You are on page 1of 10

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

net/publication/3169028

Magnitude and symmetric optimum criterion for the design of linear control
systems: What is it and how does it compare with the others?

Article in IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · June 1990


DOI: 10.1109/28.55967 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

102 337

2 authors, including:

M. Safiuddin
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
64 PUBLICATIONS 175 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Reactive Compensation and Harmonic Suppression Study View project

Excavator Control Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Safiuddin on 26 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, MAYIJUNE 1990 489

Magnitude and Symmetric Optimum Criterion for


the Design of Linear Control Systems: What Is
It and How Does It Compare with the
Others?

Abstruct- The magnitude and symmetric optimization techniques are pole placement and the minimization of the integral time ab-
two related methods for designing “optimal” linear control systems in solute error (ITAE) are briefly evaluated. To determine the
the frequency domain. Both methods have been used in industry for worth of both the magnitude and symmetric optimum, the re-
some time, yet they do not appear to have been well-documented in the
English control engineering literature. The developments of the criterion
sponses of typical systems designed with these optima will
are examined, include general solutions for typical controllers. As a be compared to systems designed with pole placement and
basis for comparison, time domain response optimization techniques ITAE. Finally, control parameter solutions for common plant
such as minimizing the integral time absolute error, along with state and controller combinations are presented.
space techniques, i.e., pole placement, are briefly reviewed. Personal
computer simulation results of a normalized position control system are 11. DEVELOPMENT
OF MAGNITUDE [2]
OPTIMUM
given to illustrate these methods.
One possible objective in the design of a control system is
that the controlled system’s output should exactly and instan-
I. INTRODUCTION taneously reproduce its input. That is, the system’s transfer
function should be unity, i.e.,
HE DESIGN of industrial controllers is based on two
T tasks: determining the structure of the controller and ad-
justing the controller’s parameters to give an “optimal” sys-
C ( s ) / R ( s )= 1.

tem performance. As an aside, this design process is normally In other words, the system should be presentable on a Bode
done with “complete knowledge” of the plant. Furthermore, gain versus frequency diagram with a 0-dB gain of infinite
the plant is normally described by a linear time-invariant con- bandwidth and zero phase shift. In practice this is not possible
tinuous or discrete time model. The structure of the controller since every system will contain inductive- and capacitive-type
is chosen such that the system’s response can meet certain components that store energy in some form. It is these ele-
qualitative criteria; type I, 11, or 111 behavior, stable response, ments and their interconnections with energy dissipative com-
appropriate disturbance handling capabilities, etc. In the field ponents that produce the system’s dynamic response charac-
of control engineering, techniqueshave evolved to find an “op- teristics. Such systems reproduce some inputs almost exactly,
timal” set of controller parameters for a given plant and con- while other inputs are not reproduced at all. Signifying that
troller combination. These techniques include pole placement, the system’s bandwidth is less than infinite.
minimization of the integral of a function system error, and Once it is recognized that the system’s dynamics cannot
optimal control. Two related techniques that have not received be ignored, a new design objective is needed. One possible
much attention in the English control engineering literature, design objective is to maintain the magnitude response curve
with the exception of [ 2 ] , are the magnitude and symmetric as flat and as close to unity for a large a bandwidth as possible,
optimum. On the other hand, these techniques appear to be for a given plant and controller combination. This technique is
well-documented in the German literature [ 13. called the magnitude optimum. The magnitude optimum is an
This paper reviews the development and principles of both optimization technique, since it helps to determine the “best”
of these techniques. Furthermore, as a basis for comparison, controller coefficients for a given controller configuration
that previously had been determined to be best able to control
Paper IUSD 88-24, approved by the Industrial Control Committee of the a fixed plant. The fixed plant is assumed to have an mth-order
IEEE Industry Applications Society for presentation at the 1988 Industry Ap- transfer function of the form (Fig. 1)
plications Society Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, October 2-7. Manuscript
released for publication August 18, 1989.
J. W. Umland is with the Department of Mathematical and Aerospace
Engineering, 1012 Furnas Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo, NY 14260. where P ( s ) is an mth-order polynomial n s,
M. Safiuddin is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer- m
ing, 201 Bell Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
14260. P(s) = CbiS’.
IEEE Log Number 9034297. i =O

.OO
OO93-9994/90/05OO-0489$01 0 1990 IEEE
490 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS. VOL. 26, NO. 3. MAYIJUNE 1990

A
R L
GAS) G,(s)

Fig. 1. General system block diagram.

