Sie sind auf Seite 1von 192

Linear Periodic Systems:

Robustness Analysis and


Sampled-Data Control

Michael William Cantoni


St John's College
Cambridge

A dissertation submitted for


the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
March, 1998
Abstract

The primary purpose of this dissertation is to present various results pertaining to the study
of continuous-time systems that exhibit linear, periodically-time-varying (LPTV) behaviour. The
original motivation for this work stems from the periodic nature of many sampled-data (SD) control-
systems and a desire to characterise sensible frameworks for design and robustness analysis of such
systems.
Towards the development of a sensible framework for SD, control-system design, a new notion
of frequency response is established for LPTV systems. It is de ned in terms of the average-power
of the asymptotic response to sinusoidal signals of a single frequency and can be characterised in
terms of the singular values of a frequency-dependent, nite-dimensional matrix. The performance
indicating properties of this new notion of frequency response are intuitive and it is used to derive
bounds that facilitate the design of parametric weights employed in a new H1 -loopshaping based
procedure proposed for SD, control-system development.
Quantitative and qualitative results that characterise the uncertainty types to which LPTV,
closed-loop systems can be desensitised are established in terms of the gap metric, which is a
measure of the distance between the graphs of two systems. To this end, a formula for the directed-
gap between two LPTV systems is obtained in terms of an optimisation over H1 . This plays a
crucial role in the development of the main quantitative robustness result, which identi es the
largest gap-ball of LPTV plants, centred at a nominal plant, that a nominal, stabilising controller
is guaranteed to stabilise. A similar result that deals with simultaneous gap-perturbations to the
plant and controller is also given. Qualitatively, it is established that the topology induced by
the gap metric on quite a general class of LPTV systems, is the weakest with respect to which
closed-loop performance varies continuously and closed-loop stability is a robust property. All of
the results accommodate in nite-dimensional input/output spaces and apply to the special case of
LPTV, SD control-systems.
The existence of particular representations of a class of LPTV systems is central to the frame-
work used to obtain robustness results. Speci cally, it is shown that the graph of a stabilisable,
LPTV system can be expressed as the range and kernel of stable, LPTV systems that are re-
spectively, left and right invertible by stable, LPTV systems. These representations of the graph
resemble the coprime-factor representations known to exist for linear, time-invariant systems and
lead to a useful characterisation of closed-loop stability. This in turn, yields a Youla-style parame-
terisation of stabilising controllers.
A numerical procedure is developed for computing the gap, to any desired accuracy, between
LPTV systems that admit stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisations. This involves deter-
mining the existence of a solution to a related linear, shift-invariant, discrete-time, full-information,
`Z2+()-synthesis problem, for which computationally-tractable necessary and sucient conditions
are obtained.
To complete this work, a new, compact derivation of state-space formula for H1 , SD synthesis
is presented. Related numerical issues are discussed and it is shown how to restructure the formulae
derived for numerical robustness.

i
Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the many people who have provided
help and encouragement over the time leading up to and during the development of this work.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Keith Glover. His great
insight, guidance and encouragement have been invaluable over the last three years. I am also
very grateful to Dr Malcolm Smith and Dr Glenn Vinnicombe, who have both given freely of their
time to discuss many problems. In particular Glenn, who has had a signi cant in uence on my
understanding of robust control theory. My undergraduate supervisor, Professor Kok Lay Teo, also
deserves mention for rst introducing me to the interesting mathematics used in control theory.
Thanks to the proof-reading skill of Richard Ford, the number of typos in this dissertation has
been signi cantly reduced.
My contemporaries in the Control Group and other friends in Cambridge have made my experience
here very memorable. In particular, Alex, Brian, Edward, Gavin, George, Giles, Johannes, Mihai,
Nelson, Richard F., Richard L., Richard W., Sanjay, Teddy and Tim. Special thanks to Giles and
Sanjay for helping me settle in when I rst arrived in Cambridge. Thanks also to my relatives in
Italy for providing a summer refuge away from Cambridge.
On a more personal note, I am indebted to my parents, brother and grandparents for their
constant love, encouragement and guidance. Finally, my heartfelt thanks to Saduman for her love
and understanding.
This work has been supported nancially by the Gledden Studentship of the University of Western
Australia, and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United
Kingdom in the form of an Overseas Research Student Award. Travel grants have been gratefully
received from St. John's College and the Department of Engineering of the University of Cambridge.
As required by University Statute, I hereby declare that this dissertation is not substantially the
same as any that I have submitted for a degree at any other University, is the result of my own
work, and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration.

Michael Cantoni
St. John's College
Cambridge
March 12, 1998.

ii
Contents

Abstract i
Acknowledgements ii
Notation vi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation and Background 1
1.2 Overview of Contents 3
2 Preliminaries 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 Functional Analysis 6
2.2.1 Topological, Metric, Vector (Linear) and Hilbert Spaces 6
2.2.2 Operator Theory 11
2.2.3 Analytic Functions 15
2.3 Signals and Systems Theory 16
2.3.1 Signals 16
2.3.2 Systems 20
2.3.3 Closed-Loop Systems 24
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 27
2.4.1 Reachability, Observability, Stabilisability and Detectability 28
2.4.2 Stability 31
2.4.3 Quadratic-Regulator and Full-Information `Z2+()-Induced-Norm Synthesis 32
iii
iv

2.5 SD Control-Systems and State-Space Time-Lifting 40


3 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design 49
3.1 Introduction 49
3.2 The Average-Power Gain Matrix 50
3.2.1 Frequency Response 50
3.2.2 Properties of the Average-Power Gain Matrix 54
3.3 A Framework for SD Closed-Loop Design 58
3.3.1 H1 -Loopshaping for LTI Systems 58
3.3.2 H1 -Loopshaping Based Design for SD Control-System Development 61
3.4 Summary 66
4 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems 68
4.1 Introduction 68
4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems 71
4.2.1 LPTV Systems and LSI Equivalents 71
4.2.2 LSI Subspaces 72
4.2.3 Strong-Right/Left Representations and Closed-Loop Stability 74
4.3 The Gap Metric 83
4.4 Quantitative Robustness Analysis 89
4.4.1 Plant Perturbations 89
4.4.2 Simultaneous Plant and Controller Perturbations 96
4.5 The Graph (Gap) Topology 98
4.6 Robustness of SD Closed-Loop Systems 100
4.7 Summary 101
5 Computing the Gap 102
5.1 Introduction 102
5.2 The Gap Metric and Full-Information Synthesis 103
5.3 Normalised Right-Coprime Factorisations 104
5.3.1 LSI State-Space Systems 106
5.3.2 LPTV State-Space Systems 109
5.4 Computing the Directed Gap 112
5.4.1 A Necessary and Sucient Condition for Bounding the Directed Gap 112
5.4.2 Computing A , R and Q in Theorem 5.6 115
5.4.3 Testing Condition (iii) in Theorem 5.6 117
v

5.5 Summary 124


6 H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues 126
6.1 Introduction 126
6.2 State-Space Formulae for the SD-Equivalent Generalised-Plant 128
6.3 Re-Structuring for Numerical Robustness 133
6.4 Comments Concerning Assumptions (A1) and (A2) 137
6.5 Summary 139
7 Concluding Remarks 140
7.1 Contributions 140
7.2 Directions for Future Research 141
A Appendix to Chapter 2 143
A.1 Proof of Proposition 2.20 143
A.2 Proof of Proposition 2.22 145
B Appendix to Chapter 3 152
B.1 Proof of Lemma 3.9 152
B.2 Computing the Average-Power Gain Matrix for SD Systems 155
C Appendix to Chapter 5 160
C.1 Proof of Lemma 5.9 160
C.2 De nition of Matrices Used in Lemma 5.9 171
D Appendix to Chapter 6 174
D.1 Proof of Lemma 6.5 174
Bibliography 177
Notation

Symbols
R (R+ ) set of real numbers (non-negative reals)
Z (Z+) set of integers (non-negative integers)
C set of complex numbers
D open unit disc in the complex plane
T unit circle in the complex plane
E complement of the open unit disc; E :=C D
H the interval [0; h) of the real line
][ the integer part of a real number
2 is an element of
 is a subset of
[ union of two sets
\ intersection of two sets
 Cartesian product of two sets
:= left-hand side is de ned by right-hand side
=: right-hand side is de ned by left-hand side
,, m if and only if
A ,F this font is used to denote general sets
B, W this font is used to denote general Banach Spaces
H, U this font is used to denote general Hilbert spaces
k  kV norm on the vector space V
h; iH inner product on the Hilbert space H
H U (or U? )
orthogonal complement of U in H
U Y orthogonal direct sum of U and Y
U orthogonal projection onto U
GkF parallel projection onto G along F
BU!Y the set of bounded, linear operators mapping U to Y
D domain of a linear operator
R range of a linear operator
K kernel of a linear operator
G (G ) 0
graph (inverse-graph) of a linear operator
jH restriction of an operator to H
 1 inverse of an operator
 adjoint of a bounded, linear operator
spec() spectrum of a bounded, linear operator
rad() spectral radius of a bounded, linear operator
 () singular values of a bounded, linear operator
 fg maximum singular value of a compact operator
 fg minimum singular value of a compact operator

vi
vii

Symbols ctd.
YS(B) vector space of B-valued signals on the time interval of de nition S
P the projection that truncates a signal to zero after t = 
U unilateral shift by  on YR+()
S unilateral shift on YZ+()
L2R+(H) the Hilbert space of H-valued, (Lebesgue) square-integrable signals in
YR+(H) (i.e. the nite-energy, continuous-time signals)
L2R;+e (H) the extended space corresponding to L2R+(H)
`Z2+(H) the Hilbert space of H-valued, square-summable functions in YZ+(H)
(i.e. the nite-energy, discrete-time signals)
`Z2;+e (H) the extended space corresponding to `Z2+(H)
H2D (H) the Hardy space of H-valued functions of a complex variable, that are
analytic in D and (Lebesgue) square-integrable on T
Z the Z-Transform (isomorphism between `Z2+(H) and H2D (H))
H1
D (BU!Y ) the Hardy space of BU!Y -valued functions of a complex variable, that
are analytic and bounded in D
k  k1 the norm on H1 D (BU!Y )
M the multiplication operator with symbol 
L2H (H) the Hilbert space of (Lebesgue) square-integrable, H-valued functions
de ned on the nite-horizon H
W the time-lifting operator (isomorphism between L2R+(H) and
`Z2+(L2H (H)))

AD and DA ideal, sampling device and zero-order, hold device respectively


PU!Y the set of causal, linear, periodically-time-varying, continuous-time sys-
tems, which at each point in time map U to Y
PUe !Y the subset of systems in PU!Y that are causally extendible to (time)
locally, Lipschitz-continuous systems on extended space
PUe;!scY the subset of systems in PUe !Y that are strongly causal
DU!Y the set of causal, linear, shift-invariant, discrete-time systems, which at
each point in time map U to Y
P , A, u , y this font is used to denote anything associated with discrete-time systems
( is used to denote that  is in L2H ()
^ is used to denote frequency-domain transfer operator

Acronyms
LPTV linear periodically-time-varying
LSI linear shift-invariant (discrete-time)
LTI linear time-invariant (continuous-time)
SD sampled-data
TPBVP two-point, boundary-value problem
1
Introduction

1.1 Motivation and Background


Control theory is the study of dynamical systems and techniques that allow their behaviour to be
modi ed by manipulating accessible inputs. The auxiliary system used to determine the actions
required to achieve a desired change in a system's behaviour is called a controller and as a whole, the
original system and controller combined is called a control system. Given an exact representation
of a system (including any disturbances acting upon it) and an achievable desired behaviour, it is
possible to design a controller to achieve the desired change in behaviour without using measurable
information.1 This is referred to as open-loop control. The problem with this approach is that a
system is most readily represented by a mathematical model, which can at best, only approximate
the real behaviour of a physical system. The notion of uncertainty arising from the mismatch
between physical processes (the system to be controlled, disturbances acting on it and the controller
itself) and the mathematical models used to represent them was central to the development of
feedback control theory, in which measurable information is exploited in the control strategy. An
important property of closed-loop (or feedback) control-systems is that the e ects of uncertainty
arising in this manner can be signi cantly reduced. The study of uncertainty types to which
closed-loop systems can be desensitised and the development of suitable mathematical frameworks
to exploit this property, is called robust control theory.

Classifying systems according to way their behaviour varies with time (for example, invariantly or
periodically) imparts additional structure to the mathematical frameworks used to study them. It
is for this reason that linear, time-invariant (LTI) systems are well-understood and robust control
1 Embedded in the notion of achievable behaviour is the assumption that such a controller corresponds exactly to
a physically realisable system.

1
2 Introduction

theory relatively mature for this class of systems [Zam81, Fra86, ZDG95]. The work presented in
this dissertation arises from a desire to characterise sensible frameworks for design and robustness
analysis of closed-loop systems that exhibit linear, periodically-time-varying (LPTV) behaviour.
The primary motivation for this stems from the wide-spread use of digital hardware (computers) to
implement control strategies for continuous-time systems, which invariably leads to time-varying,
closed-loop behaviour, that is often periodic in nature. Since digital hardware can only process
discrete-time information, any digital controller employed to control a continuous-time system in
closed-loop incorporates a sampling device at the input, which is used to convert continuous-time
signals into discrete-time signals, and a hold device at the output, which is used to convert discrete-
time signals into continuous-time signals. Systems like this, in which there is a hybrid mixture of
continuous-time and discrete-time signals, are called sampled-data (SD) systems. In practice, it
is common for the sampling device to operate at a xed rate (period) and for the hold device
to be synchronised with the sampler. In this situation, even if the discrete-time control-strategy
implemented in digital hardware does not exhibit time-varying behaviour, the controller as a whole
does. This is because the sampling process is periodically time-varying in the following sense: given
a continuous-time input u to a ( xed-rate) sampling device and corresponding discrete-time output
y, the output of the sampler in response to a time-shifted version of u corresponds to a time-shifted
version of y if and only if the time-shift is an integer multiple of the sampling period. As further
motivation, it is interesting to note that SD systems are not the only periodically-time-varying
systems encountered in engineering and science. For example, given a time-invariant, nonlinear
model of a system and a desired time-periodic trajectory, a linearisation about this gives rise to an
LPTV model. Such models arise naturally for systems that involve reciprocating (rotating) masses
and in celestial mechanics, for example.

The origins of robust control theory lie with the Small Gain Theorem [Zam66] and the seminal work
of Zames [Zam81]. Further advances, in terms of qualitative results characterising the uncertainty
types to which closed-loop systems can be desensitised, were made with the de nition of the graph
topology, in which two systems are considered similar (or close) if any reasonable controller for the
rst achieves similar closed-loop behaviour with the second [ZES80, VSF83, Vid84]. Quantitative
results followed for LTI systems with the development of several metrics that induce the graph
topology for such systems: the gap metric [ZES80, Geo88]; the graph metric [Vid84]; and the
 -gap metric [Vin93a]. Of speci c interest in this dissertation is the gap metric, which for LTI
systems, as shown in [GS90], is intimately related to the notion of coprime-factor uncertainty [VK86,
MG90]. This relationship is particularly important, because it is known that the mathematical
framework used to study robustness to coprime-factor uncertainty has useful performance-indicating
properties. These properties were exploited in [MG90] in the development of a robust, control-
1.2 Overview of Contents 3

system, design procedure for LTI systems, using notions of classical, frequency-domain loopshaping.
The main goal of the work presented in this dissertation is to establish results analogous to some
of those mentioned above for LPTV systems.

The equivalence of LPTV, continuous-time systems to linear, shift-invariant (LSI), discrete-time


systems (cf. [BPFT91, BP92]) is of fundamental importance in this dissertation. By virtue of
this equivalence, although the analysis is somewhat more involved (with tractable technical di-
culties that arise concerning causality and in nite-dimensionality), periodic time-variation can be
exploited in a similar manner to time-invariance. This yields powerful results for LPTV systems
that are analogous to many results known to hold for LTI systems. Speci cally, using the gap met-
ric, qualitative and quantitative results are obtained by which the robustness of LPTV, closed-loop
systems can be characterised. To this end, the existence of particular range and kernel representa-
tions of the graph of a stabilisable, LPTV system is established. These representations resemble the
coprime-factor representations known to exist for certain classes of LTI systems [Vid85]. Towards
developing a framework for design, a new notion of frequency response is developed for LPTV sys-
tems. This new notion of frequency response can be used to derive frequency-by-frequency bounds
on performance-indicating, closed-loop operators, which facilitate the design of parametric weights
employed in a new H1 -loopshaping based procedure proposed for SD, control-system development.

Mathematical analysis is of very little use from an engineering perspective unless computational
procedures exist to exploit it for speci c classes of systems. Hence the wide-spread use of state-
space tools in robust control theory [DGKF89, ZDG95, GL95]. As such, a considerable component
of this dissertation is devoted to developing numerical algorithms for automated analysis and syn-
thesis. More speci cally: a computational procedure is developed for calculating the new notion of
frequency response introduced; it also is shown how to compute the gap between any two LPTV
systems that admit stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisations; nally, new formulae are
derived for H1 , SD synthesis, with discussion of numerical issues that arise and how they should
be handled.

1.2 Overview of Contents


Chapter 2: In this chapter, material is collected to facilitate understanding of the main compo-
nent of this dissertation. In Section 2.2, the underlying mathematical structure of all signal and
system spaces is de ned. General signal and system theory is discussed in Section 2.3. In Section
2.4, state-space tools used in the development of numerical algorithms are presented. Finally, fun-
damental issues involved in stability and induced-norm analysis of SD control-systems are brie y
4 Introduction

discussed in Section 2.5.

Chapter 3: A new notion of frequency response for LPTV systems is developed in this chap-
ter. It is de ned in terms of the average-power of the asymptotic response of an LPTV system
to sinusoids of a single frequency. The performance-indicating properties of this new, frequency-
domain, analysis tool are intuitive and it is used to derive frequency-by-frequency bounds on partic-
ular performance-indicating, closed-loop operator-gains, which facilitate the design of parametric
weights used in a new H1 -loopshaping based design procedure proposed for SD, control-system
development.

Chapter 4: The primary purpose of this chapter is to present qualitative and quantitative results
that characterise the uncertainty types to which LPTV, closed-loop systems can be desensitised.
These results are obtained in terms of the gap metric, which is a measure of the distance between the
graphs of two systems. Towards establishing the desired robustness results, so-called strong-right
and strong-left representations of the graphs of stabilisable, LPTV systems are shown to exist. It is
established that these representations can be used to characterise closed-loop stability, which leads
to a Youla-style parameterisation of stabilising controllers. A formula for the directed-gap between
two LPTV systems is then derived. The formula obtained is essentially a generalisation of that in
[Geo88] for LTI systems and it is crucial to the development of the robustness results obtained.
Speci cally, the largest gap-ball of LPTV plants, centred at a nominal plant, that a nominal, sta-
bilising controller is guaranteed to stabilise, is identi ed. Further to this, the maximally-tolerable,
simultaneous gap-perturbation to both the nominal plant and controller is characterised. Qual-
itatively, it is shown that the topology induced by the gap metric on a general class of LPTV
systems, is the weakest with respect to which closed-loop stability is a robust property and closed-
loop performance varies continuously. That is, the gap metric on LPTV systems induces the graph
topology. All of the results derived accommodate in nite-dimensional, input/output spaces and
importantly, apply to the special case of LPTV, SD control-systems.

Chapter 5: In this chapter a numerical procedure is developed for computing the gap (to any
desired accuracy) between LPTV systems that admit stabilisable and detectable, state-space reali-
sations. Much of the chapter is devoted to obtaining nite-dimensional and hence, computationally-
tractable, necessary and sucient conditions for the existence of a solution to a related LSI, full-
information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem, used to establish bounds on the directed gap. Two-point,
boundary-value problems (TPBVPs) are used extensively in this chapter, to characterise particular
combinations of nite-horizon integral-operators that arise in this approach.
1.2 Overview of Contents 5

Chapter 6: A new, compact derivation of state-space formulae is presented in this chapter for
H1 , SD synthesis. Numerical issues are discussed and it is shown how to restructure the formulae
obtained to give a numerically robust procedure for computing the state-space matrices of the so-
called SD-equivalent generalised-plant.

Chapter 7: In this chapter the main contributions of this work are summarised and potential
directions for future research identi ed.
2
Preliminaries

2.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to collect preliminary results that will facilitate the understanding
of material presented in the main body of this dissertation. The basic structure of the chapter is
as follows: fundamental results from functional analysis, which are used throughout, are given in
Section 2.2; in Section 2.3, the signal and system spaces considered in this dissertation are de ned
and fundamental results concerning the stability of closed-loop systems presented; state-space tools
for LSI system analysis and synthesis are presented in Section 2.4; nally, fundamental results
concerning stability and closed-loop, induced-norm analysis for SD control-systems expressed in
linear-fractional form are presented in Section 2.5.

2.2 Functional Analysis


In this section the underlying mathematical structure of all signal and system spaces considered in
this dissertation is de ned. This includes notation to be used throughout. For further details on the
material presented here, the reader is referred to [Kre89b, Bol90, KF75, Sut93, DS88, Rud91, Hal82].

2.2.1 Topological, Metric, Vector (Linear) and Hilbert Spaces


A set A is a collection of elements with a common property P . Given another property P1 , the
set A1 :=fx 2 A : x has property P1 g is said to be a subset of A . It is standard to denote
this by A1  A . Two sets A1 and A2 are said to be equal, denoted A1 = A2 , if A1  A2
and A2  A1 . The notation x 2 A is used to mean that x is an element of A and x 62 A to
mean that x is not an element of A . Given two subsets A1 :=fx 2 A : x has property P1 g and
6
2.2 Functional Analysis 7

A2 :=fx 2 A : x has property P2 g of a set A , the union of A1 and A2 is de ned to be


A1 [ A2 :=fx 2 A : x has property P1 or property P2g
and the intersection to be
A1 \ A2 :=fx 2 A : x has property P1 and property P2g:
The Cartesian product of two sets A1 and A2 is de ned by
(" # )
x
A1  A2 := : x 2 A1 ; y 2 A2 :
y
In the sequel, Z denotes the set of integers, R the set of real numbers and C the set of ordered
pairs f(; !) : ; ! 2 Rg. Elements of C are usually called complex numbers and are expressed as
z =  + j!, where j 2 := 1. The symbol Z+ denotes the subset of non-negative integers, R+ the
subset of non-negative reals, [1 ; 2 ) :=ft 2 R : 1  t < 2 g and [1 ; 2 ] :=ft 2 R : 1  t  2 g.
For notational convenience, given a real number h > 0, the symbol H denotes the interval [0; h).
The open unit disc in C is denoted by D :=fz 2 C : jz j < 1g, T :=fz 2 C : jz j = 1g denotes the
unit circle and E :=C D denotes the exterior of the open unit disc.

A mapping (or function) between two set A1 and A2 , denoted by f : A1 ! A2 , relates each
element of A1 to a single element of A2 . The mapping f is said to be injective (or one-to-one) if
for every y 2 F :=fx 2 A2 : x = f (u); for some u 2 A1 g there is a unique u 2 A1 that satis es
y = f (u). The mapping is said to be surjective (or onto) if A2 = F and it is called bijective, if it
is both injective and surjective. If f is injective then f 1 : F ! A1 , de ned to relate each element
y 2 F to the elements u 2 A1 which satisfy y = f (u), is well de ned as a mapping in that it relates
each element in F to a single element in A1 . f 1 is called the (set theoretic) inverse of f and if f
is bijective, then f 1 is a well-de ned mapping on the whole of A2 .

For a given set A and mapping f : A ! R, a number 2 R is said to be an upper bound of


F :=fx 2 R : x = f (a); for some a 2 A g if f (a)  for all a 2 A . An upper bound 2 R of
F is the least upper bound or supremum, denoted sup f (a), in the sense that any number strictly
a2A
less than is not an upper bound of F , if and only if for all  > 0 there exists an a 2 A such
that f (a) > . Similarly, a number 2 R is said to be a lower bound of F if  f (a) for all
a 2 A . A lower bound 2 R of F is the greatest lower bound or in mum, denoted ainf 2A
f (a), in
the sense that any number strictly greater that is not a lower bound of F , if and only if for all
 > 0 there exists an a 2 A such that f (a) < + .
8 Preliminaries

A topology  on a set A is a collection of subsets of A , called open sets, such that the empty set
; 2  , A 2  and arbitrary unions and nite intersections of sets in  are in  . A subset A1  A
is said to be a closed set (with respect to  ) if its complement
A1c :=fx 2 A : x 62 A1g;
is a set in  . That is, if its complement is open. A topology  on A is said to be Hausdor if for
any two elements x; y 2 A , there are two open sets Ux and Uy with empty intersection, such that
x 2 Ux and y 2 Uy . That is, it is possible to distinguish between any two points in a set equipped
with a Hausdor topology. Given two topologies  1 and  2 on a set A ,  1 is said to be weaker
than  2 if all sets in  1 are contained in  2 .

It is often convenient to specify a topology by giving a basis for it. A basis for a topology  , is
a sub-collection  of subsets of A such that    and every set in  is a union of sets in  . A
given collection  of subsets of A is a basis for a topology on A if and only if every element of A
is in some set in  and for any A1 ; A2 2  , A1 \ A2 is a union of sets in .

A topological space is de ned to be a set equipped with a topology. Given a set A and a topology
 on A , T(A ;  ) denotes the corresponding topological space. If the topology  is Hausdor
then T(A ;  ) is called a Hausdor space. Given two topological spaces T(A1 ;  1 ) and T(A2 ; 2 ),
the product topology on the Cartesian product A1  A2 is the topology generated by the basis
fU1  U2 : U1 2  1 ; U2 2  2"g. Thus,
# a subset A  A1  A2 is an open set in the product
topology if and only if for every x 2 A there exist open sets U1 2  1 and U2 2  2 such that
" # y
x 2U U A.
1 2
y
A subset N (x)  A is said to be a neighbourhood of a point x in a topological space T(A ;  ),
if there exists an open set U 2  such that x 2 U  N (x). A sequence fxk g1 k=0 in a topological
space T(A ;  ) is said to converge to a point x 2 T(A ;  ), denoted xk ! x (or limk!1 xk = x),
if for every neighbourhood N (x) of x there exists a positive integer K such that xk 2 N (x) for
all k  K . If T(A ;  ) is a Hausdor space then any convergent sequence converges to a unique
point. Given two topological spaces T1 (A1 ;  1 ) and T2 (A2 ;  2 ), a mapping f : A1 ! A2 is called
continuous (with respect to  1 and  2 ) if Y 2  2 implies that f 1(Y ) 2  1 , where f 1(Y ) denotes
the inverse image of Y under f .

Given a set A , a mapping d : A  A ! R+ is called a metric on A if:


(M1) for x; y 2 A , d(x; y) = 0 , x = y;
2.2 Functional Analysis 9

(M2) d(x; y) = d(y; x) for all x; y 2 A ;


(M3) d(x; z )  d(x; y) + d(y; z ) for all x; y; z 2 A .
A metric space is de ned to be a set equipped with a metric. Given a set A and a metric d on A ,
X (A ; d) denotes the corresponding metric space. For a metric space X (A ; d) the open balls
Bd(x; r) :=fy 2 X (A ; d) : d(x; y) < rg (x 2 X (A ; d); r > 0);
form a basis for a topology on X (A ; d). This topology is said to be induced by the metric d and
is called the metric topology. As such, every metric space can be considered to be a topological
space. In fact, every metric space equipped with the metric topology is Hausdor . In a metric
space, convergence (with respect to the metric topology) of a sequence fxk g1 k=0  X (A ; d) can be
expressed in the (probably) more familiar terms: xk ! x if and only if for all  > 0 there exists a
positive integer K such that d(x; xk ) <  for all k  K . Similarly, a function f : A1 ! A2 , where
A1 is equipped with the metric d1 and A2 with d2, is continuous if and only if for every x 2 A1
and  > 0 there exists a  > 0 such that d2 (f (x); f (u)) <  for all u 2 A1 that satisfy d1 (x; u) < .
A sequence fxk g1k=0  X (A ; d) is said to be Cauchy, if for for every  > 0 there exists a positive
integer N such that d(xm ; xn ) <  for all m; n > N . Note that every convergent sequence in a
metric space is Cauchy. If every Cauchy sequence in a metric space X (A ; d) is convergent to a
point in X (A ; d), then X (A ; d) is called a complete metric space.
A vector (or linear) space V over F (where F denotes either R or C ) is a set of elements called
vectors, for which two operations called vector addition and scalar multiplication are de ned with
the following algebraic properties:
(V1) For all vectors x; y and z in V there corresponds a vector x + y 2 V , where the correspondence
is such that: x + y = y + x and x + (y + z ) = (x + y) + z ; V contains a unique zero vector
0 such that x + 0 = x for all x 2 V ; and for every x 2 V there corresponds a unique vector
x 2 V such that x x :=x + ( x) = 0.
(V2) For each x 2 V and 2 F , there is a corresponding vector x 2 V , where the correspondence
is such that: 1x = x, where 1 denotes the unit in F ; ( x) = ( )x (where 2 F ); and for
all x; y 2 V , (x + y) = x + y and ( + )x = x + x.
A subset V1  V is called a (linear) subspace of V if it is closed under the vector addition and
scalar multiplication operations de ned on V . A norm on a vector space V , denoted by k  kV , is
a mapping from V to R+ , which for all x; y 2 V satis es:
(N1) kxkV = 0 , x = 0;
10 Preliminaries

(N2) k xkV = j j  kxkV for all 2 F ;


(N3) kx + ykV  kxkV + kykV .
Property (N3) is often called the triangle inequality. A vector space V equipped with a norm kkV ,
is called a normed space. The norm on a normed space V induces the following metric:
dV (x; y) :=kx ykV for all x; y 2 V :
If V is complete with respect to dV then it is called a Banach space. In the sequel the Computer
Modern Caligraphic font (B; W for example) is used to identify a Banach space. A subspace V1
of a normed space V is closed (with respect to the topology induced by dV , also known as the
norm topology) if every sequence in V1 that converges in V , converges to a point in V1 . A closed
subspace of a Banach space is therefore complete.

An inner product on a vector space V over F , denoted by h; iV , is a mapping from the Cartesian
product V  V to F such that for all x; y; z 2 V and each  2 F , the following hold:
(IP1) hx; yiV = hy; xiV ;
(IP2) hx; yiV = hx; yiV ;
(IP3) hx + y; z iV = hx; z iV + hy; z iV ;
(IP4) hx; xiV 0 and hx; xiV = 0 , x = 0,
where the over-bar in (IP1) denotes complex conjugation. An inner product induces the following
p
norm on V : kxkV := hx; xiV for all x 2 V . A vector space equipped with an inner product is
called an inner-product space and can be considered a normed space (and hence, a metric and
topological space). If an inner-product space is complete with respect to the metric induced by
the inner product (via the norm de ned above), then it is called a Hilbert space. In the sequel,
the Euler Script font (H; U for example) is used to identify a Hilbert space, unless it is a special
Hilbert space such as those de ne in Sub-Section 2.3.1.

Let H be a Hilbert space and U and Y be subspaces of H. The orthogonal complement of U in H


is de ned to be the subspace
H U :=fx 2 H : hu; xiH = 0 for all u 2 Ug:

When it is clear from context what H is, the short hand U? is used to denote H U. If U is a
closed subspace then each x 2 H can be uniquely decomposed as x = u + x1 where u 2 U and
2.2 Functional Analysis 11

x1 2 U?. Bearing this in mind, the mapping of each x 2 H to the corresponding u 2 U is called
an orthogonal projection and is denoted by the symbol U . In the sequel, the symbol  denotes
the orthogonal direct sum, by which Y  U is identi ed with the Cartesian product Y  U and has
inner product de ned for all y1 ; y2 2 Y and u1 ; u2 2 U by
*" #" #+
y1 ; y2 :=hy1 ; y2 iY + hu1 ; u2 iU :
u1 u2 YU
The notation Hn is used to denote the Hilbert space Hn := |H  H 
{z    H}.
n times

A set of vectors fek gk2K  H (where K is a (possibly uncountable) index set) is said to be
orthonormal if kek kH = 1 and hek ; el iH = 0 for k 6= l in K . If the only vector in H orthogonal to
all ek 's is the zero vector, then such a set is called a complete, orthonormal basis for H. Given an
orthonormal basis fek gk2K for a Hilbert space H, any vector x 2 H can be expressed as
X
x= hx; ek iH ek :
k2K
The set fhx; ek iH gk2K uniquely (with respect to the basis fek gk2K ) represents x. Given an x and
P P
y in H with expansions k2K k ek and k2K k ek respectively, then
X
hx; y iH = k k :
k2K
P P
Furthermore, if f k gk2K is a subset of C such that k2K j k j2 < 1, then k2K k ek is in H.
In the sequel, any non-speci c, Hilbert space considered is assumed to have countable basis. Such
Hilbert spaces are said to be separable.

2.2.2 Operator Theory


Given two vector spaces V and Y over F (where F denotes either R or C ), a mapping P : V !Y
is called an operator and it is said to be linear if for every v1 ; v2 2 V and ; 2 F ,

P ( v1 + v1 ) = Pv1 + Pv2 :
All operators considered in the sequel are linear and almost all are de ned on Hilbert spaces. Let
U and Y be two Hilbert spaces and P : DP  U ! Y be a linear operator where

DP :=fu 2 U : Pu 2 Yg
12 Preliminaries

is called the domain of P , which is a subspace of U. If H is a subspace of DP then P jH : H ! Y


denotes the restriction of P to H and maps vectors from H to Y as P does. The range of P is
de ned to be
RP :=fPu : u 2 DP g

and the kernel to be


KP :=fu 2 DP : Pu = 0g:

A linear operator P : DP  U ! Y is said to be bounded if the induced norm


kP k := sup kkPukY
uk < 1:
u2DP U
u6=0
BU!Y is used to denote the set of all bounded, linear operators P : U ! Y and it is a Banach space
when equipped with the induced norm.
The graph of a linear operator P : DP  U ! Y is de ned to be the set of all bounded input-output
pairs
" #
GP :=
I D  U  Y;
P P
which since P is linear,
" is #a subspace of U  Y. For notational convenience the inverse graph is
de ned to be GP := 0 I GP . Note that any linear subspace G  U  Y corresponds to the graph
0
I 0 " #
of a linear operator if and only if 0 2 G ) y = 0. The graph is a very useful characterisation of
y
an operator and is used extensively in the sequel. An operator P is said to be closed if its graph is
closed with respect to the product topology on U  Y. A useful result is the Closed Graph Theorem,
which states that a closed, linear operator P : DP  U ! Y is bounded if DP is closed with respect
to the norm topology on U. Furthermore, if it is known that a linear operator P : DP  U ! Y is
bounded and that DP is closed, then GP is closed with respect to the product topology on U  Y.
Let G and F be two (linear) subspaces of a Hilbert space H that are closed with respect to the
norm topology on H. G and F are said to induce a co-ordinatisation of H if G \ F = f0g and
G + F = H. Given a co-ordinatisation fG; Fg of H, any x 2 H can be uniquely decomposed as
the sum x = g + f where g 2 G and f 2 F (cf. [DGS93]). With this decomposition in mind, the
operator GkF : H ! G de ned by
GkF := x 7! g;
2.2 Functional Analysis 13

is called the parallel projection onto G along F. Correspondingly, FkG := x 7! f is called the
parallel projection onto F along G. Since G and F are closed, linear subspaces, it follows that
the graphs of the parallel projection operators are linear and closed. Hence, by the Closed Graph
Theorem, the parallel projections are bounded. Note also, that kk k  1.
Given a bounded, linear operator P 2 BU!Y, there exists a unique operator P  2 BY!U such that
for all u 2 U and y 2 Y
hPu; y iY = hu; P  yiU :
The operator P  is called the adjoint operator and kP k2 = kP  k2 = kP  P k. A useful result is
that KP = (RP  )?. A linear operator P 2 BU!U is called self-adjoint if P = P  . Such an opera-
tor is said to be positive de nite (respectively positive semide nite), denoted P > 0 (respectively
P  0), if there exists a real number > 0 such that for all u 2 U, hu; PuiU  hu; uiU (respec-
tively hu; PuiU  0). Similarly, a self-adjoint operator P 2 BU!Y is said to be negative de nite
(respectively negative semide nite), denoted P < 0 (respectively P  0), if P > 0 (respectively
P  0). A self-adjoint operator P is said to be idempotent if P 2 = P .
An operator P 2 BU!Y, where U and Y are Hilbert spaces, is said to be an isometry if hPu; PuiY =
hu; uiU for all u 2 U and unitary if RP = Y and P is an isometry. P 2 BU!Y is called a co-isometry
if RP = Y and P  is an isometry. Two Hilbert spaces U and Y are said to be isomorphic if there
exists a bijective operator Y 2 BU!Y, called an isomorphism, such that
hu1 ; u2 iU = hY u1 ; Y u2 iY
for all u1 ; u2 2 U. Two operators P1 and P2 de ned on Hilbert spaces are said to be equivalent if
there exists an isomorphism Y such that P1 Y = Y P2 .
Given a Hilbert spaces U and an operator P : DP  U ! U that is injective (or equivalently
KP = f0g), then P has a well de ned, set-theoretic inverse de ned on RP . The inverse operator
is denoted by P 1 and the following equalities hold: P 1 P = I jDP and PP 1 = I jRP , where I
denotes the identity map (that is, the operator which maps each element of a vector space to itself).
It follows by the Open Mapping Theorem (cf. [Bol90, pg 80] for example), that if P 2 BU!U is
bijective then P 1 2 BU!U. In the sequel, an operator P 2 BU!U is said to be (boundedly)
invertible if P 1 2 BU!U. The spectrum of an operator P 2 BU!U is de ned to be the set
spec(P ) :=f 2 C : (I P ) is not invertible in BU!Ug
and the point spectrum to be the subset of spec(P ) for which (I P ) is not injective. The point
spectrum is a set of discrete points in C and its elements are often called the eigenvalues of P . If U
14 Preliminaries

or Y is nite-dimensional (in the sense that there is a nitely-countable, complete basis for them),
then all  2 spec(P ) are eigenvalues. The spectral radius of a linear operator P 2 BU!Y is de ned
by
1
rad(P ) := sup jj = lim kP n k n
n!1
 kP k:
2spec(P )
If P is self-adjoint, then its spectrum is real and rad(P ) = kP k.
A bounded, linear operator P 2 BU!Y is said to be compact if for every bounded sequence fuk g1 k=0
in U there is a subsequence fukn g1
n=0 , such that Pu kn converges in Y when equipped with the norm
topology. If U is nite-dimensional then P is compact. A compact operator P 2 BU!Y has the
following important properties:
(C1) for any R 2 BY!H, RP 2 BU!H is compact and for any R 2 BH!U, PR 2 BH!Y is compact;
(C2) the eigenvalues of P constitute a countable set;
(C3) the adjoint operator P  is compact.
Another important property of compact operators is that every non-zero spectral value of a compact
operator is an eigenvalue and the only possible accumulation point1 of the spectrum is 0.
A number  2 R+ is said to be a singular value of a bounded, linear operator P 2 BU!Y if 2 is
an eigenvalue of P  P 2 BU!U. The set of singular values of an operator P 2 BU!Y is denoted by
(P ) :=f 2 R+ : 2 is an eigenvalue of P  P g:
If P 2 BU!Y is compact then so is P  P and hence, the spectrum of P  P is completely characterised
by the countable set of singular values (P ). Then since P  P is self-adjoint, it follows that given
a compact operator P 2 BU!Y
p p
kP k = kP  P k = rad(P  P ) = fP g;
where
fP g := max
2(P )

is called the maximum singular-value. The minimum singular-value of a compact, bounded, linear
operator is de ned similarly by
fP g := 2min
(P )
:
point x in a metric space X (A ; d) is said to be an accumulation point of a subset M  X (A ; d) if every
1A
neighbourhood of x in the metric topology contains at least one point in M that is distinct from x.
2.2 Functional Analysis 15

2.2.3 Analytic Functions


In this short sub-section the notion of an analytic function is de ned and a few properties of analytic
functions assembled. For further details on this material the reader is referred to [Ahl79, Rud86,
Hof62].
A norm can be de ned on all sets considered in this sub-section and as such convergence and con-
tinuity (although not explicitly stated) is with respect to the norm topology on the sets concerned.
Let U be a connected,2 open subset of the complex plane and consider a function f : U ! W , where
W is a Banach space. If for a given point z0 2 U there exists an f0 2 W such that f (zi ) converges
to (the same) f0 for every sequence fzi g1 i=0  U that converges to z0 , then the limit below is said
to exist
lim f (z ) :=f0 :
z!z0
If at a point z0 2 U,
lim f (z) f (z0 )
z!z0 z z 0
exists, then f (z ) is said to be di erentiable at z0 . A function f : U ! W is said to be analytic in a
connected, open subset U1  U if f is di erentiable at all points in U1 . If f is analytic in U, then
it is also continuous on U and can be expressed in terms of a power series in the following sense:
for every open ball BC (z0 ; r) :=fz 2 C : jz z0 j < rg  U, there corresponds a power series
X
1
cn(z z0 )n (fcn g1
n=0  W );
n=0
which converges3 to f (z ) for all z 2 BC (z0 ; r). This property is often used to de ne when a function
is analytic.
Using Cauchy's Integral Formula, it can be shown that any function f : U ! W that is analytic
in U satis es the mean value property
1 Z 2
f (z) = 2 f (z + rej ) d;
0
for all real r > 0 such that BC (z; r)  U. Using this and the triangle inequality, it follows that for
any function f : U ! W which is analytic in U,
1 Z 2
kf (z )kW  j
2 0 kf (z + re )kW d:
2A subset U  C is said to be connected if U and ; are the only subsets of U that are both open and closed.
X
N
3 Convergence of the series is taken to mean Nlim
!1 cn (z z0 )n exists.
n=0
16 Preliminaries

Furthermore, since for such a function the norm kf (z )kW is continuous on any open subset of U,
it follows that kf (z )kW satis es a maximum principle on any connected, open subset of U1  U in
the following sense: kf (z )kW has no maximum on U1 or it is constant on U1 (cf. [Ahl79, pg. 135]
for example).

