Electrical Engineering in Japan, Vol. 116, No.

6, 1996
Translated hrn Denki Wai Ronbunshi, Vol. 1 1 5 4 , No. 8, August 1995, pp. 984-991

Robust Control with Pole Assignment in a Specified Region for

Systems Under Parameter Perturbations; Application to a
Nonlinear System

MASANAO OBAYASHI, KOTARO HIRASAWA, JUICH1 MURATA

and AKIO KAJIWARA
Kyushu University

SETSUO SAGARA
Fukuoka Institute of Technology

specified regions in the complex left half-plane, and to

obtain definite responses. In other words, regional
assignment of poles is necessary in order to ensure
definite responses rather than accurate pole placement.

SUMMARY
This paper deals with the problem of determination
of feedback gains in order to achieve required performances under linear time invariant perturbations. Based
upon the Lagrange multiplier method, the proposed
method determines feedback gains that ensure both robust
stability and robust performance for a linear uncertain
system. It is applied to a nonlinear crane system control
design. The nonlinear system is first partitioned into some
uncertain linear systems. Then the proposed method is
applied to each uncertain linear system. Application is
easily demonstrated and, consequently, a nonlinear crane
control system can be easily designed. Finally, it is shown
in a numerical example that the proposed method is
effective.

On the other hand, in implementation of a control

system, the mathematical model used for design (nominal
system in what follows) may well prove different from
the actual system; in other words, one should allow for
modeling errors. In this context, a steady control system
is desirable that ensures definite responses even when
modeling errors occur. Moreover, control systems are
often needed that provide not only definite response but
also minimization of certain evaluation functions.
These requirements have increased recently, and
there is considerable interest in design methodology for
control systems with multiobjective optimization that are
able to fulfill diverse requirements concurrently. One of
the methods available is the Lagrange multiplier method.
Examples of estimating feedback gains using Lagrange
multiplier are reported in [l]. In [l], regional pole
assignment is studied to ensure robustness, nominal
performance and definite responses; feedback gains are
found to fulfill all of the requirements. That study deals,
however, with a nominal system, and pole assignment
does not allow for modeling errors, variation of physical
parameters and other uncertainty factors. Moreover,
proposed in [ 11 is an algorithm to find optimum feedback
gains, which is a repetitive algorithm using specified
initial gain values and the method of steepest descent. In
doing so, however, stepwidth often must be very small to

Key words: Robust control; pole placement; feedback gain; optimization; crane; nonlinear control.
1. Introduction

There are many specifications and requirements in

designing a control system. A fundamental problem in
control theory and design of real control systems is that
of closed-loop pole assignment relating to placement of
poles in appropriate points and then the securing of
appropriate responses. Many studies have been dedicated
to accurate placement of closed-loop poles at specified
points. In actual practice, however, accurate pole
placement is more often than not unnecessary; in fact, all
that is necessary is to place closed-loop poles within
lG4

ISSN0424-7760/96/~-0104
0 1996 Scripta Technica, Inc.

Perturbed system:

ensure that suggested gains do not expel closed-loop

poles beyond specified regions; this means there will be
a great number of repetitions.
At the same time, where specified regions for
placing poles are enclosed by curves of second order
(such as circles or parabolas), gains can be found from
necessary conditions for optimum, without using the
method of steepest descent. Regions of such shapes for
pole placement seem quite reasonable in practical terms
as well. In this context, we have proposed a method to
determine optimum feedback gains that allows for
parameter perturbations and ensures placement of poles
within specified regions, irrespective of whether such
perturbations exist or not, and makes it possible to
minimize evaluation functions for both nominal and
perturbed systems without resorting to the method of
steepest descent.

Here, Ap =A, + AA, Bp = B. + AB while x E K, u E IT

are state and control inputs, and AA, AB are matrices
representing uncertainty:
S

i=l

i=l

Here Ei, Fi are matrices with elements of 0 or 1 representing structure of perturbations, and a,,bi are scalars
representing the magnitude of perturbations, their
maximum values are assumed to be known. Control rules
are as follows:
U ( t ) = -Kzn(t),

The proposed method was then applied to nonlinear

systems. In this paper, explanations are given using the
crane system as an example. In case of crane, the length
of bearer rope has an effect on dynamics of bogey
system, and simultaneous control of load lift and bogey
position suggests a nonlinear system. Previously, load lift
and bogey motion were treated separately as linear
control systems. Examples of nonlinear control are few in
this field, e.g., hzzy logic control reported in [2].

up(t)= - K a p ( t )

(4)

Here n pertains to nominal, and p pertains to perturbed.

