
The rotor of the magnetic suspension turbomachinery is supported by the magnetic suspension bearing without contact and mechanical friction, which directly drives the high-efficiency fluid impeller. It has the advantages of high efficiency, low noise, less fault and no lubrication. However, the system often has some unknown mutation, time variation, load perturbation and other un-certainties when working, and the traditional Proportion Integration Differentiation (PID) control strategy has great limitations to overcome the above disturbances. Therefore, this paper firstly establishes a mathematical model of the rotor of magnetic levitation turbomachinery. Then, a linear active disturbance rejection controller (LADRC) is presented, which can not only improve the above problems of PID control, but also avoid the complex parameter tuning process of traditional nonlinear active disturbance rejection control (ADRC). However, LADRC is easy to induce the overshoot of the system and cannot filter the given signal. On this basis, an improved LADRC with a fast-tracking differentiator (FTD) is proposed to arrange the transition process of input signals. The simulation results show that compared with the traditional PID controller and single LADRC, the improved linear active disturbance rejection control method with fast tracking differentiator (FTD-LADRC) can better suppress some unknown abrupt changes, time variation and other uncertainties of the electromagnetic bearing-rotor system. At the same time, the overshoot of the system is smaller, and the parameters are easy to be set, which is convenient for engineering application.
Citation: Tongtong Yu, Zhizhou Zhang, Yang Li, Weilong Zhao, Jinchu Zhang. Improved active disturbance rejection controller for rotor system of magnetic levitation turbomachinery[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(3): 1570-1586. doi: 10.3934/era.2023080
[1] | Ali N. A. Koam, Adnan Khalil, Ali Ahmad, Muhammad Azeem . Cardinality bounds on subsets in the partition resolving set for complex convex polytope-like graph. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 10078-10094. doi: 10.3934/math.2024493 |
[2] | Ali N. A. Koam . Metric based resolvability of cycle related graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9911-9925. doi: 10.3934/math.2024485 |
[3] | Naila Mehreen, Rashid Farooq, Shehnaz Akhter . On partition dimension of fullerene graphs. AIMS Mathematics, 2018, 3(3): 343-352. doi: 10.3934/Math.2018.3.343 |
[4] | Suliman Khan, Sakander Hayat, Asad Khan, Muhammad Yasir Hayat Malik, Jinde Cao . Hamilton-connectedness and Hamilton-laceability of planar geometric graphs with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3947-3973. doi: 10.3934/math.2021235 |
[5] | Moussa Benoumhani . Restricted partitions and convex topologies. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 10187-10203. doi: 10.3934/math.2025464 |
[6] | Li Liu, Long Zhang, Huaxiang Zhang, Shuang Gao, Dongmei Liu, Tianshi Wang . A data partition strategy for dimension reduction. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4702-4721. doi: 10.3934/math.2020301 |
[7] | Sakander Hayat, Bagus Imanda, Asad Khan, Mohammed J. F. Alenazi . Three infinite families of Hamilton-connected convex polytopes and their detour index. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 12343-12387. doi: 10.3934/math.2025559 |
[8] | Dalal Awadh Alrowaili, Uzma Ahmad, Saira Hameeed, Muhammad Javaid . Graphs with mixed metric dimension three and related algorithms. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 16708-16723. doi: 10.3934/math.2023854 |
[9] | Ahmed Alamer, Hassan Zafar, Muhammad Javaid . Study of modified prism networks via fractional metric dimension. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10864-10886. doi: 10.3934/math.2023551 |
[10] | Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes, Ernesto Estrada . Network bipartitioning in the anti-communicability Euclidean space. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1153-1174. doi: 10.3934/math.2021070 |
The rotor of the magnetic suspension turbomachinery is supported by the magnetic suspension bearing without contact and mechanical friction, which directly drives the high-efficiency fluid impeller. It has the advantages of high efficiency, low noise, less fault and no lubrication. However, the system often has some unknown mutation, time variation, load perturbation and other un-certainties when working, and the traditional Proportion Integration Differentiation (PID) control strategy has great limitations to overcome the above disturbances. Therefore, this paper firstly establishes a mathematical model of the rotor of magnetic levitation turbomachinery. Then, a linear active disturbance rejection controller (LADRC) is presented, which can not only improve the above problems of PID control, but also avoid the complex parameter tuning process of traditional nonlinear active disturbance rejection control (ADRC). However, LADRC is easy to induce the overshoot of the system and cannot filter the given signal. On this basis, an improved LADRC with a fast-tracking differentiator (FTD) is proposed to arrange the transition process of input signals. The simulation results show that compared with the traditional PID controller and single LADRC, the improved linear active disturbance rejection control method with fast tracking differentiator (FTD-LADRC) can better suppress some unknown abrupt changes, time variation and other uncertainties of the electromagnetic bearing-rotor system. At the same time, the overshoot of the system is smaller, and the parameters are easy to be set, which is convenient for engineering application.
