MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2239555352 · doi:10.1115/fpmc2015-9636

Design and Stability Analysis of a QFT Pressure Controller of a Hydraulic Actuator Using Takagi-Sugeno Fuzzy Model

2015· article· en· W2239555352 on OpenAlexaff
Masoumeh Esfandiari, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Quantitative feedback theoryController (irrigation)Parametric statisticsActuatorFuzzy logicNonlinear systemStability (learning theory)Fuzzy control systemHydraulic cylinderControl engineeringRobust controlComputer scienceMathematicsControl systemEngineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a robust, fixed-gain, and linear controller is designed for the output pressure of an electro-hydraulic actuator with parametric uncertainties. Quantitative feedback theory (QFT) is selected as the design technique. The objective is to satisfy specified performance criteria in terms of tracking, stability, and disturbance rejection. To design the QFT controller, the required family of frequency responses is obtained by linearizing the hydraulic nonlinear function around operating points of interest, and constructing an equivalent linear plant set. As a result, the stability of the closed-loop system is guaranteed only around the limited number of operating points, and specified values for system parameters. To overcome this limitation, Takagi-Sugeno (T-S) fuzzy modeling is employed. This way the nonlinear stability of the closed-loop system is investigated and ensured for a continuous range of parametric uncertainties and region of operating points. Having successful results from stability analysis, the QFT controller is applied on the experimental set-up. The experimental results are in accordance with the specified criteria.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207