I
Fig. 2. I controller for system with one delay.

A general form for the controller transfer function is This function may now be expanded in a Taylor series about
w =o,
G C ( s )= a ( ~ ) / 2 ~ (2)
where a(s) is an nth-order polynomial in s,
n

a ( s )= C a ; s ' .
i =O

Normally, the order of the controller is less than that of the p4(jo>lz,= o = 1.
plant, i.e., m > n. The standard controller structures can be
found via proper choice of the polynomial coefficients: The first 2n - 1 odd derivatives of IM(jw)l 2 evaluated at w = 0
are set equal to zero. Furthermore, it is possible to set the
proportional (P) al # 0 , a; = 0 first 2n even derivatives to zero, eliminating the effect of low-
i E [0, n],i # 1 frequency components in the magnitude response function.
integral (I) a0 # 0, a; = 0 Defining the magnitude response function as approximately
equal to zero for low frequencies, i.e.,
i E [ l , n3
proportional plus integral (PI) ao, a I# 0, a; =0
i E [2,n] and satisfied exactly for w = 0. It is proven from calculus
proportional plus integral ao, a1 , a2 # 0 , a; = 0 that, for a curve to be horizontal at a point, its first derivative
plus derivative (PID) i E [3, n ] . must be zero at that point. Furthermore, for a curve to be flat,
or to have zero curvature at a point, its second derivative must
The closed-loop unity feedback transfer function is given equal zero at that point. Therefore, the magnitude optimum
bY technique seeks to eliminate the sensitivity of the magnitude
response function to low frequencies by equating to zero the
C(s) - Gc(s)G,(s)
(3) coefficients of the Taylor series expansion that would be most
R(s) 1 +Gc(s)Gp(s)' significant for low frequencies. The final general result that
For the general plant and controller transfer functions this may can be used to find the controller coefficients is
be rearranged to be

(4)

By substituting j w for s, the frequency response function is k = 0 , 2 , . . . , 2 n , a;=O, i>n.


obtained. If this function is multiplied by its complex conju-
gate, the square of the modulus of the frequency response is This result represents a set of n linear algebraic equations
found as in a;. When solved, these equations yield a set of controller
coefficients such that the magnitude optimum criterion for this
plant controller combination is satisfied.
As an example, consider an integral (I) controller for a plant
of the form, Fig. 2 ,
UMLAND AND SAFIUDDIN: DESIGN OF LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS 49 1

R(s) . aoSois h-,


- 29 (l+T1s)(l+a3)

which is a simple first-order delay. In this case, giving a PI controller of the form

n =0, bo = l/Kp G,(s) = -.12 K+ ,TasI S


m =1 bl= a / K p . In this case, the large delay in the plant is canceled by the
zero in the controller. The resulting system is identical to the
Therefore, since n = 0, k the upper limit on the summation
one examined for the I controller case. This type of analysis
is also zero. The resulting equation is
may be done for other plant controller combinations, and the
resulting optimal criteria are shown in Table I.
aobi - aibo = bi, (8)
A significant disadvantage of the magnitude optimum tech-
and since a1 = 0, the coefficient a0 is nique is that the systems designed with it can only be of type I
or 0. This problem becomes evident in the following example
= bi/bl = l/aKp. (Fig. 4). Consider the design of a PI controller (a0 +als)/2s
for a plant that has one free integrator, i.e., bo = 0. The rel-
The resulting closed-loop transfer function is then
evant set of equations is the same as in the previous example
as>- 1 (9), but now bo = 0, implying that a0 = 0. This forces the
--
R ( s ) 1 + 2as + 2a2s2
controller back to a P controller and results in overall type I
behavior.
where the damping ratio and natural frequency are, respec-
tively, 111. DEVELOPMENT [2]
OPTIMUM
OF SYMMETRIC