The following lemma is to be used here.
Lemma 1. [3] If a region R for pole assignment is
defined as:
r r-i

Q := {Z

+ j v : f ( ~v ,) = C C fijzd < 01 ( 5 )
i=Q j = O

More specifically, a nonlinear system was considered as a set of piecewise linear systems related to
parameter perturbations, and applying the aforementioned
method to these linear systems allowed for the design of
a control system to ensure definite responses for the
original nonlinear system. Furthermore, efficiency of this
method was validated using the specific example of crane
control.

a necessary condition for the eigenvalue of matrix A to

exist within R is that in the following generalized
Lyapunovs equation:
M

C Y ~ ~ A ~ X ( =A -Q
* ) ~

*: conjugate

i,j=O

transform

for VQ = Q*> 0, there exists X = x+ > 0. Sufficiency of

Lemma 1 can be verified with positive definiteness of X
for some Q [4]. Here,
represents CEO
while i, j , r are nonnegative integers. Besides, M is an
integer, and yr/E C is a constant that depends on the
shape of a specified region. Particularly, with r = 2,
that is when R is enclosed with a curve of second order,
M = 2.

c&o

2. Controlled System and Preliminary

Considerations
Assume a controlled system with the following
uncertainty.

cj=;;

Now define control rules (4) so that feedback gain

Nominal system:

K meets the following specifications.

Control specifications.
Here (C, A,,
controllable.

Specification 1. Before and after perturbation in the

system, closed-loop poles must exist in specified region

B,) are considered observable and

105

n:

For deduction of this representation of Specification 2,

see Supplement 1.

- BnK) C Q
X(Ap - B p K ) C Q

X(A"

4. Optimization Problems

(7)

4.1 Evaluation function

Specification 2. Following evaluation h c t i o n , Jmust be

minimized:

The problem under consideration may be redefined

as follows: feedback gain is to be determined to minimize
the evaluation function equation (I 0) under the constraint
of as.(9) and (1 1). This makes it possible to deduce a
repetitive algorithm for feedback gain K based on the
necessary condition for optimization of Lagrange function. With this algorithm, the initial value of gain K is set
so that a closed-loop pole falls within a specified region.
However, the algorithm will not converge if such gain K
occurs at some intermediate stage that the pole goes
beyond a specified region. With the method proposed in
[l], this problem is avoided by narrowing stepwidth in
the method of steepest descent. However, as was stated in
the introduction, in doing so the number of repetitions
increases. In this context, we propose an algorithm to find
gain directly from necessary conditions, without using the
method of steepest descent. To make sure that closedloop poles do not go beyond specified regions, a term is
added to the evaluation function (explained in what
follows).

Here 0 I p I 1, Q > 0, R > 0. To reduce the number of

parameters specified, the same R is used in Eqs. (6) and
(8).
3. Another Representation of Control
Specifications

Aforementioned Specifications I and 2 can be

represented as follows using Lemma 1 and Supplement 1,
respectively. As to Specification 2, minimization of J
seems complicated for all x,(O), x,(O). However, minimization for an average value of x,(O), x,(O) gives control
rules that are identical to the initial problem's solution
161, and here the minimization problem is treated in terms
of average. In doing so, Eq. (8) transforms into (lo),

Positive definite matrices P,, P4 that are used in

constraint conditions for pole assignment have the
following properties as was confirmed by numerical
examples:

(1 1).

