Mooterey, Clitonji.
LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN
USING ALGEBRAIC METHODS
by
Albert Bernard Lemanski
Lieutenant, Unitecr States Navy
University of Illinois, 1958
B.S.
,
Submitted in partial fulfillment
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
from the
UNITED STATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
May, 1966
c.
ABSTRACT
A method
is
presented for the analytic design of linear
Design
control systems.
is
accomplished by the solution
of
an algebraic set of simultaneous equations derived from the
design specifications.
Specifications considered include the
system damping ratio, undamped natural frequency, bandwidth,
steady state error coefficients and root sensitivity.
The method
is
shownWcfT5e
fa's,
accurate, specific and
capable of working with any number of parameters
In
addition, the analytic approach minimizes dependence on
graphical techniques and trial and error solutions.
ry
SeEool
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section
Introduction
2.
The Algebraic Method; Concept and Development
3.
Application of the Algebraic Method
19
4.
Sensitivity as a Specification
P.S
5.
Conclusions
HOI
LIST
OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure
2. 1
Block Diagram for Example 2.3
18
2.2
Block Diagram for Example 2.4
18
2.3
Block Diagram for Example 2.5
18
4.
Graph of Sensitivity vs. Gain
Example 4
39
for
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CE
Characteristic equation
E ss
Steady state error
G(s)
Forward transfer function
kQ
Acceleration error constant
Accelerometer gain
Ka
Gain
or k
or k
ICy
Position error constant
Velocity error constant
Kt
Tachometer gain
M pw
Reasonance peak
Superscript or
subscript "o"
Specified or numerical value
Angular frequency
(omega)
wn
Undamped
natural frequency
wb
Bandwidth
wr
Rea sonant frequency
tf{f
3 db)
Polynomial in
General sensitivity parameter
Complex variable
Sensitivity
SP
of the form cr +
Sensitivity of P with respect to
jw
gw n
S
jr
**
component
of root sensitivity
wn
component
of root sensitivity
Total root sensitivity
(zeta)
Damping
ratio
Introduction
Linear control system design can be defined as "a set of
procedures for determining the value of system parameters
which will cause a physical system to operate
manner.
The set of procedures noted above
"
One may choose
the definition.
in a prescribed
as broad as
is
to perform the design effort in
the time domain by applying modern state space concepts or by
direct solution of the system differential equations.
the complex frequency domain
Alternatively,
may be selected, employing any
of the universally accepted procedures such as Nichols
and
Bode plots, root locus, Mitrovic's Method, etc.
Notwithstanding the achievements which have resulted
from direct application of the above procedures,
admitted that they have inherent limitations.
it
must be
With the
exception of simple systems, time domain analysis virtually
demands the assistance
this is a disadvantage
of a digital computer.
because computers are neithe
to all people at all times nor is
employ a computer
In a sense,
for all
it
available
economically practical to
computation.
The complex frequency
schemes are considered imperfect because they are time
consuming, i.e.
based on
trial
variables.
and
essentially graphical in nature and often
error,
and normally limited to one or two
In
need
view
of the
above discussion,
for still another
new procedure
design tool.
it
appears that there
However,
to even merit consideration,
it
is
in order for a
must be
relatively free from the faults and limitations cited above.
Specifically, the method should be analytically simple, i.e.
extend the range of problems which can be solved without
resorting to graphical techniques or the exclusive use of a
computer.
It
should also be rapid, capable of handling several
variables, specific and accurate.
is
The remainder of this paper
devoted to the development and discussion of a design
procedure which is believed to have these attributes.
The Algebraic Method: Concept and Development
Concept
The proposed design procedure
is
based on the premise that
system design specifications can be transformed into algebraic
functions of the system parameters.
independent,
If
the specifications are
specifications will produce
equations which
Control system design
simultaneously constrain the system.
would thus revert to the relatively simple problem
of solving a
set of simultaneous algebraic equations.
The problem of transforming specifications into equations
is not
as broad and difficult as one might initially assume.
The most common and practical complex frequency specifications
are:
undamped natural frequency (w n )
state error
(E
specified.
In
ratio (")/ steady
darning
reasonance peak (M
many cases, both $ and
wn
ss ), bandwidth (w b)
reasonant frequency (wr)
and
are
This is equivalent to specifying the location of a
complex pole pair and generally implies that these poles should
dominate the system response.
If
attention is restricted to this
situation, then the specifications of primary interest are
wn
W],
and E ss because
and
wr
can be at least
approximately expressed in terms of jr and
of this section is therefore
The remainder
devoted to the development of methods
which can be used to obtain system constraint equations from
specifications
f or
wn
w, and E gs
Root Location ( and
wn
The coefficient equations associated with the specification
of a
complex pole pair can be developed
method
is
in
two ways
The
first
based on the root coefficient relations of an
algebraic equation; the second is based on Mitrovic's Method.
Assume
the systems' characteristic equation (CE)
obtained
by setting the denominator of the closed loop transfer function
equal to zero, is the polynomial.
<2<
S<
(21)
where
s is
a complex variable and defined as
c*(22)
and the a^'s represent the real coefficients which are functions
of the
system parameters.
Since equation (21)
is of
which satisfy the equation.
order n, there must be n roots
Therefore, an equivalent expression
for equation (2~1) is
(23)
C~,
where
R^ represents the ith root of the
polynomial.
By expanding
equation (23) and equating the coefficients of like powers of
10
s in
equations (21) and (23)
n equations can be obtained which
relate the roots and coefficient of the original polynomial.
If Jr*
pole pair,
anc*
it
is
define the location of the specified complex
permissible to set
Rz 
F *^> 
(24)
ft
ft*'
(25)
Substituting these values of R, and R2 into the n root coefficient
relations obtained previously gives n equations in terms of the
remaining n2 roots and the coefficients of equation (21).
algebraic manipulation,
it
is
By
then possible to successively
eliminate each of the remaining n2 roots and finally obtain
two equations involving only the coefficients.
Since the
coefficients are explicit functions of the system parameters
any combination
of the parameters
which satisfy these equations
will generate the desired pole pair.
Example
2.
Let the system characteristic equation be
S3
h
qz s2 + G*S +

ae>
Find the relations which must exist between the coefficients in
order to locate a pole pair withj^ = 1/2 and
Denote the three roots
of the
11
CE as
R]_,
w Q =10.
R2 and R3.
Then
and
cr,
a& =
f%,
Ra.