p = &/2 = 0.707 A drawback of the magnitude optimum is that the system’s


response due to any disturbance, applied at locations other
on = v 5 / 2 a . than at the reference input, it is not optimal. The reason for
this is that, the magnitude optimum technique only optimizes
A second and more complicated example is to determine the the closed-loop transfer function between the reference input
coefficients for a PI controller for a plant with one large time and the variable to be controlled. Furthermore, the possibility
constant and one small time constant (Fig. 3)
of any disturbances is ignored. A second disadvantage of this
technique is that the controlled system will display only type
n =1 bo =l/Kp
I or 0 behavior, even with the presence of free integrators in
m =2 bl = ( T I+a ) / K p the plant.
A second optimization procedure is suggested upon exami-
nation of both the input and disturbance transfer functions.
The input transfer function for the unity feedback system
The resulting set of equations is shown is (Fig. 5)

while the disturbance transfer function is


with the solution for ai in terms of the plant coefficients as) -
- G2(S)
(11)
ms) 1 +Gc(WI(W2(S)’
The system’s block diagram may now be redrawn (Fig. 6 ) ;
the physical significance is diminished, but this will allow a
better understanding of the motivation behind this technique.
Note that both the reference and disturbance transfer func-
tions have the same denominator, or in other words, they have
As the ratio a / T l approaches zero, meaning that TI >> a, the the same characteristic equation, i.e.,
solutions reduce to
1 + G,(s)G I ( s ) G ~ ( s=) 0.
This observation may be used to some advantage in optimizing
a1 = T I l a K , , both the resuonse due to the reference inDut and the distur-
492 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, MAYIJUNE 1990

TABLE I
OPTIMAL CONTROLLER SETTINGS FOR SPECIFIC PLANT CONFIGURATIONS
~

Plant “Optimum” Reference Response Load Response


Criteria Parameters Control Parameters 1, t, %OS ts Max Deviation

Magnitude TI = 0 7, = 0
TI = 0 I 0
72 = 4.7 a 8.4 a 4.3 5.5 a 0.63 KpD
Ty = 2Kp0
TI > a TI = TI
T2 = 0 PI 0
72 = 4.7 a 8.4 a 4.3 5 . 5 m 1 .6(KPa/Tl)D
Ty = 2KPa
TI = TI
PID 72 = T2 4.7 a 8.4 a 4.3 NIA 0.75(KPa/m)D
T, = 2KPa
TI S a 71 = TI
T2 > 0 P 72 = 0 4.7 a 8.4 a 4.3 10 a NIA
Ty = 2KPa
Symmetric TI 3 a 21 = 4 0 3.1 a 16.5 a 4.3
T2 = 0 PI 72 = 0 17 a 1.6 (KPa/Ti)D
Ty = 8Kpu2/Ti (7.6 a) (13.3 a) (8.1)
TI = 40 3.1 a 16.5 a 43
PID 72 = T2 17 a 1.6(Kpa/T,)D
T , = 8Kpa2/T, (7.6 a) (13.3 a) (8.1)

Fig. 4 . PI controller for system with one free integrator and one delay.

