0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

31 visualizzazioni11 paginenon

Mar 27, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

non

© All Rights Reserved

31 visualizzazioni

non

© All Rights Reserved

- 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 Law of Explosive Growth: Lesson 20 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- The Art of Thinking Clearly
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- 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
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions

Sei sulla pagina 1di 11

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conengprac

Volterra series$

Asma Maachou a, Rachid Malti a,n, Pierre Melchior a, Jean-Luc Battaglia b, Alain Oustaloup a,

Bruno Hay c

a

Universit de Bordeaux, Institut Polytechnique de Bordeaux, IMS UMR 5218 CNRS, 351 cours de la Libration, Bt A4, 33405 Talence Cedex, France

b

Universit de Bordeaux, I2M UMR 5295 CNRS, Esplanade des Arts et Mtiers, 33405 Talence Cedex, France

c

LNE, Laboratoire National de mtrologie et d'Essais, 29 avenue Roger Hennequin, 78197 Trappes Cedex, France

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Linear fractional differentiation models have already proven their efcacy in modeling thermal diffusive

Received 27 September 2013 phenomena for small temperature variations involving constant thermal parameters such as thermal

Accepted 28 February 2014 diffusivity and thermal conductivity. However, for large temperature variations, encountered in plasma torch

Available online 6 May 2014

or in machining in severe conditions, the thermal parameters are no longer constant, but vary along with the

Keywords: temperature. In such a context, thermal diffusive phenomena can no longer be modeled by linear fractional

System identication models. In this paper, a new class of nonlinear fractional models based on the Volterra series is proposed for

Fractional model modeling such nonlinear diffusive phenomena. More specically, Volterra series are extended to fractional

Fractional calculus derivatives, and fractional orthogonal generating functions are used as Volterra kernels. The linear

Nonlinear model

coefcients are estimated along with nonlinear fractional parameters of the Volterra kernels by nonlinear

Volterra series

programming techniques. The fractional Volterra series are rst used to identify thermal diffusion in an iron

Large temperature variation

sample with data generated using the nite element method and temperature variations up to 700 K. For

that purpose, the thermal properties of the iron sample have been characterized. Then, the fractional

Volterra series are used to identify the thermal diffusion with experimental data obtained by injecting a heat

ux generated by a 200 W laser beam in the iron sample with temperature variations of 150 K. It is shown

that the identied model is always more accurate than the nite element model because it allows, in a single

experiment, to take into account system uncertainties.

& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

thermal characteristics (specic heat, thermal conductivity, den-

This work is a part of a project which aims at developing a new sity) of the studied thermal system, and hence requires many prior

device for heat ux estimation in tools during severe machining or experiments for thermal characterization. In spite of this knowl-

in high enthalpy plasma ow. This estimation is based on edge, a nite element model is generally less accurate than an

temperature measurements near the heated area and on the identied model, because it is difcult to take into account the

inversion of a model which links the measured temperature to following:

the heat ux. This paper focuses on the formulation of a reliable

model consistent with large temperature variations leading to a (i) the exact thermocouple location due to assemblage accuracy,

nonlinear behavior due to temperature dependent thermal prop- (ii) the exact geometry of the contact surface between the sensor

erties of the studied system. and the sample,

(iii) boundary between the thermocouple and the sample which is

never ideal because the thermocouple is usually glued to

A rst preliminary paper was presented at the 4th IFAC Workshop on Fractional

the material and there might be an air gap between both

Differentiation and Its Applications, Badajoz, Spain, 2011 (Maachou et al., 2010),

and a second one at the 18th World IFAC Congress, Milan, Italy, 2011 (Maachou et components,

al., 2011). Here is a revisited and enhanced version of the two preliminary papers. (iv) the nonlinear dynamical behavior of the sensor.

n

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: asma.maachou@ims-bordeaux.fr (A. Maachou),

The identied model includes all the system uncertainties men-

rachid.malti@ims-bordeaux.fr (R. Malti),

pierre.melchior@ims-bordeaux.fr (P. Melchior), tioned above and may be obtained in a single experiment. It is thus

jean-luc.battaglia@bordeaux.ensam.fr (J.-L. Battaglia), bruno.hay@lne.fr (B. Hay). expected to be more accurate.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2014.02.023

0967-0661/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060 51

For short time experiments, thermal systems are regarded as constituted of a simple thick iron disk, with one face subject to a

semi-innite media. Therefore, a fractional model appears natu- uniform heat ux and with a thermocouple embedded close to the

rally as an exact solution to express the temperature at a given heated area. The rst set of data is generated using the nite

point in the system versus the heat ux (Battaglia, 2008; Oldham element method with the temperature dependent thermal proper-

& Spanier, 1972). Different system identication methods based on ties of the iron sample characterized, for the aim of the simulation,

fractional linear models, developed in the literature, are summar- by the Laboratoire National de mtrologie et d'Essais (LNE), the

ized in the state of the art (Malti, Victor, & Oustaloup, 2008). For French National Metrology Institute (NMI). The second set of data

instance, Cois, Oustaloup, Battaglia, and Battaglia (2000) extended is obtained with an experimental set-up on the same thermal

the output error to fractional models by using a modal representa- system. The fractional Volterra series are used to model tempera-

tion. Cois, Oustaloup, Poinot, and Battaglia (2001) proposed to use ture variations for the two sets of data. Moreover, the measured

a prediction error method combined to instrumental variable and output, the nite element model output and the Volterra model

state variable lters. This method was enhanced in Victor, Malti, output are compared to each other. It is shown that the identied

Garnier, and Oustaloup (2013) by choosing optimal instrumental Volterra model is more accurate than the nite element model

variables. Battaglia and Kusiak (2005) implemented recursive least because it allows, in a single experiment, to take into account

squares for online parameters estimation. Malti, Aoun, Levron, and system uncertainties (i)(iv) described in Section 1. Finally in the

Oustaloup (2005), Aoun, Malti, Levron, and Oustaloup (2007), and conclusion, the main results of the paper are recalled.