*>
= S~
*
R*.
*
Rz )
hRs
/
 j to
/> (q z / q ) 
Then
/?* /? 3
az = R,
Setting
+ R^ (&
/?,>?*
/
/
3/y.
(1)
=Qo
/OORs * ^7o
/0(Q,/0)
(2)
Equations
equation
(1)
(3)
and
are the desired coefficient relations;
(2)
provides information about the third pole.
While the rootcoefficient method works well with low
ordered systems (and even provides information about the
remaining n2 roots),
it
requires an inordinate amount of
computation when applied to systems
of higher order
because
the coefficient relations must be extracted from a set of nonlinear equations.
This difficulty can be overcome
the expense
(at
of losing information about the remaining n2 roots) by using
Mitrovic's Method.
With
this method, a kth ordered
be handled as easily as one of third order.
developed
in (3)
and
(5).
system can
The method
Only a brief review
is
is fully
given here.
The argument begins with equations (21) and (22) defined
previously.
Two independent equations
in a^,
wR
and
;^rcan
be
obtained by substituting equation (22) into equation (21) and
setting the real and imaginary portions of the resulting
12
expressions equal to zero.
the introduction of a
new
Through additional manipulation and
variable, the equations take the form
G< UJ* 4<
*ro
oj$
ci K
cj>
(?)
(26)
(f)O
=P
(27)
ACO
where
with
(?)
(f) 
=  * F
Appendix
(f)
f
4 tfJ  "I
Other values of 2^(3^
in
a*"*
4>.
(28)
(y)
for various values of
<W  4<
Cf)
are tabulated
Equations (26) and (27) are known as the generalized
Mitrovic equations and can be used to obtain the coefficient
relations required to locate a pole pair as specified by JT
and
wQ
Example
Work example
2.1 using Mitrovic'
Method.
For a third order system, the generalized Mitrovic equations
are
o4* (f) + ** oj^4o
+ ** u>i
4>t
(?)
+ *9 *>i
Substituting
wn
Appendix
the above equations simplify to
I,
Pi =
tO
wQ
cf)
<j>
z cr)~
= 10 and using values for ^(1/2) from
7o
13
=.
/oo q z  iOOO
The results are equivalent to those obtained previously.
Although only a single pair of complex poles
considered here,
it
is
being
should be noted that either method
is
capable of handling any number of real or complex poles
(providing, of course, that the total
number considered
or equal than the order of the system)
is less
For example, assume
two complex poles pairs and two real roots
of a sixth order
The root coefficient method will provide
system are specified.
six constraining equations by direct substitution of the given
values.
If
Mitrovic's Method is used, four constraint equations
dependent oh the complex poles can be obtained by repeated
use of equations (26) and (27).
The remaining two equations
which are dependent on the real roots are produced by repeated
use of
C')*^*<7 *
<=o
(28)
obtained by letting
gr* in
equation (21)
Steady State Error
(E
ss )
There are three different steady state error constants which
may be
specified.
They are
position error constant
= k = lim G(s)
p
velocity error constant
= k
(29)
s*o
= lim sG(s)
(210)
so
acceleration error constant = k a = lim s^G(s)
s**o
14
(211)
The above definitions are only valid for systems which have
all
their roots in the lefthalf of the splane (because the
definitions are merely restatement of the final value theorem
for
complex variables) and unity feedback around the forward
To satisfy the last requirement,
loop transfer function, G(s).
it
may be necessary
to manipulate the block diagram into an
equivalent G(s) block with the required unity feedback.
The constraint equation
is
obtained by equating the specified
value of E ss with the algebraic expression resulting from
application of equation (29), (210) or (211).
is
demonstrated
in the following
The procedure
examples.
Example 2.3
For the system shown in figure 21, obtain an expression
between K, Z and P f or k
6.
For the given system
<U*
(S)
**<***>
52
(*+s)(s+C)(*+R)
Applying equation (211)
Ji =
which, for k a =
.^
6,
=
** Q^cs) .
reduces
to:
<z
18 OP = KZ
Example 2.4
For the system shown in figure 22, derive an equation in
terms of K,
K 2 and K
which will give K v =
15
Since the system does not have unity feedback, insert
fictitious positive
and negative feedback paths around the
G e q(s) can
system.
then be found by including the positive
feedback branch
S x (HK K3 )tsfa+K,K2.)
t
K,
Applying equation (210)
Therefore the specification cannot be satisfied.
Bandwidth (wij
Bandwidth will be defined as the angular frequency, w,,
at
which the magnitude
a value of 0.707, i.e.
of the closed loop transfer function has
 3 db bandwidth.
The transformation
of the specification into the desired constraint equation
can be
accomplished by following the usual procedures:
= jw.
A.
Find the closed loop transfer function and set
B.
Find the magnitude of the resulting expression and
equate
C.
it
to 0.707.
Substitute
w^ and
simplify.
Example 2.5
For the system shown in figure 23, derive a relation in
terms of K and IC which assures the system has a bandwidth
of 10 radians/second.
16
Following the prescribed procedure:
Ccs)
iKco*)* T io*(+KKt)Z
RCju>)
For
wb
= 10
O (juS)
__
<2
= /0*ZOOK +/00(S+KKt) Z
'
The constraint equation obtained
for a
II
/z
\Rtju>)l
second order system
in the
is typical of the
preceeding example
expressions which
are developed from bandwidth specifications.
Since the
expressions increase in complexity for higher ordered systems
or for systems having closed loop zeroes,
most design problems
involving bandwidth specifications will usually require the
assistance of a computer or a graphical technique.
(An excellent
graphical procedure based on Mitrovic's Method is given in (4).)
If
such aids are not available, a convenient, and relatively fast,
alternative solution is to initially ignore the bandwidth
specification and design the system to meet the remaining
The results can then be inserted into the system
specifications.
bandwidth equation to determine
requirement.
If
if
they also satisfy the bandwidth
the specification is not satisfied, the magnitude
of the deficiency
may suggest
next attempt.
17
a more reasonable structure for the
4CS)
6>g
~&*
<3c CS)
^ St
S* (*+L)(S+S)
FIGURE 2.1
BLOCK DIAGRAM FOR EXAMPLE 2.3
gj (s)
^c
K.
