throbber
Ex. PGS 1035
`(EXCERPTED)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Computer-Control/eel
`Systems
`
`Theory and Design
`
`THIRD EDITION
`
`Karl J. Astrom
`
`Bjorn Wittenmark
`
`Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
`
`07458
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`Library of Congress Cataloging-In· Publication D:ata
`
`Astriim, Karl J. (Karl Johan)
`CompulCr-Controlled systems : theory and design I Karl J. Astrtim
`Bjorn Wiucnmurk . .. 3rd cd.
`em.
`p.
`Includes bibliographical references and index.
`ISBN 0·13-314899-8
`I. Autom3tic control--Data processing. L Wittenrnark, Bjam.
`U. Tille.
`TJ213.A78 199'7
`629.8'9--dc20
`
`96-36745
`CIJ>
`
`Publisher: Tom Robbins
`Associate editor: A lice Dworkin
`Editorial production supervision: Joseph Scord<tto
`Editor-in-chief: Marcia Honoo
`Managing editor: Bayani Mendoza DeLeon
`Copycditor: Peter J. Zurita
`Cover designer: Bruce Kensclaar
`Director of production and manufacturing: David W. Riccardi
`Manufacturing buyer. Donna Sullivan
`Editorial assl$lant: Nancy Garcia
`
`@ 1997 by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
`Simon &. Schuster/A Viaoom C001pany
`Upper Saddle River. NJ 07458
`
`All rights reserved, No pan of thh book may be
`reproduced, in any fom1 or by any means,
`without permission in writing from the publisher.
`
`The author and publisher of this book have used their best cffons in preparing this book. These efforts
`include the development, research. and tening of the theories and programs to determine their effectiveness.
`The author and publisher make no warranty of any kind, expressed or impUed, with regard to these programs
`or the documentation contained in this book. The author and pubtisher shall not be tiable in any event for
`incidental or consequential damages in connection with, or arising out of. the furnishing, performance, pr usc
`of these programs.
`
`M.l.T. LIBRARiES
`
`MAY 0 2 1997
`
`Printed in the United States of America
`
`10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
`
`ISBN 0-13-314899-8
`
`Prentice-Hall International (UK) Umited, London
`Prentice-Hall of Australia Ply. Umited, Sydney
`Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., Toronto
`Prenticc-llall Hispanoamericana, S.A., Mexico
`Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi
`Prentice-Hall of Iapan, Inc., Tokyo
`Simon &. Schusr.er Asia PIC. V.d., Singupore
`Ed.itora Prentice-H all do Brasil, Ltda., Rio de Janeiro
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`1
`
`Computer Control
`
`1.1 Introduction
`
`Practically all control systems that are implemented t-oday are based on com(cid:173)
`puter control It is therefore important to understand computer-controlled sys(cid:173)
`tems well. Such syst~ms can be viewed as approximations of analog-control
`systems, but this is a poor approach because the full potential of computer con(cid:173)
`trol is not used. At best the results are only as good as those obtained with
`analog control. It is much better to master computer-controlled systems, so that
`the full potential of computer control can be used. There are also phenomena
`that occur in oomputer-c.ontrolled systems that have no correspondence in ana(cid:173)
`log systems. It is important for an engineer to underst.and this. The main goal
`of this book is to provide a solid background for understanding, analyzing, and
`designing computer-controlled systems.
`A computer-controlled system can be described schematically as in Fig. 1.1.
`The output from the process y(t) is a continuous-time signal. The output is
`converted into digital form by the analog-to-digital (A-D) converter. The A-D
`converter can be included in the computer or regarded as a separate unit, ac(cid:173)
`cording to one's preference. The conversion is done at the sampling times, tit.
`The computer interprets the converted signal, {y{t•)}• as a sequence of num(cid:173)
`bers, processes the measurements using an a lgorithm, and gives a new se(cid:173)
`quence of numbers, {u(tk)}. This sequence is converted. to an analog signal by
`a digital-to-analog (D-A) converter. The events are synchronized by the real(cid:173)
`time clock in the computer. The cligi.tal computer operates sequentially in time
`and each operation takes some time. The D·A converter must, however, produce
`a continuous-time signal. This is normally done by keeping the control signal
`constant between the oonversions. In this case the system runs open loop in
`the time interval between the sampling instants because the control signal is
`constant irrespective of the value of the output.
