On D

-type Iterative Learning Control

1
YangQuan Chen and Kevin L. Moore
Center for Self-Organizing and Intelligent Systems (CSOIS)
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
UMC 4160, College of Engineering, 4160 Old Main Hill
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4160, USA
Abstract
The classical Arimoto D-type iterative learning control
(ILC) updating law uses the rst order derivative (with
transfer function s) of tracking error. By using the
fractional order derivative, it is proposed in this paper
to use a fractional order ILC updating law where the
fractional order derivative (with transfer function s

,
(0, 1]) of tracking error is employed. The basic idea
is explained in some detail together with a frequency
domain design method. For implementation, a direct
discretization technique is introduced. An example is
given to show the benets of the D

-type ILC. Several

remarks on future research topics are briey discussed
in the nally section.
Keywords: Tracking control; iterative learning con-
trol; D-type ILC; P-type ILC; fractional-order dieren-
tiator; Tustin operator; recursive expansion; continued
fraction expansion.
1 Introduction
The term iterative learning control (ILC) was coined
by Arimoto and his associates [1] for a better control of
systems performing repetitive tasks. In general, there
are two types of ILC updating laws: D-type and P-
type. The original D-type ILC updating law [1] is
u
k+1
(t) = u
k
(t) +
d
dt
e
k
(t) (1)
where is the learning gain to be designed based on
prior knowledge about the system under investigation.
u
k
(t) is the control signal at the k-the iteration while
e
k
(t)

= y
d
(t)y
k
(t) is the tracking error signal between
the actual output trajectory y
k
(t) and the desired one
y
d
(t) at the k-the iteration. Here, time t [0, T], where
T is known and nite. The input (u) and output (y)
mapping is not fully known.
The above ILC scheme actually only works for rel-
ative degree one systems [2]. Later, motivated by the
tracking control problem of a robot manipulator, which
is a relative degree two system, without acceleration
measurement, a P-type ILC scheme is preferred
u
k+1
(t) = u
k
(t) + e
k
(t). (2)
1
This work is supported in part by U.S. Army Automo-
tive and Armaments Command (TACOM) Intelligent Mobil-
ity Program (agreement no. DAAE07-95-3-0023. Correspond-
ing author: Dr YangQuan Chen. E-mail: yqchen@ieee.org;
Tel. 01-435-7970148; Fax: 01-435-7972003. URL:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~yqchen.
We can unify the above updating laws in the frequency
domain in the form of
U
k+1
(s) = U
k
(s) + s

E
k
(s) (3)
where, when = 0, (3) is a P-type ILC and, when
= 1, it is a D-type ILC. Detailed literature reviews
on ILC research can be found in [3, 4]. Most of the
existing work has focused on the analysis issue of ILC
schemes. However, the convergence conditions found in
the literature are typically not sucient for actual ILC
applications. Therefore, in recent years increasing ef-
forts have been made on the design issue of ILC. These
can be observed from the latest books [5, 4] and the
dedicated ILC web server [6]. A recent survey on the
ILC design issue [7] has documented various practically
tested design schemes, mainly for robotic manipulators.
The focus of this paper is to go in-between P-type
and D-type ILC schemes, i.e., we consider in this pa-
per that in (3) is a real number between 0 and
1. We name this kind of generalized scheme D

-type
( (0, 1] ) ILC. For example, we can dene a D
0.5
-
type ILC updating law according to
u
k+1
(t) = u
k
(t) +
d
0.5
dt
0.5
e
k
(t). (4)
This kind of fractional order ILC scheme is actually
an application of fractional calculus which is a 300-
years-old topic. The theory of fractional-order deriva-
tive was developed mainly in the 19-th century. Recent
books [8, 9, 10, 11] provide a good source of references
on fractional calculus. However, applying fractional-
order calculus to dynamic systems control is a recent
topic of interest [12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. For example, PID
controllers, which dominate industrial control practice,
have been modied using the notion of fractional-order
integrators and dierentiators. It has been shown that
the extra degree of freedom from the use of fractional-
order integrators and dierentiators make it possible
to further improve the performance of traditional PID
controllers. For fractional-order systems, the fractional
controller CRONE [17] has been developed while in [18]
and [19, 20] PD

controller and the PI

controller
were proposed respectively. For pioneering work on
this regard, we cite [21, 22].
In the existing literature, to our best knowledge,
there is no eort in developing fractional order deriv-
ative based ILC schemes. In this paper, we extended
the classical Arimoto D-type iterative learning control
(ILC) updating law to a fractional order ILC updat-
ing law D