\
)
.
s (s + s)
Tach FB
Ka S
FB
K3 s2
AcceL
FIGURE 2.2
BLOCK DIAGRAM FOR EXAMPLE
Qs)
FIGURE 2.3
BLOCK DIAGRAM FOR EXAMPLE
18
Application of the Algebraic Method
As stated previously, the basis of the proposed design
method
of
is the transformation of
specifications into a set
simultaneous constraint equations that are explicit functions
of the
system parameters.
Since the specifications are
independent, a specific design will generally require that the
system have N parameters.
The insertion of sufficient
parameters, usually compensating elements, is an integral part
of the design procedure.
It
should be noted that the mere selection of sufficient
parameters does not guarantee a satisfactory solution.
converse of this statement
is
also true.
An unsatisfactory
solution does not imply that a solution does not exist; one
may
possibly be obtained by employing a different set of parameters.
These statements suggest that there
associated with the procedure.
amount
of trial
is
some
trial
This is correct.
and error
However, the
and error required can be minimized through
experience and application of control theory fundamentals.
In
this respect, root locus sketches are particularly valuable in
obtaining clues to the nature of the required parameters.
The algebraic method has the inherent capability to handle
any number
of specifications or parameters.
Therefore a
parametric solution can generally be obtained by simply inserting
more parameters into the system than there are design
19
specifications.
If
parameters are selected for use in the
design of a system subject to
specifications, for
M>N,
results will be parametric and expres sable in terms of any
the
parameters.
Example
Given G(s) = K/s(s +
4)
3.
design* a system which will
produce a pair of complex poles defined by
with Kv = 4
It
Jp
= 1/2 and
wQ
= 4
will be stated without proof that K = 16 satisfies all
specifications.
This seemingly trivial example has major significance.
Specifically, one parameter successfully satisfies three
specifications which is a direct contradiction of the previous
discussion.
of
It
would appear that adherence to the general rule
parameters for
specifications could possibly result in
the incorporation of redundant material into the system.
does not seem likely because
This
of the following observation:
In all cases studied, parameters
which did not assist
in
the solution tended to be eliminated.
Examples 3.2 and 3.3 will be used as illustrations
of this
observation.
Example
3. 2
Insert cascade compensation,
G c (s)
= (s+Z)/(s+P), into
the system given in example 3.1 and redesign the system to
*Note:
input
employ unity feedback between output and
addition to any other specified feedback)
All designs will
(in
20
b !i e
eet
r,
ene
s p c 1
cnt
on
_K*JLS
^69 fs) *
Applying equation (210):
(1)
4*
^P
K* System CE:
S 3 +&(++/>)
Mitrovic equations:
A simultaneous solution
= V r K
~ t&(*+P)m
^/VvPj
/CfL
K=
& (4P+K )*.<*
/
/=
of equations
(1)
(2)
and
(2)
(3)
(3)
gives:
P = Z
16
Since the pdle and zero of the filter are coincident, the
filter
performs no function and can therefore be eliminated.
Example
For G(s) = 50/s(s + 5),
5
(JT
 0.707 and
tachometer feedback
P = 10)
In
(Kj.
it
wQ
is
possible to locate poles at
5 (2)
0. 1) or a
each case, K =
v
l/^ 2
)
by using either
cascade compensator
(Z
= 5,
Design a system using both
tachometer feedback and a series compensator to satisfy the
same specifications.
For combined tachometer feedback and cascade compensation:
^(s,  S 3
Applying equation (210):
**<S+*}
*
P+S + SOKr) +s(5P+SOKt2)
5*
<v
= Soz/(TP + <>OKtI)
21
(1)
System CE:
Mitrovic equations:
F>
i
So 2 = SO (P+"+ SOKr)"Soo
&OKrlk
+SO /6
Z =
Simplifying:
(P^'S '+ "0
First of all,
it
"
&C
(3)
(4)
P = 10(1 
The result obtained
(2)
example
in this
(5)
5KJ.)
is
doubly significant.
indicates that the procedure is capable of
detecting conditional as well as complete redundancy.
example 3.2, the
filter
was redundant
equation
Kj.
= 0.1.
(5)
shows that the
filter is
Similarly, the tachometer
The second point of interest
may
not exist.
In this case,
which satisfy equation
solution is best?
(5)
for all values of the
In this example,
compensator pole and zero.
however,
redundant only when
may be discarded when
is the fact that a
also satisfy the specifications.
At this point,
it
for determining the best
P = 10.
unique solution
any positive values of P and
Kj.
Which
is a matter of conjecture.
However, this example will be rediscussed
means
In
in Section 4 after a
design has been developed.
Example 3.4
Given the forward loop transfer function, G(s)
design series compensation to give roots with
wQ
6.
The minimum acceptable value of K v
22
=
s (j^'/i;(s + 7;
/^
~ 1/2 and
is 4. 15
rz
For cascade compensation:
Geo
Cs)
S*+
7>Sf>3 3 *
Applying equation (210):
(shlt)
S*(7.&P+3.) +
Kv 
>f.l
**
0~ S f~
3S~P>s
(1)
System CE:
Mitrovic equations:
<it m &+
p
i+o
K = HhP
Solving equations
(l)
(2)
and
(3)
gives:
K=
(2)
/9T
(3)
1475
P = 37.9
Z = 0.373
Example :3
The bandwidth
radians/second.
for the
system
in
example 3.4
is
about 6.5
Redesign the system so that the bandwidth
is
reduced to 4 radians/second.
The introduction of another specification requires the
insertion of another parameter.
Use tachometer feedback around
the original plant and series compensator.
Ge
(s)
Then
gjifrgj
Applying equation (210):
/<v
**/./"
3*&P tK.IC.TT.
(l)
System CE:
S 4 + s 3 (y. S ,.P)
Mitrovic equations:
t
Sx
(3 .
S + ?.Spt KKr) +S (sSP+KKYt+K) +Ki~0
Km . A*jb.f*><^l*J^rt
{2)
System bandwidth equation
^^
1/2 =
Solving equations
(1)
w^
for
4:
11^2
through
(4):
K=
252
Kt = 0.16
24
P = 5.93
Z = 1.015
(z/;
4.
Sensitivity as a Specification.
now
Attention is
directed to the question posed during the
discussion of example 3.3.
If
more than one design satisfies
the specifications, which is the best design?
The fact that a
was not obtained indicates the need
specific solution
for another
equation which, for the system being developed, implies the need
for
Since the design specifications have
another specification.
already been incorporated into the solution,
it
follows that the
additional specification should be general in nature and
applicable to all systems.
