See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228671187

Simulink implementation of adaptive control and multiple model network

control

Article · January 2001

CITATIONS READS

6 2,588

3 authors, including:

Gregor Gregorcic A. Mullane

qpunkt GmbH 25 PUBLICATIONS   2,022 CITATIONS   
18 PUBLICATIONS   362 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gregor Gregorcic on 10 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Simulink Implementation of Adaptive Control and
Multiple Model Network Control
Gregor Gregorčič, Alan Mullane and Gordon Lightbody
Department of Electrical Engineering
University College Cork
IRELAND
E-mail: gregorg@rennes.ucc.ie

Abstract — The Simulink implementation of two adaptive model

based control techniques will be presented in this paper. Implemen-
tation of the Recursive Least Squares algorithm for Pole–Placement
adaptive control will be shown. The parameters of the nonlinear
system can change over time due to different operating conditions.
When a single identification model is used, it will have to adapt it-
self to the operating condition, before appropriate control can be
taken. Slowness of adaptation may result in a large transient er-
ror. As an alternative, the Multiple Model framework can be used.
If models are available for different operating conditions, controllers
corresponding to them can be found in advance. The control strategy
is to determine the best model for the current operating condition
and activate the corresponding controller. A simulated example of
the control of a continuous stirred tank reactor will be shown, us-
ing the developed Adaptive Control and Multiple Model Network
simulation tools.
Keywords — Simulink, S–Function, Adaptive Control, Multiple
Model Control

I Introduction which has a corresponding linear controller. A su-

The most common adaptive control schemes are
based on self-tuning control techniques such as
Pole–Placement [1], [2], [3] and minimum variance
control. In such controllers, a linear parameter-
ized model of the process is continuously identified,
utilizing for example the Recursive Least Squares
(RLS) algorithm [4]. This model is then used to
update the controller transfer functions.
Narendra and Parthasaranthy [5], proposed the
enhancement of model based control techniques,
such as self–tuning controllers, by replacing linear
parameterized models with neural network based
nonlinear models. Two other approaches, based
on local linear models have been also proposed.
Such methods include Takagi–Sugeno Fuzzy mod-
els [6], and Local Model Networks [7], [8], both
of which partition the nonlinear process into op-
erating regimes, within which models are identi-
fied. These models are then combined to form a
nonlinear model of the process across its expected
operating space. Controllers can be designed for
each operating regime, and combined in a similar
fashion to provide a nonlinear control law, which
would be applied, even for large set–point changes
or disturbances, which drive the process across op-
erating regimes.
Narendra and Balakrishnan [9], [10], have pro-
posed the use of multiple linear models, each of
pervisor then determines from process data which
model best represents the process at a particular
time, and then switches in its associated controller.
In terms of the structure of the overall model,
this last approach is the simplest. The parameters
of the local models are identified locally. The Iden-
tification can be done online in the closed–loop.
The idea is to bring the system to the desired op-
erating point using Pole–Placement adaptive con-
trol. When the closed–loop system reaches the
steady state, (i.e. when the linear model represents
the controlled system accurately), the adaptation
is turned off and the parameters of the model and
its corresponding controller are stored in to the
database.
In order to facilitate teaching of adaptive con-
trol, an interactive simulation tool was required.
This allow issues such as: sensitivity to the for-
getting factor, bumbless transfer, effect of the co-
variance matrix reset, and the effect of the addi-
tional excitation signal to be easily investigated.
This paper shows the Simulink implementation of
such a tool, which was also extended for Multiple
Model Network Control. After the Multiple Model
Network has been trained, it can be used as an in-
dependent control strategy. Using the Simulink
Implementation of Adaptive Control and Multi-
ple Model Network, the characteristics of these ap-
proaches have been examined and some limitations of R(q) is larger than, or equal to, the degrees of
of each of them have been pointed out. Continu- S(q) and T (q).
ous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) has been used
as an example of the nonlinear system. R(q)u(k) = T (q)r(k) − S(q)y(k) (7)

II Adaptive Control Vs. Local Model This control structure can be represented as shown
Network Control in Fig. 1.

a) Pole–Placement Self–Tuning Control

PRBS

Pole-Placement Self–Tuning control utilizes the T(q)

