Automatica, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 169 182, 1983
00/0
Printed in Great Britain.
Characterizations of Decentralized Fixed Modes
for Interconnected Systems*
E. J. DAVISONI" and 13. 0 Z G ~ N E R ~
A characterization and interpretation of decentralized fixed modes in the time and
frequency domain results in a characterization of decentralized fixed modes for
interconnected systems.
Key Words---Decentralized fixed modes; interconnected systems; decentralized systems; large-scale systems.
Abstract--A study of the characterization of decentrafized fixed
modes for large-scale interconnected systems is made. This is
done by obtaining a recursive characterization of decentralized
fixed modes, in which the existence of fixed modes of a v-control
agent system is expressed in terms of the existence of fixed modes
of v - 1 control agent systems. An interpretation of these con-
ditions is then made in the frequency domain. Simple conditions,
in terms of the controllability of the system's subsystems, are
then found for a composite system consisting of v interconnected
subsystems to have no decentralized fixed modes. This result
clarifies some recent discussion on the fixed modes of inter-
connected systems; in particular, it proves that Fessas's con-
jecture is true for systems with two control agents, but false for
systems with more than two control agents.
1. INTRODUCTION
IN Tim control of large-scale systems, the notion of
decentralization plays an important part. This
notion is concerned about imposing on the various
controllers of the system an information flow con-
straint, in which various controllers of the system
are only allowed to measure certain outputs of the
system and control certain inputs of the system. This
type of controller information flow differs from the
usual centralized control situation, in which the
controller of the system is allowed to measure all
outputs and control all inputs of the system. The
decentralization constraint enters into large-scale
systems, because it may be impractical or even
impossible to communicate signals from one con-
troller to another, e.g. in power systems, transporta-
tion systems and so on.
In studying such decentralized large-scale
systems, the question of whether a solution exists
* Received 19 October 1981; revised 14 June 1982. The original
version of this paper was presented at the 8th IFAC Congress
on Control Science and Technology for the Progress of Society
which was held in Kyoto, Japan during August 1981. The
published proceedings of this IFAC meeting may be ordered
from Pergamon Press Ltd, Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
OX3 0BW, U.K. This paper was recommended for publication
in revised form by editor A. Sage.
f Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario MSS 1A4, Canada.
J/Department of Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH 43210, U.S.A.
169
0005-1098/83/020169 14503.
Pergamon Press Ltd.
1983 International Federation of Automatic Control
to solve problems like the stabilization problem
(Wang and Davison, 1973; Corfmat and Morse,
1976), the robust decentralized servomechanism
problem (Davison, 1976b), etc. for the system,
depends critically on the properties of a finite set
of numbers for the system called the decentralized
fixed modes (Wang and Davison, 1973). These
modes may be thought of as being a generalization
of the non-controllable and observable modes of a
centralized system, i.e. they include any modes of
the system which are not both controllable and
observable (in a centralized sense), but in addition,
generally include other modes of the system also.
The purpose of this paper is to obtain some
insight into the behaviour of the decentralized fixed
modes for a large-scale system consisting of a
number of subsystems interconnected in an
arbitrary way. In particular, sufficient conditions of
a very simple type will be given which assures that
the interconnected system possesses no decentral-
ized fixed modes. If these conditions hold, this then
implies that decentralized controllers for the system
can be obtained so that the system can be stabilized,
or have specified eigenvalues of the system assigned.
The paper is divided into four sections: Section 2
gives some preliminary results, Section 3 gives a
recursive characterization of decentralized fixed
modes and gives conditions for a system in diagonal
form to have no decentralized fixed modes, Section 4
gives the main results and clarifies a conjecture
made regarding the fixed modes of interconnected
systems (Wang, 1978; Fessas, 1979; Ikeda and Siljak,
1979).
2. PRELIMINARIES
The following definitions will be used in the
development:
Definition 1. (Davison and Wang, 1973)
Given a real matrix E, assume that a function
~(E) has the property that the class of matrices {E )
170 Characterizations of decentralized fixed modes

in which ~ ( E ) = 0 is not true is either empty or lies The motivation for introducing this definition is
on a subset of a hypersurface in the parameter space that the decentralized fixed modes play an essential
of E; then ~ ( E ) = 0 is said to be true for almost all role in decentralized control system design. For
matrices E. example, the following result is obtained from Wang
and Davison (1973) [also see Corfmat and Morse
Definition 2 (1976)]
Consider the following linear, time-invariant
system
Proposition 1
There exists a decentralized linear time-invariant
= Ax + ~ B~ui
i--~1 controller for (1) so that the resultant closed-loop
(1)* system is asymptotically stable if and only if the
Yi = Cix, i= 1, 2. . . . . v decentralized fixed modes of (1) all lie in the open
left half part of the complex plane.
where x e R ~, u~ER ~', y~eR", i = 1, 2 . . . . . v. Then The following algorithm (Davison, 1976a) shows
if a controller is to be assigned to (1) with the that the decentralized fixed modes of a system may
following information flow constraint be calculated in a very simple way.

