Resource Utilization and Quality-of-Control Trade-off for a Composable Platform

Valencia, Juan; Horssen, E.P. van; Goswami, Dip; Heemels, W.P.M.H.; Goossens, Kees

doi:10.3850/9783981537079_0371

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This design philosophy led to simpler control system models that often restrict control performance and stringent execution models with significant resource over-dimensioning. In contrast, a huge body of work has been reported on the platform-aware design philosophy where the emphasis is on co-design of control strategies and platform configurations [Cervin et al 2003;Chang et al 2017;Samii et al 2009;Valencia et al 2016;Wolf 2009]. The idea is to take into account properties of platform resources in the control design and thereby, improve the control performance.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such an allocation allows us to directly compare the three design flows, because it allows both SR and MR sampling. It is important to notice that the allocation of slots for MR controllers is not limited to evenly distributed slots but also contiguous and unevenly distributed allocation of slots can be used, as presented in [Valencia et al 2016], where contiguous allocation led to a higher QoC.…”

Section: Platform-awareness and Its Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where Q c and R c are the CT state and control weighting matrices, respectively. The DT state and control weighting matrices are represented byQ i andR i , respectively [Valencia et al 2016].…”

Section: Control Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The controller is designed by using a time-lifted formulation of the overall system (i.e., augmented system that results from the non-equidistant sampling intervals) such that it is transformed into a classic LQR design problem. We adapted this design from [Valencia et al 2016] by adding a continuoustime (CT) LQR heuristic technique. We show that the MRGO design flow is suitable when the performance demand is high, and a higher resource utilisation is acceptable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparing Platform-aware Control Design Flows for Composable and Predictable TDM-based Execution Platforms

Valencia

Goswami

Goossens

2019

ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Platform-awareness and Its Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Control Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing Platform-aware Control Design Flows for Composable and Predictable TDM-based Execution Platforms

Valencia

Goswami

Goossens

2019

ACM Trans. Des. Autom. Electron. Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Flexible sampling, including nonequidistant sampling, is preferred because it allows to exploit all available data and decision variables with identical hardware cost and thereby improve the performance/cost trade‐off compared to fixed sampling. Examples of flexible sampling include nonequidistant sampling, multirate control, and sparse control …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond equidistant sampling for performance and cost: A loop‐shaping approach applied to a motion system

Zundert

Oomen

2018

Intl J Robust & Nonlinear

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonequidistant sampling potentially enhances the performance/cost trade-off that is present in traditional equidistant sampling schemes. The aim of this paper is to develop a systematic feedback control design approach for systems that go beyond equidistant sampling. A loop-shaping design framework for such nonequidistantly sampled systems is developed that addresses both stability and performance. The framework only requires frequency response function measurements of the LTI system, whereas it appropriately addresses the linear periodically time-varying behavior introduced by the nonequidistant sampling. Experimental validation on a motion system demonstrates the superiority of the design framework for nonequidistantly sampled systems compared to traditional designs that rely on equidistant sampling.Flexible sampling potentially improves the performance/cost trade-off but is challenging from a control design perspective. In particular, flexible sampling of continuous-time LTI systems leads to linear periodically time-varying (LPTV) behavior. 3 Hence, typical frequency-domain control design techniques are not directly applicable. Most control designs for LPTV systems require a parametric model of the system, including pole placement, 10,11 linear quadratic regulator (LQR) control, linear quadratic Gaussian (LQG) control,  2 / ∞ approaches, 12-14 internal model principle, 15 and LTI approximations. 16 In addition, designs based on time-invariant reformulations are often based on parametric models, including Floquet-Lyapunov transformations, 17(section 1.2) and lifting approaches, 17(section 1.6) which enable the use of full state feedback, 18 pole placement, 19 model matching, 20 LQR, 21 LQG, 22 and  2 / ∞ control. 23,24 However, as is argued in the work of Oomen et al, 25 despite the availability of solid control theory, such model-based designs are demanding because (i) obtaining a parametric LPTV model is difficult and (ii) typical LTI interpretations are not valid, leading to complications for the actual design. 26,27 Although nonequidistant sampling has a large potential and the underlying theory has been substantially developed, at present, there is a lack of suitable control design techniques to address stability, performance, and robustness. The aim of this paper is to develop a nonparametric loop-shaping control design framework for nonequidistantly sampled systems based on frequency response function (FRF) measurements. Such a framework is well developed for traditional equidistantly sampled, single-variable systems. 2(section 2.6),28,29(chapter 6) The presented framework builds on the multirate approach in the works of Oomen et al, 25,30 exploits w-plane loop-shaping, 25(section 5.1) explicitly incorporates time-varying aspects, and addresses key objectives such as stability and performance.The main contribution of this paper is a framework for LPTV loop-shaping feedback control design based on FRF measurements, which enables to exploit nonequidistant sampling for improved control performance. This...

show abstract