L both itoring the system status. Figure 6 illustrates the the profile
L both itoring the technique status. Figure six illustrates the the profile of L1-norm residual for for itoring the program status. Figure six illustrates the profile with the L1-norm residual for each both regular and fault modes. This figure obeys Lemma 1 and hence, detection with the fault standard and fault modes. This figure obeys Lemma 1 and therefore, the the detection of the typical and fault modes. This figure obeys Lemma 1 and as a result, the detection on the fault fault as residual of actuation fault becomes smaller sized than thethe normal one thethe time of asas the residual of actuation faultfault becomes smaller sized than normalat theat at on the in the the the residual of actuation becomes smaller sized than the regular a single 1 time time the fault detection, Td = 6.147 s. fault detection, Td = 6.147 s.fault detection, Td = six.147 s.(a)(b)(a) (b) Figure 3. Comparison of SG trajectories in normal and fault modes: (a) actuation fault, (b) fault impacted on the Charybdotoxin custom synthesis method dynamics.Figure three. Comparison of SG trajectories in regular and fault modes: (a) actuation fault, (b) fault impacted around the method dynamics.Figure 3. Comparison of SG trajectories in typical and fault modes: (a) actuation fault, (b) fault impactedML-SA1 Purity applied around the SG model Similarly, within the second situation, the corresponding fault is around the method dynamics.at T0 = six s. Figure 7 shows the profile of your L1-norm residual of this situation and confirms that in the time from the fault detection, Td = 6.089 s, the typical L1-norm of the fault becomes smaller than the typical counterpart, thus obeying Lemma 1 as well as the detection from the fault extremely swiftly, td = 0.1 s.Electronics 2021, ten,(a)(b)14 ofFigure three. Comparison of SG trajectories in regular and fault modes: (a) actuation fault, (b) fault impacted around the program dynamics.Electronics 2021, 10, x FOR PEER Assessment Electronics 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW14 of 17 14 ofFigure 4. Comparison of fault trajectories and modeling uncertainty. Figure 4. Comparison of fault trajectories and modeling uncertainty.Similarly, in the second scenario, the corresponding fault is applied around the SG model Similarly, in the second scenario, the corresponding fault is applied on the SG model at T0 = 6 s. Figure 7 shows the profile in the L1-norm residual of this situation and confirms T0 = 6 s. Figure 7 shows the profile on the L1-norm residual of this situation and confirms at that at the time from the fault detection, Td = 6.089 s, the typical L1-norm with the fault becomes that in the time with the fault detection, Td = six.089 s, the typical L1-norm in the fault becomes smaller sized than the normal counterpart, therefore obeying Lemma 1 as well as the detection with the fault smaller sized than the standard counterpart, hence obeying Lemma 1 and the detection in the fault extremely rapidly, td = 0.1 s. Figure four. Comparison of fault trajectories and modeling uncertainty. incredibly rapidly, td = 0.1 s.(a) (a)(b) (b)Figure five. Estimation of program output: (a) under actuation fault, (b) under fault influence technique dynamics. Figure five. Estimation of method output: (a) beneath actuation fault, (b) under fault impact onon technique dynamics. Figure 5. Estimation of technique output: (a) below actuation fault, (b) below fault impact on program dynamics.(a) (a)(b) (b)Figure six. (a) Detection of actuator fault applied around the SG model at T = 6.147 s, s, zoomed-in view. Figure 6. (a) Detection of actuator fault applied on the SG model at Tdd = six.147 (b)(b) zoomed-in view.Figure 6. (a) Detection of actuator fault applied on the SG model at Td = 6.147 s, (b) zoomed-i.