2.3 Signals and Systems Theory


In this section the signal and system spaces considered in this dissertation are de ned. Much of
the material presented in this section is taken from the books [Wil71, DV75, FS82, FF90, SNF70].

2.3.1 Signals
In systems theory a signal space is usually de ned to be a vector space of functions mapping a
time interval of de nition (for example R+ or Z+) to a Banach space. A system is then de ned
to be an operator mapping between signal spaces. Given a Banach space B and a time interval
of de nition S, let YS(B) denote the vector space of B-valued functions de ned on S. That is,
YS(B) :=ff : f : S ! Bg. Functions in YZ+(B) are often called discrete-time signals and functions
in YR+ (B) continuous-time signals. As it stands, YS(B) has little structure and would be dicult
to work with. So it is standard to introduce a norm on YS(B), which gives rise to a normed
(linear) subspace W :=ff 2 YS(B) : kf kW < 1g. Often, the norm is selected so that W is a
Banach space or Hilbert space. Given such a W , it is generally useful to de ne the extension of
W . Extended spaces play an important role in systems theory and are particularly important in
the study of causal operators and the well-posedness of closed-loop systems [Wil71]. Let P denote
the projection de ned for f 2 YS(B) by
(
f (t) for t  ; t 2 S
(P f )(t) := :
0 otherwise
Then for a Banach space W  YS(B), the extended space W e is de ned to be
W e :=ff 2 YS(B ) : P f 2 W for all nite  2 Sg:
It is important to note that although W e is a vector space it is not normed. In this dissertation,
attention is restricted to the continuous-time signal-space L2R+ (H) and the discrete-time signal-
space `Z2+(H) (and their respective extensions) de ned below.
Let H be a Hilbert space. The Hilbert space of H-valued functions f 2 YR+ (H) that satisfy
Z1
kf k2L2 (H) := hf (t); f (t)iH dt < 1;
R+ 0
2.3 Signals and Systems Theory 17

is denoted by L2R+ (H). The inner-product on L2R+ (H) is de ned to be


Z1
hf; g iL2 (H) := hf (t); g (t)iH dt;
R+ 0
which induces the norm used in the de nition. The symbol U denotes the unilateral shift by  on
YR+ (H) and for all f 2 YR+ (H) is de ned by
(
f (t  ) for t  
(U f )(t) := ;
0 for 0  t < 
which is an isometry on L2R+ (H). The Hilbert space L2R+ (H) is a continuous-time signal-space and
corresponds to continuous-time signals with nite energy. L2R;+e (H) is used to denoted the associated
extended space.
The Hilbert space `Z2+(H) consists of all H-valued functions f 2 YZ+(H) that satisfy
X
1
kfk2` 2 (H) := hfk ; fk iH < 1:
Z +
k=0
The inner-product on `Z2+(H) is de ned to be
X
1
hf; gi` 2 (H) := h fk ; g k i H ;
Z +
k=0
which induces the norm used in the de nition. The symbol S denotes the unilateral shift on YZ+(H)
and for all f 2 YZ+(H) is de ned by
(
f
(Sf)k := (k 1)
for k  1
;
0 for k = 0
which is an isometry on `Z2+(H). The Hilbert space `Z2 +(H) is a discrete-time signal-space and
corresponds to discrete-time signals with nite energy. `Z2;+e (H) is used to denote the associated
extended space. Lower-case Euler characters (for example f; x) are used throughout to denote
discrete-time signals.
In SD control-systems the following elementary operators are used to map continuous-time signals
to discrete-time (sampled) signals and vice-versa: given an arbitrary Hilbert space H and a real
number h > 0, the ideal, periodic (period h) sampling-device (or analogue-to-digital converter)
AD : YR+ (H) ! YZ+(H), is de ned by
fk :=(ADf )k :=f (kh);
the zeroth-order hold-device (or digital-to-analogue converter) DA : YZ+(H) ! YR+ (H), is de ned
by
f (t) :=(DA f)(t) :=fk for kh  t < (k + 1)h:
18 Preliminaries

In systems theory it is often convenient to work with spaces that are isomorphic to the original
time-domain signal-space concerned. To this end, let L2T(H) denote the Hilbert space of functions
f : T ! H that satisfy
Z 2

2
kf kL2 (H) :=
1 f ( ej! ); f (ej! ) d! < 1:
T 2 0 H
The inner-product that induces this norm is
Z 2

hf; g iL2 (H) :=


1 f ( e j! ); g(ej! ) d!
T 2 0 H
and is it taken to be the inner-product on L2T(H). Note that any f 2 L2T(H) has Fourier series
expansion
X
1
f (ej! ) = ejk! fk ;
k= 1
1
where each fk 2 H and hf; f iL2T(H) = X hfk ; fk iH , the set ffk g1 k=0 being the set of Fourier
k= 1
coecients. An important subspace of L2T(H) is denoted by L2T+ (H) and consists of all functions in
1
L2T(H) for which fk = 0 when k < 0. Given any f 2 L2T+ (H), X hfk ; fk iH < 1 by de nition and
k=0
consequently, it is possible to associate with f the function ' : D ! H given by
X
1
'() = k fk : (2.1)
k=0
Now, the Hardy space H2D (H) is de ned to be the set of all H-valued functions ' : D !H that are
analytic in D and satisfy the following condition:
Z 2

'(rej! ); '(rej! ) H d! (0  r < 1) (2.2)
0
has nite bound independent of r. Since each ' 2 H2D (H) is analytic, it can be expressed as a power
series of the form given in equation (2.1).1Given such a representation, it follows that the condition
X
associated with equation (2.2) implies hfk ; fk iH < 1. Hence, every function '() 2 H2D (H)
k=0
can be associated with a function f (!) = '(ej! ) 2 L2T+ (H) and in this way, H2D (H) inherits the
Hilbert-space structure of L2T+(H), embedding it in L2T(H) as a subspace.
Proposition 2.1 [SNF70, pp. 184-185] The Hilbert space `Z2+(H) is isomorphic to H2D (H) via the
Z-Transform isomorphism de ned by
X
1
'() = (Zf)() := k fk ;
k=0
for all  2 D and f :=k 7! fk 2 `Z2+(H). Z 1 denotes the inverse Z-Transform isomorphism.4
4 = z 1 in the usual engineering de nition of the Z-Transform.
2.3 Signals and Systems Theory 19

By de nition of the Z-Transform isomorphism, it follows that the unilateral shift acts as multipli-
cation by  on H2D (H). That is, (S')() = '() for ' 2 H2D (H).

Recall that given a real number h > 0, the symbol H denotes the interval [0; h)  R+ . L2H (H) is
used to denoted the Hilbert space of H-valued functions f : H ! H that satisfy
Zh
kf kL2 (H) := hf (t); f (t)iH dt < 1:
H
0
The inner product on L2H (H) is de ned by
Zh
hf; g iL2 (H) := hf (t); g (t)iH dt;
H 0
which induces the norm used in the de nition. L2H (H) is really the truncation of L2R+ (H) to the
interval H and henceforth, the symbol \ (" above a character is used to denote a vector in L2H (H)
or a sequence of such vectors.

The following operator plays a pivotal role throughout this dissertation: given a real number
h > 0, the bijective operator W : L2R;+e (H) ! `Z2;+e(L2H (H)) is de ned by
(f () :=(Wf ) = f (kh + ) ( 2 H ):
k k

It acts as an isomorphism between the two Hilbert spaces L2R+ (H) and `Z2+(L2H (H)) and is referred
to as the time-lifting isomorphism. Its inverse is denoted by W 1 . The importance of this operator
lies in the fact that it intertwines the continuous-time, unilateral shift by h and the discrete-time,
unilateral shift. That is, Sk W = WUkh for all k 2 Z+. In this way, a shift by h in LR2;+e (H)
corresponds to a shift in `Z2;+e (L2H (H)) by a single time-step.

Let U and Y be arbitrary Hilbert spaces. In the sequel, bounded operators that map the discrete-
time signal space `Z2+(U) to `Z2+(Y) and commute with the unilateral shift, play a signi cant role.
Related to these operators, is the Hardy space H1 5
D (BU!Y ) of BU!Y -valued functions  : D ! BU!Y
that are bounded and analytic in the open, unit disc D . Given a function  2 H1
D (BU!Y ), boundary
values can be de ned by application of Fatou's Theorem to ()u for u 2 U (cf. [FF90, pg.
234]). The resultant boundary values (ej! ) can be considered an extension of () to T and are
essentially bounded on T. k  k1 denotes the norm on H1 1
D (BU!Y ), which given  2 HD (BU!Y ) is
de ned by
kk1 := sup k()k = ess sup k(ej! )k;
2D !2[0;2)
5 Recall that BU!Y denotes the Banach space of all bounded, linear operators mapping U to Y.
20 Preliminaries

where the second equality follows from the fact that k()k satis es a maximum principle on D
(cf. Sub-Section 2.2.3). An essentially-bounded, BU!Y-valued function @ : T ! BU!Y is said
to be rigid if @ (ej! ) is an isometry almost everywhere on T. A function  : D ! BU!Y is
said to be inner if  2 H1 D (BU!Y ) and the function associated with its boundary values is rigid.
Corresponding to each  2 H1 D (BU!Y ) is a multiplication operator M : HD (U) ! HD (Y), de ned
2 2
by (M ')() :=()'() for all ' 2 H2D (U) and  2 D .

Recall that `Z2+(U) and H2D (U) are isomorphic via the Z-Transform isomorphism and hence, that
a linear operator F : `Z2+(U) ! `Z2+(Y) is equivalent to a linear operator ZFZ 1 : H2D (U) ! H2D (U)
(and vice-versa). Interestingly, if F is bounded and commutes with the unilateral shift, then ZFZ 1
can be expressed as a multiplication operator with symbol in H1 D (BU!Y ), as is summarised in the
following proposition:
Proposition 2.2 [FF90, pg. 235] Given a bounded, linear operator F : `Z2+(U) ! `Z2+(Y) that
commutes with the unilateral shift, there exists a function ^F 2 H1
D (BU!Y ) such that F = Z M^
1 Z
F
and moreover, F is an isometry if and only if ^F is inner. Furthermore, any multiplication operator
M with symbol  2 H1D (BU!Y) is bounded and linear shift-invariant on H2D (U), with kMk =
kk1 .

2.3.2 Systems
A system is de ned to be an operator mapping between signal spaces. In this dissertation attention
is restricted to systems de ned on the continuous-time signal-space L2R+ () (or a subspace of this)
and its extension L2R;+e (), and the discrete-time signal-space `Z2+() (or a subspaces of this) and
its extension `Z2;+e (). As a general rule, continuous-time systems and all associated operators (for
example operators associated with a state-space realisation) are denoted throughout by italic,
upper-case, Roman letters (P; F for example). Discrete-time systems and all associated operators
(for example operators associated with a state-space realisation) are denoted by upper-case, Euler
letters (P; F for example). In what follows, let U and Y be Hilbert spaces and for notational
convenience de ne V :=U  Y.

Two important concepts in systems theory concern the timing of input-output pairs. The rst is
causality, which is a fundamental property of physically realisable systems. An operator is said to
be causal if the output does not depend on future values of the input. More formally, a continuous-
time system P : L2R;+e (U) ! L2R;+e (Y) is said to be causal if given any  2 R+ , P Pu1 = P Pu2 for
all u1 ; u2 2 L2R;+e (U) that satisfy P u1 = P u2 . Further to this, P is said to be strongly causal if it
is causal and given any  2 R+ ,  > 0 and 1   (1 2 R+ ), there exists a  > 0 such that for all
2.3 Signals and Systems Theory 21

u1 ; u2 2 L2R;+e (U) with P1 u1 = P1 u2 ,


kP(1 +) (Pu1 Pu2 )kL2R+(Y)  kP(1 +) (u1 u2 )kL2R+(U) :
Basically, a strongly causal system cannot respond instantaneously to inputs. For many causal
systems encountered in systems theory, the way their behaviour varies with time imparts addi-
tional structure to the analysis at hand. Two types of variation are exploited in this disserta-
tion; time-invariance and periodic time-variation. Speci cally, a causal, continuous-time system
P : L2R;+e (U) ! L2R;+e (Y) is said to be time-invariant if P U = U P for all   0 and P is said to
be periodically time-varying with period h, if P Ukh = UkhP for all k 2 Z+. Note that as de ned,
a time-invariant system is also periodic. As for continuous-time systems, a discrete-time system
P : `Z2;+e(U) ! `Z2;+e(Y) is said to be causal if given any i 2 Z+, Pi Pu1 = PiPu2 for all u1 ; u2 2 `Z2;+e(U)
such that Pi u1 = Pi u2 . Furthermore, a causal, discrete-time system is said to be shift-invariant if
PSi = Si P for all i 2 Z+. That is, its behaviour does not vary with time.
Any system Pe : L2R;+e (U) ! L2R;+e (Y) induces a system
P : DP  L2R+ (U) ! L2R+ (Y)
by specifying DP :=fu 2 L2R+ (U) : Pe u 2 L2R+ (Y)g and Pu :=Pe u for all u 2 DP . When two systems
are related in this way, it is said that Pe induces P and that Pe is the extension of P . Note that
any Pe uniquely induces a P . However, the converse is not true in general [GS93, FS82]. Before
discussing a case for which the converse is true, it is necessary to clarify the notion of causality for
systems not de ned on extended space. A system P : DP  L2R+ (U) ! L2R+ (Y) is said to be causal
if
" #
(I P )L2R+ (U)
GP \  (I P )L2R+ (V)
2
LR+ (Y)
for all  2 R+ . If P is linear, then this corresponds to P GP being the graph of a linear operator.
Clearly, if P is induced by a causal system Pe : L2R;+e (U) ! L2R;+e (Y), then P is causal in the sense just
de ned. Now given a causal system P : L2R+ (U) ! L2R+ (Y) with kP k < 1, there is a one-to-one
correspondence to a system on the extended space [FS82, pg. 179]. To see this, note that for such
a P and given any  2 R+ , the input can be chosen arbitrarily over the interval [0;  ]. Then since
P is causal, the output is uniquely determined over the same interval. In fact, for any causal P
that satis es
P DP = L2[0; ](U) for all nite real  > 0; (2.3)
where L2[0; ](U) :=P L2R+ (U), there is a one-to-one correspondence to a system on the relevant
extended space [GS93]. With this in mind, a system P is called causally extendible if it is causal
22 Preliminaries

and satis es condition (2.3). Note that all of this also holds in discrete-time with obvious notational
modi cations.

Further to the de nition of causality for systems not de ned on extended space, it is also convenient
to clarify the notions of time-invariance and periodic time-variation for these systems. A causal
system P : DP  L2R+ (U) ! L2R+ (Y) is said to be time-invariant (respectively periodically time-
varying) if U GP  GP (respectively Ukh GP  GP ) for all  2 R+ (respectively k 2 Z+). Clearly, if
P is induced by a time-invariant (respectively periodically time-varying) system Pe on the extended
space, then P is time-invariant (respectively periodically time-varying) in the sense just de ned.
It goes without saying, that similar de nitions hold in discrete-time. Now before proceeding to
de ne precisely the systems considered in the sequel, it is necessary to make one more technical
de nition. A causal, system P : L2R;+e (U) ! L2R;+e (Y) is said to be (time) locally Lipschitz-continuous
on L2R;+e (U) if and only if for all  2 R+ ,
kP (Pu1 Pu2 )kL2R+(Y)
sup
u1 ;u2 2L2R;+e (U) kP (u1 u2 )kL2R+(U) < 1:
P u1 6=P u2
A similar de nition (with obvious notational modi cations) holds in discrete-time. Also note that
although the concepts introduced above hold for a wide class of non-linear systems, only linear
systems are considered in this dissertation.
De nition 2.3 Given two Hilbert spaces U and Y, PU!Y is de ned to be the set of causal, linear,
periodically-time-varying (LPTV) (with period h), continuous-time systems

P : DP  L2R+ (U) ! L2R+ (Y);


with closed graphs. Furthermore, PUe !Y  PU!Y is de ned to be the subset of causally extendible
systems with locally-Lipschitz-continuous extension and PUe;!
sc the subset of strongly-causal sys-
Y
tems in PUe !Y . A system P 2 PU!Y is said to be stable if DP = L2R+ (U), which since it is
assumed that P has closed graph implies that kP k < 1 by the Closed Graph Theorem. In view
of the discussion above, any stable system P 2 PU!Y is an element of PUe !Y. 
An important property of LPTV systems is that they are equivalent, via the time-lifting isomor-
phism (W), to linear, shift-invariant (LSI), discrete-time systems, which by virtue of their shift-
invariance are easier to work with analytically [BPFT91, BP92].
Proposition 2.4 Given an LPTV system P 2 PU!Y, the equivalent system P :=WP W 1 is
causal and LSI.
2.3 Signals and Systems Theory 23

Proof : Note that the graph of P is simply the graph of P under the time-lifting isomorphism.
That is, GP = WGP . So since GP corresponds to a linear operator it follows that GP does too.
That P is causal is immediate, because Pk GP = WPkhGP for all k 2 Z+, which since PkhGP
corresponds to the graph of a linear operator (as P is causal), implies that P is causal. Similarly,
since Sk W = WUkh for any k 2 Z+, it follows that
Sk GP = WUkhGP  WGP = GP
and hence, that P is also shift-invariant.
For notational convenience the set of causal, LSI operators is de ned below:
De nition 2.5 Given two Hilbert spaces U and Y, DU!Y is de ned to be the set of causal, LSI,
discrete-time systems
P : DP  `Z2+(U) ! `Z2+(Y):
A system P 2 DU!Y is called stable if DP = `Z2+(U) and kPk < 1. 
By representing each signal in `Z2+() as a column vector with kth entry corresponding to the signal's
value at time k (that is, with respect to the standard basis for `Z2+()), it follows by causality and
shift-invariance, that every system P 2 DU!Y has block, lower-triangular, Toeplitz structure
2 3
66 PP[0] P0 0
 
7:
 7
4 [1] [0]
.. ... ... ...
5
.
This Toeplitz representation can be uniquely identi ed with the sequence fP[i]g1 i=0 and will be used
extensively in the sequel. If P 2 DU!Y is causally extendible to a locally-Lipschitz-continuous
system Pe : `Z2;+e (U) ! `Z2;+e (Y), then each P[i] 2 BU!Y.6 Given such a system P, it is straightforward
to show, using its Toeplitz representation, that P is equivalent via the Z-Transform isomorphism
to a multiplication operator on (a subspace of) H2D (U) with symbol
X1
P^ () := P[i]i;
i=0
analytically de ned on some open subset of D (it is useful to note that P[0] = P^ (0)). If P is also
stable, then it follows by Proposition 2.2, that P^ () 2 H1
D (BU!Y ). Henceforth, the symbol \^" is
used to denote the frequency-domain symbol of the multiplication-operator representation of an
LSI system.
6 If U and Y are nite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, then all systems in DU!Y have locally-Lipschitz-continuous
2;e ().
extension to the extend space `Z+
24 Preliminaries

Remark 2.6 A system P 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) is equivalent to a system P 2 PU!Y (via W) if and


only if P[0] is a causal map from L2H (U) to L2H (Y). A system P 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) not satisfying this
condition is equivalent (via W) to an LPTV, continuous-time system that is not locally causal in
each [kh; (k + 1)h) interval of time (k 2 Z+). |
Remark 2.7 A system P 2 PUe !Y is equivalent (via W) to a system in DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) with locally-
Lipschitz-continuous extension. |

2.3.3 Closed-Loop Systems


In this dissertation, the stability of closed-loop systems is of central concern. To de ne precisely
what is meant by a stable closed-loop, a few preliminary, technical de nitions and results are
required. Let U and Y be Hilbert spaces and consider the system shown in Figure 2.1, where

d1 -+ u1- y1
P
6

y2 C u ?+
2 d2

Figure 2.1 Standard Feedback Con guration

the systems P : L2R;+e (U) ! L2R;+e (Y) and C : L2R;+e (Y) ! L2R;+e (U) are causal and locally-Lipschitz-
continuous. For notational convenience, de ne V :=U  Y. The closed-loop system is denoted by
[P; C ] and the functional equations describing it are
u1 = d1 y2 ;
u2 = d2 y1 ;
y1 = Pu1 ;
y2 = Cu2:
An important concept in the study of closed-loop systems is well-posedness. Well-posedness is
primarily concerned with the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the functional equations
describing the closed-loop, causality of the closed-loop and adequacy of mathematical models to
represent physical systems. For further details and discussion of the physical signi cance of well-
posedness, the reader is referred to the seminal work of Willems [Wil71, Chap. 4].
2.3 Signals and Systems Theory 25

De nition 2.8 Given causal, locally-Lipschitz-continuous systems P and C , the closed-loop [P; C ]
is said to be well-posed [Wil71, pg. 90] if
(i) The system
" # " # " #
I C u d1
: 1 2 L2;e (U)  L2;e (Y) 7!
R+ R+
2 L2R;+e (U)  LR
2;e (Y);
+
P I u2 d2
is bijective and hence, invertible on L2R;+e (U)  L2R;+e (Y). That is, for any inputs d1 2 LR2;+e (U)
and d2 2 L2R;+e (Y) there exists a unique solution to the closed-loop equations.
(ii) The signals u1 , u2 , y1 and y2 depend causally on d1 and d2 . Combined with (i), this
requires that the following system be causal:
" # 1 " # " #
He (P; C ) := I C d
: 1 2 L2R;+e (U)  L2R;+e (Y) 7!
u1 2 L2R;+e (U)  LR
2;e (Y):
+
P I d2 u2
(iii) On nite intervals of time (R+ ), the signals u1 , u2 , y1 and y2 depend Lipschitz-continuously
on d1 and d2 . Combined with (i) and (ii), this requires that He (P; C ) be causal and locally
Lipschitz-continuous.
(iv) The solution to the closed-loop equations is insensitive to very-high-frequency modelling
errors, such as small transmission delays. 
Proposition 2.9 [Wil71, Chap. 4] A sucient condition for the closed-loop [P; C ] to be well-posed
is that either P or C be strongly causal.
Remark 2.10 In a mathematical representation of a physical, closed-loop system, it is natural
to assume that at least one of the mathematical models P and C is strongly causal. To see this,
observe that in closed-loop P and C transmit information to each other and that in a physical
system the transmission of information cannot occur instantaneously, which is in line with the
de nition of strong causality. |
In addition to well-posedness, it is desirable that the system H ("P; C #) : DH (P;C ) ! L2R+ (V) induced
by He (P; C ), satis es DH (P;C ) = L2R+ (V). That is, an input d1 2 L2R+ (V) to the closed-loop
d2
corresponds to closed-loop outputs u1 ; y2 2 LR+ (U) and y1 ; u2 2 L2R+ (Y).
2

De nition 2.11 If for a given pair of causal, locally-Lipschitz-continuous systems P and C , the
closed-loop [P; C ] is well-posed and DH (P;C ) = L2R+ (V), then [P; C ] is said to be stable and P
is said to be stabilised by C (and vice-versa). A stronger condition is that [P; C ] be well-posed,
26 Preliminaries

DH (P;C ) = L2R+ (V) and kH (P; C )k < 1. In this case, [P; C ] is said to be stable with nite gain.
If the two systems P and C are also linear, it can be shown using the Closed Graph Theorem
that stable with nite gain and stable are equivalent [Wil71, pg. 117]. As such, throughout this
dissertation only the term stable is used. 
It is now possible to characterise closed-loop stability for the systems considered in this disserta-
tion. If in Figure 2.1, P is taken to be in PUe !Y and C in PYe;!scU, then by de nition, P and C have
causal extensions Pe and Ce that are locally-Lipschitz-continuous and since Ce is strongly causal,
the closed-loop [P; C ] is well-posed (cf. Proposition 2.9). With the closed-loop being well-posed, it
follows by condition (i) in De nition 2.8, that the system
" #
I C
: DC  DP ! GP + G0C
P I
is injective onto GP + G0C and hence, that GP 0
\ GC = f0g. So on DH (P;C ) :=GP + G0C it has a
well-de ned (set theoretic) inverse
" # 1
I C
H (P; C ) := : DH (P;C )  L2R+ (V) ! DC  DP :
P I
By the de nition of stability, it is then clear that [P; C ] is stable if and only if DH (P;C ) :=GP + G0C =
L2R+ (V) (with GP \ G0C = f0g). Furthermore, since all of the systems involved are linear, this is
equivalent to stable with nite gain. This is summarised in the following proposition, which is
reasonably standard and has also appeared in [OS91, FGS93, GS93], for example.
Proposition 2.12 With P 2 PUe !Y and C 2 PYe;!scU, the closed-loop [P; C ] is stable if and only
0 0
if GP and GC induce a co-ordinatisation of L2R+ (V). That is, if and only if GP \ GC = f0g and
0
GP + GC = L2R+ (V).
Remark 2.13 Necessity of Proposition 2.12 holds for P 2 PUe !Y and C 2 PYe !U, but suciency
may not always hold in this case. To see why, note that" while #the condition fGP ; G0C g is a co-
ordinatisation of L2R+ (V) is necessary and sucient for PI CI : DP  DC ! L2R+ (V) to have
bounded inverse on L2R+ (V), it does not guarantee that the closed-loop is well-posed. However,
with C strongly causal the closed-loop is always well-posed (cf. Proposition 2.9) and for technical
simplicity this was assumed. Although rather mild (cf. Remark 2.10), that C be strongly causal is
not the weakest assumption required for the Proposition to hold.7 In fact, Proposition 2.12 holds
for any well-posed, plant/controller pair: for example, P 2 PUe;!
sc and C 2 P
Y Y!U (cf. Proposition
2.9). |
example another sucient condition for well-posedness is that the product of the instantaneous gains of P
7 For
and C be strictly less than 1 [Wil71].
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 27

Remark 2.14 Given a stable closed-loop [P; C ],


" # 1 " #
I C (I CP ) 1 C (I PC ) 1
H (P; C ) := = ;
P I P (I CP ) 1 (I PC ) 1
" # " # " #
GP kG0C = I 0
H (P; C ) + 0 0 I h i
= (I CP ) 1 C (I PC ) 1
0 I 0 I P
and
" # " # " #h i
I 0 I 0 C
G0C kGP = H (P; C ) + = P (I CP ) 1 (I PC ) 1 :
0 I 0 0 I
Since H (P; C ) is causal and bounded it is causally extendible to a locally-Lipschitz-continuous op-
erator on L2R;+e (V) and it follows that H (P; C ) 2 PVe !V . Similarly, the parallel projection operators
GP kG0C and G0C kGP are also systems in PVe !V. |

2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis


The purpose of this section is to assemble some basic properties of LSI, discrete-time, state-space
systems and to present state-space solutions to two discrete-time, synthesis problems. All of the
results presented are well-known for state-space systems that have nite-dimensional input, output
and state spaces. They are perhaps less well-known however, for the case in which the state-space
is importantly nite-dimensional but the input and output spaces are in nite-dimensional, which
as will be seen in the sequel, arises frequently in the study of LPTV systems. Many of the ideas
discussed here are fundamental to the computational procedures developed later.

Let X be an n-dimensional (n nite ) Hilbert space and U and Y be (possibly in nite-dimensional )


Hilbert spaces. Consider the discrete-time system of di erence equations:
xk+1 = Axk + Buk ; x0 = xo ; (2.4a)
yk = Cxk + Duk ; (2.4b)
where for any xed k 2 Z+ the state xk 2 X, the input uk 2 U, the output yk 2 Y and the initial
state xo 2 X. It is assumed that the bounded, linear operators A : X ! X, B : U ! X, C : X ! Y
and D : U ! Y are all independent of time. With x0 = 0, the system of di erence equations (2.4)
characterises a causal, LSI system Pe : `Z2;+e (U) ! `Z2;+e (Y) de ned by
X
k 1
yk :=(Peu)k :=C Ak n 1Bu
n + Duk : (2.5)
n=0
28 Preliminaries

The system Pe induces (as described in Sub-Section 2.3.2) a system P : DP  `Z2+(U) ! `Z2+(Y)
in DU!Y and the system of di erence equations (2.4), is said to be a state-space realisation of
P. It" is often# convenient to denote a state-space realisation such as that given in equations (2.4),
by A B . Importantly, a state-space realisation of a system P 2 DU!Y (if it admits one) is
C D
not unique. Suppose that P admits " 1the state-space
# realisation (2.4), then given any invertible
basis-transformation T : X ! X, T AT T B is also state-space realisation of P.
1
CT D

2.4.1 Reachability, Observability, Stabilisability and Detectability


In this section, the well understood concepts of reachability, observability, stabilisability and de-
tectability, which are all properties of the state-space realisation chosen to represent a system, are
introduced. For further details the reader is referred to [Bro70, Kai80, Won85, ZDG95].

Given an initial condition xo 2 X and input signal u =: k 7! uk  `Z2;+e (U), the state of the system
of di erence equations (2.4) evolves as:
X
k 1
xk = Ak xo + Ak n 1 Bu
n:
n=0
A terminal state xf 2 X is said to be reachable if there exists a time N < 1 and input signal
u 2 `Z2;+e(U) such that the solution to the state equation (2.4a), satis es xN = xf when xo = 0.
The set of reachable states is a property of the pair (A; B) and can be characterised in terms of the
sequence of subspaces C0 ; C1 ; C2 : : :  X, de ned in terms of A and B as follows:
[p
Cp = RAk B :=R ; (p 2 Z+):
k=0 B AB  ApB
Clearly, C0  C1  C2  : : : and it can be shown that the inclusions are strictly proper up to a
certain index r (dependent on A and B), with equality holding thereafter. Since Cp  X for all
p 2 Z+, it follows that r < n. CA;B :=Cr is called the reachable subspace and corresponds to the
set of reachable states. It follows by de nition, that ACp  Cp+1 and in fact, that CA;B is the
smallest A-invariant subspace containing RB . The pair (A; B) is said to be completely reachable if
CA;B = X.

Given two operators B1 ; B2 : U ! X with RB1 = RB2 , it follows by de nition, that CA;B1 = CA;B2 .
In particular the pairs (A; B) and (A; BB ) have the same reachable subspace. To see this, it is
sucient to show that RB = RBB . To this end, note that for any bounded, linear operator X ,
(RX )? = KX  , but that it is not possible to write RX = (KX  )? unless the range of X is closed.
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 29

Now, since RB  X, which is nite-dimensional, it follows that B has closed range (since any nite-
dimensional subspace is closed [Kre89b]). Hence, RB = (KB )? and RBB = (KBB )?. So to obtain
the desired result, it is sucient to show that KB = KBB . That KB  KBB is obvious. To see
the opposite inclusion take any x 2 KBB , by which hx; BB xiX = 0 and thus, hB x; B xiU . That is,
Bx = 0 and the desired result follows as claimed. The importance of this equivalence can be seen by
noting that BB is a nite-dimensional operator and hence, is more computationally tractable than
B. For example, to test complete reachability of the pair (A; B), standard nite-dimensional tools
can be used to test the equivalent condition of complete reachability of the ( nite-dimensional) pair
(A; BB ). The combination of in nite-dimensional but nite-rank, state-space operators in this way,
arises throughout this dissertation and is fundamental to the development of numerical algorithms
for automated analysis and synthesis of LPTV systems (cf. Chapters 5 and 6 for example).
Another sequence of subspaces of the state-space X, useful in the study of the system of di erence
equations (2.4), is now introduced. Let N0; N1; N2 ; : : :  X be de ned in terms of A and C as
follows:
\p
Np = KCAk ; (p 2 Z+):
k=0
Observe that N0  N1  N2  : : : , and that the inclusions are strictly proper up to a certain
index r < n (dependent on A and C), with equality holding thereafter. NC;A :=Nr is called the
unobservable subspace and it corresponds to the the subspace of initial states xo 2 X that cannot
be uniquely determined by observing fuk gNk=0 and fyk gNk=0 in equations (2.4), for some nite time
N 2 Z+. The pair (C; A) is said to be completely observable if NC?;A = X. Since the kernel of a
bounded, linear operator is always closed [Kre89b], it follows that
\p !? [p
KCAk =

KCAk ? ; (p 2 Z+):
k=0 k=0
Furthermore, since RC and RA are subspaces of the nite-dimensional Hilbert space X, it follows

that R(A )k C is closed for all k 2 Z+ and equal to KCAk ?. As such,
[p 
N? =
p KCAk ? :=R   (p 2 Z+)
k=0 C AC : : : (A )pC
and hence, NC?;A = CA ;C  .
An important and" very #useful result is that complete reachability and observability of a state-
space realisation A B , can be characterised in terms of the eigenvalues (or modes) of A and
C D
the range and kernel of B and C respectively. This is summarised in the following proposition.
30 Preliminaries

Proposition 2.15 (cf. [ZDG95] for example).


I. The following are equivalent :
(i) The pair (A; B) is completely reachable.
(ii) KB \ K(I A) = f0g for all  2 C .
II. The following are equivalent :
(i) The pair (C; A) is completely observable.
(ii) KC \ K(I A) = f0g for all  2 C .
With this result in mind, all  2 C such that KC \ K(I A) 6= f0g are called unobservable modes of
the pair (C; A). Similarly, all  2 C such that KB \ K(I A) 6= f0g are called unreachable modes
of the pair (A; B).
Two concepts closely related to reachability and observability are stabilisability and detectability.
The pair (A; B) is said to be stabilisable if there exist a bounded, linear operator F : X ! U such
that the spectrum of (A + BF) : X ! X lies in the open unit disc D . This is often referred to as
state-feedback stabilisability. Similarly, the pair (C; A) is said to be detectable if there exists a
bounded, linear operator L : Y ! X such that the spectrum of (A + LC) : X ! X lies in D . The
following proposition constitutes a useful characterisation of stabilisability and detectability.
Proposition 2.16 (cf. [ZDG95] for example)
I. The following are equivalent :
(i) The pair (A; B) is stabilisable.
(ii) KB \ K(I A) = f0g for all  2 E :=C D.

II. The following are equivalent :


(i) The pair (C; A) is detectable.
(ii) KC \ K(I A) = f0g for all  2 E .
In view of this result and Proposition 2.15, it can be said that if (A; B) is stabilisable then every
A-invariant subspace of X corresponding to an eigenvalue (mode) of A in E is reachable. Simi-
larly, if (C; A) is detectable then every A-invariant subspace of X corresponding to an eigenvalue
(mode) of A in E is observable. As with reachability and observability, there is also a duality
between stabilisability and detectability. Speci cally, (C; A) is detectable if and only if (A ; C ) is
stabilisable.
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 31

Recall that a state-space realisation of a system is not unique. With this in mind, " two useful
#
canonical forms, due to Kalman, are now presented. Given a state-space realisation A B of a
C D
system P 2 DU!Y , suppose that (A; B) is not completely reachable (that is CA;B is not the whole
of X). Let fen grn=0 be a basis for CA;B and extend this to the whole of X. Since CA;B is A-invariant
and RB  CA;B , the representations of A, B and C in this basis have the following form:
" # " #
A1 A2 ; B1 and h i
C1 C2 ;
0 A3 0
respectively. By the way the representations above are" constructed,
# it is straightforward to see
that the pair (A1 ; B1 ) is completely reachable and that A1 B1
is a state-space realisation of P.
C1 D
Moreover, (A; B) is stabilisable if and only if spec(A3 )  D . Similarly, if the pair (C1 ; A1 ) is not
completely observable then it is possible to construct a state-space, basis transformation T such
that:
" # " # h i
T 1A1 T = A 11 A 12 B
; T 1B1 = 11 ; C1 T = C11 0 ;
0 A13 B12
" #
(C11 ; A11 ) is completely observable; and A11 B11 is a state-space realisation of P. Furthermore,
C11 D " #
it follows that (A1 ; C1 ) is detectable if and only if spec(A13 )  D . The realisation A11 B11 ,
C11 D
which is completely reachable and completely observable, is called a minimal realisation.