ui = Kyi + K~ ~
i = 1, 2 . . . . . v (2) Algorithm 1 [To find decentralized fixed modes
~, = A, + A~y, of (1)-I
1. Compute the eigenvalues of A.
the controller (2) is said to be decentralized, and the 2. Select 'arbitrary' matrices K i, i = 1, 2 . . . . ,
system (1) is said to be a decentralized v-control v (using a pseudo-random number generator
agent system. say).
In the study of the stabilizability of the decentral- 3. Compute the eigenvalues of A + Z~= 1BiKiCi.
ized v-control agent system (1), the following 4. Then the decentralized fixed modes are con-
definition was made by Wang and Davison (1973) tained in those eigenvalues of A + Y~=IB~KiCi
which are common with the eigenvalues of A.
Definition 3 Moreover, for almost all K~, i = 1, 2 . . . . . v chosen,
Given the system (1), where A e R" n, Bi e R" m,, the decentralized fixed modes are equal to the eigen-
C~eR" ", (i = 1, 2. . . . . v) let values of A + Zr= ~BiKiCi which are common with
the eigenvalues of A.
X ~- { K I K = block diag(K1, K2 . . . . . K~); 5. If in doubt as to which the decentralized fixed
KI~R m''', i = 1, 2. . . . . v} (3) modes of (1) are, choose new 'arbitrary' matrices
K~, i = 1, 2 . . . . . v in step 2 and repeat steps 3 and
then the decentralized fixed modes of (1) with 4.
respect to ~e are given by The following example illustrates the defini-
tion and calculation of a decentralized fixed
A(C, A, B, ~ ) - n sp (A + BKC) (4) mode.
Ke:x~"

where sp (') denotes the set of eigenvalues of(') and

where Example
It is desired to find the decentralized fixed modes
C1 of the following controllable-observable system
C2 (consisting of v = 3 control agents)
B _A (B1, B2 . . . . . By), C ---

c.

*In the paper (1) will be denoted by fE,1 o o o,1

(o
(0
1 o
0
1),
1 O)
-1 0 0 0
C2 ,'A,(B1, B2. . . . . By 0 -1 0 0
v
0 0 -2 0
0 0 0 -3
for brevity.
 E. J. DAVISON and 0 0zGONER 171

0
1
0
0
' 0

0
1
'
01)
1
1
1
Theorem 1
Assume that (1) has no decentralized fixed
modes; then for any finite number of points
P ~ {Pl, P2. . . . . Pt} on the complex plane C, the
eigenvalues of A + Z~= 1BiYFiCi are distinct and
disjoint from P for almost all 3ffi, i = 1, 2 . . . . . v.

On applying Algorithm 1, the results of Table 1
(rounded to eight significant figure accuracy) were
obtained for the case that k~ = 0.13, k2 = -0.17,
k3 = - 0 . 1 0 (arbitrarily chosen), and thus it is con-
cluded that the system has a decentralized fixed
mode at - 3.
TABLE 1. COMPUTATION OF DECENTRALIZED FIXED MODES
FOR EXAMPLE
Eigenvalues of Eigenvalues of
A A + BtklC 1 + B2k2C 2 + B3k3C 3
- 1 -0.01023258
- 1 -2.1597674
-2 -2.1000000
-3 -3.0000000*
* Denotes fixed mode.
Remark 1
The decentralized fixed modes have been cal-
culated in a reliable way using Algorithm 1 for
non-trivial systems, e.g. see Davison and Tripathi
(1978) which gives the decentralized fixed modes of
a 119th-order system with three control agents.
Recently the following interesting algebraic
characterization of decentralized fixed modes has
been obtained by Anderson and Clements (1981)
Proof. The proof of this result is given in Appendix 1.
3. RECURSIVE CHARACTERIZATION OF
DECENTRALIZED FIXED MODES
The following result shows that the existence of
the fixed modes of a v-control agent system always
reduces to the existence of the fixed modes of a two-
control agent system Thus in studying the charac-
terization of the fixed modes of a v-control agent
system it is really only necessary to examine the case
v=2.
Theorem 2
I. Given the v-control agent decentralized system
(1) with v 1> 3, then 2~sp(A) is not a decentralized
fixed mode of (1) if and only if 2 is not a decentral-
ized fixed mode of any of the following v - 1 control
agent systems for (1)
Ct
i
(1) , A, [(BI, B2), B3 . . . . . B~]

Proposition 2
Consider the system (1). Then a necessary and
sufficient condition for 2esp (A) to be a decentral-
ized fixed mode of (1) is that for some partition of
the set {1, 2 . . . . . v} into disjoint sets: {q, i2. . . . , ik}
and {ik+~, ik+2. . . . . i~} there exists
m
{-c,
1c2 L C~ _;

_c.j
, A, FBt, (B2, B3) . . . . . By]

A - 21 Bq, Bi2 . . . . . Bik

rank
Cik+l O, 0. . . . . 0
<n.
cl
fik+2 O, 0..... 0
(v - 2 ) { Cv-2/ , A, [B1 .... ,(Bv-2, B,-t),Bv]
_ 6iv o, b .....o (C~-t/
This result does not aid particularly in the com- m Cv
putation of fixed modes, but does give insight into
the characterization of fixed modes; in particular,
Proposition 2 will be used in developing many of CI
the results to follow
The following result will be used in characterizing (v - 1) Cv- 2 , A, [B1 ..... B,-2, (B,-D BO] }
the mechanism which describes how decentralized
fixed modes arise in a controllable-observable
system (Theorem 3).
172 Characterizations of decentralized fixed modes

,v,

f
-

( )
Cl-]

Cv-- 3
'Cv 2

_ C~-i _J
, .4, [ B i . . . . . By-3, (By-z, By), B y - l ]
}
II. Given the v-control agent decentralized system Assume that )`t, )`2 ..... )`n are all distinct and occur
(1) with v = 2, then )`esp (A) is not a decentralized in complex conjugate pairs.
fixed mode of (1) if and only if the following three Let
conditions all hold: nl ."~".(b~,
. .b2x,. 1
b.,j. B 2 - (bl2, b22 . . . . . b~ 2)
f / C1 \
(i))` is not a centralized fixed mode of g !
tkC )
/, f'cl 1
C, ~ ~.~
A, (B1, B2)t, i.e. [- A - M
rank ( A - M , B1, B2) = n, rank I C 1
7] = n.
r2

k C2 ]
then the following result is obtained.
(ii) rank ( A - 2I B~) Theorem 3
C2 t> n.
Given the two-control agent decentralized system
(5), 2 t is not a decentralized fixed mode if and only
(iii) rank C1 if the following conditions are all satisfied

(i) (B~', B*) # 0 and \C'~J # O.