R(q)
B(s)
A(s)
Scope

following ARX model of the process [4]. Here u(k) Set−Point Controller
Feedforward Nonlinear System

and y(k) are the input and output of the process, Controller
Feedback
S(q)
R(q) y(k)
with A(q) and B(q) polynomials in the forward u(k)
RLS theta(k+1)

shift operator, ε(k) is white noise. Recursive Least Squares Estimator Controller Update

A(q)y(k) = B(q)u(k) + ε(k) (1)

Fig. 1: Simulink block diagram of the Pole–Placement
Adaptive Control.
Here

A(q) = q n + an−1 q n−1 + an−2 q n−2 + · · · + a0 (2)
B(q) = Bm q m + bm−1 q m−1 +
bm−2 q m−2 + · · · + b0
This model can be continuously identified using,
for example, the Recursive Least Squares algo-
rithm, with exponential weighting [4]:
θ̂(k + 1) = θ̂(k) + P(k + 1)ψ(k + 1)
h i
y(k + 1) − ψ T (k + 1)θ̂(k)
P(k + 1) =
" T
#
P(k)ψ(k + 1)ψ (k + 1)P(k)
= P(k) −
λ + ψ T (k + 1)P(k)ψ(k + 1)
where the estimate of the parameter vector is de-
fined as:
θ̂(k) = [ân−1 (k), · · · , â0 (k), b̂m (k), · · · , b̂0 (k)]T (6)
Exponential weighting implies that old measure-
ments are exponentially discounted, which gives
an ability to track changes in time–varying and
nonlinear systems. The parameter λ in equation
(5) is called the forgetting factor and is usually
chosen in range 0.95 < λ < 1. The choice of λ de-
pends on how the properties of the system change.
Smaller values of λ result in a faster forgetting,
which can be used to cope with nonlinear and fast
changing systems. Likewise values of λ close to
1 result in slower forgetting, and can be used for
systems that change gradually.
The control law of equation (7) is assumed,
where R(q), S(q) and T (q) are polynomials in the
forward shift operator. u(k) and y(k) are the plant
input and output, r(k) is the set–point. To have
a causal controller, it is necessary that the degree
The closed–loop system can be represented as fol-
lows:
(A(q)R(q) + B(q)S(q)) y(k) = B(q)T (q)r(q) (8)
Pole–Placement design is the choice of polynomi-
(3)
als R(q) and S(q), for estimated Â(q) and B̂(q)
polynomials, to obtain some desired closed–loop
characteristic equation Acl (q). This is represented
by the following Diophantine equation:
Acl (q) = Â(q)R(q) + B̂(q)S(q) (9)
If polynomials Â(q) and B̂(q) do not have com-
(4) mon factors, then this Diophantine equation can
be solved using matrix calculations, based on the
Sylvester matrix [2].
b) Multiple Model Network Control
1 When a single identification model is used, it will
(5)
λ have to adapt itself to the operating condition be-
fore appropriate control can be taken. After the
operating condition of a system changes abruptly,
the original model (and hence controller) is no
longer valid. Slowness of adaptation may result
in a large transient error.
If models are available for different operating
conditions, controllers corresponding to them can
be found in advance. The control strategy shown
in [9], [10] is to determine the best model for the
current operating condition at every instant, and
activate the corresponding controller. This control
structure, as shown in Fig. 2, is based on N mod-
els which have been determined at various points
across the operating range of the process. A con-
troller is then designed for each model, using the
Diophantine pole–placement algorithm. A super-
visor then compares the output errors for the N
models. A discrete equivalent of the performance
index proposed in [10] is given in equation (10), for
the ith model:
M
X
Ji (k) = αe2i (k) + β exp(−jλi )e2i (k − j) (10)
j=1
 However, for a nonlinear process operating over
its full range, the steady–state control input at
each operating point is usually a nonlinear func-
tion of the desired output. It is therefore difficult
to provide zero mean data without online estima-
tion of the means. It is then preferable to use the
following second order discrete time incremental
model [12]:

q 2 + a1 q + a0 ∆Ca (k) = (b1 q + b0 ) ∆qc (k) (14)

Fig. 2: A general architecture of the Multiple Model
Network Control.
Here

Here ei (k) is the output error for the ith model. ∆Ca (k) = 1 − q −1 Ca (k)


(15)
The parameters α, β and λ are chosen to yield
a desired combination of instantaneous and long-
term accuracy. The forgetting factor λ determines
∆qc (k) = 1 − q −1 qc (k)


(16)
the memory of the index, and will have direct effect
on the decision speed of the supervisor. The model This will provide the additional benefit of intro-
with the lowest cost is selected, and its associated ducing integral action into a resulting controller.
controller is switched in the loop. For good parameter estimation, the system should
III The Nonlinear System be excited with a signal of rich frequency content.