Akay (2008) used fractional orthogonal basis for system approx-

imation. Malti, Rassi, Thomassin, and Khemane (2010) and

Khemane, Malti, Rassi, and Moreau (2012) proposed a set- 2. Fractional calculus for thermal modeling: from small to

membership approach for system identication using fractional large temperature variations

models using frequency-domain data. Fractional multi-models

have been proposed for modeling gastrocnemius frog muscle in Fractional calculus has witnessed a growing interest in various

Sommacal et al. (2007, 2008). elds as described in the old and the recent history of fractional

For signicant temperature variations, linear models are not calculus by Machado, Kiryakova, and Mainardi (2010, 2011).

accurate enough (Maachou et al., 2012; Gabano, Poinot, & Kanoun, On the basis of the heat equation characterizing the heat

2010). Recently, Gabano et al. (2010) proposed the identication of transfer in a semi-innite medium (Fig. 1), Battaglia, Le Lay,

an ARMCO (American Rolling Mill COmpany) iron sample using a Batsale, Oustaloup, and Cois (2000) showed that a fractional

fractional linear parameter varying (LPV) model. In a direct model is pertinent in modeling heat transfer at a distance x from

relationship with the results of this paper, a theoretical study the heated surface. The diffusion phenomenon is governed by the

has recently been carried out for determining analytical expres- linear heat diffusion equation

sions of the Volterra series in Battaglia, Maachou, Malti, and Tx; t 2 Tx; t

Melchior (2013). In this paper, Volterra series are extended to for 0 o x o 1; t 4 0 1

t x2

fractional derivatives with kernels generated using fractional

where is the thermal diffusivity. For convenience, isothermal and

orthogonal generating functions. Two reasons motivate this

null states are chosen

choice. First, nonlinear model decomposition into Volterra series

allows us to separate the contribution of the linear and the Tx; t 0; for 0 r x o 1; at t 0 2

nonlinear parts. Secondly, the Volterra series may be seen as a

generalization of linear models. Volterra series have already been The boundary conditions are

used, in the literature, for the approximation and control of eddy

8

current brake in Simeu and Georges (1996) or recently for modeling < Tx; t t for x 0; at t 4 0

a greenhouse temperature in Gruber et al. (2011). The Hammerstein x 3

: Tx; t 0 for x-1; at t 40:

model based on Volterra series helped Angerer, Hintz, and Schrder

(2004) identifying a nonlinear mechatronic system. Bibes (2004)

modeled the process of water supplies using Volterra series devel- where is the thermal conductivity of a material and t is the

oped on orthonormal basis functions. Casenave (2011) used implicit heat ux applied on its surface. Knowing that

Volterra model form for the time-local formulation. This paper deals

with the extension of Volterra series to fractional derivatives and its ; 4

C p

application in thermal modeling.

Heat transfer in a semi-innite medium is modeled in Section 2.

It is shown how linear fractional differentiation models are

obtained by solving the heat equation under some initial and

boundary conditions. Then, the limits of linear models are pointed

out for large temperature variations which justies the use of

nonlinear fractional models. Then, in Section 3, a mathematical

semi-infinite

background is presented regarding fractional calculus and the medium

Volterra series are presented as a generalization of linear models.

In Section 4, a new class of models is presented as fractional Heat flux

Volterra series. Fractional generating orthogonal functions are

x

used as Volterra kernels. In a system identication context,

parameter estimation is developed in Section 5. Either linear

coefcients of the Volterra series are estimated by least squares,

or the linear coefcients are estimated along with nonlinear Sensor T(t)

fractional parameters of the Volterra kernels by nonlinear pro-

gramming techniques. In Section 6, the fractional Volterra series

are used to model temperature variations versus heat ux for a

monovariable system using two sets of data. This system is Fig. 1. Heat ux applied on a surface S of a semi-nite medium.

52 A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060

with the density and Cp the specic heat, the expression of the frequency of 31.4 rad s 1 for a sampling period of T s 0:1 s.

temperature in the Laplace domain is Hence, at short distance x a Pad approximation of order 1 or

r 2 of the theoretical model (5) is accurate enough.

1 s

x; s pp exp x s; 5 The obtained fractional models remain linear as long as the

s C p

thermal parameters are constant, i.e. for small temperature varia-

with LT and L, which clearly shows that the tem- tions around the initial state. However, for high temperature

perature is linked to the ux though a transfer function which variations, the thermal parameters vary along with the tempera-

p ture and the linearity assumption is no longer valid. The Labor-

involves a half order integral (1= s) and an exponential term. The

closer to the heated front end, the smaller x, and the more atoire National de mtrologie et d'Essais (LNE) has characterized

negligible the exponential term. Evaluating the Pth order Pad the thermophysical properties of the ARMCO iron sample utilized

approximation of the exponential term yields in the real experimental set-up. As shown in Fig. 3, both thermal

conductivity and specic heat vary along with the temperature.

x; s 1 P an sn=2 p 2P n! Moreover, around the Curie point1 at 1040 K, the thermal varia-

p P n 0 n 1=2 with an x= n

s C p n 0 jan js n!P n! tions are more pronounced, although the material remains solid.

6 Hence, for large temperature variations, linearity hypothesis is no

longer veried and a nonlinear model is required.

where the exponents of s are multiples of the commensurate order

0.5. The quality of the approximation can be assessed by compar-

ing the frequency response of the theoretical model (5) with its 3. Mathematical background: fractional models and Volterra

approximation (6). As shown in Malti, Sabatier, and Akay (2009), series

the order of the Pad approximation, P, depends on the distance x

and the Nyquist frequency (and hence the sampling period) till 3.1. Fractional linear models

which the approximation needs to be valid. For instance, when a

sensor is placed at x 2 mm from a heat surface of an ARMCO A fractional model is generally based on a fractional differential

semi-innite medium, the Pad approximations of order 0, 1, and equation

2 are respectively given by

yt a1 D1 yt aN DN yt

1

H~ 0 s pp ; 7 b0 D0 ut b1 D1 ut bM DM ut; 10

s C p S

where u(t) is the system input, y(t) is the noise-free system output,

xn aj ; bi A R2 , D d=dt is the differential operator, and the differ-

p s0:5 2

1 entiation orders

H~ 1 s pp n ; 8

s C p S x 0:5 1 o 2 o oN ; 0 r 0 o 1 o o M ; 11

p s 2

allowed to be non-integer positive numbers, are ordered for

xn2 6xn identiability purposes. The fractional derivative D of a contin-

s p s0:5 12 uous function f is considered in the sense of Grnwald-Letnikov

1

H~ 2 s pp n2 : 9 (Grnwald, 1867; Miller & Ross, 1993; Podlubny, 1999):

s C p S x 6xn 0:5

s p s 12

1 K

D f Kh lim 1k f t kh; 12

h-0 h k 0 k

For second order approximation, with 75.3 W m 1 K 1 the

thermal conductivity, Cp 470 W kg 1 K 1 the specic heat, where k stands for the binomial coefcients. When the function f

7970 kg m 3 the density and 20.09 10 6 m2 s 1 the dif- is discretized at a sampling period h, then the limit in (12) is

fusivity of ARMCO at 300 K. Fig. 2 shows Bode diagrams of these dropped and the fractional derivative is approximated by

approximations and the theoretical model (6) up to the Nyquist

1 K

D f Kh 1k f K kh Oh: 13

h k0 k

40

(xt 0 for all t o 0), is given by Oldham and Spanier (1974):

Gain (db)

80 Theorical model

100

0 order approximation LfD xtg s Xs: 14

1st order approximation

120

2nd order approximation

This result is coherent with the classical case when is an integer.

