66 views

Uploaded by Kawshigan Kawshigan

MIMO

- EML5311_Final_Project_Questions
- Twin Rotor System - Copy
- MIMO Rotor System Installation
- Twin Roters
- Design Modeling and Fabrication of Twin Rotor Control System
- KXN series
- Qadeer Ahmed MS Thesis 2009 Updated Original
- Decoupling Control of a Twin Rotor Mimo System Using Robust Deadbeat Control Technique
- Power Control Algorithm
- Anesthetic Machine
- HVAC Controls and Building Automation Systems
- Manual Controlador de Procesos Burkert 110
- Fuzzy Control Rules
- MATLAB
- Selftuning Techniques on PLC Background and Control Systems with Selftuning Methods Design.pdf
- PID Tuning with Neutrosophic Similarity Measure
- Servo Tuning Tutorial
- Speed Control of DC Motor Using Fuzzy Logic Techniques
- 05361327
- Air Flow System Process Control (DCS)

You are on page 1of 7

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260420694

Rotor MIMO System in Simulation-Based

Platform using Fuzzy Logic Controller and PID

Controller

ARTICLE in THE OPEN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE JOURNAL FEBRUARY 2014

DOI: 10.12966/ojai.02.01.2014,

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

11

82

4 AUTHORS:

Ahmed Abdulelah

University Of Kufa

1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

29 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Samsul Noor

33 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Retrieved on: 27 June 2015

DOI: 10.12966/ojai.02.01.2014

Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

System in Simulation-Based Platform using Fuzzy Logic

Controller and PID Controller

Ahmed Abdulelah1, 2, Azura Che Soh1,*, MohdKhair Hassan1 and SamsulBahariMohd Noor1

1

Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Faculty of Engineering, University of Kufa, Iraq

Abstract - In this paper, the PID and fuzzy logic controllers are designed to control the pitch and yaw angles of a twin rotor

MIMO system (TRMS) in simulation-based platform. Two controllers were used in each case, one for pitch angle and one for

yaw angle. The twin rotor MIMO system designed as decoupling system in simplification. The tuned controllers gave a very

good response in the simulation. These results will provide a solid base for designing the final optimized real-time controller in

the next stages of the research.

Keywords - Fuzzy Logic Controller, PID Controller, Twin Rotor MIMO System

1. Introduction

Control of a helicopter is much more difficult to achieve than

controlling a fixed-wing aircraft. This is because the

fixed-wing aircraft will eventually reach some steady-state

flight condition if a pilot releases the controls, but a helicopter

will eventually diverge from the steady-state if the pilot

releases the control without constant corrective control input.

The difficulty in developing a controller for a helicopter is due

to the inherent instability and high degree of coupling in the

aircraft. Hence, a good controller has to be designed, so that

the helicopter could maintain at a specific position for an

extended period of time, and the movement of helicopter

could be controlled and always in steady-state. Helicopters

control systems have less spectacular performance than the

conventional fixed wing aircrafts due to the high non-linearity

of the system and strong coupling effects between the rotors

governing its movement, which hugely complicate the design

of a reliable and robust controller. All that added to the huge

difficulty of deriving a dynamic model for the helicopter form

a serious obstacle in the way towards designing a convenient

control system.

Although the coupled and nonlinear dynamics of the

helicopter make the altitude control a difficult task, numerous

control techniques are applied to control the flight system.

Flight control system of an aircraft requires a controller to

maintain flight path that is safe and smooth, which can be

controlled either by traditionally or by intelligent controller.

angle of an aircraft for flight control in order to stabilize the

system when the airplane is flying. This can be achieved by

reducing the error signal to the system to test the performance.

Traditional control techniques such as proportionalintegral-derivative (PID) control and linear quadratic

regulator (LQR) have shown to be insufficient to control such

a platform [1-4]. Hence, intelligent control was developed for

flight control system such as neural network, fuzzy logic and

genetic algorithms which have shown to be a very efficient

and relatively easy way to utilize with respect to other

conventional control methods that have been applied to

helicopters [5-9].