A chemical system, known as a Continuous Stirred IV Blockset Implementation

Tank Reactor (CSTR), was utilized as an example,
to illustrate the use of the proposed adaptive con-
trol tool. In the CSTR, two chemicals are mixed,
and react to produce a product compound with
concentration Ca (t). The temperature of the mix-
ture is T (t). The reaction is exothermic, produc-
ing heat which acts to slow the reaction down. By
introducing a coolant flow–rate qc (t), the temper-
ature can be varied and hence the product concen-
tration controlled. This system can be described
by the following nonlinear simultaneous differen-
tial equations1 :
Q
Ċa (t) = (Ca0 − Ca (t)) −
V  
E The Adaptive Block diagram is shown in Fig. 3. As
k0 Ca (t) exp −
RT (t)
For the simulation, three Simulink block diagram
windows have to be opened. The Control Panel
can be seen in Fig. 5. From the Control Panel the
Adaptive Control block diagram, seen in Fig. 3,
can be controlled. Also through the Control Panel,
the model and controller parameters can be sent
from the Adaptive Control block diagram to the
Multiple Model block diagram seen in Fig. 6. In
this case, the structure of the Multiple Model Con-
trol network has to be defined in advance and it
can not be changed online. As such the Multiple
Model block diagram effectively acts as a database
for the model and controller parameters.
a) Adaptive Control block diagram
(11)
1

PRBS PRBSsw

1 0.00019z−1+0.00016z−2
PRBS @ Input
  1−1.59z−1+0.71z−2

Q E 0 PRBS @ Set Point

Model

Ṫ (t) = (T0 − T (t)) − k1 Ca (t) exp − + 688.34

Delta Operator1 qc_ini Constant1

V RT (t) 0.08

Constant
1+0.54z−1
+1.28e−007z−2

Filter
2
1
1−z−1
PLANT

   Sw Control Open/Close Scope

Integrator

k3 P Matrix: 0
Switch
Delta Operator
CSTR

k2 qc (t) 1 − exp − (Tc0 − T (t)) (12)

0.82 0.48 −2197.97 1912.26
0.48 0.61 −921.12 634.86 Constant2 Set Point: 0.08
−2197.97 −921.12 21125804.67 −17987627.25 RLS: on

qc (t) 1912.26 634.86 −17987627.25 19367091.03

Condition number = 202719881.88

Determinant = 1.58271041002e+013
y(k)
RLS
PRBS: on\Input
PRBS lambda: 1
PRBS Gain: 0.01
PRBS Offset: 0
Estimator theta(k+1)
on P Matrix: Update
u(k) Forggeting Factor: 0.956
P Matrix Display Loop: Closed
RLS Controller Auto Set Point Change: on

Consider the flow–rate qc (t) as the input and prod- 4408.81−6062.35z−1

+2341.88z−2
Tuning Multiple Model Tuning: on
Sample Time: 0.1

1+0.54z−1
+1.28430871649e−007z−2 Control Panel Display

uct concentration Ca (t) as the output of the sys- Feedback

tem. The following second order difference equa-

tion model of the CSTR process was proposed: Fig. 3: Adaptive Control block diagram

q 2 + a1 q + a0 Ca (k) = (b1 q + b0 ) qc (k)