-type ILC where the fractional order

FrM10-1
4451
Proceedings of the 40th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control
Orlando, Florida USA, December 2001
0-7803-7061-9/01/$10.00 2001 IEEE
derivative (with transfer function s

, (0, 1]) of the

tracking error is employed. The basic idea is explained
in some detail together with a frequency domain con-
vergence analysis. For implementation, a recursive di-
rect discretization technique is introduced. An exam-
ple is given to show that by using the D

-type ILC
scheme the learning convergence can be tuned to be
more monotonic in the presence of strong time-varying
nonlinearities.
2 Problem Formulation
2.1 Fractional Order Dierential Equation
(FODE)
Note: This introductory subsection is similar to that
found in a second paper by the authors in these pro-
ceedings
1
. The material is duplicated here to preserve
continuity in the development of the paper.
The fractional calculus is a generalization of integra-
tion and dierentiation to non-integer order operators
[8, 9, 10, 11]. The idea of fractional calculus has been
known since the development of the normal calculus,
with the rst reference probably being associated with
Leibniz and LHospital in 1695. A fundamental oper-
ator
a
D

t
, a generalization of dierential and integral
operators, is introduced as follows.
a
D

t
=
_
_
_
d

dt

() > 0,
1 () = 0,
_
t
a
(d)

() < 0.
There are two commonly-used denitions for gen-
eral fractional dierentiation and integral, i.e., the
Gr unwald denition and the Riemann-Liouville de-
nition [8, 10, 11]. The Gr unwald denition is that
a
D

t
f(t) = lim
h0
1
h

[
ta
h
]

j=0
(1)
j
_

j
_
f(t jh), (5)
where [] is a ooring-operator, while the Riemann-
Liouville denition is given by
a
D

t
f(t) =
1
(n )
d
n
dt
n
_
t
a
f()
(t )
n+1
d, (6)
for (n 1 < < n) and where (x) is the well known
Eulers gamma function.
The formula for the Laplace transform of the
Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative (6) has the
form [23]:
_

0
e
pt
0
D

t
f(t) dt =
= p

F(p)
n1

k=0
p
k
0
D
k1
t
f(t)

t=0
, (7)
1
Analytical stability bound for a class of delayed fractional-
order dynamic systems, YangQuan Chen and Kevin L. Moore,
in Proceedings of 2001 IEEE Conference on Decision and Con-
trol, Orlando, Florida, December 2001.
for (n 1 < n).
For numerical calculation of fractional-order deriva-
tion we can use the relation (8) derived from the
Gr unwald denition (5). This relation has the follow-
ing form:
(tL)
D

t
f(t) h

N(t)

j=0
b
j
f(t jh), (8)
where L is the memory length, h is the step size of
the calculation,
N(t) = min
__
t
h
_
,
_
L
h
__
, (9)
where b
j
is the binomial coecient given by the follow-
ing recursive formula:
b
0
= 1, b
j
=
_
1
1 +
j
_
b
j1
. (10)
To solve the fractional-order dierential equations
(FODE), the Laplacian transformation of the Mittag-
Leer function in two parameters was proposed as an
eective means [23]. A two-parameter function of the
Mittag-Leer type is dened by the series expansion:
E
,
(z) =

k=0
z
k
(k +)
, (, > 0). (11)
In fact, it is shown [23] that the Mittag-Leer function
is a generalization of exponential function e
z
, i.e.,
E
1,1
(z) =

k=0
z
k
(k + 1)
=

k=0
z
k
k!
= e
z
.
In general, a LTI fractional-order controlled system
can be described by
a
n
D
n
t
y(t) + +a
1
D
1
t
y(t) +a
0
D
0
t
y(t) = (12)
b
m
D
m
t
u(t) + +b
1
D
1
t
u(t) +b
0
D
0
t
u(t),
where u(t) and y(t) are control and controlled signals
respectively;
k
,
k
(k = 0, 1, 2, ) are generally real
numbers,
n
> >
1
>
0
,
m
> >
1
>
0
and a
k
, b
k
(k = 0, 1, ) are arbitrary constants. Note
that here (
0
D

