Quantitative Feedback Design of Linear and Nonlinear Control Systems

Yaniv, Oded

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-6331-7

Cited by 182 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our method is based on the quantitative feedback control [24]. The two disadvantages from using the classical Smith predictor, namely the uncertainty in the plant model causing unexpected performance degradation and the non-zero steady-state tracking error under the presence of the disturbance, will be considered.…”

Section:  mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where the upper and lower bounds are given in Table 1. 3) Plant-input disturbance rejection Note that the stability margin specification (11) is equivalent to a gain margin of 4.65 dB and a phase margin of 41.46 degrees (see [24]). The tracking specification (12) was imposed to the maximum frequency of 1 rad/s, which is the designed closed-loop bandwidth of the system.…”

Section: Clss With Smith Predictor and Quantitative Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The quantitative feedback control [24] was used as the primary feedback controller. The paper offers the following advantages over the existing CLSS:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving Closed-Loop Signal Shaping of Flexible Systems with Smith Predictor and Quantitative Feedback

Chatlatanagulchai

Poedaeng

Pongpanich

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Input shaping is a technique used to move flexible systems from point to point rapidly by suppressing the residual vibration at the destination. The vibration suppression is obtained from the principle of destruction of impulse responses. The input shaper, when placed before the flexible system inside the control loop, proves to deliver several benefits. However, this so-called closed-loop signal shaping has one major disadvantage that it adds time delays to the closed-loop system. Being a transcendental function, the time delays cause difficulty in analysis and design of the feedback controller. In most cases, the time delays also limit the maximum achievable bandwidth. In this paper, for the very first time, Smith predictors were applied to the closed-loop signal shaping to remove the time delay from the loop. It was shown in simulation result that the detrimental effect of the time delays was completely removed in the case of perfect plant model. The quantitative feedback control was used in the study to quantify the amount of achievable bandwidth and to suppress vibrations from the plant-input disturbance.

show abstract

Section:  mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clss With Smith Predictor and Quantitative Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving Closed-Loop Signal Shaping of Flexible Systems with Smith Predictor and Quantitative Feedback

Chatlatanagulchai

Poedaeng

Pongpanich

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…QFT is a methodology to design robust controllers based on frequency domain (Horowitz, 1993;Yaniv, 1999). This technique allows designing robust controllers which fulfil some quantitative specifications.…”

Section: Synthesis Of Siso Lti Uncertain Feedback Control Systems Usimentioning

confidence: 99%

A Frequency Domain Quantitative Technique for Robust Control System Design

Guzmán¹,

Moreno²,

Berenguel³

et al. 2011

Robust Control, Theory and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Quantitative Feedback Theory (QFT), first introduced by Prof. Isaac Horowitz in 1959, is an engineering control design methodology, which explicitly emphasizes the use of feedback to simultaneously reduce the effects of plant uncertainty and satisfy performance specifications (Horowitz, 1993;Yaniv, 1999;Sidi, 2002;Houpis, Rasmussen & Garcia-Sanz, 2006). Horowitz's work is deeply rooted in classical frequency response analysis involving Bode diagrams, template manipulations and Nichols Charts.…”

Section: Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%