhinav
- Lecture FabricationCaricato daAbhinav
- Com.comsol.help.Models.memsCaricato daabhinav10729
- GyroscopeCaricato daAbhinav
- Lecture 12 NotesCaricato daAbhinav
- Lecture 11 NotesCaricato daAbhinav
- Lecture 20 NotesCaricato daAbhinav
- Lecture 19 NotesCaricato daAbhinav
- Lecture 10 NotesCaricato daAbhinav
- MBA Course Structure 2012-13 OnwardsCaricato daAbhinav
- Lecture 9 NotesCaricato daAbhinav
- Lecture 7 8 NotesCaricato daAbhinav
- Notes Lecture 2Caricato daAbhinav
- Control System DesignCaricato daAbhinav

- Topology Investigation for Front End DC-DC Power Conversion for Distributed Power SystemCaricato dawouter81
- ALL_12_0326_TIE_1Caricato daTravis Gray
- Gyrostellar EstimationCaricato daMarcAlomarPayeras
- comparative study of matlab and scilabCaricato dausuario1986
- PI ControllerCaricato daDivyesh Harwani
- Course Outline, NptelCaricato daJoyRaeJeposa
- cse paperCaricato daSachin Agrawal
- IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENT CONTROLLERS ON ROTARY INVERTED PENDULUM.pdfCaricato daJosé Manuel Barajas Ramírez
- Filt RosCaricato daTadeu Felix
- Machine Diagnosis.pdfCaricato daVahid Rezaei
- control system notes.pdfCaricato daMohammed Faizan
- QNET Exp1 Speed StudentCaricato daMatheus Materazzi
- 37 Step-By-Step Controller Design for LCL-type Grid-Connected INVERTER With Capaciter-current-Feedback Active-dampingCaricato daDucSyHo
- 1GHz Active Differential Probe – Daniel Kramnik's Project LogCaricato daSergio
- Stability Analysis Using Nyquist PlotsCaricato daGilbert Sigala
- ECE 231 Laboratory Manual 090112 (Word 10)Caricato dakingsarat
- Fractional Order PID Controller Tuning Based on IMCCaricato daijitcajournal
- Sos2Caricato dayoussef_dabliz
- Exam_RT1_2011_2_enCaricato daArmando Malone
- Frequency Response of BJT AmplifiersCaricato daRitesh Kumar
- Control Design ToolkitCaricato darykarl
- Frequency Domain Methods for Controller DesignCaricato daVladimir
- Controller Design and Load Frequency Control for Single Area Power System with Model Order Reduction TechniqueCaricato daAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Control SystemCaricato daguru.rjpm
- Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems 2008Caricato daJu-Suk Yang
- B_lecture14 Stability in the Frequency Domain and Relative Stability Automatic control SystemCaricato daAbaziz Mousa OutlawZz
- InTech-Fractional Derivatives Fractional Integrals and Fractional Differential Equations in MatlabCaricato daAmrYassin
- Type II CompensatorCaricato daTrương Văn Trọng
- Lab Manual New CSCaricato daKarthi Ramachandran
- 1-s2.0-S1474667016405288-mainCaricato daVictor Joel Pacori Paucar

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.