2.4.2 Stability
Consider the homogeneous component of the system of di erence equations (2.4): xk+1 = Axk with
x0 = xo 2 X. Then the state evolves as xk = Ak xo , which corresponds to a sequence in `Z2+(X) if
and only if spec(A)  D . If this"is the case,
# then the homogeneous system is said to be stable. Now
given a state-space realisation A B of a system P 2 DU!Y , it can be shown [Vid78] (using
C D
the input-output description given in equation (2.5)) that if spec(A)  D , then P is input-output
stable in the sense that DP = `Z2+(U) and kPk < 1. For the converse to hold however, additional
assumptions are required on the state-space realisation considered. If the state-space realisation of
P is completely reachable, then every A-invariant subspace (which covers the whole of X) can be
reached by an appropriate nite-energy input sequence. That is, every mode of A can be excited.
If each of these subspaces is observable (that is if (C; A) is completely observable), then for P
to be input-output stable it is necessary that all modes of A be stable (that is, spec(A)  D ).
In other words if (A; B) is completely reachable and (C; A) is completely observable then input-
output stability implies spec(A)  D . In fact, in view of the Kalman canonical forms introduced
32 Preliminaries

in the previous subsection, the complete reachability and observability conditions can be relaxed
to stabilisability and detectability, since under these relaxed conditions, A can be decomposed into
a completely controllable and observable part and a part with spectrum contained in D (that is, a
stable part).

An important tool in state-space system-theory is the Lyapunov equation. For discrete-time,


state-space systems this is also known as the Stein equation and it takes the following form:
X AXA = Q:
It can be shown that the solution X : X ! X to this equation is unique provided i j 6= 1 for every
i ; j 2 spec(A) (cf. [ZDG95] for example). The following result is well-known:
Proposition 2.17 ([ZDG95]) Let X be the unique solution to the Stein equation X AXA = C C.
Then spec(A)  D if and only if X  0 and (C; A) is detectable.
Proof : (() Suppose A has an eigenvalue  2 E and let x 2 X denote a corresponding eigenvector.
Then
hx; XxiX hx; A XAxiX = (1 jj2 )hx; XxiX = hCx; CxiY ;
which since  2 E and X is positive-semide nite, implies that Cx = 0. That is,  2 E must be an
unobservable mode of (C; A), which contradicts detectability of (C; A). Hence, spec(A)  D .

()) If spec(A)  D then a solution to the Stein equation is given by


X
1
X= (CAk ) CAk  0:
k=0
Furthermore, K(I A) = f0g for all  2 E and hence, (C; A) does not have any unobservable modes
in E .

It follows by duality that if X is the solution to X AXA = BB , then spec(A)  D if and only
if X  0 and (A; B) is stabilisable.

2.4.3 Quadratic-Regulator and Full-Information `Z2+()-Induced-Norm Synthesis


In this section the quadratic-regulator and `Z2 +()-induced-norm, synthesis problems are considered.
The results presented here are fundamental to a computational procedure developed in Chapter 5.
Attention is restricted to control strategies having direct access to both the state and disturbance
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 33

signals. That is, full-information control.8 The system to be controlled is assumed to admit a
state-space realisation with nite-dimensional state-space. Speci cally,

xk+1 = Axk + B1wk + B2uk ; x0 = x0; (2.6a)


zk = Cxk + D1 wk + D2 uk ; (2.6b)

where for each xed k 2 Z+, the state xk 2 X (a nite-dimensional Hilbert space), the exogenous
disturbance wk 2 W, the control input uk 2 U and the controlled output zk 2 Z (with U; W; Z
possibly in nite-dimensional, Hilbert spaces). The bounded, linear operators A, B1 , B2 , C, D1 and
D2 are all assumed to be time independent.

In what follows, for k 2 Z+, x := k 7! xk , u := k 7! uk , w :=k 7! wk and z := k 7! zk . Now,


given an initial state x0 2 X and an identically-zero, exogenous disturbance signal w (that is,
wk = 0 for all k 2 Z+), the objective of quadratic-regulator synthesis is to de ne a causal, LSI,
stabilising control-law u = Kx, to minimise kzk`Z2 (Z) .9 On the other hand, given a zero initial state
+
and some real number > 0, the objective of full-information,
" # `Z2+()-induced-norm synthesis is to
de ne a causal, LSI, stabilising control-law u = K x , such that with the control-law in place the
w
`Z+()-induced norm of the system mapping w to z is bounded by . Clearly (A; B2 ) stabilisable
2
is a necessary condition for existence of the speci c controllers de ned for both problems and as
such, it will be assumed throughout this sub-section.

Before going on to solve the synthesis problems speci ed above, some preliminary results con-
cerning the discrete-time, algebraic, Riccati equation are required. The theory of discrete-time,
algebraic, Riccati equations in optimal control originates in [DL70] and [Kuc72], with subsequent
developments by many authors: notably, [PLS80, DGG86, BGPK85, IG91, GL95, IOW97]. The
reader is referred to the books [LR95, BLW91] as general and quite comprehensive references.

Consider the following algebraic equation in X:

X = A XA + Q (S + BXA)(R + BXB) 1(S + BXA); (2.7)

where A 2 BX!X, Q = Q 2 BX!X, S 2 BX!U, B 2 BU!X and R = R 2 BU!U. This is known


as the (discrete-time) algebraic, Riccati equation. By de nition, a solution X must be a bounded,
self-adjoint operator such that R + B XB is boundedly invertible.
8 For the quadratic-regulator problem there is no disturbance and hence, the controller only has access to the state.
9 Here and below, stabilising means that with the control-law in place, x 2 ` 2+(X) and thus, that lim xk = 0.
Z k!1
34 Preliminaries

Proposition 2.18 Let R be boundedly invertible and de ne


A1 :=A BR 1S; and Q1 :=Q SR 1 S:
Then the following algebraic (Riccati) equations in X : X ! X have the same solutions:
X = A XA + Q (S + BXA)(R + BXB) 1(S + BXA);
X = A1 XA1 + Q1 A1XB(R + BXB) 1BXA1;
X = A1 X(I + BR 1 BX) 1A1 + Q1:
Note that with X nite-dimensional, the operators appearing in the last equation above can be
grouped together so as to involve only nite-dimensional terms. That is, by de ning the nite-
dimensional operator R1 :=BR 1 B , the last equation can be expressed as the nite-dimensional,
algebraic, Riccati equation
X = A1X(I + R1 1 X) 1A1 + Q1 ;
which given a method for computing R1 : X ! X, Q1 : X ! X and A1 : X ! X, can be solved using
standard nite-dimensional tools.
In the following proposition, what is called a stabilising solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation
(2.7) is characterised. As part of this, it is necessary to assume that R > 0. Under this assumption
it is said that the algebraic, Riccati equation is sign de nite (in fact, in this case positive de nite).
Remark 2.19 Note that with R > 0 there exists by de nition an > 0 such that
2 hu; uiU2  hu; RuiU2  hu; uiUhRu; RuiU for all u 2 U;
where the second inequality is called the Schwartz inequality. Hence, kRukU  2 kukU and since
R is self-adjoint, it follows by [Kre89b, Theorem 9.1-2] that 0 62 spec(R). Consequently, R 1 is
bounded and de ned on a set dense in U. In fact R 1 is de ned on the whole of U. Similarly, if R
were negative de nite, R 1 would be bounded and de ned on the whole of U. It should be noted
that this is a non-trivial fact when U is in nite-dimensional. |
Proposition 2.20 Suppose that R > 0 and
" #
Q S  0:
S R
Then, there exist a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite solution X to the (discrete-time) algebraic,
Riccati equation (2.7), such that with F :=(R + B XB) 1 (S + B XA), spec(A BF)  D if and only
if (A; B) is stabilisable and (Q1 ; A1 ) has no unobservable modes on T.
Proof : For a proof see Appendix A.1.
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 35

This result is fundamental to the solution of both the quadratic-regulator and full-information,
`Z2+()-induced-norm, synthesis problems discussed below.

State-Feedback Quadratic-Regulator Synthesis


Consider the component of the state-space system (2.6), mapping u to z according to
xk+1 = Axk + B2uk ; x0 = x0 ;
zk = Cxk + D2 uk ;
under the standing assumption D2 D2 > 0. Given an initial state x0 2 X, recall that the objective
of quadratic-regulator synthesis is to nd a causal, LSI, stabilising control-law u = Kx, to minimise
kzk` 2+(Z) . Since the control-law is restricted to be causal and dependent only on the state, it follows
Z
that for each k 2 Z+, k(I Pk 1 )zk`Z 2 (Z) is dependent only on xk when an admissible control-
+
law is in place. With this in mind, the self-adjoint, positive-semide nite operator X2 : X ! X is
de ned to satisfy hxk ; X2 xk iX = k(I Pk 1 )z? k`Z 2 (Z) , where z? denotes the output with the optimal
+
control-law in place. In this way kz? k`Z 2 (Z) = hx0 ; X2 x0 iX .
+

In dynamic programming terms, at each time k 2 Z+, uk is a decision variable and


hzk ; zk iZ + hxk+1 ; X2 xk+1 iX

is the cost at stage k. By the principle of dynamic programming, which states that a sequence
fuk g1
k=0 of decisions is optimal for a problem de ned over the horizon [0; 1) if and only if for all
N 2 Z+ the control sequence fuk g1 k=N is optimal for the problem considered over the sub-horizon
[N ; 1) [Bel62], it follows that
hxk ; X2 xk iX = umin fhz ; z i + hxk+1 ; X2 xk+1 iX g: (2.8)
2U k k Z
k
This is known as Isaac's equation and is a special form of the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation.
Now note that for all k 2 Z+,
hzk ; zk iZ + hxk+1 ; X2 xk+1 iX
*" #" #" #" #" #+
=
xk ; A C X2 0 A B2 xk
uk B2 D2 0 I C D2 uk XU
*" # "  #"   C F R2 F2 0
#" #" #+
=
x k ; I F 2 A X2 A + C 2 I 0 xk
uk 0 I 0 R2 F2 I uk XU
*" #"  #" #+
x k A X 2 A + C C F2 R2 F2 0 x k
= ;
uk + F2 xk 0 R2 uk + F2 xk XU
= hxk ; (A X2 A + C C F2 R2 F2 )xk iX + huk + F2 xk ; R2 (uk + F2 xk )iU ; (2.9)
36 Preliminaries

where
F2 := R2 1 (D2 C + B2X2A) : X ! U;
R2 := (D2 D2 + B2X2B2) : U ! U:
Then since R2 > 0, it can be seen that the minimum over uk 2 U of equation (2.9) is achieved
uniquely by uk = F2 xk . Furthermore, it follows from equation (2.8), that X2 must satisfy
X2 = AX2A + CC F2 R2 F2: (2.10)
So if uk = F2 xk is stabilising, the synthesis problem is solved.

Since (I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 ) is self-adjoint and idempotent it is a projection and hence, (I


D2 (D2 D2) 1 D2 )  0 (cf. [Kre89b]). It then follows that
" #
CC CD2  0:
D2C D2 D2
Thus, by Proposition 2.20, (A; B2 ) stabilisable and (C (I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 )C; A B2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 C)
having no unobservable modes on T, is necessary and sucient for the existence of a self-adjoint,
positive-semide nite solution X2 to equation (2.10) such that spec(A BF2 )  D . That is, under
these assumptions the control-law uk = F2 xk is stabilising. This is summarised in the following
theorem.
Proposition 2.21 Assume that D2D2 > 0, (A; B2 ) is stabilisable and
K2 3 = f0g (2.11)
6 A e I B2
j
7
4 5
C D2
for all  2 [0; 2). Then the unique, optimal, causal, LSI, stabilising control-law for the quadratic-
regulator synthesis problem is uk = F2 xk , where
F2 := R2 1 (D2 C + B2X2A) : X ! X;
R2 := (D2 D2 + B2X2B2) : U ! U
and the self-adjoint, positive-semide nite operator X2 : X ! X satis es the (discrete-time) algebraic,
Riccati equation (2.10).
Proof : The proof follows from the discussion above by noting that the following are equivalent:
(i) (C (I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 )C; A B2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 C) has no unobservable on T;
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 37

(ii)
K2 3 = f0g
6
4
A ej I B2 7
5
C D2
for all  2 [0; 2).
" #
To see this suppose that (i) holds and that there exist a non-zero x 2 X  U such that
u
" #" #
A ej B2 x
= 0;
C D2 u
for some  2 [0; 2). It then follows that u = (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 Cx and hence, that Ax + B2 u =
(A B2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 C)x = ej x and C (I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 )Cx = 0. This contradicts (i) and
hence, (ii) must hold.

To see the converse, suppose that (ii) holds and that there exists a non-zero x 2 X and a  2 [0; 2)
such that (A B2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 C)x = ej x and C (I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 )Cx = 0. Now note that
(I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 ) is self-adjoint and idempotent. Hence,
C(I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1D2 )(I D2 (D2 D2) 1 D2 )Cx = 0;
which implies that (I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 )Cx = 0. It follows then, that
" #" #" #
A ej I B2 I 0 x
= 0;
C D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 C I 0
which contradicts (ii) and hence, (i) must hold. This completes the proof

Full-Information `Z2+()-Induced-Norm Synthesis


Consider the system of di erence equations (2.6) re-written as
" # 2 32 xk 3
xk+1 = 4 A B1 B2 566 77; x = x ;
w
zk C D1 D2 4 k 5 0 0
uk
under the standing assumption D2 D2 > 0. Now recall that given a real number > 0, the objective
" #
of full-information `Z+()-synthesis is to obtain a causal, LSI, stabilising control-law u = K x ,
2
w
such that with it in place and with xo = 0, the `Z2 +()-induced norm of the operator mapping w to
38 Preliminaries

z is bounded by . Note that when x0 = 0, the `Z2+()-induced norm of the mapping from w to z
is strictly less than if and only if
kzk2` 2 (Z) 2 kwk2` 2 (Z)  kwk2` 2 (W)
Z + Z + Z+
for some  > 0 and all w 2 `Z2+(W). As such, the following theorem characterises a solution to the
full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem.
" #
I 0
Proposition 2.22 Let J := 0 2I and assume that D2 D2 > 0, (A; B2 ) is stabilisable and for
all  2 [0; 2)
K2 3 = f0g:
6 A e I B2 7
j
4 5
C D2
" #
Then there exists a causal, LSI, stabilising control-law of the form u = K x , such that given a
w
real number > 0,
kzk2` 2 (Z) 2 kwk2` 2 (Z)  kwk2` 2 (Z) (2.12)
Z+ Z+ Z+
for all w 2 `Z2+(W) and some  > 0 when x0 = 0, if and only if the (discrete-time) algebraic, Riccati
equation
X1 = AX1A + C~ JC~ LZ 1L; (2.13)
has self-adjoint, positive-semide nite solution X1 : X ! X such that spec(A BZ 1L)  D and
r :=Z1 Z2 Z3 1 Z2 < 0;

where
" #
Z Z1 Z2 : W  U ! W  U;
:= D~  JD~ + B X1B =: (2.14)
Z Z
" 2# 3
L := D~  JC~ + BX1A =: L1 : X ! W  U; (2.15)
L2
" # " # h i
D~ := D1 D2 ; C~ := C and B := B1 B2 :
I 0 0
In this case a causal, LSI, stabilising, full-information control-law achieving the objective is given
by
h i" xk #
u?k = Z3 1 L2 Z2 :
w k
2.4 LSI State-Space Systems and Discrete-Time Synthesis 39

Proof : The proof of this result follows very closely that of Green and Limebeer [GL95, Ap-
pendix B.], with essentially only notational modi cations to accommodate the possibility of in nite-
dimensional input/output spaces. For completeness it is presented in Appendix A.2.
To complete this section it is shown that for a solution to the full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis
problem to exist it is necessary that D~  JD~ : W  U ! W  U be a boundedly invertible operator.
In this way, it is possible to apply Proposition 2.18, by which the algebraic, Riccati equation (2.13)
can be re-written in terms of nite-dimensional operators (in that they map the nite-dimensional
space X to X) only. That is, equation (2.13) can be re-written as the standard, nite-dimensional,
algebraic, Riccati equation
X1 = A  X1(I + R X1) 1 A + Q;

where A :=(A B(D~  JD~ ) 1 D~  JC~ ) : X ! X,
R :=B(D~ JD~ ) 1 B : X ! X
and
Q :=C~ (I D~ (D~  JD~ ) 1D~  )C~ : X ! X:
Lemma" 2.23

# If D2 D2 > 0 and there exists a causal, LSI, stabilising control-law of the form
u = K wx , such that given a > 0
kzk2` 2 (Z) 2 kwk2` 2+(Z)  kwk2` 2+(Z)
Z + Z Z

for all w 2 `Z2+(W) and some  > 0 when x0 = 0, then the operator D~  JD~ : W  U ! W  U is
boundedly invertible.
Proof : Note that

" 
#
D~  JD~ = D1 D1 I D1 D2 :
2
D2 D1 D2 D2
Since D2 D2 > 0, it follows as discussed in Remark 2.19, that D2 D2 is boundedly invertible and as
such, it is possible to write
"  
#" #" #
D~  JD~ = I D1 D2(D2 D2 ) I
1  0 0
   ; (2.16)
0 I 0 D2 D2 (D2 D2 ) D2 D1 I
1

where  = D1 (I D2 (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 )D1 2 I. Now suppose that a stabilising, full-information
control-law that satis es (2.12) is in place and set
(
0; i 6= N
wk =
w~; i = N
40 Preliminaries

for some N 2 Z+ and w~ 2 W. Then since the control-law is causal and x0 = 0, xk = 0 for k  N ,
zk = 0 for k < N and
X
1
hw~; w~ iW  hzN ; zN iZ 2 h wN ; wN i W + hzk ; zk iZ
k=N+1
 hzN ; zN iZ
2 hwN ; wN 3iW
2
2 3
*h x
i66 " # 77 h
N i66 " xN # 77+
= C~ D~ 4 wN 5; C~ D~ 4 wN 5
uN uN ZW
*" # " #+
=
wN ; D~  JD~ wN (since xN = 0)
uN uN WU


= hw~ ; w~ iW + (u + (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 D1 w~ ); D2 D2 (u + (D2 D2 ) 1 D2 D1 w~ ) U
 hw~ ; w~ iW (since D2 D2 > 0:)
Since w~ 2 W is arbitrary, it then follows that  < 0 and hence, as discussed in Remark 2.19, that
 is boundedly invertible. As such, it is possible to conclude from equation (2.16), that D~  JD~ is
boundedly invertible.

2.5 SD Control-Systems and State-Space Time-Lifting


The purpose of this section is to illustrate the idea of time-lifting in the context of state-space
systems and to collect some results concerning stability and induced-norm analysis of SD control-
systems expressed in linear-fractional form. For further details the reader is referred to [FG88,
CF90, CF91, BP92].
z(t)  w (t )
y (t ) G u(t)


- AD - K - DA
yk uk

Figure 2.2 SD Control System


The lower, linear-fractional con guration
" shown# in Figure 2.2, is a convenient setup for the syn-
thesis of (SD) control-systems. G =: G 11 G12
is called the generalised plant and it is typically
G21 G22
2.5 SD Control-Systems and State-Space Time-Lifting 41

constructed from a system that is to be controlled and parametric weights to re ect closed-loop
objectives. For example, consider Figure 2.1 with the controller C removed. Then the system
2" #3 2" #3
66 d1 77 66 u1 77;
4 d2 5 7! 4 y1 5
y2 u2
is an example of a generalised plant that allows the standard closed-loop con guration to be ex-
pressed in lower, linear-fractional form. The closed-loop operator mapping w to z in Figure 2.2, is
often denoted by the lower, linear-fractional transformation (LFT) F` (G; K ), de ned by
F`(G; K ) :=G11 + G12K (I G22K ) 1 G21;
where K :=DA KAD . Typically, in an LFT framework, the objective of synthesis is to obtain a
stabilising controller K such that some quanti able criteria expressible in terms of F` (G; K ) is
satis ed (for example, kF` (G; K )k < for some > 0). Important issues concerning synthesis in
this framework are presented in the rest of this section, where they are discussed in the context of
SD control-systems (with an induced-norm synthesis criteria) and in terms of systems that admit
state-space realisations.
" #
Let G =: G11 G12 in Figure 2.2 be an LTI, continuous-time generalised-plant expressible in
G21 G22
terms of the state-space system of di erential equations
x_ (t) = Ax(t) + B1 w(t) + B2 u(t); x(0) = 0; (2.17a)
z(t) = C1 x(t) + D11 w(t) + D12 u(t); (2.17b)
y(t) = C2 x(t); (2.17c)
where x(t) 2 Rn is the state vector, w(t) 2 Rm1 is the disturbance input, u(t) 2 Rm2 is the
control input, z (t) 2 Rp1 is the controlled output, y(t) 2 Rp2 is the measured output and A, B ,
C and D are all constant matrices, where \" denotes either 1 or 2 here. Since this state-space
realisation of the generalised plant is (implicitly) used for synthesis in the sequel, the standard (cf.
[ZDG95]) assumption that the pair (A; B2 ) is stabilisable and (C2 ; A) is detectable in the sense that
KB2 \ K(I A) = f0g and KC2 \ K(I A) = f0g for all  2 f( + j!) 2 C :  2 R+ ; ! 2 Rg, is
made. Let the controller K be a LSI, discrete-time system with state-space realisation, AD denote
an ideal, periodic (with period h) sampling-device and DA a zeroth-order hold-device, which is
assumed to be synchronised with AD . It is well-known [CF91], that the zero-order hold device
DA is bounded on `Z2+() with unit norm, but that the ideal sampling device AD is not bounded
on the whole of L2R+ (). However, given any stable, low-pass, LTI lter F say, it can be shown
42 Preliminaries

that AD F is bounded on L2R+ () [CF91]. As such, a sampling device is invariably preceded by a
stable, strictly-causal, LTI lter, which is used to ensure boundedness of AD and to limit frequency-
domain aliasing of measured information. This is not shown in Figure 2.2, because it is assumed
that such a lter has already been absorbed into the generalised plant, which explains why no
direct feedthrough terms from the disturbance and control inputs to the measured output appear
in the state-space realisation of the generalised plant given in equations (2.17).

Analysis and synthesis of SD control-systems (cf. Figure 2.2) is complicated by the fact that
the measured-output and control-input signals as \seen" by K evolve in discrete-time, whereas the
disturbance and controlled outputs, by which performance is often determined, evolve in continuous-
time. Compounding this, since it is assumed that the sampling and hold devices are synchronised
and periodic, the closed-loop system mapping the disturbance input w to the controlled output
z is LPTV. These diculties can be alleviated however, by characterising the evolution of the
generalised-plant in terms of a system of LSI, di erence equations, so that tools similar to those
presented in Section 2.4 for LSI, state-space systems can be used. It is important that loss of
continuous-time information does not occur in this process. As such, to capture all disturbance-
input information and controlled-output information in discrete-time, it is necessary to use signals
that take in nite-dimensional values at each point in time. To this end, the time-lifting isomorphism
de ned in Sub-Section 2.3.1 as

(f () :=(Wf ) :=f (kh + ) ( 2 H );


k k

is used to map the continuous-time signals to discrete-time signals. Using the time-lifting isomor-
phism also overcomes the diculty imposed by periodic time-variation, since it intertwines the
continuous-time and discrete-time unilateral shift as follows: WUkh = Sk W for all k 2 Z+ (cf.
Proposition 2.4). Now, absorbing the sampling and hold devices into G and expressing the evo-
lution of this system in terms of the state at the sampling instants kh (k 2 Z+), yields the LSI
system of di erence equations

xk+1 = Axk + B1 w(k + B2uk ; x0 = 0; (2.18a)


(z k = C1 xk + D11 w(k + D12 uk ; (2.18b)
yk = C2 xk ; (2.18c)
2.5 SD Control-Systems and State-Space Time-Lifting 43

where xk = x(kh), (z k () = (Wz )k () = z (kh + ), w (k () = (Ww)k () = w(kh + ), yk =
(AD y)k = y(kh) and for all w( 2 L2H (Rm1 ), x 2 Rn and u 2 Rm2 ,
A :Rn ! Rn ; Ax :=ehAx; (2.19)
Zh
B2 : Rm2 ! Rn ; B2u := e(h  )A d B2 u; (2.20)
Zh
0
B1 :L2H (Rm1 ) ! Rn ; B1 w( := e(h (( ) d;
 )A B1 w (2.21)
0
C1 :Rn ! L2H (Rp1 ); (C1 x)() :=C1 eA x; (2.22)
C2 :Rn ! Rp2 ; C2 x :=C2x; (2.23)
Z
D11 :L2 (Rm1 ) ! L2 (R p1 );
H H (D11 w()() :=D11 w(() + C1e( (( ) d
 )A B1 w (2.24)
0
and
Z
D12 :Rm2 ! L2H (Rp1 ); (D12 u)() :=D12 u + C1 e(  )A dB
2 u: (2.25)
0
This constitutes a state-space realisation of the LSI, discrete-time system
" #
G := WG11 W WG12DA :
1
ADG21 W 1 ADG22DA
Importantly, a sucient condition for the 22-block of this state-space realisation to be stabil-
isable and detectable can be characterised in terms of the original continuous-time, state-space
realisation of G. First though, the following technical de nition is required: it is said that the
sampling is not pathological if no two eigenvalues of A, which lie on a line parallel to the imag-
inary axis in the complex plane, are separated by an integer multiple of the sampling frequency
2 . That is, if the sampling is not pathological, then no two continuous-time modes are aliased
h
to the same discrete-time mode by sampling. It can be shown that if the sampling is not patho-
logical, then (A; B2 ) stabilisable implies (A; B2 ) stabilisable and (C2 ; A) detectable implies (C2 ; A)
detectable [CF95]. As such, it is assumed henceforth that the sampling is not pathological and since
(A; B2 ; C2 ) stabilisable and detectable is a standing assumption, it then follows that the 22-block
of the state-space realisation of G given in equations (2.18) is both stabilisable and detectable.

Under the standing assumptions just mentioned, given a stabilisable and detectable state-space
realisation
" #
AK BK ;
CK DK
44 Preliminaries

of the LSI, discrete-time controller K, the closed-loop system F` (G; K) is said to be internally stable
if and only if the homogeneous component (w ( set to zero) of the closed-loop, state-space realisation
is stable. That is, if and only if
0 " # " #" # 1" #1
spec @Acl :=
A 0 B 0
+ 2
I 0 0 CK A  D:
0 AK 0 BK DK I C2 0
(Note that for spec(Acl ) to lie inside the open unit disc it is necessary for both (A; B2 ; C2 ) and
(AK ; BK ; CK ) to be stabilisable and detectable.) The notion of internal stability just de ned, cor-
responds to stability of the lower (closed) loop of the linear-fractional con guration in the sense
discussed in Sub-Section 2.3.3 for standard closed-loop con gurations, and closed-loop, asymptotic
stability to zero of the states of G and K starting from any initial states (and initial time) when
w(  0. The latter condition (involving closed-loop, asymptotic stability to zero of the plant and
controller states) is often used to de ne internal stability for LFT con gurations of general state-
space systems, as is the case for the continuous-time plant with sampled-data controller here. Now
since xk is always equal to x(kh) and since for any time t = kh +  ( 2 H ), the state of the
original, continuous-time generalised-plant when operating in closed-loop (with w set to zero) can
be expressed as
 Z  Z
x(kh + ) = eA + e(  )A B2 d DK C2 xk + e(  )A B2 d C
K sk ;
0 0
where sk denotes the state of the controller, it follows that under the standing assumptions men-
tioned above, the LSI, discrete-time, closed-loop system F` (G; K) is internally stable if and only if
the LPTV, continuous-time, closed-loop system F` (G; DA KAD ) is internally stable. Furthermore,
if the LFT con guration is internally stable then the system mapping w to z is bounded and more-
over, since F` (G; DA KAD ) = W 1 F` (G; K)W and W is an isomorphism, kF` (G; DA KAD )k =
kF` (G; K)k (cf. also [CF95, BP92]). As such, synthesis of K to achieve internal stability of
F`(G; DA KAD) and a speci ed bound on the closed-loop induced-norm kF`(G; DAKAD)k, is equiv-
alent to synthesis of a K to achieve internal stability of F` (G; K) and the same bound on kF` (G; K)k.

Synthesis of a controller K to achieve a speci ed bound on kF` (G; K)k is complicated by the
fact that the input and output spaces of the closed-loop are in nite-dimensional. Fortunately,
there exist methods for transforming the problem into an equivalent nite-dimensional one [BP92,
Toi92, Toi93, CF95]. This is possible because the state-space operators B1 : L2H (Rm1 ) ! Rn ,
C1 : Rn ! L2H (Rp1 ) and D12 : Rm2 ! L2H (Rp1 ) all have nite-rank and therefore, nite-dimensional
matrix representations. However, D11 : L2H (Rm1 ) ! L2H (Rp1 ) does not have nite-rank and as such,
an additional transformation is required to handle this. The required transformation is an operator
version of the loop-shifting principle (cf. [SLC90]) as summarised in the following lemma:
2.5 SD Control-Systems and State-Space Time-Lifting 45

Proposition 2.24 [BP92] Consider the LSI, discrete-time generalised-plant G~ with state-space
realisation
2 ~ ~ ~ 3
66 ~A B1 ~B2 77;
4 C1 0 D12 5 (2.26)
C2 0 0
where
A~ := A + 2B1D11 S 1C1 : Rn ! Rn ; (2.27)
B~ 1 := 1B1R 2 : L2H (Rm1 ) ! Rn ;
1
(2.28)
B~ 2 := 2B1D11 S 1D12 + B2 : Rm2 ! Rn ; (2.29)
C~ 1 := S 2 C1 : Rn ! L2H (Rp1 );
1
(2.30)
D~ 12 := S 2 D12 : Rm2 ! L2H (Rp1 );
1
(2.31)
R :=(I 2 D11 D11 ) and S :=(I 2 D11 D11 ). Provided kD11 k < and given an LSI, discrete-
time controller K, the following are equivalent:
(i) F` (G; K) is internally stable and kF` (G; K)k <
(ii) F` (G~ ; K) is internally stable and kF` (G~ ; K)k < .
Note that in analogy with the standard nite-dimensional H1 problem, the assumption > kD11 k
is required. This ensures that R and S are well de ned and as noted in [Toi93], is equivalent to the
condition that for xed k 2 Z+, given any bounded xk 2 Rn and uk 2 Rm2 ,
z k ; (z k iL2H(Rp1 ) 2 hw(k ; w(k iL2H(Rm1 )
h(

has bounded supremum over w (k 2 L2 (Rm1 ). To ensure that this assumption is not violated, a
H
procedure for determining a bound on kD11 k is needed. Since D11 : L2H (Rm1 ) ! L2H (Rp1 ) is not
a compact operator, this is not simply a matter of bounding the maximum eigenvalue of D11 D11
(cf. Sub-Section 2.2.2 or [Kre89b]). However, using the principle of loop-shifting again, a compact
operator D 11 : L2H (Rm1 ) ! L2H (Rp1 ) can be constructed such that kD11 k < , kD 11 k < . Given
a (v 2 L2H (Rm1 ), the action of (g = D 11 (v can be expressed in terms of the system of di erential
equations
d (a = A (a () + B (v (); (a (0) = 0; (2.32a)
d
(g () = C (a (); (2.32b)
 D11 ), S :=(I 2 D11 D ),
where R :=(I 2 D11 11
A := A + 2 B1 R 1D11  C1 : Rn ! Rn ;
B := 1 B1 R 12 : L2H (Rp1 ) ! Rn
46 Preliminaries

and
C := S 12 C1 : Rn ! L2H (Rp1 ):
Note that provided fD11 g < , R 21 and S 12 are well de ned. Now since D 11 is compact,10 it
follows that kD11 k < if and only if fD 11 g < (cf. Sub-Section 2.2.2). This is why the compact
operator D 11 is de ned the in way it is, since it is possible to characterise in a computationally-
tractable manner the non-zero singular values of a compact operator described by a system of
di erential equations such as that given in equation (2.32) (cf. Chapters 5 and 6 for details of such
characterisations). Let
" #
A 2 C1D11 R 1 B1 C1 S 1 C1
E :=  C1 ; (2.33)
2B1 R 1 B1 A + 2B1 R 1 D11
and
" #
Q (t) Q12(t)
Q(t) =: 11 :=etE : (2.34)
Q21 (t) Q22(t)
Lemma 2.25 Given a real number > fD11 g, then is a singular value of D 11 if and only if
det(Q11 (h)) = 0, where det() denotes the determinant of a matrix (cf. [GVL89]).
Proof : The proof is essentially the same as that of Theorem 13.5.1 in [CF95]. See also Sub-Section
5.4.3 for a similar result.
Remark 2.26 Clearly, with kD11 k < the matrix Q11 (h) is invertible. |
Although it has been suppressed for notational convenience, det(Q11 (h)) is a function of . De ne
the function d( ) :=det(Q11 ) : C ! R. Then in view of Lemma 2.25 and since D 11 D 11 is a self-
adjoint, compact operator, the zeros of d( ) constitute a discrete, real set with zero being the only
possible accumulation point (cf. Sub-Section 2.2.2). Furthermore, with 7!  :=1= , d() is an
analytic function in the whole of the complex plane and the zeros of d() form a discrete, real
set with no nite accumulation points. So with wnor (d) de ned to be the number of clock-wise
encirclements of the origin made by d() as  traverses the standard Nyquist contour of radius r,11
the following corollary is a simple consequence of Lemma 2.25 and the Principle of the Argument
[MH87].12
Corollary 2.27 Given > kD11 k,
kD11 k <  11 k < , wno 1 (d) = 0:
, kD

 11 is compact because it corresponds to an integral operator with no direct feed-through term [Kre89a].
10 D
11 A semi-circle (centred at the origin) into the right-half plane of radius r.
12 Prof. Bassam Bamieh must be acknowledged for rst suggesting the use of winding numbers in this context.
2.5 SD Control-Systems and State-Space Time-Lifting 47

Having established a method for determining a bound on kD11 k, it is now appropriate to state the
important result of [BP92], which implicitly characterises a nite-dimensional (in terms of input,
output and state spaces) equivalent of G~ .
Proposition 2.28 [BP92] Given the LSI, discrete-time generalised-plant G~ with state-space reali-
sation (2.26), obtain the symmetric matrix-factorisations
" #
B~ 1B~ 1 = TB~1 B~ 1 0 TB~ 1;
0 0
" # " #
C~ 1 h i  C~ ~
D 0
C~ 1 D~ 12 = TC~ 1;D~ 12 ;
1 12 T~ ~
D~ 12 0 0 C1;D12
and de ne the (completely) nite-dimensional, LSI, discrete-time generalised-plant G to have state-
space realisation
2 ~  ~ 3
66 A B1 B2 77
4 C1 0 D12 5 (2.35)
C2 0 0
where
2 1 3
B 1 :=TB~14 B~ 1 5
2
(2.36)
0
and
h i h 1 i
C 1 D 12 := C2~ 1;D~ 12 0 TC~1;D~ 12 : (2.37)
Provided > kD11 k and given a LSI, discrete-time controller K, the following are equivalent:
(i) F` (G~ ; K) is internally stable and kF` (G~ ; K)k <
(ii) F` (G ; K) is internally stable and kF` (G ; K)k < .
Remark 2.29 Recall that under the standing assumptions that the sampling is not pathological
and that (A; B2 ; C2 ) is stabilisable and detectable,
F`(G; K) is internally stable and kF`(G; K)k <
m
F`(G; DAKAD) is internally stable and kF`(G; DAKAD )k < :
So in view of Propositions 2.28 and 2.24, synthesis of an internally-stabilising, LSI, discrete-time
controller K to achieve a speci ed bound on kF` (G; DA KAD )k is equivalent to the synthesis of K
48 Preliminaries

to achieve internal stability for F` (G ; K) and the same bound on kF` (G ; K)k. Although singular in
the sense that D 21 = 0, the latter induced-norm synthesis problem can be solved using the LMI
framework of [GA94] or often, by using a bilinear transformation to a continuous-time problem
[KHI90]. As such, G is referred to as the SD-equivalent generalised-plant. Computation of the
state-space matrices for G is discussed in detail in Chapter 6, including related numerical issues.
|
3
Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

3.1 Introduction
In this chapter a new frequency-domain, analysis tool is developed for studying the performance
of LPTV systems. The motivation for this stems from the wide-spread use of frequency-domain,
analysis tools in the important \design step" of control-system development. Development of
control systems usually involves two major steps: rst, a design step, in which a generalised plant
is constructed from the system to be controlled and parametric weights that re ect closed-loop
objectives; second, a synthesis step, in which a stabilising controller is synthesised by solving an
optimisation problem involving the generalised plant obtained in the design step. These two main
steps are often iterated in conjunction with an intermediate analysis step, in which tools such as
those developed in Chapter 4 for example, are used. The H1 -loopshaping procedure of McFarlane
and Glover [MG90] for linear, time-invariant (LTI) systems, is an intuitive and reasonably well-
understood example of such a control-system development procedure. It is based on classical
loopshaping ideas in the design step, by which the singular values of the frequency-response matrix
of the plant are shaped open-loop to re ect closed-loop objectives. A four-block generalised plant
is then constructed from the shaped plant and an H1 -optimisation is solved in the synthesis step.
The ultimate goal of this chapter is to develop a similar design procedure for SD, control-system
development. This rst requires a suitable de nition of frequency response for LPTV systems.

To date, most of the work on frequency-domain, analysis methods for LPTV systems has been
presented in the context of SD systems [AI93, AHI93, YA94, GS94, YK96]. The standard de nition
of frequency response for LPTV systems is often expressed in terms of the induced-norm of a
frequency-response operator, which characterises the asymptotic response of an LPTV system to
an in nite series of sinusoidal signals of frequencies separated by integer multiples of the frequency
49
50 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

of periodicity. Such a de nition is useful for frequency-domain robustness-analysis of SD, closed-


loop systems [Dul94]. However, from the perspective of designing for nominal performance, it is
perhaps more meaningful and certainly more intuitive to characterise the asymptotic response of a
system to sinusoidal inputs of a single frequency. For example, in disturbance rejection problems
it is useful to know if the \gain" of the system is small for signals with power concentrated in a
speci c band of frequencies.

The robustness properties of a closed-loop system developed using any given procedure are to a
large extent (but not completely) governed by the structure of the generalised plant de ned in the
design step and the type of optimisation problem solved in the synthesis step (cf. Chapter 4 for a
suitable framework in which quantitative robustness result can be obtained). Bearing this in mind,
a control-system development procedure in which design for performance is based on the response of
performance-indicating, closed-loop operators to sinusoids of a single frequency, is sensible provided
a suitable (from the perspective of robustness) generalised-plant structure and optimisation formu-
lation are employed. Motivated by this, in the following section the average-power gain matrix is
de ned for LPTV systems. The singular values of this nite-dimensional matrix characterise the
average-power gain (in input-directions corresponding to the singular vectors) of the asymptotic
response of a system to sinusoidal inputs of a single frequency. In fact, when the system is LTI,
the non-zero singular values of the average-power gain matrix correspond to the non-zero singular
values of the standard, continuous-time, frequency-response matrix. This new frequency-domain,
analysis tools is used to derive frequency-by-frequency bounds on performance-indicating, closed-
loop operators, which facilitate the design of weights used to construct a generalised plant in an
H1 -loopshaping based design procedure proposed for SD, control-system development. State-space
formulae for computing the average-power gain matrix are presented for the sampled-data case in
Appendix B.2.

3.2 The Average-Power Gain Matrix


In this section, a new notion of frequency response is developed for LPTV systems. It is based on
the average power of the asymptotic response to sinusoidal inputs of a single frequency and hence,
di ers from the standard de nition of frequency response for LPTV systems [YA94, YK96].