`The computer-controlled system contains both continuous-time signals and
`sampled, or di$Crete-time, signals. Such systelll8 have traditionally been called
`
`1
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`2
`
`Computer Control
`r---------- ----------------- -----,
`Computer
`'
`
`Chap. 1
`
`j
`I
`I
`I
`L-- - ----- ----------------------- ~
`
`Figure 1.1 Schematic diagram of a computer-controlled system.
`
`sampled-data systems, and this term will be used here as a synonym for com(cid:173)
`puter-controlled systems.
`The mixture of different types of signals sometimes causes difficulties. In
`most cases it is, however, sufficient to describe the behavior of the system at
`the sampling instants. The signals are then of interest only at discrete times.
`Such systems will be called di-screte-time systems. Discrete-time systems deal
`with sequences of numbers, so a natural way to represent these systems is to
`use difference equations.
`The purpose of the book is to present the control theory that is relevanL to
`the analysis and design of computer-controlled systems. This chapter provides
`some background. A brief overview of the development of computer-control tech(cid:173)
`nQlogy is given in Sec. 1.2. The need for a suitable theory is discussed in Sec. 1.3.
`Examples are used to demonstrate that computer-controlled systems cannot be
`fully understood by the theory oflinear time-invariant continuous-time systems.
`An example shows not only that computer-controlled systems can be designed
`using continuous-time theory and approximations, but also that substantial im·
`provements can be obtained by other techniques that use the full potential of
`computer control. Section 1.4 gives some examples of inherently sampled sys(cid:173)
`tems. The development of the theory of sampled-data systems is outlined m
`Sec. 1.5.
`
`1.2 Computer Technology
`
`The idea of using digital computers as components in control systems emerged
`around 1950.1\.pplications in missile and aircraft. control were investigated first.
`Studies showed that there was no potential for using the general-purpose digital
`computers that were available at thaL time. The computers were too big, they
`consumed too much power, and they were not sufficiently reliable. For this
`reason special-purpose computers-digital differential analyzers (DDAs)-were
`developed for the early aerospace applications.
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`Sec. 1.2
`
`Computer Technology
`
`3
`
`The idea of using digital computers for process control emerged in the
`mid-1950s. Serious work start.ed in March 1956 when the aerospace company
`Thomson Ramo Woodridge {'l'H.W) contacted Texaco to set up a feasibility study.
`After preliminary discussions it was decided to investigate a polymerization
`unit at the Por t Arthur, Texas, refinery. A group of engineers from TRW and
`Texaco made a thorough feasibility study, which required about 30 people-years.
`A computer-controlled system for the polymerization unit was designed based
`on the RW-300 computer. The control system went on-line March 12, 1959. The
`system controlled 26 flows, 72 temperatures, 3 pressures, and 3 compositions.
`The essential functions were to minimize the reactor pressure, to determine
`an optimal distribution among the feeds of 5 reactors, to control the hot-water
`inflow based on measurement of catalyst activity, and to determine the optimal
`r ecirculation.
`The pioneel'ing work done by TRW was noticed by many comput-er manu(cid:173)
`facturers, who saw a large potential market for their products. Many different
`feasibility studies were initiated and vigorous development was started. To dis(cid:173)
`cuss the dramatic developments, it is useful to introduce six periods:
`Pioneering period ~ 1955
`Direct-digital-control period ~ 1962
`Minicomputer period ~ 1967
`Microcomputer period ~ 1972
`
`General use of digital control ~ 1980
`Distributed control ~ 1990
`It is difficult to give precise dates, because the development was highly di(cid:173)
`versified. There was a wide difference between different application areas and
`different industries; there was also considerable overlap. The dates given refer
`to the emergence of new approaches.
`
`Pioneering Period
`
`The work done by TRW and Texaco evoked substantial interest in process in(cid:173)
`dustries, among computer manufacturers, and in research organizations. The
`industries saw a potential tool for increased automation, the computer indus(cid:173)
`tries saw new markets, and universities saw a new research field. Many feasi(cid:173)
`bility studies were initiated by the computer manufacturers because they were
`eager to learn the new technology and were very interested in knowing what a
`proper process-control computer should look like. Feasibility studies continued
`throughout the sixties.