One choice
for a general control
system specification
is
sensitivity which will be defined as
C*
where Sq
is
(Jtrn
it
dP/r
(Sit)
(41)
read as "the sensitivity of a function P with respect
to a parameter Q.
because
P)
"
(This definition is preferred
by the author
imparts more physical meaning than most other
definitions of sensitivity found in the literature, i.e.
it
that sensitivity is essentially the ratio of the percentage
in the function to the percentage
reason for this choice
is
change
states
change
in the parameter.)
The
the fact that a sensitivity specification
will force the final design to be realistic.
Specifically,
it
requires
the consideration of changes in the parameters of the physical
system which will result because of tolerances, aging and
environment.
On
this basis, the best design is the one
25
which not
only satisfies the design specifications, but is also able to
maintain the desired performance in spite of undesired parameter
variations.
Root Sensitivity
Use
of equation (41) requires definition of the function P.
Since sensitivity is being introduced as a means of insuring
compliance with the design specifications, P should ideally
be a function of all the design specifications.
However,
this presentation, only the root specification, i.e.
wQ
will be considered.
j? Q
in
and
Hence, the discussion will refer to
the root sensitivity of the system.
(Hereafter, root sensitivity
and pole sensitivity will be used interchangeably.)
Restricting attention to root sensitivity does not completely
preclude the determination or discussion of a best design.
fact, there are
In
two arguments which partially justify (and might
even suggest) this simplification.
One argument
is that root
specifications are more stringent than either the bandwidth or
error coefficient specifications.
The latter two are frequently
specified in terms of inequalities, i.e.
a certain
can be
minimum
or
built into the
specifications.
maximum value.
greater or smaller than
Therefore, some tolerance
design by working on the "safe side" of the
Another argument
is
based on the root
coefficient relations of the system characteristic equation.
the mobility of two of the systems' closed loop poles are
26
If
restricted by
means
of a sensitivity constraint, then the mobility
of the remaining closed loop poles is also restricted.
This
statement stems from the fact that the specified poles have
corresponding roots which must be factors of the characteristic
equation.
Now,
in order for these roots to be perfect factors of
the characteristic equation, the coefficients of the characteristic
equation must have remained reasonably constant for small
parameter changes.
This implies that the remaining roots, and
hence the remaining poles, also remained reasonably constant.
Since both bandwidth and the error coefficients are partially
dependent (and, in fact, totally dependent for low order systems
without zeroes) on the characteristic equation,
it
follows that
their sensitivity functions bear an approximate relation to the
root sensitivity functions.
Root Sensitivity Equations
Although the practical importance of sensitivity has long
been recognized,
was expended
it
in the
has only been
in recent years that effort
development of sensitivity as a useful tool.
The work of Kokotovic and Siljak,
(2)
major advancement towards this goal.
is
considered to be a
In essence, they used
the definition of sensitivity, equation (41), in conjunction with
the generalized Mitrovic equations, equations (26) and (27),
to obtain algebraic expressions for (what the author considers
to be) the
components
of root sensitivity.
27
Their results are not
only particularly suited for use in the design of control systems
based on a specified pole pair, but also simplify sensitivity
computations because they permit the exclusive use of real
variables in calculating the sensitivity of a function containing
complex variables.
Since the Kokotovic and Siljak sensitivity equations will
be used in subsequent examples, a brief review of their develop
ment will now be presented.
Differentiating the generalized
Mitrovic equations, equations (26) and (27), with respect to
a parameter
OJm
gives
^" j=^
+
'
f61{
^kl( J^
^ 4s? *>
and 2^1
(4
4><
(f)
= o
are the derivatives of
'
" 2)
jz
and
respectively and are related by the general equation
4K (?) = z[s
&
Numerical values for
Appendix
<3
$?4+**irf*o
+
where
II.
jzf,"
+*,$
+ t^ <C* wj
for various values of
(4
. 4)
are given in
Manipulation of equations (42) and (43) and
application of equation (41) gives
(45)
28
where
Bi
= ^wf
(f ;
&
/%?<**&* 4 K <r)
(4 7)
e2 =j
(48)
w$ <?^j
^ &*>
Q
C f ^ "* ^.^
Solving equations (45) and (46) for S
<?
Q and S^n
(49)
gives
(410)
if
(41 1L
5q ^~<3 D
where
4,
5;
a*
Be,
(412)
c,
^2.
(413)

A,
(414)
E
C*
Equations (410) and (411) are the desired sensitivity design
equations.
(Hereafter,
Sq and
SqI\ will be referred to as the
"component sensitivity functions.
simplicity is
number
masked by
their
dependence on the solution
of auxilliary equations
of the auxilliary equations
At this time, their true
")
of a
Suffice to state that the solutions
become exceedingly simple when the
location of a pole pair is specified
fQ
and
wQ
coefficients of the characteristic equation are
and the
known
will be clearly demonstrated in subsequent examples.
29
(aP)
This
Intrepretation of Sensitivity Values
Equations (410) and (411) may be used in two ways.
Substitution of a given set of parameter values into the right
hand side
of the
equations gives a definite sensitivity value
parameter values.
for a specific set of
Alternatively, the
assignment of a sensitivity value to the component sensitivity
functions give the parameter relations which must be satisfied in
order to obtain a system of the specified sensitivity.
In either case, the final design will be dependent
accepted/assigned value to sensitivity.
It
upon the
follows that some
guidelines for reasonable sensitivity values must be established.
Since the literature
is
lacking in this area, the following guides
(which are consistent with the original interpretation of equation
proposed by the author:
(41)) are
A.
Signs
(+ or ) of
only. Therefore, the
sensitivity values indicate sense
minimum value
implying that a function
is totally
of sensitivity is zero,
insensitive to variations of a
parameter.
B.
SJJ=
in Q.i.e.
is
if
indicates a linear variation in P due to changes
5% change
in
results in a
5% change
in P.
This
considered to be the maximum permissible value of sensitivity;
possible, systems should have sensitivity values
than one.
30
much less
c.
variation.
>1 indicates amplification of the parameter
This
generally considered undesireable for a
is
control system (but
may have application
in
some detection
schemes)
D.
As indicated
properties.
in
A above,
sensitivity values have vector
Therefore, the total root sensitivity, Si^", is
appropriately expressed as
(S<RT)2
(S
F)2 +
(S j^n)
(415)
Sensitivity as a Specification
The concept of sensitivity has been developed to the extent
that
it
can now be used as an additional system constraint
subject to analysis by the algebraic design method.