3.2.1 Frequency Response


For notational convenience, let U :=Rm and Y :=Rp . Now consider a stable system P 2 PU!Y (cf.
De nition 2.3) with period h and recall that P is equivalent via the time-lifting isomorphism W
3.2 The Average-Power Gain Matrix 51

to a stable, LSI system


P :=WP W 12D 2
LH(U)!L2H(Y) :

Since P is a stable system, it has a locally Lipschitz-continuous extension and hence, its block-
Toeplitz representation
2 3
66 PP[0] P0 
0

7
 7
4 [1] [0]
.. ... ... ...
5
.
can be uniquely identi ed with the sequence fP[i]g1
i=0  BL2H(U)!L2H(Y) . Furthermore, by Proposition
2.2, P is equivalent via the Z-Transform isomorphism to a multiplication operator with symbol
X1
P^ () := P[i]i 2 H1
D (BL2 (U)!L2 (Y) )
H H
i=0
and kP k = kPk = kP^ k1 . In the sequel, P^ () is referred to as the transfer operator of P. For technical
convenience it is assumed throughout this chapter only, that the sequence uniquely associated with
the Toeplitz representation of the time-lifted equivalent of any stable system considered, for example
P 2 PU!Y here, satis es 1
P kP k < 1. In this way, the corresponding transfer operator P^ ()
i=0 [i]
will have continuous extension to T. That is, P^ (ej!h ) is de ned for all ! 2 [0; 2h ).

Central to the standard (cf. [YA94, YK96]) de nition of frequency response for LPTV systems is
the following lemma, which characterises the asymptotic response of P to a power signal.
Lemma 3.1 [Yam94] Consider an input to P of the form
u(kh + ) = k (ud (); (ud 2 L2H (U); jj  1;
for k 2 Z+ and  2 H . Let y(t) = (Pu)(t). Then y(t) asymptotically approaches
yas(t) = yas(kh + ) = k (P^ ( 1 ) (ud )()
as t ! 1.
Taking  = ej!h (! 2 [0; 2h )), the signal
u := Wu := k 7! ej!hk (ud (k 2 Z+)
is simply a discrete-time sinusoid with direction (
ud in the in nite-dimensional, Hilbert space L2H (U).
It follows by Lemma 3.1, that the response of P to such a signal asymptotically approaches a
52 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

discrete-time sinusoid of the same frequency, but new direction given by P^ (e j!h ) (
ud. This is by no
(
means surprising, since P is a stable, LSI system. Note however, that unless ud takes a particular
form, the signal uk = ej!hk ( ud does not correspond (via W) to a sinusoidal signal of a single
frequency in continuous-time. In fact, since for any xed !0 2 [0; 2h ) the sequence of functions
n o
h 12 ej ( 2n
h !0 ) u 2
bi n2Z; i=1;:::;m  LH (U);

where fubi gi=1;::: ;m is any complete, orthonormal basis for the m-dimensional, Hilbert space U,
constitutes a complete orthonormal basis for L2H (U) [Dul94, YA94],1 it is readily veri able that in
general, the signal u :=k 7! ej!hk (ud (k 2 Z+) corresponds to an in nite series of continuous-time
sinusoids with frequencies separated by integer multiples of the frequency of periodicity ( 2h ). 2

The standard de nition of frequency response for LPTV systems is the L2H -induced norm of P^ (ej!h )
(! 2 [0; 2h )). This characterises the maximal gain over all directions in L2H (U) and as such cor-
responds to characterising the maximal, asymptotic gain of the system to an in nite series of
continuous-time sinusoids, each separated by integer multiples of the frequency of periodicity. Al-
though this de nition is useful for studying the robustness of closed-loop stability and performance
to LTI uncertainty for example [Dul94], all input-directional information is lost in the de nition
and its usefulness from the perspective of performance is not immediately clear. With this in mind,
a new de nition of frequency response is developed in what follows, in terms of the average power
of the asymptotic response to sinusoidal inputs of single frequencies.

Observe that a continuous-time, sinusoidal signal

u(t) = ej!t ud (ud 2 U :=Rm )


of frequency ! 2 R, corresponds (via W) to a discrete-time sinusoid

uk = ej!0hk (ud ;
where
(ud () = ej! ud 2 L2H (U);
1 To see this simply take the Fourier series expansion of the periodic extension of any function in L2 (U).
H
2 Correspondingly, by Lemma 3.1, the asymptotic response to such a signal is in general an in nite-series of
sinusoids with frequencies separated by integer multiples of the frequency of periodicity. By this, it can be said that
such signals are asymptotically invariant for LPTV systems in the same way that sinusoids of a single frequency are
asymptotically invariant for LTI systems.
3.2 The Average-Power Gain Matrix 53

!0 = ! ] h! 2
2 [ ( h ) and ]  [ denotes the integer part of a real number. As such, it follows by Lemma
3.1, that the asymptotic response of an LPTV system to a continuous-time, sinusoidal input of
frequency ! is given by
yas! (t) = yas! (kh + ) = (ej!0 h)k (P^ (e j!0 h ) (
ud )(): (3.1)
Again, note that this corresponds to a discrete-time sinusoid with direction P^ (e j!0 h ) (
ud 2 L2H (U),
but that in general, yas! (t) is not simply a continuous-time sinusoid of a single frequency. Despite
this, it is possible to characterise the average power of the asymptotic response as follows:
Lemma 3.2 Let yas! (t) be as de ned in (3.1). Then,
s ZT
! kpow
kyas := Tlim 1 hy ! (t); yas
! (t)i dt
!1 T 0 as Y
= p1 kP^ (e j!0 h ) (
ud kL2H(Y) :
h
Proof : Let (y :=P^ (e j!0 h ) (
ud 2 L2 (Y).
H Then,
1 ZT
! k2
kyas := Tlim ! (t); y! (t)i dt
hyas
pow !1 T as Y
0

= Nlim 1 X Z (k+1)h hy! (t); y! (t)i dt


N 1
!1 Nh k=0 kh as as Y

= Nlim 1 NX1 h (y ; (y i
!1 Nh k=0 L2H(Y)

= 1 k (y k2 :
h L2H(Y)

This completes the proof.

For each ud 2 U, let the BU!L2H(Y) -valued function P (j!) : j R ! BU!L2H(Y) be de ned by
(y := P (j!)ud :=P^ (e j!0 h )
(j!)u 2 L2 (Y);
d H (3.2)
where
(j!) : j R ! BU!L2H(U) is the BU!L2H(U) -valued function de ned by
(ud :=
(j!)ud :=ej! ud 2 L2H (U) (3.3)
and !0 :=!
 h!  2 . Then by Lemma 3.2,
2 h
! kpow
kyas =p 1 q h P (j! )ud ; P (j! )ud iY = p
1 q
h( P (j! )) P (j! )ud ; ud iU : (3.4)
h h
54 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

For xed ! 2 R, ( P (j!)) P (j!) is a square, symmetric, positive-semide nite matrix and hence,
its square root exists. With this in mind, de ne

P (j!) := p1 f( P (j!)) P (j!)g 12 ; (3.5)


h
noting from equation (3.4), that the average power of the asymptotic response can be characterised
in terms of the singular values of this matrix function of frequency. Accordingly the following
de nition is made:

De nition 3.3 The frequency-dependent m  m matrix


P (j!) := p1 f( P (j!)) P (j!)g 12 ;
h
where P (j!) is de ned in equation (3.2), is de ned to be the the average-power gain matrix of
the LPTV system P . 

Remark 3.4 Note that any LTI system F is LPTV and as such, if F is also stable, that F (j!)
is well de ned. In fact, by the way the average-power gain matrix has been de ned, it follows
that F (j!) = (F^ (j!) F^ (j!)) 12 , where F^ (j!) denotes the standard, continuous-time, frequency-
response matrix. That is, the non-zero singular values of F^ (j!) correspond to the non-zero singular
values of F (j!). In forming F (j!) the phase information of F^ (j!) is lost but the gain infor-
mation is retained. |

3.2.2 Properties of the Average-Power Gain Matrix


In this sub-section a few technical results are presented, which characterise some important prop-
erties of the average-power gain matix used in the sequel.

Lemma 3.5 Given a stable, LTI system F 2 PU!Y with frequency-domain transfer-matrix F^ (j!),
for any !0 2 [0; 2h )

k^F(e j!0 h )k =  max


!0 fF^ g;

where ^F is the transfer operator of the time-lifted, equivalent system F = WF W 1 ,


!0 fF^ g := max fF^ (j! )g;
max (3.6)
n2Z n

and !n :=(!0 + n 2h ).


3.2 The Average-Power Gain Matrix 55

Proof : Consider any (ud L2H (U) and note that by taking a Fourier series expansion of the
2
periodic extension ud (t) = ud (kh + ) := (
ud (), for any !0 2 [0; 2) the function (ud () can be
expressed as (cf. [YA94, Lemma 3.3])
(ud () = X ej!n n;
n2Z
where !n = !0 + n 2h and
1 Zh
n = h e j!n (ud () d 2 U:
0
Furthermore,
X
k(
ud k2L2 (U) =h h n ; n iU : (3.7)
H
n2Z
Now given an LTI system F , denote by ^F the transfer operator of F :=WF W 1 . Then since ^F is
linear, it is possible to write
X
(^F(e j!0 h ) (
ud)() = (^F(e j!0h)ej!n  n)() (3.8)
n2Z
Also note that the asymptotic response of F to a sinusoidal input u(t) = ej!n t n is given by
yas!n (t) = ej!n t F^ (j!n) n ;
which via W corresponds to the discrete-time sinusoidal signal
(y !n () :=yas!n (kh + ) = (ej!^ h)k ej!n F^ (j!n) n : (3.9)
as;k
By Lemma 3.1,
(y !n () :=yas!n (kh + ) = (ej!^ h)k (^F(e j !^ h)ej!n 
n )();
as;k
which combined with equation (3.9) implies
(^F(e j!0 h)ej!n  n )() = ej!n  F^ (j!n ) n :
So from equation (3.8), it follows that
X
(^F(e j!0 h ) (
ud )() = ej!n  F^ (j!n ) n
n2Z
and consequently, that
XD^ E
kF^(e j!0 h ) (
udk2L2H(Y) = h F (j!n) n ; F^ (j!n ) n Y
n2Z
X
 h max
n2Z
fF^ (j!n )g2 h n ; n iU
n2Z
= max
n2Z
fF^ (j!n)g2 k (ud k2L2H(U) ;
56 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

where the last equality follows from equation (3.7). That is,
k^F(e j!0 h ) (
ud kL2 (Y)
 max  fF^ (j!n )g: (3.10)
k(
H
ud kL2 (U)
H
n2Z

In fact by taking (ud () = p1h ej!nmax  ud max, where nmax :=arg max
n2Z
fF^ (j!n)g and ud max is the
singular-vector corresponding to fF^ (j!nmax )g, equality holds in equation (3.10) and therefore,
k^F(e j !^ h ) (
ud kL2 (Y)
k^F(e j !^ h )k :=
(u dsup ( H
k u k LH(U)
(u2dL6=H0(U)
2 d 2

= max
n2Z
fF^ (j!n)g;

as claimed.

Lemma 3.6 Given a stable, LTI system F PU!X and a stable, LPTV system P 2 PX!Y,
2
where X is some nite-dimensional, Hilbert space, the system X :=PF 2 PU!Y is stable and

fX (j!)g  fP (j!)g fF^ (j!)g;

where  (j!) is the average-power gain matrix de ned in De nition 3.3 and F^ is the standard,
frequency-domain transfer-matrix of F .

Proof : Since F is LTI, its asymptotic response to an input u(t) = ej!t ud is given by yas! (t) =
ej!tF^ (j!)ud . It then follows by the de nition of  (!), that the average power of the asymptotic
response of X :=PF to the sinusoidal input u(t) is given by
!k
kyas pow = kX (j! )ud kU
= kP (j! )F^ (j! )ud kX
 fP (j!)g fF^ (j!)gkud kU ;

Then since ud is an arbitrary vector in U,

fX (j!)g = sup kXk(uj!k)ud kU  fP (j!)g fF^ (j!)g;


ud 2U d U
ud 6=0

as required.
3.2 The Average-Power Gain Matrix 57

Lemma 3.7 Given a stable, LPTV system P PU!X and a stable, LTI system F 2 PX!Y,
2
where X is some nite-dimensional Hilbert space, X :=FP is a stable system in PU!Y and
!0 fF^ g f (j!)g:
fX (j!)g  max P

where (j!) is the average-power gain matrix de ned in De nition 3.3, F^ is the standard, frequency-
!0 fg is de ned in equation (3.6) and !0 :=!  h!  2 .
domain transfer-matrix of F , max 2 h

Proof : By Lemma 3.1, the asymptotic response of P to a sinusoidal input u(t) = ej!tud (ud 2 U)
is given by

x!as (t) = x!as(kh + ) = (ej!0 h)k (xd (); (3.11)

where (
  2 and P^ is the transfer operator of the time-
xd () = (P^ (e j!0 h)ej! ud )(), !0 = ! h!
2 h
lifted, equivalent system P :=WP W . Moreover, by Lemma 3.2 and the de nition of P (j!),
1

kx!as kpow = p1 k (
xd kL2H(X) = kP (j!)ud kU : (3.12)
h
Note from equation (3.11), that x!as (t) is of the form considered in Lemma 3.1. Then since the
asymptotic response of X to u(t) is the same as the asymptotic response of F to x!as (t), it follows
by Lemma 3.2 and the de nition of X (j!), that
!k
kyas pow = kX ud kU = p1 k^F(e j!0 h) (
xd kL2H(Y) ; (3.13)
h
where ^F is the transfer operator of the time-lifted, equivalent system F :=WF W 1 . Then, from
equations (3.12) and (3.13),
!k
kyas pow = kX ud kU
1
 p k^F(ej!0 h )k  k (
xd kL2 (X)
h H

 k^F(ej!0 h )k  fP (j! )gkud kU :

Since ud is an arbitrary vector in U, it follows that

fX (j!)g = sup kkuX ukd kU  k^F(ej!0 h )k  fP (j! )g


ud 2U d U
ud 6=0
!0 fF^ g fP (j!)g
= max
!0 fF^ g is de ned in equation (3.6). This completes the proof.
where max
58 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

3.3 A Framework for SD Closed-Loop Design


As mentioned previously, an intuitive procedure for the development of LTI, closed-loop systems
is that of McFarlane and Glover [MG90]. It is based on classical loopshaping in the design step
and an H1 optimisation in the synthesis step. By virtue of the structure of the generalised plant
constructed and the optimisation problem solved, robustness to coprime-factor (gap) uncertainty
and the deviation from desired performance can be readily quanti ed for closed-loop systems de-
signed using this framework. A brief introduction to the H1 -loopshaping procedure of McFarlane
and Glover is given in Sub-Section 3.3.1. The main purpose of this section is to propose a H1 -
loopshaping based design procedure for SD control-system development. Details of the proposed
procedure are presented in Sub-Section 3.3.2, in which the new notion of frequency response intro-
duced for LPTV systems in Section 3.2, plays an important role.

3.3.1 H1-Loopshaping for LTI Systems


The design step of McFarlane and Glover's H1 -loopshaping, design procedure is based on the
notions of classical loopshaping. The basic idea in classical loopshaping is to trade o desired closed-
loop performance and robustness objectives by shaping open-loop gains in the frequency-domain
[DFT92, ZDG95]. Consider for example, the typical closed-loop con guration shown below, where
P and C are causal, LTI systems. Simple algebraic manipulation leads to the following functional
di d
r -+ -C u-+ ?up- -++ ? - y
P
6 +

?+
6+n
Figure 3.1 Typical Closed-Loop Con guration

characterisation of the closed-loop:


y = To (r n) + So Pdi + So d; (3.14a)
r y = So(r d) + To n So Pdi ; (3.14b)
u = CSo(r n) CSo d Ti di ; (3.14c)
up = CSo(r n) CSo d + Sidi; (3.14d)
where Lo :=PC , Li :=CP , S = (I + L ) 1 and T = I S . Recall that the symbol \^" denotes
transfer operator (matrix) of a system. Now from equation (3.14a), it can be seen that disturbance
3.3 A Framework for SD Closed-Loop Design 59

rejection at the plant output y can be achieved by making  fS^o (j!)g = fI +L^1o (j!)g small in fre-
quency ranges where d has signi cant power and fS^o P^ (j!)g = fP^ S^i (j!)g small in frequency
ranges where di has signi cant power. Similarly, from equation (3.14d), it is clear that disturbance
rejection at the plant input up can be achieved by making fS^i (j!)g = fI +L^1i (j!)g small in fre-
quency ranges where di has signi cant power and fS^i C^ (j!)g = fC^ S^o (j!)g small in frequency
ranges where d has signi cant power. Now since
fL^ o (j!)g 1  fI + L^ o(j!)g  1 +  fL^ o (j!)g
and
fL^ i (j!)g 1   fI + L^ i (j!)g  1 + fL^ i (j!)g;
it follows that if fL^ o (j!)g > 1 and fL^ i (j!)g > 1,
1   fS^o (j! )g 
1
1 + fL^ o (j!)g fL^ o (j!)g 1
and
1   fS^i (j! )g 
1 :
1 + fL^ i (j!)g fL^ i (j!)g 1
Thus, disturbance rejection of d at y and di at up can be achieved by selecting a stabilising C
to shape the minimal, open-loop gains fL^ o (j!)g and  fL^ i (j!)g to be large in the frequency
ranges where the disturbances d and di have signi cant power respectively. This should also be
done in frequency regions (typically low-frequency) where good tracking performance is desired (cf.
equation (3.14b)).

Similarly, it is desirable to design the stabilising C to achieve small maximal, open-loop gains
fL^ o (j!)g and fL^ i (j!)g in frequency ranges where the sensor noise3 n is signi cant and where
high-levels of control activity are not acceptable (cf. equations (3.14)). A typical loop-shape is
shown in Figure 3.2. In the H1 -loopshaping procedure of McFarlane and Glover the plant P is
shaped open-loop and a stabilising controller synthesised to solve an H1 optimisation problem.
Brie y, the procedure can be summarised as follows:
(i) Using the notions of classical loopshaping, shape the plant's frequency-response matrix P^ (j!)
open-loop with stable, pre- and post-compensators W^ 1 (j!) and W^ 2 (j!) according to the
closed-loop objectives. There should be no unstable pole/zero cancellations between P and
the weights. For notational convenience the shaped plant is denoted by Ps :=W2 PW1 .
3 This can also be used to characterise unmodelled, high-frequency dynamics.
60 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

fL^  g

!l !h log !
fL^  g

Figure 3.2 Typical Loop-Shape

(ii) Synthesise a stabilising controller C1 to achieve some speci ed bound on the induced-norm
of the operator mapping the disturbances w1 and w2 to z1 and z2 of the closed-loop [Ps ; C1 ]
shown in Figure 3.3;
" # " # " ^ #
w1 7! z1 = C1 (I P^sC^1) 1h P^s I i =: bP 1;C :
w2 z2 I 1 s 1
If bPs ;C1 is suciently large (that is, > 0:25 but preferably 0:35) then continue to implement
the controller. If bPs ;C1 is too small then redesign the weights.

(iii) The nal controller C is then constructed by absorbing the weights W1 and W2 into the
controller: C :=W1 C1W2 .

w1-+ - Ps -+ +w2
6
+

z1 C1  -z2

Figure 3.3 Standard Loopshaping Design Con guration

An advantage of using the McFarlane-Glover, loopshaping, design procedure over classical loop-
shaping, is that the designer does not have to explicitly consider closed-loop stability. Of course,
ignoring completely the fundamental objective of closed-loop stability (by not shaping the phase
characteristic appropriately at cross-over for example) however, can lead to poor robustness as
would be indicated by a small bPs ;C1 .
3.3 A Framework for SD Closed-Loop Design 61

Note that bPs1;C1 is a bound on all six common, performance-indicating, closed-loop operators, al-
though tighter bounds are possible since the the closed-loop operators are not independent [Vin93b].
Furthermore, bPs ;C1 can be used to indicate the level of degradation of the desired loop-shape Ps
and bounds on performance-indicating, closed-loop operators can be expressed in terms of Ps , W1 ,
W2 and bPs ;C1 only [MG90]. For example, the input and output sensitivity of the closed-loop
[P; C ] = [P; W1 C1 W2 ] are bounded by
n o
 f(I + P^ C^ (j! )) 1 g  min bP s ;C1
^ (j!)gfW^ 2 (j!)g; 1 + bP ;C  fN^r;s(j!)gfW^ 2 (j!)g (3.15a)
 fMl;s s 1

and
n o
 f(I + C^ P^ (j! )) 1 g  min 1 + bP s ;C1
^ (j!)gfW^ 1(j!)g; bP ;C fM^ r;s (j!)gfW^ 1(j!)g ; (3.15b)
 fNl;s s 1

where Ps = Nr;s Mr;s1 = Ml;s1 Nl;s are normalised, right- and left-coprime factorisations4 respectively
and fg denotes the condition number of a matrix. Since frequency-by-frequency
!1=2 2 ^
!1=2
fM^ l;s g = fM^ r;s g = 1 and fN^l;s g =  fN^l;sg =  f2Ps g^ ;
1 + 2 fP^s g 1 +  fPs g
bounds such as those given in equations (3.15) give the designer a feel for how the weights selected
in the design step a ect the nal closed-loop.

The H1 -loopshaping procedure of McFarlane-Glover is also appealing from the perspective of


robust stability. By virtue of the generalised plant's structure and the optimisation problem solved
in the synthesis step, it is possible to quantify the level of robustness of the resultant closed-loop
system to coprime-factor uncertainty [MG90], which is equivalent to gap-metric uncertainty, as
shown in [GS90]. The tightest bounds on degradation in performance and the strongest possible
robustness results for the H1 -loopshaping framework are given in [Vin93b] in terms of the  -gap
metric, which induces the same topology on the class of LTI systems as the gap metric. For
further information on H1 -loopshaping for LTI systems and its application in practice, the reader
is referred to [Vin98, Pap98, MG90, Hyd95].

3.3.2 H1-Loopshaping Based Design for SD Control-System Development


In this sub-section, a new procedure is proposed for the development of SD control-systems. The
proposed procedure is related to the H1 -loopshaping procedure of McFarlane and Glover [MG90]
4 For LTI systems, a right-coprime factorisation Nr;s M 1 is said to be normalised if the frequency-domain symbol
" # r;s
G^ r;s = MN^^r;s
r;s
is inner (that is, if G^ r;s ( s)T G^ r;s (s) = I ) and a left-coprime factorisation Ml;s1 Nl;s is said to be
normalised if frequency-domain symbol G^ l;s = M^ l;s N^l;s is co-inner (that is, if G^ l;s (s)G^ l;s ( s)T = I ), where
h i

the superscript T denotes matrix transpose (without conjugation) (cf. [ZDG95] for example).
62 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

described above, with the main di erence being a slight modi cation of the structure of the gen-
eralised plant constructed in the design step. Recall that in the nal step of the McFarlane-Glover
procedure, the weights used to shape the plant open-loop are absorbed into the synthesised con-
troller. This is not possible if the controller is constrained to be SD, because the weights cannot be
absorbed directly across the sampling and hold devices. The alternative of leaving the weights on
the plant side of the sampling and hold devices defeats the purpose of using SD control, although
using W2 to shape a simple, stable, low-pass, LTI lter used to ensure boundedness of AD for syn-
thesis, is sensible (which is the strategy adopted in the formulation presented here). Importantly
though, with C1o :=W1 C1 and Pso :=W2 P ,
" "
C # h i 1 0 #" C1o # h
"
i W1
#
0
1 (I 1 W1
Ps C1 ) I Ps = (I Pso C1o ) 1 Pso I :
I 0 I I 0 I
Using this identity it follows that if W1 is stably invertible, then synthesising a stabilising C1 to
bound the rst expression and absorbing W1 at the output and W2 at the input of this controller,
is equivalent to synthesising a stabilising C1o to bound the second expression and absorbing the
weight W2 at the input of the resultant controller. In the context of SD control, the latter can be
viewed schematically as shown in Figure 3.4, where AD is an ideal, periodic (period h) sampling-
device, DA is a zeroth-order hold-device synchronised with AD and Fb is a simple, stable, low-pass,
LTI lter used to ensure bounded operation of the sampling device and to limit frequency-domain
aliasing. The new design procedure for SD, control-system development is summarised below:
w1- -+ + - Pso = W2P -+ + w2
W1
6

z W1 1  DA  C1  AD  Fb  -
z2
1
C1o = C1sd
Figure 3.4 SD Closed-Loop Design Con guration

(i) Given an LTI plant P 2 PUe !Y , select the LTI weights W1 and W2 shown in Figure 3.4 to
re ect closed-loop objectives, subject to the constraints that both W1 and W1 1 are stable
and that there should be no unstable pole/zero cancellations between W2 and P . Closed-loop
performance bounds similar to those given in equation (3.15) for the LTI case, are obtained
in Theorem 3.8 to facilitate the design of W1 and W2 .
(ii) Synthesise a stabilising, LSI, discrete-time controller C1 to achieve some speci ed bound on
the induced-norm of the closed-loop operator mapping the disturbances w1 and w2 to z1 and
3.3 A Framework for SD Closed-Loop Design 63

z2 of the closed-loop con guration shown in Figure 3.4;


" # " # " 1 sd #
w1 7! z1 = W1 C1 (I PsoC1sd) 1 h PsoW1 I i =: b 1 1 sd ; (3.16)
w2 z2 I Ps;W1 C1
sd :=DA C1 AD Fb .
where Pso :=W2 P , Ps = Pso W1 and C1

(iii) Shape the simple, stable, low-pass, LTI lter Fb with the weight W2 to form the nal controller
C :=C1sdW2 . Since by design there are no hidden unstable modes in W2 P , moving W2 around
the loop in this manner does not a ect closed-loop stability.

The synthesis step can be carried out as described in Section 2.5, by noting that the closed-loop
operator mapping w1 and w2 to z1 and z2 in Figure 3.4 can be expressed in the linear-fractional
form
" # " #
w1 z1
F`(G; DAC1AD ) = 7! ;
w2 z2
where
2 3
6 0 0 W1 1 77 :
G := 64 Pso W1 I Pso 5
Fb PsoW1 Fb Fb Pso
Explicit formulae for H1 , SD synthesis and related numerical issues are discussed in Chapter 6.

As in the LTI case, it is possible to quantify the robustness of SD control-systems designed using
the proposed procedure. More speci cally, in [CG96] it is shown that if  bPs ;W1 1 C1sd , all LTI
plants in the weighted coprime-factor ball
n h i o
NNLCF (Ps; ) := P = (Ml;sW2 + Ml W2 ) 1(Nl;sW1 1 + Nl W1 1) : ^ Ml ^ Nl 1 < ;
where Ps = Ml;s1 Nl;s is a normalised, left-coprime factorisation, are stabilised by the controller
C :=C1sdW2 . Furthermore, using results developed in Chapter 4, it can be shown (cf. Corollary
4.28) that all LPTV plants in the weighted gap-ball

Nge;W1;W2 (Ps; ) :=fP 2 PUe !Y : g (Ps ; W2PW


 1) < g

sdW2 if and only if  b


are stabilised by C :=C1 sd .
Ps ;W1 1 C1
64 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

Since (cf. [DGS93] and Lemma 4.21)


" "
W 1 C sd # h i Pso W1
#
h i

1 (I Pso C1 ) 1 Pso W1 I =
sd
(I sd sd I
C1 Pso ) 1 W1 1 C1 ; (3.17)
I I

it is possible to bound the behaviour of all six common performance-indicating, closed-loop oper-
ators. Moreover, as for the LTI case (cf. equations (3.15)), it is possible to express bounds on the
the average-power gain of a subset of these operators to sinusoidal inputs of a single frequency in
terms of Ps :=W2 PW1 , W1 , W2 and bPs ;W1 1 C1sd only. These bounds aid in the design of W1 and
W2 in the rst step of the proposed procedure and are summarised in the following theorem.5
Theorem 3.8 Let
W2 So := W2 (I PC ) 1;
Si := (I CP ) 1
and
SiC := (I CP ) 1 C;
where C :=C1 sd W2 = DA C1 AD Fb W2 . Recall that these operators characterise the (weighted) track-
ing error, the plant-input disturbance to plant-output error and the sensor noise to plant-input er-
ror (cf. equations (3.14)). Then, the maximal, average-power gain of these performance-indicating,
closed-loop operators in response to sinusoidal inputs of a single frequency can be bounded as follows:
fW2 So (j!)g  bPs1;W fM^ sl (j!)g fW^ 2 (j!)g;
1 C sd
1
(3.18a)
1
!0 ^ ^
fSi (j!)g  bPs1;W1 1C1sd maxf^W1 Mr;sg (3.18b)
fW1 (j!)g
(3.18c)
and
fSiC (j!)g  bPs1;W1 1C1sd max ^ 1 M^ r;s gfW^ 2 (j!)g;
!0 fW (3.18d)
where  denotes the average-power gain matrix of a system (cf. De nition 3.3), max
!0 fg is de ned
in (3.6), Ps :=W2 PW1 = Nr;s(Mr;s ) 1 = (Ml;s ) 1 Nl;s are normalised, right- and left-coprime
factorisations and !0 :=! h!
  2 .
2 h
5 The
operators for which bounds are given have been chosen according to their signi cance from a performance
perspective. Such frequency-by-frequency bounds for closed-loop operators that re ect robustness are meaningless
when the closed-loop is LPTV. To study robustness properties of LPTV systems in the frequency-domain, it is
necessary to consider the asymptotic response of the system to in nite series of sinusoids with frequencies separated
by integer multiples of the sampling frequency [Dul94]. Recall that such signals are asymptotically invariant for
LPTV systems in the same way that sinusoids of single frequencies are asymptotically invariant for LTI systems.
3.3 A Framework for SD Closed-Loop Design 65

Before proving this, the following technical result is required:


Lemma 3.9 Let W, U and Y be nite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Given a stable, LPTV system
X 2 PW!Y and a stable LTI system G equivalent, via the Laplace-Transform isomorphism, to a
multiplication operator MG^ (s) with symbol G^ (s) 2 H1 ^ ^ T
C + (BU!W ) that satis es G(s)G( s) = I (i.e.
G^ is co-inner), where the superscript T denotes matrix transpose, then kXGk = kX k. Similarly, if
G^ ( s)T G^ (s) = I (i.e. G^ is inner) then kGX k = kX k.
Proof : The proof is deferred to Appendix B.1.
Proof : (of Theorem 3.8) Only the bound on fSiC (j!)g is proved, since the other bounds
follow in a similar manner. First note that by Lemma 3.9 and from equations (3.17) and (3.16),
" 1 sd #
W1 C1 (I PsW1 1C1sd) 1 Ml;s1 =
I
1 h i 1
r;s
M ( I W 1 C 1
1 sd s P ) 1 W1 Csd I = bPs ;W1 1C1sd ;
1 1 (3.19)
where Ps :=W2 PW1 = Nr;s (Mr;s) 1 = (Ml;s ) 1 Nl;s are normalised, right- and left-coprime factori-
sations respectively. Now let
Q := Mr;s1 (I W1 1C1sdPs ) 1 W1 1 C1sd
and u := Qy with y(t) = ej!t yd (yd 2 Y). De ning (
y d () = ej! yd , it follows by Lemma 3.2 and
the de nition of Q (j!), that
kQ (j! )yd kY = 1 ^ (e j!0 h ) (y k 2
p kQ d L (U)
h H

 ^ (e
kQ j!0 h )kky k ;
d Y (3.20)
where !o :=!
 !h  2 and Q^ is the transfer operator of the LSI equivalent system Q :=WQW 1.
2 h
Then since
^ (e j!0 h )k  kQk =
kQ ess sup kQ^ (e j!h )k;
!2[0;2)
it follows from equation (3.19) that
^ (e j!0 h )k  b 1 1 sd :
kQ Ps ;W1 C1
So using equation (3.20),

fQ(j!)g := sup kQk(yj!k)yd kY ^ (e j!0 h )k  b 1 1 sd :


 kQ Ps ;W1 C1
yd 2Y d Y
yd 6=0
66 Frequency-Domain Analysis and SD Control Design

Now note that Si C = W1 Mr;sQW2 and hence, by Lemmas 3.6 and 3.7, that
fSiC (j!)g  !0 fW
max ^ 1 M^ r;sg fQ(j!)g fW^ 2 (j!)g
 bPs1;W 1C1sd max ^ 1 M^ r;s gfW^ 2 (j!)g;
!0 fW
1

as claimed. This completes the proof.


Remark 3.10 The bounds presented in Theorem 3.8 are similar to those given in [MG90] for the
LTI case (cf. equations (3.15) for example). Note that the \tracking-error" bound is weighted by
W2. This was necessary to obtain a reasonable bound and does not pose a signi cant problem, since
provided W^ 2 (j!) is designed to roll-o at a frequency suciently greater than the bandwidth of
the un-weighted open-loop P , the bound given in equation (3.18a) divided by  fW2 (j!)g will not
be too far from that of the actual maximal, tracking-error gain in frequency ranges where tracking
is important. Furthermore, since frequency-by-frequency
!1=2 2 ^
!1=2
fM^ l;s g = fM^ r;sg = 1 and fN^l;s g = fN^l;s g =  f2Ps g^ ;
1 + 2 fP^s g 1 +  fP s g
it is possible to design W^ 1 (j!) so that
sup fW^ 1 M^ r;s (j!)g  1:
!
As such, the bounds derived on input-disturbance and sensor-noise rejection are sensible in the
frequency ranges where they are important.

It is suggested that as a rst step, the weights W1 and W2 be selected to be sensible in the context
of standard H1 loopshaping for LTI control-system design, accounting for the simple, stable, low-
pass, LTI lter used to ensure boundedness of AD in the SD synthesis step. These can then be
adjusted (using the bounds given in Theorem 3.8 as a guide) according to the sampling-period
chosen or perhaps more simply, a sampling-period can be chosen so that these weights are sensible
in the context of SD control. |

3.4 Summary
In this section a H1-loopshaping based design procedure has been established for SD, control-
system development. To this end, a new notion of frequency response has been de ned for LPTV
systems. Speci cally, a frequency-domain, analysis tool called the average-power, gain matrix has
been de ned, which as its name suggests, characterises the average-power gain of an LPTV system
to sinusoidal inputs of a single frequency. This matrix is nite-dimensional (can be computed as
3.4 Summary 67

described in Appendix B.2) and retains input-directional information. By the way it is de ned the
new, frequency-domain, analysis tool has clear performance-indicating value, although it should be
pointed out that it would not be suitable for robustness analysis in the frequency-domain.
4
Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

4.1 Introduction
Motivation for this chapter stems from a desire to characterise the robustness properties of SD
control-systems developed using the design procedure proposed in Chapter 3. The approach taken
is to study a general class of LPTV, closed-loop systems, of which the SD control-systems considered
in Chapter 3 are a special case.
One of the important properties of closed-loop systems is that they can be desensitised to un-
certainty. This property is often referred to as robustness. This is particularly important from
the perspective of model-based design, since any mathematical model used to describe a system's
behaviour is uncertain to some degree. The question is: how to qualify and quantify the uncer-
tainty a closed-loop system can tolerate? The answer is to de ne a suitable topology on the set of
systems concerned and a metric to induce this topology. An appropriate topology must capture
all perturbations to closed-loop components that do not cause instability, thus qualifying permis-
sible uncertainty. Furthermore, since performance is also an important objective when designing
closed-loop systems, suitable indicators of performance must vary continuously in the topology
selected.
For stable systems, a topology suitable for studying robustness is the induced-norm topology,
which lays the foundation for H1 control-theory as developed in the seminal paper [Zam81]. A
short-coming of the induced-norm topology is the inability to consider explicitly, unstable compo-
nents of a given closed-loop. This led to the development of the graph topology for robustness
analysis [VSF83, Vid84, ZES80]. The foundations for robustness analysis in the graph topology
were established in [VSF83], where a topology deemed suitable for this was proposed in the fol-
lowing way. Consider the closed-loop system shown in Figure 4.1, which is said to be stable if the
68
4.1 Introduction 69
" # 1 " # " #
operator H (P; C ) := PI CI mapping dd1 to uu1 is causal and bounded. A topology on
2 2
a set of plants (or controllers) suitable for robustness analysis is one that satis es the following
properties: given any plant P in the set of interest and a stabilising controller C , there exists a
neighbourhood of P (in the topology) such that all plants in this neighbourhood are also stabilised
by C and the mapping P 7! H (P; C ) is continuous at P (with respect to the topology on the set
of plants concerned and the induced norm topology on the closed-loop system set). That is, for
any sequence fPi g converging to P (with respect to a topology with these properties), all but a
nite number of the plants in that sequence must be stabilised by C and H (Pi ; C ) ! H (P; C ) in
the induced norm topology.
d1 -+ u-
1 y1
P
6

y2 C u2 ?+d
2

Figure 4.1 Standard Closed-Loop Con guration

For certain classes of system, a topology that satis es the properties described above can be
characterised explicitly in terms of the graph representation of a system. Hence, such a topology
is often called the graph topology [Vid85]. For systems known to admit fractional representations
that are coprime (such as LTI systems [Vid85, Smi89] for example), a basis for the graph topology
can be constructed by additively perturbing a representation of the graph derived from coprime
factorisations [Vid84]. Qualitatively, two systems are \close" in the graph topology if their graphs
are \close". It is shown in [Vid84], that for LTI systems the graph topology (de ned in terms
of the basis just described) is the weakest with respect to which closed-loop performance varies
continuously and closed-loop stability is a robust property.

The topological aspects of robustness analysis described above qualify the types of uncertainty to
which closed-loop systems can be desensitised. To quantify a level of robustness requires a metric
to induce the graph topology. For LTI systems a number of metrics have this property, including:
the graph metric [Vid84]; the gap metric [ZES80, ES85, Geo88, GS90, OS91]; and the  -gap metric
[Vin93a]. In this chapter attention is restricted to the gap metric, which is de ned below. Given two
operators de ned on the same ambient Hilbert spaces, the distance between them can be de ned in
terms of the aperture between their graphs [Kat66]. More speci cally, the gap between two (closed)
70 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

linear operators P0 and P1 is de ned to be


g (P0 ; P1 ) :=kGP0 GP1 k;
where GPi denotes the orthogonal projection onto GPi . This is a metric and as for any two
(closed) subspaces of a Hilbert space, can be expressed as the maximum of two directed gaps
~g (Pi ; Pj ) :=k(I GPi )GPj k [KVZ+ 72].

All of the robustness results derived in this chapter, are obtained in terms of the gap metric. To
this end, a formula is derived for the directed gap between two LPTV systems, which is expressed
in terms of a particular representation of the graph and an H1 optimisation. The formula obtained
is essentially a generalisation of that given in [Geo88] for LTI systems and is fundamental to the
framework used in the sequel to quantify and qualify robustness of LPTV, closed-loop systems. The
main quantitative robust stability results presented concern robustness to perturbations measured
in the gap metric and are to some extent analogous to the results of [GS90] for LTI systems and
those of [FGS93] for linear, time-varying (LTV) systems, although they do not follow from either
directly. In particular, problems concerning causality are not addressed in [FGS93] and even though
the periodic nature of the time-variation considered here imparts a high degree of structure to the
analysis, it is somewhat more involved than in the time-invariant case. Qualitatively, it is shown
that the gap metric induces on a general class of LPTV systems, the weakest topology with respect
to which closed-loop performance varies continuously and closed-loop stability is a robust property.
All of the results obtained accommodate possibly in nite-dimensional input and output spaces and
importantly, can be applied to LPTV, SD control-systems as a special case.