Let ψ be a simple, connected graph with vertex set V(ψ) and edge set E(ψ). The distance d(ρ1,ρ2), ρ1,ρ2∈V(ψ) is the length of shortest path between ρ1 and ρ2. Let Q={v1,v2,…,vj} be an ordered set of vertices of ψ. Let ρ1∈V(ψ), the representations denoted by r(ρ1|Q) is the j-tuple distances as (d(ρ1|v1),d(ρ1|v2),…,d(ρ1|vj)). If distinct vertices of ψ have distinct representation w.r.t. Q then Q is called the resolving set. The minimum number of j in the resolving set is known as the metric dimension of ψ and written as dim(ψ). Motivated by the problem of determining an intruder's location in a network in a unique way, Slater introduced the definition of metric dimension in [27] and later independently by Harary and Melter in [11]. The concept of resolving set, metric basis and metric dimension appeared in the literature [4,6,8,9,10,12,15,19,28,30,31].
A partition of a set is collection of its subsets, no pair of which overlap, such that the union of all the subsets is the whole set and partition dimension is related to the partitioning of the vertex set V(Ω) and resolvability. The partition dimension is a generalized variant of matric dimension. Another type of dimension of a graph, is called partition dimension. Let Γ={Γ1,Γ2…,Γj} and r(ρ1|Γ)={d(ρ1,Γ1),d(ρ1,Γ2),…,d(ρ1,Γj)} are named as j-ordered partition of vertices and j-tuple representations respectively. If the representations of every ρ1 in V(ψ) w.r.t. Γ is different, then Γ is the resolving partition of the vertex set and the minimum count of the resolving partition set of V(ψ) is named as the partition dimension of ψ and it is represented by pd(ψ) [7]. The problem of determining the resolving set of a graph is NP-hard [20]. As, the problem of finding the partition dimension is a generalize version of metric dimension, therefore partition dimension is also a NP-complete problem. It is natural to think that there is a relation between metric and partition dimension, [7] proved for any non-trivial connected graph ψ,
pd(ψ)≤dim(ψ)+1. | (1.1) |
In [22], fullerene graph of chemical structure is discussed and proved that the graph has constant and bounded partition dimension. For more and interesting results on constant partition dimension can see [16,21,24]. To find the exact value of partition dimension of a graph is not easy therefore, various results on the bounds of the partition dimension are discussed in literature, such as the partition dimension of Cartesian product operation on different graphs are studies and provided extensive bounds on partition dimension [29]. In [1] different bounds of partition dimension of subdivision of different graphs are discussed. In [25,26] provide bounds of partition dimension of tree and uni-cyclic graphs in the form of subgraphs.
The applications of partition resolving sets can be found in different fields such as robot navigation [19], Djokovic-Winkler relation [9], strategies for the mastermind game [10], network discovery and verification [5], in chemistry for representing chemical compounds [17,18] and in problems of pattern recognition and image processing, some of which involve the use of hierarchical data structures [23] for more applications see [6,11]. Following theorems are very helpful in finding the partition dimension of a graph.