Intelligent control techniques are taking great strides

towards being the mainstream technology for control

engineering due to the development in computer systems.

These techniques provide simpler tools (simpler and accurate)

for control than conventional control as a result of depending

on computers for numerical calculations and getting rid of

complex analytical calculations. Helicopter system that

consists of twin rotor is one good example of highly complex

dynamics and non-linear system.

Twin rotor experimental devices are very useful in the

study for nonlinear control systems in laboratories due to

their nonlinear complex dynamic nature [10]. The system

dealt with is a coupled MIMO plant [11]. The voltages were

supplied as open loop inputs to each rotor of the machine

(pitch rotor and yaw rotor). Meanwhile the output observed

were the pitch and yaw angles. The aims of this research

the controller to achieve the best possible performance when

apply at real-time. However, it is essential to successfully

simulate it using system model available prior to applying

the design on the real device.

1

1

1

2

2

2

J eP 2 J eY 2 mheli ( x cm

y cm

z cm

) (2.5)

2

2

2

gravitational constant, l cm = center of mass length along

helicopter body from pitch axis, J eP = total moment of inertia

In order to obtain the mathematical model of the system, the

angle in the pitch axis and the angle in the yaw axis

represent 2-DOF. The pitch axis is positive when the nose of

the helicopter moves up, while the yaw axis is positive for a

clockwise rotation.

The free-body diagram of the 2-DOF helicopter is

illustrated in Fig. 1. There are thrust force Fp and Fy for the

pitch and yaw axis respectively. The torque of pitch is being

applied at a distance rp from the pitch axis and a yaw torque is

being applied at a distance ry from the yaw axis. The

gravitational force Fg pulls down on the helicopter nose. The

center of mass is at a distance of lcm from the pitch axis along

the helicopter body length [1].

The Lagranges equations for a 2-DOF system are written

as

dL

L Q1

t dq1 q1

and

dL

t dq1 q 2

(2.6)

(2.7)

the difference between the kinetic and potential energy of the

system, L T V , while q is the generalized coordinate.

Then, the generalized forces applied on the generalized

coordinates are

Q1 K ppVm _ p K pyVm _ y B p

(2.8)

Q2 K ypVm _ p K yyVm _ y B y

(2.9)

where Kpp and Kpy are torque constant of pitch and yaw motor

propeller actuators above pitch axis; Kyp and Kyy are torque

constant of pitch and yaw motor propeller actuators above

yaw axis; Vm_p is pitch motor voltage, while Vm_y is yaw motor

voltage; and Bp and By are viscous rotary friction acting

corresponding to the pitch and yaw axis.

Using the Euler-Lagrange formula, the nonlinear

equations of motion of the 2-DOF helicopter system are

derived from the coordinates and forces defined in (2.8) and

(2.9). The equations of motion obtained are

Fig. 1. Free-body diagram of 2-DOF helicopter [2]

The Lagranges method is used to obtain the dynamic

model of the system. The pitch angle, and yaw angle, are

called as generalized coordinates or also called as Lagrangian

coordinates. After the transformation of the coordinates using

the pitch and yaw rotation matrices [12], and the conventions

of 2-DOF helicopter modeling [13], the center of mass is

represented in Cartesian coordinates with respect to angle

and of the aircraft is given by

(2.1)

(2.2)

z cm lcm sin

(2.3)

to calculate the Lagrangian of the system. Thus, the total

potential energy, V and total kinetic energy, T are

(2.4)

2

( J eP m heli l cm

)

mheli l cm

sin cos

(2.10)

2

( J eY mheli lcm

cos 2 )

2

K yyVm _ y K ypVm _ p - B y 2mheli lcm

sin cos

(2.11)