The
remainder of this section will be devoted to the design and
discussion of specific systems which must satisfy sensitivity,
as well as other, specifications.
Example 4
Reconsider example 3.3 in view of a specification requiring
minimum sensitivity
of the specified poles with respect to
variations in system gain, K.
Considering the system gain, K, as a parameter, the system
characteristic equation is
(1)
The sensitivity equations will now be devloped
in detail to
demonstrate the solution of the auxilliary equations.
equations (47) and (48) gives
3D
Applying
SOO Oj /OO Oz
/?/
/? 2
= /oo /z
Bz.
wn
after substituting
^t%
m /oo oz
=
wQ
o,
?se> i/2 o3
2 oco
= 5(2) 1 / 2 and values for
and sz^_^(0. 707) from Appendices
and
II.
jz
(0.707)
Although specific
values of P and K^ are unknown, inspection of equation
(1)
in
conjunction with the results of example 3.3 show that the
coefficients of the characteristic equation must have the
following values for all solutions
QZ=Z0
Q,
=/>
<* *
/,
which, when substituted into equation
(2),
gives
(3)
Taking the partial of each coefficient in equation
(1)
with
respect to K gives
Applying equations (49) and substituting, as above,
and
f or
k (0.707) gives
jzf
which, for Z =
c, * s
as obtained in example 3.3, reduces to
 o r
Cz
* $
>"
lJT ~
Applying equation (412) and substituting equation
(3)
gives
D ZSo x to 3
Applying equation (413) and substituting from equations
and
wn
(5)
gives
32
(6)
(3)
D** =
1
ZSoo
(7)
Applying equation (414) and substituting from equations
and
(5)
gives
>k
Substituting
(7)
and
(3)
(8)
= K = 50,
**'*&*/& (''*#*)
fQ =
into equations (410)
^
(9)
and
and equations (6)
and (411) gives
M/**r/J
3**Equations
0. 707
(8)
(9)
do)
Vz
(10) are the
desired design equations.
was needed, they
Since only one additional constraint equation
would normally be squared and added to obtain an expression
In this case, however,
for the total root sensitivity.
S^nis
Therefore, the minimum pole
observed to be a constant.
sensitivity with respect to K can be found by setting equation
(10)
equal to zero.
This gives
Kj.
= 0.1 which corresponds to
the solution of tachometer feedback only.
For
Kj.
= 0.1, S w n = 1/2 and S = 0.
k
Therefore, the analysis
predicts that a ten per cent change in K should produce a five
per cent change in
wR
while
remains constant.
predictions can be mathematically verified.
The system
characteristic equation for the specified value of
ForK=50:
w Q =7.07
ForK=55:
w =7.42
33
These
Kj.
is
= 0.707
Jf =0.708
Au>^
Therefore
^^ 9 <r%
Aj_
0m/
+%
Parameter Selection
The preceeding example raises several questions which
have yet to be discussed.
a parameter on
The
deals with the selection of
first
which to base the sensitivity analysis.
choice might be the parameter which
One
considered to have, the
is
widest variations during expected conditions of operation, e.g.
the gain of an electronic amplifier.
Another choice might be
similar to the first but restricted to plant parameters.
assumes the designer
is
guarantee that either is correct.
is naturally
This
able to select and/or control the
sensitivity of the required compensating elements.
system
It
may be possible
There is no
that the
insensitive to the parameter likely to have
the widest variations in value while
it
could be highly sensitive
to a parameter that is expected to have only minute variations
in value.
It is
also possible that, by minimizing the sensitivity
due to one parameter, the effect of another is amplified* The
>
answer, then, requires investigation of
It is
of
all
possible parameters.
believed that a thorough investigation of a particular type
system could lead to the establishment of general guides
for
the selection of the appropriate parameter(s) in other similar
systems.
Since such an investigation
is not
consistent with the
purpose of this paper, the author will be content to arbitrarily
34
select any parameter which will facilitate demonstration of the
algebraic method.
It
should also be noted that there are no restrictions as to
the number of parameters which
If
may be similtaneously considered.
the sensitivity of pole P with respect to parameters
and
Q3
is desired, the
component sensitivity functions
each parameter may be individually calculated
component sensitivity function due to
all three
each component must be considered, there
that individual
circumstance
components may cancel.
is that the
Aj, A2,
for
parameters is
,
Since the sense
is a possibility
Another fortunate
parameters do not increase
This is because equations (47), (48) and (412), i.e.,
B]_,
B2 and D, remain the same for all parameters.
Minimum
Sensitivity
Another point of interest in example 4.1
is the
ease with
which the condition of minimum sensitivity was obtained.
is not a
unique situation because
it
was possible
seems quite likely that
relations for
for
This
to obtain
results by inspection in other systems studied also.
it
Q2
computations for a situation considering
the root sensitivity with respect to
Nfold.
The total
the algebraic sum of the individual components, e.g.
of
Q^
However,
many systems the parameter
minimum sensitivity must be obtained by setting
35
the derivative of the sensitivity function equal to zero.
the problem
parameter
if
the sensitivity with respect to more than one
being considered.)
is
(Note
In such cases, care
taken to insure that the function to be differentiated
form which will indicate minima near zero.
must be
is in a
This is necessary
because minimum sensitivity was defined to be zero.
The above
stipulation can be conveniently accomplished by considering
either the absolute value or the square of the
sensitivity function, i.e.,
Use
/S^^j
or
component
(Sq n )
vice
S<?
**
of the total sensitivity function, equation (415), is also
appropriate.
Discussions thus
sensitivity."
far
have repeatedly used the term "minimum
This does not necessarily mean that minimum
sensitivity must be attained by, or even an objective of, every
design.
The specified sensitivity value, whether
it
be zero or
two, should be consistent with the other specifications. For
example,
if
the pole locations are only required to be accurate
within five per cent for satisfactory system response and the
parameter of interest
is
also expected to have five per cent
variations, a sensitivity value of one is sufficient.
if
Of course,
analysis shows that a lower value is attainable, the design
should be based on the lower value provided
it
can be achieved
without additional cost or degradation of some other aspect of
system performance.
36
The nature of the sensitivity function
design value
is
also of concern.
If
in the vicinity of the
the design value is
associated with a point on the sensitivity function curve where
the curve is very steep or irregular, the system is likely to be
more sensitive than an alternative design based on a (reasonably)
higher value which corresponds to a smooth portion of the
sensitivity function curve.