140

Consequently, it is easy to dene a symbolic representation of the

4 3 2 1 0 1 2

fractional dynamic system governed by (10) using the transfer

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

function:

pulsation (rad/s)

i

Bs Mi 0 bi s

10 Gs : 15

30

As 1 j 1 aj sj

N

phase (degree)

90 rewritten as

120

m ~ i

i 0 bi s

150 Gs ; 16

1 j 1 a~j sj

n

180

210

4 3 2 1 0 1 2

10 10 10 10 10 10 10

1

In physics and materials science, the Curie temperature (Tc), or Curie point, is

Fig. 2. Physical model x; s= s in (5) and its Pad approximations H~ 0 s, H~ 1 s the temperature at which a ferromagnetic or a ferrimagnetic material becomes

and H~ 2 s. The vertical line corresponds to the Nyquist frequency. paramagnetic.

A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060 53

1200 120

Curie temperature

1100 110

1000 100

Thermal conductivity

900 Temperature range for the finite elements modeling 90

(W.m1.K 1 )

800 80

700 70

600 Temperature 60

range for the

500 experimental setup 50

400 40

300 30

200 20

300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Temperature (K)

Fig. 3. Thermal characteristics of ARMCO iron sample for different temperature levels, each square corresponding to a measurement point.

where m M = and n N = are integers and 8 i0 A f0; 1; ; mg, For a nonlinear system, a model structure of Volterra series is

8 j0 A f1; ; ng written as the innite sum

8

> ~ 0 1

> bi0 bi if ( i A f0; 1; ; Mg such that i i

>

> yt yk t y1 t y2 t yk t ; 19

>

< b~ 0 0 otherwise k1

i

17

> a~j0 aj if ( j A f1; ; Ng such that j0 j

>

>

> where yk, the output of the kth Volterra kernel, writes as the

>

: a~j0 0 otherwise: generalization of the convolution product (18) to the kth order:

Z 1 Z 1

In rational transfer functions, equals 1 and usually numerator N k

yk t hk 1 ; ; k ut i di : 20

and denominator M orders are both xed, then all coefcients 1 1 i1

bi ; i 0; ; M, and aj ; j 1; ; N, are estimated. Generally, no care

is taken to check whether any intermediate coefcient, as in (17), For example, y2, the output of the quadratic kernel, is

equals zero. Z 1 Z 1

Time-domain simulation of fractional systems is an extensively y2 t h2 1 ; 2 ut 1 ut 2 d1 d2 : 21

1 1

studied topic in the literature (Aoun, Malti, Levron, & Oustaloup,

2004; Cai & Liu, 2007 and all references therein). The simulation Therefore, by combining Eqs. (19) and (20), the output y(t) of a

algorithm used in this paper is based on the discrete Grnwald nonlinear system may be expressed as

Letnikov denition (13) of fractional derivatives. It has the advan- Z Z

1 1 1 k

tage of allowing the quantication of the simulation error while yt hk 1 ; ; k ut i di ; 22

computing the derivative (the error is proportional to the sam- k1 1 1 i1

pling period Oh). Its major drawback is that the simulation

requires for each step the computation of sums of increasing where hk is the kth order Volterra kernel and its Laplace transform

dimension with time. Other simulation methods exist, such as the H k s1 ; ; sk is given by (Crum & Heinen, 1974)

one based on recursive poles and zeros of a fractional derivative/ Z 1 Z 1

integral as proposed by Oustaloup (1995). However, the time- H k s1 ; ; sk hk 1 ; ; k e s1 1 sk k d1 dk : 23

1 1

domain simulation error in the latter method is more difcult to

quantify. All in all, system identication algorithms proposed in Moreover, the Laplace transform of the convolution integral (20)

this paper may be used with any time-domain simulation algo- can be written as

rithm of fractional systems, at the discretion of the user. Fractional

Y k s1 ; ; sk H k s1 ; ; sk Us1 Usk : 24

systems should however be correctly simulated with negligible

simulation errors, in order to be able to consistently estimate the Therefore, the Laplace transform of the output signal y(t), in (19),

fractional model parameters. is

Ys1 ; ; sk ; Y 1 s1 Y 2 s1 ; s2 Y k s1 ; ; sk ; 25

3.2. From linear models to nonlinear models using Volterra series

where

Volterra (1959) was the rst to introduce Volterra series; see 8

Rugh (1981) for the mathematical aspect and Helie and Roze >

> Y 1 s1 H 1 s1 Us1

>

>

(2008) for an application to a nonlinear acoustic system. Volterra < Y 2 s1 ; s2 H 2 s1 ; s2 Us1 Us2

series are relevant for slightly nonlinear time invariant systems 26

>

>

>

>

(Bard, 2005) and systems with fading memories (Boyd & Chua, : Y s1 ; ; s H s1 ; ; s Us1 Us :

k k k k k

1985) can be expressed in the time-domain as well as in the

frequency-domain. Obviously, the rst order kernel H 1 s1 corresponds to the linear

Given a linear system characterized by its impulse response part of the system. All other kernels contain system nonlinearities.

h1 t and an input signal u(t), then the output y1 t is expressed as For more simplicity, all kernels are supposed to be symmetric:

the convolution product:

Z 1 hk 1 ; 2 ; ; k hk i1 ; i2 ; ; ik ; 27

y1 t h1 ut d: 18

1 where i1 ; i2 ; ; ik is any permutation of 1; 2; ; k.

54 A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060

4. Volterra series with fractional differentiation kernels with the generating functions fn dened by their Laplace transform

Fn as

As the behavior of a system modeled by Volterra series is 8

> s Re 1

described by its kernels hk in (22), an expression for the kernels hk >

> F 1 s

>

> s 1 s 2

is rst chosen and then all coefcients are estimated. Each kernel >

>

< I m 2

hk may be decomposed on fractional orthogonal generating func- F 2 s 34

>

> s 1 s 2

tions Fn. >

>

>

> 1

In Aoun et al. (2007) and Malti et al. (2005), orthonormal base >

: F 3 s F 2 s:

functions are extended to fractional differentiation orders by s 3

applying a Gram Schmidt orthogonalization procedure on a set

As for monovariable functions, the multivariable functions f m1 ;;mk

of generating functions Fn. As a consequence their inverse Laplace

transforms fn form a basis in L2 0; 1 (Aoun et al., 2007; Akay, k

f m1 ;;mk f mi ; 35

2008). Hence, the linear part of the Volterra series h1 t A L2 0; 1 i1

can always be approximated using functions fn

form a basis in L2 0; 1k . Hence, the Volterra kernels can always

M be written as

h1 t bn f n t; 28

n1 1 1

hk t 1 ; ; t k bm1 ;;mi f m1 ;;mk t 1 ; ; t k ; 36

m1 1 mk 1

where bn, n 1; ; M, are the coefcients associated with the

decomposition of h1 on fn, and M the truncation order. For with bm1 ;;mi the coefcients associated with the decomposition,

example, the fractional Laguerre basis is characterized by the provided they belong to the L2 0; 1k space. Then, following the

presence of a single s pole at (Aoun et al., 2007) with the developments in Bibes (2004) for rational orthonormal basis, yk in

Laplace transform of the generating functions given by (20) can be approximated by