Specification 1
Lemma 1 suggests the following bounds for poles
before and after perturbation, respectively,

Relation between positive definiteness of Pi ( i = 3 , 4)

and pole assignment regions
Pi + negative definite value : closed-loop pole -+
beyond region

Pi + positive definite value, big : closed-loop pole +

at region's boundary

Specification 2

Pi + positive definite value, small : closed-loop pole

+ within region

Here, arrows represent transfers of Pi and closedloop poles. By "big" is meant that the left upper minor
determinant's sum is big. Basically, Pi is positive definite
if the closed-loop pole falls within a specified region.
However, gain K is also a function of Pi, and the simple
existence of Pi inside a region is not sufficient while the
magnitude of positive definite value may be optimized as

Here tr stands for trace, while P,, P2are solutions of the

following Lyapunov's equations:

P ~+
A ATPI
P ~+
A ATPZ

+ K T R K - Cz=orj,jAiP3(AT)J= o
+ K T R K - C$=ori,jA'P4(AT)J= o
(1 1)
106

well. To place a closed-loop pole closer to an optimum

point within a specified region, a new term related to P3,
P., is added to evaluation function equation (lo), and the
new expression for evaluation function is:
J

tr(P1) ( 1 - p) . tr(P2)
+PC;=~
Cy=l{detPj(i)}2 (12)

Here, detP,(i) is ith minor determinant of Pj( i = 1, ..., n).

Here AP,(i) is ith minor determinant detP,(i) of matrix n

x n, differentiated with respect of Pj's components Pk,,
(k,
1 = 1, ..., n), that is:

Since this additional term does not belong essentially to evaluation function, it is necessary to reduce as
much as possible its influence on optimality of gain K
determined by setting p(0 < p << p).

Deduction of necessary condition.

The problem to be solved can be defined as follows:

Feedback gain is to be determined to minimize the
evaluation function equation (12) under the constraint of
Eqs. (9) and (11).
4.2 Determination of optimum gain K

The following are conditions for optimum feedback

gain K.
Necessary conditions of optimality.

To meet Specifications 1 and 2, optimum gain K must

satisfy the following necessary condition:

Here A, E R" x n (i = 1, ..., 4) is symmetrical matrix. By

differentiatingL with respect to K, P,,P2,P3,P4,A,, 4,
A,, Ad, Eqs. (13H17) are derived. (Q.E.D.)
Therefore, the algorithm to find optimum gain K" is as
follows.
Step 1. K is found at i
R for pole placement:

0, Ki= KO for specified region

Step 2. Weights Q, R, and

evaluation function.

p,

p are set for quadratic

Step 3. In Eqs. (17) and (14), K= Ki is fixed, and

solutions are found for P,, P4,A,, A2.
Step 4. P3, P,, and A,, 4 are inserted in Eqs. (15) and
(16), and solutions are found for P,,P2,A3, A,. In doing
so, K = K j is fixed.
107

Motion of bogey

Bogey

...............
$ Subsystem 1
...............
Subsystem 2
2............

Motion of load king lifted

...............
$ Subsystem n
...............
Fig. 1. Nonlinear crane system.

linear subsystems with different rope length. In doing so,

let us apply the aforementioned method of robust pole
assignment to those subsystems.

Step 5 . Inserting found variables in Eq. (13), solution for

K is found, and this K is taken for Ki + ,. If M is equal or
more than 3, Eq. (13) becomes an equation of higher
order with respect to K.
Step 6. If I lKi + I - Kil I < E (0 < E << l), K is
supposed to be K , + ,, and the algorithm is terminated.
Otherwise, Step 3 is repeated for K, = Ki + I . If the
algorithm does not converge, then Step 1 is repeated with
a slightly larger p.

More specifically, the maximum rope length is

divided into n partitions. Let A!,denote the length of rth
partition, then the length of central point of rope in i-th
subsystem ii = C, , i - A!, + A!/2. To introduce parameter
perturbations from adjacent subsystems, let A, = H.55
Alp This system divided in n partitions is shown in Fig.
1.

With all steps, Eqs. ( 1 4 x 1 7 ) are linear equations

for respective unknown quantities. In case region R is
enclosed with a curve of second order, M = 2 which
means that Eq. (13) is linear with respect to K [4]. In
other words, solution can be found without resorting to
the method of steepest descent.

Define the state variable vector as [bogeys

position, ropes swing angle, bogeys velocity, ropes
swing angle velocity]. Then the following expression
may be written for bogeys system.

5. Application to Nonlinear Crane System

An =

0 -mg/M

- Z1/M

0
0

5.1 Approximation of nonlinear control system

The crane system comprises two systems, namely,

system of bogeys motion and system of load lift [ 5 ] , as
shown in Fig. 1.

