3 views

Uploaded by JAY PARIKH

DCS

- Comments on `the phenomenon
- Closed-loop Control of DC Drives With Controlled Rectifier
- An Overview of Seismic Hybrid Testing of Engineering Structures
- Cohen-Coon Tuning Rules _ Control Notes
- Second International Conference on Control, Modeling and Computing (CMC 2016)
- MCS-14-1-08 Multivariable Systems
- EPLRS-XF-I, Enhanced Position Location Reporting System
- Control System
- Closed Loop Response Introduction
- L-01(SM)(IA&C) ((EE)NPTEL)
- Step Response of Second order System
- On the Sliding Mode Control of a Magnetic Levitation System
- 201862_Chapter 1 Notes
- journal1.pdf
- 24
- Exinda Whitepaper UPM
- Control Systems
- Cse Assignment 2019
- servo.pdf
- AEI504

You are on page 1of 6

J. K. Yook, D. M. Tilbury, N. R. Soparkary

The University of Michigan

Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics

yElectrical Engineering and Computer Science

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

fjyook, tilbury, soparkarg@engin.umich.edu

Abstract

When a control system is implemented in a distributed fashion, with multiple processors communicating over a network, both the communication delays associated with the

network and the computation delays associated with the

processing time can degrade the system's performance. In

this case, the performance of the system may depend not

only on the performance of the individual components but

also on their interaction and cooperation. The approach

taken in this paper assumes that the control has been designed without taking into account the network architecture. A theoretical framework is presented which allows the

eect of time delays on the mechanical performance of the

system to be precisely modeled, and these models are used

to determine the optimal network architecture for the given

control system. A design example of a two-axis contouring

system is presented.

From monolithic, centralized control algorithms, there is

an increasing trend towards decentralized, distributed realtime control implementations. This trend may be observed

in application areas that range from robotic machining to

autonomous vehicle control. The changes are dictated by

pragmatic considerations that include inherent physical distribution of systems, control performance, and even economic factors. In distributed systems, modularity can be

used to manage complexity. If the physical system to be

controlled has natural points of division, a convenient way

to modularize the control scheme would be to allocate one

control module for each physical component of the system.

However, this decoupled control strategy can only provide

good overall performance if there is little physical coupling

between the system components, or if the desired performance does not inherently depend on the coordination of

the system components. In many cases, the mechanical system performance metrics (such as speed of response, trajectory following error, etc.) will be closely linked to the

computing system performance metrics (processor speed,

network bandwidth, laxity, quality of service, etc.).

In our research, we are working to explicitly characterize the

performance of the control system, integrating the mechanical system performance metrics with the computing system

performance metrics, and thereafter, to employ quality of

service (QoS) approaches from computer science to improve

the overall performance. In this paper, we assume that traditional techniques are used to design a controller for the

coupled mechanical system, ignoring any implementation

eects. We then show how the best implementation for a

given control system can be determined. Future work will

address mechanisms for designing or re-designing a control

system to take into account the limitations of the underlying computing infrastructure.

2 Background

Traditionally, control algorithms have been designed without consideration of their implementation details. However, when networks are used to carry feedback signals for

a control system, the limited bandwidth induces unavoidable communication delays. In order to successfully analyze

the behavior of a networked control system, the type and

location of these delays must be characterized, and their effect on the performance of the control system understood.

Although some parts of this problem have been studied previously, in this paper we study how the control architecture

| the allocation of control tasks to processing nodes on a

network | aects the mechanical performance.

When a network is used to transmit data, the delay between the initiation time of the message and the delivery

time is in
uenced not only by the speed of the network (bitrate) and message size but also by the amount of other trafc on the network and the communication protocol used.

The communication protocol also aects the reliability and

fault-tolerance of the networked system through its priority

assignment and error-correction schemes. In [5], communication protocol requirements for real-time systems were discussed in detail. A study of the delay characteristics of popular control networks can be found in [6]. It is well-known

that excessive delays in a feedback loop can destabilize a

control system [2]. Thus, in a distributed control system,

the eect of the network induced delays on the stability

of the system should be analyzed. Robust control [3, 9],

state prediction control scheme [1], and recursive information
ow system [8] have been proposed to compensate for

not allow a system with well-characterized and predictable

time delays to be optimized. Our work assumes that the

network time delays can be characterized, and focuses on

determining the eects of these types of delays.