Example 4.2
portion of a control system has the forward transfer
function, G(s) = K/s(s +
with
= 1/2 and
jT
Overshoot
is of
2)
(s
+4).
Dominant closed loop poles
are required for the desired response.
prime importance; therefore
Q should be
maintained within 1% accuracy for [v anticipated gain variations
of
5%.
in the
Velocity and acceleration signals are required elsewhere
system and are therefore available for use as feedback
signals.
The problem as stated gives
and SjJ and
parameters.
specifications (pole pair
(Note that an additional specification
concerning S w n would normally require the insertion of an
additional parameter whereas a specification regarding the total
pole sensitivity would not.
permit
wQ
to vary,
if
Also note that the specifications
necessary, in order to maintain
approximately constant.)
37
fQ
s3
System CE:
2* (k + <K<x} ts(ftKkT)t K =
Mitrovic equations:
K * zs
zs K Ka
*"
(1)
(2)
Applying equations (47) thru (49):
At  31S Sao*.
/?
SOqz.  So,
a.
(3)
C^iZSKKv
C*,
=S(KaKr)
Unlike example 4.1, the coefficients of the characteristic
equation do not have fixed numerical values.
solution of the determinants for
D and
D,
Therefore, the
equations (412) and
(414), will be
hampered by the presence
At this point
it
will be convenient to solve equations
Then equation
for
and
K.
(3)
of all 3 parameters.
can be expressed
(1)
and
(2)
in terms of
only.
I2y
Kr=
^#
(4 )
Therefore
/),
C,
IZS2K
Az
=
*
IZS
C z * I/o/k
25/k
D and
7
0^:
Using equation
(5)
to solve for
Using equation
(6)
to solve equation (413:
(7)
^<
Inspection of equation
K*
(7)
IZSK ? I2SZ
shows that s =
38
for
K = 86.5.
Since
the only requirement is that
S,*
$:
0.2, this gain setting should
be considered as a possible design value.
Kj.
397 and K
0284
For K = 86.5,
For these values
loop pole is located at d" = 3.4.
are not completely dominant.
the third closed
Therefore, the complex poles
In addition, figure 41
sensitivity function is very steep at the point of
sensitivity.
and Ka = 0.0384.
The other design values are:
without proof that
becomes very
Kj
= 0.238
The complex poles are assured of being
dominant because the third pole
a value <
minimum
Again using figure 41, the system will be designed
on the basis of K = 600.
is stated
shows the
large.
It
is
is
now located
at <T~= 24
It
w
also approaches zero as K
S^n
f
also less sensitive than S/
0.05 at the design gain setting.
39
having
*K
*5/js/7/
vry
(S$)
vs
x^^^/.s
/or.
40
G,*/n (k)
4
5.
Conclusions
The purpose of this paper was to develop a design technique
based on the premise that design can be accomplished by solving
a set of algebraic simultaneous equations derived from the
system design specifications.
In addition to demonstrating the
feasibility of this concept, the examples in the preceeding
sections also showed that the method developed has certain
desirable characteristics.
is analytically simple,
Specifically, the algebraic method
capable of handling any number of
parameters, rapid, specific and accurate.
The method
is in
no way restricted to the exclusive use of
the design specifications considered in this paper.
The
specifications considered were simply selected to enhance the
In general, a system can be designed to satisfy
presentation.
any set
of independent specifications providing the specifications
can be expressed as algebraic equations.
It is
obvious, of
course, that the solution of the resulting equations becomes
more difficult as the number
reason,
it
is
of specifications increase.
For this
suggested that analysis be normally limited to
specifications which are considered to be prime, i.e.
which are exactly specified as opposed to others stated
of inequalities or approximations.
can then be used to determine
also satisfied.
41
if
The results
those
in
terms
of this analysis
the secondary specifications are
The inclusion
of sensitivity equations into the set of
was considered especially
constraint equations
again, the use of sensitivity equations is in no
upon the assumptions made
of root sensitivity to
in Section 4
demonstrated in example 4
was
of particular
way dependent
This
was
use
of root
logically
where a root sensitivity component
concern while the system sensitivity had no
restrictions whatsoever.
discussed, there
Here
significant.
concerning the relation
system sensitivity, i.e.
sensitivity as a performance index.
system
is
Although only root sensitivity was
no apparent reason why similar restrictions
cannot be imposed on other design specifications.
As previously indicated
in Section 4, there is a definite
need
for the study of specification/parameter sensitivity relationships
before sensitivity can become a useful design tool.
At the
present, the sensitivity effects of all possible parameters must
be evaluated with respect to each specification and to each other
before a meaningful design can be achieved.
Analysis of even
a simple system on this basis would require a prohibitive amount
of computation
because
of the large possible
number
of
parameter/
specification combinations available.
"Seek Simplicity and Distrust
It"
Alfred North Whitehead
42
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Clark, R. N. Introduction to Automatic Control Systems,
Wiley and Sons, 1955.
2.
Kokotovic, P.
and D. D. Siljak, "The Sensitivity Problem
Continuous and SampledData Linear Control Systems by
Generalized Mitrovic's Method" IEEE Transactions
(Applications and Industry) v. 83, Sept. 1964: 321324.
,
in
3.
Mitrovic, D.
"Graphical Analysis and Synthesis of Feedback
Control Systems", AIEE Transactions (Applications and
,
Industry)
v. 77, Jan. 1959:
476503.
4.
Thaler, G. J.
U. S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
California, "Algebraic Methods for Dynamic Systems
(Extension and Generalization of Mitrovic's Method)",
unpublished notes.
Thaler and Brown
Systems, 2nd ed
6.
Truxal,
J.
G.
Analysis and Design of Feedback Control
McGrawHill, 1960.
Control System Synthesis
43
McGrawHill, 1955
"^
o 1CD ^r
^ LO ?
00 CD CD C^ 00
O
O O CD CD
00
CO 00 o
^ O O
i CM CO
LO
o
o
O o o. CM CO CD ^ CD
O o o o o O O r i 1 o o O O
o CD
CD
o "^
o
o O
o ^
o CD
rH
co r "*r
CO t^
CD r>. CD
t> CD CO
CD CD CD
r> "^ i
LO CD CD <* lH
CO ID "^ ^r *?
iH CD it rH CD
CO CD t>
LO LO LO i
iH
CM LO CD
ll
<3*
rH
ii
ii
>Sl
iH
t^.
iH
iH
iH
t>
r>.
iH
iH
O
O
^ o
o
O o
CD LO ^r CO 00 CD
c^ CM CM "^ CD CD
t^ CD 00 CO t^
CD
CD LO CD CM
CO
CO CD
iH
CD
il
t^.