*A=

Simultaneous motion of bogey and lift of load

make the system nonlinear. The length of rope changes as
load is lifted. Fixing this length of rope, and considering
its change as a parameter perturbation makes it possible
to treat the system as linear. Let us partition the
maximum rope length into several appropriate intervals,
and think about the system as a combinatorial set of

ro

0
0

0
0

B, =

,AB=

0
0
0

0
0
0

-GAi/(li2M)
108

0O

Fig. 2. Compensator.
Assumptions were made that 1: - A: = I:, 2, = D + G,
2, = M + m. Here, M is the mass of bogey (kg); G is the
transformation coefficient for torque/driving force (N/V);
D is the transverse friction coefficient (kgls); li is the
rope's length (m); m is the mass of load (kg); and g is
gravity (ds').

Since up = - AX, similar transformation of the system (2)

gives the following J,, Jp:
Jn
Jp

+
+

= Jr[XT(Q KTRK)X]dt
= JT[XT(QK T R K ) X ] d t

(24)

Now perform a further transformation of the evaluation

b c t i o n in order to employ the Lagrange multiplier
method. Assuming in Supplement 1 that x,(OrX,'(O) = D,
Eqs. (20) will appear as follows:

5.2 Compensator

As a compensator, for both bogey's transverse

motion system and load's lift system, a servo system was
used as shown in Fig. 2. Here y , is crane's target
position, K,, K2 are gains to be determined, and there
exist n pairs according to n partitions of rope length.

J =

P . tr(DP1)+ (1 - P ) . tr(DP2)
+P C4=3CZ1{detPj(i)}2

(25)

Here D is 5 x 5 matrix, and D(5, 5 ) = y: while all other

elements are zeros. P,,Pz are solutions of the following
Lyapunov's equations:

(1) Evaluation function

To minimize cost in both nominal and pertubed

systems, the evaluation function of Eq. (8) is used.

P ~ A + A ~ P ~ + K T R K=+ Q
o
~A+A~P~+KTRK+Q
=

(26)

Here A = A - BK.As to A", the following substitutions

were made in A , B: A, = A, + hA, B, = B, + AB.

(3) Robust pole assignment

(2) Servo system

As to pole assignment region, there are approaches

that suggest an angular domain with pole's real part being

less than certain value. However, with actual control
systems, the feedback signal cannot be made too large.
Besides, in some cases, setting a big negative value for
pole's real part may cause strong perturbations in state
variable's response. Thus we did not employ this method
with which pole's real part may happen to be a big negative value. Instead, circle with center +x and radius of r(0
< r < a) was taken for region zt, which allows setting
limits of magnitude for both real and imaginary parts of
the pole. In this case, the necessary condition (Specification 1) for closed-loop poles to exist within R both
before and after perturbation, reduces to the following:
for some Q, solutions P,(= P,,P,) of the equations given
here must be positive definite values [3, 41:

If we define e = y - y, from the system (1) follows

that
X
e

= AX+BU
= [o

1]X

(22)

A = [ An .
0]
..=[:],X=[:]

Here c = [ 1 0 0 01. Assuming that u,

hx

= - K,x,

+ K,e

=-

X = [A-BK]X

K=[K1

-K2]

(23)

109

Table 1. Specification of subsystems

Design method

Table 2. Pole assignments of subsystem I

-24.7474

AqAT
AP4AT

-9.2766

-5.5278
- j3.7565

function weight Q = 101, R = 1, p = 0.5, p = 0.01. The

region for pole placement was specified as a circle with
center -7 and radius of 6.5. Number subsystems in ropes
partitioning was taken for 2. Given in Table 1 are rope
length of subsystems for both standard robust servo
method [5 J,and the proposed method.

+
+

As to determination of optimum gain to achieve

desirable response, and to minimize evaluation function,
the problem is to find feedback gain K that satisfies the
constraint condition equations (26) and (27), and at the
same time, minimizes the evaluation function equation

In doing so, the bogey shown in Fig. 1 is moved to

the target position 0.4 m to the right from left end, and
at the same time, the load is lifted 1.25 m from the
bottom position. Let us compare, under the same conditions, the standard servo system method and the proposed
method. Pole assignments of two subsystems for both
methods are given in Tables 2 and 3.

