0 Up votes0 Down votes

8 views6 pagesControle por Realimentação da Derivada dos Estados

Jul 15, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Controle por Realimentação da Derivada dos Estados

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

Controle por Realimentação da Derivada dos Estados

© All Rights Reserved

- Continuous vs Discrete Control
- AEI504
- Process Control com
- IEC-SquirrelCageMotors
- Proof of Small Gain Theorem
- Evms Notes
- AUTO TUNE #1
- ProcessControl_Topic13_PIDtuning
- On D®-type Iterative Learning Control
- Control
- Introd Cont Adaptativo
- ELG4152L5
- docs-8856918714f8bc6b510428.pdf
- Tank Level Control
- Nagoor Kani Control Systems
- 0-DigitalControlDrLaith
- 0678_ThP16.1
- Aamo_2005_Observer design for multiphase flow in vertical pipes with gas-lift__theory and experiments.pdf
- Thesis
- 86007-00_1-3.pdf

You are on page 1of 6

1

l

2

Fernanda Quelho Rossi , Marcelo Carvalho Minhoto Teixeira , Roberto Kawakami Harrop Galvao and

2

Edvaldo Assun\;ao

derivative feedback were proposed in [2]. A linear quadratic

regulator (LQR) design scheme was presented in [5], [6].

The synthesis of state-derivative feedback controllers using

usual state feedback design methods was described in [7].

A comparative study involving state feedback and state

derivative feedback in linear time invariant systems can

be found in [8]. An approach to the stabilizability and

stability robustness of state-derivative feedback, including

fragility, was presented in [9]. A method using Hoo-control

of continuous-time systems with state-delay was proposed in

[10]. In [11], [12], [13] the robust stabilization of descriptor

linear systems was discussed. Methods for pole placement

of multivariable systems with state-derivative feedback were

proposed in [14], [15], [16]. Robust state-derivative feedback

designs based on linear matrix inequalities were derived

in [17], [18] for linear time-invariant systems with model

uncertainties.

Despite the significant research effort devoted to state

derivative feedback design, it is worth noting that most

work has been concerned with continuous-time controllers.

It might be argued that discrete-time counterparts for digital

control could be implemented by using emulation techniques

[19], but in that case stability and performance cannot be

guaranteed if the sampling period is not sufficiently small.

To the authors' knowledge, the issue of discrete-time design

of state-derivative feedback controllers was only discussed

in a paper by Cardim and collaborators [20]. That paper

was mainly concerned with the problem of digital redesign

(i.e. the design of a suitable analogue controller followed by

conversion to an equivalent digital controller [21 D, but the

results also included expressions to obtain the discrete-time

state-derivative feedback controller from a given discrete

time state feedback controller.

The present paper addresses the problem of obtaining a

discrete-time state-derivative feedback controller that pro

vides the same control actions as compared to a given

discrete-time state feedback controller. It is assumed that

the plant dynamics are described by a linear, time-invariant

model and that a state feedback gain matrix has already been

obtained by using standard methods such as pole placement

or discrete LQR design [19]. The contribution with respect to

the method proposed in [20] consists of a simpler procedure

to relate the state-derivative measurement with the control

update at each sampling time. Indeed, the main theoretical

result in [20] assumed that the sensor measurements and

the control update occurred simultaneously, which caused

difficulties associated to the presence of an algebraic loop in-

Moreover, in cases where both state and state derivative mea

surements are available, a state-derivative feedback controller

can be employed as a backup alternative in the case of sensor

failure. The present work is concerned with the design of such

a controller in a discrete-time framework, assuming that the

plant input is kept constant between sampling times, which

is typically the case in digital control implementations. More

specifically, this paper proposes a method to design a state

derivative feedback gain matrix in order to obtain equivalence

to a given discrete-time state feedback control law. It is assumed

that the plant is linear and time-invariant, and that the sampling

of the state-derivative occurs just before the update of the

control value. The proposed method consists of a direct digital

design in the sense that it does not require the preliminary

design

of

continuous-time

controller.

For

illustration,

a mechanical system is presented. The results show that the

state-derivative feedback controller provides suitable damping

of the vibrations in the case of failure of a displacement sensor

employed by the conventional state feedback controller, even in

the presence of measurement noise and parameter variations.

failure accommodation.

I.

