networked

© All Rights Reserved

1 views

networked

© All Rights Reserved

- Systems of Inequalities.pdf
- Statistical Performance Analysis and Modeling Techniques for Nanometer Vlsi Designs
- Mathematics
- Predicting the Present with Bayesian Structural Time Series .pdf
- Variational Inference for LDA
- Solutions to Chapter 19 Problems 2014 Structural and Stress Analysis Third Edition
- E Books List
- Unscented
- Untitled
- Quadratic Sequences G8
- Kalman Filter
- BodeRules
- Palm SampleSolns
- Tugas Spm Final Project
- LDS
- Introduction to the Kalman Filter, Part II _ SharpRobotica.com - Sharp Ideas for the Software Side of Robotics
- 12 Maths NcertSolutions Chapter 7 2
- Precal Answer Polynomial
- Adaptive Unscented Kalman Filter and Its Applications in Nonlinear Control
- sensors-16-01103

You are on page 1of 6

1

47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control

Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008

C. L. Robinson P. R. Kumar

Dept. of Industrial and Enterprise Systems Engineering, Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering,

and the Coordinated Science Lab, and the Coordinated Science Lab,

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

clrobnsn@uiuc.edu prkumar@uiuc.edu

Abstract We investigate the effect of packet delays [19]. It is interesting that under LPA the delay distribu-

and packet drops on networked control systems. First we tion only affects system performance and not stabiliz-

consider the problem of where to locate a controller or state ability. This is illustrated via simulations in Section IV.

estimator in a network, and show that under a Long Packets

Assumption (LPA) it is optimal to collocate it with the The result has implications not only for a system with

actuator. We then show that under the LPA, stabilizability long packets, but also, as mentioned above, for the

is only determined by the packet drop probability and encoder-decoder scheme in [5] which realizes the LPA

not the packet delay probabilities. We also consider a sub- but without long packets. The result on stabilizability

optimal state estimator without the LPA, based on inverting not depending on delays but only on drop probability

submatrices of the observability Krylov sequence.

is analogous to that of [16], [17], where the estimation

I. I problem without the LPA is considered, and a similar

Contention for the medium, channel fading, and independence of estimator stability on delays is shown.

interference in networks, lead to packet delays and The stabilizability condition is different in that case

losses. Even though observations may be taken at since the LPA does not hold.

regular instants, their arrivals after passage through the We next analyze window based schemes without an

network may be random since collision detection and LPA, as has been considered in [16], [17]. We consider a

avoidance algorithms use random backoffs and delays, family of suboptimal schemes and obtain upper bounds

or they may even be dropped due to the losses in the on packet drop probability, similar to (1), that are

wireless medium or collisions. Hence, we address the sufficient for their stability.

issue of random packet delays as well as packet drops Useful references for networked control include [1],

in networked control systems. [3]. Packet delays and drops result in generally in-

We study an LQG system by employing a Long tractable non-classical information patterns [21], [12].

Packets Assumption (LPA) [15], which allows packets The effect of random sampling times on optimal con-

to be arbitrarily long, and in particular to contain a troller design [2], state estimation [20], [13] and overall

history of all past observations. The LPA can be realized system performance [8] have been considered. Packet

even without long packets by having an encoder at the delays are considered in [11], with delay assumed to be

sensor and a decoder at the actuator, as shown in [5]. less than one sampling period. Another approach is to

We first address the question of where the control logic focus on eliminating the effect of random delay. In [10],

should be placed within the network subject to random a buffer is maintained at the receiving end of the channel

packet delays and losses, and show that it is optimal to for randomly delayed packets, which releases them at

collocate the controller with the actuator. This extends regular intervals. A similar actuator buffer has actually

an earlier result for the case of packet drops only [14], been deployed in [4]. The condition (1) is studied vis-

[15]. a-vis packet drops in [7], [18], [19].