These equations are linearized about zero and the linear

state-space model (A, B, C, D) describing the voltageto-angular joint position dynamics of the system is found. The

general states-space representation is written as in (2.12). The

state vector and output vector for the 2-DOF helicopter is

defined in (2.13) and (2.14) where and are the pitch and

yaw angles respectively.

d

x Ax Bu ;

dt

d

y Cy Du ;

dt

(2.12)

d

d

x T , ,

dt dt

(2.13)

y T ,

(2.14)

3. Controller Design

3.1. PID Controller

Two PID controllers were used to control each of pitch and

yaw angles. The use of separate controllers for each angle

helps in decoupling the effects of counter moments between

the pitch and yaw [14]. However, the PID design process

faces difficulties due to the fact that there is no clear transfer

function to connect each input with its respective output.

There are many reasons prevent using conventional

tuning methods such as Ziegler-Nichols method. One of the

reasons is that PID controllers deal with linear processes

effectively, but not effective if used for non-linear systems.

In order to use PID for nonlinear process, the process has to

be linearized around an equilibrium point [15]. The

linearized system incorporates a system of non-zero type

transfer function critically stable, making the conventional

tuning methods fail to deliver. Added to the point mentioned

above is that most tuning methods aim at regulatory control

performance and dont give good results for servo control.

The inherited instability of the system contributed to making

most tuning methods not suitable to be used.

The difficulties mentioned above lead us to three options.

Option 1 is using decoupling technique that linearizing the

system equations to make two separated transfer functions

responses to be tuned by two PID controllers. Option 2 is by

using a trial and error technique to get good responses.

Another option is using an intelligent optimization algorithm

such as genetic algorithm.

From the three options above, the first one is time

consuming and incorporate complex analytical calculations.

So it was disregarded as an option in the research. The trial

and error technique option is selected and used because it is

simple and does not require a lot of time, but the results are

not to be considered seriously as there is no optimality

analysis attached to them. These results will be used to give

a general idea about the difference between real time and

simulated systems. Intelligent optimization is to be

considered later to get the best optimization for the PID.

The PID used is of the standard parallel PID form. Using

the following standard PID equation (here we have to tune

K p , K i & K d while their respective time constants values

are included in the overall gain value)

u K p K i e(t )dt K d

de(t )

dt

(3.1)

the error signal

The values of the derivative and integral gains were set to

(0) at the beginning, while the proportional gain value is tune

up. The proportional gain is known to cause increased

overshoot, so it was tune up as small as possible without

affecting the speed of system response but with a steady state

error (increasing the proportional gain would decrease the

steady state error but would not eliminate it). Next, the

integral action was added. The steady state error was brought

to zero but then derivative action was added to the controller

to deal with the overshoot. Finally, fine tuning the values of

the controller gains was done. It is important to note that

during the tuning process, the values of all three gains were

tuned as small as possible in order not to cross the physical

system limits and to avoid frequently saturating the motors

voltages.

The above procedure was done for both pitch controller

and for yaw controller. After extensive tuning using trial and

error method as mentioned above, Table 1 shows the values

for pitch PID controller reached.

Table 1. Gains Value of PID Controller

Parameter

Kp

Ki

Kd

Pitch

Yaw

0.9

1.4

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.3

Two fuzzy controllers are used. One is used to control the

pitch angle and another one is used to control the yaw angle.

The fuzzy controller has two inputs (error and error

derivative/change in error) and only one output for each of

pitch and yaw angles. This scheme is much easier to design

and maintain than trying to make a four input (pitch error,

pitch error derivative, yaw error and yaw error derivative)

and two output fuzzy system [16].

The input error e(t ) to the fuzzy controller is the

difference between current angleand the previous output

angle, while derivative error e(t ) is the difference between

current error and the previous output error.

(3.2)

e(t ) y(t ) y(t 1)

(3.3)

different between the current pitch/yaw angle and the desired

reference pitch/yaw angle.