(13)
In the Pole–Placement algorithm the parameters
a0 , a1 , b0 and b1 are identified on–line using the
RLS algorithm. It is essential that the input and
output data to the RLS algorithm are zero mean.
1 The CSTR parameters of (11) and (12) can be found
in [11].
well as the standard Simulink blocks it contains the
following, which were built using S–Functions [13]:
PRBS block: This is used to add excitation to the
the control signal, to insure that all system modes
are excited. Since the estimated model is linear,
the amplitude of the PRBS signal must be small
in comparison with set–point changes. The PRBS
signal is produced using the combination of an 11
bit shift register and an XOR gate [14]. The mini-
mum length of the pulse, amplitude, offset and the
sampling time can be set in the Subsystem Mask
window.
RLS Estimator block: This is a Simulink imple-
mentation of the Recursive Least Squares algo-
rithm. Inputs to the RLS Estimator are the input
and output of the system or their increments. The
output is the vector of the estimated parameters
θ̂(k + 1).
To be able to calculate the new parameter vector
θ̂(k + 1), it is necessary to store the previous val-
ues of the covariance matrix P(k), regressor vector
ψ(k) and parameter vector θ̂(k). (See (4),(5)) This
is done by splitting the covariance matrix in to a
vector. The regressor vector and the parameter
vector are then appended to this vector. This new
vector is used as the state vector in the S–Function.
In the Update section of the S–Function the covari-
ance matrix, regressor vector, and the parameter
vector are rebuilt from the state vector. Then the
new P(k + 1), ψ(k + 1), θ̂(k + 1) are calculated and
the state vector is updated.
The estimated model parameters are “sent” to
the Model transfer function using the set param
function [15]. The following parameters can be set
in the RLS Estimator Subsystem Mask window:
• Structure of the model (m and n in (6))
• Forgetting factor λ
• Covariance matrix initialization factor α
• Name of the target model
• P Matrix Reset (on/Reset, off/Update)
• Name of the P Matrix Display
• Switch (on/off)
• Sample time
Controller Tuning block: This takes as an input
the parameter vector θ̂(k + 1). From the model
parameters and the desired closed–loop behavior
specified in the desired characteristic polynomial
Acl , the controller parameters are calculated using
the Diophantine equation (9). The controller is
factorized in to the two transfer functions, Filter
and Feedback. These transfer functions are up-
dated using the set param function. The step re-
sponse of the desired closed–loop behavior is plot-
ted on the block icon. The structure of the model,
desired characteristic polynomial, name of the con-
troller transfer functions and the sample time can
be specified in the Controller Tuning Subsystem
Mask window.
P Matrix Display: A tool for observing the covari-
ance matrix is also provided. Online monitoring
of the covariance matrix can be useful as a diag-
nostic of the parameter vector convergence. Es-
timated model parameters are close to real pa-
rameters when the covariance matrix is well condi-
tioned. This can be seen from the condition num-
ber, or from the determinant of the covariance ma-
trix. The covariance matrix, along with its condi-
tion number and determinant are displayed on the
icon of the P Matrix Display.
A more informative indicator of covariance ma-
trix behavior is given by the P Matrix Viewer.
This uses the Matrix Viewer to display a color coded
covariance matrix. Each segment of window rep-
resents an element of the covariance matrix, with
dark color (black) corresponding to a small num-
ber, and light (white) color corresponding to the a
large number. The condition of the matrix can be
deduced from the pattern. The pattern on the left
hand side of the Fig. 4 shows ill–conditioned co-
variance matrix, whereas than on the right is well
conditioned.
Fig. 4: P Matrix Viewer. Left: ill–conditioned covariance
matrix, right: well conditioned covariance matrix
Control Panel Display: This reads values from the
Control Panel block diagram, using the get param
function [15], and sets the values in the Adaptive
Control block diagram using the set param func-
tion. These are displayed on the block icon. This
S–Function is responsible for communication be-
tween the Control Panel and the Adaptive Control
block diagram window.
b) Control Panel block diagram
The simulation can be controlled from the Con-
trol Panel block diagram shown in Fig. 5. Various
parameters can be controlled online, while the
simulation is running. Most of the controls
are built using the Manual Switch and Slider
Gain. The Terminator block is used to avoid
the warning in the Matlab command window.
The following simulation properties can be con-
trolled via the Control Panel Block diagram:
• Set–point setting
• Switch between manual and preprogrammed
set–point changes
• RLS algorithm on/off switch
• PRBS signal on/off switch
• PRBS parameters settings (λ, amplitude and
off–set)
• PRBS signal can be injected at the set–point
or at the input of the system
• Covariance matrix reset switch
• Forgetting factor setting
• Switch between the open and closed–loop
• Sample time setting
• Multiple Model Tuning switch
 1 0.08 1 0.956 Model Control Network are identified and stored
Constant Set Point Terminator Constant1 Forgetting Factor Terminator5
in to the Multiple Model block diagram. Then the
1 1 1
RLS ON Constant2 PRBS Lambda Terminator6
Multiple Model block diagram is now redy to be
0 Terminator1 used.
RLS ON−OFF 1 0.001
RLS OFF Constant3 PRBS Gain Terminator7
1 a) Adaptive Control and Parameter Estimation
1 0
PRBS ON
Constant4 PRBS Offset Terminator8
for Multiple Model Control Network
0 Terminator2
PRBS ON−OFF
PRBS OFF 1
Closed Loop
Since the CSTR system is highly nonlinear, the
1
@ Set Point 0 Terminator10 adaptive control is not trivial. To allow the RLS
Open−Close Loop
0 Terminator3
Open Loop Estimator to identify the initial model at the cho-
PRBS Set P.−Input
@ Input 1
sen operating point and for the Controller Update
On
1
0 Terminator11
block to set the controller parameters to their right
Reset Auto Sp Change
0 Terminator4
Off values, it is necessary to run the simulation in the
P Matrix Reset
Update open–loop for a few seconds. After the model is
1
Source Model: CSTR_tuning/Model
Target Model: CSTR_switch/Model_0.08
identified and controller is set, the loop can be
Source Feedback: CSTR_tuning/Feedback
Update Model
Target Feedback: CSTR_switch/Feedback_0.08 closed. The decision, when the parameters are
0 Source Filter: CSTR_tuning/Filter
No Update
Multiple Model
Tuning ON/OFF
Target Filter: CSTR_switch/Filter_0.08 close enough to real parameters can be made ac-
Target cording to observation of the patten of the covari-
1 0.1 ance matrix.
Constant5 Sample Time Terminator9
After the loop has been closed, the set–point
can be changed. As can be seen from the Fig. 7,
Fig. 5: Control Panel block diagram the transient response using adaptive control is is
poor. When the system settles at the new operat-
c) Multiple Model block diagram
Set−point
Multiple Model block diagram, shown on Fig. 6, 0.13
Output

