MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384696911 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15594

Linear Quadratic Optimal Control of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems

2023· dissertation· en· W4384696911 on OpenAlexaff
Chimezirim Miracle Nkemdirim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinear-quadratic-Gaussian controlControl theory (sociology)Linear-quadratic regulatorNonlinear systemOptimal projection equationsPID controllerOptimal controlRobustness (evolution)Robust controlControl engineeringControl systemLinear systemEngineeringNonlinear controlComputer scienceMathematicsControl (management)Mathematical optimizationTemperature control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the progress made in the field of control engineering, there are still significant challenges involved in the control of nonlinear dynamic systems.This thesis presents a novel approach to addressing these challenges by leveraging the simplicity of linear optimal quadratic controllers to achieve efficient control of nonlinear dynamic systems that are otherwise considered too difficult to control.In this thesis, three nonlinear dynamic applications are presented: the 3-DOF helicopter, the 6-DOF aircraft landing gear, and the loudspeaker system.These systems face various challenges, including unstable dynamics, landing vibrations, intermodulation distortions, and under-actuation.As such, the Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) controller is proposed to control the 3-DOF Helicopter, the Linear Quadratic Gaussian (LQG) controller is proposed for the control of the 6-DOF aircraft landing gear, and both the LQR and the LQG controllers are proposed to control the loudspeaker system.The LQR controller computes the control signals of the systems while the LQG controller acts as a state estimator.The state-space model of each nonlinear dynamic system is derived, and then, the mathematical models of the optimal control strategies are calculated.The control strategies are also tested under various conditions and compared with an equally simple control strategy, the PID controller.To better evaluate the execution and the performance of the LQR and LQG control strategies, two quantitative tracking performance metrics are presented; i) the integral of the tracking errors, and ii) the integral of the control signals of the system.The results obtained affirm the robustness and competence of the proposed control strategies.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicControl Systems and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207