(3.4)

e(1) r (t ) y(t )

The pitch/yaw control is controlled by the pitch/yaw

position which determines the stability of the aircraft. Hence,

controller output is the input control signal, which is the

voltage that enables change in pitch/yaw angle where the

to correct the position so that error is reduced.

The inputs chosen for each fuzzy controller is becoming a

typical choice in fuzzy control. The error and the rate of its

change are used in most practical and theoretical designs of

fuzzy controller [17]. However, the controller action would

depend on the error and its derivative. For that reason the

controller in most cases is considered similar to a

conventional PD controller. Especially that the human

reasoning used for the construction of controllers rule base

in this case is very similar to depicting a PD control action.

So, generally we would expect a very good tracking

performance from a fuzzy controller after tuning. But

whether steady-state performance is good or not remain to be

seen.

Generally, there is no known procedural methodology to

design fuzzy controllers that can be applied commonly [18].

In designing fuzzy controllers, for most cases we have to

tinker with different numbers of membership functions,

membership functions kinds, membership ranges, rule base

variations or even implication and defuzzification rules. That

is all based on trial and error approach. Even the use of

artificial intelligence algorithms such as genetic algorithms

to tune the fuzzy controller parameters is essentially an

arbitrary search in possible values to minimize a cost

function, which is - at its core - a trial and error search done

by a computer.

Consequently, trial and error was used to design our

fuzzy controller. So considering the fuzzy system output as

the process input voltage, first nine rules controllers were

used for both pitch and yaw (denoting a three membership

functions for each of error and change of error in each

controller). But the results were bad and the controllers

responses were changing sharply. So an increase in the

number of membership functions came next with five for

each fuzzy variable. In this fuzzy controller, five fuzzy sets

are used for both pitch and yaw controllers to represent the

values of the input variable and output variable. The fuzzy

sets are NL (Negative Large), NS (Negative Small), ZR

(Zero), PS (Positive Small) and PL (Positive Large). Both

negative and positive differences are necessary to be defined

because it is the difference between the current pitch/yaw

angle and the previous pitch/yaw angle. Showing resulted in

a 25 rule bases for each controller. The system gave a good

tracking to input changes but very large steady-state errors

were recorded, it is about 40 degrees for pitch and 15

degrees for yaw.

Many modifications to the fuzzy systems were applied. It

was possible to reduce the yaw angle error to a low values

but high overshoot was still present, while the pitch angle

response kept a high error values until seven membership

functions were used for error and output that the error was

reduced but with a high overshoot values.

It was clear that the system requires some sort of integral

action or a similar solution. So in the next step an integrator

was added in parallel with the fuzzy controller to add the

error integral to the controller output. The resulted steadystate errors were zero for both pitch and yaw angles but a

very strong oscillation appeared at the output responses. Also

a very large overshoot appeared for the pitch angle response.

Next, the fuzzy system output was considered as the change

in the output voltage, so that integrating it would yield the

process input voltage. That allowed us to insert the integral

action in series with the fuzzy system. For pitch angle, the

results were good. Oscillation was also present but to a less

degree than with the parallel solution. However, yaw

response was oscillating heavily with large amplitudes due to

the system weight components being perpendicular to the

rotational direction of the yaw, unlike the pitch where the

weight gives extra damping to the system.

In order to get rid of the oscillation the following method

was used. Based on the consideration that the fuzzy systems

outputs is the change of voltages required for the motors,

these values were added to a constant voltage values that is

assumed to keep the angles on zero degree outputs. These

constant voltage values were obtained by experimenting with

the simulation model in open loop connection. The target

was to get values that keep the system around a zero angle

outputs for both pitch and yaw at the same time. The

obtained value for pitch motor voltage is around (12.5 v) and

for the yaw motor voltage is (-3.9 v) as shown in Fig. 2.

So the controller outputs represent the required voltage to

keep the angle at zero degree added to the required voltage

change to transform the angle to the new desired input value.