Proof The proof of this result is given in
Appendix 2. (ii) The condition B~' = 0, and C* = 0, and 21 is
In the above result, it is of interest to be able to a transmission zero? of
interpret what the conditions (ii) and (iii) of part II
of Theorem 2 for a two-control agent system mean. ~c2,(2z'..O~,b~, Vie[I, 2 . . . . . r2] ,
The following result shows that the conditions ( \u ,t./ j
correspond to the simultaneous requirements that: gje [1, 2 . . . . . ml]
(a) control agent 1 (or 2) can control the mode )`, does not hold
(b) control agent 2 (or 1) can observe the mode )`,
and (c) 2 is not a transmission zero (Davison and (iii) The condition B~' = O, and C~ = O, and )`1
Wang, 1974) of certain subsystems of the system. is a transmission zero of

3.1. Decentralized fixed mode characterization of { c"to

1 {)`2. )`2b2) Vie[l, 2 . . . . . rl]
diagonal systems
Vj~ [1, 2 . . . . . mE]
Consider system (1) in which A is diagonal with
v = 2 given by does not hold.
Proof. The proof of this result is given in Appendix
)`t 0 3.

X----- 0 )`2
0 Remark 2
Observe that in centralized systems, ).1 is a
0 )`n
centralized fixed mode (i.e. is controllable and
(5)
observable) in (5) if and only if condition (i) of
Yl = (C~,Ci)x Theorem 3 holds, i.e. in centralized systems, the
Y2 = (C~, C2)x t i.e. )-t has the property that

where ul 6 R ml, u2eR m2, yx e R "1, y2ER r" and )`x EC.
Here B~', B~' are m~, m2 row vectors, respectively c2 " b I = 0.
2. - 21
and C*, C* are rl, r2 column vectors, respectively.
 E. J. DAVISON and ISI OZGtINER 173

controllability-observability of mode 21 depends where

only on B*, B*, C*, C~ and is independent of
the values of Bt, B2, Ct, (72, 22. . . . . 2,. This is no
longer the case with decentralized system.
W(s) ~- w~}(s) w~.~(s)... .
Remark 3
w,l(s) wv2(s) W,(s).J
The application of Theorem I shows that there
is no significant loss of generality in assuming the
and where control agent i has m~ inputs and r i out-
structure of (5) for systems which have no decentral-
ized fixed modes, i.e. if a system has no decentralized puts, i = 1, 2 . . . . . v, assume that W(s) has distinct
fixed modes, then for almost all static output poles, i.e. assume that W(s) can be factored as
decentralized gains, the eigenvalues of the resultant
closed loop system are distinct, and thus a co- W(s)= A----L- " Ai
ordinate transformation can be applied to trans- s - 2 t l- i ~ 2 s - 2i
form the resultant system into the form given in (5).
where At # 0 and 2i :# 21, i = 2, 3. . . . . n; then the
Remark 4 following results are obtained for the case v = 2, 3, 4.
The generalization of Theorem 3 to v-control Similar results can be obtained for the case when
agents can immediately be carried out by applying v >~ 5 by using Theorem 2.
Theorem 2.
The following transfer function matrix interpreta-
tiont of a system with v-control agents can im- Theorem 4
mediately be obtained from Theorem 3 and 21 is not a decentralized fixed mode of (6) if and
Theorem 2. only if none of the following conditions occur with
respect to the matrices A t
3.2.Transferfunction matrix characterization of
decentralizedfixed modes
Given a v-control agent system with transfer
function matrix
( a 1

nor with their respective transposes A[,

Yl(S)l fur(s) i
Y!(s)~ =

(6) hi p
Y~(s)] W(S) [ u,,(s)J

Casel: (v=2)

(i) 0 X
Al=(O=-~and(W(s) At X X
\uju/ \

Case2: (v=3)

At = / 0o1 0 l X x and W(s) -~ = X

S s:a~ 0

f10xx (.) [xlxli]

1.01 0 I 0 J s ,=al 0 X

? Note that Anderson (1981) has recently obtained a general

transfer function matrix characterization result for v = 2 control
agent systems.
174 Characterizations of decentralized fixed modes

Case3 Xl " Ix XXXIxX

0 w s' s l:
(i) At= 0 0 s

(ii) A1 =
0 X X
0 0 0
(
and W(s)
S
A~)I
---21.
s=). 1
=
X X X ~]
0 0 X )~

(iii) A I =
Iooxo 0 0 0
and
A 1
0 0

0
(iv) A I =
[:o 1 (
0 0 0 and W(s)
S ~)
"-21
S=2I
= 0 X

(v) A1 =
[~ 0 0 C
and (w,s, ~)s~ _ o X X 0
0 0 13
- I X X 0

(vi) A I =
0 0 0 0
0 X 0 0
(
and W(s)
S
AI)
---21.
$=3"1
= X
o X
j

Ixx~AzE~
o o land(w,S,s~l)~, --x
vii. (ooxox xX
where X denotes elements whose values are not Proof. The proof of Theorem 4 is given in Appendix
necessarily zero. 3.
 E. J. DAVISON and CI OZGUNER 175

