MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Equivalent Time-Invariant Modelling of Electrohydraulic Actuators with Application to Robust Control Synthesis

2008· article· en· W2010789070 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark Karpenko, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Fluid Power · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsActuatorControl theory (sociology)Invariant (physics)LTI system theoryControl engineeringComputer scienceRobust controlControl systemEngineeringControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineeringLinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important aspect of robust control development around hydraulic actuators is establishing a set of equivalent linear time-invariant (LTI) models that describe the dynamics of the system over the desired envelope of operation. The nonlinearities inherent in the hydraulic functions must be recast into an equivalent linear form in order to make the robust control problem amenable to solution by linear techniques. This paper develops a simple model-based approach for evaluating equivalent LTI frequency response functions of an electrohydraulic actuator by Fourier transformation of acceptable actuator input-output data. The efficacy of the numerical procedure is compared with two other available methods, namely small-signal analysis and Golubev's least-squares approach. It is shown that the proposed approach can describe large signal effects and at the same time properly characterize the features of the hydraulic actuator frequency response that are important for robust control design, without the need for a priori information about the asymptotic behaviour or structure of the equivalent LTI transfer function. The applicability of the proposed numerical technique towards development of practical controllers for fluid power systems is demonstrated by the results of a typical robust control design example for an experimental electrohydraulic positioning system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Fluid PowerSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207