That is similar to the integral action but without the over

reactive affects that drives the response to the set-point value

which results to oscillation. This design will not guarantee a

zero steady-state error, but if the constant voltage values were

chosen carefully the error is very low and can be considered

negligible while the oscillation is vastly reduced

The simulated step response of positive and negative values

for the system under PID control is shown in Fig. 3. The

pitch and yaw response under variable pitch inputs is shown

below. The figure shows that the yaw angle is barely affected

by varying the pitch angle. That is a very good decoupling

by the controller. The pitch response in the other hand is

excellent.

reflected in the model) and this high voltage is applied for a

fraction of a second, this sudden changes to the motors

voltages could have an undesired effect when the system will

be applied in real-time.

Fig. 4. Pitch and yaw shows response to step input for yaw

(PID controller)

Fig. 3. Pitch and yaw show response to step input for pitch

(PID controller)

Performance wise, the following values were obtained for

the system; Rising time is (0.5 sec), overshoot is (5.6%) and

settling time is (1.82 sec). Obviously, due to the integral

control the steady-state error is zero. However, even though

we tried to prevent the voltage from reaching saturation

values, it would still reach saturation if the pitch angle is to

be increased. But that would not happen if the pitch angle is

to be decreased. That is primarily due to the pitch motor

being operated at around (12.5 v) while in the marginal

equilibrium operation. That voltage is close to the upper

voltage saturation limit for pitch motor (24 v) but far from

the lower voltage saturation limit (-24 v). It remained to be

seen what are the effects of this operation in real-time. Even

though motors are protected from higher than limit voltages,

the motors could be slow in reacting to the sudden rise and

drop in the voltage values which would incorporate

undesired effects as the motors electro-magnetic reaction is

not considered in modeling the system.

The pitch and yaw response under variable yaw input

with PID control is shown in Fig. 4. The system has an

excellent response regarding both pitch and yaw responses.

The decoupling works so well that the pitch angle is barely

affected by yaw angle change. While the yaw angle

stabilized quickly with the rising time being (0.65 sec), the

overshoot not more than (7.4%) and the settling time merely

(2.58 sec). As with pitch response, the steady-state error is

zero for this case. But yaw voltages always reached voltage

saturation limits when the system reacts to applying a change

to yaw angle set-point. As mentioned earlier, even though

pitch angle as in Fig. 5.This is a very good performance. It

can be seen that the coupling effect is brought to minimal.

Steady-state error is as low as (0.1 degree) at highest values.

System input tracking is excellent. The response is fast with

settling time at (1.61 sec) and no effective overshoot when

increasing the angle over the zero value, while the response

is over-damped otherwise. In the other hand, despite the

output voltage reaching the saturation value when the angle

of the pitch is increased, the frequency of oscillation in the

output voltage is pretty low. That is very promising for realtime experimentation in the later stages. As that is not

expected to drive the motors coils to a state of hysteresis due

to the rapid voltage changes.

Fig. 5. Pitch and yaw shows response to step input for pitch

(Fuzzy controller)

desired value is shown in Fig. 6. The coupling effect is

almost removed. That denotes a very good performance

again. As is the case with the pitch angle, the yaw angle

response also didnt yield a zero steady-state error but it is

kept at a very low level (0.28 degree) at most. Settling time

is also great with (3.7 sec) denoting a nice speed to the

response. Overshoot doesnt appear when increasing the

angle due to the system being over damped, and is very

minimal when the angle is decreased. The output voltage

values for yaw motor are similar to that of the pitch motor.

The oscillation frequency is very low and is limited in

amplitude. However, the voltage also reaches saturation limit

but only when the desired angle is reduced.

optimization technique to be applied in the system controller

at real-time.

References

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Fig. 6. Pitch and yaw shows response to step input for yaw

(Fuzzy Controller)

5. Conclusions

It can be concluded from the above simulation results that

the PID controllers worked very well to decouple the

dynamic effects between pitch and yaw angular velocities

while providing a very good performance. However, these

controller need to be tested on the actual system in real-time

to see whether it can be an adequate solution for the system.