t
D

t
).
Using the Laplacian transformation method [23, 24,
25], the transfer function of (12) can be written as
G
s
(j) =
Y (j)
U(j)
=

m
k=0
b
k
(j)

n
k=0
a
k
(j)

k
. (13)
2.2 D

-type ILC
As discussed in the introduction section, in-between P-
type and D-type ILC schemes, by using the fractional
order derivative notion mentioned in Sec. 2.1, the fol-
lowing learning updating law can be used:
u
k+1
(t) = u
k
(t) +
d

dt

e
k
(t) (14)
4452
with its frequency domain form given in (3).
Here we can regard
d

dt

as a special type of lter.

Unlike any conventional FIR or IIR lter, which has
nite memory, a fractional order derivative is a lter
which requires all past information by its denition.
It should be noted that here we have only two de-
sign parameters: and . The design guidelines for
choosing these parameters will be given in Sec. 3.
Note that s

is an innite dimensional linear op-

erator. In the continuous time domain it can be ap-
proximated by a nice recursive approximation scheme
proposed in [26]. Given a frequency range of practical
interest, [
L
,
H
], we can immediately get a ra-
tional transfer function of nite order which is a t to
the given fractional order dierentiator s

. In practice,
we need to set the transitional frequency range much
larger than the [
L
,
H
], for example, [0.1
L
, 10
H
].
Using this transitional frequency range and a desired
order of approximation, 2N +1, the following formulae
are the so-called Oustaloup-Recursive-Approximation
(ORA):
lim
N
D
N
(s) = D(s) = s

, (15)
where
D
N
(s) = (

u

H
)

k=N
1 +s/

k
1 +s/
k
, (16)
and

u
=

L
, (17)

k
=
L
(

L
)
(k+N+0.50.5)/(2N+1)
, (18)

k
=
L
(

L
)
(k+N+0.5+0.5)/(2N+1)
. (19)
In the implementation of the fractional order deriva-
tive used in our simulations below, we use these ORA
formulae to approximate s

.
3 Convergence Analysis
In this section, we shall perform a convergence analysis
of the proposed D

-type ILC in a general setting. It

is a common practice to apply ILC as a feedforward
controller in addition to the feedback controller. The
feedforward-feedback conguration of ILC algorithms
has already been a standard consideration in either
analysis or design [7] work on ILC. ILC, originally
proposed as an open-loop control [1], has been con-
sidered as a feedforward control in addition to an ex-
isting feedback controller. As suggested in [7], when
ILC starts to have a substantial impact on how con-
trol is actually done in industry, it will be the linear
based ILC that leads the way. In engineering practice,
to design a control system, it is very fundamental to
have a linear proximal model for frequencies below a
frequency of interest, say,
c
. For a well designed feed-
back controlled system, it is almost sure that its fre-
quency response can be well approximated by a linear
systems, i.e., G
c
(s), the closed-loop transfer function.
Therefore, at this point, it is understood that, the plant
considered in the following is a linearly major part of
the feedback controlled plant which may be nonlinear in
general. Therefore, the plant transfer function is G
c
(s)
which should be taken as the closed loop transfer func-
tion of the plant under feedback control. Here, the
feedback controller is not necessarily a linear feedback
controller. It could be nonlinear feedback control, e.g.,
feedback linearization scheme etc.
For G
c
(s), the input is u(t) and output y(t). We
can assume that G
c
(s) is BIBO and internally stable.
Given the desired output trajectory y
d
(t), t [0, T], we
assume we can nd a unique desired input u
d
(t) such
that
y
d
(t) = G
c
u
d
(t). (20)
From the updating law in frequency domain (3), we
have
U
k+1
(s) = U
k
(s) + s