Then we address the question of when such a system II. C P

is stabilizable. We show that the condition

We begin by determining where to locate the con-

1

pDrop , (1) troller; see Fig. 1. We show that placing it on a path

max (A)2 with best delay characteristics is optimal.

where max (A) is magnitude of the eigenvalue of A with Let q() be the probability mass function for delay

the largest magnitude is necessary, and also sufficient on anyP link j. Packets are dropped with probability

when the inequality is strict. This result shows that 1 t=0 q(t). Delays of packets on links are assumed

stabilizability under the LPA depends only on the loss iid. Let hg be the path of a packet from a node h to

probability and not the delay probabilities. Thus the node g. The path delay is the sum of the link delays

condition for stabilizability is essentially the same as on the path, with probability distribution denoted by

in the packet drop only case examined in [15], [18], [6], Fhg . We say that distribution F1 dominates F2 if F1 (D)

Authorized licensed use limited to: The Ohio State University. Downloaded on July 19,2010 at 21:28:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

47th IEEE CDC, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008 ThB06.1

Sensor Plant Actuator transmitted observation, and under the LPA is comprised

of all state observations {yk : 0 k j}. The sensor takes

C and transmits observations at each sampling instant k.

Control actions are implemented every s sample

S i

instants, and are held constant during the intermediate

interval. These are called actuation instants. Transmitted

observations are subject to delay. Since control actions

A

are only implemented at actuation instants, a delayed

Fig. 1. The controller is at node C, and SA is a minimal path. measurement can arrive at any time, but can only be

used at the next actuation instant.

We now describe the probabilistic model for the end-

F2 (D)D. A path between nodes h and g with the best to-end packet delay; see Figure 3. A packet transmitted

delay characteristics, i.e., one whose delay distribution at time j will contain z j under the LPA and is subject

dominates those of all other paths between h and g, to delay. There is no guarantee that packets will arrive

if one exists, is referred to as a shortest path and is in order. Delays of individual packets are i.i.d.

denoted by hg ; see Figure 1. pi :=Prob(Packet transmitted at k arrives P at k + i).

Lemma 2.1: Suppose the same packet is sent along pDrop

:=Prob(Packet

is dropped)

= 1 P i=0 pi .

two chains of nodes C1 and C2 , as in Fig. 2. Under pi := P Packet delay i = pDrop + j=i p j .

the LPA, the information at each node in C1 with more I(k) :=Set of observations known to controller at k

nodes is dominated by that at a corresponding node in is the information set.

C2 . (k) := age of the information set = ki, if the latest

packet to have arrived before actuation instant

C1

S A C k is zi . Note that I(k) = {y j : j k (k)}.

C2

(k) P((k) = ). Note that limk (k)

S B exists . Denote {0 , 1 , . . .}.

Fig. 2. Two chains of nodes with source node denoted by node S. With (a) below representing packet k arriving by

k, and (b) below packets {k + 1, k + 2, . . . , k} that

Proof: Node A on C1 at the same hop distance did not arrive by time k, see Figure 3, we can write:

from the source S as B (see Fig. 2, has FSA = FSB ). The

(a) (b)

information arrival processes at these two nodes can

z }| { z }| {

be stochastically coupled. Since packets will be further (k) =

(1 p+1 ) p1 p2 p3 . . . p for k ,

delayed between nodes A and C in C1 , the information

0 for > k.

at node B stochastically dominates that at C.

Corollary 2.2: Under the LPA there is an optimal con-

troller placement that is on path SA .

Theorem 2.3: Placing the controller at the actuator is

optimal. Actuation instant

Proof: Consider Case 1 with controller located at Sample instant

node i SA , and Case 2 where it is located at A. We

stochastically couple the cases so that events of packets

from i reaching A are identical. Hence, using LPA, node

Sensor

A can receive the same observation information in both p1

cases. However, the controller located at A additionally p2

pDrop p3

has the history of all implemented controls.

p4

p5

III. S P D M Estimator p0 p1 p2 p3 p4 p5

Consider the observable and controllable system:

k (k) k

xk+1 = Axk + Buk + wk , s

yj = C jx j + v j,

zj = {y j , y j1 , . . . y0 }. (2) Fig. 3. State observations occur at sample instants. Control actions are

computed and implemented at actuation instants. Actuation instants

are separated by s sample instants. Sensor observations are sent over

Noises wk and v j are zero mean iid Gaussian processes the network and incur a delayP i with probability pi , or are dropped

with covariances w and v . Packet delays, x0 , {wk } with probability pDrop = 1 i=0 pi .

and {vk } are mutually independent. y j is the state

observation made by the sensor at time j. z j is the

4603

Authorized licensed use limited to: The Ohio State University. Downloaded on July 19,2010 at 21:28:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

47th IEEE CDC, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008 ThB06.1

E C value of A with the largest magnitude, max (A), then:

We address boundedness of the quadratic cost: h i Y

X i X i

N1 v E x v v x v

p j

p j

max (A)2i .