`The computer systems that were used were slow, expensive, and unreliable.
`The earlier systems used vacuum tubes. Typical data for a computer around
`1958 were an addition time of 1 ms, a multiplication time of 20 rna, and a mean
`time between failures (MTBF) for a central processing unit of 50-100 h. To make
`full use of the expensive computers, it was necessary to have them perform many
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`4
`
`Computer Control
`
`Chap. 1
`
`tasks. Because the computers were so unreliable, they controlled the process by
`printing instructions to the process operator or by changing the set points of
`analog regulators. These supervisory modes of operation were referred to as an
`operator guide and a set-point control.
`The major tasks of the computer were to find the optimal operating condi(cid:173)
`tions, to perform scheduling and production planning, and to give reports about
`production and raw-material consumption. The problem of finding the best op(cid:173)
`erating co~ditions was viewed as a static optimization problem. Mathematical
`models of the processes were necessary in order to perform the optimization.
`The models used-which were quite complicated-were derived from physical
`models and from regression analysis of process data. Attempts were also made
`to carry out on-line optimization.
`Progress was often hampered by lack of process knowledge. It also became
`clear that it was not sufficient to view the problems simply as static optimization
`problems; dynamic models were needed. A significant proportion of the effort
`in many of the feasibility studies was devoted to modeling, which was quite
`time-consuming because there was a lack of good modeling methodology. This
`stimulated research into system-identification methods.
`_
`A lot of experience was gained during the feasibility studies. It became
`clear that process control puts special demands on computers. The need to re(cid:173)
`spond quickly to demands from the process led to development of the interrupt
`feature, which is a special hardware device that allows an external event to
`interrupt the computer in its current work so that it can respond to more ur(cid:173)
`gent process tasks. Many sensors that were needed were not available. There
`were also several difficulties in trying to introduce a new technology into old
`industries.
`The progress made was closely monitored at conferences and meetings
`and in journals. A series of articles describing the use of computers in process
`control was published in the journal Control Engineering. By March 1961, 37
`systems had been installed. A year later the number of systems had grown to
`159. The applications involved control of steel mills and chemical industries and
`generation of electric power. The development progressed at different rates in
`different industries. Feasibility studies continued through the 1960s and the
`1970s.
`
`Direct-Digital-Control Period
`
`The early installations of control computers operated in a supervisory mode, ei(cid:173)
`ther as an operator guide or as a set-point control. The ordinary analog-control
`equipment was needed in both cases. A drastic departure from this approach
`was made by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) in England in 1962. A complete
`analog instrumentation for process control was l'eplaced by one computer, a Fer(cid:173)
`ranti Argus. The computer measured 224 variables and controlled 129 valves
`directly. 'fhis was the beginning of a new era in process control: Analog technol(cid:173)
`ogy was simply replaced by digital technology; the function of the system was
`the same. The name direct digital control (DDC) was coined to emphasize that
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`Sec. 1.2
`
`Computer Technology
`
`5
`
`the computer-controlled the process directly. In 1962 a typical process-control
`computer could add two numbers in 100 ps and multiply them in 1 ms. The
`MTBF wns around 1000 h.
`Cost was the major argument for chnngmg the t.echnology. The cost of an
`analog system increased linearly with the number of control loops; the initial
`cost of a digital system was large, but tho cost of adding on additional loop
`wos small. The digital system was thus cheaper for large inBtollotions. Another
`advantage was that operator communication could be changed drastically; an
`operator communication panel could replace a large wall of analog instruments.
`The panel used in the ICI system was very simplG-a digital chsplay and a few
`buttons.
`Flexibility was another advantage of the DOC systems. Analog systems
`were changed by rewiring; computer-controlled systems were changed by repro(cid:173)
`gramming. Digital technology also offered other advantages. It was easy to have
`interaction among several control loops. 'l'ha parameters of a control loop could
`be made functions of operating conditions . 'rho programming was simplified by
`introducing special DDC languages. A user of such a language did not need
`to know anything about programming, but simply introduced inputs, outputs,
`regulator types, scale factors, and regulator parameters into tables. 'Ib the user
`the systems thus looked like a connection of ordinary regulators. A drawback
`of the systems was that it was difficult to do unconventional control strategies.