1 M mk 1

F n s ; 29 yk t cm1 ;;mk I m1 I mk 37

s n m1 1 mk 1

with the fractional order. For thermal systems, Eq. (6) allows to where

set to 0.5. Z t

When system s poles are real and/or complex conjugate, I mk f mk k ut k dk ; 38

fractional generalized orthonormal basis (Malti et al., 2005) may 0

be used. As compared to (29), the generalized basis allows us to M is the number of fractional orthogonal generating functions

choose any combination of poles. Their generating functions are used to approximate the kernels, and mk is the kernel order. The

iteratively dened kth order kernel is presented in Fig. 4.

for n 4 1: For instance, the quadratic kernel output developed using three

8 generating functions, i.e. M 3 and k 2, may be written as

> 1

>

> F s if n is real or

> n

>

> s n n 1 3 m1

>

<

y2 t cm1 ;m2 I m1 I m2 39

s Re n m1 1 m2 1

F 0n s and 30

>

> s n s n n 1

>

> Z

>

> I m n t

>

: F n s if n is complex with I m1 f m1 1 ut 1 d1 40

s n s n n 1

0

with Z t

and I m2 f m2 2 ut 2 d2 41

( 0

n 1 F n 1 if n 41 and n 1 is real or

31

n 1 F 0n 1 or F n 1 if n 41 and n 1 is complex

and for n 1:

8

> 1

>

> F s if 1 is real or

> 1

> s 1

>

>

<

s Re 1

F 01 s and 32

>

> s n s 1

>

>

>

> I m 1

>

: F 1 s if 1 is complex:

s 1 s 1

generalized orthonormal basis with all the s poles chosen to be

alike and real. For example, a linear system characterized by three

s poles of the fractional generalized orthogonal basis (GOB) at

1 2 complex conjugate and 3 real can be written

using three generating functions:

3

h1 t bn f n t; 33

n1 Fig. 4. kth order Volterra kernel developed using M generating functions.

A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060 55

1 2 3 model is

y2 t c1;m2 I 1 I m2 c2;m2 I 2 I m2 c3;m2 I 3 I m2 42

m2 1 m2 1 m2 1

N N M k 1!

Pc Pk ; 52

k1 k1 M 1!k!

y2 t c1;1 I 1 I 1 c2;1 I 2 I 1 c2;2 I 2 I 2 c3;1 I 3 I 1 c3;2 I 3 I 2 c3;3 I 3 I 3 43

Consequently, the second order Volterra series model output y for the vector , the number of unknown nonlinear parameters

(t), developed on three fractional generating functions, is con- 1 ; ; M and , corresponding to the M s poles associated

stituted of the rst order kernel output y1 t (linear part) and the with generating functions and the commensurate order, is

second order kernel output y2 t:

P M 1: 53

yt y1 t y2 t with

8

> 3 Obviously, the number of parameters increases considerably with

>

>

> y1 t cm1 xm1

> the truncation order M of the generating functions (30) and with

>

> m1 1

>

> the truncation order N of Volterra kernels. For example, if the

>

< where xm L 1 fF m s1 Us1 g

1 1

44 number of generating functions, M, and the number of Volterra

>

>

3 m1

kernels, N, are both set to 3, then the number of linear coefcients

>

> y2 t cm1 ;m2 xm1 xm2

>

> equals 19, according to (52) and the number of nonlinear para-

>

> m1 1m2 1

>

>

: where xm L 1 fF m s2 Us2 g meters equals 4 (3 s poles and a commensurate order), which

2 2

yields a total number of 23 parameters. In case of using 3 generat-

where F1, F2 and F3 are dened in (34). Eq. (44) can also be ing functions and 2 Volterra kernels the total number of para-

formulated in a vector form meters reduces to 9 linear coefcients and 4 nonlinear

yt XC; 45 parameters:

T

with C c1 c3 c1;1 c3;3 and X xm1 ; ; xm3 ; xm1 xm1 ; ; 1 2 3 T : 54

xm3 xm3 . According to prior knowledge, a linear or nonlinear program-

ming method can be used for parameter estimation. If the

5. Parameter estimation fractional order and the poles are chosen according to some prior

knowledge, then only the coefcients cm1 mk are estimated by

Consider input u(t) and output yn t data collected at regular least squares. Otherwise, nonlinear programming (NLP) is

time-instants from t0 to t T final . The measured output yn t is required. Optimal parameters are computed by minimizing the

supposed to be corrupted by an additive measurement noise t quadratic norm of the output error

yn t yt t; 46

1 n

Kk ^

0 yid kh y id kh

2

J id 100 55

1 yn kh2

Kk

where y(t) is the hypothetical noise-free deterministic output. The 0 id

input u(t) and the output y(t) are supposed to be related by the with ynid the noisy system output and y^ id the estimated Volterra

fractional Volterra series (22). model output (the subscript id stands for identication data). For

Given the model comparison purposes the following validation criterion is com-

M mi 1

puted on validation data ynval and y^ val :

yt cm1 ;;mk L 1 fF m1 s1 Us1 gL 1 fF mk sk Usk g; 1 n ^ 2

m1 1 mk 1

Kk 0 yval kh y val kh

J val 100: 56

1 yn kh2

Kk

47 0 val

with F mi as in (30), the parameter vector squares, then

" #

C b X T X 1 X T Y;

C 57

48

b is estimated by

and the covariance matrix associated with C

bC s

P b 2 X T X 1 ; 58

is composed of a vector C of linear coefcients

where s

2

b is an empirical estimation of the noise variance.

C c1 ; ; cM ; c1;1 ; ; cM;M ; c1;;1 ; ; cM;;M T 49

In case the linear coefcients C in (49) and the nonlinear

and additionally a vector of nonlinear parameters: fractional parameters in (50) are estimated, then a nonlinear

programming (NLP) method is used. In such a case, the NLP

1 ; ; M ; T : 50

method is combined to linear programming as sketched in Fig. 5.

The number of unknown parameters depends on the truncation The rst step consists in initializing in (54). The initialization

order M of the orthogonal generating functions and the number N of and the s poles ( 1 ; 2 ; ; M ) can be done by using a rough

of Volterra kernels. Hence, estimation of a linear fractional Output Error (OE) model (Malti et

al., 2008; Victor et al., 2013). As far as thermal systems are

for the vector C, the number Pk of unknown linear coefcients considered a good initial hit for the commensurate order is

cm1 ;;mi associated with the kth order kernel equals k-combina- 0:5 as illustrated using Pad approximations in Section 2. A

tions with repetitions among M generating functions: linear OE model can always be written using the generalized

orthogonal functions:

M k 1! Ys M

Pk : 51 Gs bm F m s 59

M 1!k! Us m 1

56 A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060

As in the linear models, the number of generating functions M is An estimation of the covariance matrix may be computed from

chosen when the identication criterion does not improve sig- the approximated Hessian with

nicantly and/or the validation criterion increases. Some more

sophisticated criteria can also be used (e.g. Akaike, 1974; Young, V s

b 2 J 1 ; 65

where s

2

1989). Moreover, one should keep in mind that the number of b is an estimation of the noise variance obtained from the

coefcients of the Volterra series increases signicantly with M as residual error.