The existence of particular representations of the graph of a class of LPTV systems is fundamental
to the robustness results obtained. Speci cally, is it shown that the graph of a stabilisable, LPTV
system can be expressed as the range and kernel of stable, LPTV systems that are respectively,
left and right invertible by stable, LPTV systems. These so-called strong-right and strong-left
representations resemble the coprime-factor representations known to exist for LTI systems [Vid85].
Given a well-posed plant/controller pair [P; C ], a useful characterisation of closed-loop stability is
obtained in terms of the strong-right and strong-left representations of GP and GC . In turn, this
leads to a Youla-style parameterisation of stabilising controllers.

Brie y, the chapter is structured as follows: Section 4.2 is devoted to presenting results concerning
the representation of LPTV systems and closed-loop stability; in Section 4.3, the gap metric is
introduced and a formula for the directed gap between two LPTV systems is derived; in Section
4.4, quantitative robustness results are obtained in terms of the gap metric and in Section 4.5, it is
4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems 71

shown that the gap metric induces a topology on a class of LPTV systems with the properties of
the graph topology describe above; in Section 4.6, results obtained in preceding sections are applied
to the special case of a sampled-data-controlled, closed-loop systems; nally, a brief summary is
given in Section 4.7.

4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems


In this section, various representations of LPTV systems are developed. Fundamental to the results
presented, is the equivalence, via the time-lifting isomorphism, of LPTV, continuous-time systems
to LSI, discrete-time systems (cf. Proposition 2.4 and [BPFT91, BP92]).

4.2.1 LPTV Systems and LSI Equivalents


Let U and Y be (possibly in nite-dimensional) Hilbert spaces and for notational convenience let
V :=U  Y. Recall that the graph of an operator P : DP  U ! Y is de ned to be the set of all
bounded input-output pairs
" #
I
GP := D  V;
P P
and that for notational convenience, the inverse graph is de ned to be
" # " #
0 0 I P D
GP := GP =  Y  U:
I 0 I P
Furthermore, recall that a linear subspace G  V is the graph of a linear operator if and only if
" #
0
2G ) y = 0:
y
Note that the bounded behaviour of an operator is completely characterised by its graph and as
such, graphs prove to be a useful representation of systems, particularly when studying the stability
of closed-loops (cf. Sub-Section 2.3.3).
In this chapter, attention is restricted to LPTV systems. In particular, the class of systems
considered is de ned in De nition 2.3 of Sub-Section 2.3.2, which for convenience is re-stated
below:
De nition 4.1 Let U and Y be (possibly in nite-dimensional) Hilbert spaces. Then PU!Y is
de ned to be the set of causal, LPTV (with period h), continuous-time systems
P : DP  L2R+ (U) ! L2R+ (Y);
72 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

with closed graphs. Furthermore, PUe !Y  PU!Y is de ned to be the subset of causally-extendible
systems with locally-Lipschitz-continuous extension and PUe;!
sc the subset of strongly-causal sys-
Y
tems in PU!Y . A system in PU!Y is said to be stable if and only if DP = L2R+ (U) and kP k < 1.
e
Note that any stable system P 2 PU!Y is an element of PUe !Y. 
Recall the important property of LPTV systems, by which they are equivalent via the time-lifting
isomorphism to LSI systems (cf. Proposition 2.4 and [BP92, BPFT91]). More precisely, each
P 2 PU!Y is equivalent (via W) to a system in the set DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) de ned in De nition 2.5 of
Sub-Section 2.3.2. This equivalence is used extensively throughout this chapter.
Remark 4.2 Recall that a system P 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) is equivalent to a system P 2 PU!Y (via
W) if and only if P[0] is a causal map from L2H (U) to L2H (Y), where P[0] is the rst element of the
sequence uniquely identi able with the Toeplitz representation of P. A system P 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y)
not satisfying this condition is equivalent (via W) to a continuous-time, LPTV system that is not
locally causal in each [kh; (k + 1)h) interval of time (k 2 Z+). |

As previously mentioned, the graph is a useful representation of a system. Since an LPTV system
is equivalent (via W) to an LSI system, its graph is isomorphic to an LSI subspace. Motivated by
this, the following sub-section is concerned with the characterisation of LSI subspaces. To this end,
the Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem [Lax59, RR85, FF90] is used, which brie y, states that any LSI
subspace of H2D can be expressed as the range of a multiplication operator with inner symbol. This
result is extended to show that if the LSI subspace is LSI co-ordinatisable, then it can be expressed
as the kernel of a multiplication operator with symbol in H1D . Furthermore, these range and kernel
representations are respectively right and left invertible by multiplication operators with symbols
in H1D . Using this, range and kernel representations (with (causal) stable, left and right inverses
respectively) of the graphs of stabilisable systems in PUe !Y can be constructed.

4.2.2 LSI Subspaces


Let G  H2D (H) be closed and LSI, where H is an arbitrary Hilbert space. Then G is said to
be LSI co-ordinatisable if there exists a closed, LSI subspace F  H2D (H) such that fG; Fg is a
co-ordinatisation of H2D (H). That is, if G \ F = f0g and G + F = H2D (H). Recall that if fG; Fg is a
co-ordinatisation of H2D (H), then any  2 H2D (H) can be uniquely decomposed as the sum  = + ',
where 2 G and ' 2 F (cf. [DGS93]). Furthermore, recall that the operator GkF :=  7! is
called the parallel projection onto G along F and similarly, that FkG :=  7! ' is called the parallel
projection onto F along G. Since G and F are closed, linear subspaces it follows that the graphs
of the parallel projection operators are linear and closed. Hence, by the Closed Graph Theorem
4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems 73

[Bol90, pg. 80], the parallel projection operators are bounded and clearly linear. That they are
also shift-invariant, is immediate because SG  G and SF  F.
Proposition 4.3 (Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem) [Lax59, RR85, FF90] Given an LSI sub-
space S of H2D (H) there exists an inner function r 2 H1 2
D (BH1 !H ) such that S = r HD (H1 ), where
H1 can be any Hilbert space isomorphic to S SS.
So corresponding to the LSI subspaces G and F discussed above, there exist inner functions r 2
H1 1 2 2
D (BH1 !H ) and r 2 HD (BH2 !H ) such that G = r HD (H1 ) and F = r HD (H2 ), where H1 is
some Hilbert space isomorphic to G SG and H2 any Hilbert space isomorphic to F SF. Note
that since M r and Mr are isometries (cf. Proposition 2.2), the orthogonal projections G onto
G and F onto F can be expressed as M r (M r ) and Mr (Mr ) respectively. This fact is used
in the proof of the following technical result, which in turn, is fundamental to the main Theorem
of this sub-section.
Lemma 4.4 Given two closed, LSI subspaces G and F that induce a co-ordinatisation of H2D (H)
and inner functions r 2 H1 1
D (BH1 !H ) and r 2 HD (BH2 !H ) such that G = r H2D (H1) and
F = r H2D (H2), the operators (M r ) GkF and (Mr ) FkG are bounded and LSI.
Proof : It is shown that (M r ) GkF is bounded and LSI, the proof that (Mr ) FkG is bounded
and LSI follows similarly. (M r ) GkF is clearly linear and bounded on H2D (H) since it is the
product of two bounded, linear operators. To see that it is also shift invariant, note that any
 2 H2D (H) is uniquely expressible as  = + ', where = GkF 2 G and ' = FkG 2 F. Let
 be the unique element in H2D (H1 ) corresponding to = M r  . Then since M r is an isometry it
follows that (M r ) GkF  =  . Furthermore, since S = S + S', S = M r S 2 G and S' 2 F
it is clear that
(M r ) GkF S = (M r ) S = S = S(M r ) GkF :
That is, (M r ) GkF is also shift invariant.
Theorem 4.5 Given a closed, LSI subspace G  H2D (H) that is LSI co-ordinatisable, there exist
functions r 2 H1
D (BH1 !H ), l 2 H1
D (BH!H2 ), r 2 H1
D (BH2 !H ) and l 2 H1
D (BH!H1 ) such
that
G = RM r = KM l ;

h i" Ml # "


l h
# i I 0 " #
M r Mr M = I and M Ml M r M r =
0 I
;
l
where H1 can be any Hilbert space isomorphic to G SG, H2 any Hilbert space isomorphic to F SF
and F is any closed, LSI subspace such that fG; Fg is a co-ordinatisation of H2D (H).
74 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

Proof : Let fG; Fg be a co-ordinatisation of H2D (H) and the operators GkF, FkG, M r and Mr
be de ned as above, recalling that G = RM r and F = RMr . Furthermore, note that
GkF = GGkF = M r (M r ) GkF (4.1)
and
FkG = FFkG = Mr (Mr ) FkG: (4.2)
Now by Lemma 4.4, (M r ) GkF and (Mr ) FkG are bounded, LSI operators on H2D (H) and
hence, can be expressed as multiplication operators with symbols l 2 H1
D (BH!H1 ) and l 2
H1
D (BH!H2 ) respectively (cf. Proposition 2.2). That is,

Ml = (M r )GkF and M l = (Mr ) FkG: (4.3)


Then since F = RMr , it follows that RFkG is orthogonal to K(Mr ) and consequently, that
KM l = KFkG = G. Similarly, F = KMl . So it remains to show that
h i" Ml # " Ml #h i "I 0#
M r Mr M = M M r Mr = 0 I :
l l

It follows from the relationship GkF + FkG = I and equations (4.1-4.3), that
h i" Ml #
M Mr = I: (4.4)
r
M l

Now since G = RM r = K"M l , F# = RMr = KMl and fG; Fg is a co-ordinatisation of H2D (H),
h i
both M r Mr and M have zero kernel. Thus, they are the inverse of each other (cf.
l

M l

equation (4.4)) and


" # i "I 0#
Ml h M Mr = 0 I ;
Ml r

which completes the proof.

4.2.3 Strong-Right/Left Representations and Closed-Loop Stability


Results derived in the previous sub-section are now used to develop range and kernel representations
of the graphs of stabilisable systems in PUe !Y , that are themselves (causal) stable, LPTV systems
with (causal) stable, LPTV, left and right inverses respectively. All notions of well-posedness
and closed-loop stability used in this sub-section are de ned in Sub-Section 2.3.2. Recall the
4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems 75

standard, closed-loop con guration, denoted [P; C ], shown in Figure 4.2. The following result
characterises the graph of a stabilisable, LPTV, continuous-time system in terms the range and
kernel of stable, LPTV systems that are respectively, left and right invertible by stable, LPTV
systems. These representations resemble the coprime-factor representations known to exist for LTI
systems (cf. [Vid84, Smi89]) and linear, time-varying, discrete-time systems with nite-dimensional
input-output spaces (cf. [DS93]).

d1 -+ u1- y1
P
6

y2 C u ?+
2 d2

Figure 4.2 Standard Feedback Con guration

Theorem 4.6 If P 2 PUe !Y can be stabilised by some C 2 PYe !U, then there exist stable systems
Gr 2 PUe !V,1 Gl 2 PVe !Y , Kl 2 PVe !U and Kr 2 PYe !V such that
GP = RGr = KGl ;

and
h i" Kl # " Kl #h i "I 0#
Gr Kr = Gr Kr = :
Gl Gl 0 I
Proof : By assumption, P is stabilised by some C 2 PUe !Y. So by Proposition 2.12 and Re-
mark 2.13, it follows that GP and GC induce a co-ordinatisation of L2R+ (V). Let P :=WP W 1 and
C :=WC W 1, noting that that GP and G0C are LSI subspaces of `Z2+(L2H (V)). These are respectively,
isomorphic (via Z) to the LSI subspaces G^ P :=ZGP and G^ 0C :=ZG0C of H2D (L2H (V)), which since GP
and GC induce a co-ordinatisation of L2R+ (V), induce a co-ordinatisation of H2D (L2H (V)). So by The-
orem 4.5, there exist functions G^ r 2 H1 ^ 1 ^ 1
D (BH1 !L2H(V) ), Gl 2 HD (BL2H(V)!H2 ), Kl 2 HD (BL2H(V)!H1 )
and K^ r 2 H1
D (BH2 !L2H(V) ), such that

G^ P = RM ^ r = KM ^
G Gl
1 Recall that V :=U  Y.
76 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

and
h i" MK^ l # " MK^ l #h i "I 0#
MG^ r MK^ r M = M MG^ r MK^ r = 0 I ;
G^ l G^ l

where H1 is a Hilbert space isomorphic to G^ P SG^ P and H2 is a Hilbert space isomorphic to


0 0
G^ C SG^ C . In fact, it is possible to take H1 to be L2H (U) and H2 to be L2H (Y). To see this, note
that since P 2 PU!Y is causally extendible,
" #
P0GP = Gr[0]H1 = I L2H (U); (4.5)
P[0]
where Gr[0] = G^ r (0) and P[0] denotes the rst element of the sequence uniquely identi able with the
Toeplitz representation of P. Also, since MK^ l MG^ r = I, it follows that Kl[0] = K^ l (0) is a bounded
left-inverse of Gr[0].2 De ne
" #
Q :=Kl[0] I : L2 (U) ! H :
1
P[0] H

" #
Then since I
has zero kernel and Kl[0]Gr[0] = I, it follows from equation (4.5) that Q is a
P[0]
bijective mapping. Hence, Q(Q Q) 1 is an isomorphism between L2H (U) and H1, and correspond-
ingly, L2H (U) is isomorphic to G^ P SG^ P  H1. It can be shown in a similar manner that L2H (Y) is
isomorphic to G^ 0C SG^ 0C .

Now the multiplication operators MG^ r , MG^ l , MK^ l and MK^ r are equivalent (via Z) to stable
systems Gr 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(V) , Gl 2 DL2H(V)!L2H(Y) , Kl 2 DL2H(V)!L2H(U) and Kr 2 DL2H(Y)!L2H(V) respec-
tively, with GP = RGr = KGl and
h i" K l # " K l #h i "I 0#
Gr Kr = Gr Kr = :
Gl Gl 0 I
Furthermore, observe that given any stable system Q0 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) and stable systems Q1 2
DL2H(U)!L2H(U) and Q2 2 DL2H(Y)!L2H(Y) with stable inverses,
GP = RGr Q1 = KQ2 1 Gl
2 That G has a bounded left-inverse also follows from the fact that G^ r may be taken to be inner (see the proof
r[0]
of Theorem 4.5).
4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems 77

and
h i" Kl? # h i" Q1 1(Kl + Q0Gl ) #
Gr? Kr? := Gr Q1 (Kr Gr Q0)Q2
Gl? Q2 1 Gl
" #
Q1 1(Kl + Q0Gl ) h i
= Gr Q1 (Kr Gr Q0 )Q2
Q2 1 Gl
" 1 1 #" #h i" Q1 Q0Q2 #
Q 1 Q 1 Q 0 K l
= Gr Kr
0 Q2 1 Gl 0 Q2
" #
=
I 0 : (4.6)
0 I
So if Q0 , Q1 and Q2 can be constructed to make (Gr Q1 )[0] , (Q2 1 Gl )[0] , (Q1 1 (Kl + Q0 Gl ))[0]
and ((Kr + Gr Q0 )Q2 )[0] causal mappings on the nite horizon H , it would follow by Remark 4.2,
that the stable systems Gr? 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(V) , Gl? 2 DL2H(V)!L2H(Y) , Kl? 2 DL2H(V)!L2H(U) and Kr? 2
DL2H(Y)!L2H(V) are equivalent (via W) to stable systems Gr? 2 PUe !V, Gl? 2 PVe !Y, Kl? 2 PVe !U
and Kr? 2 PYe !V respectively,2 that satisfy

GP = RGr? = KGl?

and
h i" Kl? # " Kl? #h i "I 0#
Gr? Kr? = Gr? Kr? = :
Gl? Gl? 0 I
Accordingly, the rest of the proof is dedicated to showing that this is possible.

Let
" #
Mr[0] :=G and h i
r[0] Nl[0] Ml[0] :=Gl[0];
Nr[0]
where the partitioning is conformal with that of GP . Then since P 2 PUe !Y is causally extendible
with locally-Lipschitz-continuous extension, it follows that both Mr[0] 2 BL2H(U)!L2H(U) and Ml[0] 2
BL2 (Y)!L2 (Y) are bijective and therefore, boundedly invertible by the Open Mapping Theorem
H H
[Bol90, pg. 79]. To see this, rst note that since P 2 PUe !Y,

RMr[0] = P0 DP = Ph DP = L2H (U)


2 Since these systems are all stable, they have locally-Lipschitz-continuous, causal extensions.
78 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

and hence, that Mr[0] is surjective.3 Suppose now, that there exists some non-zero (q 2 L2H (U)
such that Mr[0] (q = 0. Then by causality of P , it follows that Nr[0] (q must also be zero. Since
Kl[0]Gr[0] = I, this implies that
" #
0 = Kl[0]
Mr[0] (q = (q ;
Nr[0]
which is a contradiction. Therefore, the linear operator Mr[0] has zero kernel and is by de nition,
injective. This combined with the fact that it is also surjective, implies that Mr[0] is bijective as
claimed. Now consider Ml[0] and suppose there exists a non-zero (q 2 L2H (Y) such that Ml[0] (q = 0.
Then since
K  = P0 GP = Ph GP ;
Nl[0] Ml[0]
" #
it follows that 0 P and hence, (q must be 0.
(q 2 Ph GP . But this contradicts the causality of
Consequently, Ml[0] has zero kernel and is thereby injective. Moreover, since Gl[0]Kr[0] = I,
R  = L2H (Y):
Nl[0] Ml[0]
"( #
So for all (e 2 L2H (Y), there exists a (g = (g 1 2 L2H (V) such that
g 2
" #
(e = h Nl[0] Ml[0] i (g 1 ;
(g 2
In fact,
h i " (g 1 + (u #
(e = Nl[0] Ml[0]
(g 2 + P[0] (u
u 2 Ph DP . Since P 2 PUe !Y, Ph DP = L2H (U) and consequently, (u can be set to (g 1 .
for all (
Doing this, gives (e = Ml[0] ( (g 2 P[0] (g 1 ), from which it is evident that RMl[0] = L2H (Y). Therefore,
Ml[0] is bijective as claimed.
Having shown that Mr[0] and Ml[0] are boundedly invertible, it is possible to construct the required
Q0 , Q1 and Q2. Let Q1 satisfy Q1[0] = Mr[0]1 and Q1[i] = 0 for i 6= 0, where fQ1[i]g1
i=0 denotes the
sequence uniquely identi able with the Toeplitz representation of Q1 . Then
" #
I
(Gr Q1 )[0] = ;
Nr[0]Mr[0]1
3 Note that in the equation above P0 corresponds to a discrete-time truncation and Ph to truncation in a
continuous-time signal-space.
4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems 79
h i
which by causality of P is causal on L2H (U). Now let Yl[0] Xl[0] :=Kl[0], where the partition is
conformal with GP and construct Q0 so that Q0[0] = Xl[0]Ml[0]1 and Q0[i] = 0 for i 6= 0. Then since
Nr[0]Mr[0]1 = Ml[0]1 Nl[0] = P[0] and Yl[0]Mr[0] + Xl[0]Nr[0] = I, it follows that
 h i
(Q1 1 (Kl + Q0 Gl ))[0] = (Q1 1 )[0] Kl[0] + Q0[0] N l[0] Ml[0]
h i
= Mr[0] Yl[0] + Xl[0]Ml[0]1 Nl[0] 0
h 1 i h i
= Mr[0] Mr[0] 0 = I 0 ;
" #
which is obviously causal on L2 (V) as required. Finally, let Xr[0] :=K . Then from equation
H
Yr[0] r[0]
(4.6), it follows that Mr[0]Xl[0] Xr[0]Ml[0] = 0 and hence, that Q0[0] = Xl[0]M h l[0] = Mr[0]Xr[0]i.
1 1

De ning Q2 to satisfy Q2[0] = Ml[0] and Q2[i] = 0 for i 6= 0, gives (Q2 1 Gl )[0] = Ml[0]1 Nl[0] I
" #
and ((Kr + Gr Q0 )Q2 )[0] = 0 . As required, both are causal on L2H (V) and L2H (Y) respectively.
I
This completes the proof.

Remark 4.7 Since Gr and Gl in Theorem 4.6 are respectively, left and right invertible by stable,
LPTV systems, they are called strong-right and respectively strong-left representations of GP .
Note that they are only unique up to invertible factors. That is, for any stable systems Q1 ; Q1 1 2
PUe !U and Q2; Q2 1 2 PYe !Y, the systems Gr Q1 and Q2 1Gl are also strong-right and strong-left
representations of GP respectively. |

Given a well-posed, plant/controller pair [P; C ], the following lemma constitutes a useful charac-
terisation of closed-loop stability in terms of range and kernel representations of GP and G0C .

Lemma 4.8 Given a plant P 2 PUe !Y and controller C 2 PYe !U such that [P; C ] is well-posed,
let Gr 2 PUe !V be any stable system with zero kernel such that GP = RGr and Kl 2 PVe !U be any
stable system such that RKl = L2R+ (U) and G0C = KKl . Then the following are equivalent:

(i) The closed-loop system [P; C ] is stable;

(ii) The stable, LPTV system Kl Gr is bijective (and hence boundedly invertible, although the
inverse may not be causal).

Furthermore, if [P; C ] is stable and Gr and Kl are strong-right and strong-left representations of
0
GP and GC respectively, then (Kl Gr ) 1 is a stable system in PUe !U. That is the inverse is also
causal.
80 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

Proof : Since the closed-loop is well-posed by assumption, Proposition 2.12 holds (cf. Remark
2.13), and using the identities GP = RGr and G0C = KKl , it follows that
[P; C ] is stable , RGr + KKl = L2R+ (V) and RGr \ KKl = f0g:
Then since RKl = L2R+ (U) and KGr = f0g, it is clear that
RGr + KKl = L2R+ (V) and RGr \ KKl = f0g
+
RKlGr = L2R+ (U) and KKl Gr = f0g:
To see that the converse is also true, let RKlGr = L2R+ (U) and KKlGr = f0g. That RGr \ KKl = f0g
is immediate. Now suppose there exists a v 2 L2R+ (V) such that v 62 RGr + KKl and de ne
e :=Kl v. Then since RKl Gr = L2R+ (U) and KKlGr = f0g, there exist a unique q 2 L2R+ (U) such that
e = Kl Gr q = Kl g, where g :=Gr q. Consequently, Kl (g v) = 0, which implies that either v = g or
(g v) 2 KKl . Since g 2 RGr , this contradicts v 62 RGr + KKl and it follows that [P; C ] is stable if
and only if the bounded linear operator Kl Gr is bijective (and hence, boundedly invertible by the
Open Mapping Theorem [Bol90, pg. 79]). Note that (Kl Gr ) 1 is periodically time-varying, but
may not be locally causal in L2H (U).
It is now shown that if [P; C ] is stable and Gr and Kl are strong-right and strong-left representa-
tions of GP and G0C respectively, then (Kl Gr ) 1 2 PUe !U. First note that for any Kl and Gr that
satisfy the original conditions of the lemma,
GP kG0C = Gr (Kl Gr ) 1Kl : (4.7)
To see this, note that since [P; C ] is stable, fGP ; G0C g induces a co-ordinatisation of L2R+ (V). There-
fore, any g 2 L2R+ (V) can be written uniquely as the sum g = p + c, where p 2 GP and c 2 G0C .
Furthermore, since KGr = f0g and RGr = GP , there exists a unique q 2 L2R+ (U) such that p = Gr q.
Consequently,
(GP kG0C Gr (Kl Gr ) 1 Kl )g = p Gr (Kl Gr ) 1 Kl p
= p Gr (Kl Gr ) 1 Kl Gr q
= p Gr q = 0;
for all g 2 L2R+ (U), which in turn, implies that GP kG0C = Gr (Kl Gr ) 1 Kl . Now, take Gr and Kl to
be strong-right and strong-left representations. Then by de nition, Gr and Kl satisfy the original
conditions of the lemma and there exist stable systems Kl? 2 PVe !U and Gr? 2 PUe !V such that
Kl? Gr = I and Kl Gr? = I . Furthermore, from equation (4.7),
(Kl Gr ) 1 = Kl? GP kG0C Gr? :
4.2 Representations of LPTV Systems 81

Then recalling that GP kG0C 2 PVe !V (cf. Remark 2.14), it follows that (Kl Gr ) 1 2 Pe .
U!U
Remark 4.9 Note that by interchanging the roles of P and C in Lemma 4.8, given any stable
system Gl 2 PVe !Y such that RGl = L2R+ (U) and GP = KGl and any stable system Kr 2 PYe !V
with zero kernel such that G0C = RKr , the following are equivalent :
(i) The closed-loop system [P; C ] is stable;
(ii) The stable, LPTV system Gl Kr is bijective (and hence boundedly invertible, although the
inverse may not be causal).
Furthermore, if Gl and Kr are strong-left and strong-right representations of GP and G0C respectively
and [P; C ] is stable, then (Gl Kr ) 1 is a stable system PYe !Y . |
Remark 4.10 Given a well-posed, plant/controller pair [P; C ] where P 2 PUe !Y and C 2 PYe !U,
let P :=WP W 1 and C :=WC W 1 . Furthermore, let Gr 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) and Kl 2 DL2H(Y)!L2H(U)
be stable systems that satisfy KGr = f0g, GP = RGr , RKl = `Z2+(L2H (U)) and G0C = KKl . Then
the closed-loop [P; C ] is stable if and only if the bounded linear operator Kl Gr is boundedly in-
vertible. In this case (Kl Gr ) 1 is a stable system in DL2H(U)!L2H(U) and hence, equivalent (via Z)
to a multiplication operator with symbol in H1 D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ) (cf. Proposition 2.2). Moreover,
G kG0 = Gr (Kl Gr ) 1Kl . |
P C

It is interesting to note that given a system P 2 PUe !Y and a stabilising C 2 PYe !U, strong-
right and strong-left representations of G0C can be constructed from strong-right and strong-left
representations of GP and the respective stable, left and right inverses. This is analogous to necessity
of the well-known Youla parameterisation of stabilising controllers for certain classes of systems
[YJB76, DLJS80, DG84, DS93] and is summarised in the following lemma.
Lemma 4.11 Given a stabilisable system P 2 PUe !Y and stable systems Gr 2 PUe !V, Gl 2
PVe !Y, Kl 2 PVe !U and Kr 2 PYe !V such that
GP = RGr = KGl

and
h i" Kl # " Kl #h i "I 0#
Gr Kr = Gr Kr = ;
Gl Gl 0 I
a system C 2 PYe !U stabilises P only if there exists a stable Q 2 PYe !U such that
Kr Gr Q
82 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

is a strong-right representation of G0C and


Kl + QGl
is a strong-left representation of G0C .
Proof : Let C 2 PYe !Y denote a stabilising controller for P . Then it follows by Theorem 4.6, that
there exist stable systems Gr 2 PUe !V, Gl 2 PVe !Y , Kl 2 PVe !U and Kr 2 PYe !V such that
GP = RGr = KGl

and
h i" Kl # " Kl #h i "I 0#
Gr Kr = Gr Kr = : (4.8)
Gl Gl 0 I
Furthermore, for any stable system Q 2 PYe !U,
h i" (Kl + QGl ) # " (Kl + QGl) #h i "I 0#
Gr (Kr Gr Q) = Gr (Kr Gr Q) = : (4.9)
Gl Gl 0 I
Now from equation (4.9),
(Kl + QGl )(Kr Gr Q) = 0;
which implies R(Kr Gr Q)  K(Kl +QGl ) . To see that the opposite inclusion also holds, note from
equation (4.9), that
h i h i
(Kl + QGl ) Gr (Kr Gr Q) = I 0 : (4.10)
Now suppose there exists a non-zero x 2 K(Kl +QGl ) that is not in R(Kr Gr Q) . Then since
K  = f0g and R  = L2R+ (V);
Gr (Kr Gr Q) Gr (Kr Gr Q)
" #
there exists a unique u =: u1 2 L2R+ (V) such that
u 2

h i" u1 #
x = Gr (Kr Gr Q) :
u2
Furthermore, 0 = (Kl + QGl )x = u1 , which using equation (4.10), implies that x 2 R(Kr Gr Q) .
This is a contradiction and therefore, K(Kl +QGl)  R(Kr Gr Q) .
4.3 The Gap Metric 83

Since [P; C ] is stable (or equivalently C is stabilised P ), it follows by Theorem


" #
4.6, that there exist
0 I
strong-right and strong-left representations of GC . Noting that GC := I 0 GC , these give rise to
0

strong-right and strong-left representations of G0C , denoted by Kr? 2 PYe !V and Kl? 2 PVe !U
respectively. It follows by Lemma 4.8, that Kl? Gr is boundedly invertible in PUe !U. Now de ne
Q := (Kl? Gr ) 1 Kl? Kr
and note that Q is a stable system in PYe !U. Then using equation (4.8),
Kl QGl = Kl + (Kl? Gr ) 1Kl? Kr Gl
= Kl + (Kl? Gr ) 1 Kl? (I Gr Kl )
= Kl Kl + (Kl? Gr ) 1 Kl? = (Kl? Gr ) 1 Kl? ;
which implies K(Kl QGl ) = KKl? . Since R(Kr +Gr Q) = K(Kl QGl) and RKr? = KKl? , it also follows
that R(Kr +Gr Q) = RKr? . That is, the strong-right and strong-left representations of G0C are in the
form required.
Remark 4.12 If in Lemma 4.11, the choice of Q PUe !Y is restricted to those for which
2
R(Kr Gr Q) = K(Kl +QGl ) correspond to the inverse graph of a system C 2 PUe !Y such that the
closed-loop [P; C ] is well-posed, then C stabilises P . That is, the Lemma would also be sucient.
To see this, note from equation (4.9) that for such a Q, the system (Kl + QGl ) is a strong-left
representation of G0C . So by arguments similar to those in the proof of Lemma 4.8 and the fact
that (Kl + QGl )Gr = I is obviously invertible, it follows that [P; C ] is stable. Again from equation
(4.9) and since R(Kr Gr Q) = K(Kl +QGl ) = G0C , it is also clear that (Kr Gr Q) is a strong-right
representation of the inverse graph of a stabilising controller. |

4.3 The Gap Metric


In this section, the gap metric is formally introduced. The main result of the section is a formula
for the directed gap between two LPTV systems. This formula is essentially a generalisation of
Georgiou's [Geo88] for LTI systems. It is fundamental to the main robustness result of this chapter
and hence, to the proof that the topology induced by the gap metric on a class of LPTV systems,
is the weakest with respect to which closed-loop performance varies continuously and closed-loop
stability is a robust property. For additional information on the gap metric the reader is referred
to [FGS93, SO93, GS90, Geo88, ZES80, KVZ+72, Kat66].
The gap (or aperture) between two (closed) subspaces H0 and H1 of a Hilbert space H, is de ned
to be
(H0 ; H1) :=kH0 H1 k
84 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

and it can be shown (cf. [KVZ+ 72, x15 Chap. 4]) that
(H0 ; H1) = maxf~(H0; H1); ~(H1; H0)g;
where
~(Hi; Hj ) = kH? Hi k i; j = 0; 1;
j

is the directed gap. Note that 0  (H0 ; H1)  1 and that it de nes a metric on H.
Proposition 4.13 [KVZ+72]. For i = 0; 1, let Hi be a closed subspace of a Hilbert space H.
Then H1 jH0 is a bijective mapping from H0 to H1 if and only if (H0 ; H1) < 1. Moreover, if
(H0 ; H1) < 1 then
(H0 ; H1) = ~(H0; H1) = ~(H1 ; H0):
The gap between two (closed) operators P0 and P1 is de ned to be the gap between their respective
graphs,
g (P0 ; P1 ) :=(GP0 ; GP1 );
with the directed gap being de ned similarly [Kat66]. This is a metric and can be thought of as a
measure of the distance between two systems. In the next section the gap metric is used to quantify
the robust stability properties of LPTV, closed-loop systems.

Consider a system P0 2 PU!Y and recall that GP0 is isomorphic to both GP0 and G^ P0 :=ZGP0 ,
where P0 :=WP0 W 1 . Given another system P1 2 PU!Y, the following hold :
g (P0 ; P1 ) = (GP0 ; GP1 ) = (G^ P0 ; G^ P1 );
for the gap and
~g (Pi ; Pj ) = ~(GPi ; GPj ) = ~(G^ Pi ; G^ Pj ); (i; j = 0; 1)
for the directed gap. The following corollary of Proposition 4.13 constitutes a useful characterisation
of when the gap between two systems is strictly less than one. It is used in the proof of the main
robustness result in the next section. A similar result appeared in [SO93] and [Vin93b] for LTI
systems.
Corollary 4.14 Given two systems P0 and P1 in PU!Y, the following are equivalent :
(i) g (P0 ; P1 ) = (G^ P0 ; G^ P1 ) < 1;
4.3 The Gap Metric 85

(ii) The bounded linear operator (MG^ r1 ) MG^ r0 is bijective (and hence boundedly invertible),
where G^ ri is any inner function in H1 ^ ^ 2 2
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(V) ) such that GPi :=ZW GPi = Gri HD (LH (U)) for
i = 0; 1.
Proof : Since G^ i = MG^ ri (MG^ ri ) , G^ Pi = RM ^ ri and KM ^ ri = f0g, it follows by Proposition 4.13
P G G

(cf. a similar result in Nikol'skii [Nik86, pg. 201] concerning closed subspaces), that (G^ P0 ; G^ P1 ) < 1
if and only if MG^ r1 (MG^ r1 ) MG^ r0 is a bijective mapping from H2D (L2H (U)) to G^ P1 . Again using the
fact that G^ Pi = RM ^ ri and KM ^ ri = f0g, this is equivalent to
G G

R(M ^ ) M ^ = H2D (L2H (U)) and K(M ^ ) M ^ = f0g:


Gr1 r0
G r1 Gr0 G

That is, (G^ P0 ; G^ P1 ) < 1 if and only if (MG^ r1 ) MG^ r0 is bijective (and hence, boundedly invertible
by the open mapping theorem [Bol90]).
An important theorem, characterising the directed gap between LPTV systems in terms of an
optimisation problem over H1D , is now presented. It is essentially a generalisation of Georgiou's
result for LTI systems [Geo88] (cf. also [You86, Theorem 1] and [SO93, Corollary 4.4]). The
relevant formula plays a crucial role in the proof of the main robustness result in the following
section.
Theorem 4.15 For i; j = 0; 1,
~g (Pi ; Pj ) = ~(G^ Pi ; G^ Pj ) = inf ^ ri
kG G^ rj Q^ k1;
^ Q2H1
D
(BL2 (U)!L2 (U) )
H H

where G^ ri is any inner function in H1 ^ ^ 2 2


D (BL2H(U)!L2H(V) ) such that GPi = Gri HD (LH (U)).

Proof : The proof follows that of an H1 optimisation result in [FF90, pg. 248]. Note that
(for i = 0; 1) G^ Pi is an LSI subspace of H2D (L2H (V)). As before, it follows by the Beurling-Lax-
Halmos Theorem, that there exists an inner function G^ ri 2 H1 ^
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(V) ) such that GPi =
G^ riH2D (L2H (U)). Since MG^ ri is an isometry it can be shown that G^ i = MG^ ri (MG^ ri ) and hence,
P

that
~(G^ Pi ; G^ Pj ) = kG^ ? MG^ ri (MG^ ri ) k = kG^ ? MG^ ri k;
P j P j
where the last equality follows from the fact that MG^ ri is an isometry. Now recall that G^ ?Pj :=H2D (L2H (V))
G^ Pj and take any  2 H2D (L2H (V)), expressing it as  = + ', where = G^  and ' = G^ ? .
j j P

Then S = S + S' and


P

G^ ?j S = G^ ?j S + G^ ?j S'


P P P

= G^ ? S';
j P
86 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

where the second equality follows from the fact that SG^ Pj  G^ Pj . That is,
G^?j S = G^?j SG^ ?j  = S?G^ ?j 
P P P P
(4.11)
where
S? :=G^ ?j SjG^ ?j : G^ ?Pj ! G^ ?Pj :
P P

The unilateral shift S is an isometric dilation (lifting) of S? in that Sn? = G^ ? Sn jG^ ? for all n  0.
j Pj P

In fact, by the way G^ ?Pj is de ned and since G^ Pj is shift-invariant, it follows that S is the minimal,
isometric dilatation of S? in the sense that H2D (L2H (V)) is the smallest shift-invariant space that
contains G^ ?Pj .4 Furthermore, from equation (4.11), it follows that
S? G^?j = G^ ?j S
P P

and consequently, with the generalised, Hankel operator HG^ ri de ned to be


HG^ ri :=G^ ?j MG^ ri ;
P
(4.12)
that
S?HG^ ri = G^ ?j SMG^ ri = HG^ ri S:
P

Since S is a minimal, isometric dilation of S? , it follows by the Commutant Lifting Theorem (cf.
[FF90, Chapter VII] and [SNF70]), that there exists an LSI operator H : H2D (L2H (U)) ! H2D (L2H (V))
that satis es G^ ? H = HG^ ri and
P j
kHk = kHG^ ri k: (4.13)
Furthermore, by Proposition 2.2, the operator H can be expressed as a multiplication operator with
symbol H^ 2 H1
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(V) ) and

^ k1 :
kHk = kH (4.14)
Thus,
G^ ?j MH^ = HG^ ri = G^ ?j MG^ ri ;
P P

which implies that G^ ? (MH^ MG^ ir ) = 0 or equivalently (since G^ Pj = G^ rj H2D (L2H (U))) that
j P

(H^ G^ ri)H2D (L2H (U))  G^ rj H2D (L2H (U)):


4 cf. [FF90, SNF70] for a precise de nition and treatment of minimal dilations.
4.3 The Gap Metric 87

Therefore, since G^ rj is inner and by Corollary IX.2.2 in [FF90, pp. 239-240] (a corollary of the
Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem), there exists a Q^ ? 2 H1 D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ) that satis es

H^ G^ ri = G^ rj Q^ ?:
Hence, H^ = G^ ri G^ rj Q^ ? and
^ ri
kG G^ rj Q^ ? k1 = kHG^ ri k = kHG^ ri G^ rj Q^ k  Q2 inf ^ ri
kG G^ rj Q^ k1;
^ H1 (B L2H(U)!L2H(U) )
D

where the rst equality follows from equations (4.13) and (4.14), the second by the fact that
HG^ rj Q^ = G^ ?j MG^ rj Q^ = 0 for all Q^ and nally, the third inequality by the fact that kG^?j k  1.
P P

Clearly, equality holds when Q^ = Q^ ? . In conclusion,


kG^ ? G^ P k = kG^ ? MG^ ri k = kHG^ ri k = inf ^
kG G^ rj Q^ k1;
Pj i Pj ^ H1 (BL2 (U)!L2 (U) ) ri
Q2 D H H

which completes the proof.