<tf
ii
CO
LO CD
o CM
00 CD o CD 00 r^
CO ^r CM CM t^ o CD "^ o ^ CD o
o o
o CD 00 ^
CO CD CD ^ o CO CO LO
CD
o CD CD CD ^r
LO CO
o CM r^
o CM LO CD o O 00 CD CO o "^ 00
o O O oo
O O o o o O
iH
r>
is.
il
o
o
o
o
o
^
o o
o CM r^
ii CD iH
CO t"^ 00
CD t* co
CM LO LO
00 CO
LO
CM
O
^ O
iH
iH
o O
CO CD
OiHCDiHCDLOCDCD'^CDOCD^rCD^LO^rrHCDiHO
OOiHOOLOCslCDCDOCOOLOCDCOCOr^COCMt^CMO
ir^OCD^i CO 00 CM 00
O O
OMDM^H^Nr
OOlCOMnnONiflSOHNNOlOHlDNNO
O O O
O oooooooo
t>*
rH
I
>&
Il
<
CO LO
I
00
o o oo
O o
o o o o o o o
ll
p
w
Oh
OOlNCOlDlO^NCOHO CMCOCDlOCDCOCMCDO
O050)N()NXmC0NO01NOl/)N0)HrtmO
OiHC0L0r^00CDOOOOCDCD^rOC000L0CMOO
CO
iH
CI
rH
CM CO ^T
ooiiCH^m^HioaiOH^oiiowiooi^HO
OCDCDCDCOr^COLOCOiHOCM^CDCDCMLOCOCMCDO
CO
"Si
iHOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
I
CM CM CO
I
OrHCMC0^TL0CDr>.00CDOiHCMC0^riOCDr^00CDO
CM
oooooooooo
I
CM
>Si
ooooooooooooooooooooo
OlOOlOOlOOlOOlOOloOlOOlOOlOOloO
OOHHNN(0()^^a)miClDNN00C0(J)(J)O
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrH
cooswiotDHOiHOOcoNN^room<joo
OOlONOO^'NS'JNOCONHN^roOOSO
iNoionNnHoaioooooo
o noiooNMnorcotDinroNinoiinHHO^oiNOitoooioocoo
>&
ro
s m O ^
I
00
I
o o
rH
iH
c
O
O O LO
t^ O
HCO
II
ID CM ID CO CO
l
rH
CO
CM CO
iH
llDLO^OO)COCO(COOO)Sr Ol H N tv Ol o
O
OrHCDOCOOCOCDOiiOCO^CDS(31S(D^HO
i
0)
"^
omcDiDiooinioNcooNcomNcncoNmNO
O^OCni
ILOiICOCMLOOtOtOiit^TffvLOiIOO
ocosrooiN^oiflcjiNHcoocJiaicO'j'Oioo
i CM i CM ^ CO
H CO
II
I
CDiHiHOOCOt^iHOCDCMOt^.
Or CO O CO O CO O
cDOrpi/)HcocoHco^oa)HNO)HincnioO)0
tD^CnSNtDO)^0)NOl/)(MO^COCOCT)HCDO
CD
CD O rI^CDCD^CDOLOr ^ ^ CM S rIt^CMO
CM
id in co OCOOOOO)CO(DH
CM N CM N CO
O lO N
o
i
Hill
CO O to
^T rH
I
co
*
iH
CO >iCDOi 00 >1.iO>HrHOi O i CO
CD O
O
OOCOCT)CMLOCOCDCv]^OmOCMiHLOCT>CMCX)iHO
I
O^CO^CONOIOIONOHCO^NNOOCOCOSO
OH^HHCOlOOtOtOlO^HlDOOCOtDCOCOO
CM
ON^CONNlOlOCMO^NOCM N O ^ COCO CO
CD
co.
)><
a,
a,
<
S3
{D
Ph
O
a
p
iH
.H
OHlDHCDifi'JOl^cnoCO^OM'miOHlDHO
OCDinCMiHCM^miDt^OOCMi N N O) CD H CO O
ONOmiOCOCOCONCOO^COOlOlOOHNlDO
I
_ CD
' *
ooLnmcocMOiicolocooocomcnnoocooio
I
CM CO
^ S
is
in
ONCOHCOONlD^OOOLOCOlONOCD^tOCSIO
ocnco<Moooc^LoocDomt^cvLoocDomr^o
OHcooiNO^iOLoooiomcnrtomcDooo
OiHCMco^inmmm^^cMOi in en co co CM
o
m n
CO
i
i
I
r}<
^lDO
oor^^omoooticoocMCDiHt^mcoco^rcDO
MTOCOCOCINHHOONCO^lONCnHCOlONO
iHrliliHCM
0<5 COCD^O'JlOCOtDOCDM 'T'OOCOM

O^COCMIDO^COCMCDO'J'CONCOO^OOCMIOO
_ CO
OOOHHNCSKMCOCO^^ifLOlOlDlOCOSNCO
A
I
CM
tf
CMCMNCMNNNCMCMCMCMCMCMCMNNCMCMNCMCM
oinomomomomomomoinoinomo
K OOHHCMCMCOCO'J^LOLOlOlOSNCOCOCncnO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOih
'7
"SI
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
No. Copies
1
Defense Documentation Center
Cameron Station
Alexandria, Virginia
2
4.
22314
Library
U.
3
S.
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif.
Naval Material Command
Department of the Navy
Washington, D. C. 20360
Dr. G.
Thaler
J.
10
Department of Electrica 1
U. S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Calif.
5.
LT Albert
B.
Lemanski,
USN
USS NORTON SOUND (AVM1)
FPO San Francisco 96601
6.
LT H. H. Choe
Naval Academy
Chinhae, Korea 96669
7.
LT C. H. Hyon
Naval Academy
Chinhae, Korea
96669
8.
Dr. D. D. Siljak
University of Santa Clara
Santa Clara, California
9.
Dr. Z. Slawsky
NOL, White Oaks
Silver Springs, Maryland
10.
CDRR.
L.
20910
Ashford
NOL, White Oaks
Silver Springs, Maryland
11.
20910
Mr. R. Kogge
NOL, White Oaks
Silver Springs
12.