(25).
(5) Numerical example

As to choice of initial KO in Step 1, several values

were taken arbitrarily within the region; with other
parameters being the same, all optimum gains and minimum evaluation values were the same. As to the influ-

The following numerical example of a crane system

is used. M = 40, I) = 300, G = 700, m = 2, g = 9.8,
maximum rope length = 1.5 (m), bogeys target position
= 0.4 (m), loads lift distance = 1.25 (m), evaluation
110

Table 3. Pole assignments of subsystem 2

Standard servo
method
Nominal poles

6::::;
I -0.4166

Proposed method
Nominal poles

111

-0.5804

-3.9696

(I
1
I1

-24.8420

-1.0234
+ j2.1397
-1.0234
- j2.1397

/I +
11

ence of the third term in Eq. (25) exerted on the sum of

the first and second terms, the sum decreased with the
third term, while getting fixed with the third term
constant. Similarly, the positive proper value of Pi(i = 3,
4) decreased while getting fured at the minimum of evaluation. As to the influence of the third term's p on the
evaluation, with negative p gain was indefinite. When p
is changed f5om lo-'' through lo1', comparing J at
different p seems meaningless. When comparing the sum
of the first and second terms at 10'' through
the
minimum value of the s u m was constant, while with
M e r decreasing p, the minimum value of the sum
decreased slowly. For example, in subsystem 1, the
minimum value of the sum decreased from 3.3406281 to
3.3346404. As to influence exerted by p on pole
assignment, the proposed method's nominal poles shown
in Tables 2 and 3 (all being maximum perturbation poles)
showed changes as small as in the second or third place
after the decimal point. Thus, it is felt that the less p is
the better. In this simulation, optimum gain was found
after several or several tens of repetitions.

poles

-1.1000
j0.5735
-1.1000
- j0.5735

+ j2.4526

+ j0.5139
-1.0486
- j0.5139
-12.0633

Max.perturbation

11

-6.7514

,.---I,

I
_
_.__----I

I1

\I

Standard servo method

(no partitioning)
. Standard servo method
(2 partitions)
- Proposed method (2
partitions)

-- - -

(s)

Fig. 3. Position of crane's bogey.

The following matrices A, B were used in the equation of state for load's lift, with state variable vector
being [rope's length, rope's velocity]:

Here, nominal poles are poles when the rope has

maximum length, while maximum perturbation poles are
poles under maximum perturbations of the rope length.

A=[:

assignment
As may
after
be the
seenproposed
from Tables
method,
2 and
irrespective
3, the pole
of
system perturbations, falls within the desired region, i.e.,
within the circle with center -7 and radius of 6.5.

-0.7 ] . B = [ o . ( L ]

The results are shown in Figs. 3-7.

111

---

Standard scryo method

(2 partitions)
Proposed method (2

standard servo method

(2 partitions)

- Proposed method (2

partitions)

partitions)

0.1

-2L2

- - - _---

-.
6 ---.-_.___
8

(2 partitions)

-e- ;
L

Fig. 6. Input.

Standard servo method

---..- - - _ ,

(s)

Fig. 4. Velocity of cranes bogey.

6)

i
-

Proposed method (2

*
II

-0.02

I
*,

I1

,*
I.

00

II

I S

Fig. 7. Position of load.

Shown in Fig. 3 is bogeys position. In standard

servo method with no partitioning, the system diverged in
approximately 6 s. This means that at the point of loads
lift up to 1.2 m (Fig. 7), perturbation of rope length leads
the system into instability. With two partitions, the
proposed method offers good convergence,although ranking below the standard servo method in building-up.
Shown in Fig. 4 is bogeys velocity. Here, the standard
servo method cannot be considered remarkably better

than the proposed method in terms of velocity buildup.

Shown in Fig. 5 is rope swing angle. This angle is rather
small for the proposed method, which means appropriate
control. Shown in Fig. 6 is input. As was already explained here, the proposed method causes the bogeys
target position to be reached with speedy convergence;
however, energy consumption is approximately the same
with both methods. From the foregoing it is believed that
the proposed method is efficient in control system design.
112

6. Conclusions

APPENDIX

We have proposed a robust pole assignment that

ensures definite responses, irrespective of parameter
perturbations, as well as an algorithm to determine
feedback gains providing for minimization of evaluation
function. Efficiency of this robust pole assignment
method is confmed by applying it to a nonlinear crane
system. This nonlinear system is partitioned and considered as a set of uncertain linear systems to prove that
the proposed system is efficient in control of nonlinear
systems.