Theorem 1.1. [7] Let Γ be a resolving partition of V(ψ) and ρ1,ρ2∈V(ψ). If d(ρ1,z)=d(ρ2,z) for all vertices z∈V(ψ)∖(ρ1,ρ2), then ρ1,ρ2 belong to different classes of Γ.
Theorem 1.2. [7] Let ψ be a simple and connected graph, then
● pd(ψ) is 2 iff ψ is a path graph
● pd(ψ) is n iff ψ is a complete graph,
Let R be a family of connected graphs Gn:R=(Gn)n≥1, where |V(ψ)|=λ(n) and limn→∞λ(n)=∞. If there exists a constant α≥1 such that pd(ψ)≤α,n≥1, then R has bounded partition dimension otherwise unbounded. Imran et al. [14] studied the metric dimension of Rpn, Dpn, and Qpn, convex polytopes which motivates us to find the partition dimension of same families of convex polytopes. In this paper, the partition dimension of same families of convex polytopes are studied. We determine the partition dimension of Rpn, in second section. In the third section, the partition dimension of the graph Dpn of a convex polytope with pendent edges is presented. The fourth section remains for the partition dimension of the graph Qpn.
The convex polytope Rpn (p for pendant edges) is a planar graph and obtained from the convex polytope Rn defined in [13]. If we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer layer of Rn then we obtained a new planer graph Rpn as shown in Figure 1. The vertex set of Rpn, V(RPn)={V(Rn)}∪{xα:1≤α≤n} and edge set of Rpn, E(RPn)={E(Rn)}∪{wαxα:1≤α≤n}.
For calculation, {uα:1≤α≤n} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1≤α≤n} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1≤α≤n} set of vertices and pendant vertices named {xα:1≤α≤n}.
Theorem 2.1. Let Rpn be a polytopes with n≥6. Then pd(Rpn)≤4.
Proof. We splits the proof into following two cases.
Case 1: When n=2β,β≥3,β∈N. We partition the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets Θ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Rpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertex of Rpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Rpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices w.r.t. resolving partition set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,1,β,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+1,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Rpn. The representations of pendant vertices w.r.t. Γ are shown in Table 1. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation of pendant vertices of Rpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Rpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.
Case 2: When n=2β+1,β≥3,β∈N. Again we resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Rpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Rpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Rpn)≤4. {We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,1,β,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+1,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β,1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Rpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are: If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Rpn.
The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ shown in Table 2. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation of pendant vertices of Rpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Rpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Rpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.
We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Rpn)≤4.
The convex polytope DPn is a planar graph and if we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle of Dn [2] then we obtained a new plane graph DPn as shown in Figure 2. The vertex and edge set V(DPn)={V(Dn)}∪{yα:1≤α≤n}, E(DPn)={E(Dn)}∪{xαyα:1≤α≤n} are respectively. For calculation, {uα:1≤α≤n} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1≤α≤n} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1≤α≤n} set of vertices, {xα:1≤α≤n} labeled as outer cycle and pendant vertices named for {yα:1≤α≤n}.
Theorem 3.1. Let DPn be a polytopes with n≥6. Then pd(DPn)≤4.
Proof. We split the proof of above theorem into following two cases.
Case 1: When n=2β,β≥3,β∈N. We partition the vertices of Dpn into four partition sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Dpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Dpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Dpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on outer cycle and pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Tables 3 and 4. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in outer cycle and pendant vertices of Dpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β−1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Dpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.
Case 2: When n=2β+1,β≥3,β∈N. Again we resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Dpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Dpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Dpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If α=1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2,2,β+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Dpn.
The vertices on outer cycle and pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Tables 5 and 6. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in outer cycle and pendant vertices of Dpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Dpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Dpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.
We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Tpn)≤4.
The convex polytope QPn is a planar graph and If we attach a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle of Qn [3] then we obtained a new plane graph QPn as shown in Figure 3. The vertex and edge set V(QPn)={V(αn)}∪{yα:1≤α≤n}, E(QPn)={E(Qn)}∪{xαyα:1≤α≤n} are respectively.