INTRODUCTION

ally designed by using state variables, in some cases the use

of state-derivative feedback can be more convenient in view

of the available measurements [1]. Indeed, in mechanical

systems, state-derivative information can be readily obtained

from instrumentation sets employing accelerometers. Exam

ples include vibration suppression systems [2], active sus

pension of vehicles [3], as well as aeronautical [4], and civil

engineering [5] applications. State-derivative feedback can

also be of value as a backup alternative to a state feedback

controller in fault-tolerant schemes employing both state and

state derivative sensors. For instance, if a displacement sensor

is lost, it may still be possible to carry out the control task

by using the remaining acceleration and velocity sensors.

In recent years, the issue of state-derivative feedback has

drawn much attention in the literature. Procedures for solving

*This work was supported by Brazilian agencies FAPESP (research

grant 20111l761O-0),CAPES (Pr6-Engenharias MSc scholarship) and CNPq

(research fellowships).

1 F. Q. Rossi and R. K. H. Galvao are with the Department of Elec

tronic Engineering, Tnstituto Tecnol6gico de Aeromiutica, 12228-900 Sao

Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil. Emails: fer. qrossi@gmail.com;

kawakami@ita.br.

2M. C. M. Teixeira and E. Assun<;:ao are with the Department of

Electrical Engineering, UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista, 15385-000

llha Solteira, SP, Brazil. Emails:marcelo@dee.feis.unesp.br;

edvaldo@dee.feis.unesp.br.

808

below.

and vice-versa. To circumvent this problem, an implemen

tation scheme employing additional auxiliary variables was

developed in [20]. The procedure proposed herein addresses

this issue in a substantially simpler manner, which should be

of greater appeal for prospective users.

Within the scope of fault-tolerant control, the proposed

method is illustrated in a simulated case study involving

the suppression of vibrations in a mechanical system. It is

assumed that displacement and velocity measurements are

available for use in a state feedback controller, whereas

velocity and acceleration measurements are available for

a backup state-derivative feedback controller. The results

show that such a backup controller can provide suitable

suppression of the vibrations in the case of total loss of

one of the displacement sensors, even in the presence of

measurement noise and parameter variations.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section

II presents the proposed method for discrete-time state

derivative feedback design. Section III introduces the case

study, including a description of the plant, the controller

design, the sensor failure under consideration, and the pro

cedure for failure accommodation through controller com

mutation. The simulation results are presented in Section IV.

Finally, concluding remarks are presented in Section V.

II.

the state derivative x(t) is available for feedback at each

sampling time t

kT. If the control law given by

=

u(kT) +

(4)

match those provided by the state feedback law (2)

Proof Under the assumption that the control is only

updated after the sensor readings are acquired, the state

derivative of system (1) at time t

kT is given by

=

x(kT)

Aex(kT)

Bcu((k -l) T) +

(5)

that

(6)

x(kT) A;:-l [x(kT) - Beu((k -l) T) +]

=

u(kT) +

(7)

I-u(t)

u(kTt

STATE-DERIVATIVE FEEDB ACK DESI GN

of the form

(1)

where x(t) E ]Rn, is the state vector, u(t) E ]Rn" is

the control input, and Ae E ]Rn" xn", Be E ]Rn" xn" are

constant matrices. Assume that the state x(t) is available for

feedback at sampling times t

kT, k E Z, where T is the

sampling period. Moreover, consider that closed-loop control

is generated by a linear state-feedback law with a given gain

matrix L E ]Rn"xn" as

u((k-1 )Tt

o

u(kT) +

-Lx(kT)

Fig. l.

kT

(k-1)T

u(t)

(k+1)T

also been assumed in the literature on continuous-time state

derivative feedback, which presents many practical problems

where this condition holds [2], [7], [8], [13], [17]. If Ae is

not invertible, unstable systems in the form (1) cannot be

stabilized by the continuous-time state-derivative feedback

[22]. Furthermore, in [22] is proved that the system (1),

considering the output y(t)

dx(t) /dt, is observable if and

only if Ac is invertible.

(2)

is updated immediately after the state is measured at each

sampling time. Finally, assume that a zero-order hold is

employed to keep the control u(t) constant between sampling

times, i.e.

u(t)

(k-2)T

(3)

is employed to obtain (5) from (1) by replacing u(kT) with

as illustrated in Fig. 1.