Remark 5 where A , e R n' n', i = 1, 2 ..... v. The following result

The interpretation of condition (i) for the case is obtained.
v = 2 is that, after cancellation, Wtt(s), W21(s) and
Theorem 6
W22(s) have no elements with a pole at At and that
W2ds) has a zero at 21 for all elements of W2t(s), Given the system (8) with v control agents, assume
or alternatively, that W1 l(S), W~2(s), W22(s) have no that:
elements with a pole at 2t and that Wt2(s) has a (i) (All, B1), (A2z, B2). . . . . (A,~, By) are all con-
zero at 2t for all elements of W~2(s). A similar inter- trollable.
pretation can be made for the other conditions.

4. CHARACTERIZATIONOF DECENTRALIZED (ii)

FIXED MODESOF INTERCONNECTEDSYSTEMS
The following results are now obtained for a Ai it Aik,i2, , Aik,ik

E OOo1
composite system consisting of a number of sub-
systems interconnected together in an arbitrary
manner.
Consider the system
0 ... B~
[ All B 1 0
/\A21 A::)x + ( 0 )Ul + (B2)U2; i 1 = 1 , 2. . . . . v - k + l ; i2 = i t + l , i1+2 .....
v-k+2; i3=i2+1, i2+2 ..... v-k+3; ...;
A l l e R ntxnl, A22~.R n2xn2
ik = ik-1 + 1, ik_ l + 2 . . . . . V; k = 2, 3 . . . . . v are all
(7) controllable.
Yl = (I~1 0)x Then the system (8) has no decentralized fixed
Y2 = (0 1,2)X modes.

The following result is obtained. Discussion

The above results give a good deal of insight into
Theorem 5 the behaviour of interconnected systems in which
Given the system (7) with two-control agents, local state feedback is allowed. It implies for
assume that: example that a two-control agent interconnected
system in which each subsystem is controllable and
(i) (Axl, B1) is controllable and (A22, B2) is con- in which the augmented system is jointly con-
trollable;
trollable, can always be stabilized using local state
feedback with dynamic compensation. The follow-
(ii) ~ ( A l l A12~, 0
[\A2t A22] ( BI B2)} is cntrllable; ing clarification of some observations made in the
literature can be made.
then the system (7) has no decentralized fixed modes.
Consider now the v-agent interconnected system 4.1. Remark on Wang (1978), Fessas (1979) and
lkeda and Siljak (1979) counter-example
All A12 A13 ... AI~-] Based on a counter-example given by Wang
=

I A2t A22 A23 A2vl

A31

avl
A32

Av2
.a33 A3,j,
Av3

B2
Avv
(1978) on a previous paper, the following conjecture
was made by Fessas (1979).

Conjecture
Given the v-agent system (8), then system (8) has
no decentralized fixed modes if and only if
+ ul + u2... + Uv (i) (Aii, Bi) is controllable for i = 1, 2, ..., v.

Yl = [I.~ 0 0... 0Ix

v.
(8) (ii)
{In11A12alvlI " 0 0It A2v , B2 0

Y2=[O I~2 O . . . O ] x lAy1 A~2 Av~ 0 ...B~

y~ = {0 0 0... Ijx is controllable.

176 Characterizations of decentralized fixed modes

(iii) The graph D~ of the system (8) is strongly con- is not controllable, which implies that the counter-
nected (Fessas, 1979). example does not satisfy assumption (ii) of
Theorem 6.
Counter-examples were given by Ikeda and Siljak
(1979) to show that the above conjecture in general 4.2. General results
is false for both the 'if' and 'only if' part of the con- The previous interconnection results (Theorems
jecture. In particular, the following counter- 5 and 6) can be generalized for the v-control agent
example consisting of a system with three-control case as follows now. Consider system (8).
agents was given to show that the conjecture is not Let the directed graph ~: {X, Le} define the inter-
true for the 'if' part of the conjecture. connection structure of the interconnected system
(8). Here each subsystem S~,je [1, 2..... v] is denoted
Counter-example for v = 3 by a nodeje[1, 2. . . . . v] and each non-zero inter-
= Ax + Blu I + B2u 2 +/~3U3 connection from si to s~ by an oriented link [ijsLe
connecting node i to nodej in the graph. Obviously
Y1=(I2 0 0)x the existence of a link 1j implies Aji ~ 0 and vice
(9) versa. A subgraph f#T:{JVT, LeT} is a collection of
Y2 = ( 0 12 0)x nodes X r ~ A/ and a related set Jffr of all links con-
necting the nodes ~ ' r in the original graph. Denote
y3=(0 0 I2)X the set of nodes remaining outside of the subgraph
where f#r by Jt:r and the outgoing links from X T to Y r ( i f
any) by Let.
0 1 0 1 0 Given (8) and given ~ r ~ ~A: with k elements
0 0 0 0 0 (say), define now the matrix AwT as follows:
1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 Aqq Aqt~...At:~
0 0 0 1 0 A~ r ___ At~q At2t2... At2tk (10)
0 0 0 0 0

n l ~-

Ii] I!l , /~2 "~

Here the system (9) satisfies the assumptions (i),

, /~3 "~"
where t i # t j for i # j ,
j = 1, 2,..., k, and define
A ~1 At~t2 "' Atkt~

and

Bx~. - block diag ( B t : : Brute. . . . .