Major difficulties are expected from the voltage saturation at

the motors inputs. This is due to the motors electro-magnetic

time response not considered in the system model.

The final modified fuzzy controllers show a very good

performance and it is an indicator that next stage of research

may be a success when the system is applied real-time. It is

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

Lee, S., Ha, C., and Kim, B. S. (2005). Adaptive Nonlinear Control

System Design for Helicopter Robust Command Augmentation,

Aerospace Science and Technology, 9, 241-251.

Franko, S. (2009). LQR-Based Trajectory Control Of Full Envelope,

Autonomous Helicopter, World Congress on Engineering, 1,

351-356, London, UK, July, 2009.

Wahid, N., Rahmat, M. F., and Kamaruzaman, J. (2010). Comparative

Assessment Using LQR and Fuzzy Logic Controller for a Pitch

Control System, European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol.

42(Issue 2), 184-194.

Vishnu, G. N., Dileep, M. V., and George, V. I. (2012). Aircraft Yaw

Control System using LQR and Fuzzy Logic Controller, International

Journal of Computer Applications, 45(9), 25-30.

Chen, T. T., and Li, T. H. S. (2001). Simplex-Type Fuzzy Sliding

-Mode Control, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 124(2), 249-261.

Amaral and Crisostomo, T. G. B. (2001). Automatic Helicopter

Motion Control Using Fuzzy Logic, IEEE International Conference on

Fuzzy Systems, 2, 860-863, Melbourne, Australia.

Kadmiry, B., and Driankov, D. A. (2004). Fuzzy Flight Controller

Combining Linguistic Model-Based Fuzzy Control, Fuzzy Sets and

Systems, 146(3), 313-347.

Cavalcante, C. M. C., Cardoso, J. J., Guimares, J., and Neves, O.

(1994). Application of Fuzzy Control to Helicopter Navigation,

Brazil-Japan Joint Symposium on Fuzzy Systems, 1, 72-74, Campinas,

So Paulo.

Cavalcante, C. M. C., Cardoso, J. J., Guimares, J., and Neves, O.

(1995). Design and Tuning of a Helicopter Fuzzy Controller, IEEE

International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 3, 1549-1554, Yokohama,

Japan, March.

Mullhaupt, Ph., Srinivasan, B., Levine, J., Bonvin, D. (1997). A toy

more difficult to control than the real thing, European Control

Conference, p. 6.

Rahideh, A., Bajodah, A.H., Shaheed, M. H. (2012). Real time adaptive

nonlinear model inversion control of a twin rotor MIMO system using

neural networks, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,

25(6), 2012.

Dynamic Equation for the 2 DOF Helicopter. Maple Modeling

Worksheet. Qunser Inc., February 2006.

Quanser 2-DOF Helicopter. User and Control Manual, Qunser Inc.,

February 2006.

Vu, T. N. L., Lee, M. Y. (2010). Independent design of multi-loop

PI/PID controllers for interacting multivariable processes, Journal of

Process Control, 20(8).

Prashant, M., El-Farra, N. H., Panagiotis, D., Christofides, A. (2005).

Method for PID Controller Tuning Using Nonlinear Control

Techniques, AIChE J., 51(12).

Jan, J. (2007). Foundations of Fuzzy Control, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kevin, M. P., Stephen, Y. (1997). Fuzzy Control, Addison Wesley

Publishing Company.

Jlna, G. (1997). Neuro-fuzzy Controllers: Design and Application,

PPUR presses polytechniques.