The mechanical performance of a distributed control system depends on the control algorithms used and on the

hardware implementation of those algorithms. The eects

of synchronization [10], sampling frequency [4], and delay

[12] on the performance have been considered by other researchers. However, most of the existing work has focused

on the single-input, single-output case, with one actuator,

one sensor, and one processor. Even when multi-input,

multi-output plants are considered, the control is typically

centralized with the sensor and actuator data perhaps sent

over a network, but there is no distributed coordination

of physically separated mechanical systems. After control

engineers develop block diagrams that describe the system

behavior, the system integrator must answer fundamental

implementation questions. The choice of sampling rates,

processors, and communication protocol, will introduce different communication and computation delays in a system

which will in
uence the overall performance of the system

signicantly. Not only the magnitude but also the location

of the delay aects the system's performance. In the absence of delay, the performance of any system architecture

should be identical. However, since delay is unavoidable in

a distributed system, the architecture which most eciently

arranges the delays should be chosen.

Existing studies on distributed control systems typically assume a predetermined distributed architecture. The analysis of a distributed control systems has to overcome the

complexity inherent in a sampled system, and there is a

lack of nonlinear systems control theory to analyze or synthesize such sampled control laws with respect to output

performance indexes. For these reasons, no rigorous systematic approach to increase the performance of the system by

proper implementation has been developed, although guidelines and simulation studies are presented in [7, 12]. These

preliminary investigations are useful to show the feasibility

of distributed real-time control systems, but they are inadequate in terms of general principles that can be used to

guide the design of distributed control systems.

In this paper, we propose an analytical approach to characterize the eects of the control architecture on the mechanical performance, given a predened control algorithm. This

will allow the system integrator to quickly evaluate many

dierent scenarios and choose the best possible one. It will

also enable future work whereby the control architecture

will be designed together with the control algorithm.

3 Mathematical framework

In this section, we dene the performance criteria for mechanical systems, and then the performance degradation

function associated with dierent time delays. In Section 4,

we present preliminary analytic, simulation, and experimental results which validate this framework.

Within the context of this paper, the performance of a mechanical control system will be dened by how closely the

system tracks a given reference trajectory. That is, given a

desired reference trajectory r(t) for the system, the performance is the dierence between the actual system output

y(t) and the reference, P = ky , rk. Depending on the physical system and the application domain, one of many dierent norms may be used, including the maximum deviation

from the trajectory, the average error along the trajectory,

or the endpoint error.

The focus of this work is on developing methodologies for

implementing control laws using distributed computing systems, not on developing new control laws. Thus, the baseline performance will always be taken to be the expected

value of the performance criteria with no time delay. This

characterization allows us to isolate the eect of the time

delay from the control design.

Let r(t) be the reference, y (t) be the output of the system

without time delay, and y(t) be the output of the system

with the time delay. The nominal performance criteria is

given by

P = ky , rk

We assume that the controller has been designed well, and

that P is the \best" possible performance that we can

achieve. With time delay, the performance criteria becomes

P = ky , r k

= ky , y + y , r k

ky , y k + ky , rk

= kk + P

where represents the degradation in performance due to

the time delay.

In general, there may be many time delays which contribute

to the overall performance degradation function . Consider a given distributed control architecture with n nodes

(sensors, actuators, control modules) in the control system,

and communication and computation delays i;j as follows:

i;i = computation time at ith node

i;j = communication delay from ith to j th node

The performance degradation function will depend on all

of the time delays i;j . Its Taylor series expansion without

the higher order terms can be written as

(1;1 ; 1;2 ; : : : ; n;n ) = (0; 0; : : : ; 0) +

(1)

@ + @ + + @

@n;n n;n

Since (0; 0; : : : ; 0) = 0 by denition, the rst term on the

right hand side is zero. Thus, to a rst-order approximation, the degradation in performance due to multiple time

delays is equal to the sum of the performance degradation

due to each time delay. In addition, the performance degradation due to a particular time delay is a linear function of

0.02

0

0.01

Tc = 0.005 sec

Tc = 0.001 sec

Tc = 0.009 sec

0.01

Ty = 0.001 sec

Ty = 0.005 sec

Ty = 0.009 sec

0.01

0.02

0

a. r

time; [sec]

time; [sec]

b. c

c. y

= 1;1 1;1 + 1;2 1;2 + + n;n n;n

(2)

i;j i;j

The performance dierential functions can be computed analytically for linear systems and numerically for nonlinear

systems. The performance degradation function associated

with a control architecture can be found by summing the

products of the expected time delays with the performance

dierential functions as in equation (2), and this value can

be used to compare with other control architectures.