`This certainly hampered development of control for many years.
`DOC was a major change of directton in the development of computer(cid:173)
`controlled systems. Interest was focused on the basic control functions instead
`of the supervisory functions of the earlier systems. Considerable progress was
`made in the years 1963-1965. Specifications for DOC systems were worked out
`joinLly between users and vendors. Problems related to choice of sampling period
`and control algorithms, as well as the key problem of reliability, were discussed
`extensively. The DDC concept was quickly accepted although DOC systems often
`turned out to be more expensive than corresponding analog systems.
`
`Minicomputer Period
`
`'!'here was substantial development of digital computer technology in the 1960s.
`The requirements on a process-control computer were neatly matched with
`progress in intew·ated-circuit technology. The computers became smaller, faster,
`more reliable, and cheaper. The term minicomputer was coi ned for the new com(cid:173)
`puters that emerged. It was possible to design officiant px·ocess-control systems
`by using minicomputers.
`The development of minicomputer technology combined with the increas(cid:173)
`ing knowledge gained about process control with computers during the pio(cid:173)
`neering and DDC periods caused a rapid increa~e in applications of computer
`control. S(X'Cia1 process-control computers were announced by several manufac(cid:173)
`turers. A typical process computer of the period had a word length of 16 bits.
`The primary memory was 8-124 k words. A disk drive was commonly used as a
`secondary memory. The CDC 1700 was a typical computer of this period, with
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`6
`
`Computer Control
`
`Chap. 1
`
`an addition time of 2 ps and a multiplication time of 7 J.l.S. The MTBF for a
`central processing unit was about 20,000 h.
`An important factor in the rapid increase of computer control in this period
`was that digital Mmputer control now came in a smaller "unit." It was thus
`possible to use computer control for smaller projects and for smaller problems.
`Because of minicomputers, the number of process computers grew from about
`5000 in 1970 to about 50,000 in 1975.
`
`Microcomputer Period and General Use of Computer Control
`
`The early use of computer control was restricted to large industrial systems
`because digital computing was only available in expensive,. large, slow, and
`unreliable machines. The minicomputer was still a fairly large system. Even
`as performance continued to increase and prices to decrease, the price of a
`minicomputer mainframe in 1975 was still about $10,000. This meant that a
`small system rarely cost less than $100,000. Computer control was still out
`of reach for a large number of control problems. But with the development of
`the microcomputer in 1972, the price of a card computer with the performance
`of a 1975 minicomputer dropped to $500 in 1980. Another consequence was
`that digital computing power in 1980 came in quanta as small as $50. The
`development of microelectronics has continued with advances in very large-scale
`integration (VLSI) technology; in the 1990s microprocessors became available
`for a few dollars. This has had a profound impact on the use of computer control.
`As a result practically all controllers are now computer-based. Mass markets
`such as automotive electronics has also led to the development of special-purpose
`computers, called microcontrollers, in which a standard computer chip has been
`augmented with A-D and D-A converters, registers, and other features that
`make it easy to interface with physical equipment.
`Practically all control systems developed today are based on computer
`control. Applications span all areas of control, generation, and distribution.
`of electricity; process control; manufacturing; transportation; and entertain(cid:173)
`ment. Mass-market applications such as automotive electronics, CD players,
`and videos are particularly interesting because they have motivated computer
`manufacturers to make chips that can be used in a wide variety of applications.
`As an illustration Fig. 1.2 shows an example of a single-loop controller for
`process control. Such systems were traditionally implemented using pneumatic
`or electronic techniques, but they are now always computer-based. The con(cid:173)
`troller has the traditional proportional, integral, and derivative actions (PID),
`which are implemented in a microprocessor. With digital control it is also pos(cid:173)
`sible to obtain added functionality. In this particular case, the regulator is pro(cid:173)
`vided with automatic tuning, gain scheduling, and continuous adaptation of
`feedforward and feedback gains. These functions are difficult to implement with
`analog techniques. The system is a typical case that shows how the function(cid:173)
`ality of a traditional product can be imp1·oved substantially by use of computer
`control.