(Y
d
(s) Y
k
(s))
= U
k
(s) + s

G
c
(s)(U
d
(s) U
k
(s))
= (1 s

G
c
(s))U
k
(s) + s

G
c
(s)U
d
(s). (21)
Let
= 1 s

G
c
(s). (22)
It is easy to write (21) as follows:
U
k+1
(s) =
k
U
k
(s) +
1
k
1
s

G
c
(s)U
d
(s).(23)
When
| |< 1, (24)
we can conclude that
lim
k
U
k
(s) = U
d
(s). (25)
The convergence condition is that
| 1 (j)

G
c
(j) |< 1, . (26)
Remark 3.1 The convergence condition (26) tells us
why a D-type ILC is normally required. The reason is
that the Bode plot of G
c
(j) normally has a low pass
characteristic. Of course, the ideal G
c
(j) of a feedback
controlled system is a constant 1. But this is not phys-
ically possible in practice. Also ideally, it is desirable
to replace the term (j)

in (26) with the inverse

of G
c
(j). But this is also practically not possible be-
cause we may not have full knowledge about G
c
(j).
However, it is reasonable to expect to use a lter with
high-pass characteristics to compromise or dilute the
low-pass characteristics of G
c
(j) with phase advance-
ment. The classical Arimotos D-type ILC [1] scheme,
i.e., when = 1, just fullls the above argument. In
D-type ILC, with the role of s diluting G
c
(j), it is
relatively easier to nd a learning gain with satis-
factory rate of convergence. The above discussion also
explains why a P-type ILC may work, but will converge
very slowly.
4453
Remark 3.2 The D

-type ILC provides an eective

tuning knob in the Bode plot or in the Nyquist plane
for tting or averaging such that for a wider range of
frequency (j)

G
c
(i) is better shaped, which in turn
facilitates the proper choice of .
Remark 3.3 The zero-phase low-pass lter plus a
pure phase lead is a key implementation skill in ILC
applications [7]. Following the above remarks, we can
see that the major objective is to dilute G
c
(j). This
idea is not to actively dilute G
c
(j) by using a high-
pass lter but simply cuto the high frequency part. The
phase lead element can play a role in compensating the
low pass characteristic of G
c
(j) but its eect is lim-
ited. Therefore, introducing a general s

to replace the
zero-phase low pass lter plus a pure phase lead makes
sense here.
4 Implementation Issues
In general, there are two discretization methods for s

:
direct discretization and indirect discretization. In in-
direct discretization methods [26, 27], as also simply
introduced in Sec. 2.2, two steps are required, i.e., fre-
quency domain tting in the continuous time domain
rst and then discretizing the t s-transfer function.
Other frequency-domain tting methods can also be
used but without guaranteeing the stable minimum-
phase discretization.
In this Section, we focus on the direct discretization
method using the well known Tustin operator. It is
a straightforward scheme to discretize the fractional-
order derivative. The discrete transfer function is sta-
ble and minimum phase. The recursive formula for
discretization with dierent orders of approximation
simplies the programming eorts. In general, the dis-
cretization of the fractional-order dierentiator s

(
is a real number) can be expressed by the so-called
generating function s = (z
1
). This generating func-
tion and its expansion determine both the form of
the approximation and the coecients [28]. For ex-
ample, when a backward dierence rule is used, i.e.,
(z
1
) = (1 z
1
)/T
s
, where T
s
is the sampling pe-
riod, performing the power series expansion (PSE) of
(1 z
1
)

gives the discretization formula (8).

The trapezoidal (Tustin) rule as a generating func-
tion is considered here: ((z
1
))

=
_
2
Ts
1z
1
1+z
1
_

To get a recursive formula similar to (10), here we intro-

duce the so-called Muir-recursion originally used in geo-
physical data processing with applications to petroleum
prospecting [29]. The Muir-recursion (motivated in
computing the vertical plane wave reection response
via the impedance of a stack of n-layered earth) can
be used in recursive discretization of fractional-order
dierentiator of Tustin generating function:
((z
1
))

= (
2
T
s
)

_
1 z
1
1 +z
1
_

= (
2
T
s
)

lim
n
A
n
(z
1
, )
A
n
(z
1
, )
(27)
where A
0
(z
1
, ) = 1, and
A
n
(z
1
, ) = A
n1
(z
1
, ) +c
n
z
n
A
n1
(z, ), (28)
and
c
n
=
_
/n ; n is odd;
0 ; n is even.
(29)
Therefore,
s