Fig. 5 . General system block diagram with disturbance.

bance inputs. In effect, the secondary or imbedded system The large time constants in the fixed plant may be treated
determined by the transfer function as being free integrators, as long as Tis >> 1 is true. Except
at low frequencies, this is a true statement. Furthermore, this
T ( s )= 1/[1 + G c ( s ) G 1 ( ~ ) G 2 ( ~ ) 1 (12) assumption takes on importance when considering at what fre-
quency the open-loop magnitude response curve crosses over
will be optimized in a manner similar to the magnitude opti-
the 0-dB axis on a Bode magnitude plot. Thus the transfer
mum. To accommodate free integrators, an approximation of
function for the fixed plant may be approximated as
the open-loop transfer function will be used.
The fixed-plant transfer function is written in a factored
form, i.e.,
1 1 or

G p ( S ) N“ l/[(l + o s ) ~ ”r =pl + q T i S 1 . (16)

rather than as a polynomial, as was PreviouslY used. It is The unity feedback open-loop transfer function G ( s ) is
assumed that the plant contains one small delay and a number
of large delays, Ti >> 0 . The controller is written in a similar
factored form. G ( s )=
nrXl(1 +Tis) 1
(17)
n = p +q
TlYS (1 + 0s)n:Tis I=I

G c ( s )= = r=l (’ 7 i S ) 1 / T > s . (14) This transfer function can be multiplied by one in the form
UMLAND AND SAFIUDDIN: DESIGN OF LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS 493

Fig. 6. Redrawn system block diagram.

nYzl7;s/nY=, 7is and rearranged to give 30j


Bode Magnitude Plot
I

A new equivalent integration time constant may be defined as


-1

giving the open-loop transfer function

The resulting unity feedback closed-loop transfer function is Nomalizcd Frequency ( 1 4 s )


then Fig. 7. Open-loop Bode magnitude plot for symmetric optimum. Normal-
1 + 71s ized frequency W is defined as w u .

G - . (21) Therefore, the approximate closed-loop transfer function is


1 +G

G
(1 +is)
This expression may be further simplified by considering the % (22)
product +G 1 + -sn7 + TLns72 ( 1 +as)
fi(%)
i=l =Q(l+$).
and the imbedded system to be optimized is
1
Upon multiplying this product out, one would have a series
U s )= Ty7 (23)
of the form
1 + -sn + -s2(1
n
+ as)
The unknowns in this equation are the equivalent integration
time constant Ty and the control parameter 7. The optimiza-
tion then proceeds by applying the same principles used for
Assuming that 7;s >> 1, this series may be truncated after the the magnitude optimum. This includes substituting j w for s,
first-order terms, i.e., and setting the first 2n derivatives of the modulus, squared of
the frequency response function, evaluated at w = 0, equal to
zero. The resulting optimum criteria is
7 =4na (24)
Furthermore, to minimize the magnitude of the higher order T y = 2o (25)
terms, neglected here, the following requirement is made:
and the open-loop transfer function is
~i =7 i = [ l , n]. 1 +4as
G ( s )=
Thus 8a2s2(1 os) ' +
The 0-dB crossover frequency for such a system is wc = 1/2a,
and as can be seen from the Bode magnitude plot for this trans-
fer function (Fig. 7), the curve displays twofold symmetry
494 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 26, NO. 3. MAYIJUNE 1990

Fig. 8. PI controller with input filter for system with one free integrator and one delay

about the (1/2a, 0 dB) point. Thus explaining the symmet- IV. REVIEW
OF CLASSICAL
DESIGN
METHODS
ric optimum designation. Furthermore, the knowledge of the Two techniques used in the past to determine the “best”
crossover frequency helps to validate the assumptions made controller coefficients for a given controller and plant config-
earlier. For the controller at crossover uration are the Butterworth pole assignment method and the
minimization of the integral time absolute error (ITAE) [3].
7;s = 4na/2a = 2n > I Upon first inspection, these two techniques appear quite dif-
and becomes much greater than one for large n, implying ferent, yet the method of application for both is the same.
that it is appropriate to neglect the higher order terms in the The end result of both methods is a set of prototype transfer
expanded product. As for the large time delays in the plant, functions that meet their respective criteria. Once the order of
it is given that Ti >> U so that, at crossover, the system is known, the controller coefficients are determined
by fitting the controller and plant to the appropriate prototype
Tis = T i / 2 ~>> 1, transfer function.
The Butterworth pole pattern is a simple-pole configuration
thus allowing the large time delays to be approximated by where the n poles of the system are equally spaced on a circle
integrators. of radius WO in the left half-plane. 00 denotes the bandwidth
Note that, to return to the original form of the controller, of the system. Higher order systems with such pole patterns
the integration time constant TI must be evaluated in terms of display somewhat oscillatory step responses. In an effort to
the equivalent time constant T, and the plant parameters Ti: add damping to such systems the Magarineworth pole pattern
has been proposed [ 5 ] .
A second set of prototype transfer functions is found from
the minimization of the ITAE for a step input to the system.
The error e ( t ) is defined as
As an example, again consider the design of a PI controller
for a plant that consists of one free integrator and one time e(t)= r(t)- c(t) = 1 - c ( t )
delay (Fig. 4). This is the same problem, that when analyzed for a unit step input. The ITAE is then
via the magnitude optimum the resulting controller was forced
back to a proportional configuration. Here the solution is
ITAE = J, t’le(t’)ldt’.
0
7 =4a
The step response of systems designed according to this prin-
8K, u2 ciple display substantially less overshoot than is designed to
T’ = - fit the Butterworth forms.
To