The following result is obtained.

where ti~N T,

Bt~t~) (11)

(ii) and (iii), but the system (9) has a decentralized

fixed mode at 0. Similar counter-examples can be
given to show that the 'if' part of the conjecture is
false Vv >/3. Likewise, counter-examples can be
given to show that the 'only if' part of the conjecture
is false Vv/> 2, [i.e. assumption (i) is not necessary].
The following conclusion can therefore be im-
mediately made from Theorem 5 and the counter-
examples:
(i) The 'if' part of Fessas's conjecture (Fessas,
1979) is true for v = 2 and is false for v >13.
(ii) The 'only if'part of Fessas's conjecture (Fessas,
1979) is false for v >12.
Remark 6
Note that in the counter-example (9), the pair
Theorem 7
Given the system (8) assume that
For every strongly* connected subgraph
c~r: {Nr, Let}, the matrix pairs {A T, B ~ } are con-
trollable
then the system (8) has no decentralized fixed modes.
Remark 7
The strongly connected subgraph test (Theorem
7) results in a major savings in the enumeration of
controllability tests as compared to Theorem 6,
especially in sparse composite interconnected sys-
tems. Consider, for example, the four interconnected
subsystem case given in Fig. l(a). In this case, the

(
controllability tests required by T h e o r e m 7 are: the
0 1 0 1 0 0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
' 0
0
1 0
0
1
t * A strongly connected graph is one in which every pair of
nodes is mutually reachable, i.e. for every pair of nodes i, j, there
exists a path from node i to node j and a path from node j to
node i.
 E. J. DAVISONand 0 0 Z G 6 - ~ R 177

overall system, each of the four disjoint subsystems
and the three cases given in Fig. l(b). This gives a
total of 8 controllability tests required as compared
to 14 required by Theorem 6.
The following example shows how Theorem 7
may be used to obtain results for interconnected sys-
tems containing a special structure
Consider the following composite system con-
taining subsystems connected in a single loop

-A1, 0 0 ... 0 AI~

A21 A22 0 ... 0 0
= 0 A32 A33 ... 0 0
: : : x (14)
6 6 6... Av-l,v-1 6
(a) 0 0 0 ... Av,v- l A~

0 0
B1
0 B, 0
+ 0 ul+ 0
u2+...+
0
Uv

0 0 0
(b) 0 0 By_

FIG. 1. Interconnected system for example.

Yx=(1,1 0 0...0 0)x

The following extension of Theorem 7 is now Y2=(0 1,2 0 . . . 0 0)x

obtained which completely resolves the conjecture
made by Fessas (1979).
Given (8), and given X r - - - X with k elements
(say), ,A:~,with s elements (say), and Lat, define the y,=(0 0 0...0 l,,)x
matrix Aa,+ as follows:
where Au~R"'% i = 1, 2. . . . . v.
I Ahq A,lt *...A,tt k The following result is obtained directly from
A~2t1 A,et, ... A,2t k Theorem 7.
A~, (12)
Theorem 9
A,.q A,.t2 ... A,.tk
Given the system (14), assume that:

001)
(i) (A,, Bi) is controllable, i = 1, 2. . . . . v;
where ri-~rj for i ~ j and where t f i X r ,
j = 1, 2..... k, fieNd,, i= 1, 2, ..., s. Define the
matrix A as All 0 ... At~
A21 A22... 0 B2... 0
(ii)f 0 0 ... A,, 0 ... B~

is controllable; then the system (14) has no decen-

tralized fixed modes
Theorem 8 4.3. Interconnected systems with output feedback
The interconnected system (8) does not have a The following result follows directly from
decentralized fixed mode if and only if the following Theorem 5 by duality Consider the system
condition holds:
For every subgraph ~r: {YT, &aT} of the graph
= ~A21 A22

rankFA.rT-2I B ] All ~Rn~n~, A226R"2~2

LA~+ 0 ~ >~ i++=Enj, V2+sp (A).
Yl = (C1 0)x (15)
Proofs of Theorems 7 and 8. The proofs of Theorems
7 and 8 are given in Appendix 5. y~ = (0 C2)x.
178 Characterizations of decentralized fixed modes

Corollary 1
Given the system (15) assume that: Yx=
[; ooo o]
0 1 0 0 0 x (17a)

(i) {( C1 C02),(All "412 Y2=

i00 00,o
0 0 0 0
01
1 X.

is observable;
Counter-example 2 (ml ~ rl, i = 1, 2)
(ii) (C 1, Axl), (C2, A22 ) are both observable; then
the system (15) has no decentralized fixed modes.
It is obvious that such type of extensions can also
be immediately obtained from Theorems 6-9.
The following conjecture is therefore suggested
=

[i
0
0
0
0
0
x+ u1 + ju2
from Theorem 5 and Corollary 1.

Conjecture
Yl=
[;oo o]
1 0 0 x
(17b)

Given the two-control agent system

Y2 = [0 0 1 0]X.