1 X

i=0 j=1 j=0

J = lim sup E xk Qxk + uk Ruk .

N N k=0 We now use the ratio test, noting that limi pi = pDrop :

Q

Denoting by xk

the state estimation error covariance i+1 2i+2

j=1 p j 1 pi+2 max (A)

at k, which is random because of the randomness in lim sup Qi 2i

obtaining measurements, we can write i j=1 p j 1 pi+1 max (A)

N1 pi+1 1 pi+2

1 X x

= lim sup max (A)2

J = lim sup E xk Qxk + uk Ruk + Tr(k Q) , i (1 pi+1 )

N N

k=0

h i = pDrop max (A)2 ,

So we need only study boundedness of E xk . establishing the necessity of (1).

A. State Estimation: Kalman Filter Theorem

4.2: A sufficient condition for boundedness

of E x is

The Time update is, with the usual notation: 1

pDrop < .

xk+1|k = Axk|k + Buk , (3) max (A)2

Proof: Because 1 I x 2 I, and the same is true

xk+1|k = Axk|k A + , w

(4) for Ai W A i , we only need to consider boundedness of:

The Measurement update is: h i

X

1 E x = i xk+i|k

Kk+1 = xk+1|k C Cxk+1|k C + v , (5) i=0

X

xk+1|k+1 = xk+1|k + Kk+1 yk cxk+1|k , (6)

3 i Ai A i

xk+1|k+1 = (I Kk+1 C) xk+1|k , (7) i=0

Y i

At each actuation sample instant, (3) and (4) are used X

p j max (A)2i ,

3

to update the system state estimate. Iterating D steps,

i=0 j=1

D1

X where we have upper bounded several terms by 1. By

xk+D|k = AD xk|k A D + Ai w A i . (8)

the ratio test, a sufficient condition for stability is:

i=0

Q

i+1 2i+2

j=1 p j max (A)

1

If there is no packet loss or delay, then since [A, w 2 ] is lim sup Qi < 1

controllable and [A, C] detectable, the error covariance i j=1 p j max (A)

2i

converges to a positive definite limit, which we denote

by x . For simplicity we assume that the system is pDrop max (A)2 < 1.

started with x0|0 = x . Under the LPA, whenever a

packet z j arrives, the estimation error covariance xj|j Hence stabilizability under LPA only depends on packet

reverts to x . Hence it is the durations of the excursions drop probability and system dynamics. Performance is

from x that determine boundedness. adversely affected by larger delay, but not stabilizabil-

ity. This has potential design implications. One can set

B. Bounded Estimation Error Covariance the critical number of delivery attempts at the transport

PThe expected estimation error covariance is E x = layer, similar to the MAC layer retry limit in IEEE

x 802.11, so as to meet a desired pDrop .

i=0 i k+i|k .

Theorem 4.1: (1) is necessary

Q for bounded cost. The performance of several specific delay distribu-

P

Proof: = p

j=0 j j=1 p j . So, using (8),

tions in Figure 4 is illustrated in Figures 5, 6 and 7.

h i

X pi pi pi

E x = i xk+i|k pDrop pDrop pDrop

i=0

X X i1

i i j w j (a) Uniform (b) Exponential (c) Positve

= i A x A + A A (9)

i=0 j=0

Fig. 4. The drop probability, pDrop , is chosen to be the same. The

Y

i i P

X X density function, is chosen so to satisfy i=0 pi + pDrop = 1.

p j Ai x A i .

p j

i=0 j=1 j=0

4604

Authorized licensed use limited to: The Ohio State University. Downloaded on July 19,2010 at 21:28:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

47th IEEE CDC, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008 ThB06.1

600

400

max(A) = 1.2

300 500 max(A) = 1.1

200

400

Cost

100

300

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

200

Packets Dropped After 20 Sample Instants

3000

2500 100

2000

Cost

1500 0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

1000 Packet Drop Probability

500

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Fig. 7. Each curve represents a different system. Packets are delayed

with uniform probability (Figure 4(a)), and dropped when delay

Packets Dropped After 30 Sample Instants exceeds 30. The stability upper bound on pDrop is indicated by the

12000

vertical asymptotes. The upper curve represents a system with a

10000

Single Observation largest eigenvalue of 1.2 and hence a stability bound of pDrop = 0.69.

