192 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO.
1, JANUARY 2000
Engine Idle Speed Control Using Actuator Saturation
Paul Herman and Matthew A. Franchek
Abstract—Presented in this paper is the design and experi-
mental validation of a saturating engine idle speed controller for a
Ford V-8 fuel injected engine. The nonmeasurable external torque
disturbance perturbing engine speed is delivered from the power
steering pump. The performance specification is an allowable
engine speed tolerance of 140 r/min about a desired set speed of
600 r/min. The controlled input is a voltage to the bypass air valve
(BPAV) which regulates the air ingested into the engine. The BPAV
voltage available for engine speed regulation is bounded by 0.8
V. A frequency domain controller design methodology is used to
design the controller. The performance objective is satisfied using
saturation control during large engine speed transients. During
steady-state operation, the controlled input is not saturated.
Index Terms—Actuator saturation, engine speed control, regu-
lating systems, robust control.
I. INTRODUCTION
I IDLE SPEED regulation of internal combustion (IC) engines
is one testbed used by the control community to demonstrate
new controller design methodologies ([1], [10], [16], and ref-
erences therein). This attraction to engine speed regulation is
primarily due to the isolated structure of the engine idle speed
control loop within the engine control module (ECM). The by-
pass air valve (BPAV) which regulates the air flow into the en-
gine is primarily intended for engine speed control. Therefore,
the idle speed control loop is separate from the rest of the en-
gine control system. Another aspect which makes engine speed
control attractive is the complex dynamics of IC engines. En-
gines are highly nonlinear, time-varying, mechanical, electrical,
thermal, fluid, and chemical systems whose dynamics are dom-
inated by an induction-to-power delay. Furthermore, the funda-
mental dynamics of the combustion event are either unknown
or not well understood. Collectively these characteristics chal-
lenge any controller design methodology.
During idle conditions, there are two basic controlled inputs
used to regulate speed: air control and ignition timing. The ig-
nition timing loop has a much greater bandwidth than the air in-
duction loop. The bandwidth potential of the air loop is limited
by the intake manifold filling dynamics. However, the control
authority of the air control loop is much greater than that of the
ignition timing loop. Typically, these two inputs are used in par-
allel to achieve engine speed control [17]. This parallel feedback
structure effectively combines the higher bandwidth character-
istics of the ignition timing loop with the large control authority
of the air loop. Consequently, both tight engine speed regulation
Manuscript received October 27, 1997. Recommended by Associate Editor,
M. Jankovic. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant CMS-9634809.
The authors are with the School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue Univer-
sity, West Lafayette, IN.
Publisher Item Identifier S 1063-6536(00)00996-9.
1063-6536/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
and total disturbance rejection can be achieved. Owing to the
stringent regulations of tailpipe emissions, the role of ignition
timing for engine speed control is diminishing. This investiga-
tion will focus only on intake air control of IC engines.
The major source of air into the intake manifold during idle
is from the BPAV [2]. Essentially, the BPAV is an electronic
valve which siphons air around the closed throttle plate from
the intake runner into the intake manifold. The electronic part
of the BPAV is a linear motor with a plunger on its end. The
relative distance between the plunger and the valve seat deter-
mines the effective resistance to air flow. The air flow will in-
crease until choked flow conditions occur. The larger the rela-
tive distance between the plunger and valve seat, the larger the
air flow is into the manifold. Changes in the air flow result in
fueling adjustments to meet stoichiometric combustion condi-
tions. This increase of fueling and air charge leads to a larger
torque production from the engine thereby compensating for the
additional torque load. For this investigation, the engine speed
perturbations due to an external torque load are bounded by a
hard time domain tolerance. In addition, the control effort avail-
able for speed regulation is limited. It will be shown that the per-
formance tolerance on engine speed can only be satisfied under
actuator saturation.
A large amount of work exists concerning the subject of actu-
ator saturation within feedback control systems. The majority of
works focus on mitigating the effects of actuator saturation [3],
[4], [6], [14], [15], [18], through various antiwindup schemes
(AWS’s). These works provide useful results for the implemen-
tation of AWS for systems subject to actuator saturation. The
unifying theme is to reduce the degradation of output perfor-
mance due to actuator saturation. However, the performance
benefits which can be achieved via actuator saturation are not
yet explored.