For convenience, {uα:1≤α≤n} represents the inner cycle, the cycle induced by {vα:1≤α≤n} is interior cycle, exterior cycle containing {wα:1≤α≤n} set of vertices, {xα:1≤α≤n} are exterior vertices, and pendant vertices named for {yα:1≤α≤n}.
Theorem 4.1. Let QPn be a polytopes with n≥6. Then pd(QPn)≤4.
Proof. Case 1: When n=2β,β≥3,β∈N. We partition the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Qpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Qpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Qpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α+1,α+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(3,3,α+2,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+1,β−α+3,0). If α=β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+2,3,0). If β+2≤α≤2β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+2,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Table 7. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in pendant vertices of Qpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Qpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is even.
Case 2: When n=2β+1,β≥3,β∈N. Again we resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets Γ={Γ1,Γ2,Γ3,Γ4} where Γ1={u1}, Γ2={u2}, Γ3={uβ+1} and Γ4={∀V(Qpn)|∉{Γ1,Γ2,Γ3}}. It suffice to show that if every vertices of Qpn have different representation w.r.t. resolving set Γ, then pd(Qpn)≤4. We give the representations of all vertices Γ4 w.r.t. resolving set Γ are following.
The vertices on inner cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If 3≤α≤β, then r(uβ|Γ)=(α−1,α−2,β−α+1,0). If α=β+2, then r(uβ|Γ)=(β,β,1,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(uβ|Γ)=(2β−α+1,2β−α+2,α−β−1,0). There are no two vertices have same representation in inner cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on interior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(1,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(vβ|Γ)=(α,α−1,β−α+2,0). If α=β+2, then r(vβ|Γ)=(β+1,β+1,2,0). If β+3≤α≤2β+1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2β−α+2,2β−α+3,α−β,0). There are also no two vertices have same representation in interior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(2,2,α+1,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+1,α,β−α+2,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+1,2,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+3,2β−α+4,α−β+1,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The vertices on exterior cycle having the representations w.r.t. Γ which are:
If β=1, then r(vβ|Γ)=(3,3,α+2,0). If 2≤α≤β, then r(wβ|Γ)=(α+2,α+1,β−α+3,0). If α=β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(β+2,β+2,3,0). If β+2≤α≤2β+1, then r(wβ|Γ)=(2β−α+4,2β−α+5,α−β+2,0). Again there are no two vertices have same representation also in exterior cycle of Qpn.
The pendant vertices having the representations w.r.t. Γ as shown in Table 8. Again we can see that there are no two vertices have same representation in pendant vertices of Qpn.
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+4 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
It is easy to verify that all the vertices of Qpn have unique representation w.r.t. resolving partition Γ. Its means we can also resolve the vertices of Qpn into four partition resolving sets, when n is odd.
We note that from Case 1 and 2, there are no two vertices having the same representations implying that pd(Upn)≤4.
The core of the problem of the partition dimension is deciding the resolving partition set for a graph. In this paper, we have studies the partition dimension of some families of convex polytopes graph such as Rpn, Dpn and Qpn, which are obtained from the convex polytopes by adding a pendant edge at each vertex of outer cycle. In this research work, we have proved that partition dimension of these convex polytopes are bounded. Consequently, we propose the following open problems.
