IEEE Control Systems Research Articles

A survey of control systems education in the United States

In August of 1988 the Education Committee of the IEEE Control Systems Society sent out a questionnaire to 120 committee members on control systems education. A total of 28 responses were received from departments of electrical engineering in the United States. The responses received are discussed. The object of the survey was to answer some of the following questions: What fraction of the department faculty are in the control area? How many MS and PhD degrees were awarded for the academic year 1987-1988? How many BSEE programs require at least one course in control systems? What control topics are required in the BSEE degree program? What advanced mathematics is required at the undergraduate and graduate level? What text books are being used for various control courses?. >

CACSD benchmark problem no.3

The Computer-Aided Control Systems Design (CACSD) Technical Committee of the IEEE Control Systems Society has proposed a third benchmark problem for the control community. This benchmark problem is described. It relates to two linear multirate sampled-data models that were first described by P.A. Hawley and T.R. Stevens (Proc. 3rd IEEE Symp. Comput.-Aided Control Syst. Design, Sept. 1986). The problem requires the evaluation of time responses, equivalent single-rate mathematical models, eigenvalues, open- and closed-loop frequency responses, and transfer-function poles and zeros.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Benchmark Problems for Computer-Aided Control System Design

The need for having benchmark problems for the evaluation of software for computer-aided control system analysis and design is discussed. The two benchmark problems that have been released to date by the Benchmark Working Group of the Technical Committee on Computer-aided Control System Design of the IEEE Control Systems Society are described, as are the plans for future problems. Information that has been learned about the preparation, distribution, and dissemination of results for this type of problem is included.

Challenges to control: A collective view--Report of the workshop held at the University of Santa Clara on September 18-19, 1986

During the last seven years, while structural changes have been taking place in the industrial sector of the U.S. and questions of technological leadership and technology transfer have been debated widely, new areas for research have been developing. This led the leadership of the IEEE Control Systems Society to recommend that a workshop be organized to assess the state of the art of the field and outline directions of research. An Organizing Committee, consisting of D. D. Siljak (Chairman), G. F. Franklin, A. H. Levis, and W. R. Perkins, submitted a proposal to the Systems Theory and Operations Research Program of the National Science Foundation to hold such a workshop at the University of Santa Clara, in Santa Clara, CA, on September 18-19, 1986. As part of the proposal effort, a Steering Committee was constituted to assist the organizers in selecting workshop participants and to carry out the preparalory work for the meeting. The twelve-member Steering Committee consisted of the four organizers and eight other individuals: R. W. Brockett, E. J. Davison, Y.-C. Ho, P. Kokotovic, A. J. Laub, S. 1. Marcus, W. F. Powers, and S. S. Sastry. In early 1986, the organizers issued an open call for participation in the workshop that was published in the April issue of the IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE. in addition, more than 150 letters were sent to leaders in the field, inviting them to apply for participation in the workshop. The Steering Committee was also asked to identify individuals who could provide unique perspectives. The cut-off date for applications, that included a statement of proposed contribution, was May 31. In June, during the 1986 American Control Conference, the Steering Committee met for many hours to select the participants from the many applicants and to decide on the final structure of the program. One of the decisions was to invite all the Presidential Young Investigator awardees who had applied, another was to limit the total number of participants to fifty. In addition to the Steering Committee, the following persons attended and contributed to the deliberations: K. J. Astrom, M. Athans, D. Auslander, J. S. Baras, T. Basar, G. Blankenship, S. P. Boyd, A. E. Bryson, Jr., J. Burns, J. Cassidy, J. B. Cruz, D. F. Delchamps, C. A. Desoer, R. F. Drenick, T. Edgar, J. S. Freudenberg, D. Gangsaas, J. Grizzle, A. H. Haddad, W. E. Hopkins, Jr., M. Ilí-Spong, P. loannou, T. L. Johnson, T. Kailath, A. J. Krener, R. E. Larson, W. S. Levine, J. L. Melsa, J. M. Mendel, G. Meyer, J. B. Pearson, H. E. Rauch, G. N. Saridis, J. L. Speyer, J. N. Tsitsiklis, P. Varaiya, G. C. Verghese, M. Vidyasagar, A. S. Willsky, and M. Wonham. The National Science Foundation was represented by Dr. M. P. Polis, Program Director of the Systems Theory and Operations Research Program, and by Dr. G. Hazelrig, Acting Program Director of the Instrumentation, Sensing, and Measurement Systems Program. The workshop was organized into plenary sessions and breakout sessions, during which Working Groups discussed and wrote the material that forms the basis of this report. Seven keynote talks addressed the main themes of the workshop: accomplishments in the past twenty five years and definition of important current and future research problems drawn from the needs of the industrial and service sectors of the economy. The Working Groups were structured so that, while discussions could take place with few constraints, written materials could be produced by the end of each session. To that effect, each group had one or two persons designated as recorders, with the primary responsibility of keeping notes during the discussion and assisting the group leaders in preparing the Working Group draft reports. In order to provide some focus in the deliberations of the Working Groups,eight persons were asked to prepare position statements based on their own perspectives. Seven of these position papers are being published concurrently in the April 1987 issue of the IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE. The eighth one is appearing in this issue of the TRANSACTIONS as a perspectives paper. The findings of the workshop were documented in a final report; the paper that follows is the main body of that report. It was prepared by a group of Editors (A. H. Levis, S. I. Marcus, W. R. Perkins, P. Kokotovic, M. Athans, R. W. Brockett. and A. S. Willsky) on the basis of the contributions, both oral and written, of all the participants, the advocacy papers, and the keynote talks. The draft was reviewed and edited further first by the members of the Steering Committee and then by all the participants. It is indeed a collective effort-A. H. L.

IEEE control systems books

IEEE control systems books

Predecessors of the IEEE Control Systems Society

This short article outlines events leading to the formation of the Professional Group on Automatic Control (PGAC) of the Institute of Radio Engineers (IRE)-a predecessor of the IEEE Control Systems Society.

IEEE standard fastbus modular high-speed data acquisition and control system

IEEE standard fastbus modular high-speed data acquisition and control system

Revised constitution of the IEEE control systems society

Revised constitution of the IEEE control systems society

Call for computer control articles IEEE control systems magazine

Call for computer control articles IEEE control systems magazine

IEEE control systems magazine annual questionnaire

IEEE control systems magazine annual questionnaire

Best transactions paper award of the IEEE control systems society

Best transactions paper award of the IEEE control systems society

Mathematical analysis and digital simulation of the respiratory control system.

Abstract : The report expresses the basic material balance relationships for the lung-blood-tissue gas transport and exchange system in a set of differential- difference equations containing a number of dependent time delays. Additional equations define the chemical details of transport and acid-base buffering, concentration equilibria, and blood flow behavior. Finally, a control function is included defining the dependence of ventilation upon CSF (H(+)), and arterial (H(+)) and PO2 at the carotid chemoceptors. A Fortran program was written for convenient digital simulation of the responses of the system to a wide variety of forcings, including CO2 inhalation, hypoxia at sea level, altitude hypoxia, and metabolic disturbances in acid-base balance. Both dynamic and steady-state behavior of the model were reasonably realistic.