This work presents an experimental validation of a controller
design methodology which employs actuator saturation. In par-
ticular, a linear robust feedback controller is designed which sat-
urates for large external disturbances. However, for smaller ex-
ternal disturbances the controller will maintain linear operation.
Such a controller appropriately links the external disturbance
size to the degree of actuator input as specified by the time do-
main performance tolerance.
II. DESIGN METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
Presented in this section is an overview of the controller de-
sign methodology to be used in this investigation [9]. The class
of systems is limited to linear time invariant (LTI) single input-
single output (SISO) uncertain regulating systems subject to de-
lays described as
(1)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2000 193

For this system, is a vector representing a compact where . Next the fre-
set of uncertain system parameters, denotes the output quency space is replaced with discrete frequencies denoted as
variations about the desired set point, is the scalar con- where . Typically the set contains low,
trolled input operating about some nominal effort, middle, and high frequencies where resonant system frequen-
is the plant dynamics, is the disturbance cies are included into the middle frequency set. Evaluating (5)
dynamics, and is an external step disturbance. Here and (6) on the gain-phase plane constructs upper and lower am-
denotes stable, strictly proper, real coefficient transfer functions. plitude bounds that must satisfy to meet (2). Classical
The output performance specification and actuator saturation loop shaping realizes the controller. Although discrete frequen-
constraint are cies and parameter sets are used to design the controller, Con-
ditions 1–3 must be satisfied and .
and (2)
A. Conditions Leading to Controller Design for Actuator
In the absence of saturating the actuator with Saturation
, the closed-loop transfer functions from the
disturbance to the system output and actuator response are This proposed controller design technique applies when Con-
ditions 1–3 cannot be simultaneously satisfied via a linear con-
troller design. In such a case, (5) of Condition 1 (output perfor-
(3)
mance), and Condition 2 (closed-loop stability) will be the only
conditions satisfied by the proposed design methodology. The
and
violation of (6) in Condition 1, and/or Condition 3 could po-
tentially lead to the temporary actuator output saturation from a
(4)
linear controller provided

where denotes the controller to be designed. The per-

formance specifications (2) are satisfied if the following three (7)
sufficient conditions are met.
Condition 1: The following amplitude inequalities are satis- Satisfying (7) guarantees that the actuator output is not saturated
fied. at steady-state conditions due to a step disturbance of magnitude
Output Performance: . Hence for temporary actuator saturation, the satisfaction of
(7) will be assumed in this manuscript.
(5) This proposed design technique will utilize the loop shaping
approach of Jayasuriya and Franchek [12] to design feedback
Actuator Constraint: controllers. However, a pseudolinearization method based on a
describing function approach will be employed to realize the
(6) linear saturating controller. To apply this linearization tech-
nique, specific frequencies requiring pseudolinearization are
where identified using (6). For those frequencies requiring pseudolin-
magnitude of the step disturbance ; earization, the input amplitude size, , used to pseudolinearize
[5]. the saturation element at a given frequency must be determined.
Condition 2: The Nyquist encirclement condition is satisfied The open-loop frequency response comprised of the pseudo-
. linearized element, the linear dynamics, and the controller is
Condition 3: The closed-loop impulse response shaped using classical loop shaping tools such that the resulting
and is of one sign frequency response satisfies (5) of Condition 1 and satisfies
[13]. Condition 2. The specific details of the pseudolinearization
If a controller can be designed such that these technique and the controller design are presented herein.
sufficient conditions are satisfied and , then the output
tolerance and control effort constraint of (2) will be satisfied B. Pseudolinearization Technique
without actuator saturation. The describing function technique is one approximation
Remark: Condition 3 simplifies the enforcement of time do- method used to represent a nonlinear element in the frequency
main tolerances using frequency domain constraints and is in- domain [11]. Typically describing functions are associated with
cluded in the sense of completeness. This condition will not a limit cycle analysis of feedback systems. However, a rigorous
necessarily be satisfied when designing linear controllers that development of the sinusoidal input describing functions
achieve temporary actuator saturation. Franchek and Herman (SIDF’s) extends their application beyond limit cycle analysis
[5] give a complete development concerning time-to-frequency [11]. For the saturation element, the SIDF is
domain connections for a general class of linear feedback sys-
tems.