can be used separately from the Control Panel and

the Adaptive Control block diagram. Usually, the 0.12

model and controller parameters are identified on-

line, for different operating points, using the Adap-
Ca (mol/l)

0.11

tive Control block diagram. Then via the Con-

trol Panel, the parameters are stored to the corre- 0.1

sponding transfer function blocks.

0.09

0.00018z−1
+0.00018z−2
1−1.87z−1
+0.94z−2

Model_0.13 0.08

0.00018z−1
+0.00017z−2
supervisor
1−1.69z−1
+0.78z−2 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
S−Function
Model_0.105
Time (min)
0.00018z−1
+0.00015z−2
1−1.48z−1
+0.59z−2
691.98
1+0.65z−1
+9.82e−008z−2 Model_0.08
qc_ini Constant1
Filter_0.13

1
Fig. 7: Set–point tracking for the CSTR using adaptive
710.10 PLANT
1
Constant2
0.08

Set Point
1+0.59z−1
+1.17e−007z−2

Filter_0.105 Multiport
1−z−1

Integrator2 CSTR Scope

control: The sampling time was 0.1 minute and forgetting
752.24
Switch1
5728.23−8423.13z−1+3386.88z−2 factor λ was 0.956. The desired closed-loop performance
1+0.65z−1
+9.82e−008z−2
1+0.52z−1
+1.54e−007z−2

Filter_0.08
Feedback_0.13 was defined as second order dominant with a damping
rad
5048.55−7088.15z−1+2749.70z−2
1+0.59z−1
+1.17e−007z−2
ratio of 0.707 and natural frequency of 7.4 min
Multiport Feedback_0.105
Switch2