Interestingly, the di erence between two stable closed-loops with the same controller but di er-
ent plants can be bounded (above and below) in terms of the gap between the two plants. As
will be seen later, these bounds lead to a particularly simple proof that the gap metric induces
what is commonly known as the graph topology (the weakest with respect to which closed-loop
performance varies continuously and closed-loop stability is a robust property). Since the parallel
projection onto the graph of a plant along the inverse graph of a stabilising controller completely
characterises a closed-loop (cf. Remark 2.14), in the following lemma the di erence between the
closed-loops concerned is quanti ed by the induced norm of the di erence between the respective
parallel-projection operators. A similar result has appeared in [Vin93b] for LTI systems. As an
aside, note that for the closed-loop con guration speci ed in the H1 -loopshaping, design proce-
dure proposed in Sub-Section 3.3.2, the pertinent closed-loop operator is simply a weighted, parallel
projection (compare equations in Remark 2.14 and equation (3.16)). As such, the following result
also characterises explicitly the degradation in performance (in the context of the proposed design
procedure) that may be observed if the plant deviates from its nominal value.
Lemma 4.16 For any P0 ; P1 2 PUe !Y and C 2 PYe !U such that [P0 ; C ] and [P1 ; C ] are stable,
g (P0 ; P1 )  kGP0 kG0C GP1 kG0C k  bg (P0b; P1 ) ;
P0 ;C P1 ;C
where bPi ;C :=kGPi kG0C k 1 , i = 0; 1.
88 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

Proof : Given any stable plant/controller pair [Pi; C ] with Pi 2 PUe !Y (i = 0; 1) and C 2 PYe !U,
recall that GPi and G0C induce a co-ordinatisation of L2R+ (V) 5 (cf. Proposition 2.12 and Remark
2.13) and that the parallel projection GPi kG0C is a bounded, LPTV operator. Now (for i; j = 0; 1)
de ne
 := GPi kG0C GPj kG0C
and note that
(GPi kG0C GPj kG0C ) = G0C kGPi (GPi kG0C GPj kG0C ) = G0C kGPi GPj kG0C : (4.15)
To see this, take any e 2 L2R+ (V), which since GPi (i = 0; 1) and G0C induce a co-ordinatisation of
L2R+ (V) can be uniquely decomposed as
e = pi + ci = pj + cj ; (4.16)
0
where pi 2 GPi  L2R+ (V), pj 2 GPj  L2R+ (V) and ci ; cj 2 GC  L2R+ (V). Then from equation
(4.16), it follows that
(GPi kG0C GPj kG0C )e = (pi pj ) = (cj ci ) 2 G0C ;
by which equation (4.15) is immediate.
Using equation (4.15) and the identity
GPj kG0C = (GPi + G?Pi )GPj GPj kG0C ;
it follows that
 = G0C kGPi GPj kG0C
= G0C kGPi (GPi + G?Pi )GPj GPj kG0C
= G0C kGPi G?Pi GPj GPj kG0C ;
where the last equality holds since G0C kGPi GPi = 0. Hence,
kk  kG0 kGP k  kG? GPj k  kGP kG0 k;
C i Pi j C
which by de nition of bPi ;C , the directed gap and its relationship to the gap, implies
kk 
g (P0 ; P1 ) :
bP0 ;C bP1;C
This is precisely the upper bound stated in the lemma.
5 Also recall that V :=U  Y.
4.4 Quantitative Robustness Analysis 89

To establish the lower bound, consider

G?Pj GPi = G?Pj (GPi kG0C GPj kG0C )GPi


= G?P GPi ;
j

where the second equality follows from the identities G?P GPj kG0C = 0 and GPi kG0C GPi = GPi .
j
Hence, for i; j = 0; 1

kG? GPi k = kG? GPi k  kk;


Pj Pj

from which it follows that

g (P0 ; P1 )  kk;

as claimed.

4.4 Quantitative Robustness Analysis


A stable, closed-loop system [P; C ] is said to be robustly stable if closed-loop stability is maintained
when P and C undergo reasonable perturbations. An important property of closed-loop systems
is that stability can be desensitised to such perturbations and in the sub-sections to follow, this
property is quantitatively analysed in terms of the gap metric for LPTV, closed-loop systems.

4.4.1 Plant Perturbations


In this sub-section, the robustness of closed-loop stability is studied within the context of plant
perturbations quanti ed using the gap metric. Before going on, it is instructive to recall the
following de nition (cf. Lemma 4.16):

De nition 4.17 Given a stable closed-loop [P; C ] with P 2 PUe !Y and C 2 PYe !U, de ne
bP;C1 :=kGP kG0C k = kG kG0 k = kGr (Kl Gr ) 1Kl k;
P C
(4.17)

where P :=WP W 1 , C :=WC W 1 and Gr 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) and Kl 2 DL2H(Y)!L2H(U) are any stable
systems that satisfy KGr = f0g, GP = RGr , RKl = `Z2+(L2H (U)) and G0C = KKl (cf. Remark 4.10).
For reasons that will soon become apparent, bP;C is called the robust-stability margin. 
90 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

Using results obtained in the previous sections, it is now possible to state and prove the main
robust stability result, which identi es the largest gap-ball of LPTV plants, centred at a nominal
plant, that a nominal, stabilising, LPTV controller is guaranteed to stabilise. To a certain extent,
the result is analogous to the LTI result of [GS90] and the general LTV result of [FGS93]. Note
however, that it does not follow directly from either of these. In particular, considerable e ort is
required to prove necessity, where the approach taken is to construct a causal plant P1 of appropriate
gap distance from the nominal plant so that [P1 ; C ] is well-posed but not stable.
Theorem 4.18 Let [P0 ; C ] be a stable, closed-loop system, where P0 2 PUe !Y and C 2 PYe;!scU.
Then, the following are equivalent :

(i) bP0 ;C  ;

(ii) [P1 ; C ] is stable for all P1 2 PUe !Y that satisfy g (P0 ; P1 ) < .
Proof : ((i) ) (ii)) By assumption, g (P0 ; P1 ) = (GP0 ; GP1 ) < and bP01;C  1 . For i = 0; 1,
let Gri 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(V) be an isometry such that GPi = RGri , where Pi :=WPi W 1 .6 Then
G i = Gri(Gri) and
P

(GP0 ; GP1 ) = kG 0 G 1 k = kGr0 Gr0 Gr1Gr1 k < :


P P
(4.18)

Moreover, since Gr0 is an isometry,

bP01;C = k(Kl Gr0 ) 1Kl k  1 ; (4.19)

where Kl 2 DL2H(V)!L2H(U) is any stable system that satis es KKl = G0C and RKl = `Z2 +(U).7 Com-
bining equations (4.18) and (4.19) yields

k(Kl Gr0 ) 1 Kl (Gr0 Gr0 Gr1Gr1)k < 1;


which implies

kI (Kl Gr0 ) 1 Kl Gr1 Gr1 Gr0 k  kGr0 (Kl Gr0 ) 1 Kl Gr1 Gr1 kkGr0 k < 1:

Hence, it follows that (Kl Gr0 ) 1 Kl Gr1 (Gr1 Gr0 ) has bounded inverse. Since g (P0 ; P1 ) < 1, note
that the operator Gr1Gr0 also has bounded inverse (cf. Corollary 4.14) and therefore, that Kl Gr1
is boundedly-invertible, which by Lemma 4.8, implies stability of the closed-loop [P1 ; C ].
6 GP and GP are LSI subspaces and hence, the required Gr0 and Gr1 exist by the Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem.
0 1
7 Since [P0 ; C ] is stable, such a Kl exists by Theorem 4.6.
4.4 Quantitative Robustness Analysis 91

((i) ( (ii)) Suppose that (ii) holds for some 1  > bP0;C .8 Under this hypothesis it is sucient
to construct a system P1 2 PUe !Y such that g (P0 ; P1 ) < and [P1 ; C ] is well-posed, but not
stable. Let Gr0 and Kl be de ned as in the proof of (i) ) (ii). Then by Proposition 2.2, Gr0 and
Kl are equivalent (via Z) to multiplication operators with symbols G^ r0 2 H1 D (BL2H(U)!L2H(V) ) and
K^ l 2 H1
D (BL2H(V)!L2H(U) ) respectively. Furthermore, it follows by Lemma 4.8 and Remark 4.10, that
^ ^
(Kl Gr0 ) 1 2 H1 D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ). Hence,

K^ l? :=(G^ r0K^ l ) 1K^ l 2 H1


D (BL2H(V)!L2H(V) )

and Kl? :=Z 1 MK^ l? Z is a stable system in DL2H(U)!L2H(V) that satis es KKl? = G0C and RKl? =
`Z2+(L2H (U)). In fact, by de nition,
bP01;C :=kGr0 Kl? k = kKl? k = kK^ l? k1 = sup kK^ l? ()k; (4.20)
2D

where the second equality holds because Gr0 is an isometry. Since the function K^ l? () is analytic
in D , kK^ l? ()k satis es a maximum principle on any connected, open subset of D (cf. Sub-Section
2.2.3). Using this property and equation (4.20), it follows that for any 0 > 0 and 1 > 0, there
exists a 0;0 2 A 0 :=f : (1 0 )  jj < 1g such that
(bP0 ;C + 1 ) ^ l? (0;0 )k  bP01;C :
1  kK

Now for any 2 > 1 it is possible to construct an operator 0;2 2 BL2H(U)!L2H(V) with
k0;2 k  (bP0 ;C + 2 ); (4.21)
such that (I + K^ l? (0;0 )0;2 ) is not invertible in BL2H(U)!L2H(U) .9 De ning

^ 2 () :=   0;2 2 H1
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(V) ); (4.22)
0;0
8 g (P0 ; P1 )  1
for all P1 2 PUe !Y . So it is without loss of generality that is taken to be less than or equal to
1, otherwise there is an obvious contradiction.
9 To see this, let A denote a bounded, linear operator in BU!Y . Then for any  > 0, it follows by de nition of the
induced norm that there exists a u 2 U (which is taken to have unit norm) so that with y :=Au,
kAk  kykY  kAk :
De ning  : Y ! U to be the operator that maps y to u for all 2 C and every other direction orthogonal to
this in Y to 0, it follows that
k k  1 : kAk 
Clearly then y 2 K(I +A) and hence, (I + A) is not invertible.
92 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

it follows that
^ l? ()^ 2 ()) 1 k ! 1
k(I + K

as  ! 0;0 , since (I + K^ l? )^ is continuous on D and (I + K^ l? (0;0 )0;2 ) is not invertible.10 That
is, (I + K^ l? ^ 2 ) in not invertible in H1
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ).

Let
G^ r1 :=(G^ r0 + ^ 2 )Q^ 1 ;
for some Q^ 1 ; Q^ 1 1 2 H1
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ) and note that

K^ l?G^ r1 = (I + K^ l?^ 2 )Q1 :


Clearly, K^ l? G^ r1 is not invertible in H1
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ). Consequently, with Gr 1 :=Z MG
1
^ r1 Z, the
stable system Kl? Gr1 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(U) is not boundedly invertible. So provided
(a) KGr1 = f0g;
(b) RGr1 is isomorphic (via W) to the graph of a system P1 2 PUe !Y;
(c) and g (P0 ; P1 ) < ,
a contradiction to the initial hypothesis that (ii) holds for some 1  > bP0 ;C can be established
using Lemma 4.8 and Remark 4.10. Accordingly, the remainder of the proof is devoted to showing
that by appropriate choice of 0 , 2 and Q^ 1 , conditions (a), (b) and (c) can be satis ed.
First note that Gr1 = (Gr0 + 2 )Q1 , where
Gr0 :=Z 1MG^ r0 Z; 2 :=Z 1 M^ 2 Z; and Q1 :=Z 1 MQ^ 1 Z:
Furthermore, note that ^ 2 () has continuous extension to the closed, unit disc and hence, that
k^ 2 k1 = max k^ 2 (ej! )k. It then follows by Proposition 2.2 and from equations (4.21) and
!2[0;2)
(4.22), that
k2 k = k ^ 2 k1 = 1 k0;2 k  bP0 ;C + 2 :
j0;0 j 1 0
By hypothesis ( bP0 ;C ) > 0 and setting 2 = ( bP0 ;C )=2 > 0, 1 < 2 and 0 < 2 =2 , gives
k2 k <  1: (4.23)
It is now immediate that Gr1 has zero kernel, since Gr0 is an isometry. That is, condition (a) is
satis ed.
10 See [Dul94, Lemma 4.3 (only if part)] for a similar result.
4.4 Quantitative Robustness Analysis 93

Q^ 1 2 H1
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ) is now constructed so that RGr 1 is isomorphic (via W ) to the graph of a
system P1 2 PUe !Y . First let

" # " #
Mr1 :=G and Mr0 :=G ;
r1 r0
Nr1 Nr0

where the partitioning is conformal with GP0 . By construction [0] = 0, where the subscript [0]
denotes the rst term in the sequence uniquely identi able with the Toeplitz representation. Thus,
Gr1[0] = (Gr0Q1)[0] and

" # " # ! " #


Mr1[0] = Mr0 Q =
Mr0[0] Q : (4.24)
Nr1[0] Nr0 1 [0] N r 0[0]
1[0]

Since RGr0 is isomorphic to GP0 and P0 2 PUe !Y , it follows (as is detailed in the proof of Theo-
rem 4.6) that Mr0[0] 2 BL2H(U)!L2H(U) is boundedly invertible. So by the assumed invertibility of Q1
and equation (4.24), Mr1[0] is also invertible in BL2H(U)!L2H(U) . Consequently, Mr1 has zero kernel,
which con rms that RGr1 is the graph of a linear operator. In fact, it is isomorphic to the graph of
an LPTV system P1 de ned on a subspace of L2R+ (U). It is sucient therefore, to select Q^ 1 to en-
sure that P1 is causal and has locally-Lipschitz-continuous extension. To this end, set Q^ 1 = Mr0[0]
1 ,
which is clearly an invertible element in H1D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ), so that Q1[0] = Mr 0[0] and
1

" # " #
Gr1[0] = Mr1[0] = (Gr0 Q1)[0] = I :
Nr1[0] 1
Nr0[0]Mr0[0]

1 is causal on L2 (U), this is also a causal map on L2 (U). It then follows by


Since P0[0] = Nr0[0] Mr0[0]
" # H H

Remark 2.6, that Mr1 :=G = W 1 G W is a stable system in P e , which in turn implies
Nr1 r1 r1 U!V
that P"1 is#causal. To see this, suppose that P1 is not causal. Then by de nition, there exists a
point uy 2 GP1 = RGr1 and a 1 2 R+ such that

" # " #
u 0
P1 = :
y y~ 6= 0
94 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

That is, there exists a q 2 L2R+ (U) such that y~ = P1 Nr1 q and 0 = P1 Mr1 q. Since Mr1 is causal,
P1 Mr1 q = P1 W 1 P2nMr1Wq 2 33
(
66 2 I 0  0 6
36 q0
( 77 77
66 66 M ... ... .. 77 66 q1 77
.. 77 77
66 66 r.1[1] . 76
76 . 77
66 64 .. ... ... 0 75 66 .. 77 77
= P1 W 66 Mr1[n]
1
Mr1[1] I 4
. 5 7;
7 (4.25)
66 | 
{z } q n 77
(
66 ~n
:=M 77
66 0 77
4 .. 5
.
where q(=: k 7! (
 
q k ) :=Wq, n = h1 + 1 and ]  [ denotes the integer part of a real number. Now
note that M ~ i is boundedly invertible for all nite i 2 Z+ and therefore, has zero kernel and full
range.11 So if 0 = P1 Mr1 q, it follows from equation (4.25), that ( q 0 = (q 1 = : : : = (q n 1 = 0
and P(nh+1 1 ) ( q n = 0 or equivalently, P1 q = 0. Then since Nr1 is causal, this implies that
y~ = P1 Nr1 q = 0, which is a contradiction and consequently, P1 is causal. This line of reasoning
also leads to the conclusion that P1 is causally extendible to a locally-Lipschitz-continuous operator
on L2R;+e (U). More speci cally, since M~ i has full range for all nite i 2 Z+,
" #
RM
~n
P DP1 = P RMr1 = P W 1 = P L2[0;nh](U) = L2[0; ](U)
0

for all  , where n = h + 1. That is, P1 is causally extendible (by de nition). Now denote the
extension of P1 by P1e . Then,
kP (P1e u1 P1e u2 )kL2 +(Y) kN~ nM~ n 1 ukPn ` 2 (L2 (Y))
+ H
sup P ( u u )
R
 sup u
Z
;
2 ;
u1 ;u2 2LR+(U)
e k  1 2 LR+(U)
k 2 u2Pn `Z+(LH(U))
2 2 k kPn `Z+(LH(U))
2 2
P u1 6=P u2 u6=0
where
2 3
Nr1[0] 0    0
66 ... ... .. 77
6 N
N~ n := 66 .. . . . .
r 1[1] . 7
7:
4 . . . 0 75
Nr1[n]  Nr1[1] Nr1[0]
Since N~ i and M~ i 1 are both bounded for all nite i 2 Z+, it is then clear (by de nition) that P1e
is locally Lipschitz-continuous as claimed.
11 In fact ~ i 1 is block lower-triangular with identities down the diagonal.
M
4.4 Quantitative Robustness Analysis 95

It remains to show that g (P0 ; P1 ) < . First it is shown that ~g (P0 ; P1 ) < and then, that
g (P0 ; P1 ) = ~g (P0 ; P1 ) < . Note that G^ P1 :=ZWGP1 is an LSI subspace of H2D (L2H (V)). Therefore,
by the Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem, there exists an inner function G^ r? 2 H1 D (BL2H(U)!L2H(V) ) such
^ ^
that GP1 = Gr1? HD (LH (U)). Moreover, since RM ^ r1 = RM ^ r1? and KM ^ r1 = f0g, there exists a
2 2
G G G

Q^ ? ; Q^ ? 1 2 H1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ) such that Gr 1? Q? = Gr 1 = (Gr 0 + )Q1 (cf. Corollary IX.2.2 of the
Beurling-Lax-Halmos Theorem in [FF90]). Then by Theorem 4.15,
~g (P0 ; P1 ) = ~(G^ P0 ; G^ P1 ) = inf ^ r0
kG G^ r1?Q^ k1
^ H1 (BL2 (U)!L2 (U) )
Q2 D H H
= inf ^ r0
kG (G^ r0 + ^ 2 )Q^ 1 Q^ ? 1 Q^ k1
^ H1 (BL2 (U)!L2 (U) )
Q2 D H H
^  2 k1
 k < ;
where the third inequality follows from the fact that Q^ ? Q^ 1 1 2 H1 D (BL2H(U)!L2H(U) ) and the last
inequality from equation (4.23). Now for any q^ 2 H2D (L2H (U)) consider the projection of MG^ r1 q^ 2
G^ P1 onto G^ P0 . Since MG^ r0 is an isometry, G^ = MG^ r0 (MG^ r0 ) and the projection described above
0 P

can be expressed as
MG^ r0 (MG^ r0 ) (MG^ r0 + M^ 2 )MQ^ 1 q^ = MG^ r0 g^;
where
g^ :=(I + (MG^ r0 ) M^ 2 )MQ^ 1 q^ :
Furthermore,
k(MG^ r0 ) M
^  k  kMG^ r0 k  kM^  k <  1:
2 2

Thus, (I + (MG^ r0 ) M^  ) is a one-to-one mapping onto H2D (L2H (U)) and since MQ^ 1 is bijective, it
follows that the projection described above is also bijective. So by Proposition 4.13,
~(G^ P0 ; G^ P1 ) = ~(G^ P1 ; G^ P0 ) = (G^ P0 ; G^ P1 )
and hence, g (P0 ; P1 ) = (G^ P0 ; G^ P1 ) = ~(G^ P0 ; G^ P1 ) < as required. This completes the proof.
Consider a closed-loop [P0 ; C ], with P0 2 PUe;!
sc and C 2 P e . Then by Proposition 2.9, [P ; C ]
Y Y!U 0
e; sc
is well-posed and if all permissible perturbations are restricted to PU!Y, the closed-loop is always
well-posed. Furthermore, by the way the destabilising plant P1 is constructed in the proof above,
P0[0] = P1[0]. That is, the instantaneous behaviour of the nominal plant and the plant constructed
to destabilise the closed-loop is the same. As such, if P0 2 PUe;!
sc , then P 2 P e;sc . Consequently,
Y 1 U!Y
(ii) ) (i) would still hold if permissible perturbations were restricted to only strongly causal ones.
96 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

Corollary 4.19 Given a stable closed-loop [P0 ; C ], where P0 2 PUe;!sc Y and C 2 PYe !U, the follow-
ing are equivalent:
(i) bP0 ;C  ;
(ii) [P1 ; C ] is stable for all P1 2 PUe;!
sc such that  (P ; P ) < .
Y g 0 1

Similarly, although it is very dicult to characterise analytically, restricting the set of permissible
perturbations to those which do not cause the nominal closed-loop to become ill-posed,12 leads to
the following restatement of Theorem 4.18.
Corollary 4.20 Given a stable closed-loop [P0 ; C ], where P0 2 PUe !Y and C 2 PYe !U, the follow-
ing are equivalent:
(i) bP0 ;C  ;
(ii) [P1 ; C ] is stable for all P1 2 PUe !Y such that g (P0 ; P1 ) < and [P1 ; C ] is well-posed.

4.4.2 Simultaneous Plant and Controller Perturbations


In this sub-section, the maximum combined perturbation to both P and C that does not cause
instability is quanti ed in terms of the gap metric. As a corollary of Theorem 4.18, it is shown
that a given C stabilises a gap-ball centred at P if and only if P is stabilised by all controllers
in a gap-ball of the same radius and centred at C . Then, the maximum combined perturbation
(as a sum) to P and C that the closed-loop can tolerate is considered. The results presented are
analogous to the LTI results of [GS90, xVI] and the LTV results of [FGS93, x4]. First a technical
result.
Lemma 4.21 [DGS93] Let fF; Gg be a co-ordinatisation of V, where F, G and V are (closed) Hilbert
spaces. If F is a linear subspace then
kFkGk = kGkF k:

Recall the de nition of bP;C (cf. De nition 4.17). Then since G0C is a linear subspace, the following
corollary of Lemma 4.21 is immediate.
Corollary 4.22
bP;C = bC;P :
12 This is necessary for (i) ) (ii) to hold.
4.4 Quantitative Robustness Analysis 97

Proof : Note that


" # " #
0 I 0 I
bC;P := kGC kG0P k = 0 = kG0C kGP k:
I 0 GC kGP I 0
Since [P; C ] is stable, fGP ; G0C g induces a co-ordinatisation of L2R+ (V) (cf. Proposition 2.12) and so
by Lemma 4.21, bC;P = kG0C kGP k = kGP kG0C k = bP;C .

Similarly, the following corollary, which characterises robust stability to perturbations of the
controller, is an immediate consequence of Corollary 4.22 and Theorem 4.18.
Corollary 4.23 Let [P; C ] be a stable closed-loop system, where P 2 PUe;!sc Y and C 2 PYe !U. Then
the following are equivalent :
(i) [P1 ; C ] is stable for all P1 2 PUe;!
sc such that  (P; P ) < ;
Y g 1

(ii) [P; C1 ] is stable for all C1 2 PYe !U such that g (C; C1 ) < .

Remark 4.24 As with Corollaries 4.19 and 4.20, Corollary 4.23 can be restated with various
di erent constraints on the strength of causality of the plants and the controllers. |

Now, with this established, it is possible to quantitatively characterise robustness to perturbations


of both P and its stabilising controller C .
Theorem 4.25 Consider a stable closed-loop system [P; C ], where P 2 PUe;!sc Y and C 2 PYe !U.
The following are equivalent:
(i)  bP;C ;
(ii) [P1 ; C1 ] is stable for all P1 2 PUe;!
sc and C 2 P e
Y 1 Y!U such that
g (P; P1 ) + g (C; C1 ) < :

Proof : The proof follows directly from Corollary 4.19 of Theorem 4.18 and Corollary 4.23, in
exactly the same way as the corresponding result in [GS90, Theorem 7]. Assume that (i) holds so
that by Corollaries 4.19 and 4.23, [P; C1 ] is stable for all C1 2 Beg (C; ), where
Beg (F; ) :=fF 2 PYe !U : g (F; F ) < g:
Consider a controller C1 2 PYe !U, such that  :=g (C; C1 ) < . Now by the metric property of
the gap, Beg (C1 ;  )  Beg (C; ) and hence, [P; C2 ] is stable for all C2 2 Beg (C1 ;  ). Using
98 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

Corollary 4.23, it is then possible to conclude that [P1 ; C1 ] is stable for all P1 2 Beg;sc(P;  ),
where
Beg;sc(F; ) :=fF 2 PYe;!scU : g (F; F ) < g:
Since this holds for any C1 2 PUe !Y such that g (C; C1 ) < , it is clear that (ii) holds. That
(ii) ) (i) is immediate, since (ii) here implies (i) in Corollary 4.19, which is  bP;C .

4.5 The Graph (Gap) Topology


Combining the quantitative robustness results presented in Section 4.4 with the upper and lower
bounds of Lemma 4.16, leads to simple proofs of the following results, which concern the topology
induced by the gap metric on the set of stabilisable systems in PUe;!
sc . This topology will be referred
Y
to as the graph topology because its properties are the same as those of the graph topology de ned
on the set of LTI systems (cf. [Vid85] and recall that the graph topology on LTI systems is induced
by a number of metrics, of which the gap metric is one [Geo88, Vin93b]).

The following identity (cf. Remark 2.14) is useful in the proof of the next result, which charac-
terises convergent sequences in the topology induced by the gap metric:
" # " #
I 0
H (P; C ) = GP kG0C + 0 0 :
0 I 0 I
Lemma 4.26 Given a stabilisable P 2 PUe;!sc Y and an in nite sequence fPi g in PUe;!sc Y, the follow-
ing are equivalent:
(i) g (P; Pi ) ! 0;
(ii) There exists a C 2 PUe !Y such that [P; C ] is stable and H (Pi ; C ) ! H (P; C ) in the
induced-norm topology.
(iii) For any C 2 PUe !Y such that [P; C ] is stable, H (Pi ; C ) ! H (P; C ) in the induced-norm
topology.
Proof : The proof is essentially identical to that of Corollary IV.6 in [Vin93b]. Recall that
Beg;sc(P; ) :=fP 2 PUe;!sc Y : g (P; P ) < g:
Now given any C 2 PYe !U such that [P; C ] is stable, it follows by Corollary 4.19 of Theorem
4.18, that there is a corresponding open ball Beg;sc (P; bP;C ) such that [P ; C ] is stable for all P 2
Beg;sc(P; bP;C ). Now assume that (i) holds, so that all but a nite number of the terms in the
4.5 The Graph (Gap) Topology 99

sequence fPi g lie in Beg;sc(P; bP;C ) and are therefore stabilised by C . By the upper bound in
Lemma 4.16 it is then immediate that
GPi kG0C ! GP kG0C
in the induced-norm topology. Consequently, since
kH (P; C ) H (Pi ; C )k = kGP kG0C GPi kG0C k;
H (Pi ; C ) ! H (P; C ) in the induced-norm topology. That is, (i) ) (iii).

Now suppose that (ii) holds. Then for all but a nite number of terms in the sequence fPi g, the
closed-loop [Pi ; C ] is stable and
kGP kG0 GPi kG0C k ! 0:
C

It is then immediate from the lower bound in Lemma 4.16 that g (P; Pi ) ! 0, which is (i). That
(iii) ) (ii) is obvious.

The next corollary also appears in [Vin93b] and [Vid85] for LTI systems. De ne
SC :=fP 2 PUe;!sc Y : [P; C ] is stableg
and
BVe !V :=fH 2 PVe !V : H is stableg:
Corollary 4.27 For any C 2 PYe !U, the map P 7! H (P; C ) from PUe;!sc Y to BVe !V is continuous
at all points P 2 SC with respect to the graph topology (induced by the gap metric) on PUe;!
sc and
Y
the induced norm topology on BVe !V . Furthermore, the graph topology is the weakest topology on
PUe;!sc Y for which this holds.
Proof : The proof is identical to that of Corollary IV.9 in [Vin93b], but is included for completeness.
To show that the map P 7! H (P; C ) is continuous at all points in SC , it is necessary to show that
for any P 2 SC and any  > 0 there exists a  > 0 such that
g (P; Pi ) <  with Pi 2 PUe;!sc Y ) H (Pi ; C ) 2 BVe !V and kH (P; C ) H (Pi ; C )k < :
Since kH (P; C ) H (Pi ; C )k = kGP kG0C GPi kG0C k, the existence of such a  > 0 is guaranteed
by the lower bound in Lemma 4.16.
100 Robustness Analysis of LPTV Closed-Loop Systems

To see that the graph topology is the weakest on SC for which the result holds, note that for any
other topology  on SC to have this property it is necessary for there to exist a neighbourhood
N(P )13 for any given P 2 SC and  > 0, such that
H (Pi ; C ) 2 BVe !V and kH (P; C ) H (Pi ; C )k <  for all Pi 2 N(P ):
If this holds, it follows by the lower bound in Lemma 4.16, that
g (P; Pi ) <  for all Pi 2 N(P ):
That is, for any P 2 SC and  > 0 there exists an open set in  that is a strict subset of Beg;sc(P; ).
For this to be possible, the graph topology (induced by the gap metric) must be a sub-collection
of  .

4.6 Robustness of SD Closed-Loop Systems


In this section, results of the last two sections are specialised to SD, closed-loop systems. Set
U = Rm and Y = Rp and consider the feedback con guration shown in Figure 4.3, where P 2 PUe !Y,
C 2 DY!U is an LSI, discrete-time controller, AD is an ideal, periodic (period h) sampling-device,
DA is a zeroth-order hold-device synchronised with AD and F is a stable, low-pass, LTI lter
required to ensure boundedness of the sampling device. Note that F 2 PYe;!scY and hence, that
C sd :=DA CADF 2 PYe;!scU. As such, Theorem 4.18 applies as summarised below.
d1-+ u1 - P y1
6

y2 DA  C  AD  F u2 ?+d
2

Figure 4.3 Sampled-Data Control System

Corollary 4.28 Consider a stable, closed-loop system [P0 ; C sd]. The following are equivalent :
(i) bP;C sd  .
(ii) [P1 ; C sd ] is stable for all P1 2 PUe !Y such that g (P0 ; P1 ) < .
Remark 4.29 The results presented in Sub-Section 4.4.2 concerning simultaneous perturbations
to the plant and controller also apply. One possible application of such a result is in the area of
approximating LTI, continuous-time controllers by SD controllers. |
13 Note the -dependence of the neighbourhood.
4.7 Summary 101

4.7 Summary
The primary motivation of this Chapter stems from a desire to characterise the robustness properties
of SD control-systems developed using the design framework proposed in Chapter 3 (cf. Section
4.6). To this end, a more general result concerning the robustness of closed-loop stability to
perturbations measured in the gap metric is obtained for (potentially in nite-dimensional) LPTV,
closed-loop systems. Speci cally, the largest gap-ball of LPTV plants, centred at a nominal plant,
that a nominal, stabilising controller is guaranteed to stabilise, is identi ed. A similar result is
obtained for simultaneous plant and controller perturbations and it is shown that the gap metric
induces the graph topology on a quite general class of LPTV systems.

Along the way, various results of independent interest are derived. Speci cally, it is shown that
the graph of a stabilisable LPTV system can be expressed as the range and kernel of stable,
LPTV systems, which are respectively, left and right invertible by stable, LPTV systems (cf.
Theorem 4.6). The existence of these so-called strong-right and strong-left representations plays
a crucial role throughout the chapter. In particular, given a well-posed plant/controller pair,
it is shown that closed-loop stability can be readily characterised in terms of strong-right and
strong-left representations of the plant and controller graphs. In turn, this leads to a Youla-style
parameterisation of stabilising controllers.

In Section 4.3, a formula is derived for the directed gap between two LPTV systems. The formula
obtained is essentially a generalisation of the formula derived in [Geo88] for LTI systems. It is
fundamental to the framework used to establish robustness results and can be used to compute the
gap metric as is detailed in Chapter 5.

The results presented in this chapter may nd application in the important area of approximating
LTI, continuous-time controllers with SD controllers and may be seen as a step towards character-
ising the quality of such approximations.
5
Computing the Gap

5.1 Introduction
In this chapter a procedure is developed for computing (to any desired accuracy) the gap between
LPTV systems that admit stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisations. Using a formula
derived in Section 4.3, it follows that bounding the directed gap between two LPTV systems
is equivalent to solving a LSI, full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem.1 More speci cally, it is
shown that the directed gap between two LPTV, continuous-time systems Pa and Pb say, is less than
some real number > 0 if and only if there exists a stabilising, full-information control-law that
achieves a closed-loop, `Z2+()-induced norm of less than , when applied to a particular generalised
plant. The particular generalised plant is LSI and can be expressed in terms of normalised, right-
coprime factorisations of the equivalent, LSI systems Pa :=WPa W 1 and Pb :=WPb W 1 . The
existence of a solution to the equivalent, LSI, full-information, `Z2 +()-synthesis problem can be
determined using the state-space, necessary and sucient condition of Proposition 2.22. Given a
computationally-tractable characterisation of this necessary and sucient condition and a method
for constructing state-space realisations of the required normalised, right-coprime factors, it follows
that a bisection-search can be used to compute (to any desired accuracy) the directed gap (and
hence gap) between the two LPTV systems concerned.

Much of this chapter is devoted to constructing state-space realisations of normalised, right-


coprime factors in the time-lifted domain and obtaining computationally-tractable conditions that
characterise the existence of solutions to the equivalent, full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem
described above. First, given a stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisation of an LPTV
system Pa say, it is shown how to construct a state-space realisation of a normalised, right-coprime
1 cf. 2+()-synthesis problem
Sub-Section 2.4.3 for the de nition of the full-information, `Z

102
5.2 The Gap Metric and Full-Information Synthesis 103

factorisation of Pa :=WPa W 1 . This is done explicitly in terms of the original state-space descrip-
tion of Pa and involves solving a nite-dimensional and hence, computationally-tractable, algebraic,
Riccati equation. Using this, a computationally-tractable, necessary and sucient condition which
characterises the existence of a solution to the LSI, full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem asso-
ciated with bounding the directed gap, is obtained. This characterisation is expressible explicitly
in terms of the original stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisations of the two LPTV sys-
tems concerned and involves computing the state-transition operator of a periodic, matrix-valued
function of time at only one point. The latter step can be achieved by integrating the relevant
homogeneous system of di erential equations forward in time.

5.2 The Gap Metric and Full-Information Synthesis


Recall (cf. Section 4.3) that the gap between two operators Pa and Pb is de ned to be the gap
between their respective graphs as follows:
g (Pa ; Pb ) := (GPa ; GPb ) :=kGPa GPb k
= maxf~g (Pa ; Pb ); ~g (Pb ; Pa )g;
where
~g (Pa ; Pb ) :=kG? GPa k and ~g (Pb ; Pa ) :=kG? GP k
Pb Pa b
are the directed gaps. Furthermore, recall the formula derived in Section 4.3 for the directed gap
between two LPTV systems Pa and Pb in PU!Y:
~g (Pa ; Pb ) = inf kGa GbQk; (5.1)
stable Q2D
L2H(U)!L2H(Y)

where GP :=WGP and G is any isometry in DL2H(U)!L2H(UY) such that GP = RG (the subscript
\" here denotes a or b). Existence of the required G is discussed in Section 4.2 (cf. Theorem
4.6 ). An important result used in the sequel is that given a state-space realisation of P (which
must satisfy some mild stabilisability and detectability conditions), it is possible to construct an
isometric, strong-right representation G of GP . This is done by rst constructing a normalised,
right-coprime pair (M ; N ), such that
P :=WP W 1 = N M 1
and then taking
" #
G = M :
N
This is described in more detail in Section 5.3.
104 Computing the Gap

Remark 5.1 Note that although any system P 2 PU!Y is equivalent to a system P :=WP W 1
in DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) , the converse is not true in general (cf. Remark 2.6). As such, the formula for the
directed gap (cf. equation (5.1)) is only valid in the time-lifted domain. |

Interestingly, the right-hand side of equation (5.1) can be expressed in the following lower, linear-
fractional form:
Ga GbQ = F`(H; Q); (5.2)
where
" #
H := Ga Gb : `Z2+(L2H (U))  `Z2+(L2H (U)) ! `Z2+(L2H (U  Y))  `Z2+(L2H (U)): (5.3)
I 0
" H
The stable system # can be thought of as generalised plant" mapping
# an exogenous disturbance and
control signal w , to a controlled and measured output z . Now given state-space realisations
u y
of isometric, strong-right representations G of GP , the following equivalence holds.
Lemma 5.2 Given a state-space realisation of the generalised plant H de ned in equation (5.3),
let x denote the state. Then ~g (Pa ; Pb ) < if and only if there exists a causal, LSI, stabilising,
disturbance-feedforward control-law u = Kdf w, such that kF` (H; Kdf )k < . Furthermore, "this #is
equivalent to the existence of a causal, LSI, stabilising, full-information control-law u = Kfi x ,
w
such that with it in place, the `Z+-induced norm of the mapping from w to z is strictly less than .
2

Proof : Since Gb has stable left-inverse in DL2H(UY)!L2H(U) , it follows from equation (5.2), that
F`(H; Q) is stable if and only if Q is stable. That is, the existence of a stable Q 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(U)
such that kGa Gb Qk < , is equivalent to the existence of a causal, LSI, stabilising control-law Kdf
acting on w alone, such that kF` (H; K)k < . Furthermore, since the generalised plant H is a stable
system, given a state-space realisation of H and the disturbance w, it is possible to re-construct
the state. Thus, without loss of generality, it can be assumed that the control-law has access to
the state x in addition to the exogenous disturbance w. That is, the directed gap is less than
" # if and only if there exists a causal, LSI, stabilising, full-information control-law
some number
u = Kfi x that achieves a closed-loop, `2Z+-induced norm strictly less than .
w

5.3 Normalised Right-Coprime Factorisations


A pair of stable systems (M; N), with M 2 DU!U and N 2 DU!Y (U and Y possibly in nite-
dimensional, Hilbert spaces), is said to be a right-coprime pair if there exist stable systems X 2
5.3 Normalised Right-Coprime Factorisations 105

DU!U and Y 2 DY!U such that XM + YN = I. Further to this, the pair is said to be normalised if
h i " #
M = I:
M N 
N
For a system P 2 DU!Y a (normalised) right-coprime pair (M; N) is said to constitute a (nor-
malised) right-coprime factorisation of P if P = NM 1 . Importantly, the graph of such a P can be
characterised in terms of any right-coprime factorisation of it.

Lemma 5.3 If P = NM 1 2 DU!Y with (M; N) a right-coprime pair, then


" #
GP :=
I DP = RG ;
P
where
" #
G := M 2 DU!UY :
N
In fact, since such a G is stably left-invertible it is a strong-right representation of GP .
" #
Proof : Suppose that uy 2 RG  `Z2 +(U  Y). That is, for some q 2 `Z2 +(U), u = Mq and
" #
y = Nq. Then, y = NM 1u and it follows that u 2 GP (or equivalently RG  GP ). Now to
" # y
see the opposite inclusion, suppose that u 2 GP . Then y = NM 1 u and de ning q :=M 1 u, it
" # y
follows that u = Gq. Since (M; N) is right coprime, there exists a stable pair (Y ; X) such that
y
h i h i" u #
X Y G = I. Hence, q = X Y y
2 `Z2 +(U), which implies GP  RG .