To realize the controller, Jayasuriya and Franchek [12] pro-
pose the following loop shaping approach. First, the parameter
(8)
space is gridded into parameter value sets denoted as
194 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2000

where
input amplitude to the saturation element;
maximum output of a unity slope saturation element.
As detailed in Herman [8], using the standard describing
function approach within feedback systems does not accurately
quantify the degree of saturation due to a step input. Of course
this is not a surprise since the describing function is based on a
sinusoidal input and is not intended for step inputs. To retain the
frequency-based loop shaping approach for controller design,
an alternative pseudolinearization approach based on the SIDF
is proposed. The difference between the SIDF method and the
proposed pseudolinearization is the amplitude ratio, namely
in (8), used to evaluate the describing function.
In performing the pseudolinearization of the saturation ele-
ment, violation of inequality (6) is used to identify those fre-
quencies and parameter sets which require pseudolinearization.
In particular, the parameter sets of which violate amplitude
inequality (6) for the given controller at the discrete fre-
quencies are identified as
Fig. 1. Schematic of experimental facility.

(9)
where denotes the nominal plant. The resulting
open-loop transfer function in (12) is realized through loop
for and . The discrete frequencies shaping to satisfy (5).
for which at least one parameter set exists construct a
frequency vector . The parameter sets identified
from (9) at are denoted as . The variable III. EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY
denotes a dummy variable for the parameter sets identified in Model development, controller design, and controller imple-
(9) at each discrete frequency . mentation were performed at the Advanced Engine Control Lab-
It is proposed in Herman and Franchek [9] to replace the am- oratory of the R. W. Herrick Laboratories at Purdue Univer-
plitude ratio in (8) with defined as sity. A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1.
A complete description of the engine facility can be found in
Hamilton and Franchek [7].
The Advanced Engine Control Research Facility includes
a multichannel open architecture control system that is used
(10) for system identification, controller design, and controller
implementation. This controller facility includes a Dell Op-
tiPlex GXMT 5166 computer equipped with two Keithley
where for a combination. Hence Metrabyte data acquisition boards. These boards are dedicated
A/D (DAS-1600, 16 channels) and D/A (DDA-06, 6 channels)
which maximize the sample rate to 20 KHz. The support
software is MATLAB, SIMULINK, and Real-Time Workshop
(11) from MathWorks, Inc. The combination of these software
packages produces the open architecture control system that
Owing to the fact that describing function analysis is an approx- facilitates rapid prototyping.
imate technique, a rigorous justification of replacing in (8) The engine used for this investigation is a 1992 Ford 4.6 L V-8
with to give (11) is not yet developed. Currently, applications fuel injected engine. Engine speed is measured with a 0.6 /pulse
of the pseudolinearization technique are used to test the hypoth- optical encoder whose output is a square wave. This wave is pro-
esis on a case-by-case basis. cessed through a frequency to voltage converter which produces
For the purpose of controller design, the nominal open-loop a dc voltage representing engine speed. The maximum input
transfer function can be defined in the compact form as frequency from the engine to the frequency voltage converter
is 1.0 KHz, which is below the linear operating range of the
(12) converter which is 0–10 KHz. The linear relationship between
engine speed and dc voltage is [V/r/min]
where where denotes absolute engine speed and denotes the
dc voltage. The dc voltage is sent through a 3-pole Wavetek an-
if tialiasing filter with a cutoff frequency of Hz for dig-
if ital sampling. The sampling rate for this investigation is
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2000
Hz. Using this experimental facility, a controller is imple-
mented. To implement this controller, the actuator signal ampli-
fier (Fig. 1) is used to actuate engine speed via the BPAV.