"x A22/x + ul + Here examples (17a) and (17b) satisfy the assump-
tions (i) and (ii) above, but systems (17a) and (17b)
Yl = ( C 1 0 ) x (16) both have a decentralized fixed mode at 0.
The following type of results can however be
Y2 = (0 C2)x established for systems like (16).
Consider the system
assume that
[Ax~ A,2 ... A~,~]
(i) {(C1 C02),(A~ A~2"~, 0

is controllable and observable;

(ii) (C,, A11, B,), (C2, A22, B2)

are both controllable and observable. Then this

implies that (16) has no decentralized fixed modes.
+ +[v]uv
This conjecture is in general false (perhaps sur-
prising?) as the following counter-examples show. yl = (C1 0 ... 0)x (18)

Counter-example 1 (mi = ri, i = 1, 2)

y, = (O O ... COx
-30000C
0 1 0 0 1 0 where A o ~- BoKoCi i,i = 1, 2,..., v,j = 1, 2 , . . . , v,
0 0 0 0 0 0 i ~ j where Kij is the interconnection gain and
= X
0 1 0 0 1 0 B~j, C o are arbitrary. Then the following result,
0 0 0 0 0 0 which was obtained in Davison (1976b), can be
0 0 0 0 0 2 directly obtained from Theorem 2.

Theorem 10
Given the system (18), assume that

ftfl ut + u2
(Ci, Aii, Bi) is controllable and observable,
i=1,2 ..... v

then this implies that (18) has no decentralized fixed

 E. J. DAVISONand U (~ZGONER
modes for almost all interconnection gains K u,
i = 1, 2 . . . . , v , j = 1, 2. . . . . v,i # j .
If it is assumed that (18) has the following special
structure
A I j = B i K ~ F ~, i = 1 , 2 . . . . . v, j = l, 2 . . . . . v,
i #j.
The following result, which was obtained in
Davison (1979); Sacks (1979), can also be directly
recovered from Theorem 2.
T h e o r e m 11
Given the system (18) with structure (19), then
necessary and sufficient conditions for (18) to have
no decentralized fixed modes are that (Ct, A., B~)
be controllable and observable, i = 1, 2 . . . . . v.
5. CONCLUSIONS
A study of decentralized fixed modes of inter-
connected system has been made in this paper. The
following results have been obtained: (1) a recursive
characterization of decentralized fixed modes of a
v-control agent system in terms of a v - 1 control
agent system (Theorem 2); (2) an interpretation of
the fixed mbdes of diagonal systems in terms of the
transn~ssion zeros of certain subsystems of the
diagonal system (Theorem 3), and in terms of the
system's transfer function matrix (Theorem 4); (3)
simple sufficient conditions for an interconnected
system with local state feedback to have no
decentralized fixed modes (Theorems 5-7), which
imply that a conjecture made by Fessas (1979) is
true for a system with two-control agents, but false
for a system with more than two agents; (4) neces-
sary and sufficient conditions for interconnected
systems to have no decentralized fixed modes
(Theorem 8); (5) sufficient conditions for inter-
connected systems to have no decentralized fixed
modes for systems with a special interconnection
structure (Theorem 9), and for systems with local
output feedback (Theorems 10 and 11).
The motivation for obtaining these type of results
is that they give guidance as to what conditions are
necessary in order to ensure that a decentralized
large-scale system has a solution to the decentral-
ized stabilization problem (Wang and Davison,
1973; Corfmat and Morse, 1976), the robust decen-
tralized servomechanism problem (Davison, 1976b),
etc.
Acknowledeements--This work was supported by the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada under grant
no. A4396 and by the Kiilman Program of the Canada Council
of Canada.
REFERENCES
Anderson, B. D. O. (1981) Transfer function matrix description
of decentralized fixed modes. 1981 IEEE Control and Decision
Conference, San Diego, pp. 1212-1217.
179
Anderson, B. D. O. and D. J. Clements (1981). Algebraic
characterization of fixed modes in decentralized control.
Automatica 17. 703.
Corfmat, J. P. and A. S. Morse (1976). Decentralized control of
linear multivariable systems. Automatiea 12, 479.
Davison, E. J. (1976a). Decentralized stabilization and regulation
in large multivariable systems. In Y. C. He and S. Mitter (Eds),
Direction in Decentralized Control, Many-person Optimiza-
(19) tion and Large Scale Systems. Plenum Press, pp. 303-323.
Davison, E. J. (1976b). The robust decentralized control of a
general servomechanism problem. IEEE Trans Aut. Control
AC-21, 14.
Davison, E. J. (1979). The robust decentralized control of a
servomechanism problem for composite systems with input-
output interconnection. IEEE Trans Aut. Control AC-24, 325.
Davison, E. J. and 1EI.Ozgiiner (1982). Synthesis of the decentral-
ized robust servomechanism problem using local models.
IEEE Trans Aut. Control AC-27, 583.
Davison, E. J. and N. Tripathi (1978). The optimal decentralized
control of a large power system: load and frequency control.
IEEE Trans Aut. Control AC-23, 312.
Davison, E. J. and S. H. Wang (1973). Properties of linear time-
invariant multivariable systems subject to arbitrary output
and state feedback. IEEE Trans Aut. Control AC-18, 24.
Davison, E. J. and S. H. Wang (1974). Properties and calcula-
tion of transmission zeros of linear multivariable time-
invariant systems. Automatica 10, 643.
Fessas, P. (1979). A note on "an example in decentralized
control systems". IEEE Trans Aut. Control AC-24, 669.
Ikeda, M. and D. D. Siljak (1979). Counterexamples to Fessas'
conjecture. IEEE Trans Aut. Control AC-24, 670.
Ozgiiner, ~. and W. R. Perkins (1975). On the multilevel
structure of large scale composite systems. IEEE Trans Circuit
and System Theory CAS-22, 618.
Saeks, R. (1979). On the decentralized control of interconnected
dynamic systems. IEEE Trans Aut. Control AC-24, 269.
Wang, S. H. (1978). An example in decentralized control systems.
1EEE Trans Aut. Control AC-23, 938.
Wang, S. H. and E. J. Davison (1973). On the stabilization of
decentralized control systems. IEEE Trans Aut. Control
AC-lg, 473.
APPENDIX 1
The following results are required in the proof of Theorem
Lemma I. (Davison and Wang, 1973)
Assume (C, A, B) has no centralized fixed modes; then for any
finite number of points p -~ {Pt, P, ..... p,} on the complex plane,
the cigenvalues of A + BJrC are distinct and disjoint from P for
almost any j r .
/,emma 2. (Davison and Ozg/iner, 1982; Lemma 8)
Consider the system (1): then for almost all jr~, i -- 1, 2..... k,
k~['l, 2. . . . . v - 1 ] , the centralized fixed modes of {C~+1, A
+Z~=tBijriC~, Bk+t} are equal to the decentralized fixed
modes of
.....,..,}
together with a subset of those eigenvalues of A + Z~= ~BijriC i
which are not contained in the decentralized fixed modes of
C2 .
k
Proof of Theorem 1. Assume that (1) has no decentralized fixed
modes. Then the direct application of Lemmas 1 and 2 to (I)
implies the following.
For almost all ~~, i = 1, 2. . . . . v the following holds:
 180 Characterizations of decentralized fixed modes