Given an LPTV system P 2 PU!Y described by a state-space system of di erential equations


satisfying some mild stabilisability and detectability conditions, it is shown in the next sub-section
how to construct a state-space realisation of a normalised, right-coprime factorisation of the equiva-
lent system P :=WP W 1 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) . It then follows by Lemma 5.3, that this is a state-space
realisation of an isometric, strong-right representation of GP , which can in turn be used for directed
gap computation (cf. Lemma 5.2). First though, it is shown how to construct a state-space real-
isation of a normalised, right-coprime factorisation of any LSI, state-space system that satis es a
stabilisability and detectability condition.
106 Computing the Gap

5.3.1 LSI State-Space Systems


Consider the system P 2 DU!Y (with U and Y possibly in nite-dimensional, Hilbert spaces) de-
scribed by the LSI, state-space system of di erence equations
xk+1 = Axk + Buk ; x0 = 0; (5.4a)
yk = Cxk + Duk ; (5.4b)
where it is assumed that the state xk evolves in a nite-dimensional, Hilbert space X. In this sub-
section, a state-space realisation of a normalised, right-coprime factorisation (M; N) of P = NM 1
is constructed in terms of the state-space operators A, B, C and D. Throughout, it is assumed that
the pair (A; B) is stabilisable and (C; A) is detectable. That is, there exists an operator F : X ! U
such "that #spec(A + BF)  D and an operator L : Y ! X such that spec(A + LC)  D . De ne
G := M N
to be the stable system in DU!UY described by the LSI system of di erence equations

sk+1 = A sk + B qk
" # := (A + BF)sk + BVqk; s0 = 0; (5.5a)
uk = Cs  k + Dq k
yk
" # " #
:=
F sk + V qk ; (5.5b)
C + DF DV
where V is any operator in BU!U with bounded inverse. Then it is straight-forward to verify that
the pair (M; N) is a right-coprime factorisation of P = NM 1 [NJB84]. In fact, a stable left-inverse
of G is characterised by the LSI system of di erence equations
vk+1 = (A + LC)vk (B + LD)uk + Lyk ; v0 = 0;
qk = V 1Fvk + V 1uk :
The rst step towards characterising normalised, right-coprime factorisations of P is to determine
conditions under which the state-space realisation of G given in equations (5.5), is isometric. It
follows by causality and shift-invariance, that G can be expressed in terms of the block, lower-
triangular, Toeplitz operator
2  3
66    D 0 0 0 
7
66 CB D 0 0    777
66 C A B C B D 0    77 :
66 C A 2 B C A B C B D    77
4 .. .. .. .. . . . 5
. . . .
5.3 Normalised Right-Coprime Factorisations 107

Since spec(A )  D , the system of di erence equations describes an `Z2+()-bounded operator and
hence, its adjoint is well-de ned. In fact, the adjoint can be expressed in terms of the block,
upper-triangular, Toeplitz operator
2                2   3
66 D BC BA C B A  C 
7
66 0 D B C B A C  7
77
66 0 0 D  B C   777 :
66 0 0 0 D   7
4 .. .. .. .. .. 5
. . . . .
Now let X be a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite operator satisfying the Stein equation X A  XA =
C C . Then since klim
!1
A k = 0, the blocks of the Toeplitz representation of GG satisfy
8
>
< D D + B XB i=j

(G G)[i;j ] = > B (A ) (C D + A XB ) i > j :
 i j  
: (D  C + B XA )A j iB i < j
Hence, if there exists a positive-semide nite, self-adjoint operator X such that
(i) X A  XA = C C ;
(ii) D  C + B XA = 0
and
(iii) D  D + B XB = I;
it follows that G is an isometry. In fact, these conditions are also necessary if F and V are such that
(A ; B ) is completely reachable. Using these conditions, it is possible to select F and V in equation
(5.5), to ensure that G corresponds to a normalised (isometric), right-coprime factorisation.
Lemma 5.4 Consider the system P de ned by the system of di erence equations (5.4). Suppose
that (A; B) is stabilisable and (C; A) is detectable. Now de ne
R :=I + D D > 0; R~ :=I + DD > 0
" #
and M by the system of di erence equations
N

" sk+1# = (A + BF)sk + BVqk ; s0 = 0;


" # " # (5.6a)
uk =
F sk + V q; (5.6b)
yk C + DF DV k
108 Computing the Gap

where
V := (R + BXB) 21 ; (5.7)
F := (R + BXB) 1 (BXA + D C) (5.8)
and X is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation
X = AXA + CC (D C + BXA)(R + BXB) 1 (C D + BXA); (5.9)
that satis es spec(A + BF)  D . Then the pair (M; N) is a normalised, right-coprime factorisation
of P = NM 1 .
Proof : Clearly the pair (M"; N) is# a right-coprime factorisation of P. So it sucient to show that it
is also normalised. That is, M de ned by the system of di erence equation (5.6) is an isometry.
N
First note that under the assumption that (A; B) is stabilisable and (C; A) is detectable, there exists
a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite solution X to the algebraic, Riccati equation (5.9), that satis es
spec(A + BF)  D . To see this, note that  2 C is an unobservable mode of (C; A) if and only
if it is an unobservable mode of (C C C DR 1 D C; A BR 1 D C) = (C R~ 1 C; A BR 1 D C).
Then since
"   # "  1 #"  ~ 1 #" #
C C C D = I C DR CR C 0 I 0
0
D C R 0 I 0 R R 1D C I
and (C; A) has no unobservable modes on T, it follows by Proposition 2.20, that the algebraic,
Riccati equation (5.9), admits a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite solution X so that spec(A + BF) 
D.

Now, it follows from equation (5.8) that


h i" #
F + V B X(A + BF) = 0:
V  V D  (5.10)
C + DF
Moreover, from equation (5.7),
h i" V #  
V V D + V B XBV = I: (5.11)
DV
Note also that the algebraic, Riccati equation (5.9), can be re-written as the Stein equation
h i" F
#
X (A + BF) X(A + BF) = F (C + F D ) : (5.12)
C + DF
So from the discussion above concerning conditions "for a #state-space system to be isometric, it
follows from equations (5.10), (5.11) and (5.12), that M is an isometry as claimed.
N
5.3 Normalised Right-Coprime Factorisations 109

5.3.2 LPTV State-Space Systems


Consider the system of di erential equations
dxa = A (t)x (t) + B (t)u(t); x (0) = 0; (5.13a)
dt a a a a
y(t) = Ca(t)xa (t) + Da (t)u(t); (5.13b)
where for xed t 2 R+ the input u(t) 2 U, the output y(t) 2 Y, the state xa (t) 2 Xa , and
U, Y and Xa are all nite-dimensional, Hilbert spaces. It is assumed that Aa (t), Ba (t), Ca (t)
and Da (t) are all piecewise-continuous functions of t, so that with the state-transition operator
Aa (t;  ) : R  R ! BXa!Xa de ned to be the unique, continuous solution to the homogeneous,
di erential equation
d
dt Aa (t;  ) = Aa (t)Aa (t;  ); Aa (;  ) = I;
the state-space system of di erential equations (5.13), characterises the causal, linear, continuous-
time system Pae : L2R;+e (Y) ! L2R;+e (Y) de ned by
Zt
y(t) :=(Pae u)(t) := Ca (t)Aa (t;  )Ba ( ) d + Da (t)u(t) (5.14)
0
[Che84, CD91, GL95]. If for some real number h > 0 and all k 2 Z+, Aa (t + kh) = Aa (t),
Ba (t+ kh) = Ba(t), Ca (t+kh) = Ca(t) and Da (t+ kh) = Da (t), then Aa (t+ kh;  + kh) = Aa (t;  )
and it follows from equation (5.14), that Pae is periodically time-varying in the sense described in
Sub-Section 2.3.2. As such, Pae induces a system Pa 2 PUe !Y , which in turn, is equivalent to an
LSI system Pa :=WPa W 1 2 DL2H(U)!L2H(Y) . Equations (5.13) are called a state-space realisation
of Pa and such a systems is said to admit a state-space realisation. A state-space realisation of the
equivalent, LSI system Pa can be obtained as follows, by characterising the evolution of the state
in equation (5.13) in terms of its values at the discrete points in time fkhgk2Z+:
xa;k+1 = Aaxa;k + Ba u(k ; xa;0 = 0; (5.15a)
(y k = Caxa;k + Da u(k ; (5.15b)
where xa;k = xa (kh), u(k () = u(kh + ), (
y k () = y(kh + ) and for all x 2 Xa and (u 2 L2H (U)
Aa : Xa ! Xa ; Aa x :=Aa (h; 0)x; (5.16a)
Zh
Ba : L2H (U) ! Xa; Ba (u := Aa (h;  )Ba ( ) (u ( )d; (5.16b)
0
Ca : Xa ! L2H (Y); (Ca x)() :=Ca ()Aa (; 0)x; (5.16c)
Z
Da : L2H (U) ! L2H (Y); u )() :=Da (u () +
(Da ( Ca ()Aa (;  )Ba ( ) (u ( )d: (5.16d)
0
110 Computing the Gap

If the state-space realisation of Pa given in equations (5.13) is stabilisable and detectable (in a sense
to be de ned shortly), then the state-space realisation of Pa given in (5.15) is also stabilisable and
detectable in the sense de ned in Sub-Section 2.4.1, for LSI, state-space systems. The h-periodic
pair (Aa (t); Ba (t)) is said to be stabilisable if there exists a piecewise-continuous, h-periodic function
Fa (t) : R+ ! BXa!U such that
kAa +Ba Fa (t1 ; t2 )k  c1 e c2 (t1 t2 ) ; (5.17)
for some positive constants c1 and c2 and all t1 ; t2 2R [RPK92]. Now consider the state-space
system
dx = A (t)x(t) + B (t)u(t); x(0) = x~; (5.18a)
dt a a
y(t) = x(t); (5.18b)
with state-feedback u(t) :=Fa (t)y(t) = Fa (t)x(t), where the (h-periodic) operator Fa (t) is chosen so
that equation (5.17) holds for some positive constants c1 and c2 . The system described by equations
(5.18) is equivalent (in an input-output sense via W) to
xk+1 = Aa xk + Ba u(k ; x0 = x~;
Z
(y k () = Aa (; 0)xk +  Aa (;  )Ba ( ) u(k ( ) d;
0
where u(k () :=(Wu)k = u(kh + ), ( y k () :=(Wy)k = y(kh + ) and xk :=x(kh). However, with
the state-feedback u(t) = Fa (t)y(t) = Fa (t)x(t) in place, ( y k () = Aa+BaFa (; 0)xk and hence,
u(k () :=F () (y k () = Fa ()Aa+BaFa (; 0)xk :
So with the bounded, linear operator Fa : Xa ! L2H (U) de ned by
(Fa x)() :=Fa ()Aa +BaFa (; 0)x
for all x 2 Xa , it follows that Aa + Ba Fa = Aa +Ba Fa (h; 0) and since Aa +Ba Fa ((k + 1)h; kh) =
Aa+BaFa (h; 0) for all k 2 Z+, that (Aa + Ba Fa )k = Aa+BaFa (kh; 0). Thus, from equation (5.17),
k(Aa + Ba Fa )k k  c1 e c2 kh ! 0 as k ! 1. This implies that spec(Aa + Ba Fa )  D and therefore,
that (Aa ; Ba ) is stabilisable. In conclusion, if the pair (Aa (t); Ba (t)) is stabilisable then (Aa ; Ba )
is stabilisable. Similarly, by considering the estimation-error dynamics that result from estimating
the state of
dx = A (t)x(t); x(0) = x~;
dt a
y(t) = Ca (t)x(t);
5.3 Normalised Right-Coprime Factorisations 111

with a simple Luenberger observer


dxe = A (t)x (t) + L (t)(y (t) y(t)); x (0) = x~ ;
dt a e a e e e
ye (t) = Ca(t)xe (t);
it can be shown that if there exist a h-periodic function La (t) : R ! BY!Xa such that
kAa +La Ca (t1 ; t2 )k  c1 e c2 (t1 t2 ) ; (5.19)
for some positive constants c1 and c2 and all t1 ; t2 2 R,2 then there exists a bounded, linear
operator La : L2H (Y) ! Xa such that spec(Aa + LCa )  D . That is, if the pair (Ca (t); Aa (t)) is
detectable in the sense just described, then the pair (Ca ; Aa ) is detectable in the sense de ned in
Sub-Section 2.4.1, for LSI, state-space systems. So under the assumption that (Aa (t); Ba (t)) is
stabilisable and (Ca (t); Aa (t)) is detectable, the following corollary follows directly by Lemma 5.4
and Proposition 2.18:
" #
Corollary 5.5 Let Ga := Ma be de ned by the state-space system of di erence equations
Na
va;k+1 = (Aa + BaFa )va;k + BaVa (q a;k ; va;0 = 0; (5.20a)
"( # " # " #
uk = Fa va;k + V a (
q ; (5.20b)
(y k Ca + Da Fa Da Va a;k
where
1
Va := (Ra + Ba Xa Ba ) 2 ; (5.21a)
Fa := (Ra + Ba Xa Ba ) 1 (Ba Xa Aa + Da Ca ); (5.21b)
Ra := I + Da Da ; (5.21c)
R~ a := I + Da Da ; (5.21d)
A a := Aa BaRa 1 Da Ca (5.21e)
and Xa is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising solution to the (discrete-time) algebraic,
Riccati equation
Xa = A a Xa(I + BaRa 1 BaXa) 1 A a + Ca R~ a 1Ca : (5.22)
Then the pair (Ma ; Na ) is a normalised, right-coprime factorisation of Pa :=WPa W 1 , where
Pa 2 PUe !Y is characterised by the state-space system of di erential equations (5.13).
2 This is the de nition of (Ca(t); Aa(t)) detectable [RPK92].
112 Computing the Gap

5.4 Computing the Directed Gap


Given a real number > 0 and two systems Pa and Pb in PU!Y that admit stabilisable and
detectable, state-space realisations, a necessary and sucient condition for the directed gap between
the two systems to be strictly less than is obtained in this section. The necessary and sucient
condition ultimately involves only nite-dimensional operators and is therefore, computationally
tractable. Using this result, a bisection-search can be employed to compute the directed gap to
any desired accuracy.

5.4.1 A Necessary and Sucient Condition for Bounding the Directed Gap
Consider two LPTV systems Pa and Pb in PU!Y (with U and Y nite-dimensional, Hilbert spaces)
that admit state-space realisations
dxa = A (t)x (t) + B (t)u(t); x (0) = 0; (5.23a)
dt a a a a
y(t) = Ca(t)xa (t) + Da (t)u(t) (5.23b)
and
dxb = A (t)x (t) + B (t)u(t); x (0) = 0; (5.24a)
dt b b b b
y(t) = Cb (t)xb (t) + Db (t)u(t) (5.24b)
respectively, where the states xa (t) and xb (t) evolve in the nite-dimensional, Hilbert spaces Xa
and Xb respectively, and the state-space operators A (t), B (t), C (t) and D (t) are all piecewise-
continuous, h-periodic functions of t (the subscript \" denotes a or b). It is assumed that
(A (t); B (t)) is stabilisable
" and # (C (t); A (t)) is detectable,
" # so that by Corollary 5.5 and Lemma
5.3, the system Ga :=
Ma (respectively G := Mb ) described by the state-space system of
b
Na Nb
di erence equations
sa;k+1 = (Aa + BaFa )sa;k + BaVa (q a;k ; sa;0 = 0; (5.25a)
"( # " # " #
u a;k = Fa sa;k + V a (
q ; (5.25b)
(y a;k Ca + Da Fa Da Va a;k
where Aa , Ba , Ca and Da are de ned in equations (5.16), Va and Fa are de ned in equations (5.21)
and Xa is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation
(5.22) (respectively described by equations (5.25) and the related equations (5.16), (5.21) and (5.22)
with the subscript a replaced by b), constitutes a strong-right representation of the graph of the
equivalent, LSI system Pa :=WPa W 1 (respectively Pb :=WPb W 1 ).
5.4 Computing the Directed Gap 113
" #
Let sk := sa;k and rename (
q a;k by w(k and (q b;k by u(k . Then the system of di erence equations
sb;k
" # " # " #
(Aa + Ba Fa )
sk+1 = 0
sk + BaVa w(k + 0 u(k ; s0 = 0; (5.26a)
0 (Ab + Bb Fb ) 0 BbVb
" # " # " #
(z k = Fa Fb sk + Va w(k + Vb u(k ; (5.26b)
(Ca + Da Fa ) (Cb + Db Fb ) Da Va Db Vb
h i
is a state-space realisation of the system Ga Gb : `Z2+(L2H (U  U)) ! `Z2+(L2H (V)), where
V :=U  Y. It now follows by Lemma 5.2, that given a real number > 0, the directed " # gap
(
~g (Pa ; Pb ) < if and only if there exists a causal, LSI, stabilising control-law u = K (s such
w
that

k(
z k2`Z2+(L2H(V)) 2 kw(k`Z (
2 (L2 (U))  k w k` 2 (L2 (U))
+ H + H
Z

for some  > 0 and all w ( 2 ` 2+(L2 (U)), where w( :=k 7! w(k , u( :=k 7! u(k , (z :=k 7! (z k and
Z H
s :=k 7! sk denote the signals associated with state-space system (5.26). That is, if and only if
there exist a solution to the full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem (cf. Proposition 2.22).

Now note that since both spec(Aa + Ba Fa ) and spec(Ab + Bb Fb ) are subsets of D , the pair
" #" #!
(Aa + Ba Fa ) 0 0
;
0 (Ab + Bb Fb ) BbVb
is stabilisable. Furthermore, since Vb = Vb is boundedly invertible, it follows that
h i " #
Vb
Vb VbDb > 0:
DV b b

Moreover, since (Cb ; Ab ) is detectable by assumption, it can be shown that

K2 " # " # 3 = f0g


(Aa + Ba Fa ) 0 0
6
6 ej I 7
7
6
6
6 " 0 (Ab + Bb Fb ) # " BbVb #
7
7
7
6 7
6
6
4
Fa Fb Vb 7
7
5
(Ca + Da Fa ) (Cb + Db Fb ) DbVb
for all  2 [0; 2). That is, all of the assumption required for Proposition 2.22 to hold are satis ed.
The following theorem then follows directly by Lemma 5.2 and Proposition 2.22.
114 Computing the Gap

Theorem 5.6 Consider two LPTV systems Pa and Pb that admit the state-space realisations
given in (5.23) and (5.24) respectively, where (Aa (t); Ba (t)) and (Ab (t); Bb (t)) are stabilisable
and (Ca (t); Aa (t)) and (Cb (t); Ab (t)) are detectable. Then given a real number > 0, the di-
rected gap ~g (Pa ; Pb ) < if and only if there exists a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite operator
X1 : Xa  Xb ! Xa  Xb that satis es :
(i) the nite-dimensional, (discrete-time) algebraic, Riccati equation
X1 = A  X1(I + R X1) 1 A + Q ; (5.27)
(ii) spec(A BZ 1 L) = spec((I + R X1) 1 A )  D ;
(iii) Z1 Z2 Z3 1 Z2 < 0,
where
" #
J := I 0
; A :=A B(D~  JD~ ) 1 D~ JC~ ;
0 2I
R :=B(D~ JD~ ) 1 B; Q :=C~  (I D~ (D~  JD~ ) 1 D~  )C~ ;
" # " #
(Aa + Ba Fa ) 0 B a Va 0
A := ; B := ;
0 (Ab + Bb Fb ) 0 Bb Vb
2" #3 2" # " #3
Fa Fb V V
~C := 664 (Ca + Da Fa ) 7 6 7
a b
(Cb + Db Fb ) 75 ; D~ :=64 Da Va Db Vb 75;
0 0 I 0
" 
#
Z :=D~ JD~ + BX1B =: Z1 Z2 ; L :=D~  JD~ + BX1A
Z2 Z3
and A , B , C , D , F and V (\" denotes a or b) are de ned in equations (5.16) and (5.21).
Remark 5.7 Given nite-dimensional expressions (matrix representations) for A , R and Q and
a computationally-tractable procedure for testing condition (iii), a bisection-search based on the
conditions given in Theorem 5.6 can be used to compute to any desired accuracy the directed gap
between any two systems in PU!Y that admit stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisations.
Then since the gap is simply the maximum of two directed gaps, this constitutes a procedure for
computing the gap between two LPTV systems. |
In the sequel the necessary nite-dimensional expressions for A , R and Q and a computationally-
tractable test for condition (iii) are obtained. To this end, the following assumption is required to
hold throughout.
Assumption 5.8 It is assumed that Da (t) = Db (t) for all t. In other words, the two systems Pa
and Pb have the same instantaneous response.
5.4 Computing the Directed Gap 115

5.4.2 Computing A , R and Q in Theorem 5.6


In this sub-section, nite-dimensional expressions are derived for the operators A , R and Q appear-
ing in Theorem 5.6. The formulae involve computing the value of a state-transition operator at
only one point. The relevant state-transition operator is associated with a time-varying TPBVP
that is expressible explicitly in terms of the periodically-time-varying, state-space realisations of
the two LPTV systems Pa and Pb . The TPBVP characterisation is derived in a manner similar to
the TPBVP analysis presented in [CG97] (cf. Chapter 6), where nite-dimensional expressions are
derived for certain operators involved in the so-called SD-discretisation approach to H1 synthesis
of SD control-systems. The derivation here is a long and tedious series of state-space manipulations
and as such, the proof is deferred to Appendix C.1.

Lemma 5.9 Given > 0, construct the following periodic, matrix function of time :

[E (t)]i;j :=Eij (t);

where the Eij 's (i; j = 1; : : : ; 7) are de ned in Appendix C.2. Let

E :=E (h; 0)

and partition it conformably with E , where E (t;  ) denotes the state-transition operator associated
with E (t). Then under Assumption 5.8,

2     3
E X
66 0 43 2 a 3 23 1 770 E
66 @ 6 Xa 0 7E A 7
7
h i 6 6 E 53 5 13 7
4
0 Xb 77 ;
Q = 0 I 0 0 E~ 1 66 77 (5.29)
66 0 E63 1 77
66 2 3
4 @E73 64 Xa 0 75E33A 75
0 Xb
2 3 1" #
h i  E   E 5 I
R = E24 E26 4 E  64   66  (5.30)
44 Xa 0 E24 E46 Xa 0 E26 0
116 Computing the Gap

and
h i
A = (E33 E23 ) (E34 E24 ) (E35 E25 ) (E36 E26 ) (E37 E27 ) 
2  " #  3
6 0
6 E43 Xa 0 E23 1 77
6 2 3 7
6
6
6 @E53 6
6 Xa 0 7
7 E A
7
7
7
6 6 5 13
7 7
E~
6
1 66
4
0 Xb 7
7;
7
(5.31)
6 7
6
6
6 0 E63 7
1 777
7
6 2 3
6
6
6 @E73 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E33 A 77
4 5
4
0 Xb 5
where
2  " #   " #   " #   " #  3
6
6
6
6
0 E44 2
Xa 0 E24 1
3
0 E45 2
Xa 0 E25 1
3
0 E46 2
Xa 0 E26 1
3
0 E47 2
Xa 0 E27 1
3
7
7
7
7
6
6
6 @E54 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E14 A @E55 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E15 A @E56 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E16 A @E57 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E17 A 7
7
7
6 7
E~
6
:=6666
4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 7
7
7;
7
6
6
6 0 E64 1 0 E65 1 0 E66 1 0 E67 1
7
7
7
7
6 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 7
6
6
6 @E74 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E34 A @E75 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E35 A @E76 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E36 A @E77 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E37 A 7
7
7
4 5
4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5

Xa is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation


Xa = A a Xa(I + R a Xa) 1A a + Q a ;
and Xb is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation

Xb = A b Xb(I + R bXb) 1 A b + Q b ;
with
h i " # h i " #
A a = I 0 E33

E37 E771E73 I ; A b = 0 I E33

E37 E771E73 0 ;
0 I
h i " # h i " #
I 0
R a = I 0 E33 E771 ; R b = 0 I E33 E771 ;
0 I
h i " # h i " #
I 0
Q a = I 0 E771E73 and Q b = 0 I E771E73 :
0 I
Proof : The proof, rather long and tedious, is deferred to Appendix C.1.
5.4 Computing the Directed Gap 117

5.4.3 Testing Condition (iii) in Theorem 5.6


Recall that condition (iii) in Theorem 5.6 involves testing
Z1 Z2Z3 1Z2 < 0;
where

" #
Z := D~  JD~ + BX1B =: Z1 Z2 ;
Z2 Z3

D~ , J and B are de ned in Theorem 5.6 and X1 is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising
solution to the nite-dimensional, algebraic, Riccati equation (5.27). It is straightforward to show
that
Z1 Z2Z3 1Z2 = 2I + VaW~ (I Y~(Y~ Y~) 1Y~ )WV
~ a; (5.32)
where
2 3
" # 6 "Da # 77
W~ := I ; W :=64 ;
X 2 Ba 5
1 (5.33a)
W 1
0
2 3
" # 6 Db # 7
"
Y~ := I ; Y :=64 7; (5.33b)
X12 0 5
1
Y
Bb
B and D are de ned in equations (5.16) and Va is de ned in equation (5.21a). Since (I
Y~(Y~ Y~) 1 Y~ ) is idempotent, it follows from equation (5.32) that
Z1 Z2Z3 1Z2 < 0
m
2 I + VaW~ (I Y~(Y~ Y~) 1 Y~ )(I Y~(Y~ Y~) 1 Y~ )WV
~ a < 0:

This last condition is tantamount to


" # h i!" #
~ a = I
(I Y~(Y~ Y~) 1Y~ )WV I ( I + Y Y ) 1 I Y  I V < :

Y W a
Now note that the operator
2 h
Y ) 21 I Y 
i3
4 ( I + Y h i5
 1
(I + YY ) 2 Y I
118 Computing the Gap

is unitary and therefore, that


" # h i !" #
I I ( I + Y Y ) 1 I Y  I V <

Y W a
2 h i 3 m

4 (I + Y Y ) 2h I Y  i 5 I I #(I + Y Y ) 1h  i!" I #V <
1 "
(I + YY) 12 Y I I Y
Y W a
m

(I + YY ) (W Y )Va < :
 1
2

Under Assumption 5.8, Da (t) = Db (t) for all t and hence, the operator (W Y ) is compact.3 It
follows that (I + YY) 12 (W Y )Va is also compact and therefore, that its norm can be determined
by calculating its largest singular value (cf. Sub-Section 2.2.2 or [Kre89b]).
Recall that a number  2 R+ is a singular value of (I + YY) 12 (W Y )Va if and only if there exist
a non-zero (
x 2 L2H (U) such that
Va(W Y )(I + YY) 1(W Y )Va (x = 2 (x :
Since Va = Va is invertible, this is equivalent to the existence of a non-zero (z (= Va 1 (
x ) such that
(W Y )(I + YY) 1 (W Y )Va2 (z = 2 (z : (5.34)
For  > 0, such a (z can be constructed (as follows) in terms of the solution to a TPBVP. To see
this, de ne
w( :=(W Y )(I + YY) 1 (W Y ) 1 (u (5.35a)
and
(u :=Va2 (z : (5.35b)
" (#
3 Under Assumption 5.8, the action of
y = (W Y ) (
u is completely characterised by the integral operators
y~
" # " #
(y () = Ca Cb Z  2 3 (;  ) Ba 0 (
u ( ) d;
0 0 0 66 Aa 0 77 0 Bb
4
0 Ab 5
2 3
6 " 0 # 77 Z h 2 " #
y~ = 64 12 I 0 5  Aa 0
3(h;  ) Ba 0 (u ( ) d;
X1 0 6 7 0 Bb
0 I 6
4
0 Ab
7
5

which are both compact [Kre89a], since there is no direct feedthrough.


5.4 Computing the Directed Gap 119

It then follows from equations (5.16) and (5.33), that the operator mapping (
u to w( in equation
(5.35a) can be expressed in terms of the following TPBVP:
h h  i i" (#
(  a
w = 0 Ba Bb (b (5.36a)

2 " # h i 3
66 0
" ( #! A Rb 1 0 Bb 77" (a #
d a
(b = 66 " # B b 77 (b ()
d 64 Ca ~ 1h i  75
R C a C b A
Ca b
2" #3
6 B a 7
+64 Bb 75 1 (u (); (5.36b)
0
with boundary conditions
(a (0) = 0 and (b (h) = X1 (a (h);

where
" # " # h i
Aa 0 0
A := Rb 1 Db Ca Cb ;
0 Ab Bb
R :=(I + D D ) and R~  :=(I + D D).4 Similarly, the operator mapping (z to (u in equation
(5.35b) is completely characterised by the TPBVP:
h i" (e #
(u = Ra 1 (z + Ra 1 Da Ca Ra 1 Ba (g ; (5.37a)
" ( #! " 1 
#" ( #
d e =
(Aa Ba Ra Da Ca ) Ba Ra 1Ba e ()
d (g CaR~a 1 Ca 1 
(Aa Ba Ra Da Ca )  (
g
" #
BR 1
+  a a 1 (z (); (5.37b)
Ca Da Ra
with boundary conditions
(e (0) = 0 and (g (h) = Xa (e (h);
4 Recallthat under Assumption 5.8, Da = Db . However, for clarity of the derivations it is convenient to maintain
a notational distinction between them.
120 Computing the Gap

where Xa is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising solution to the algebraic, Riccati equa-
tion (5.22). Moreover, from equations (5.34) and (5.35), it follows that (z =  1 w(. With substitu-
tion of this into equations (5.36) and (5.37), elementary algebraic manipulation yields the following
TPBVP characterisation of the (z 's satisfying equation (5.34):
h h h i i i"(#
(z =  1 r
0 0 Ba Bb
(v ; (5.38a)
" ( #! " #" ( #
d r A B  (R  ) 1 (B  ) r
d (v =      1     ( (); (5.38b)
(C ) (Q ) C (A ) v
with boundary conditions
" # " #
(r (0) = 0 and (v (h) =
Xa 0 (r (h); (5.38c)
0 0 X1
where
" # " #
(r := (e ; (v := (g
(b ;
(a

" # " #
2 Ra 0 2 R~ a 0
R  := ; Q  := ;
0 Rb 0 R~ b
2 3
6 Ba 0 77 ; " #
Ca 0 0
B := 64 Ba
 0 5 C  :=
0 Ca Cb
Bb Bb
and
2 3
A :=
66 Aa 0 0 77 B  (R  ) 1 " Da 0 #C  :
4 0 Aa 0 5 0 Db
0 0 Ab
For (z in equation (5.38a) to be non-zero, the TPBVP must have non-trivial solution. With
"     (R  ) 1 (B  )
#
A B
E  (t) :=      1   (t)
(C ) (Q ) C (A )
and 5
E  :=E  (h; 0); (5.40)
5 Recall that  (t;  ) denotes the state-transition operator associated with .
5.4 Computing the Directed Gap 121

existence of a non-trivial solution implies


K " # ! 6= f0g;
E 22 Xa 0 E 
0 X1 12
"   #
where E  =: E 11 E 12 and the partition is conformal with that of E  (t). To see this, note that
E21 E22
" ( # "     #" ( #
r (h) E E
= 11 12
r (0)
;
(v (h) E 21 E 22 (v (0)
which combined with the boundary conditions (5.38c), gives
" # !
E 22 Xa 0 E  (v (0) = 0:
0 X1 12
Now suppose that K " # ! = f0g. It then follows that (v (0) = 0 and hence,
E 22 Xa 0 E 
0 X1 12 "(#
(
since r (0) = 0, that the TPBVP has only the trivial solution (r  0. This contradicts the
v
initial hypothesis that
h h h i i i" (r #
0 6= (z =  2 0 0 Ba Bb (v :
Thus, if (z is non-zero then necessarily, K " # ! 6= f0g. The latter condition
E 22 Xa 0 E 
0 X1 12
is also sucient. That is, if
" # !
det E 22 Xa 0 E  = 0; (5.41)
0 X1 12
then there exists a non-zero (z satisfying equation (5.34) and hence,  is a singular value of (I +
YY) 12 (W Y )V"a. Again, # this can be seen by contradiction. Let equation (5.41) hold. Then there
(
exists a (v (0) := (g (0) 6= 0, such that
b (0)
" # !" ( #
E 22 Xa 0 E  g (0)
0 X1 12
(b (0) = 0

and consequently, a corresponding non-trivial solution to equation (5.38b) with boundary conditions
(5.38c). Now suppose that (z  0. Then ( u in equation (5.35b) is identically zero and equations
122 Computing the Gap

(5.36a) and (5.37a) (which de ne the TPBVP (5.38)), become


2 " # h i 3
66 0
" ( #! A Rb 1 0 Bb 77" (a #
d a
(b = 66 " # B b 77 (b (); (5.42a)
d 64 Ca ~ 1h i  75
R C a C b A
Ca b
" ( #! " #" ( #
d e (Aa Ba Ra 1 Da Ca ) Ba Ra 1 Ba e
d (g =
Ca R~ a 1 Ca (Aa Ba Ra 1 Da Ca ) (g (); (5.42b)

with boundary conditions


(a (0) = 0; (b (h) = X1 (a (h); (e (0) = 0 and (g (h) = Xa (e (h): (5.42c)
Now consider the operator
" #
SS 0
: Xa  Xb  Xa ! Xa  Xb  Xa ;
0 BaVa2Ba
where
2 3
"C C
a b # 7
16
 2 6
S :=(I + YY ) 4 2 Aa 0 75
1
X1
0 Ab
and A , B and C are de ned in equations (5.16). It is readily veri able that equations (5.42a)
and (5.42b) with boundary conditions
(a (0) = x1; (b (h) = X1 (a (h); (e (0) = 0 and (g (h) = Xa (e (h) + x2 ; (5.43)
characterise
" #" # "( #
S S 0 x1 b (0)
= ( : (5.44)
0 BaVa2Ba x2 e (h)
Then since the boundary conditions (5.42c) are identical to the boundary conditions (5.43) when
x1 = 0 and x2 = 0, it follows by linearity and equation (5.44) that (b (0) = 0 and (e (h) = 0. The
boundary conditions (5.42c) then imply that (e (0) = (g (h) = 0 and hence, using equation (5.42b),
that
" # "( # " #
0 e (h) = "
= ( # (h; 0) (0 :
0 g (h) (Aa Ba Ra 1 Da Ca ) Ba Ra 1 Ba g (0)
CaR~ a 1 Ca (Aa Ba Ra 1 Da Ca )
5.4 Computing the Directed Gap 123

Since the state-transition operator


" (A Ba Ra 1 Da Ca ) Ba Ra 1Ba
#(t;  )
a
Ca R~a 1Ca (Aa Ba Ra 1 Da Ca )
is invertible for all t and  , this gives (g (0) = 0. That is,
"( #
(v (0) = (g (0) = 0;
b (0)
which is a contradiction, since by the initial hypothesis (v (0) 6= 0. Hence, there must exist a
non-zero (z satisfying equation (5.34), which is the desired result. This is all summarised in the
following lemma:
Lemma 5.10 A real number  > 0 is a singular value of (I + YY) 12 (W Y )Va if and only if
" # !
det E 22
X a 0
E  = 0; (5.45)
0 X1 12
"   #
where E  E11 E12
=:     is de ned in equation (5.40).
E21 E22

By Lemma 5.10, it can be seen that testing the norm of (I + YY) 12 (W Y)Va and hence, condition
(iii) of Theorem 5.6, is equivalent to testing the largest  > 0 that satis es condition (5.45). As
a step towards testing the latter, recall that the set of singular values of a compact operator is
discrete, with the only possible accumulation point being 0 [Kre89b]. Therefore, by Lemma 5.10,
the zeros of
" # !
1
d() :=det E 22
Xa 0 E 1
0 X1 12
1
must constitute a discrete set with no nite accumulation points. Furthermore, note that E  and
hence d(), are analytic functions of . So with wnor (d) de ned to be the number of clockwise
encirclements of the origin made by d() as  traverses the standard Nyquist contour of radius r,6
the following corollary of Lemma 5.10 is a simple consequence of the Principle of the Argument
[MH87].7
Corollary 5.11 Condition (iii) of Theorem 5.6 is satis ed, or equivalently given > 0
1
k(I + YY) 2 (W Y )Vak < ;
6 A semi-circle (centred at the origin) into the right half plane and of radius r.
7 Prof. Bassam Bamieh must be acknowledged for rst suggesting the use of winding numbers in this context.
124 Computing the Gap

if and only if
wno 1 (d) = 0:
Remark 5.12 Although it is not necessary to do so when computing the directed gap, it is possible
to compute k(I + YY) 21 (W Y )Vak to any desired accuracy using Corollary 5.11. That is, one
could simply perform a bisection-search along r 2 R+ =0 to nd the point at which wnor (d) changes
from 0 to a value greater than 0. |
Remark 5.13 As an aside, note that if Xa were equal to the 11-block of X1, then
1
k(I + YY) 2 (W Y )Vak <

would be equivalent to the gap between the two nite-horizon, linear operators W and Y being less
than . As such, the techniques developed in this subsection could be used to compute the gap
between the compression of (possibly time-varying) state-space systems. |
Remark 5.14 Although it is not explicitly shown here, the technique developed in this chapter
could be used to compute the gap between an LTI, continuous-time controller and a low-pass
ltered, sampled and held (sampled-data) approximation. The formulae would change slightly
because it is not possible to express a sampled and held, LSI, discrete-time system directly in terms
of a system of di erential equations. However, given a state-space realisation of the LSI, discrete-
time component of the sampled-data approximation (and of the low-pass lter usually used before
the sampling device) it is possible to construct a state-space system of di erence equations that
characterises the evolution of the sampled-data approximation (in the time-lifted domain). Using
such a state-space realisation, the results presented in Sub-Section 5.3.1 could be used to construct
a normalised, right-coprime factorisation and hence, strong-right representation of the graph of the
sampled-data approximation. The rest would then follow in exactly the same way. |

5.5 Summary
Exploiting the equivalence of testing a bound on the directed-gap between two LPTV systems and
solving a particular LSI, full-information, `Z2 +()-synthesis problem, a procedure for computing the
directed gap between LPTV systems that admit stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisations,
is developed in this chapter. Much of the chapter is devoted to establishing computationally-
tractable tests for a necessary and sucient condition that characterises the existence of a solution
to the equivalent synthesis problem, derived from the necessary and sucient condition given in
Proposition 2.22 for the generic LSI, full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem. These tests can be
used in a bisection-search procedure for computing the directed gap (and hence gap) to any desired
accuracy.
5.5 Summary 125

The equivalent full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem associated with bounding the directed-
gap involves a generalised plant constructed from isometric, strong-right representations of the
time-lifted graphs of the two systems concerned. To this end, it is shown how to construct a state-
space realisation of a strong-right representation of an LPTV system's time-lifted graph. This
involves obtaining a normalised, right-coprime factorisation of the time-lifted-equivalent system
concerned. A state-space realisation of the relevant coprime factors can be expressed explicitly in
terms of the system's original, continuous-time, state-space realisation and the stabilising solution
to an algebraic, Riccati equation.
6
H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues

6.1 Introduction
This chapter is basically an extension of Section 2.5. All of the material presented in Section
2.5 (including speci c state-space realisations de ned there) is used in this chapter without re-
statement. As such, it is suggested that the reader be familiar with that section before continuing.