indicated in (52). Secondly, the coefcient vector C0 in (49) is

computed by least square. Then, the vector 0 is built:

6. Results and discussion

0 C 0 ; 0 60

In step three, the vector from (49) is estimated using nonlinear 6.1. Identication of thermal diffusion in the ARMCO sample from

programming. The LevenbergMarquardt method, implemented simulated data

in the MATLAB function lsqnonlin of the optimization toolbox, is

used and the parameter vector k is computed iteratively by An ARMCO iron sample is considered having the shape of a

thick disc (radius R 10 mm and thickness e 19.37 mm). One face

1 0

k 1 k fJ I J g k 61 of the disc is submitted to a time varying heat ux, uniformly

distributed on a disc of radius r 0 1:25 mm at the surface.

with

8 A thermocouple of type K (diameter 0.5 mm) is embedded at a

K 1

>

> 0 distance d 2 mm from the heated surface (see Fig. 6). The

> J 2 t k St k ;

>

>

> k0 simulated sensor works in a linear domain. Hence the nonlinea-

>

>

>

> K 1 rities are due to the temperature dependent thermal properties of

<

J 2 St k ; ST t k ;

62 the material plotted in Fig. 3. Temperature of the sensor is

>

>

k0

>

> yt k ; simulated using a nite element method in 3D conguration with

>

> ;

> k

> St quadratic Lagrange elements using the Comsol multiphysics soft-

>

>

: ware. Therefore data are generated by solving the heat equation

nonnegative damping factor;

numerically. The sampling time is set to h 0.01 s.

where is the residual error Two input signals are generated, one for system identication

and the other one for model validation, with a magnitude of 0 to 1

id t ynid t y^ id t: 63

108 W m 2 and a total duration of 25 s as shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

The third step is iterated till convergence when To test the identication algorithm, a white noise t of 20 dB

is added to the Comsol noise-free output y(t):

l;k 1

max l;k o;

64 yn t yt t: 66

l l;k

where l;k stands for the lth element of the vector estimated at To help setting up the truncation order and for comparison

the kth iteration, or till the maximum number of iterations, maxiter, purposes, the system is rst identied using a linear model. As far

is reached. As for all gradient based algorithms, only convergence

to a local minimum is guaranteed.

19.37

40

1.25

10

Input Signal

x 107

Heat flux (W/m)

10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Output signal

800

variations (K)

Temperature

600

400

200

0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (s)

Fig. 5. Parameters estimation method. Fig. 7. Identication data (ambient temperature of 300 K removed).

A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060 57

as the physical model (5) contains a pure integrator of order 0.5, it where ynval and y^ val t stand respectively for simulated output and

is preferable to integrate the input signal the estimated model output on validation data is plotted in Fig. 10.

Moreover, contribution of each kernel of the Volterra series is

Us

U~ s 0:5 ; 67 highlighted which allows us to check the contribution of the linear

s

part and the contribution of the nonlinear part of the model. The

and to identify a model between the output and the integrated linear model is also plotted for comparison purposes.

input. All coefcients of the linear model As expected, the Volterra model ts better system output as

Ys M compared to the linear model. This is further conrmed by the FIT

Gs bm F m s 68 criterion used on identication and validation data:

Us m 1

are estimated for different values of M (number of poles) and the b 2

yn y

FIT 100 1 : 71

quadratic norms of the output error, computed on identication yn meanyn 2

and validation data, are reported in Table 1. A truncation at M 2

appears to be a good choice, because for M Z 2 the identication As shown in Table 3, this criterion rises from 74.1% to 84.7% on

and validation criteria in Table 1 do not improve signicantly. validation data conrming that the Volterra model is more

Therefore taking a greater number of poles will not improve accurate than the linear model. Moreover, the estimated para-

signicantly the accuracy of the linear model used in the initi- meters of the linear model are biased due to the presence of

alization of the NLP algorithm. nonlinearities which are better captured in the second order

The two estimated s poles in the linear model and the Volterra series model. This rst numerical experiment allows us

commensurate order 0:5 are used to initialize in (54): to conclude on the reliability of the method for identifying

accurately the nonlinear system.

0 0:96 1:91i; 0:96 1:91i; 0:5T : 69

A Monte Carlo simulation of 300 runs with different realiza- Volterra model output

700

tions of noise with a SNR of 20 dB is carried out. The vector in first kernel output

quadratic kernel output

(48) converges after optimization to the values in Table 2. Temperature variations (K) 600 system output

linear model output

System and Volterra model outputs are plotted on validation 500

data in Fig. 9 and the difference between each model output and

400

the system output val t

300

val t ynval t y^ val t; 70

200

100

x 107 Input Signal

Heat flux (W/m)

10

0

0 5 10 15 20 25

5

Time (s)

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 Fig. 9. Comparison between system output, linear model output, Volterra series

model output and its rst two kernels on validation data. Ambient temperature of

Output signal

300 K removed.

variations (K)

800

Temperature

600

400 80

200

0 60

0 5 10 15 20 25

40

Time (s)

20

Fig. 8. Validation data (ambient temperature of 300 K removed).

0

20

Table 1 40

Identication and validation criteria for a linear model versus the number of poles.

60 Difference between Volterra model output and system output

Difference between linear model output and system output

M 1 2 3 4 80

0 5 10 15 20 25

Jid 1.73 0.40 0.40 0.40 Time (s)

Jval 1.94 0.74 0.74 0.72

Fig. 10. Difference between the system and the model outputs.

Table 2

Estimated parameters of the Volterra series model, 1 2 .

c1 c2 c1;1 c1;2

6 6 10

Estimation 4.28 10 4.08 10 0.68 10 3.7 10 10

Standard deviation 0.71 10 6 0.19 10 6 0.41 10 10 4.6 10 10

c2,2 Re 1 Im 1

Standard deviation 0.11 10 10 0.05 0.23 0.03

58 A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060

6.2. Identication of thermal diffusion in the ARMCO sample from an x 107 Input signal

4

experimental set-up

3

2

An experimental set-up has been realized for the system

1

described in the previous section and presented in Fig. 12. A heat

ux generated, by a 200 W laser beam, with a wavelength of 0

0 5 10 15 20 25

960 nm and controlled by an internal function generator modu-

Output signal

lated with a maximum frequency of 10 kHz, is applied at the 150

variations (K)

surface of the ARMCO iron sample. A thermocouple is located

Temperature

100

inside that sample, through a previously drilled hole as in Fig. 11,

at a distance d 2 mm from the heated surface. The excited surface 50

S is a 1.25 mm radius disc. The aim is to provide enough energy to

0

induce large temperature variations. This experimental set-up 0 5 10 15 20 25

allows temperature variations up to 150 K. As the thermal char- Time (s)

acteristic variations are more important around the Curie point

Fig. 13. Identication data (initial condition temperature removed).

(1040 K), the ARMCO sample is heated to 940 K by an electrical

heater rolled around it.