Consider transformation of specification for J,. In

Eq. (l), the closed-loop formula using Eq. (4) is as
follows

Hence,
Inserting x,, u, in Eq. (8) the following can be derived

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Mr. H.Kakiuchi
and Mr.H. Kobayashi for their help with the numerical
example. This research has been performed with financial
aid from the Ministry of Education (1993).
Here, instead of the problem of determination of K to
minimize J, for all x,,(O), another problem is considered:
determination of feedback gain Kin average terms. Then
.[6]:

REFERENCES
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

R. Bambang, E. Shimemura and K. Uchida. Mixed

HJH, Output Feedback Control with Pole
Placement in a Class of Regions. 21st SICE
Symposium on Control Theory, 85-90, 1992.
Sakumoto and Hayashi. Nihon Kikai Crakkai
Ronbunshu, Vol. 58, No. 550, pp. 106111, June
1992.
S. Gutman. Root Clustering .in Parameter Space.
Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences.
Springer-Verlag 95, 1990.
S. Gutman. A General Theory for Matrix RootClustering in Subregions of the Complex
Plane. IEEE, Vol. AC-26, No. 4, 853-863,
1981.
Furuta, Mita, Kawaji and Ham. Control of
Mechanical Systems. Ohm h b l . , pp. 192-193,
1984.
Kogo and Mita. Introduction to System Control
Theory. Jikkyo Shuppan, 158, 1979.
Obayashi, Hirasawa, Murata and Sagara. Robust
pole assignment in unstable systems with structural
perturbations. heprints of 36th Conf. on Assoc. of
Automatic Control, No. 1013, 1993.
Kirasawa, Obayashi, Kajiwara, Murata and Sagara.
Robust pole placement control of nonlinear crane
system. Texts of 12th Kyushu Branch Annual Conf.
of Society of Instrument and Control Eng., No.
113, 1993.

= trJ7[eATi(Q K*RK)eA']dt

Jn

(A3)

Here assume that

0 < Pr = 4 = Jo00[eA T t (Q KTRK)eAt]dt(A4)

If A^ is asymptotically stable

$[eAT*(& KTRK)eAtJdt= -[Q

+ KTRK)

or

;Iie
d At = AeAt = ATP,+P,A
Therefore,
P~A+ATP~+Q+K~RK

Using the relation of Eq. (9), the following is derived:

P~+
A ATPl

+ KTRK - Cc=ori,jAip3A" j T =

0
(1 1)

Hence, proceeding from Eqs. (A3) and (A4)

Jn

= tr(P1)

The same is the case with J,.

113

AUTHORS (from left to right)

Masanao Obayashi graduated in 1975 from Kyushu Institute of Technology, Electric Eng. Dept., and received his M.S.
degree from Kyushu University in 1979 and joined Hitachi, Ltd.In 1988 he was Research Associate at Kyushu University.
He is a member of Society of Instrument and Control Engineering; and Institute of Systems, Control and Infomation
Engineers.
Kotaro Hirasawa graduated in 1964 from Kyushu University. In 1966, he received his M.S.degree and later his Ph.D.
degree from Kyushu University. In 1966 he joined Hitachi, Ltd. Since 1992 he has been a Professor at Kyushu University.
He is a member of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineering; Information Processing Society of Japan; and IEEE
USA.
Junichi Murata received his Ph.D. degree in 1986 from Kyushu University. In 1986 he was a Research Associate at
the same university and Associate Professor in 1988. He is a member of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers;
and Institute of Systems, Control and Information Engineers. He is engaged in research on system simulation, power load
prediction.
Akio Kajiwara graduated in 1965 from Fukuoka Prefectural Technical High School. In 1965, he became an engineer
at Kyushu University. He is a member of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineering.

Setsuo Sagara graduated in 1943 from Kyushu University, Electrical Eng. Dept., and received his Ph.D. degree later.
In 1956 he was a Lecturer at Hiroshima University, in 1960 an Associate Professor, and in 1963 a Professor, in 1968
Professor at Kyushu University, and in 1992 a Professor at Fukuoka Institute of Technology. He is a member of the Society
of Instrument and Control Engineering; and Institute of Systems, Control and Infomation Engineers.

114