(i) The eigenvalues of A + BIJg~Ct are distinct and disjoint

from P except possibly for the centralized fixed modes of (C,,
A, Bt).
(ii) The eigenvalues of A + B l X x C ~ + B23U2C2 are distinct
and disjoint from P except possibly for the decentralized fixed
modes of
{(8. A, ,.,,
(a)
rank(I: 22 - 21
0

)~._t2l'
(v - 1) The eigenvalues of A + ~,~+~Bi~d~C~ are distinct and
disjoint from P except possibly for the decentralized fixed modes
of
a,j La~/

fI:l C2

v-I
, A, (B1, B 2..... B._ l)

(v) The eigenvalues of A + X~'=~ Bi.YlfiCi are distinct and dis-

joint from P which proves the result.

APPENDIX 2
(b) rank[[ (CL
0

(c*,
0
22 - 21

C,)
C2)
0
0

2. - 21

The proof of Theorem 2 is based on Proposition 2, which

requires that a rank test be performed on a number of matrices
[o o
specified by all possible ways of partitionino a set into two disjoint
22 - 21 0
subsets. It will be demonstrated that the conditions of Theorem 0
2 prescribe a method to obtain all such partitions of Proposition (c) rank
0 2.-21
2 in a sequential manner.
Consider the integers { 1, 2 ..... v} denoting the v-control agents (CL C2),
for (1). Assume that the number 0 is assigned to any control agent
(i.e. integer) if it is to be in one subset and that the number 1
is assigned if it is to be in the second subset. For example,
{0, 1, 1. . . . . 1} means that control agent 1 is in the first subset,
-o o
ii:ll n
and that all other control agents are in the second subset. It is 22 - 21 0
now to be observed that this notation specifies an n-bit binary 0
number. Thus the investigation of all possible ways of partition- (d) rank
0
ing the set into two subsets implies, using this notation, all
possible 0, 1 assignments, which in turn implies that all possible (C*, C,),
n-bit binary number must be investioated. If any two control agents
are merged (as is done in Theorem 2, part I) this is equivalent
to assigning the same value (both 0 or both 1) to the correspond- Consider (a) and (b) now. Since the eigenvalues of A are
ing bits of the binary number. assumed to be distinct, this implies that
It can now be observed that:
Condition (1) of Theorem 2 (part I) produces the binary numbers: r 2 - 21 " 0 1 = n
{0, 0; all possible v - 2 bit binary numbers}, rank / 0 2 . - 2 1 / -1
{1, I; all possible v - 2 bit binary numbers}.
Condition (2) of Theorem 2 produces the binary numbers: and hence that the indicated matrices will have rank equal to
{all possible 1 bit binary numbers; 0, 0; all possible v - 3 bit n if and only if
numbers},
{all possible 1 bit binary numbers; 1, 1; all possible v - 3 bit
binary numbers}. (B*, B*) # 0 and (cCI) # O,
Condition (3) of Theorem 2 produces the binary numbers:
{all possible 2 bit binary numbers; 0, 0; all possible v - 4 bit
which is condition (i) of Theorem 3.
binary numbers},
{all possible 2 bit binary numbers; 1, 1; all possible v - 4 bit Consider now condition (c). The rank of the indicated matrix
is equal to
binary numbers}.