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`Sec. 1.2
`
`Computer Technology
`
`7
`
`Figure 1.2 A standard single-loop controller for process 1-ontrol. (By cour(cid:173)
`tesy of Alfa Laval Automation, Stockholm, Sweden.)
`
`Logic, Sequencing) and Control
`
`Industrial automation systems have traditionnlly hod two components, con(cid:173)
`trollers and relay logic. Relays were used to sequence operations such as startup
`and shutdown and they were also used to ensure safety of the operations by pro(cid:173)
`viding interlocks. Relays and controllel'B wero handled by different categories
`of personnel at the plant. Instrument engineers were responsible for the con(cid:173)
`trollers and electricians were responsible for tho relay systems. We have already
`discussed how the controllers were influenced by microcomputers. The relay sys(cid:173)
`tems went through a similar change with the advent of microelectronics. The
`so-called programmable logic controller (PLC) emerged in tho beginning of the
`1970s as replacements for relays. They could be pr·ogrammod by electricians
`and +n familiar notations, that is, as rungs of relay contact logic or as logic
`(AND/OR) statements. Americans were the fl:rst to bring this novelty to the
`market, relying primarily on r elay contact logic, but tho Europeans were hard
`o~ their heels, preferring logic statements. 'l'he techoolOE,"Y became a big success,
`primarily in the discrete parts manufacturing industry (for obvious reasons).
`However, in time, it evolved to include regulatory control and data-handling
`capabilities as well, a development that. has broadened the range of applica(cid:173)
`tions for it. The attraction was, and is, the ease with which controls, including
`intraloop dependencies, can be implemented and changed, without any impact
`on hardware.
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`8
`
`Distributed Control
`
`Computer Control
`
`Chap. 1
`
`The microprocessor has also had a profound impact on the way computers were
`applied to control entire production plants. It. became economically feasible to
`develop systems consisting of several interacting microcomput.ers sharing the
`overall workload. Such systems generally consist of process stations, con !.rolling
`the process; operator stations, where process operat.ors monit.or act.ivities; 'and
`various auxiliary stations, for example, for syst.em configuration and program(cid:173)
`ming, data storage, and so on, all interacting by means of some kind of commu(cid:173)
`nications network. The allure was to boost performance by facititaling parallel
`multitasking, t.o improve overall availability by not. putting •an Lhe eggs in one
`basket," to further expandability and to reduce the amount of cont.rol cabling.
`Tbe first system of this kind to see the light. of day was Honeywell's TDC 2000
`(the year was 1975), but it was soon followed by ot.hers. The term "distributed
`control" was coined. The first systems were oriented toward regulatory control,
`but over the years distributed contl'ol systems have adopted more and more of
`the capabilities of programmable (logic) controllers, making today's distributed
`control systems able to control all aspects of production and enabling operators
`to monitor and control activities from a single computer console.
`
`Plantwlde Supervision and Control
`
`The next development phase in industrial process-control systems was facili(cid:173)
`tated by the emergence of common standards in computing, malcing it possible
`to integrate virtually all computers and computer systems in industrial plants
`into a monolithic whole to achieve real-time exchange of data across what used
`to be closed system borders. Such interaction enables
`
`• top managers t{) investigate all aspects of operations
`
`• production managers to plan and schedule production on the basis of cur(cid:173)
`rent information
`
`• order handlers and liaison officers to provido instant and current informa(cid:173)
`tion t.o inquiring customers
`• process operators to look up the cost accounts and the quality records of
`the previous production run to do better next time
`all from the computer screens in front of them, aU in real time. An example of
`such a system is shown in Fig. 1.3. ABB's Advant OOS (open control system)
`seems to be a good exponent of this phase. lt. consists of process controllers with
`local and/or remote I/0, operator stations, informatjon management. stations,
`and engineering stations that are interconnected by high-speed communica(cid:173)
`tions buses at the field, process-sectional, and plantwidc levels. By supporting
`industry standa.rds in computing such as Unix, Windows, and SQL, it makes ~
`interfacing \vith the surrounding world of computers easy. The system features
`a real-time process database that is distributed among the process controllers
`of the system to avoid redundancy in data storage, data inconsistency, and to
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`12
`
`Computer Control
`
`Chap. 1
`
`possible to use different sampling periods for different loops in a system. This
`is called multirate sampling.