To 1 U US VI. RESULTS
AND COMPANSONS
G,(s) = -~.
8K,a2 s Both the magnitude and symmetric optimum can be applied
to a variety of plant and controller configurations, some of
Unfortunately, this system displays a 43% overshoot to a which may be represented by a general block diagram shown
step input at the reference, with a rise time of 3 . 1 ~ On . the in Fig. 9.The specific plant configurations along with the ap-
other hand, the maximum deflectionto a step load disturbance, propriate “optimum” controller settings are given in Table I.
Z , is l d ( K , a / T o ) Z . To improve the system’s input response, Furthermore, several performance measures are given for each
an input filter is used to cancel the zero of the controller (Fig. system. These performance measures are for the system’s re-
8). Furthermore, this filter is positioned outside the loop, so sponse due to either a reference unit step input r ( t ) or a 1/4
as not to affect the load response. The input step response unit step load disturbance d ( t ) . The rise time t , is defined as
overshoot is then found to be 8.l%, with a rise time of 7 . 6 ~ . the time for the response c ( t ) to reach the required value be-
While this extra input filter is an ad hoc remedy for a pre- fore the first overshoot. Settling time ts is defined as the time
viously optimized system, it should be remembered that only required for the variation of the response to fall within f2%
a system related to the original was optimized. In actuality, of the required value. The percentage of maximum overshoot,
no conditions were placed on the original system. Therefore, or deviation, of the controlled variable from its required value
it may have been anticipated that the actual system might re- is denoted %OS. Note that, to have a dynamic system, it is
spond in an unacceptable fashion. assumed that U # 0, K, # 0. For the symmetric optimum, the
UMLAND AND SAFIUDDIN: DESIGN OF LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS 495

I I
Fig. 9. General block diagram to be applied to Table 1.

TABLE I1 colid - Sym..dashed - But., darhdot - lTAE


1.2
CONTROLLER COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE CRITERIA
IC(t)
C( t ) ,,,..--TTBBuu t t e r w o r tthh I
Symmetric Butterworth ITAE
PI PID PI PID PI

rI 8a 6.14 Q So! 4.5 Q 1.52 a


72 0 0.02a 0 1.17 a 0
Ty 32 aZ/To 22.9 a2/T0 32 a’/To 9.12 aZ/To 21.4 aVTo
Q
terms, in Table I, enclosed in parentheses are representative
oi systems that include an input filter of the form shown in
Fig. 8.
For the fixed plant and controller combination shown in Fig.
10,three sets of controller coefficients were determined repre-
senting, respectively, the symmetric optimum, the Butterworth Time (&c)
pole pattern, and the minimum ITAE prototype transfer func- Fig. 11. Unit step input response.
tions. Furthermore, in each of the three cases an input filter
is used to reduce the maximum overshoot due to a step input.
This filter, in effect cancels the zeros of the reference closed- solid - Sym.. dashed - But.. dashdot - ITAE
0.02,
loop transfer function. For this example, both the response
of the system to a unit step input and unit step disturbance
are examined. The disturbance response is important in many
applications, including the design of dc drives for multistrand
rod and bar mills.
To apply the symmetric optimum for this example, it is as-
sumed that the plant can be approximated by a single delay of
+
the form 1/( 1 ~CYS). This approximation is made necessary
by the fact that the plant cannot be reduced to two equivalent
real delays. A PI controller will then be appropriate in this
instance, with a time constant 8a and an integration constant
of 32a2/To.For both the Butterworth and ITAE designs, a
PID controller is designed according to the respective fourth- -0.1 I
order prototype transfer functions. The respective controller 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 6