The power of the laser beam (varying from 0 to 200 W) is x 107 Input signal

4

controlled proportionally by a voltage generator varying from 0 to

3

5 V. The resulting heat ux density, considered as the model input,

2

is plotted in Figs. 13 and 14 for identication and validation data,

1

0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Table 3

Output signal

Identication and validation criteria according to the model for simulated data. variations (K) 200

Temperature

150

Model Linear (%) 2nd order Volterra (%)

100

FITid 80.4 86.5 50

FITval 74.1 84.7

0

0 5 10 15 20 25

Time (s)

Table 4

Identication and validation criteria for a linear model versus the number of

generating functions.

M 1 2 3 4 5

Jval 5.68 5.03 0.07 0.06 0.06

Fig. 11. Thermocouple attached to the iron sample. simulated data, the input signal is rst integrated and the quad-

ratic norms of the output error, computed on identication and

validation data, are reported in Table 4 which shows that a

truncation at M 3 is a good choice. The three estimated poles

and the commensurate order 0:5 are used to initialize 0 in

(54) for the nonlinear model:

0 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 0:12 1:39i; 0:15 1:39i; 17:35; 0:5T : 72

However, the number of Volterra kernels is set to N 2. The vector

of (48) converges after optimization to the values in Table 5.

System and Volterra model outputs are plotted on validation

data in Fig. 15. Moreover, contribution of each kernel of the

Volterra series is highlighted which allows us to differentiate the

contribution of the linear part and the contribution of the non-

linear part of the model. The linear model output is also plotted for

comparison purposes (Fig. 16).

The Volterra model ts better system output as compared to

the linear model. As shown in Table 6, this criterion rises from

88.8% to 93.0% on validation data conrming that the Volterra

model is more accurate than the linear model. This rst experi-

ment allows us to conclude on the reliability of the method for

Fig. 12. Test bench at the TREFLE laboratory (University of Bordeaux). identifying accurately the nonlinear system.

A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060 59

Table 5 160

Estimated parameters of the Volterra series model, 1 2 .

140

c1 c2 c3 120

Standard deviation 0.31 10 5 3.05 10 5 1.19 10 5 80

c1;1 c1;2 c1;3 60

system output

Standard deviation 0.92 10 8 2.07 10 8 2.73 10 8 Finite element model output

20

c2;2 c2;3 c3;3

0

0 5 10 15 20 25

8 8

Estimation 21.73 10 9.83 10 8.93 10 8

Time (s)

Standard deviation 8.16 10 8 6.24 10 8 3.28 10 8

Re 1 Im 1 3 Fig. 17. Comparison between the experimental set-up output, the Volterra model

output and the nite element model output for validation data.

Estimation 0.11 1.41 15.10 0.49

Standard deviation 0.08 0.01 2.89 0.02

20

Difference between the finite element model output and the system output

Difference between the Volterra model output and the system output

15

150

10

Temperature variations (K)

5

100

0

50 5

Volterra model output

Linear model output

System output 10

0 5 10 15 20 25

0 Time (s)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fig. 18. Errors between the experimental set-up output and each model output on

Time (s)

validation data.

Fig. 15. Comparison between system output, linear model output, Volterra series

model output and its rst two kernels on validation data. Static temperature of

the differences between the experimental set-up output and each

about 950 K was subtracted.

model output are plotted in Fig. 18 on validation data. Both gures

show that the Volterra model output is closer to the experimental

10

Difference between Volterra model output and system output

set-up output. The FIT criterion for validation data conrms these

8 Difference between linear model output and system output results as it equals 93% for the Volterra model output against only

6

74% for the nite element model output. The Volterra model

exhibits a much better performance as compared to the nite

4

element model because

2

2 sample, to 2 mm from the excited surface in the nite element

model. However, in the experimental set-up, the thermocouple

4

position is inaccurate because of the drilling and assemblage

6

accuracy.

8 The boundary between the thermocouple and the sample is

0 5 10 15 20 25

considered as ideal. However, in the experimental set-up, the

Time (s)

thermocouple is glued to the iron sample and there might be

Fig. 16. Difference between the system output and the model outputs. an air gap between both components. Thermal characteristics

of the air and the glue are not taken into account in the nite

element model.

Table 6

The ARMCO iron emissivity is set to 0.6 in the nite element

Identication and validation quadratic criteria according to the model. model. However, in the experimental set-up, the ARMCO iron

emissivity depends on different parameters such as the oxida-

Model Linear (%) 2nd order Volterra (%)

tion or the polishing of the sample and is known to be between

FITid 90.9 95.4

0.5 and 0.9.

FITval 88.8 93.0 The thermocouple specic heat and thermal conductivity are

set to their values at ambient temperature. However, in the

experimental set-up, the thermocouple specic heat and con-

The nite element model is now compared to the experimental ductivity variations are unknown in the temperature variation

set-up model. Both input signals of Figs. 13 and 14 are applied to range [940,1140] K.

the nite element model and the Volterra model. The outputs of The iron sample external boundaries are insulated and set to

both models are compared to the experimental one in Fig. 17 and 940 K. However, in the experimental set-up, the temperature

60 A. Maachou et al. / Control Engineering Practice 29 (2014) 5060

initial value is reached using a conductor thread, rolled around Casenave, C. (2011). Time-local formulation and identication of implicit Volterra

the iron sample, injecting a heat ux and provoking slight models by use of diffusive representation. Automatica, 47(10), 22732278.

Cois, O., Oustaloup, A., Battaglia, E., & Battaglia, J.-L. (2000). Non integer model from

temperature growth during the experiment. modal decomposition for time domain system identication. In 12th IFAC

symposium on system identication, SYSID, Santa Barbara, USA.

Thus, on one hand, at the opposite of nite element models Cois, O., Oustaloup, A., Poinot, T., & Battaglia, J.-L. (2001). Fractional state variable

lter for system identication by fractional model. In IEEE 6th European control

which need the characterization of thermal properties versus conference (ECC2001), Porto, Portugal.

temperature and the exact geometric pattern of the system, the Crum, L. A., & Heinen, J. A. (1974). Simultaneous reduction and expansion of

identication algorithm gives with only one experimental set-up a multidimensional Laplace transform kernels. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathe-

matics, 26(4), 753771.

very close to reality model and, on the other hand, the Volterra Gabano, J.-D., Poinot, T., & Kanoun, H. (2010). Linear parameter-varying fractional

series allows a more accurate modeling as compared to a linear modeling of a thermal system. In 4rd IFAC workshop on fractional differentiation

model, because it allows us to take into account the nonlinearities and its applications (FDA).

Gruber, J. K., Guzman, J. L., Rodriguez, F., Bordons, C., Berenguel, M., & Sanchez, J. A.

brought by the large temperature variations.

(2011). Nonlinear MPC based on a Volterra series model for greenhouse

temperature control using natural ventilation. Control Engineering Practice, 19,

354366.