A torque load disturbance at idle can be generated through
four primary sources: 1) the power steering pump; 2) transmis-
sion shifts; 3) alternator loads; and 4) air conditioning com-
pressor loads. For this investigation, the power steering pump
(PSP) will be used as the nonmeasurable, external torque distur-
bance denoted . The load generated via the PSP is modeled
as a step disturbance with a magnitude of 20 Nm.
A. Model Development
The development of the torque load to engine speed transfer
function, , and the BPAV to engine speed transfer func-
tion, , is based on time domain (step response) infor-
mation. Because is not in the feedback loop and does
not affect closed-loop stability, it is modeled as a linear transfer
function with fixed coefficients. However, is con-
tained in the feedback loop and therefore it is modeled as a linear
transfer function with parametric uncertain coefficients.
To develop the model for , the response of engine
speed to a torque load of 20 Nm is measured. The engine speed
is approximately 600 r/min when the PSP develops a 20 Nm
step torque disturbance load to the engine. Based on this engine
speed response, a transfer function consisting of a zero and
a pair of complex poles is chosen for . The resulting
model is
(13)
The development of is based on the transient re-
sponse of engine speed subjected to a 1.0 V step input to the
BPAV. This voltage input, which is larger than the 0.8 V satura-
tion value, is used for the model identification phase to ensure
that the dynamic behavior of the engine is captured beyond the
operating range of interest. The engine is unloaded and idling
at an approximate speed of 600 r/min when the step input is ap-
plied to the BPAV. The resulting engine speed response is used
to determine the transfer function . Using this engine
response, a parametric uncertain transfer function with a pure
delay is used to bound the actual step response of the engine.
The resulting transfer function model is
(14)
where
; fore an acceptable design region does not exist. Consequently,
; the design methodology presented in Herman and Franchek
; [9] which allows the control effort upper amplitude bounds
; to be violated will be used. If either the actuator saturation
195
Fig. 2. Block diagram of the engine.
;
;
;
.
These levels of uncertainty are determined such that the step re-
sponse of this family of linear systems bounds the actual mea-
sured engine speed transient response.
IV. ROBUST CONTROLLER DESIGN
The feedback structure for the engine operating at 600 r/min
is shown in Fig. 2. The performance specifications are
rpm V Nm (15)
These specifications are based on the investigation of Hamilton
and Franchek [7] which had the performance constraints of a
150-r/min tolerance with a 1.0–V saturation level.
A. Amplitude Bound Formulation
Using the feedback structure (Fig. 2) and (13)–(15), am-
plitude bounds are formulated for the design. Employing the
technique presented in Jayasuriya and Franchek [12], upper
and lower amplitude bounds are formulated at the discrete fre-
quencies 0, 1, 2.5, 5, 8, and 12 rad/s. The design regions
for 0, 1, 5, 8, and 12 rad/s exist and can potentially be
satisfied by . However, the upper and lower ampli-
tude bounds at rad/s (Fig. 3) do not form a design
region. Specifically, the solid line represents a lower amplitude
bound on the open-loop transfer function. This lower bound
is based on the degree of system uncertainty, the size of the
external disturbance, and the output performance tolerance
(5). The dashed line represents an upper amplitude bound on
the open-loop transfer function as defined by (6). As can be
seen in Fig. 3, the lower amplitude bound is greater than the
upper amplitude bound for all open-loop phase angles. There-
196 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2000
Fig. 3. Amplitude bounds at ! = 2:5 rad/s.
constraint or the output performance tolerance is increased,
a design region would emerge and actuator saturation could
potentially be avoided. For this study, a controller will be
designed which violates the control effort upper amplitude
bounds such that the output performance amplitude bound is
satisfied. The nominal plant, denoted as , is defined
as the plant for which and does not contain
the delay term. Instead, the delay will be embedded into the
amplitude bounds.
