### Table 1: Open-loop Operating Conditions System

1997

"... In PAGE 3: ... For robust design, the controller must be able to pro- vide additional damping to all credible system conditions. Besides the two nominal conditions NDFS and NRFS, we consider three weaker operating conditions as described in Table1 . The Weak 1 system represents a weaker tie in the SVC transmission path, and the Weak 2 system rep- resents a weaker tie in the TCSC transmission path when the system is in the NDFS condition.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 1 Modes of the open-loop aircraft system

"... In PAGE 4: ... The linear, time-invariant system state-space description is given in (8), with the outputs given in (9). (9) This system contains six modes in the open-loop system, which are detailed in Table1 . Note that only magnitude information will be used to demonstrate coupling characteristics here.... ..."

### Table 1: Open loop Margins and Gain Crossover Frequency GM:db, PM:degree, GCF:Hz

"... In PAGE 4: ... The order of digital controllers for HDDs is typically ve to six. Table1 shows the Gain Margin (GM), Phase Margin (PM) and Gain Crossover Frequency (GCF) of the con- tinuous time system, single and multirate systems. From Table 1, we can see that H1 and multirate control are useful for improving phase and gain margins and recov- ering the performance of the original continuous time system.... In PAGE 4: ... Table 1 shows the Gain Margin (GM), Phase Margin (PM) and Gain Crossover Frequency (GCF) of the con- tinuous time system, single and multirate systems. From Table1 , we can see that H1 and multirate control are useful for improving phase and gain margins and recov- ering the performance of the original continuous time system. Figure 4 shows the open loop frequency response of original continuous time system, single and multirate control systems.... ..."

### Table 1: Example 1: Uncertainties not included in design { Comparison of H1 controller with simulated full state feedback, output feedback with compensator, and open loop pressure levels at cavity point (0:3; 0:1) for the time interval [ 3 75; 10 75]. In Table 1, we compared the H1 full state feedback controller and the H1 compensator with the open loop case for various values of frequency uncertainties in the term F(t). The root mean square (rms) sound pressure level at the point (0:3; 0:1) was used to test the robustness of the controller for these frequencies. It can be observed from Table 1 that for a small error, = 1%, the H1 compensator is comparable to the full state feedback H1 controller, with both giving unsatisfactory performance for higher frequency percentage errors.

in Robustness Studies for H∞ Feedback Control in a Structural Acoustic Model with Periodic Excitation

1995

"... In PAGE 16: ... The negative e ect of the frequency uncertainties can be seen in both the state controller and the compensator performance where the sound pressure level reaches the open loop pressure levels. A comparison with the results in Table1 illustrate that the current choice for static uncertainty incorporation in the controller design has not improved the control authority and in some cases, less control is obtained. (rms) Sound Pressure Level at ( ; )=(.... ..."

### Table 1: Example 1: Uncertainties not included in design { Comparison of H1 controller with simulated full state feedback, output feedback with compensator, and open loop pressure levels at cavity point (0:3; 0:1) for the time interval [ 3 75; 10 75]. In Table 1, we compared the H1 full state feedback controller and the H1 compensator with the open loop case for various values of frequency uncertainties in the term F(t). The root mean square (rms) sound pressure level at the point (0:3; 0:1) was used to test the robustness of the controller for these frequencies. It can be observed from Table 1 that for a small error, = 1%, the H1 compensator is comparable to the full state feedback H1 controller, with both giving unsatisfactory performance for higher frequency percentage errors.