Conjecture 5.1. The following equalities hold:
pd(Rpn)=pd(Dpn)=pd(Qpn)=4 |
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
H. L. Sha, T. Y. Yu, Y. He, Z. H. Zhang, Rotor dynamics design and test of 700 kW magnetic levitation turbo blower, Chin. J. Turbomach., 61 (2019), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.16492/j.fjjs.2019.06.0008 doi: 10.16492/j.fjjs.2019.06.0008
![]() |
[2] |
X. D. Guan, J. Zhou, C. W. Jin, Y. P. Xu, Disturbance suppression in active magnetic bearings with adaptive control and extended state observer, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part Ⅰ: J. Syst. Control Eng., 234 (2020), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959651819849774 doi: 10.1177/0959651819849774
![]() |
[3] |
Z. W. Huang, J. M. Zhu, J. J. Shao, Z. X. Wei, J. W. Tang, Recurrent neural network based high-precision position compensation control of magnetic levitation system, Sci. Rep., 12 (2022), 11435. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15638-0 doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15638-0
![]() |
[4] |
A. Hezzi, S. B. Elghali, Y. Bensalem, Z. B. Zhou, M. Benbouzid, M. N. Abdelkrim, ADRC-based robust and resilient control of a 5-phase PMSM driven electric vehicle, Machines, 8 (2020), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines8020017 doi: 10.3390/machines8020017
![]() |
[5] |
A. Winursito, G. N. P. Pratama, LQR state feedback controller with precompensator for magnetic levitation system, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2111 (2021), 012004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2111/1/012004 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2111/1/012004
![]() |
[6] |
L. Zhang, L. W. Zhang, J. W. Yang, M. Gao, Y. H. Li, Application research of fuzzy PID control optimized by genetic algorithm in medium and low speed maglev train charger, IEEE Access, 9 (2021), 152131–152139. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3123727 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3123727
![]() |
[7] |
J. Q. Han, Auto disturbances rejection controller and its applications, Control Decis., 13 (1998), 19–23. https://doi.org/10.13195/j.cd.1998.01.19.hanjq.004 doi: 10.13195/j.cd.1998.01.19.hanjq.004
![]() |
[8] |
W. Zhan, J. Y. Su, G. J. Yang, Electrical line-shafting control for permanent magnet synchronous motors using active disturbance rejection control, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 1884 (2021), 012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1884/1/012036 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1884/1/012036
![]() |
[9] | Z. Q. Gao, Scaling and bandwidth-parameterization based controller tuning, in Proceedings of American Control Conference, 6 (2003), 4989–4996. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2003.1242516 |
[10] |
Y. L. Shi, C. Z. Hou, Design of improved nonlinear tracking, Control Decis., 23 (2008), 647–650. https://doi.org/10.13195/j.cd.2008.06.49.shiyl.005 doi: 10.13195/j.cd.2008.06.49.shiyl.005
![]() |
[11] |
J. C. Ji, C. H. Hansen, Nonlinear oscillations of a rotor in active magnetic bearings, J. Sound Vib., 240 (2001), 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1006/jsvi.2000.3257 doi: 10.1006/jsvi.2000.3257
![]() |
[12] |
L. L. Zhang, Vibration analysis and multi-state feedback control of maglev vehicle-guideway coupling system, Electron. Res. Arch., 30 (2022), 3887–3901. https://doi.org/10.3934/era.2022198 doi: 10.3934/era.2022198
![]() |
[13] |
J. C. Ji, Dynamics of a Jeffcott rotor-magnetic bearing system with time delays, Int. J. Non-Linear Mech., 38 (2003), 1387–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7462(02)00078-1 doi: 10.1016/S0020-7462(02)00078-1
![]() |
[14] |
J. C. Ji, C. H. Hansen, A. C. Zander, Nonlinear dynamics of magnetic bearing systems, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct., 19 (2008), 1471–1491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X08088666 doi: 10.1177/1045389X08088666
![]() |
[15] |
F. T. Wang, P. Dai, J. P. Wang, L. K. Niu, Vibration responses of the bearing-rotor-gear system with the misaligned rotor, Machines, 10 (2022), 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10040267 doi: 10.3390/machines10040267
![]() |
[16] |
N. Numanoy, J. Srisertpol, Vibration reduction of an overhung rotor supported by an active magnetic bearing using a decoupling control system, Machines, 7 (2019), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines7040073 doi: 10.3390/machines7040073
![]() |
[17] |
Y. H. Wang, X. Xiong, X. Hu, Vibration and stability analysis of a bearing–rotor system with transverse breathing crack and initial bending, Machines, 9 (2021), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines9040079 doi: 10.3390/machines9040079
![]() |
[18] |