Long Packets The lower curve is a system with largest eigenvalue as 1.1 and

8000

stability bound of pDrop = 0.83.

6000

4000

2000

0

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

V. S S C LPA

We consider a suboptimal scheme without LPA.

Fig. 5. Packets are delivered with uniform probability of delay as

shown in Fig. 4(a). In the top figure, packets delayed by more than For an n-dimensional observable system, n consecu-

10 sample instants are dropped. In the second and third figures the tive observations yield a state estimate with bounded

delay threshold is 20 and 30, respectively. The x-axis is the packet

drop probability. The lower curve in each is the cost under LPA,

error covariance [9], denoted x . We consider a sub-

and the upper curve that for system which only transmits a single optimal filter that uses only the most recent set of n

observation. Notice that the cost diverges at the same packet drop consecutive measurements that have arrived. Open loop

probability in each figure.

prediction is done in between such batches of n or more

consecutive observation arrivals.

Denote by nk the elapsed time since the most recent

time at which n consecutive packets were delivered and

the current time k. Denote this set of n observations as:

200 n o

Uniform Y(k) = y j : k nk n + 1 j k nk .

Exponential

150

Positive

Bound

The resulting estimation error covariance at k, xk is:

k 1

nX

Cost

100 xk|nk = Ank x Ank + A j w A j .

j=0

50

nk being random, we compute the expectation

E[E[xk|n |nk ]].

k

Theorem 5.1: The expected estimation error covari-

0 ance is bounded if

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Packet Drop Probability

pk 1

lim inf >1 . (10)

k pk+1 max (A)2

Fig. 6. Packets delayed 30 time steps are dropped. The lowest curve Proof:

is the cost for exponential packet delay distribution (Figure 4(b)), the

middle curve for uniform distribution (Figure 4(a)), and upper curve If packets (k nk n + 1, k nk 1 n + 2, . . . , k nk ) are

for linear distribution (Figure 4(c)). the latest n consecutive packets to arrive before k, then

packet knk +1 should have not arrived by k; see Fig. 8.

4605

47th IEEE CDC, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008 ThB06.1

n pknk

Interestingly, the condition is independent of n. For a

geometric delay pk = (1 p)k p and pk = (1 p)k the

sufficient condition is p > 1 max1(A)2 . This is illustrated

p0 in Figure 9 as the = 0 curve.

pknk

B. An improved suboptimal scheme

An improved estimator can use any n observations

from n + consecutive observations. Denote by the

largest integer such that any r observations drawn from

z }| { ... k nk k {ykr+1 , ykr+2 , . . . , yk } yield an estimate of xk with

k nk n + 1 bounded error covariance, and call k an estimation epoch,

the number of allowable misses, and the estimator an

Fig. 8. The Figure illustrates an event where n consecutive packets

arrive before time k. The packets which arrive may do so at anytime

allowable misses estimator.

between their transmission time and time k. The potential arrival Theorem 5.2: With allowable misses, a state esti-

times are represented by the shaded area. The sequence of consec- mate with bounded error covariance can be formed if

utive packets is broken by a packet being delayed with probability 1

pnk .

! +1

pk 1

lim inf >1 . (13)

k pk max (A)2

This non-arrival occurs with probability pnk . Hence, Proof: The set of observations used at k is

" #

Packets (k nk n + 1, k nk n + 2, . . . , k nk ) Y(k) {y j : k r + 1 j k and y j delivered}.

P

are the last n consecutive ones to arrive before k (14)

n +n1 n +n2 n

kX kX X k

Define the oldest possible observation in Y(k) as k

pi

pi ...

pi pnk . (11) k r + 1. Say that Y(k) is full if it is missing exactly

i=0 i=0 i=0 observations in the interval k n + 1 j k.

Using (11) and (8) we can compute an upper bound For k to be the most recent estimation epoch, clearly

+n1 n +n2 n packet yk+1 should have been dropped, and in [k r

X nkX kX X k

+ 1, k] there need to be drops. Hence,

E[xk|knk ]

pi

pi

...

pi

p

nk

" #

nk =0 i=0 i=0 i=0 k is the most

P

nXk 1

recent epoch before k

. Ank x A nk + A j w A j

!