4 Framework Validation

In the context of a very simple mechanical system, we have

performed basic analysis, simulation studies and experiments to verify the mathematical framework presented in

Section 3.

For the study, we considered a single degree-of-freedom system, consisting of a motor which moves a mass along an

axis. Delays may occur in sending the reference and sensor

data over a network, or in computing the control algorithm.

Time delays in sending the actuator command over a network occur in the same place in the loop as the computational delay, and are not considered separately here. The

block diagram of the system, with the potential time delays

in the loop, is shown in Figure 1. To compute the performance degradation functions for each of the three time

delays, the modied Z -transform was used to compute the

eects of delays [2]. Using this method, we can account for

time delays which are not multiples of the sampling period.

Figure 2 shows the performance degradation functions as

functions of time for the three individual time delays; three

dierent magnitude of time delay are shown for each delay location. As predicted by the Taylor expansion in Section 3.2, these functions r ; c and y are linear functions

of the magnitude of the time delay.

0.02

0.02

Ty & Tc= 0.005 sec

Ty & Tc= 0.009 sec

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.01

time; [sec]

a. c & y

Ty & Tr= 0.005 sec

Ty & Tr= 0.009 sec

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0

Tr & Tc= 0.005 sec

Tr & Tc= 0.009 sec

0.01

i;j

i=1 j =1

0.01

time; [sec]

dierential function, , to distinguish from the performance

degradation function, . The performance dierential function i;j is given by i;j = @@ and represents the performance degradation due to a unit time delay between nodes i

and j . We also use i;j to represent the performance degradation function for a single time delay between nodes i and

j . Thus, the performance degradation function is given by

the expression

Tr = 0.001 sec

Tr = 0.005 sec

Tr = 0.009 sec

0.02

control modules.

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.01

sensing

delay

XX

=

0.02

K

s(s+a)

PLANT

computation

delay

Ts b(z+1)

2(z-1)

B 1+

PI TRACKING

CONTROLLER

reference

delay

REFERENCE

TRAJECTORY

GENERATION

0.02

0

time; [sec]

b. c & r

time; [sec]

c. y & r

combinations of delays.

of dierent types of time delays in the system are shown in

Figure 3. Comparing these results with those of Figure 2,

it can be seen that the eects of time delays are additive,

validating our hypothesis that the performance degradation

function for the entire system can be computed by adding

the individual performance degradation functions:

= r + c + y

= r r + c c + y y

The eect of control architectures and communication delays on the performance of the two-axis contouring system

was evaluated through simulation studies and experiments

on a small x-y table. This system contains two copies of the

previous single-axis system and a cross-coupled controller.

Although both axes are linear, the cross-coupled controller

has a non-linear term for estimation of contour error and the

performance criteria; the contour error [11] is a nonlinear

function of the axis-level errors and the reference trajectory.

Hence, we use simulations and experiments to validate the

hypotheses.

Although the control algorithms used were very simple and

would, in practice, almost always be implemented on a single processor, a distributed implementation was considered

in order to study the eects of delays on the control performance. We only consider one distributed implementation

containing two delays: x;y and y;x , namely the x-position

data to y-axis system and vice versa.

Figure 4 shows that the performance degradation function

is the sum of x;y and y;x although the 2-axis contouring

system is non-linear. Figure 6(a) also shows that the performance degradation function is a linear function of time

delay.

A small two-axis table with DC motors was used for the experiment. A picture of the experimental set-up is shown in

x 10 - 4

1ms

3ms

5ms

7ms

y,x

x,y

1 x 10

1ms

3ms

5ms

7ms

(x,y + y,x )

x 10 - 4

4

-6

enc. X

5,1

-1

4

0

time: (sec)

a.

