This paper analyzes the first-order and first-order time-delayed systems control approaches, focusing mainly on unstable systems. First, it discusses asymmetries between the disturbance observer-based (DOB) control with decoupled tracking and the disturbance rejection responses, stressing applications to stable and unstable plants. The paper analyzes some DOB-based control solutions for unstable systems which do not use internal closed-loop stabilization. The novelty of the paper is thorough study accompanied with a comprehensive explanation of the differences between two distinct approaches: the transfer-function- and the closed-loop-based feedforward control approach from the point of view of control constraints. It is clearly illustrated that the main cause of instability of DOB-based approaches, applied to unstable systems, is given by their effort to impose on the system the unstable dynamics of the chosen nominal process model. It is also shown that the closed-loop stability of the DOB-based control, applied to the unstable systems, can be restored by using the supervising reference model control (RMC). The main novelty of the proposed approach is that its eliminates the mentioned stability problems while maintaining the full functionality of the chosen control structures. RMC has so far only been implemented for generating a setpoint feedforward signal. However, by generalization of this approach for disturbance rejection, the methodology of DOB design, based on nominal models, can be extended to the control of unstable systems. Without the use of disturbance reference models, the interactions of the master stabilizer with disturbance compensation cannot be eliminated. Without the internal stabilization, the stable transients can only be achieved by designing controllers based on stable models, instead of unstable ones. The existing modifications of DOB-based schemes for unstable plants, proposed in some references, are shown to lead to traditional Proportional-Integrative (PI) control, thus losing all the advantages over the PI controllers. In all the considered structures, the role of integrating models is also emphasized.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper summarises the results of an international survey of academics and industrialists on what should be prioritised in the first, and often only, control course taken by engineering undergraduates. The results are made up both of quantitative data whereby respondents selected from a number of options, and also of qualitative data where respondents entered free comments. Reflections on the results and summaries of common trends are given to help readers consider how the curriculum in their own institutions might be updated and modified to meet modern requirements. At the time of writing the survey had around 500 respondents covering a good spread of nationalities, employment status and engineering disciplines.

This paper contributes toward research on the control of the magnetic levitation plant, representing a typical nonlinear unstable system that can be controlled by various methods. This paper shows two various approaches to the solution of the controller design based on different closed loop requirements. Starting from a known unstable linear plant model—the first method is based on the two-step procedure. In the first step, the transfer function of the controlled system is modified to get a stable non-oscillatory system. In the next step, the required first-order dynamic is defined and a model-based PI controller is proposed. The closed loop time constant of this first-order model-based approach can then be used as a tuning parameter. The second set of methods is based on a simplified ultra-local linear approximation of the plant dynamics by the double-integrator plus dead-time (DIPDT) model. Similar to the first method, one possible solution is to stabilize the system by a PD controller combined with a low-pass filter. To eliminate the offset, the stabilized system is supplemented by a simple static feedforward, or by a controller proposed by means of an internal model control (IMC). Another possible approach is to apply for the DIPDT model directly a stabilizing PID controller. The considered solutions are compared to the magnetic levitation system, controlled via the MATLAB/Simulink environment. It is shown that, all three controllers, with integral action, yield much slower dynamics than the stabilizing PD control, which gives one motivation to look for alternative ways of steady-state error compensation, guaranteeing faster setpoint step responses.