The problem addressed in this work can be stated as

follows:

u((k -l) T) +.

acquisition of sensor measurements through an analog-to

digital (AID) converter, and the update of the control through

a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter. In this case, the analysis

presented above will be applicable provided that the delay is

sufficiently small to have a negligible effect on the systems

discrete-time state-derivative feedback controller for system

(1), such that the control actions implemented according to

(3) match those provided by the state feedback control law

(2).

809

effect of the delay can be included in the analysis in an

explicit manner by using an augmented state-space model,

as described, for instance, in [23].

of Ae) are

feedback controller): At k

0, it follows from (5) that

Aex

.

In

the simulations that will be

X( O )

(O) + Beu( -T) +

presented for illustration, it is assumed that u(t)

0 prior

to the beginning of the control task, and thus u( -T) +

O.

It follows from (4) that the state-derivative feedback control

at the initial time k

0+ will be given by

at the following positions:

Al,2

81,2

-0.92 51.30i

-10 55i

adopting a sampling period T

0.018. For this purpose,

the desired positions for the closed-loop poles were mapped

from the 8- to the z - plane according to z

esT [19],

which resulted in

u (O ) +

-LAlx(O)

-Lx(O) (8)

-LAl [Aex(O) + Beu( -T) +]

z1.2

the state feedback law.

III.

CASE

x((k

STUDY

discrete-time

+

l) T)

model

Ax(kT)

0.771 0.473i

of

the

form

method [19], which resulted in:

vibration absorber m2 is used to suppress the vibrations of

the primary mass ml [2].

0.8100

0.1630

-36.5401

29.8935

0.0165

0.8290

3.0605

-32.7683

0.0093

0.0008

0.7992

0.2079

0.0001

0.0092

0.0208

0.7835

' (10)

(11)

(A, B) matrices and the desired closed loop poles Zl,2, Z3,4 ,

the following gain matrix L was obtained for the discrete

time state feedback controller:

state equation (1) with the following matrices Ae and Be:

Ac

0

0

-kJ -k)

m,

.!5:L

m2

1

0

0

0

.k2...

m,

-k2

ffi2

-bJ -b2

m,

lL

m2

0

1

lL

m,

-b2

m2

0

0

-1

1 [ 1

, Be

'1'

m2

(9)

[Xl X2 Xl X2] T, where Xl

and X2 denote the vertical displacements of masses ml and

m2, respectively, and Xl and X2 denote the corresponding

velocities. The control input u is a force provided by an

actuator between the two masses. The parameters kl and k2

are spring constants, and bl and b2 are damping constants.

In this case study, the model parameters were taken as

=

bl 70N8/m and b2 50N8/m. The initial condition was

set to x(O)

[0.05 0.05 0.2 0.2jT.

=

104

[1.985

-2.487

-0.119

0.018 1

(12)

employed in the pole placement procedure for design of

the state feedback controller. After the gain matrix L was

calculated, the state-derivative feedback control law was

obtained by using the (Ae, Be) matrices as in (4).

It is assumed that, under normal operating conditions, the

vibration suppression system has sensors for measuring the

displacements, velocities and accelerations of the masses ml

and m2. A small delay of T!100 was introduced between

sensor readings and control update at each sampling time, to

represent the delay associated to analog-digital conversion,

computational processing and digital-analog conversion.

Simulations were also carried out to investigate the effect

of plant-model mismatch and measurement imperfections.

For this purpose, the plant parameters ml, m2, kl, k2, bl,

b2 were randomly changed by up to 20% with respect to

the values employed in the design model. Moreover, zero

mean, white Gaussian noise was added to the state and

state-derivative measurements. The standard-deviation of the

noise for each measured variable was set to 5% of the

maximum absolute value of that variable obtained in a noise

free simulation.

"

Fig. 2.

810

the signals depicted in these graphs correspond to the actual

system states, rather than the noisy measurements employed

for feedback.

(i.e. without sensor failures). This case is used to

illustrate the equivalence between the state feedback and

state-derivative feedback controllers.

In Case 2, the system is operated under state feedback

control and a failure in the displacement sensor of mass

m2 is introduced at time t

0.28. For this purpose, the

measured value of X2 is replaced with zero from the

time of the failure onset until the end of the simulation.

In Case 3, the system is initially operated under state

feedback control and the sensor failure is introduced

at t

0.28, as in the previous case. However, at time

t

0.38 the state feedback controller is replaced with

the state-derivative feedback controller, which employs

the measurements from the velocity and acceleration

sensors. The 0.18 time difference between the onset of

the failure and the switching between the controllers is

introduced to represent a delay in the detection of the

sensor failure.