10

15

time: (sec)

b.

x;y

10

15

5 time: (sec) 10

c. , (

y;x

3,5

1ms

3ms

5ms

7ms

x;y

15

+ y;x)

data

bank

6,5

3,1

1,7

servo

X

x axis

table

7

C/C

controller

5,2

2,8

servo

Y

4,5

8

y axis

table

4,2

enc. Y

showing the eight basic modules and nine potential communication delays.

Figure 5: The experimental set-up, with two computers

to implement the controllers on personal computers. Synchronization between the two computers was accomplished

using a hardware switch which was ipped to start the experiments. Network communication was done using the bidirectional serial port, and the results were used to compare

with the centralized architecture.

In order to examine the eects of dierent magnitudes of

delay, we needed to be able to specify the communication

delay. For that reason, only one computer was used for the

experiment with the time delay intentionally implemented

in the control algorithm. As shown in Figure 6(b), the

performance degradation function for small values of time

delay is a linear function of the time delay, as predicted by

the derivation in Section 3.2.

5 Design Example

In this section, we show how the performance degradation

function framework can be used to evaluate and compare

several dierent architectures for a distributed control system. A two-axis contouring system is considered again since

it is relatively low-dimensional yet has tight coupling between the axes. It is also nonlinear, showing the broad

applicability of the techniques.

llll vs. delay in communication delay

0.35

ll ave ll

ll abs ll

ll rms ll

ll max ll

16

0.3

0.25

ll ave ll

ll abs ll

ll rms ll

ll max ll

12

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0

(a) Simulation

(b) Experiment

the basic modules of the control system. A module can

be a system component such as a sensor or actuator, an

algorithm such as a servo controller, or a subsystem such

as an axis. The inputs and outputs of each module must

be dened, and their connections determined. The number

of modules will determine the amount of communication

that must be considered. By choosing the basic modules to

be as small as possible in this step, the best performance

can be guaranteed; however, smaller modules require more

combinations to be examined. For the example system,

we have chosen eight basic modules as shown in Figure 7

with all possible delays. The basic modules are numbered

from 1 to 8, and the time delay between modules i and j is

denoted i;j . For this logical control architecture with eight

basic modules, there are nine possible time delay locations.

After the basic modules and time delay locations have been

identied, the performance dierential functions associated

with each time delay can be found either analytically or by

simulation as discussed in Section 3. Computation of i;i

is not necessary since computation delay aects the system

in the same way as communication delay. Thus, i;i can be

computed using the following equation.

i;i =

X

6

j =i

i;j

(3)

added to all communication delays emanating from node i.

For a system with n basic modules, the maximum possible

number of the performance dierential functions that must

be computed is n2 . These performance dierential functions can be put into a matrix = [i;j ]. Each i;j can be

stored as a vector; the exact functional expression is not

needed to compute the performance degradation function

. Note that some of the i;j will be zero, indicating that

there is no coupling between the corresponding modules.

In addition, i;i is zero if there is no computational task at

the ith node. The performance dierential function matrix

for the example system is shown in Figure 8a. Note that a

number of entries in the performance dierential function

matrix are zeros indicating that there is no communication

between the respective modules.

a.

b.

shown in matrix formation.

SERVO

X

SERVO

Y

ENC

X

ENC

Y

C/C

CONT.

REF.

INPUT

ENC

X

ENC

Y

C/C

CONT.

REF.

INPUT

MOTOR

X

MOTOR

Y

1

SERVO MOTOR

X

X

a. Completely

distributed

1

SERVO MOTOR

Y

Y

ENC

X

ENC

Y

C/C

CONT.

REF.

INPUT

C/C

CONT.

REF.

INPUT

d. Independent axes

SERVO MOTOR

Y

Y

ENC

X

ENC

Y

REF.

INPUT

SERVO MOTOR

X

X

b. Lumped

servo/motor

SERVO MOTOR

X

X

SERVO MOTOR

Y

Y

C/C

CONT.

c. Lumped

axis control

2

SERVO SERVO

X

Y

C/C

CONT.

REF.

INPUT

ENC

X

ENC

Y

MOTOR MOTOR

X

Y

e. Centralized

for the example system is done by simulation. To compute

each i;j , the system is simulated with a delay i;j and with

no delay. The dierence between the two simulation results

divided by the magnitude of i;j is i;j . Associated with

each nonzero performance dierential function i;j , there

will be a time delay i;j . The matrix is shown in Figure 8b.