B. Controller Design
The controller design is executed to meet (5) of Condition
1, and Condition 2. The upper and lower amplitude bounds
of (5) and (6) are shown in Fig. 4. In general, the controller
design begins by adding lead compensation at the frequencies
where a reduction in the amount of open-loop phase lag is re-
quired. This reduction in phase lag is identified by the amplitude
bounds. For this design, a frequency of 2.5 rad/s will first be the
first frequency investigated since an acceptable design region
does not exist. At this frequency, the nominal open-loop plant
frequency characteristics are dB and
. The design goal at this frequency is
to reduce this phase lag to zero. Consequently, the difference in
open-loop amplitude between the upper and lower bound con-
flict is near its minimal value (Fig. 4). The compensator zeros
and poles selected to achieve a 65 lead compensator at
rad/s are −1, −3, and −5, −9, respectively. These pole and zero
locations and the controller order are not unique. However, a
second-order controller was selected to achieve a 65 phase lead
since the corresponding phase and gain modifications made by
the controller are isolated within a tighter frequency band than
a first-order lead compensator which achieves a 65 phase lead.
Next the DC gain of the controller is chosen as 0.0025 such that
the resulting meets its respective lower amplitude
bound. Evaluating at the other discrete frequencies
reveals that the output amplitude bounds are satisfied at these
frequencies. Owing to sensor noise, the remaining task is to
make the controller strictly proper. A high frequency pole is in-
cluded at −250. The final controller is
(16)
The resulting open-loop transfer function (the solid
line) and the pseudolinearized open-loop transfer function
(denoted by ) are shown in Fig. 4.
V. STABILITY AND LIMIT CYCLES
As detailed in Herman and Franchek [9], must
not encircle the stability region developed on the Nichols
chart to ensure closed-loop stability for linear operation.
Because the transfer functions and
Nm the feedback system is bounded
input–bounded output stable. Therefore, the remaining stability
issue to be addressed is whether a limit cycle will exist.
To determine if there is a potential for a closed-loop limit
cycle to exist, a harmonic balance study [11] is conducted using
describing function analysis. This analysis is predicated upon
the satisfaction of
(17)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2000
Fig. 4. Final controller design on the Nichols chart.
where is the resulting equivalent gain based on describing
function analysis of the saturation element. For the controller
in (16) and (17) is not satisfied. Thus, it is likely
that the closed-loop system will avoid limit cycling. Further con-
fidence is gained in the limit cycle analysis via the simulation
of the closed-loop system shown in Fig. 5.
VI. RESULTS
Shown in Fig. 5 are the 27 closed-loop responses of the
system due to a step disturbance of magnitude 20 Nm for
the permutations of the parameter values, , VII. CONCLUSIONS
. The controller satisfies the
performance specifications in simulation. In fact, the design is
conservative since r/min. This is attributed to the
fact that the energy content of the saturated signal is larger than
the energy content of the single harmonic used to approximate
the frequency response of the saturation element [11].
Following the numerical simulation, the controller is imple-
mented on the engine. Shown in Fig. 6 is the transient response
of the engine for a 20 Nm step torque disturbance from the PSP.
The performance specifications are satisfied including
r/min. The difference between the simulation and imple-
mentation performances are attributed to the consequences of
approximating a nonlinear system with a limited order linear
uncertain model. In addition, the engine speed deviations due to
the individual firing events, which are neglected in the engine
197
model, can be seen in Fig. 6 as the higher frequency noise like
signature. Also shown in Fig. 6 is a steady-state limit cycling
behavior. This limit cycling is due to the BPAV controller inter-
acting with the fueling controller. As the BPAV controller com-
pensates for the engine speed fluctuations, the fueling controller
reacts so that the tailpipe emissions are met. This produces the
limit cycling. To eliminate this oscillation in engine speed, the
−250 pole in could be moved closer to the -plane origin.
However, the magnitude of the engine speed oscillations is not
audible by the driver.
A feedback controller design methodology is demon-
strated which utilizes actuator saturation to achieve enhanced
regulating performance while satisfying stringent output per-
formance specifications. Enhanced regulating performance is
achieved via the design of a linear controller which temporarily
saturates the actuator for large step disturbances yet operates
linearly for smaller step disturbances. The design methodology
is based on a pseudolinearization technique which employs
describing function analysis. The pseudolinearization tech-
nique is formulated such that controller design is executed
in the frequency domain. Designing in the frequency domain
facilitates the design of systems with parametric uncertainty
and delays. Therefore, the methodology is well suited to the
design of controllers for physical systems.