(
2
T
s
)

A
n
(z
1
, )
A
n
(z
1
, )
.
5 An Illustrative Example
To demonstrate the benets from using the proposed
D

-type ILC, a single link direct joint driven manip-

ulator model is used for the simulation study. The
dynamics of the system is described by

(t) =
1
J
(u(t) F(t)) +
1
J
(
1
2
m+M)gl sin (t) (30)
where (t) is the angular position of the manipulator;
u(t) is the applied joint torque; F(t) is the friction
torque; m, l are the mass and length of the manip-
ulator respectively, M is the mass of the tip load, g is
the gravitational acceleration, and J is the moment of
inertia w.r.t the joint and is given by J = Ml
2
+ml
2
/3.
The friction torque F(t) is
F(t) =
_
f
+
+B
+
,

0,
f

+B

,

< 0,
where the Coulomb friction f
+
= 8.43Nm and f

=
8.26Nm; the viscous friction coecients B
+
=
4.94Nm/rad/s and B

= 3.45Nm/rad/s [30, page 257].

For simulation, the parameters are assumed as fol-
lows: m = 2 kg, M = 4 kg, l = 0.5 m. g = 9.8 m./s
2
.
It is also assumed that the desired tracking trajectories
are specied as

d
(t) =
b
+ (
b

f
)(15
4
6
5
10
3
) (31)

d
(t) = (
b

f
)(60
3
30
4
30
2
) (32)
where = t/(t
f
t
0
). In the simulation,

b
= 0

,
f
= 90

, t
0
= 0, and t
f
= 1. sec.
The RK-4 method is used to numerically inte-
grate the state equation with constant time step
T
s
= 0.01 second. The initial states at each ILC
repetition are all set to 0. The ILC iterations
end when e
b1
1

and at the same time when

e
b2
1

/sec. where e
b1

= sup
t[0,1]
|
d
(t) (t) |
and e
b2

= sup
t[0,1]
|

d
(t)

(t) |. In the ILC
updating law (14), the tracking error is dened by
e
k
(t) =

d
(t)

k
(t). Here we only assume that the
angular velocity is available. We also assume that
that accurate system dynamics are not known and
that the estimated

J is 50% of the true value in the
simulations. Then, for = 1, the best choice of
is J, which makes = 0 [4]. In the following, we x
4454
the learning gain = J/2 which implies that we have
assumed 50% uncertainties in parameter J around
its nominal value actually used in the simulations.
We consider ve cases, with =
0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0. For = 0, only the state
variables are used for ILC updating and this is thus
called P-type ILC. For = 1, the derivative of state
variable is to be used which involves the angular
acceleration and thus this is called D-type. In our
simulation, the acceleration is obtained by digital
dierentiation, which is a 5-point FIR lter given by

(k) (

(k2)8

(k1)+8

(k+1)

(k+2))/(12T
s
).
Using the Muir-recursive expansion of Tustin operator
in Sec. 4, for T
s
= 0.01 sec., given N=5, we have
s
0.25

3.761z
5
0.9402z
4
+ 0.09402z
3
0.3173z
2
+ 0.04701z 0.188
z
5
+ 0.25z
4
+ 0.025z
3
+ 0.08437z
2
+ 0.0125z + 0.05
s
0.5

14.14z
5
7.071z
4
+ 1.414z
3
2.475z
2
+ 0.7071z 1.414
z
5
+ 0.5z
4
+ 0.1z
3
+ 0.175z
2
+ 0.05z + 0.1
s
0.75

53.18z
5
39.89z
4
+ 11.97z
3
14.79z
2
+ 5.983z 7.977
z
5
+ 0.75z
4
+ 0.225z
3
+ 0.2781z
2
+ 0.1125z + 0.15
10 20 30 40 50 60
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
e
b
1
vs. ILC iter. no.
iteration number
e
b
1

(
d
e
g
)

=0
=0.25
=0.5
=0.75
=1
Figure 1: Comparison of D

-type ILC with dierent :

maximum absolute angular tracking errors.
Figs. 1-2 summarize the simulation results for com-
parisons of the maximum absolute tracking errors over
iteration number for dierent values of . We can
observe from Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 that, when = 0,
the pure P-type ILC scheme gives a quite slow con-
vergence. Due to the nonlinear frictional eect, the
pure D-type ( = 1) gives a quite fast convergence but
with some signicant oscillations in its convergence be-
havior. When starting from = 0 and increasing
by 0.25, the convergence behavior gets more and more
improved. The most notable improvement is that the
learning convergence gets more and more monotonic
when fractional order derivative is used. Especially,
for the given exit conditions, learning control does not
converge within 60 iterations for conventional P-type
and D-type schemes. However, for = 0.75, the learn-
ing converges at the 25-th iteration.
It should also be noted that this example is a non-
linear example with no feedback controller.
10 20 30 40 50 60
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
e
b
2
vs. ILC iter. no.
iteration number
e
b
2

(
d
e
g
.
/
s
e
c
.
)
=0
=0.25
=0.5
=0.75
=1
Figure 2: Comparison of D

-type ILC with dierent :

maximum absolute angular velocity tracking
errors.
6 Concluding Remarks
In this paper, it is proposed to use the fractional order
derivative notion to extend the classical Arimoto D-
type ILC to the D

-type. The basic idea is explained

in some detail together with a frequency domain con-
vergence analysis. The rationale behind the D

-type
ILC is explained in the form of three remarks. For
implementation, a recursive direct discretization tech-
nique is introduced. An example is given to show the
benets from the D

-type ILC. It is observed that with

D

-type ILC scheme, the learning process convergences

more monotonically.
Several remarks on the future research topics are
briey discussed in the following:
It is illustrated in Sec. 5 that D

-type ILC also

works for nonlinear systems. A time-domain analysis
of this eect will be interesting.
It remains to dene ways to design a set of ex-
periments such that and can be well-tuned based
on the experimental data. We may consider relay au-
totuning technique used in PID controller parameter
settings.
We can consider a general fractional order trans-
fer function (13) to replace s

in (3). A more practical

way is to consider PI

scheme [19, 20]. A fractional

lead-lag scheme is also possible [16].
It will be interesting to compare the proposed D

-
type ILC design with those using the H

loop shaping
or other robust control techniques.
Along the iteration axis, we can consider the
fractional-order dierence. This may become a sys-
tematic way of designing high-order ILC.
Using the QFT (qualitative feedback control) tech-
niques [31, 32], we may propose frequency templates
for ILC design in frequency domain. We can also make
simultaneous design for feedback (re)design and feed-
forward (ILC) design.
We can also consider the case when is a complex
number.
4455
References
[1] S. Arimoto, S. Kawamura, and F. Miyazaki,
Bettering operation of robots by learning, J. of Ro-
botic Systems, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 123140, 1984.
[2] T. Sugie and T. Ono, An iterative learning con-
trol law for dynamical systems, Automatica, vol. 27,
no. 4, pp. 729732, 1991.
[3] K. L. Moore, Iterative learning control - an
expository overview, Applied & Computational Con-
trols, Signal Processing, and Circuits, vol. 1, no. 1.
[4] YangQuan Chen and Changyun Wen, Iterative
Learning Control: Convergence, Robustness and Appli-
cations, vol. LNCIS-248 of Lecture Notes series on Con-
trol and Information Science, Springer-Verlag, London,
1999.
[5] Zeungnam Bien and Jian-Xin Xu, Iterative
Learning Control - Analysis, Design, Integration and
Applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.
[6] YangQuan Chen, Dedicated web
server for Iterative Learning Control research,
http://cicserver.ee.nus.edu.sg/~ilc, Oct. 1998.
[7] Richard W. Longman, Designing Iterative
Learning and Repetitive Controllers. In Z. Bien and
Xu J.-X. eds, Iterative Learning Control - Analysis,
Design, Integration and Application, Kluwer Acad-
emic Publishers, pp. 107145, 1998.
[8] K. B. Oldham and J. Spanier, The Fractional
Calculus, Academic Press, New York, 1974.
[9] S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas, and O. I. Marichev,
Fractional integrals and derivatives and some of their
applications, Nauka i technika, Minsk, 1987.
[10] K. S. Miller and B. Ross, An Introduction to the
Fractional Calculus and Fractional Dierential Equa-
tions, Wiley, New York, 1993.
[11] I. Podlubny, Fractional Dierential Equations,
Academic Press, San Diego, 1999.
[12] Boris J. Lurie, Three-parameter tunable tilt-
integral-derivative (TID) controller, US Patent
US5371670, 1994.
[13] Igor Podlubny, Fractional-order systems and
PI