The magnitude of i;j will be determined by the architecture

of the control system and network and choice of computing

hardware and software. While depends on the logical architecture (block diagram) of the system, it does not change

with dierent implementation architectures. On the other

hand, depends only on the implementation architecture of

the system (number of processing nodes, network

P protocol,

operating system, etc.) The combination = i;j i;j i;j

determines the overall performance of the system.

Pnarchitectures

With n basic modules, there are i=1 i!(nn,! i)! possible architectures. For each potential architecture, the corresponding time delay matrix needs to be found. The

performance degradation function for all cases can then be

easily compared and the best architecture chosen. In this

design example, we tested the ve architectures shown in

Figure 9. The two extreme cases | completely distributed

and centralized | were chosen as candidates, along with

three other natural groupings in which the servo controller

is together with the motor.

The delay matrix contains the magnitudes of the communication and computation delays. These delays depend

on a number of factors related to the system implementation. Communication delay mainly depends on the type of

network, protocol used, data size, and number of nodes in

the system. Computation delay depends on the processor

power, operating system, and number of computing tasks

assigned to each node. Finding accurate characterizations

for computation and communication delay is another challenging problem and will not be addressed seriously in this

paper (see [6] for some work in this area). For the computation delays, we assumed that each basic module has a

task to be computed which takes ttk = 0:8msec, the time

required to switch between tasks is tsw = 0:3msec, a motor

module requires no computation time, and the computation delay is the time required for all other computation

tasks on the node to be completed. For the communication delay, we assumed that the message transmission

time is ttx = 0:5msec regardless of the size of the message,

and that the communication delay is the time required for

all other nodes on the network to transmit their messages.

Let N be the number of nodes on the network, and nk be

the number of basic modules assigned to node k. Using

these assumptions, the communication delays are equal to

i;j = ttx (N , 1), and the computation delay of a basic

module i on node k is i;i = ttk nk + (nk , 1)tsw . Using

these values, the time delay matrix can be computed for

the ve dierent control architectures shown in Figure 9.

Even though a simplied model was used to estimate ,

well dened communication and computation delay characteristics, if available, can be employed to more accurately

determine the time delay matrix . In this case, each different priority assignment for the same architecture would

result in a dierent time delay matrix .

After computing and , can be computed using equation (2). One advantage of using the proposed performance

degradation function framework is that does not need to

be recomputed or modied for dierent architectures. In

fact, only must be recomputed for each dierent architecture which is considered.

The performance degradation function for each architecture

is computed and shown in Figure 10, along with the individual components i;j . Note that (solid line) in Figure 10 is

of a similar magnitude for each architecture tested. This is

due to the fact that the two-axis system is symmetric, and

the communication delays are all equal, causing the terms

i;j to largely cancel with each other. This phenomenon

was noted in Section 4.1. If the delays are not equal, this

cancellation will not occur. Thus, when choosing an architecture, both the overall performance degradation function

as well as its components i;j should be as small as possible. Thus, for the given assumptions on the magnitudes of

the time delays, the lumped servo/motor architecture (b)

would be the best implementation of the system.

If the reference trajectory is well-characterized (such as a

step, ramp, or the circular contour considered here), then

the Fourier transforms of the performance dierential func-

x 10 -3

x 10 -3

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.8

-0.8

10

time: (sec)

15

a. Completely

distributed

-0.8

10

time: (sec)

15

b. Lumped

servo/motor

x 10 -3

10

time: (sec)

c. Lumped

axis control

x 10 -3

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.4

-0.4

-0.4

-0.8

References

x 10 -3

0.8

-0.8

10

time: (sec)

15

d. Independent axes

10

time: (sec)

15

e. Centralized

each architecture shown in Figure 9 is plotted. The dotted line indicates i;j and the

thick solid line indicates .

the best 's to minimize the performance degradation function. In this case, not only the impact of the magnitude of

each delay to the performance of the system but also the

interrelation between the delays can be seen algebraically.

This information can be used to choose a communication

protocol which can guarantee the desired relationships between dierent time delays.