0.2 ,---,---,---.,----,---,----,---,--...,.,-----;:;,

x,(l)

,_, _,

__

x,(I)

,-,-, dx,(I)Jdl

__

dX,(I)Jdl

_10L-__'_____--'--___'___---'-_----'__ __'_____--'--_ _

4000 ,---,----,---,---;--,-1_---U(;:;lI)

L-

___.J

2000

:;

lab/Simulink software with ode4 (Runge-Kutta) solver and

a fixed step size of T/1000.

IV.

__'__

Cl.

.S

-2000

o

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8 0.9

__'__

1(8)

locity and control variables using the state feedback control

law under normal operating conditions (Case 1). The time

responses obtained by using state-derivative feedback were

exactly the same, as expected due to the equivalence between

the two controllers.

0.2 ,---,----,---,---;--rl

Fig. 4. Case I: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete

time state feedback under normal operating conditions in the presence of

measurement noise and parameter variations.

0.2

I

' - , - , X,(I)

__

,-,-,x,(I)

__

x,(I)

c

Q)

E

Q)

"

'"

a.

X,(I)

c

Q)

E

Q)

"

'"

a.

'"

is

'"

is

10

,--_,--_-,-_-,-_--,-_---;__,--_,----1

, _ , _

-- dX,(I)Jdl

, dX,(I)Jdl

__

dX,(I)Jdl

.s

'0

0

Qi

>

-10

4000

-10L------L---L--------====

(I)

4000 -,---,---.,----,---,----,---,--...,.i.:-=-=-=.'::U

I

-- u(l)

2000

2000

:;

:;

Cl.

.S

Cl.

.S

"2

-2000

-2000

_

__'___---'-_----'__

-4000 __'____--'--_

o

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

1(8)

-4000

__'_____--'--___'______.J

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.2

03

0.4

1(8)

OJ

Fig. 3. Case 1: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete

time state feedback or state-derivative controllers under normal operating

conditions.

Fig. 5. Case I: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete

time state-derivative feedback under normal operating conditions in the

presence of measurement noise and parameter variations.

back) show the results obtained by introducing measurement

Figures 4 and 5 is somewhat worse as compared to the ideal

811

the state feedback and state-derivative feedback results are

very similar, which indicates that these two controllers are

comparable in terms of robustness and sensitivity to noise.

Fig. 6 presents the simulation results for Case 2, in which

a sensor failure was introduced at t

0.28, as indicated

by a dashed vertical line. As mentioned above, the failure

consisted of a total loss of the X2 sensor readings, which were

replaced with zero in the control calculations until the end of

the simulation. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the resulting state

trajectories no longer converge to the equilibrium. Indeed,

upon the failure in the X2 sensor, the closed loop system

matrix becomes (A - BCL) , where C

diag(l , 0, 1, 1) is

a diagonal output matrix representing the fault effect. Under

this condition, the closed-loop poles (i.e. the eigenvalues of

A - BCL) become

=

the presence of measurement noise and variations in the plant

parameters, as depicted in Fig. 8. It can be concluded that

the proposed method provides appropriate accommodation

of the displacement sensor failure even with imperfections

in the design model and sensor measurements.

0.2 ,------,----__,_----._-_,____-....-1

I

c

Q)

E

Q)

"

'"

a.

0.592 0.538i ,

Z3,4(f)

- . - . x (I)

,

(1)

2

-- x

<f)

is

Zl,2 (f)

'

10 .__--__,_-__,_----.__-_,____---1

!!!.

' _,_,

--

dx (I)/dl

,

dx (1)/dl

2

.s

.c

'13

0

Qi

>

0.889 0.497i

-10

4000

As can be seen, the Z3,4(f) poles are outside the unit circle,

which shows that the closed-loop system is unstable.

--

u(l)

2000

-s

Cl.

.E

'2

c

Q)

E

8-2000

C,)

2l

'"

a.

-4000

<f)

is

10 ,------,--------____I

'

0.1

0.2

02

0.4

05

I(s)

OB

OB

Fig. 7.

Case 3: Time response of the mechanical system with a sensor

failure at t = 0.28 (first vertical dashed line). The discrete-time state

feedback controller was replaced with the backup derivative-state feedback

controller at t = 0.38 (second vertical dashed line).