Condition (v - 1) of Theorem 2 produces the binary numbers:

{all possible v - 2 bit binary numbers; 0, 0},
{all possible v - 2 bit binary numbers; 1, 1}.
At this stage, it can be verified that all v - bit binary numbers
rank{
I I{] 22 - 21

0
0

2. -
0

2l

11]}
have been produced except for the alternating sequences 0
{1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0 . . . . } and {0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1. . . . } which in fact are
produced by condition (v) of Theorem 2. This completes the proof
of part I of Theorem 2. The proof of part II of Theorem 1 follows 0
trivially from Proposition 2. 22 - 21 0
(13
APPENDIX 3 I._ 1 I
2. - 2,
From Proposition 2, 2 t will not be a decentralized fixed mode
of (5) if and only if the following conditions all hold: C2 0
 E. J. DAVISON and 00ZGf3NER 181
-0 o e-
a?
2 2 -- 21
21 - 22 0
0 I._ 1 . 0 1-' /~1 ~* (7, '.. /i
= rank
I " 22 - X,
2. - At
0 ]-'
(2')
0 At - 2.

c~ 0 (72 ". nl
0 2. - 2, Lemma 4
Given (5), then:
(i) 2, is controllable and observable iff

(c.,.
22 - 2 x 0 ' (3') c~B* c ~ s U
= n - 1 + rank
C~ (72 "'. /~,
0 2~ - 21 (ii) Assume that

c,B* C~BfX [0 00)

and thus condition (c) will be satisfied if and only if

then 2, is not a decentralized fixed mode iff

0 B*
22 - At 0 t
rank ~' (72 "'. B, >/1. (4') (C*B~[ I C~'B2*~ _ / 0 _ ~ and
c.8~* c * B U - \ O l o}
0 2. - 2,
21 --22. 0 ] -'
This condition can be summarized as condition (ii) of Theorem
3.
In a similar way condition (d) can be shown to reduce to con-
(72
I 0
'
2t --2.
Bt = 0

dition (iii) of Theorem 3, which proves the result.

does not occur and
Proof of Theorem4
The proof of Theorem 4 is based on the following results
(Lemmas 3 and 4). Given (5), then
(c; r (o_ h
C'B* C*B~J=\X [ ojand

r~(s)/ [ ~- 2,\c*Bl C'B*/

1
(71 i,,01 0
"
2, - 2,
/~2 = 0

(*A ,o 2 (,', does not occur, where X denotes a non-zero matrix.

The proof of Theorem 4 (case 1, with v = 2) now follows im-
s 2n mediately from Lemma 4. The proof of Theorem 4 (cases 2 and
and the following result (Lemma 3) follows by observation. 3) follows immediately by applying Theorem 2 to Theorem 4
(case 1); the details are omitted.
/.emma 3
Given C*, C~, B*, B2* of (5), then

(i) (C*'~
\cu = ( : ) or/and
APPENDIX 4
Consider the proof of Theorem 5. From Proposition 2, the
(B,,B,)=(O,O)iff(C'tB? C'[B~'~ (0 ~) system (7) has no decentralized fixed modes if the following
kC*a* c * ~ * ] = \ o " conditions all hold:

(ii) Assume C'B* #0; then:

~(A,, A12"~(B1 0)}iscontrollable"
C* = 0 and B* = 0 iff C'B* --- 0 and C2B 1 - 0 and C'B* = O. (a) (\A21 A22],\ 0 B2
(iii) Assume C'B* # 0; then:
C~'=0andB*=0iffC*B*=0andC, 2B. * = 0 a n d C * B ~ = 0 . FAtt - 2 1 AI2 Bll
(b) rank |A21 A22 - 21 0 /> n I + n2, V2~C
1.2 0
The following result now immediately follows from Theorem
3 and Lemma 3 on noting that conditions (ii) and (iii) of Theorem
3 can be rewritten as
L

2, - 22 0 x 0
(c) rank
IA11-
[A21
21 At2 01
A22-- 2 I B2 /> n I + tl2, V26C.
I., 0 0
(72 "'. BI # 0
0 2~ - 2, Now by assumption condition (a) holds. Consider condition (b)
now; since
182 Characterizations of decentralized fixed modes

'~'r} gives rise to the following rank conditions which must hold
I Atl - 2I A12
rank 21 I.~A22- 21 0 = n2 + rank [-A~rr - I A.~ Bxr"]
0 I- A21 rank L~ A~.~-2l~iz,J J>~nj,j~.,. V),6C (I")

it is clear that condition (b) will hold if
LA2x
But since it has been assumed that (A11, B1) is controllable, i.e.
that rank (AI 1 - 21, B 0 = nx, VAeC, it is clear that this condition
holds trivially. Likewise the controllability of (A22, B2) ensures
that condition (c) holds which proves the result.
The proof of Theorem 6 now follows directly from Theorem
5 on applying Theorem 2 to (7) in a recursive way. The details
are omitted.
APPENDIX 5
Consider initially the proof of Theorem 8. The proof is a direct
result of Proposition 2 with the set partitioning operation viewed
as chosing a subgraph. In particular, any given partition {XT,
which is equivalent to the rank condition of Theorem 8.
Consider now the proof of Theorem 7. It is clear by observa-
tion from Theorem 8, that a sufficient condition for (8) to have
no decentralized fixed modes is given as follows:
rankIA~-T-21, B cTl>~ ~, n~, V2esp(A) (2")
t ) Je/gT
which must hold for every suboraph~r: {,/'r, 'er }. Assume now
that c~r is not necessarily strongly connected; then there exists
a permutation transformation such that A~ T can be transformed
into block triangular form (Ozgiiner and Perkins, 1975) where
each block corresponds to a strongly connected subgraph. It is
now to be noted that if condition (2") is to be tested on only
every stronoly connected suboraph (as specified in Theorem 7),
then this implies that condition (2") will also be satisfied for every
subgraph, i.e. a separate test for the controllability of the block
triangular structure is in fact not required. Thus condition (2")
will automatically be satisfied if Theorem 7 holds which proves
the result.