198 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2000

Fig. 5. Simulated closed-loop step engine speed responses.

Fig. 6. Experimental closed-loop engine speed response.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 8, NO. 1, JANUARY 2000
Using the methodology, a controller is designed to regulate
the idle speed of a Ford V-8 engine subject to a torque distur-
bance. The resulting controller is simulated and implemented
which results in a level of performance unattainable with linear
control. In conclusion, the presented technique is a novel ap-
proach for the design of saturating controllers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank F. Yeung and S. Smith of
Ford Motor Co. for the experimental facility.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Abate, B. R. Barmish, C. Murillo-Sanchez, and R. Tempo, “Appli-
cation of some new tools to robust stability analysis of spark ignition
engines: A case study,” IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 22–30, 1994.
[2] R. Bosch, Automotive Electric/Electronic Systems: Soc. Automotive
Eng. Publication, 1988.
[3] P. J. Campo and M. Morari, “Robust control of processes subjected to
saturation nonlinearities,” Comput. Chem. Eng., vol. 14, no. 4/5, pp.
343–358, 1990.
[4] J. C. Doyle, R. S. Smith, and D. F. Enns, “Control of plants with input
saturation nonlinearities,” in Amer. Contr. Conf., 1987, pp. 1034–1039.
[5] M. A. Franchek and P. A. Herman, “Direct connection between time do-
main performance and frequency domain characteristics,” Int. J. Robust
Nonlinear Contr., vol. 8, pp. 1021–1042, 1998.
[6] A. H. Glattfelder and W. Schaufelberger, “Stability analysis of single
loop control systems with saturations and antireset-windup circuits,”
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-28, no. 12, pp. 1074–1081, 1983.
[7] G. K. Hamilton and M. A. Franchek, “Robust controller design and ex-
perimental verification of I.C. engine speed control,” Int. J. Robust Non-
linear Contr., vol. 7, pp. 609–627, 1997.
199
[8] P. A. Herman, “Performance enhancement of regulating systems via ac-
tuator saturation,” doctoral dissertation, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette,
IN, 1997.
[9] P. A. Herman and M. A. Franchek, “Performance enhancement of fixed
regulating systems via actuator saturation,” J. Dynamic Syst., Measure-
ment, Contr., vol. 121, no. 1, pp. 34–40, 1999.
[10] D. Hrovat and B. Bodenheimer, “Robust automotive idle speed control
design based on µ-synthesis,” in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., San Fran-
cisco, CA, 1993, pp. 1778–1783.
[11] J. C. Hsu and A. U. Meyer, Modern Control Principles and Applica-
tions. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968.
[12] S. Jayasuriya and M. A. Franchek, “A QFT-type design methodology
for a parallel plant structure and its application in idle speed control,”
Int. J. Contr., vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 653–670, 1994.
[13] S. Jayasuriya and J. W. Song, “On the synthesis of compensators for
nonovershooting step responses,” J. Dynamic Syst., Measurement,
Contr., vol. 118, no. 4, pp. 757–763, 1996.
[14] N. J. Krikelis and S. K. Barkas, “Design of tracking systems subject to
actuator saturation and integrator wind-up,” Int. J. Contr., vol. 39, no. 4,
pp. 667–682, 1984.
[15] M. C. Leu, S. Yang, and A. U. Meyer, “Antiwindup control of second-
order plants with saturation nonlinearity,” J. Dynamic Syst., Measure-
ment, Contr., vol. 115, pp. 715–720, 1993.
[16] T. Vesterholm and E. Hendricks, “Advanced nonlinear engine speed con-
trol systems,” in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., Baltimore, MD, 1994, pp.
1579–1580.
[17] S. J. Williams, D. Hrovat, C. Davey, D. Maclay, J. W. Crevel, and L. F.
Chen, “Idle speed control design using an H approach,” in Proc. Amer.
Contr. Conf., Pittsburgh, PA, 1989, pp. 1950–1956.
[18] M. Zheng, M. Kothare, and M. Morari, “Antiwindup for internal model
control,” Int. J. Contr., vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 1015–1024, 1994.