7. Conclusion Grnwald, A. K. (1867). Ueber begrenzte derivationen und deren anwendung.

Zeitschrift fr Mathematik und Physik, 12, 441480.

Helie, T., & Roze, D. (2008). Sound synthesis of a nonlinear string using Volterra

Linear fractional models have already proven their efcacy in series. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 314, 275306.

modeling thermal diffusive phenomena for small temperature Khemane, F., Malti, R., Rassi, T., & Moreau, X. (2012). Robust estimation of fractional

variations. However for large temperature variations, thermal models in the frequency domain using set membership methods. Signal

Processing, 92, 15911601.

diffusive phenomena are no longer linear. Fractional nonlinear Maachou, A., Malti, R., Melchior, P., Battaglia, J.-L., Oustaloup, A., & Hay, B. (2010).

models based on Volterra series are developed in this paper with Thermal system identication for large temperature variations using fractional

Volterra kernels synthesized using orthogonal generating func- Volterra series. In 4th IFAC workshop on fractional differentiation and its

applications (FDA), Badajoz, Spain.

tions. They are then applied to model heat diffusion in an ARMCO

Maachou, A., Malti, R., Melchior, P., Battaglia, J.-L., Oustaloup, A., & Hay, B. (2011).

iron sample based on experimental and simulation data. Linear Application of fractional Volterra series for the identication of thermal

and nonlinear parameters of Volterra series are estimated. It was diffusion in an ARMCO iron sample subject to large temperature variations.

In 18th IFAC world congress (pp. 56215626), Milan, Italy.

shown that the fractional Volterra series slightly improve model

Maachou, A., Malti, R., Melchior, P., Battaglia, J.-L., Oustaloup, A., & Hay, B. (2012).

quality in the real experiment set-up when temperature variations Thermal system identication using fractional models for high temperature

are low ( 150 K) and signicantly improves the quality of the levels around different operating points. Nonlinear Dynamics, 70(2), 941950.

approximation when temperature variations are high. Moreover, Machado, J. T., Kiryakova, V., & Mainardi, F. (2010). A poster about the old history of

fractional calculus. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis, 13(4), 447454.

Volterra series allows us to separate the linear part (rst order Machado, J. T., Kiryakova, V., & Mainardi, F. (2011). Recent history of fractional

kernel) from the nonlinear part (other kernels). Then, modeling a calculus. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 16(3),

thermal system using fractional Volterra series yields an appro- 11401153.

Malti, R., Aoun, M., Levron, F., & Oustaloup, A. (2005). Unied construction of

priate model with only one experimental set-up whereas nite fractional generalized orthogonal bases. In Fractional differentiation and its

element model yields less accurate results with more experiments applications. Mathematical tools, geometrical and physical aspects (Vol. 1, pp.

for the characterization of thermal properties versus temperature 87102). Germany: U-Books.

Malti, R., Rassi, T., Thomassin, M., & Khemane, F. (2010). Set membership

and the exact geometric pattern of the system. parameter estimation of fractional models based on bounded frequency

domain data. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation,

References 15(4), 927938.

Malti, R., Sabatier, J., & Akay, H. (2009). Thermal modeling and identication of an

aluminium rod using fractional calculus. In 15th IFAC symposium on system

Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identication. IEEE Transac- identication (SYSID) (pp. 958963), Saint-Malo France.

tions on Automatic Control, 19, 716723. Malti, R., Victor, S., & Oustaloup, A. (2008). Advances in system identication using

Akay, H. (2008). Synthesis of complete orthonormal fractional basis functions with fractional models. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 3(2),

prescribed poles. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 56(10), 47164728. 021401,1021401,7.

Angerer, B. T., Hintz, C., & Schrder, D. (2004). Online identication of a nonlinear Miller, K. S., & Ross, B. (1993). An introduction to the fractional calculus and fractional

mechatronic system. Control Engineering Practice, 12, 14651478. differential equations. New York, USA: A Wiley-Interscience Publication.

Aoun, M., Malti, R., Levron, F., & Oustaloup, A. (2004). Numerical simulations of Oldham, K. B., & Spanier, J. (1972). A general solution of the diffusive equation for

fractional systems: An overview of existing methods and improvements. Nonlinear semiinnite geometries. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 39,

Dynamics, 38(14), 117131. 655669.

Aoun, M., Malti, R., Levron, F., & Oustaloup, A. (2007). Synthesis of fractional Oldham, K. B., & Spanier, J. (1974). The fractional calculustheory and applications of

Laguerre basis for system approximation. Automatica, 43(9), 16401648. differentiation and integration to arbitrary order. New York, London: Academic

Bard, D. (2005). Compensation des non linarits des systmes haut-parleurs Press.

pavillon (Ph.D. thesis). Ecole polytechnique fdrale de Lausanne. Oustaloup, A. (1995). La derivation non-entire. Paris: Herms.

Battaglia, J.-L. (2008). Heat transfer in materials forming processes. Great Britain: Podlubny, I. (1999). Fractional differential equations. San Diego: Academic Press.

Wiley Chippenham. Rugh, W. J. (1981). Non linear theory: The Volterra/Wiener approach. Baltimore, MD,

Battaglia, J.-L., Maachou, A., Malti, R., & Melchior, P. (2013). Nonlinear heat diffusion USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.

simulation using Volterra series expansion. International Journal of Thermal Simeu, E., & Georges, D. (1996). Modeling and control of an eddy current brake.

Sciences, 71, 8087. Control Engineering Practice, 4(1), 1926.

Battaglia, J.-L., & Kusiak, A. (2005). Estimation of heat uxes during high-speed Sommacal, L., Melchior, P., Cabelguen, J.-M., Oustaloup, A., & Ijspeert, J. (2008).

drilling. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39, Fractional multi-models of the gastrocnemius frog muscle. Journal of Vibration

750758. and Control, 14(910), 14151430.

Battaglia, J.-L., Le Lay, L., Batsale, J.-C., Oustaloup, A., & Cois, O. (2000). Heat ux Sommacal, L., Melchior, P., Dossat, A., Petit, J., Cabelguen, J.-M., Oustaloup, A., et al.

estimation through inverted non integer identication models. International (2007). Improvement of the muscle fractional multimodel for low-rate stimu-

Journal of Thermal Sciences, 39(3), 374389. lation. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 2(3), 226233.

Bibes, G. (2004). Modlisation de procds de traitements des eaux et reconstruc- Victor, S., Malti, R., Garnier, H., & Oustaloup, A. (2013). Parameter and differentia-

tion de grandeurs physico-chimiques (Ph.D. thesis). Universit de Poitiers. tion order estimation in fractional models. Automatica, 49(4), 926935.

Boyd, S., & Chua, L. O. (1985). Fading memory and the problem of approximating Volterra, V. (1959). Theory of functionals and of integral and integro-differential

nonlinear operator with Volterra series. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and equations. New York: Dover.