Although more and more control systems are being implemented in a distributed fashion with networked communication, the unavoidable time delays in such systems impact

the achievable performance. In this paper, we have presented a mathematical framework for analyzing the eect of

time delays on the mechanical performance of distributed

control systems. Once a control algorithm has been designed, the eect of dierent implementations of this algorithm can be determined using this framework. By dening

the performance degradation function as the dierence between the performance of the system with and without time

delay, we are able to isolate the eect of the individual time

delays from the eect of the controller. Once the individual

performance dierential functions have been computed, either analytically (for linear systems) or through simulation

(for nonlinear systems), the overall eect of the time delays

on a distributed system can be computed in a straightforward manner. Many dierent implementation architectures

can be evaluated quickly using these techniques, allowing

the system integrator to choose the best one. In addition,

information gained in this analysis procedure can also be

used to choose a control network protocol which can guarantee the desired relationship between dierent time delays

in the system. In the future, we plan to examine new ways

to design control algorithms for distributed systems which

can take fully utilize their advantages but minimize the impact of the unavoidable time delays.

15

[1] H. Chan and U . O zguner. Closed-loop control of systems over a communication network with queues. International Journal of Control, 62:493{510, 1995.

[2] G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, and A. Emani-Naeini.

Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems. Addison-Wesley,

Reading, Massachusetts, third edition, 1994.

[3] F. Goktas, J. M. Smith, and R. Bajcsy. -synthesis

for distributed control systems with network-induced delays. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and

Control, pages 813{814, 1996.

[4] P. K. Khosla. Choosing sampling rates for robot control. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference

on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 1987.

[5] H. Kopetz. A communication infrastructure for a

fault-tolerant distributed real-time system. Control Engineering Practice, 3(8):1139{1146, August 1995.

[6] F.-L. Lian, J. M. Moyne, and D. M. Tilbury. Performance evaluation of control networks for manufacturing

systems. In Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (Dynamic

Systems and Control Division), 1999.

[7] U . O zguner. Decentralized and distributed control

approaches and algorithms. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pages 1289{1294, December

1989.

[8] F. Paganini. A recursive information
ow system for

distributed control arrays. In Proceedings of the American

Control Conference, volume 6, pages 3821{3825, June 1999.

[9] A. Ray. Output feedback control under randomly

varying distributed delays. AIAA Journal of Guidance,

Control, and Dynamics, 17(4):702{711, 1994.

[10] D. Simon, E. Castaneda, and P. Freedman. Design

and analysis of synchronization for real-time closed-loop

control in robotics. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems

Technology, 6:445{461, July 1998.

[11] K. Srinivasan and P. K. Kulkarni. Cross-coupled control of biaxial feed drive mechanisms. ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 112:225{232,

1990.

[12] J. Yook, D. Tilbury, K. Chervela, and N. Soparkar.

Decentralized, modular real-time control for machining applications. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference, pages 844{849, 1998.

- Comments on `the phenomenonUploaded byDJ_U
- Closed-loop Control of DC Drives With Controlled RectifierUploaded byathan1949
- An Overview of Seismic Hybrid Testing of Engineering StructuresUploaded byAfham Ahmad
- Cohen-Coon Tuning Rules _ Control NotesUploaded byCarlos Tomey
- Second International Conference on Control, Modeling and Computing (CMC 2016)Uploaded byCS & IT
- MCS-14-1-08 Multivariable SystemsUploaded byapi-19442940
- EPLRS-XF-I, Enhanced Position Location Reporting SystemUploaded byAnonymous i8jqGxiN9
- Control SystemUploaded byAoife Caballes Superticioso
- Closed Loop Response IntroductionUploaded byJohn Cariaga
- L-01(SM)(IA&C) ((EE)NPTEL)Uploaded byMarvin Bayanay
- Step Response of Second order SystemUploaded bySrirambhaskar Pm
- On the Sliding Mode Control of a Magnetic Levitation SystemUploaded byJohn Connor
- 201862_Chapter 1 NotesUploaded byYuHua
- journal1.pdfUploaded bysidamine
- 24Uploaded byPhạm Ngọc Hòa
- Exinda Whitepaper UPMUploaded bymathurashwani
- Control SystemsUploaded byKunal Jain
- Cse Assignment 2019Uploaded bypintu17
- servo.pdfUploaded byramesh_h2002
- AEI504Uploaded byapi-26787131
- ITAUploaded byMisael Fernando Gamba Gomez
- Bab 2 Control TheoryUploaded byShantyBukandShantee
- pid controlUploaded byapi-272723910
- Optimal Load Shedding With the Support of Dynamic Generation Control in Electric Power SystemsUploaded bywvargas926
- Computation of MathematicalUploaded byClaudir Oliveira
- 4.6.01-GB (1)Uploaded byMuhd Khir Razani
- MotorPosConLab222.pdfUploaded byGoran Miljkovic
- Paper 110Uploaded byGarudaOzo
- 1 1.CURS Living in a Network-Centric WordUploaded bySierra November Victor
- Fp_a.1_cypc_research of Agc and Unit Active Power Coordination Control Strategy Inhydropower Station for Giant Hydro-generator UnitsUploaded bymhdsoleh