20
Maryland 20910
Mr. Walt Blum burg
U.S.N. Marine Engineering Laboratory
Annapolis, Maryland 21402
i\9
13.
Mr. Seltzer
Code RASTRNG
NASA George Marshall Space
Huntsville, Alabama 35812
14.
Mr. D.
Flight Center
R. Towill
Welch College
of Advanced Technology
Cathays Park
Cardiff, Wales, Great Britain
to
UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA
(Security elmaaitieatlon of till; body of abatraet
1.
ORIGINATING ACTIVITY
R&D
and indexing annotation rnuK be entered whan
2a.
(Corporate author)
2b GROUP
REPORT TITLE
LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN USING ALGEBRAIC
DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (Type
4
Thesis
AUTHOR(S)
LT,
ol report and inetueive datee)
(Laat name,
li rat
name,
initial)
B.
USN
REPORT DATE
May
6a.
b.
METHODS
MSBE
LEMANSKI, Albert
6
L ASSIFIC A TIOH
UNCLASSIFIED
U. S. Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California
3.
the overall report la clae allied)
REPORT SECURITY C
7a.
TOTAL
9a.
ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBERfSJ
NO.
1966
CONTRACT OR GRANT
OF PASES
7b. NO.
49
NO.
OF REFS
PROJECT NO.
9b.
OTHER REPORT
NOfSJ (A ny other numbers that may be aeeifnod
thia report)
d.
10.
AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES
11.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12
SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY
Nayal Material Corrim&nd
Department of the Navy
Washington P C
2Q36Q
,
13.
ABSTRACT
A method
presented for the analytic design of linear control
systems. Design is accomplished by the solution of an algebraic
set of simultaneous equations derived from the design specifications;
Specifications considered include the system damping ratio, undamped
natural frequency, bandwidth, steady state error coefficients and root
is
sensitivity.
is shown to be fast, accurate, specific and capable
any number of parameters. In addition, the analytic
approach minimizes dependence on graphical techniques and trial
and error solutions.
The method
of working with
DD ,^,1473
UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification
"
UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification
LINK B
LINK A
14.
KEY WORDS
LINK C
WT
ROLE
ROLE
*T
INSTRUCTIONS
ORIGINATING ACTIVITY:
Enter the name and address
of the contractor, subcontractor, grantee, Department of Defense activity or other organization (corporate author) issuing
1.
imposed by security classification, using standard statements
such as:
(1)
the report.
REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
2a.
all
security classification of the report.
Enter the overIndicate whether
"Restricted Data" is included. Marking is
ance with appropriate security regulations.
to
be
(2)
in accord(3)
(4)
ized.
REPORT
DDC"
"Foreign announcement and dissemination of this
report by DDC is not authorized.
"U.
S.
Government agencies may obtain copies of
Other qualified DDC
this report directly from DDC.
users shall request through
26. GROUP: Automatic downgrading is specified in DoD Directive 5200. 10 and Armed Forces Industrial Manual. Enter
the group number. Also, when applicable, show that optional
markings have been used for Group 3 and Group 4 as author
TITLE:
Enter the complete report title in all
Titles in all cases should be unclassified.
If a nv.aninfcful title cannot be selected without classification, show title classification in all capitals in parenthesis
immediately following the title.
3.
"Qualified requesters may obtain copies of this
report from
"U. S. military agencies
report directly from
shall request through
DDC
may obtaimcepies
of this,
*
Other qualified users
capital letters.
4.
DESCRIPTIVE NOTES:
If
(5)
appropriate, enter the type of
report, e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual, or final.
Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is
If the report has been furnished to the Office of Technical
Services, Department of Commerce, for sale to the public, indicate this fact and enter the price, if known.
covered.
5.
AUTHOR(S): Enter the name(s) of authors) as shown on
or in the report. Enter last name, first name, middle initial.
The name of
If military, show rank and branch of service.
the principal author is an absolute minimum requirement.
11.
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES: The
total
NUMBER OF REFERENCES
13
It is
CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER: If appropriate, enter
the applicable number of the contract or grant under which
the report was written.
14.
subproject number, system numbers, task number, etc.
offi
OTHER REPORT NUMBER(S): If the report has been
assigned any other report numbers (either by the originator
96..
by
KEY WORDS: Key
words are technically meaningful terms
the sponsor), also enter this number(s).
AVAILABILITY/LIMITATION NOTICES: Enter any
limitations on further dissemination of the report, other than those
10.
DD
FORM
1
JAN
64
How
or short phrases that characterize a report and may be used as
index entries for cataloging the report. Key words must be
selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military
project code name, geographic location, may be used as key
words but will be followed by an indication of technical context. The assignment of links, roles, and weights is optional.
9a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT
cial report number by which the document will be identified
and controlled by the originating activity. This number must
be unique to this report.
or
highly desirable that the abstract of classified reports
There is no limitation on the length of the abstract.
ever, the suggested length is from 150 to 225 words.
PROJECT
NUMBER: Enter the appropriate
8d.
86, 8c,
military department identification, such as project number,
Enter the
Enter an abstract giving a brief and factual
be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall end with
an indication of the military security classification of the information in the paragraph, represented as ( TS), (S), (C), or (V).
8a.
NUMBER(S):
ABSTRACT:
be attached.
Enter the total number of
references cited in the report.
&
explana
summary of the document indicative of the report, even though
it may also appear elsewhere in the body of the technical report. If additional space is required, a continuation sheet shall
page count
should follow normal pagination procedures, Le., enter the
number of pages containing information.
76.
for additional
12. SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY:
Enter the name of
the departmental project office or laboratory sponsoring (paying for) the research and development. Include address.
REPORT DATE:
7a.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use
tory notes.
Enter the date of the report as day,
month, year, or month, year. If more than one date appears
on the report, use date of publication.
6.
"All distribution of this report is controlled. Qualified DDC users shall request through
1473 (BACK)
UNCLASSIFIED
Security Classification
%d
><M
DUDLEY KNOX
mm
5
2768 00416522
IBiiiiilSIH
Dudley knox library
I'.*.!/. ':,..'.
^!&PSW8ffl8wa
.v'.M.i
.'
:
'
'.v>:'!
; :''.
:,
;
^v!: ';v
:
'..'
BHIMffflffl
;',','.
v, ,.';;, K
'.
'.'
'
.'.
'..
Kwalfflfl Baal SB
'uW.
1
>
^iiiSwi
IP'
LIMY
v>
i,>
HH
ilm^^^^M