`In this section we will give examples that illustrate the differences and the
`similarities of analog and computer-controlled systems. It will be shown that
`essential new phenomena that require theoretical attention do indeed occur.
`
`Time Dependence
`
`The presence of the the clock in Fig. 1.1 makes computer-controlled systems
`time-varying. Such systems can exhibit behavior that does not occur in linear
`time-invariant systems.
`
`Example 1.1 Time d ependen ce in digital filt ering
`A digital filter is a simple example of a computer-controlled system. Suppose that
`we want to imp1ement a compensator that is simply a first-order lag. Such a cOm(cid:173)
`pensator can be implemented using A-D conversion, a digital computer, and D-A
`
`(a)
`
`u
`
`y,
`
`Computer
`
`Clock
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`--=-=-=--=---+
`
`(b)
`
`l
`
`r -
`I
`I
`I
`0 ~~--------------J
`10
`0
`
`1
`
`•
`
`0~~--------------_J
`10
`0
`
`1
`
`1
`
`o~~~------------~
`10
`0
`
`0·~~~----------~
`0
`10
`
`Time
`
`Time
`
`(a) Block diagram of a digital filter. (b) Step responses (dots)
`Figure 1.4
`of a digital computer implementation of a first-order lag for different delays
`in the input step (dashed) compared with the first sampling instant. For
`compal'ison the response of the corresponding continuous-time system (solid)
`is also shown.
`
`Ex. PGS 1035
`
`

`
`28
`
`System Identification
`
`Computer Control
`
`Chap. 1
`
`All techniques for analysis and design of control systems are based on the avail(cid:173)
`ability of appro].ldate models for proces~; dynamics. The success of classical con(cid:173)
`trol theory that almost exclusively builds on Laplace transforms was largely
`due to the fact that the transfet fLmction of a process can be determined ex(cid:173)
`perimentally usin.g frequency re.sponse. The development of digital control was
`accompanied by a similar development of system identification methods. These
`allow experimental determination of the pulse-transfer function or the differ(cid:173)
`ence equations that are the starting point of analysis and design of digital
`control systems. Good sources of information on these techniques are A.strom
`and Eykhoff (1971), Norton (1986), I.Jung (1987), Soderstrtlm and Stoica (1989),
`and Johansson (1993).
`
`Adaptive Control
`
`When digital computers at·e used to implement a controller, it is possible to im(cid:173)
`plement more complicated control algorithms. A natural step is to include both
`parameter estimation methods and control design algorithms. In this way it is
`possible to obtain adaptive control algorithms that determine· the mathematical
`models and perform control system design on-line. Research on adaptive control
`began in the mid-1950s. Significant progress was mad,e in the 1970s when feasi(cid:173)
`bility was demonstrated in industrial applications. The advent of the micropro(cid:173)
`cessor made the algorithms cost-effective, and commercial adaptive regulators
`appeared in the early 1980s. This has stimulated vigorous research on theoret(cid:173)
`ical issues and significant product. development. See, for instance, Astrom and
`Wittenmark (1973, 1980, 1995), Astrom (1983b, 1987), and Goodwin and Sin
`(1984).
`
`Automatic Tuning
`
`Controller par ameters are often tuned manually. Experience has shown that it
`is difficult to adjust more than two parameters manually. From the user point of
`view it is therefore helpful to have tuning tools built into the controllers. Such
`systems are similar to adaptive controllers. They are, however, easier to design.
`and use. With computer-based controllers it is easy to incorporate tunin~ tools.
`Such systems also statted to appear industrially in the mid-1980s. See Astrom
`and Htigglund (1995).
`
`1.6 Notes and References
`
`To acquire mature knowledge about a field it is useful to know its history and
`to read somo of tbe origin al papers. Jw·y and Tsypltin (1971), and Jury (1980),
`written by two of the originators of sampled-data theory; give a useful per(cid:173)
`spective. Eat·ly work on sampled systems is found in MacColl (1945), Hw·ewicz
`
`Ex. PGS 1035

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket