In order to simplify the design of the controllers and achieve better performances, partial decoupling between the two control loops was achieved by describing the greenhouse climate in terms of air enthalpy and humidity ratio.
There was no significant (p > 0.05) difference in the Rs-cps expression between the two control groups.
An integral control is inserted between the two control layers, which adds robustness and disturbance rejection to the design.
Closed-loop simulations demonstrate that when simultaneous control of surface roughness and porosity is carried out, a balanced trade-off is obtained in the closed-loop system between the two control objectives of surface roughness and porosity regulation.
The upper horizontal line of the control chart, referred to as the upper control limit, and the lower horizontal line, referred to as the lower control limit, are chosen so that when the process is in control there will be a high probability that the value of a sample mean will fall between the two control limits.
An experimental comparison is made between the two control schemes with optimized and non-optimized targets, shown in Figs. 10 11.
The results of SEF microstimulation indicate that supervisory control signals bias the ongoing response selection in the oculomotor system and thus close the loop between the two control systems (Stuphorn et al., 2002).
Interestingly, we also observed a significant difference between the two control groups, which indicated that the signal obtained with the HER2-specific VHH was higher than that obtained with the CAIX-specific VHH.
The difference in 28-day mortality rates between the two control populations was consistent (24.2% vs. 30.8%, respectively), and may reveal different severity status between the two populations/periods, and therefore explain the discrepancy in terms of benefit.
In no case were there differences between the two control groups; these were combined into a single control group for all subsequent analyses.
Preliminary analyses indicated that there was, as expected, no significant difference between the two control groups (CX and PG) for all variables considered.