. r+ +1

pkk pkk . . . pkk . pkk Kpkk ,

j=0 |{z}

It is sufficient to consider the boundedness of | {z }

yk+1

+n1 n +n2 n missing from r +

X nkX kX X k

missing

p p ... p p Ank A nk

i

i

i

k n

nk =0 i=0 i=0 i=0 for a sufficiently large constant K. Substituting j = k k:

n +n1 n +n1 n +n1

X kX kX kX

p Ank A nk

p i

pi

...

p i

k n

X

j1

X

+1

j i

nk =0

+n1 n

i=0 i=0 i=0 E[xk|k ] Kp j j

A

x

k|Y(k) A +

i w

A A ,

X nkX j=0 i=0

pi pnk Ank A nk

=

nk =0 i=0

It is enough to consider conditions for boundedness of

| {z }

X

X

+1

+1

1 p j A j A j p j max (A)2j . (15)

X

X

j=0 j=0

pnk Ank A nk pnk max (A) 2nk

.

nk =0 nk =0 By the ratio test, this is bounded if

For boundedness, by the ratio test it is sufficient if +1

p j+1 max (A)2(j+1)

pnk +1 max (A) 2nk +2 lim sup +1

< 1, i.e., if

lim sup < 1. j p j max (A)2j

nk pnk max (A)2nk

! 1

! +1

pj 1

This is assured if lim sup 1 < .

pn

!

1 j p j max (A)2

lim sup 1 k < . (12)

nk pnk max (A)2

4606

47th IEEE CDC, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9-11, 2008 ThB06.1

1

+1

dition is p > 1 max1(A)2 . This condition is illustrated [1] Special Issue: Technology of Networked Control Systems. Proceed-

ings of the IEEE, Jan 2007.

in Figure 9 for different values of the term ( + 1). [2] M. Ades, P. E. Caines, and R. P. Malhame. Stochastic optimal

control under poisson-distributed observations. IEEE Transac-

1 tions on Automatic Control, 45(1), January 2000.

[3] M. Chow and Y. Tipsuwan. Network-based control systems:

0.9

1 A tutorial. In The 27th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial

Packet Delivery Probability

4

0.7 [4] S. Graham. Issues in the convergence of control with communication

8

0.6 16 and computation. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, 2004.

0.5 [5] V. Gupta, B. Hassibi, and R. M. Murray. Optimal LQG con-

0.4 trol across packet-dropping links. Systems & Control Letters,

0.3

56(6):439446, June 2007.

[6] O. C. Imer, S. Yuksel, and T. Basar. Optimal control of dynamical

0.2 systems over unreliable communication links. In NOLCOS,

0.1 2004.

0 [7] O. C. Imer, S. Yuksel, and T. Basar. Optimal control of dynamical

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 systems over unreliable communication links. Automatica, June

Largest Eigenvalue of A

2006.

[8] A. Khan, N. Agarwal, D. Tilbury, and J. Moyne. The impact of

random device processing delays on networked control system

Fig. 9. Illustration of Thm. 5.2 for a geometric delay distribution performance. In 42nd Annual Allerton Conference on Communica-

for different values of the term ( + 1). The upper curve ( = 0) tion, Control, and Computing., 2004.

corresponds to Thm. 5.1. [9] P. R. Kumar and P. Varaiya. Stochastic Systems: Estimation,

Identification and Adaptive Control, volume 1. Englewood Cliffs,

1986.

[10] R. Luck and A. Ray. An observer-based compensator for

C. Existence of distributed delays. In Automatica, volume 26, pages 903908,

1990.

For random A, usually 1. For example, = 6 for [11] J. Nilsson, B. Bernhardsson, and B. Wittenmark. Stochastic

analysis and control of real-time systems with random time

delays. Automatica, 34(1):5764, 1998.

0.65510 0.58530 0.89090 0.84070 [12] C. H. Papadimitriou and J. Tsitsiklis. Intractable problems

0.16260 0.22380 0.95930 0.25430

in control theory. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization,

A = , (16) 24(4):639654, July 1986.

0.11900 0.75130 0.54720 0.81430

[13] I. B. Rhodes and D. L. Snyder. Estimation and control per-

0.49840 0.25510 0.13860 0.24350 formance for space-time point-process observations. In IEEE

Transactions on Automatic Control, volume AC-22, pages 338346,

(C = [1 0 0 . . . ] throughout). Systems can have large . June 1977.

For example, A1 has > 70, but A2 yields = 0: [14] C. L. Robinson and P. R. Kumar. Control over networks of un-

reliable links: Location of controllers, control laws and bounds

on performance. In Proceedings of Control over Communication

2 1 0 2 1 0 Channels (ConCom), Cyprus, April 2007.

2 1 , and A2 = 0 2 0 .

A1 = 0 [15] C. L. Robinson and P. R. Kumar. Optimizing controller location

in networked control systems with packet drops. IEEE Journal

0 0 3 0 0 3

on Selected Areas in Communications, 26(4):661671, May 2008.

[16] L. Schenato. Optimal sensor fusion for distributed sensors

VI. C subject to random delay and packet loss. In Proc. of the IEEE

Conf. on Decision and Control., New Orleans, December 2007.

We have considered the effect of packet losses and [17] L. Schenato. Optimal estimation in networked control systems

subject to random delay and packet drop. IEEE Trans. on

delay on networked control system stabilizability un- Automatic Control, 53(5):13311317, 2008.

der a Long Packets Assumption. We have established [18] P. Seiler and R. Sengupta. Analysis of communication losses in

an optimal controller location and obtained a neces- vehicle control problems. In Proc. of the American Controls Conf.,

June 2001.

sary condition for stability which is sufficient if the [19] B. Sinopoli, L. Schenato, M. Franceschetti, K. Poolla, M. I.

inequality is strict. The latter depends only on the drop Jordan, and S. S. Sastry. Kalman filtering with intermittent ob-

probability and not the delay probability. We have also servations. In IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, volume 49,

2004.

considered a sub-optimal scheme that may possibly be [20] D. L. Snyder and P. M. Fishman. How to track a swarm of

of interest. fireflies by observing their flashes. In IEEE Transactions on

Information Theory, 1975.

[21] H. S. Witsenhausen. A counter example in stochastic optimal

A control. Siam J. Control, 6:131147, 1968.

ported by USARO under Contract Nos. W911NF-08-1-

0238 and W-911-NF-0710287, NSF under Contract Nos.

ECCS-0701604, CNS-07-21992, CNS-0626584, CNS-05-

19535 and CCR-0325716, and AFOSR under Contract

No. F49620-02-1-0217.

4607

Authorized licensed use limited to: The Ohio State University. Downloaded on July 19,2010 at 21:28:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

- Systems of Inequalities.pdfUploaded byYaw Kean Huat
- Statistical Performance Analysis and Modeling Techniques for Nanometer Vlsi DesignsUploaded byAtulJhaKumar
- MathematicsUploaded byWael Fawzy Mohamed
- Predicting the Present with Bayesian Structural Time Series .pdfUploaded bybillpetrrie
- Variational Inference for LDAUploaded byJun Wang
- Solutions to Chapter 19 Problems 2014 Structural and Stress Analysis Third EditionUploaded byAlain
- E Books ListUploaded byNaveenaAnitha
- UnscentedUploaded byAlex Donciu
- UntitledUploaded byapi-196824561
- Quadratic Sequences G8Uploaded byAnonymous gm4mu5HxQc
- Kalman FilterUploaded byJamiu Ariremako
- BodeRulesUploaded byapi-3757260
- Palm SampleSolnsUploaded byMZSHB
- Tugas Spm Final ProjectUploaded byLuqi Rf Boltzmann
- LDSUploaded bysisar
- Introduction to the Kalman Filter, Part II _ SharpRobotica.com - Sharp Ideas for the Software Side of RoboticsUploaded byAshok Ghildiyal
- 12 Maths NcertSolutions Chapter 7 2Uploaded byKuldeepChauhan
- Precal Answer PolynomialUploaded byAnonymous cFW9FQQyV
- Adaptive Unscented Kalman Filter and Its Applications in Nonlinear ControlUploaded bysource_cod
- sensors-16-01103Uploaded byBojan Petrovic
- New Data Association Technique for Target Tracking in Dense Clutter Environment Using Filtered Gate StructureUploaded byAI Coordinator - CSC Journals
- Assumed Modes MethodsUploaded byYsharath Chandramouli
- LOW-ORDER KALMAN FILTERS FOR CHANNEL ESTIMATIONUploaded byShyam Pratap Singh
- kalman 2Uploaded byChristian Okreghe
- Journal on Cognitive Control_Theory and ApplicationUploaded bynilu
- Dual Adaptive Control of Nonlinear StochUploaded byAhmadan Ainul Fikri
- Print u Nodal Solution Per NodeUploaded byBayu Prayudi Wibowo
- Recuperación Del Perfil de Temperatura Del Suelo Mediante La Asimilación de Los Productos MODIS LST Con El Filtro Kalman de ConjuntoUploaded byJesus Angel Baca Flores
- plugin-tws-20010215Uploaded byHoangtele Dang
- Series de FourierUploaded bySantiago Paul Pilaquinga

- Plant integrator - An example of reset control overcoming limitations of linear feedback.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Audie Nci a Rafa DiegoUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- appadurai-arjun_the-production-of-locality1.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Appadurai Arjun the Production of Locality1Uploaded byPaulina Marquez
- revised.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- 03 Pickering Michael - the Modalites of Nostalgia (1)Uploaded byPaulina Marquez
- ProtestaSocial OptUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Ip01 2 Sip Lqr Student 512Uploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Asymptotic Behavior of nonlinear Networked control systems.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo SampleUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Guaranted.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo A.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Survey on the performance analysis of Networked control systems.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Variable sampling rate networked control systems.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo A brief introduction to the analysis and design of networked control systems.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Tracking Control for Nonlinear Networked Control SystemsUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- SPTS_Survey_Yu_Yu_Wang_2004.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Stability of Networked Control Systems (2)Uploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo an Improved Maximum Allowable Transfer Interval for Lp-stability of NetworkedUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo an Introduction to Event-based Control for Networked Control SystemsUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- 1-s2.0-0167691187900211-mainUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Africon2013 SentUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- 0051Uploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Reset adaptive observer for a class of nonlinear systems (1).pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- 2010SystContLettCarrasco.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- observers.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Further results on stability of networked control systems.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez
- Articulo Networked control systems with communication constraints.pdfUploaded byPaulina Marquez

- Lance Knight Joins Go2Group as Vice President of Sales Enablement and Customer ExperienceUploaded byPR.com
- Rammed Earth ConstructionUploaded byraeggaeman
- Cariera Si Ghidare VocationalaUploaded byDan Rotar
- Rational Decision Making Past Paper AnswerUploaded byavalon
- Dhubri Earthquake 1930Uploaded bySujit Dasgupta
- Rodriguez-lopes Et Al 2014 SedgeolUploaded byGuilherme Madrid Pereira
- one pagerUploaded byapi-300828341
- Smex1045 Strength of Materials 2 1 0 3[1]-1Uploaded bysankarsuper83
- easy-clocking-ec-500-user.pdfUploaded byIngeniero
- AASLD GuidelinesUploaded bycrazydoc420
- lesson planUploaded byapi-282628079
- 04_Kukan v MoralesUploaded byTheodoreJosephJumamil
- Lucida Intervalla 44(2015)Uploaded byD-kiddo
- Week 5 Breast CancarUploaded byJohn Thunder
- 8 Guide HinduismUploaded byGirish Kumar
- Fracture Mechanics Lecture Slides.pptxUploaded byCrystal Woods
- Jeep Leak FixUploaded bylavazzzza
- 3.Syllabus (Solid State Physics)OptionalUploaded byMuhammad Hasan Raza
- Internship ReportUploaded byAli Amar
- Strategic Management on AMULUploaded byhhhh
- Ball BearingUploaded byJyotibaraje Jadhav
- Reaction and Deflection of Elastic FramesUploaded byBunkun15
- Experiment 1 - Single Phase TransformerUploaded byKhairul Islam Himel
- One Thing is Happily ClearUploaded byCora Marie
- alternative medicine - seiroganUploaded byapi-298282626
- Chamber Judgment Faber v. Hungary 24.07.12 (1)Uploaded bySumo Zebedeus
- Binary Lambda Calculus and Combinatory Logic - TrompUploaded byblausechs
- Exercises Peprositions of PlaceUploaded byalberthx
- Masculinity versus Femininity: An Analysis of Woman at Point Zero written by Nawal El SaadawiUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- DM_Lecture_1.pptUploaded bywaqas7136