"... In PAGE 20: ... The negative e ect of the frequency uncertainties can be seen in both the state controller and the compensator performance where the sound pressure level reaches the open loop pressure levels. A comparison with the results in Table1 illustrate that the incorporation of the uncertainty in the controller design has not improved the control authority and in some cases, less control is obtained. (rms) Sound Pressure Level at ( ; )=(.... In PAGE 30: ...6 81.3 Table1 0a : Example 4 - Multiple Resonance Excitation I : { E ects on the simulated rms voltage and cavity pressure at 5 points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I,II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... In PAGE 30: ... Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1. The pressure levels of the other ve cavity points exhibit identical behavior to that of the point (:3; :1) as observed in Table1 0a; that is, Case II outperforms Case I and both have lower rms pressure levels than the open loop case. In some points though, Case I has rms pressure levels close to the open loop case.... In PAGE 31: ...8 34.9 Table1 0b : Example 4 - Multiple Resonance Excitation I : { E ects on the sim- ulated rms displacement at 5 beam points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I,II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... In PAGE 33: ...cavity points they perform worse than the open loop case as seen on Table1 1a. For some cavity points Case I gives somewhat better pressure levels than Case II and for some other, the reverse is observed.... In PAGE 33: ...6 87.4 Table1 1a : Example 4 - Multiple Resonance Excitation II : { E ects on the simulated rms voltage and cavity pressure at 5 points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I, II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... In PAGE 33: ...4 34.6 Table1 1b : Example 4 - Multiple Resonance Excitation II : { E ects on the simulated rms displacement at 5 points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I, II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... In PAGE 34: ...7 19.3 Table1 1c : Example 4 - Multiple Resonance Excitation II : { E ects on the simulated rms velocity at 5 points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I, II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... In PAGE 36: ... The performance of Case II is worse than the open loop case but by observing the (rms) voltage (an in nitesimal fraction of the output feedback case voltage) used for this scheme, we must not expect much performance from such a controller. A more carefull inspection of the other ve cavity points, presented in Table1 2a, reveals that for some points, namely (:1; :5), (:5; :5), and (:3; :5), both perform worse than the open loop case. input rms Pressure Level (dB) at cavity point: voltage voltage (.... In PAGE 36: ...3 76.6 Table1 2a : Example 4 - Cavity Excitation : { E ects on the simulated rms voltage and cavity pressure at 5 points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I, II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... In PAGE 36: ...9 2.4 Table1 2b : Example 4 - Cavity Excitation : { E ects on the simulated rms displace- ment at 5 beam points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I, II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... In PAGE 36: ... Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1. Such a result is not exhibited by the rms velocity, appearing in Table1 2c, where the rms velocity levels depend on the location of these points. A closer look at the voltage... In PAGE 37: ...5 4.7 Table1 2c : Example 4 - Cavity Excitation : { E ects on the simulated rms ve- locity at 5 beam points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I, II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... ..."

### Table 3: Mean Decay Intervals. Const best refers to the per-benchmark best value for open-loop decay.

2002

"... In PAGE 8: ... So the decay interval selected is generally longer than that picked by AMC, at the expense of some leakage savings. To illustrate the different philosophies of these controllers, the mean Td se- lected by IMC and AMC over the course of each simulation is summarized in Table3 . This table also shows the per-program best open-loop decay interval as a reference.... ..."

Cited by 11

### Table 3: Mean Decay Intervals. Const best refers to the per-benchmark best value for open-loop decay.

"... In PAGE 8: ... So the decay interval selected is generally longer than that picked by AMC, at the expense of some leakage savings. To illustrate the different philosophies of these controllers, the mean a0 a0 se- lected by IMC and AMC over the course of each simulation is summarized in Table3 . This table also shows the per-program best open-loop decay interval as a reference.... ..."

### Table 3: Mean Decay Intervals. Const best refers to the per-benchmark best value for open-loop decay.

"... In PAGE 8: ... So the decay interval selected is generally longer than that picked by AMC, at the expense of some leakage savings. To illustrate the different philosophies of these controllers, the mean a0 a0 se- lected by IMC and AMC over the course of each simulation is summarized in Table3 . This table also shows the per-program best open-loop decay interval as a reference.... ..."

### Table 10a : Example 4 - Multiple Resonance Excitation I : { E ects on the simulated rms voltage and cavity pressure at 5 points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I,II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1. The pressure levels of the other ve cavity points exhibit identical behavior to that of the point (:3; :1) as observed in Table 10a; that is, Case II outperforms Case I and both have lower rms pressure levels than the open loop case. In some points though, Case I has rms pressure levels close to the open loop case. This can also be observed at the rms displacement of ve beam points where both cases perform somewhere between 30

"... In PAGE 31: ...8 34.9 Table10 b : Example 4 - Multiple Resonance Excitation I : { E ects on the sim- ulated rms displacement at 5 beam points for open loop, H1 full state controller with and without r(t) and for the H1 compensator with r(t) and Cases I,II. Results for the time interval [ 3 75; 30 75], with 2 = 1.... ..."

### Table 1: DS-CDMA reverse link capacity on a frequency selective fading channel with open-loop power control. Single cell. Lp = Lr = 3. = 0.2.

1998

"... In PAGE 12: ...ble paths (i.e., Lr = Lp = 3) is used. Based on the estimated upper bound on the coded BER, the reverse link capacity at di erent bit error rates (10?3 for voice, and 10?6 for data) are evaluated and summarized in Table1 . It is found that with no power control error (i.... ..."

Cited by 4