-controllers, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control,

vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 208214, 1999.
[14] A. Oustaloup, B. Mathieu, and P. Lanusse, The
CRONE control of resonant plants: application to a
exible transmission, European Journal of Control,
vol. 1, no. 2, 1995.
[15] A. Oustaloup, X. Moreau, and M. Nouillant,
The CRONE suspension, Control Engineering Prac-
tice, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 11011108, 1996.
[16] H.-F. Raynaud and A. ZergamKnoh, State-
space representation for fractional order controllers,
Automatica, vol. 36, pp. 10171021, 2000.
[17] A. Oustaloup, La Derivation non Enti`ere, HER-
MES, Paris, 1995.
[18] L. Dorcak, Numerical models for simulation the
fractional - order control systems, in UEF SAV, The
Academy of Sciences Institute of Experimental Physics,
Kosice, Slovak Republic, 1994, pp. 6268.
[19] I. Petras, L. Dorcak, and I. Kostial, Control
quality enhancement by fractional order controllers,
Acta Montanistica Slovaca, vol. 2, pp. 143148, 1998.
[20] I. Podlubny, Fractional-order systems and
fractional-order controllers, in UEF-03-94, The Acad-
emy of Sciences Institute of Experimental Physics,
Kosice, Slovak Republic, 1994.
[21] A. Oustaloup, Linear feedback control systems
of fractional order between 1 and 2, in Proc. of the
IEEE Symposium on Circuit and Systems, Chicago,
USA, 4 1981.
[22] M. Axtell and E. M. Bise, Fractional calculus
applications in control systems, in Proc. of the IEEE
1990 Nat. Aerospace and Electronics Conf., New York,
USA, 1990, pp. 563566.
[23] I. Podlubny, The Laplace transform method for
linear dierential equations of the fractional order,
in Proc. of the 9
th
International BERG Conference,
Kosice, Slovak Republic (in Slovak), 9 1997, pp. 119
119.
[24] L. Dorcak I. Petr as, The frequency method for
stability investigation of fractional control systems,
SACTA journal, vol. 2, no. 1-2, pp. 7585, 1999.
[25] I. Petras, L. Dorcak, P. OLeary, Vinagre B.
M., and I. Podlubny, The modelling and analysis of
fractional-order control systems in frequency domain,
in Proceedings of ICCC2000, High Tatras, Slovak Re-
public, May 23-26 2000, pp. 261 264.
[26] A. Oustaloup, F. Levron, F. Nanot, and B. Math-
ieu, Frequency band complex non integer dierentia-
tor : characterization and synthesis, IEEE Transac-
tions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory
and Applications, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 2540, 1 2000.
[27] A. Chare, H. H. Sun, Y. Y. Tsao, and B. Onaral,
Fractal system as represented by singularity func-
tion, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 37, pp.
14651470, 1992.
[28] C. H. Lubich, Discretized fractional calculus,
SIAM J. Math. Anal., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 704719, 1986.
[29] Jon F. Claerbout, Fundamentals of Geophys-
ical Data Processing with applications to petroleum
prospecting, Blackwell Scientic Publications, 1976.
[30] P. I. Corke and B. Armstrong-Helouvry, A
meta-study of PUMA 560 dynamics: a critical ap-
praisal of literature data, Robotica, vol. 13, pp. 253
258, 1995.
[31] C. H. Houpis and S. J. Rasmussen, Classical feed-
back control with MATLAB, vol. 6 of Control Engineer-
ing Series of Reference Books and Textbooks, Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, 2000.
[32] Boris J. Lurie and Paul J. Enright, Quantitative
feedback theory: fundamental and applications, vol. 3
of Control Engineering Series of Reference Books and
Textbooks, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1999.
4456