- , - , dX (I)/dl

,

--:-:-l

0.2 .__-_,___-__,_-__,_----.__-_,___

_

--.-1_

x, (I)

,_, _,

-10L--------------- ==

-- x/I)

c

Q)

E

2l

'"

a.

2000

-s

<f)

is

Cl.

.E

'2

8-2000

C,)

, _, _,

-4000 "---'----'---'---'

o

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

--

I(s)

dx (I)/dl

,

dx (1)/dl

2

.c

'13

o

Qi

>

Fig. 6. Case 2: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete

time state feedback controller with a sensor failure at t = 0.28 (vertical

dashed line).

-10 "---'----'---'---'

4000 ,-------,----,-----.---,-,_-_-u(;;;ll)

sensor could be detected in a simple manner by comparing

the position readings with the corresponding velocity and

acceleration measurements. Upon detection of the failure, the

control law could be switched to state-derivative feedback

in order to use the velocity and acceleration sensors. This

procedure was employed in Case 3, with results presented

in Fig. 7. In this figure, the first dashed line indicates the

failure onset, whereas the second dashed line indicates the

time at which the backup state-derivative feedback controller

was brought into operation. As can be seen, the resulting

state trajectories converged to equilibrium at the origin, thus

circumventing the loss of the X2 displacement sensor. A

2000

-S

Cl.

.E

'2

C

8 -2000

-4000 "---'----'---'---'

o

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.7 0.8 0.9

I(s)

Fig. 8.

Case 3: Time response of the mechanical system with a sensor

failure at t = 0.28 (first vertical dashed line) in the presence of measurement

noise and parameter variations. The discrete-time state feedback controller

was replaced with the backup derivative-state feedback controller at t =

0.38 (second vertical dashed line).

812

V.

CONCLUSION

state-derivative feedback control law in order to obtain

equivalence to a given state feedback controller. Within the

scope of digital fault-tolerant control, the proposed method

can be of value to design backup controllers that employ

state-derivative measurements in the case of failure of the

state sensors. A typical application consists of vibration

suppression systems, in which accelerometers can be used to

obtain state-derivative measurements. In the simulated case

study presented for illustration, the state-derivative feedback

controller was shown to provide suitable suppression of the

vibrations in the case of failure of a displacement sensor em

ployed by the conventional state feedback controller. Suitable

results were obtained even in the presence of measurement

noise and plant/model mismatch.

Future studies could be concerned with the use of filtering

methods to combine noisy measurements of the state and

state derivative into a single estimate of the state vector.

In addition, extensions of the present work to the design

of discrete-time robust controllers could be pursued. It is

worth noting that, under the equivalence stated in Theorem 1,

closed-loop stability using the state feedback controller guar

antees closed-loop stability with the state-derivative feedback

controller. Nevertheless, perfect equivalence is only valid

for the nominal case. The simulation results suggest that

the state-derivative feedback control law possesses certain

robustness with respect to the mismatch between the plant

dynamics and the design model adopted. However, further

analysis of the robustness of the state-derivative feedback

controller, in comparison with the state feedback controller,

should be carried out. Possible investigations along this

line may include LMI-based formulations for state-derivative

feedback design, as presented in [l7], [18].

ACKNOW LED GMENT S

of FAPESP (grant 2011117610-0), CAPES (Pro-Engenharias

MSc scholarship) and CNPq (research fellowships).

REFERENCES

[1] FL. Lewis and VL. Syrmos, "A geometric theory for derivative

feedback", IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 36, no. 9,

pp. 1111-1116,1991.

[2] TH.S. Abdelaziz and M. Valasek, "Pole-placement for S1S0 linear

systems by state-derivative feedback", lEE Proceedings: Control The

ory and Applications, vol. 151,no. 4,pp. 377-385,2004.

[3] E. Reithmeier and G. Leitmann, "Robust vibration control of dynam

ical systems based on the derivative of the state", Archive of Applied

Mechanics, vol. 72,no. 11-12,pp. 856-864,2003.

[4] S. K. Kwak, G. Washington, and R. K. Yedavalli, "Acceleration

feedback-based active and passive vibration control of landing gear

components", Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.

1-9,2002.

[5] YF Duan, YQ. Ni, and J.M. Ko, "State-derivative feedback control

of cable vibration using semiactive magnetorheological dampers",

Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 20,no. 6,

pp. 431-449,2005.

