MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801516313 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2016-0021

A SOLUTION FOR NONLINEAR STABILITY ANALYSIS OF QFT CONTROLLERS DESIGNED FOR HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATED SYSTEMS

2016· article· en· W2801516313 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Masoumeh Esfandiari, Nariman Sepehri

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Quantitative feedback theoryNonlinear systemStability (learning theory)Controller (irrigation)Parametric statisticsControl engineeringFuzzy logicHydraulic machineryComputer scienceNonlinear controlRobust controlEngineeringMathematicsControl (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative feedback theory (QFT) is a well-established technique to design robust and linear controllers. However, the important open problem of extending the small signal stability to nonlinear stability verification has remained an ongoing research in the design of QFT controllers. In this paper, we show that Takagi–Sugeno (T–S) fuzzy modeling approach and its stability theory provide a new opportunity to study the nonlinear stability of QFT controllers in fluid power systems. To validate the approach, two case studies are provided first. The first case study establishes the reliability of the approach by confirming the results for a hydraulic system of which nonlinear stability has already been proven. The second case study establishes that using the proposed approach, we can further study and extend the stability region of previously developed hydraulic controllers to include parametric uncertainty. Followed by the successful validation of the effectiveness of our approach through these two case studies, the stability of a QFT position controller, for which the nonlinear stability was never proven, is investigated.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207