Systems, 32(11), 11501161. Young, P. C. (1989). Recursive estimation, forecasting and adaptative control. In

Cai, X., & Liu, F. (2007). Numerical simulation of the fractional-order control system. Control and dynamics systems: Advances in theory and applications (Vol. 30,

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing, 23, 229241. pp. 119166). San Diego: Academic Press.

- Homework 1 Heat TransferCaricato daFebrian Roman
- Thermodynamics Cheat SheetCaricato daAlvin Tung Kwong Choong
- 29950360 Experiment 6 Refrigerator 1Caricato daNdude Mckenze
- BE8256 r17 Basic Mechanical Engg www.padeepz.com.pdfCaricato dakarthik kumar
- thermo12Caricato daJeff Hardy
- ABU CHEMCaricato daRichard Obinna
- Nonlinear Dynamic Modeling of Physiological Systems - MarmarelisCaricato da8dori19
- sol12Caricato dabhar
- Parabolic PDEs Part1Caricato daMaurice Politis
- 04A-Chapter 4, Sec 4.1 and 4.3 BlackCaricato daAvinash Iyer
- convolution notesCaricato daGulzaib Khan
- A Guide to Convolution Arithmetic for Deep LearningCaricato daJan Hula
- ee 224 lab 5 report 1Caricato daapi-490772627
- COE4TL4_lecture17Caricato daAnonymous hDKqasf
- shockCaricato da1saeed9
- Heat ConductionCaricato daMridulendu Pandey
- b Tech Cse Parttime SyallabusCaricato daManikantan Kothandaraman
- Implementation-and-Evaluation-of-Steganography-using-PN-Sequences-Based-on-Wavelet.pdfCaricato daIjcemJournal
- Gpusph TheoryCaricato daaaa
- ANNUAL GROUND TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS.pdfCaricato daJakub Dlhy
- sdsaCaricato daAnonymous N3LpAX
- 0 - Dynamic Biometric Identification FromCaricato dapattysoalheiro
- TH5Caricato daSia How Tan
- Modeling and Analysis of Surface Grinding for Residual Stresses in WorkpieceCaricato daIAEME Publication
- 3 Ntu MethodCaricato daPradyumna Dhamangaonkar
- Review of Thermo-fluidsCaricato daSyed Imtiaz Ali Shah
- 6.IT II-RETESTCaricato davsureshkannanmsec
- Indian Engineering Service Syllabus Mechanical EngineeringCaricato daenggsantu
- heat flashcardsCaricato daapi-345686634
- HX Design 02Caricato dabouabre

- PID Control Book 2nd John A. Shaw is a process control engineer and president of Process Control Solutions. An engineering graduate of N. C. State University, he previously worked for Duke Power Company in Charlotte, N. C. and for Taylor Instrument Company (now part of ABB, Inc.) in, N. Y. Rochester He is the author of over 20 articles and papers and continues to live in Rochester. Copyright 2003, John A. Shaw, All rights reserved. This work may not be resold, either electronically or on paper. Permission is given, however, for this work to be distributed, on paper or in digital format, to students in a class as long as this copyright notice is included.Caricato dahamid vahedil larijani
- RELEASE_NOTE.txtCaricato dakeyboard2014
- START-HERE-NXP-MFS-1.5.1.1.pdfCaricato dakeyboard2014
- CES 2017Caricato dakeyboard2014
- D3PrefsCaricato dafreebookman
- GPIO InterruptCaricato dakeyboard2014
- BSP_Porting_Guide_L3.0.35_1.1.0Caricato dakeyboard2014
- Tutorialv0_4Caricato dakeyboard2014
- sml_fa04Caricato dakeyboard2014
- Tutorial EZ430-RF2500Caricato daPaulo L. Muñoz
- US4903192 PID Fuzzy LogicCaricato dakeyboard2014
- Setup of Rotary Flexible LinkCaricato dakeyboard2014
- Nonlinear System Identification of Rapid Thermal ProcessingCaricato dakeyboard2014
- Homotopy perturbation based linearization of nonlinear heat transfer dynamic.pdfCaricato dakeyboard2014
- Timers 1Caricato dakeyboard2014
- 042 DOWNLOAD P1.1 Push Button Lab ManualCaricato dakeyboard2014
- 066 DOWNLOAD Using Two General Purpose Timers Lab ManualCaricato dakeyboard2014
- AN4345Caricato dakeyboard2014
- Pt100 Transmitter MicrochipCaricato daem01803257
- sml_fa06Caricato dakeyboard2014
- sml_fa05Caricato dakeyboard2014
- AMATYC2003fallCaricato daleonutdough
- sml_fa01Caricato dakeyboard2014
- ECP Lab2 First Order r6Caricato dakeyboard2014
- ECP Lab1 Simulink Intro r4Caricato dakeyboard2014
- AN3905Caricato dakeyboard2014
- Developing Equivalent Second Order System Models and Robust ContrCaricato dakeyboard2014
- jpconf14_570_012001Caricato dakeyboard2014

- Heating Oil in a Vertical Heater TreaterCaricato daPankajDhoble
- Explosive Welding of Titanium Stainless SteelCaricato dagreghes
- Blowdown System Boiler BookCaricato daMatias Mancilla
- AME30334 S15 Lecture3 PostCaricato daJoaquin Antonio Diaz Espinosa
- 1-s2.0-S0010218010003834-mainCaricato daMuhammad Awais
- Apache LoadsCaricato daBrian
- Limitations Simplified LC Montreal ASHRAE Chapter 6Oct03Caricato daBud
- 41.pdfCaricato danqh2009
- Referensi FEED.PDFCaricato daMuhammad Fadhil Imansyah
- The Thomsonian System of Medicine 1905Caricato dalotusfrog
- e101Caricato daEberVelazquezChantaca
- CaseHard_17CrNiMo6Caricato daFrancisco Botelho Carlos
- PAPER 1 2010 PPT.pdfCaricato daAahNuraisah
- Fanno Flow and Behavior.pdfCaricato daJuan Carlos Hurtado Sanchez
- Iecep-geas.docxCaricato daweng
- amu-NBACaricato dakpkarthi80
- Last AssignmentCaricato daRanger Rahul
- Floor convectorsZV12ANG.pdfCaricato daakitainupuf
- Dynamic thermal modelling of horizontal ground1.docxCaricato daNouman Yasar
- chapter 10.pptCaricato daCahyadi Azan
- 97615_10bCaricato daphanisai
- mod1.pdfCaricato daAhmad Budiman
- DSC Study. 2013, Jan, 24Caricato dakhuelv
- Effective Thermal Conductivity of High Temperature Insulation 10.1.1.46.6299Caricato daSergio Escobar
- GateCaricato daAnonymous Y3GhNf
- Numerical Investigation of Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in a Rectangular Channel with Longitudinal Vortex GeneratorsCaricato daInnovative Research Publications
- Land Mine Detector RobotCaricato daAnonymous ytZsBOV
- EGR 360 design.docCaricato daHarris Chacko
- cqi9Caricato daGurvinder Singh
- ANSYS....fmCaricato daNikhil Deshpande

## Molto più che documenti.

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

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.