coefficients are given in Table 11. The input step responses Time (scc)
are shown in Fig. 11, and the disturbance step responses are Fig. 12. Unit step disturbance response.
shown in Fig. 12. These responses were obtained from sim-
ulations done on a personal computer using the TUTSIM [7] worth designed systems. For the input step response, the ITAE
continuous dynamic system simulation software. The value of system responds faster with less overshoot than either of the
CY is 0.025. other two systems. The symmetric optimum system has the
As Figs. 1 1 and 12 show, the responses of the ITAE de- slowest rise time shown, while its overshoot and settling time
signed system is superior to both the symmetric and Butter- are both less than that for the Butterworth designed system.
496 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS, VOL. 26, NO. 3, MAYIJUNE 1990

ITAE -‘
Symmetric and
0.8 - Butterwor t h

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Time (6s~)
Fig. 13. Unit step input response.

good, it is clearly inferior to that of a system designed with


a minimum ITAE prototype transfer function.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the late Darl
C. Washburn, Jr., of Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
whose seminar notes provided the basis for this work. His
- biography follows.

Darl C. Washburn (1928-1985) was born in Windsor, CO. He received the


-
B.S.E.E. degree from the University of Colorado, Boulder, in 1949. While
in Pittsburgh, PA, with Westinghouse Electric, he took a number of graduate
courses in control systems, switching circuits, and digital computers at the
1:2 1:4 l.6 University of Pittsburgh and at Westinghouse Education Center.

joined the Westinghouse Electric Corpn. as a supervisory Service Engineer


As for the disturbance response, the ITAE system is again with the Apparatus Service Division’s Denver Office in 1953 and progressed
superior; its maximum deviation is the smallest with the short- to the position of Fellow Engineer in June of 1965 at the Industrial Systems
Division (ISD) in Buffalo, NY, and continued his career with successive
est settling time. The symmetric optimum displays the largest
divisions of ISD until his death in July of 1985. His technical contributions in
deviation of the three, but its settling time is less than that for the field of industrial controls and power electronics include 22 disclosures,
the Butterworth system. five U.S. patents, and a number of technical papers presented at the AIEE and
This may not necessarily be a fair comparison, since an IEEE conferences. He served on the AIEE’s Transportation Subcommittee
approximation of the plant was used to find the controller of the Petroleum Industry Committee (1960-1962). He developed the first
computer model for simulation of thermal characteristics of paralleled SCR
coefficients for the symmetric optimum; while the full plant
converters for large dc motor drives and was considered one of the best
was used to find the Butterworth and ITAE designs. There- instructors of the well-known Westinghouse Feedback Control and Thyristor
fore, PI controllers were designed using the approximate plant Drives Seminar presented annually from 1967 through 1979. He was highly
and the third-order Butterworth and ITAE prototype polyno- respected and will always be remembered by his peers and associates for not
mials. In this case the Butterworth and symmetric optimum only his technical expertise but also for “second to none” integrity of his
moral character and concern for others.
gave identical solutions. These solutions are shown in Table
11. Furthermore, these designs were then simulated using the
full plant, and again the ITAE system offered the superior REFERENCES
performance. Figs. 13 and 14 show the input and disturbance [l] R. Frohr and F. Orttenburger, An Introduction to Electronic Control
Engineering. Berlin, Germany: Siemens, 1982.
step responses, respectively.
[2] D. C. Washburn, Jr., “Optimization of feedback control loops,” lec-
ture notes (unpublished): Westinghouse Industrial Control -Systems
VI. CONCLUSION Seminars 1967-1975.
In this paper, the principles behind the magnitude and sym- [3] D. Graham and R. C. Lathrop, “The synthesis of ‘optimum’ transient
response: Criteria and standard forms,” Trans. AIEE, vol. 72, pt. 2,
metric optimum were developed. Furthermore, solutions for DD. 273-288. 1953.
the optimal controller coefficients for several specific plant [4] G. F. Franklin and J. D. Powell, Digital Control of Dynamic Sys-
tems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980.
and are given‘ the response Of [5] y,Miguchi, A, Kawamura, and R, Haft, “Linear quadratic regulator
a system designed via the symmetric optimum is seen to be with adjustable damping factor application to power electronic sys-
UMLAND AND SAFIUDDIN: DESIGN OF LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS 497