Z. L. Xie, J. Jiao, K. Yang, T. He, R. G. Chen, W. D. Zhu, Experimental and numerical exploration on the nonlinear dynamic behaviors of a novel bearing lubricated by low viscosity lubricant, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., 182 (2023), 109349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109349 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109349
![]() |
[19] |
L. Y. Huang, N. Q. Hu, Y. Yang, L. Chen, J. H. Wen, G. J. Shen, Study on electromagnetic–dynamic coupled modeling method—detection by stator current of the induction motors with bearing faults, Machines, 10 (2022), 682. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10080682 doi: 10.3390/machines10080682
![]() |
[20] |
J. Wang, Y. F. Liu, Z. Y. Qin, L. Ma, F. L. Chu, Dynamic performance of a novel integral magnetorheological damper-rotor system, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., 172 (2022), 109004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109004 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109004
![]() |
[21] |
B. Xiang, H. Liu, Y. J. Yu, Gimbal effect of magnetically suspended flywheel with active deflection of Lorentz-force magnetic bearing, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process., 173 (2022), 109081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109081 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109081
![]() |
[22] |
Z. J. Wang, T. Zhao, Adaptive-based linear active disturbance rejection attitude control for quadrotor with external disturbances, Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, 44 (2022), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/01423312211031781 doi: 10.1177/01423312211031781
![]() |
[23] | J. Q. Han, L. L. Yuan, The discrete form of tracking differentiator, J. Syst. Sci. Math. Sci., 19 (1999), 268–273. |
[24] |
S. N. Wu, Z. L. Ping, Y. H. Ma, Research on DPCC control strategy of PMSM based on LESO, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 2005 (2021), 012137. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2005/1/012137 doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2005/1/012137
![]() |
[25] |
Y. T. Wang, W. Tan, W. Q. Cui, Tuning of linear active disturbance rejection controllers for second-order underdamped systems with time delay, ISA Trans., 118 (2021), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2021.02.011 doi: 10.1016/j.isatra.2021.02.011
![]() |
[26] |
X. D. Sun, Z. J. Jin, L. Chen, Z. B. Yang, Disturbance rejection based on iterative learning control with extended state observer for a four-degree-of-freedom hybrid magnetic bearing system, Mech. Syst. Signal Process., 153 (2021), 107465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107465 doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107465
![]() |
1. | Xiujun Zhang, Muhammad Salman, Anam Rani, Rashna Tanveer, Usman Ali, Zehui Shao, Metric Identification of Vertices in Polygonal Cacti, 2023, 136, 1526-1506, 883, 10.32604/cmes.2023.025162 | |
2. | Kamran Azhar, Sohail Zafar, Agha Kashif, Amer Aljaedi, Umar Albalawi, The Application of Fault-Tolerant Partition Resolvability in Cycle-Related Graphs, 2022, 12, 2076-3417, 9558, 10.3390/app12199558 | |
3. | Wajdi Alghamdi, Muhammad Ahsan Asim, Akbar Ali, On the Bounded Partition Dimension of Some Generalised Graph Structures, 2022, 2022, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2022/9531182 | |
4. | Ali Al Khabyah, Ali N. A. Koam, Ali Ahmad, Niansheng Tang, Partition Resolvability of Nanosheet and Nanotube Derived from Octagonal Grid, 2024, 2024, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2024/6222086 | |
5. | Syed Waqas Shah, Muhammad Yasin Khan, Gohar Ali, Irfan Nurhidayat, Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Homan Emadifar, Ram Jiwari, On Partition Dimension of Generalized Convex Polytopes, 2023, 2023, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2023/4412591 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β−1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+4 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+3 | 2β−α+4 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β−1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 3 | 3 | β+2 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+2 | α+1 | β−α+3 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+2 | β+2 | 3 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+2 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
xα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
xα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
xα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
xα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+3 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β | 2β−α+4 | 2β−α+5 | α−β+3 | 0 |
Representation | Γ1 | Γ2 | Γ3 | Γ4 |
yα: α=1 | 4 | 4 | β+3 | 0 |
yα: 2≤α≤β | α+3 | α+2 | β−α+4 | 0 |
yα: α=β+1 | β+4 | β+3 | 4 | 0 |
yα: β+2≤α≤2β+1 | 2β−α+5 | 2β−α+6 | α−β+3 | 0 |