{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015483870967741935, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.180555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Modelling and control issues of dynamically substructured systems: adaptive forward prediction taken as an example

Testing techniques of dynamically substructured systems dissects an entire engineering system into parts. Components can be tested via numerical simulation or physical experiments and run synchronously. Additional actuator systems, which interface numerical and physical parts, are required within the physical substructure. A high-quality controller, which is designed to cancel unwanted dynamics introduced by the actuators, is important in order to synchronize the numerical and physical outputs and ensure successful tests. An adaptive forward prediction (AFP) algorithm based on delay compensation concepts has been proposed to deal with substructuring control issues. Although the settling performance and numerical conditions of the AFP controller are improved using new direct-compensation and singular value decomposition methods, the experimental results show that a linear dynamics-based controller still outperforms the AFP controller. Based on experimental observations, the least-squares fitting technique, effectiveness of the AFP compensation and differences between delay and ordinary differential equations are discussed herein, in order to reflect the fundamental issues of actuator modelling in relevant literature and, more specifically, to show that the actuator and numerical substructure are heterogeneous dynamic components and should not be collectively modelled as a homogeneous delay differential equation.