tems,” in Conf. Rec. IEEE Ind. Appl. Soc. 1985 Annu. Meeting, Mohammed Safiuddin (M’60-SM’79) received
85CH2207-9, pp. 1130-1 140. the B.E. degree from Osmania University, Hyder-
[6] L. M . Boychuk and V. S . Elsukov, “Structural-parametric synthesis of abad, India, and the M.S. degree from the Univer-
regulation of reduced order,” Sov. J . Automat. Inform. Sci., vol. sity of Illinois, Urbana, both in electrical engineer-
19, no. I , pp. 89-92, 1986. ing, and the M.B.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the
171 W. E. Reynolds and J . Wolf, TUTSIM Users Manual, Applied i, State University of New York at Buffalo in 1959,
Palo Alto, CA, 1987. 1960, 1971, and 1982, respectively.
He worked as a Junior Engineer in Andhra
Pradesh State Electricity Board (India) for over a
year before arriving in the U.S. He joined the Sys-
tems Control Department of Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, Buffalo, in June 1960 as an Associate Engineer. He progressed
through the Engineer, Senior Engineer, and Fellow Engineer positions to be-
come Manager of Product/Strategic Planning in 1982 in the Power Electronics
and Drive Systems Division and was later appointed Technical Advisor in the
Marketing Department of the same Division. His interest in continuing edu-
cation has kept him in close contact with the State University of New York at
Buffalo where he has done part-time teaching since the early 1960’s and has
been an adjunctlpart-time Associate Professor since 1977. He is President
of STS International, a technology service firm he established in September
1985. His areas of technical interest cover static power conversion and opti-
Jeffrey W. Umland (S’88) received the B.S.M.E. mal control systems as applied to coordinated ac and dc motor drive systems
degree in 1985 from the State University of New for industrial processes. He has been awarded ten patents in this field and has
York (SUNY) at Buffalo where he is currently published numerous technical papers.
working toward the Ph.D. degree in mechanical en- Dr. Safiuddin has served as Chairman of Industrial Controls Committee
gineering. of IAS (1985-1987), Chairman of Education Committee (1978-1988), and
He has been a Research Assistant, Lecturer, and a Director of the IEEE Buffalo Section (1983-1986). He is an Associate
Teaching Assistant at SUNY-Buffalo. His main re- Member of the New York State Society of Professional Engineers. He was
search interests are vibration control in large space awarded the Roscoe Allen Gold Medal in 1957 by Osmania University for
structures and friction behavior under unsteady op- excellence in the subject of hydraulics and was nominated for the prestigious
erating conditions. B. G. Lamme scholarship of Westinghouse by his Division in 1968 and 1980.
Mr. Umland was awarded a SUNY-Buffalo Fe- He is a member of the Pi Mu Epsilon (mathematics) and Beta Gamma Sigma
lowship in 1985. He is a member of Tau Beta Pi and Pi Tau Sigma. (business) honor societies.

View publication stats

You might also like