- EML5311_Final_Project_QuestionsUploaded byRaminShamshiri
- Twin Rotor System - CopyUploaded byRimita Saha
- MIMO Rotor System InstallationUploaded byhamzaahmedmir3711
- Twin RotersUploaded byDouglas Sanchez
- Design Modeling and Fabrication of Twin Rotor Control SystemUploaded byanampx
- KXN seriesUploaded byRey-an A. Moreno
- Qadeer Ahmed MS Thesis 2009 Updated OriginalUploaded byqadeer62
- Decoupling Control of a Twin Rotor Mimo System Using Robust Deadbeat Control TechniqueUploaded byEyad Al-Mohatwary
- Power Control AlgorithmUploaded byAinur Rofiq
- Anesthetic MachineUploaded byKousha Talebian
- HVAC Controls and Building Automation SystemsUploaded bymthein87
- Manual Controlador de Procesos Burkert 110Uploaded byFabián Herrera
- Fuzzy Control RulesUploaded byJorgeAlfaroArce
- MATLABUploaded bySmile Selva Kumar
- Selftuning Techniques on PLC Background and Control Systems with Selftuning Methods Design.pdfUploaded byEnio Diaz
- PID Tuning with Neutrosophic Similarity MeasureUploaded byMia Amalia
- Servo Tuning TutorialUploaded byJack Ro
- Speed Control of DC Motor Using Fuzzy Logic TechniquesUploaded byMayank Nandwani
- 05361327Uploaded byNaveen Kumar
- Air Flow System Process Control (DCS)Uploaded byJoannaJames
- Start Up ChecklistUploaded byCoryna Florentyna
- Process Control Chp 1Uploaded bykishoreprithika
- CPC RepportUploaded byAnonymous bJr2LoNGqq
- Optimization of Automatic Voltage Regulator Using Genetic Algorithm Applying IAE, ITAE CriteriaUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- NI Tutorial 3782 EnUploaded byFrancisco Flores
- Chap 3Uploaded byamol76
- Simulated AnnealingUploaded byJorge Moya

- Advanced Solutions for Paraffins Isomerization-English-2Uploaded bydimas
- How CAESAR is Calculating NEMA23 Moments About Resoltn Point - Intergraph CADWorx & AnalysisUploaded byTon Phichit
- RM6Uploaded byjobpei2
- Mil Std 449dUploaded byNguyen Ho Long
- Mirror TracingUploaded bydaphnereeze
- Basic Hydraulic MachineryUploaded byNBRellos
- Gravitational Potential Due to Rigid BodyUploaded byRizka
- Excel Tutorial SumproductUploaded byharry_1981
- History of MathematicsUploaded byJude Metante
- PositiveDisplacementBlowerCalculations_brochureMay2017Uploaded byhardik033
- Optical ComputingUploaded byrakeshranjanlal
- Seeds and FertilizersUploaded byMagdy
- ST03N Workload MonitorUploaded byMike Beis
- HPC500Uploaded byTien-liberalPham
- DNA Unit Review WorksheetUploaded byAndreaLibonik
- 1 Electric CircuitUploaded byRazi Haziq
- Interview Preparation Doc_MicrosoftUploaded byTilak Raj Chandan
- Harden AbilityUploaded byPratyush Vanshraj
- mi-pr-la.docxUploaded byVenkata Krishna Chidaraboina
- Transport Phenomena Data Companio.pdfUploaded byLavanya Chandrashekar
- SSP 279 2.0 FSiUploaded byภูเก็ต เป็นเกาะ
- 6.Online Voting SystemUploaded byRubilu Ruby
- Taverner, T. - Chess Problems Made EasyUploaded byEdward Miller
- Electric Propulsion Review Arvindh SharmaUploaded byVijay Anand
- CCNA Dis3 - Chapter 5 - Routing With a Distance Vector Protocol_ppt [Compatibility Mode]Uploaded byhttp://heiserz.com/
- characteristics of ghee.pdfUploaded byLAWRENCE
- Spillway Design For A Composite DamUploaded byIRJET Journal
- 01-NORA_Steam Power Plant.pdfUploaded bymasriza
- AVTB_VDJKZ202Uploaded byLuncan Radu
- A survey of stent designs.pdfUploaded byGabriel Lopez Barajas