[6] S.K. Kwak, G. Washington, and R. K. Yedavalli, "Acceleration-based

vibration control of distributed parameter systems using the 'reciprocal

state-space framework' ", Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 251,

no. 3,pp. 543-557,2002.

813

of state-derivative feedback controllers using a state feedback control

design", Proceedings of the 3rd IFAC Symposium on System, Structure

and Control, vol. I,pp. 135-141,Iguassu Falls, Brazil, 2007.

[8] J.M. Araujo, A.c. Castro, FG.S. Silva, E.TF Santos, and C.E.T

Dorea, "Comparative study on state feedback and state-derivative

feedback in linear time invariant systems", Proceedings of 3rd IFAC

Symposium on System, Structure and Control, vol. 3, Iguassu Falls,

Brazil, 2007.

[9] W. Michiels, T Vyhldal, H. Huijberts, and H. Nijmeijer, "Stabilizabil

ity and stability robustness of state derivative feedback controllers",

SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 47,no. 6,pp. 31003117,2008.

[10] E. Fridman and U. Shaked, "H=-control of linear state-delay descrip

tor systems: an LMI approach", Linear Algebra and Its Applications,

vol. 351,pp. 271-302,2002.

[ I I] G. R. Duan, G. W. Irwin, and G. P. Liu, "Robust stabilization of

descriptor linear systems via proportional-plus-derivative state Feed

back", Proceedings of the 1999 American Control Conference, pp.

1304-1308,1999.

[12] R. Cardim, M.C.M. Teixeira, E. Assun<;:ao, and FA. Faria, "Control

designs for linear systems using state-derivative feedback", Systems,

Structure and Control, pp. 1-28,In-Tech, Vienna, Austria, 2008.

[13] F A. Faria, E. Assun<;:ao, M. C. M. Teixeira, and R. Cardim, "Ro

bust state-derivative feedback LMIbased designs for linear descriptor

systems", Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2010, Article

927362,2010.

[14] TH.S. Abdelaziz, "Pole assignment by state-derivative feedback for

single-input linear systems", Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engi

neers. Part I, vol. 221,no. 7,pp. 991-1000,2007.

[15] TH.S. Abdelaziz, "Robust pole assignment for linear time-invariant

systems using state-derivative feedback", Proc. Institution of Mechan

ical Engineers. Part I, vol. 223,no. 2,pp. 187-199,2009.

[16] TH.S. Abdelaziz, "Optimal control using derivative feedback for linear

systems", Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part I, vol. 224,

no. 2,pp. 185-202,2010.

[17] E. Assun<;:iio, M.C.M. Teixeira, FA. Faria, N. A.P. da Silva, and R.

Cardim, "Robust state-derivative feedback LMl-based designs for

multivariable linear systems", International Journal of Control, vol.

80,no. 8,pp. 1260-1270,2007.

[18] FA. Faria, E. Assuncao, M.C.M. Teixeira, R. Cardim, and N. A.P. da

Silva, "Robust state-derivative pole placement LMI-based designs for

linear systems", International Journal of Control, vol. 82, no. 1, pp.

1-12,2009.

[19] G.F Franklin, J.D. Powell, and M. Workman, Digital control of

dynamical systems, 3rd Edition, USA, California: Addison-Wesley,

1997.

[20] R. Cardim, M.C.M. Teixeira, F Faria, and E. Assun<;:iio, "LMI-based

digital redesign of linear time invariant systems with state-derivative

feedback", Proceedings of IEEE Multi-Conference on Systems and

Control, vol. 1,pp. 745-749,Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2009.

[21] W. Chang, J.B. Park, H.1. Lee, and YH. Joo, "LMI approach to digital

redesign of linear time-invariant systems", lEE Proceedings - Control

Theory and Applications, vol. 149,no. 4,pp. 297-302,2002.

[22] M.R. Moreira, E.I. Mainardi Junior, TT Esteves, et aI., "Stabilizability

and disturbance rejection with state-derivative feedback;' Mathemati

cal Problems in Engineering, vol. 2010, Article 123751,2010.

[23] J. M. Maciejowski, Predictive control with constraints. Harlow: Pren

tice Hall, 2002.