4344.24−5629.5z−1
+2037.52z−2
1+0.52z−1
+1.54e−007z−2

Feedback_0.08
ing point, the parameters can be stored in to the
Multiple Model block diagram. This is done be
Fig. 6: Multiple Model block diagram switching the Multiple Model Tuning switch in the
Control Panel to on. It is preferable, that adapta-
The Supervisor block calculates the cost, proposed tion (RLS switch) is turned off, while the model
in (10), at each sampling time. The model with the and controller transfer function in the Multiple
lowest cost is found and the corresponding con- Model block diagram function are updated. The
troller is switched in to the closed–loop using the parameters will be stored in to the blocks specified
Multiport Switch. in the Target block. After the parameters have
been stored, the Multiple Model Tuning switch is
V Simulation Example
then switched off, with RLS adaptation switched
The aim of this simulation is to show the difference back on. Then the set–point can be changed again.
of the two different control strategy. The simula- While the simulation is running, all the proper-
tion is separated into two tasks. First, the adaptive ties available in the control Panel can be changed.
control strategy is used. During this period the This is a powerful tool to study adaptive control
model and controller parameters for the Multiple strategy, especially for nonlinear systems.
b) Multiple Model Control
Once the model parameters for the Multiple Model
Control Network have been identified, the cost pa-
rameters α, β and λ in the (10) are left to be found.
Parameters α, β and λ are usually chosen empiri-
cally, and can be different for each model. Choos-
ing a different set of parameters for each model
can be a difficult task, particularly when the num-
ber of models is large. In this case, parameters α,
β were fixed and λ was chosen according to the
bandwidth of each particular model. As seen from
Fig. 8 the multiple model approach gives a better
response than self–tuning control. Since an incre-
mental approach for estimating model parameters
and corresponding controllers was utilized and in-
tegral action was introduced, choosing a different
controllers yields a different transient response but
has no effect on steady–state error.
0.13
0.125
0.12
0.115
Ca (mol/l)
0.11
0.105
0.1
0.095
0.09
0.085
0.08
Controller Switch Position
Controller 3
Controller 2
Controller 1
64 66 68 70 72
Time (min)
View publication stats
Fig. 8: Set–point tracking for the CSTR using multiple
model control: The following set of parameters for Ji was
chosen: M = 10, α = 0.5, β = 0.7, λ1 = 35, λ2 = 25 and
λ3 = 2.45.
VI Conclusion
A Simulink implementation of the Pole–Placement
Adaptive Control and Multiple Model Control
Network was presented in this paper. As a part
of the proposed simulation tool, the S–function
realization of the PRBS signal, Recursive Least
Squares algorithm, Diophantine equation solver
and covariance matrix viewer were explained. The
CSTR system was used to show the use of the
Adaptive Control and Multiple Model Network
simulation tool.
References
[1] K. J. Åström and B. Wittenmark. Adaptive
control. Addison–Wesley Publishing Com-
pany, Reading, 2nd edition, 1995.
[2] K. J. Åström and B. Wittenmark. Computer–
Controlled Systems: Theory and Design.
Prentice Hall, London, 3rd edition, 1997.
[3] K. J. Åström and B. Wittenmark. Self–tuning
controllers based on pole–zero placement. IEE
Proceedings, Part D: Control Theory and Ap-
plications, 127(3):120–130, May 1980.
[4] Lennart Ljung. System Identification: Theory
for the User. Prentice Hall PTR, 2nd edition,
Jan. 1999.
[5] K. S. Narendra and K. Parthasarathy. Identi-
fication and control of dynamical systems us-
ing neural networks. IEEE Transactions on
Neural Networks, 1(1):4–27, Mar. 1990.
[6] T. Takagi and M. Sugeno. Fuzzy identifica-
tion of systems and its applications to model-
ing and control. IEEE Transactions on Sys-
tems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-15(1):116–
132, Jan.–Feb. 1985.
[7] G. Lightbody M. D. Brown and G. W. Ir-
win. Nonlinear internal model control using
Set−point
Output local model networks. IEE Proceedings: Con-
trol Theory and Applications, 144(6):505–514,
Nov. 1997.
[8] R. Murray-Smith and T.A. Johansen. Multi-
ple Model Approaches to Modelling and Con-
trol. Tylor & Francis, London, 1997.
[9] K. S. Narendra and J. Balakrishnan. Adaptive
control using multiple models. IEEE Trans-
actions on Automatic Control, 42(2):171–187,
Feb. 1997.
74 76 78 80
[10] K. S. Narendra J. Balakrishnan and M. K.
Ciliz. Adaptation and learning using multiple
models, switching, and tuning. IEEE Control
Systems Magazine, 15(3):37–51, Jun. 1995.
[11] G. Gregorčič and G. Lightbody. A compar-
ison of multiple model and pole–placement
self–tuning for the control of highly nonlinear
processes. In Proceedings of the Irish Signals
and Systems Conference, pages 303–311, Jun.
2000.
[12] P. E. Wellstead and M. B. Zarrop. Self–
Tuning Systems: Control and Signal Process-
ing. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1991.
[13] Writing S–Functions. The MathWorks, Inc.,
Oct. 1998.
[14] D. Matko. Identifikacije. Založba FE in FRI,
Ljubljana, 2. izdaja, 1998.
[15] Using Simulink. The MathWorks, Inc., Jan.
1999.