- ESP DesignReview[0]Uploaded byssirupa
- HexUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- ltbusbarlit.pdfUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- 01 Lugs, Connectors, Crimping ToolsUploaded bySwapnil Kini
- Unit-3-HRM.pdfUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Apex Summato3Uploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Lth Rc FusesUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- 04 Coal RequiredUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Power System ProtectionUploaded bymqahtany1
- Specification for VFD DrivesUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- SIEMENS-type 2 Co Ordination ChartUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Softstarter SpecificationsUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- LT CapacitorUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- LT MotorUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Atlas -Tech Data SheetsUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- HIL Shreeram 17.12.08Uploaded byJAY PARIKH
- HT Capacitor Tr..Uploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Spec HT CapacitorUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Spec_Battery & ChargerUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- En-NC05!02!2007-High Voltage Capacitor Testing AreaUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- rgbesrUploaded byNanang Jaka Perdana
- Esp ControllerUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Electrostatic Precipitator KnowledgeBaseUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- Gis Write UpUploaded byJAY PARIKH
- 31. Mv CapbankUploaded byRey Arthur
- ABB CapcitorUploaded byJAY PARIKH

- Lecture 11_Future Directions in Optical NetworkingUploaded bySolust
- Coaching 1288Uploaded byabcede
- BarefootIntoCyberspace_BeckyHoggeUploaded byBecky Hogge
- OTDR ModulesUploaded byshahramkarimi76
- Multi Radar Tracker MRTUploaded byZayd Iskandar Dzolkarnain Al-Hadrami
- Veritas Cluster ConceptUploaded byhalkasti
- Sinus Penta BrochureUploaded bytsampourise
- COM600 - UsOUploaded byIsaac R-s
- CradlePoint MBR1000 DataSheetUploaded byserena8673
- Re_ MTS Play QA results + all the major issues.pdfUploaded byRebecca Ward
- RFB ProtocolUploaded bythedhwl
- HPE VMware RecipeUploaded byontt
- 6.3.1.1 Lab - Securing Layer 2 SwitchesUploaded bynganga
- CIFS Client InternalsUploaded byNguyenHD
- NSX-T Installation GuideUploaded byMichal
- Docu of EsmsUploaded bysivakrishna
- w520_databladUploaded byChua Hian Koon
- Orbit Man26 1327 User GuideUploaded bylams_21
- Automation Check ListUploaded byrenjithv_4
- 118Uploaded byQuan Nguyen
- REFERENCE-OnLY LifeSize-CompetitiveMatrix Summary 0813Uploaded byAchilles Aetos
- Health and Human Services: bulet06Uploaded byHHS
- Infinitecom Pricelist November 02 2017Uploaded byjumel blando
- History Performance_FDD HO Neighbor Relation Analyisis for PS_20170303113320Uploaded byAzfa Haidar
- EOPM Tide System User Manual (Lo Res)Uploaded byPatty DomGo
- Using+DiscoverText.pdfUploaded byYas@786
- AirLive_N.Power_Manual.pdfUploaded bysoj1ca
- Si Option Slot & Option Card User Guide V2.12Uploaded byAptaeex Extremadura
- Keep AliveUploaded byAllan Roberto
- Cisco Introduction IP QoS (Course)Uploaded byneoasw