- Continuous vs Discrete ControlUploaded byAhmed Bhatti
- AEI504Uploaded byapi-26787131
- Process Control comUploaded bykeinhuat79
- IEC-SquirrelCageMotorsUploaded byJ
- Proof of Small Gain TheoremUploaded byAsim Khan Niazi
- Evms NotesUploaded byNIRMAL KUMAR S
- AUTO TUNE #1Uploaded byIgor Ozeruga
- ProcessControl_Topic13_PIDtuningUploaded byrockynsit
- On D®-type Iterative Learning ControlUploaded byfarzanesunflower
- ControlUploaded bypeyman_qz_co
- Introd Cont AdaptativoUploaded byhknclp
- ELG4152L5Uploaded bySachin Yadav
- docs-8856918714f8bc6b510428.pdfUploaded byAhmad Setiana
- Tank Level ControlUploaded byjose_manuel_freitas4189
- Nagoor Kani Control SystemsUploaded byAnonymous eWMnRr70q
- 0-DigitalControlDrLaithUploaded byMegaroboMegarobo
- 0678_ThP16.1Uploaded byYogaUtama
- Aamo_2005_Observer design for multiphase flow in vertical pipes with gas-lift__theory and experiments.pdfUploaded byFilipe Reolon
- ThesisUploaded byPablo Sanz
- 86007-00_1-3.pdfUploaded byMara Gizette Santos
- Dynamic buck convererUploaded byAlex C.
- 1-s2.0-S147466701743624X-mainUploaded byMohsin
- de111e97a21e35f75d53cb1fde7d62938429Uploaded byfadatamo2
- Struc Dyn Sys Control 1Uploaded bykhawaja Ali
- Digital Control Syllabus 2013_2Uploaded byArmando Malone
- Gandolfo Cap 17 EdUploaded byAlessandro Tomarchio
- ST2451Uploaded byAbhishek Prakash
- T3HA_H3HS_T4MA_T4LAUploaded byMin Zayar
- PID Controllers for Robots Equipped With Brushed DC-Motors RevisitedUploaded byAM BROKER
- CLOSED LOOP SMOOTH STEERING OF UNICYCLE-LIKE VEHICLESUploaded byTwinkle Tripathy

- 10. Tehnik Fasilitasi Dan PendampinganUploaded bysop pemberdayaan masyarakat
- afp2466-OP720-Smoke1.pdfUploaded bymachevallie
- Epid Factord Strepto SuisUploaded byNarty
- CSCP_PROGRAM_PROGRAM FILE_JUN 2013 - 2.pdfUploaded byMoayad El Leithy
- Earth SubsystemUploaded bycathy mojica
- Structuring Cooperative LearningUploaded byadoi2
- Product Brochure for the iPF825 & the iPF815Uploaded byarrowheadcorp
- Elementary Number Theory in Nune ChaptersUploaded byhalf2005
- Akshay KumarUploaded byranga
- PPT Lecture 1 Teacher Training CourseUploaded byAmmar Anas
- Embargo the Origins of an Idea and the Implications of a Policy in Europe and the MediterraneanUploaded bySaid Ali
- Greek Met a HistoriesUploaded byStyliana Galiniki
- SurveyofschoolsICTinEducation-threesurveyquestionnairespdfUploaded byArshdeep Singh
- History.rtfUploaded byandiocim
- Liu-070618Uploaded byJay Nitin Sheth
- SMACK – a Smart ACKnowledgement Scheme for Broadcast Messages InUploaded byqaseemali
- Prakriti in Books Other Than Ayurveda ClassicsUploaded bygpawankumar@rediffmail.com
- CHM 2046L Syllabus-Fall 2014Uploaded byAmira Cato
- Money_Transfer_Biniyamawali_2067Uploaded byPayal Agrawal
- 3Uploaded byTadar Tajuk
- 1. What is Economics Ch01Uploaded bymohamed ezz eldeen
- research paperUploaded byapi-466362089
- CoENG001L Midterm Lecture 2 Number Systems Conversions and Arithmetic and ComplementUploaded byian
- Read.art Evolution ConsciousnessUploaded bysarahpoppel7928
- Examples of Successful Cover Letters_vF (2)Uploaded byJason McCoy
- 37193Uploaded byAsni Beddu
- Wave roseUploaded bydhiecha309
- Mowbray · SlidesCarnival.pptxUploaded byrisma yanti
- anatomy+phys+vol2aUploaded bysanjay bareliya
- Hutanu_Nistor_PadureUploaded byRamo Kiss

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.