Consider the control-system con guration shown in Figure 6.1, where G is an LTI, continuous-
time generalised-plant, K is an LSI, discrete-time controller, AD is an ideal, periodic (period h)
sampling-device and DA is a zeroth-order hold-device synchronised with AD . The task of synthesis-
z(t)  w (t )
y (t ) G u(t)


- AD - K - DA
yk uk

Figure 6.1 SD Control System

ing an internally-stabilising controller K that achieves some bound on the L2R+ -induced norm of the
closed-loop operator F` (G; DA KAD ), mapping w to z , is complicated by the mixture of continuous-
time and discrete-time signals and the fact that the closed-loop is periodically time-varying. Recall
however, as discussed in Section 2.3.2, that periodically-time-varying, continuous-time systems are
equivalent, via the time-lifting isomorphism, to shift-invariant systems that evolve in discrete-time.
126
6.1 Introduction 127

It is therefore not surprising, that the LPTV, SD synthesis problem can be restated as an equiva-
lent LSI problem in discrete-time (cf. Section 2.5 for the details of this). Although this equivalent
problem involves a mixture of nite-dimensional and in nite-dimensional input and output spaces,
there exist various methods for determining a completely nite-dimensional equivalent (cf. Propo-
sition 2.28 for example and [BP92, Toi92, CF95, KH93, Toi93]). The main purpose of this chapter
is to present a new, compact derivation of state-space formulae for constructing a state-space real-
isation of the SD-equivalent generalised-plant de ned in Proposition 2.28 (cf. also Remark 2.29).
Furthermore, numerical issues are discussed and numerically robust formulae obtained.

Perhaps the most simple explicit formulae for the state-space matrices of the nite-dimensional,
equivalent, discrete-time, synthesis problem are given in [Toi93] and involve computation of only a
single matrix exponential. In [Toi93] a nite-dimensional, discrete-time, equivalent problem is de-
rived without using time-lifting. Instead classical, linear-quadratic, optimal-control theory is used
to give a closed-loop characterisation of the worst-case, inter-sample disturbance. The relation-
ship between the time-lifting and the linear-quadratic, optimal control approaches is examined in
[TS97]. There, it is noted that the time-lifting based approach can be interpreted as consisting of
a lifting transformation followed by an open-loop characterisation of the worst-case, inter-sample
disturbance. In this way the two methods were said to be equivalent, although expressions for the
equivalent, nite-dimensional, discrete-time problem were di erent. In this chapter, using only the
time-lifting technique, essentially identical (except for the accommodation of a direct feed-through
term D11 here) state-space formulae to those obtained by [Toi93] are developed and hence, the
equivalence of the two approaches follows directly. The formulation developed here involves solving
a set of TPBVPs, which are used to characterise the behaviour of certain state-space operators
that describe the in nite-dimensional, time-lifted, discrete-time, equivalent problem (cf. Proposi-
tion 2.24). These TPBVPs lead to state-space formulae that involve the computation of only a
single, nite-dimensional matrix-exponential.

The required matrix exponentiation is of a Hamiltonian structured matrix expressible explicitly


in terms of the state-space matrices of the original generalised-plant. Since the eigenvalues of a
Hamiltonian matrix are symmetric about the imaginary axis, direct computation of its exponential
can be dominated by large terms if any of the eigenvalues have large real part. These large terms
can cancel or become small in the formulae used to determine the state-space matrices of the
nite-dimensional, equivalent problem. Hence, without care the formulae initially derived can be
numerically sensitive. With this in mind, it is shown here how to re-structure the state-space
formulae to give a numerically robust procedure for computation.
128 H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues

Brie y, the structure of the chapter is as follows: in Section 6.2 a new, compact derivation of
formulae for constructing a state-space realisation of the SD-equivalent generalised-plant de ned in
Proposition 2.28, is presented; in Section 6.3, it is shown how to re-structure the new formulae for
numerical robustness; in Section 6.4, two assumptions required to make this possible are discussed;
nally, a brief summary is given in Section 6.5.

6.2 State-Space Formulae for the SD-Equivalent Generalised-Plant


The purpose of the section is to present a new, compact derivation of formulae for computing
the state-space matrices of the SD-equivalent generalised-plant G , de ned in Proposition 2.28 (cf.
Section 2.5 of Chapter 2). The formulae are expressible explicitly in terms of the state-space
matrices of the original generalised-plant G (cf. equation (2.17)) and are similar to those presented
in [Toi93, TS97]. Finite-dimensional expressions for the state-space matrices of G are constructed
by solving a set of TPBVPs, which characterise the combination of integral operator expressions
used in the state-space description of G in Proposition 2.28. The formulae derived accommodate
direct feedthrough from the disturbance inputs w to the controlled outputs z (that is, D11 6= 0).
It follows from equations (2.26{2.37), that in order to explicitly determine the state-space matrices
of G , nite-dimensional expressions are required for
2  1 
"  #B1(I D11 D11 )h B1;
2 (6.1)
C1 (I 2D D ) i
2 11 11 1 C1 D12 (6.2)
D12
and
h i
2 B1 D11 (I 2D11 D11 ) 1 C1 D12 ; (6.3)
which can be obtained as described below. Given > kD11 k, de ne
( "     #)
 A CC
Q :=e := exp h   
hE ; (6.4)
BB A
where
" # h i
B1
A := A + 2  C D ;
R 1 D11 1 12
0
" # h i
C1
C  C :=  S 1 C D
1 12 ;
D12
" # h i
B B  := 2 B1 1 R  B1 0
0
6.2 State-Space Formulae for the SD-Equivalent Generalised-Plant 129
" #
A B2
A := : (6.5)
0 0
"   #
S :=(I 2 D11 D ) and R :=(I
11 2 D D11 ).
11 Partition Q =: Q 11 Q 12 conformably with E .
Q Q 21 22
Theorem 6.1 The state-space matrices corresponding to the state-space realisation of the SD-
equivalent generalised-plant G given in equation (2.35), can be characterised as follows:
h i " #
In
A~ = In 0 (Q 11 ) 1 ; (6.6)
0
h i " #
0
B~ 2 = In 0 (Q 11) 1 ; (6.7)
Im 2
B 1 a matrix satisfying
h i " #
In
B 1B  =
1 In 0 Q21 Q 111 (6.8)
0
and C 1 and D 12 matrices satisfying
"   #h i
C1  1 D 12 = 2 Q 111 Q 12 :
C (6.9)
D 12
Proof : By Proposition 2.28, it is required to determine nite-dimensional expressions for the
operators given in equations (6.1), (6.2) and (6.3). Consider the rst operator
2 B1 (I 2 D11 D11 ) 1B1 := z 7! x;
where z 2 Rn . De ne
(y := 1B1z; (6.10a)
(r := 1D11 (u (6.10b)
and
(u := (I 2D11 D11 ) 1 (y ; (6.10c)
= 1 D11 (r + 1 B1 z; (6.10d)
where equation (6.10d) follows from equations (6.10b) and (6.10c). Then clearly, x = 1 B1 (
u.
Now from equations (2.24) and (6.10b) it follows that for  2 H
d (a = A (a () + 1 B (u (); (a (0) = 0; (6.11a)
d 1
(r () = C1 (a () + 1D11 (u (): (6.11b)
130 H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues

Furthermore, using equations (2.21) and (2.24), the nal-condition response of


d (e = A (e () C  (r (); (e (h) = z; (6.12a)
d 1
(u () = 1 B1 (e () + 1D11 (r (); (6.12b)
gives 1 B1 z and the zero, nal-condition response gives 1 D11 (r , which is precisely equation
(6.10d). Then from equations (2.21) and (6.11),
x = 1 B1 (u = (a (h):
Combining equations (6.11) and (6.12) yields a TPBVP. It follows from the boundary conditions,
that
" # "( # "( #
z e (h) e (0)
(a (h) = (a (h) = Q(h) 0 ; (6.13)

where Q(t) is de ned in equation (2.34). Hence,1


(a (h) = Q21 (h)Q11 (h) 1 z:

That is, Q21 (h)Q11 (h) 1 constitutes a nite-dimensional expression for the rst operator. Now by
the structure of E it follows that
h i " #
In
Q21 (h)Q11 (h) 1 = In 0 Q21 Q 111 ;
0
which is equation equation (6.8), as claimed.
Before continuing, a well-known result from matrix theory is required [VL78]. Let M11 and M22
be square matrices, then for t  0
(" #) " #
M M etM11 M 12
exp t 11 12 = ; (6.14)
0 M22 0 etM22
R
where M 12 = 0t e(t  )M11 M12 eM22 d . Now consider the second and third operators
" 
# h i
C
2  (I 2 D11 D11 ) 1 C1 D12 := z 7! x1
1
D12
and
h i
2 B1 D11 (I 2 D11 D11 ) 1 C1 D12 := z 7! x2
1 Recall that by Remark 2.26, Q11 (h) is invertible.
6.2 State-Space Formulae for the SD-Equivalent Generalised-Plant 131
h i
respectively. De ne (v := C1 D12 z, for some z 2 Rn+m2 . It then follows from equations (2.22),
(2.25) and (6.14), that for  2 H
(v () = h C1 D12 ieAz; (6.15)
where A is de ned in equation (6.5). Now de ne
(g :=(I 2 D11 D11 ) 1 (v ; (6.16)
so that
" #
C
x1 = 2 1 (g (6.17)
D12
and
x2 = 2 B1D11 (g : (6.18)
With
w(() := 1 D11 (g ();
it follows from equation (2.24) that for  2 H
( " #
dm  ( C1 ( ((h) = 0;
d = A m() D  g (); m (6.19a)
h i ( 12
w(() = 1 B1 0  (
m() + 1 D11 g ( ): (6.19b)
Furthermore, from equations (6.16) and (6.15),
(g () = (v () + 1(D11 w()()
h i
= C1 D12 eA z + 1 (D11 w()():
Again, using equation (2.24) this can be expressed as
" #
d (n = A (
n () +
1 B1 (
w (); (
n (0) = z; (6.20a)
d 0
(g () = h C1 D12 i(
n () + 1D11 w((); (6.20b)
(
i A initial-condition response gives 1 D11 w and the initial-condition response gives
hwhere the zero,
C1 D12 e z. The systems (6.20) and (6.19) form a TPBVP, from which it follows that
" # "( # "( #
0 m(h) m(0)
(n (h) = ( = Q ; (6.21)
n (h) z
132 H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues

where Q is de ned in equation (6.4). Now from equations (6.17), (6.18), (6.19) and (6.20),
" #
x1 = 2
C1 (g = 2 m((0); (6.22)
D12
and
h i
x2 = 2 B1 D11 (g = 1 B1 w( = In 0 f (n (h) ehA zg: (6.23)
((0) = Q 111Q 12z and combining this
Recall the partitioning of Q . Then from equation (6.21), m
with equation (6.22) characterises a nite-dimensional expression for the second operator. Similarly,
(n (h) = fQ 22 Q 21 Q 111Q 12 gz: (6.24)
De ne
" #
0 In+m2
J= ; (6.25)
In+m2
0
noting that E  = J EJ
 1 (E is Hamiltonian), so that
(Q  ) 1 = e hE  = J QJ
 1:
That is, Q  J QJ
 1 = J QJ
 1 Q  = I , which yields the relationship
Q 22 Q 21 Q 111 Q 12 = (Q 11 ) 1 :
Combining this with equations (6.23) and (6.24) then gives a nite-dimensional expression for the
third operator. Furthermore, from equation (2.27),
h i " #
A~ = ehAg In
ehA + In 0 f(Q 11 ) 1
0
h i " #
In
= In 0 (Q 11 ) 1
0
and from equation (2.29),
Zh h i " #
0
B~ 2 = e(h t)A dtB +
2 In 0 f(Q 11 ) 1 ehA g
0 Im2
h i " #
0
= In 0 (Q 11 ) 1 :
Im2
To see that Q 11 is invertible, note that from equations (6.21) and (6.14),
" #
Q 11 ( h) 0
Q 11 = ;
? Im2
where Q11 is de ned as before and \?" denotes an irrelevant sub-matrix. Thus, Q 11 is invertible if
and only if Q11 is, which is the case by Remark 2.26. This completes the proof.
6.3 Re-Structuring for Numerical Robustness 133

6.3 Re-Structuring for Numerical Robustness


In this section, the state-space formulae presented in Theorem 6.1 are re-structured to avoid nu-
merical problems that can arise when calculating the matrix exponential de ned there.

As detailed in Theorem 6.1, computing a state-space realisation of G involves taking the ma-
trix exponential of the Hamiltonian-structured matrix E . Since E has Hamiltonian structure, its
eigenvalues are symmetric about the imaginary axis. Therefore, if E has eigenvalues with large
(with respect to the sampling frequency), positive real-part, the computation of Q :=ehE can be
numerically sensitive, with the calculation being dominated by large terms.2 These large terms
cancel or become very small in equations (6.6-6.9), which characterise a state-space realisation of
G , making any procedure based on these equations directly, numerically sensitive on the whole. In
what follows, equation (6.6-6.9) are re-structured to avoid direct computation of the full matrix
exponential ehE . The aim of the re-structuring is to restrict all matrix exponential calculations
to involve only matrices with all eigenvalues having real part less than or equal to some number
of order 1. By similar argument, the following re-structuring procedure should also be adopted to
modify the formulae given in Lemma 2.25, which can be used to compute bounds on kD11 k (cf.
Corollary 2.27).

First some fundamental results from matrix theory [GVL89].


Lemma 6.2 (Schur Decomposition) If A 2 C nn then there exists a unitary matrix Q 2 C nn
such that
Q AQ = T = D + N;
where D = diag(1 ; : : : ; n ) and N 2 C nn is strictly upper triangular. Furthermore, Q can be
chosen so that the eigenvalues i appear in any order along the diagonal.
Lemma 6.3 (Block Diagonalisation) Let T 2 C nn be partitioned as follows:
" #
T11 T12 p
T= 0 T22 q : (6.26)
p q
De ne the linear transformation  : C pq ! C pq by
(X ) = T11 X XT22 ;
2 For example, this situation could occur if the original generalised-plant G has stable or unstable modes that are
fast relative to the sampling period.
134 H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues

where X 2 C pq . Then  is non-singular if and only if spec(T11 ) \ spec(T22 ) = ;. If  is non-


singular and Y is de ned by
" #
Y = Ip Z ; (Z ) = T12 ;
0 Iq
then Y 1 TY = diag(T11 ; T22 ).

Remark 6.4 Lemma 6.3 has a natural extension via an inductive argument to block, upper tri-
angular matrices with ner partitioning than shown in the lemma. |
Let M 2 C 2(n+m2 )2(n+m2 ) , be an invertible matrix such that
" #" #" #
M11 M12 T11 0 M~ 11 M~ 12
E = ; (6.27)
M21 M22 0 T22 M~ 21 M~ 22
where M~ :=M 1 ,
spec(T11 )  C > :=fs : Re(s) > g;
spec(T22 )  C  :=fs : Re(s)  g;

2 [0; l=h] (l of order 1) and the matrices M and M~ are partitioned conformably with E . That
such a matrix exists follows by Lemmas 6.2 and 6.3. Decomposing the matrix E into its spectral
components involves rst obtaining an ordered Schur decomposition, the accuracy of which, in
certain circumstances, can be improved by balancing the original matrix [WR71]. The balancing
process involves applying similarity transformations to the original matrix so that corresponding
rows and columns have approximately the same vector norms. As implemented in MATLAB3 , the
similarity transformations can often be ill-conditioned, especially when there are both relatively
very large and very small, non-zero elements in the original matrix [MAT92]. Since the computation
of E is likely to be embedded in an iterative synthesis or norm-analysis procedure, which could
give rise to very small entries that are supposed to be zero, the bad e ects of using ill-conditioned
balancing transformations are readily observable. As such, caution should be exercised when using
such transformations. Also, E involves \squared" terms like B B  and C  C , which can accentuate
di erences between the size of elements in B and those in C . It is therefore recommended that the
original system G be scaled prior to forming E , so that corresponding rows and columns of the state-
space matrices are of comparable size in norm. Such an algorithm (syscl) is implemented in the
-tools4 tool-box of MATLAB. Having performed the Schur Decomposition the next step required
3 Copyright Maths Works Inc.
4 Copyright Musyn, 1993.
6.3 Re-Structuring for Numerical Robustness 135

to obtain the decomposition in equation (6.27) is a Block Triangularisation. The choice of the
real Schur form obtained in the previous step and its partitioning determines the sensitivity of the
Sylvester equations that must be solved in the diagonalisation process. There can be substantial loss
of accuracy whenever the spectral sets spec(Tii ) are insuciently separated [GNVL79]. However,
algorithms exist which dynamically determine the partitioning to limit the loss of accuracy [BS79].
Before going on to show how this spectral decomposition can be used to restructure the state-space
formulae derived in the previous section, the following technical result is required.
Lemma 6.5 M11 has full column-rank if (A; C1 ) has no unobservable modes in C > . Similarly,
M~ 11 has full row-rank if (A; B1 ) has no uncontrollable modes in C > .
Proof : From equation (6.27) it follows that
" # " #" # " #
M A C C M11 M11
E 11 =    = T :
M21 BB A M21 M21 11
Since T11 has full rank and is square with all eigenvalues having real part strictly greater than ,
the proof that M11 has full column rank if (A; C1 ) has no unobservable modes in C > , is roughly
the same as the proof that the Algebraic Riccati equation
A0 X + XA + XRX + Q = 0;
has stabilising solution if (A; R) is stabilisable (cf. [ZDG95, Theorem 13.6]). See Appendix D.1
for the full proof. The proof that M~ 11 has full row rank if (A; B1 ) has no uncontrollable modes in
C > , follows similarly.

In view of Lemma 6.5, the following assumptions are made:


(A1) (A; B1 ) has no uncontrollable modes in C > ;
(A2) (A; C1 ) has no unobservable modes in C > .
For the sake of continuity, justi cation of these assumptions is postponed to the next section.
With the matrix E decomposed into its C > and C  spectral components, it is now possible to re-
structure the formulae given in Theorem 6.1, to avoid direct computation of the matrix exponential
ehT11 . Let p denote the dimension of T11 and r :=n + m2 p. Since under assumptions (A1) and
(A2) the matrix M11 has full column rank and M~ 11 has full row rank, the following invertible
matrices are well-de ned:
" # h i
M11L
and M~ 11R M~ 11? ;
M11?
136 H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues

such that
" # " # h R ?i h i
M11L M = Ip M~ ~ ~
and 11 M11 M11 = Ip 0p;r ;
M11? 11 0r;p
where 0i;j denotes an i  j matrix of zeros. Now de ne the following matrices:
" hT11 M L
# " # ! 1
e Ip

L := ?
11 M12 ehT22 M~ 21 +
M~ 11 ;
M11 0r;p
 h i h i 1

R := M11 Ip 0p;r + M12 ehT22 M~ 21 M~ 11R e hT11 M~ 11? ;
h i
:= M~ 11R e hT11 M~ 11?
R ; (6.28)
 h i h i
 := M22 ehT22 M~ 21 M~ 11R e hT11 M~ 11? + M21 Ip 0p;r
R (6.29)
and
" hT11 M L
# " # !
e Ip
 :=
L ?
11 M12 ehT22 M~ 22 +
M~ 12 : (6.30)
M11 0r;p
Note that none of the matrices above involve the exponential of a matrix with eigenvalues having
real part greater than l, a number of order 1.
Theorem 6.6 The state-space matrices of the SD-equivalent generalised-plant G are given by:
h i " #
A~ = In 0 In ,

0
h i " # 0
B~ 2 = In 0  ,
Im2
h i " In #
B 1 a matrix satisfying B 1B 1 = In 0  and
0
"   #h i
C 1 and D 12 matrices satisfying C1
C 1 D 12 = 2:
D 12
Proof : Note from equation (6.27) that
 
Q 111 M11 ehT11 M~ 11 + M12 ehT22 M~ 21 = I:
h i
Post-multiplying both sides by M~ 11R e hT11 M~ 11? gives
h i
Q 111
R1 = M~ 11R e hT11 M~ 11? ;
and hence from equation (6.28), = Q 111 .
6.4 Comments Concerning Assumptions (A1) and (A2) 137

Let  = Q 21 Q 111 , and note from equation (6.27) that


   
 M11 ehT11 M~ 11 + M12 ehT22 M~ 21 = M21 ehT11 M~ 11 + M22 ehT22 M~ 21 :
h i
Post-multiplying both sides by M~ 11R e hT11 M~ 11? gives
 h i h i

R1 = M22 ehT22 M~ 21 M~ 11R e hT11 M~ 11? + M21 Ip 0p;r ;
which is equation (6.29).
Similarly, let  = Q 111 Q 12 , and note from equation (6.27) that
 hT11 ~   
M11 e M11 + M12 ehT22 M~ 21  = M11 ehT11 M~ 12 + M12 ehT22 M~ 22 :
" hT11 M L
#
e 11 gives
Pre-multiplying both sides by ?
M11
" hT11 M L
# " # !
e ~ 22 + Ip

L 1  = ?
11 M ehT22 M
12 M~ 12 ;
M11 0r;p
which is equation (6.30).

6.4 Comments Concerning Assumptions (A1) and (A2)


Under assumptions (A1) and (A2), the matrices M11 and M~ 11 have full column and full row rank
respectively. This is required to enable re-structuring of the formulae given in Theorem 6.1. In this
section, it is argued that the assumptions (A1) and (A2) are reasonable.
There are two cases in which the assumptions can be violated. The rst case is when any unstable
mode, which is unobservable (and/or uncontrollable) from the controlled outputs (disturbance in-
puts), has a time-constant greater than or equal to the sampling period divided by some number l,
of order 1. The second case is when any unstable mode, which is unobservable (and/or uncontrol-
lable) from the controlled outputs (disturbance inputs), has time constant less than the sampling
period divided by some number l, of order 1.
In the rst case, it is sucient to simply choose to be larger than the real part of the unobservable
(and/or uncontrollable) mode. In this case such an will be less than or equal to l=h and therefore,
lie in the required interval [0; l=h].
Remark 6.7 With this in mind, a suitable choice for is the smallest number in [0; l=h], such
that (A; C1 ) and (A; B1 ) have no unobservable and uncontrollable modes respectively, in the set
fs : < Re(s)  l=hg, where l is a number of order 1. If this cannot be determined exactly then
setting = l=h will suce. |
138 H1 SD Synthesis and Related Numerical Issues

The second case is more interesting and is now illustrated with a numerical example. Consider a
problem for which the original generalised-plant has state-space realisation
2 3
6 A B 1 B2
7
G = 64 C1 0 0 75;
C2 0 0
with
" # " # h i" # h i
2 0 1 1
A= ; B1 = ; B2 = ; C1 = 1 0 and C2 = 1 1
0 50 1 1
and the sampling period is set to h = 1 sec. The generalised plant G has an unstable mode at
50 which is unobservable from the controlled output. Note that the unstable mode is fast (time
constant 0:02 sec) relative to the sampling period (1 sec). In this case
2 3
2 0 0 1 0 0
66 7
66 0 50 0 0 0 0 77
6 1 1 0 0 0 0 77
7
E = 66 ;
66 1 0 0 2 0 1 777
64 0 0 0 0 50 1 75
0 0 0 0 0 0
which has eigenvalues 0; 1:7321; 1:7321; 50; 50; and 0, two of which are faster than the sampling
frequency. For simplicity let l = 1. Since in this example the real part of the unobservable mode
is greater than the sampling frequency, it is not possible to select (which must lie in [0; l=h])
to lie to the right of it. Thus (A1) is violated for all possible choices of in the sensible interval
[0; l=h]. However, it is suggested that from a synthesis point of view, in this case it is the structure
of the original problem that is not sensible. The unstable mode is excitable by the disturbance, yet
this is not observed from the controlled output and hence, is not \observed" in the optimisation
problem formulated to bound the norm of the controlled output for worst case disturbances. Since
this unstable mode has a time constant of 0:02 seconds, in one sampling period it can increase by
a large amount (e50 = 5:18E + 21). It is reasonable then to assume that this will require a large
control action in the next sampling period, which if not penalised at the controlled output (that
is D12 = 0) would be admissible. Furthermore, if penalised at the controlled output (that is D12
full column rank) this would result in very poor performance. Additionally, one would intuitively
expect that it be very dicult to stabilise a system with such a fast unstable pole using such a slow
sampling frequency. Similar arguments hold for when (A; B1 ) has an uncontrollable mode that is
faster than the sampling frequency.
6.5 Summary 139

In view of the cases considered, it is claimed that the assumptions (A1) and (A2) are reasonable
in the context of H1 SD-synthesis.

6.5 Summary
In this chapter a new, compact derivation of formulae for H1, SD synthesis is presented. It is shown
that these formulae can be re-structured to give a numerically-robust procedure for computing a
state-space realisation of the SD-equivalent generalised-plant de ned in Proposition 2.28.

The formulae derived are essentially identical (except for the accommodation of a direct feed-
through term, D11 , here) to those derived in [Toi93] using classical, linear-quadratic, optimal-control
theory. This indicates directly that the time-lifting approach and the classical, linear-quadratic,
optimal-control-theoretic approach are equivalent, as was also pointed out in [TS97]. The formulae
are simple, requiring computation of only a single matrix exponential. It is the simplicity of the
formulae obtained that facilitates the re-structuring summarised in Theorem 6.6, for numerical
robustness.
7
Concluding Remarks

The original motivation for this dissertation stems from the wide-spread use of digital hardware to
implement control strategies for continuous-time processes. This invariably leads to closed-loops
that exhibit time-varying behaviour, which is often periodic in nature. Although the mathematical
analysis is more involved, the periodic structure of the time-variation exhibited by systems studied
in this dissertation can be exploited in a manner similar to time-invariance, yielding powerful
results analogous to many known to hold for LTI systems. The main contributions of this work
and directions for future research are given below.

7.1 Contributions
 A new notion of frequency response is developed for LPTV systems. It is de ned in terms
of the average power of the asymptotic response to sinusoidal inputs of a single frequency
and it can be characterised in terms of the singular values of a frequency-dependent, nite-
dimensional matrix, called the Average-Power Gain Matrix. The performance-indicating
properties of this new notion of frequency response are quite intuitive and it can be used to
derive bounds on performance-indicating, closed-loop operators, which facilitate the design
of parametric weights employed in a new H1 -loopshaping based design procedure proposed
for SD, control-system development.

 It is shown that the graph of a stabilisable, LPTV system can be expressed as the range (re-
spectively kernel) of a stable, LPTV system that has a stable, LPTV left-inverse (respectively
right-inverse). This representation is only unique up to right (respectively left) multiplication
by stably-invertible factors and is called a strong-right (respectively strong-left) representa-
140
7.2 Directions for Future Research 141

tion. It resembles the right (respectively left), coprime-factor representations known to exist
for certain classes of LTI systems.
 Given a well-posed, LPTV plant/controller pair, a useful characterisation of closed-loop stabil-
ity is obtained in terms of strong-right and strong-left representations the plant and controller
graphs. In turn, this leads to a Youla-style parameterisation of stabilising controllers.
 Quantitative, robust-stability results are obtained for LPTV, closed-loop systems in terms
of the gap metric. To this end, a formula, expressible as an optimisation problem over H1 ,
is derived for the directed gap between two LPTV systems. Given a nominal, LPTV plant
and a stabilising, LPTV controller, the largest gap-ball of systems centred at the nominal
plant, which the controller can be guaranteed to stabilise, is identi ed. Further to this, the
maximally-tolerable, simultaneous gap-perturbation to both the nominal plant and controller
is characterised. Importantly, all of these results apply to the special case of LTI systems
under periodic, SD control.
 Qualitatively, it is shown that the topology induced by the gap metric on a general class of
LPTV systems, is the weakest with respect to which closed-loop stability is a robust property
and closed-loop performance varies continuously. That is, the gap metric on LPTV systems
induces the graph topology.
 A numerical procedure involving only solutions to nite-dimensional, algebraic, Riccati equa-
tions and evaluation of state-transition matrices at only single points in time, is developed
for computing (to any desired accuracy) the directed gap (and hence gap) between LPTV,
continuous-time systems that admit stabilisable and detectable, state-space realisations.
 A new, compact derivation of state-space formulae is presented for H1 , SD synthesis. It is
shown that these formulae can be easily restructured for numerical robustness.

7.2 Directions for Future Research


 Several case studies, in which the new procedure proposed for SD, control-system development
is to be employed, are required to gain explicit insight into the design issues involved with
the development of such control systems.
 Computation of the gap between LPTV, state-space systems involves calculating the state-
transition operator associated with an \almost" Hamiltonian-structured, time-periodic matrix
at one point. It would be useful to determine if a restructuring for numerical robustness of
the relevant formulae is necessary or indeed possible.
142 Concluding Remarks

 In Section 2.4.3, a state-space solution to the LSI, full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem is


given for state-space systems with possibly in nite-dimensional input and output spaces, but
importantly, a nite-dimensional state-space. As seen throughout this work, such state-space
systems frequently appear in the study of LPTV, continuous-time systems. An interesting
direction of research would be to seek a sensible handle on causality for these equivalent, time-
lifted (discrete-time), state-space representations, by which it would be possible to use the so-
lution to the LSI, full-information, `Z2+()-synthesis problem given here and the corresponding
H1 2
D - ltering result, to obtain a state-space solution to the LPTV, output-feedback, LR+ ()-
synthesis problem, involving only nite-dimensional, algebraic, Riccati equations. Such a
solution would be easier to work with than a solution involving Riccati, di erential equalities.
 Another useful direction for future research would be to develop a  -gap (cf. [Vin93a]) type
metric for LPTV systems, with the same qualitative properties as the gap metric, but by
which sharper quantitative results known to hold for LTI systems, could perhaps be obtained
for LPTV systems.
A
Appendix to Chapter 2

A.1 Proof of Proposition 2.20


Let F :=(R + B XB) 1 (S + B XA), then a useful identity used in what follows is

A BF = A B(R + BXB) 1(S + BXA) = A1 B(R + BXB) 1BXA1: (A.1)

Proof : First note that stabilisability of (A; B) is necessary by de nition. Now, since
" #" #" # " #
0
I SR 1 Q S I 0 = Q S R 1 S 0 ;
0 I S R R 1S I 0 R
it follows that Q S R 1 S  0 and hence, that X~ = 0 is a solution to the Riccati inequality

X~ + A X~A + Q (S + BX~A) (R + BXB


~ ) 1 (S + B XA
~ )  0;

such that (R + BXB ~ ) > 0. It then follows by [LR95, Theorem 13.11], that under the assumption
(A; B) is stabilisable, there exists a self-adjoint solution X  0 to the algebraic, Riccati equation
(2.7) such that spec(A BF)  D (the closed unit disc). So stabilisability of (A; B) is almost
sucient in that it guarantees existence of a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite solution, but leaves
open the possibility spec(A BF) \ T 6= ;. In what follows, it is shown that given a self-adjoint,
positive-semide nite solution to equation (2.7), spec(A BF)  D if and only if (Q1 ; A1 ) has no
unobservable modes on T, by which the result claimed holds.

First note that equation (2.7) can be re-written as

X (A BF) X(A BF) = Q SR 1 S + (F R 1S)R(F R 1S): (A.2)


143
144 Appendix to Chapter 2

Now let there be no unobservable modes of (Q1 ; A1 ) on T and suppose there exists a  2 T and
corresponding x 2 X, such that (A BF)x = x. Then from equation (A.2), it follows that

(1 jj2 )hx; XxiX


= x; (Q S R 1 S + (F R 1 S) R(F R 1 S))x X = 0:


Equivalently,

x; (Q SR 1 S)x =
(F R 1 S)x; R(F R 1S)x ;
X X


which since Q1 = (Q S R 1 S)  0 and R > 0, implies that (F R 1 S)x; R(F R 1 S)x X = 0
and that

hx; Q1 xiX = 0: (A.3)

Therefore, (F R 1 S)x = 0 and consequently, Fx = R 1 Sx and

(A BF)x = (A BR 1 S)x =: A1 x = x: (A.4)

Furthermore, it follows from equation (A.3), that x 2 (RQ1 )? = K(Q1 ) =Q1 . Combined with
equation (A.4), this implies that K(I A1 ) \ K(Q1 ) 6= f0g, which is a contradiction to the initial
hypothesis. So if (Q1 ; A1 ) has no unobservable modes on T, then spec(A BF)  D . It now remains
to show that the converse also holds.

Let spec(A BF)  D and suppose there exists an x 2 X and  2 T such that A1 x = x
and Q1 x = 0 (that is,  corresponds to an unobservable mode of (Q1 ; A1 )). Now, recall from
Proposition 2.18, that X is also a solution to

X = A1 XA1 + Q1 A1XB(R + BXB) 1BXA1


and hence that,
2

0 = (1 jjj2 j ) hx; XxiX = B Xx; (R + B XB) 1 B Xx X :

Since R + B XB > 0 (which follows from R > 0 and X  0), it follows that B Xx = 0. Using this
and the identity in equation (A.1), yields (A BF)x = A1 x B(R + B XB) 1 B XA1 x = x, which
contradicts spec(A BF)  D . Hence, if spec(A BF)  D , then the pair (Q1 ; A1 ) necessarily has
no unobservable modes on T.
A.2 Proof of Proposition 2.22 145

A.2 Proof of Proposition 2.22


Suciency: In the ensuing analysis it is convenient to de ne
" # " #
w
k := k and k := k ;
z (A.5)
uk wk
so that
" # " #" #
xk+1 = A B xk :
k C~ D~ k
Now consider the following algebraic identity:
hzk ; zk iZ
*" hw#k ; "wk iW + hx#"k+1; X1x#+
2
k+1 iX

=
xk+1 ; X1 0 xk+1
k 0 J k
*" # " #" #" XZW #" #+
=
xk ; A B X1 0 A B xk
k C~ D~ 0 J C~ D~ k XWU
*" # "  #" #+
x k A X1 A + C~  JC~ L xk
= ; ; (A.6)
k L Z k XWU
where for the moment X1 is an arbitrary, self-adjoint, positive-semide nite
" # " # J is de ned
operator,
Z1 Z2
at the top of Proposition 2.22 and the operators Z =: and L =: L1 (partitioned
Z2 Z3 L2
conformably with ) are de ned in equations (2.14) and (2.15) respectively.
Suppose that X1  0 is a solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation (2.13) such that r :=Z1
Z2Z3 1Z2 < 0 and spec(A BZ 1L)  D . Now note that Z3 = D2 D2 + B2X1B2 and since D2 D2 > 0
and X1  0, that Z3 > 0. Therefore, (cf. Remark 2.19) Z3 is boundedly invertible and it is possible
to write
" # " #" #" #
Z1 Z2 = I Z2Z3 1 r 0 I 0
: (A.7)
Z2 Z3 0 I 0 Z3 Z3 1Z2 I
With r < 0 (which follows by the original hypothesis), r is boundedly invertible (cf. Remark 2.19)
and it follows from equation (A.7), that Z is too. A Schur decomposition of the operator on the
right-hand side of (A.6) is therefore possible, giving
2 hwk ; wk iW + hxk+1 ; X1 xk+1iX
hzk ; zk iZ
*" #" # "  #" #" #+
I 0 x k A X1 A + C~  JC~ L Z 1 L 0 I 0 xk
= ; :
Z 1L I k 0 Z Z 1L I k XWU
146 Appendix to Chapter 2

De ning
" # " #" #
w?k := r 1 Lr 0 xk ;
u?k Z3 1L2 Z3 1Z2 wk
where Lr = L1 Z2Z3 1Z2, it follows that since X1  0 is a solution to the algebraic, Riccati
equation (2.13),
hzk ; zk iZ 2 hwk ; wk iW + hxk+1; X1xk+1 iX
= hxk ; X1 xk iX + h(wk w?k ); r(wk w?k )iW + h(uk u?k ); Z3 (uk u?k )iU : (A.8)
Note, that u? has the form of a causal, LSI, full-information control-law. Moreover, if u = u? is a
stabilising control-law, then by de nition klim x = 0 and consequently,
!1 k
X
1
fhxk ; X1 xk iX hxk+1 ; X1 xk+1 iX g = hx
~; X1x~iX:
k=0
Combining this with equation (A.8), leads to
kzk2` 2 (Z)
+
2 kwk2` 2+(W) ~; X1x~iX
 hx kw w? k2` 2+(W)
Z Z Z
( = ?
kw w k` 2+(W) when x~ = 0);
2 (A.9)
Z

where > 0 is any real number such that r  I. So it remains to show that u = u? is indeed
stabilising and that there exist an  > 0 such that kw w? k2` 2+(W)  kwk2` 2+(W) . That this is
Z Z
true, follows by the initial hypothesis that spec(A BZ 1L)  D . To see this, rst note that with
u = u? ,
" # " #" #
xk+1 = A B2Z3 1L2 B1 B2Z3 1Z2 xk
zk 1
C D2 Z3 L2 D1 D2 Z3 Z2 wk 1

and hence, that u = u? is stabilising if spec(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )  D . Now note that


" #" #" # " # " #
A B2 X1 0 A B2 = X1 + Lrr 1Lr 0 + L2 Z 1h i
L Z :
C D2 0 I C1 D2 0 0 Z3 3 2 3
" # h i
I  1
Multiplying this on the right by
Z 1 L2
and on the left by I L2Z3 , gives
3

X1 = (A B2Z3 1L2) X1(A B2Z3 1L2) + (C D2 Z3 1L2) (C D2 Z3 1L2) Lrr 1Lr:


Recalling that r < 0 (by the initial hypothesis), it follows that ((C D2 Z3 1 L2 ) (C D2 Z3 1 L2 )
Lrr 1Lr) > 0 and hence, that any eigenvalue  of (A B2Z3 1L2) and corresponding eigenvector
x 2 X, satisfy


(1 jj2 )hx; X1 xiX = x; ((C D2 Z3 1 L2 ) (C D2 Z3 1 L2 ) Lr r 1 Lr)x X  0: (A.10)
A.2 Proof of Proposition 2.22 147

Since X1  0 this implies that spec(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )  D . In fact, this can be strengthened to


spec(A B2Z3 1 L2 )  D if (Lr ; A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) has no unobservable modes on T. To see this, suppose
that under the additional hypothesis that (Lr ; A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) has no unobservable modes on T, there
exist an eigenvalue of (A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) on the unit circle and denote the corresponding eigenvector by

x 2 X. Then from equation (A.10), Lrx; r 1 Lr x X = (C D2 Z3 1 L2 )x; (C D2 Z3 1L2)x Z  0



and hence, since r 1 < 0, it follows that Lr x = 0, contradicting the additional hypothesis. So in
terms of showing u = u? is stabilising, it is sucient to show that spec(A BZ 1 L)  D implies
(Lr ; A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) has no unobservable modes on T. This is indeed the case, as can be seen by
noting that
A BZ 1L = (A B2Z3 1L2) (B1 B2Z3 1Z2)r 1 Lr (A.11)
and supposing there exists a jj = 1 and x 2 X such that (A B2 Z3 1 L2 )x = x and Lr x = 0.
Then using equation (A.11), it follows that (A BZ 1 L)x = x 0 = x, contradicting the original
hypothesis spec(A BZ 1 L)  D .

To complete the suciency proof it remains to show that there exist an  > 0 such that kw
w?k2` 2+(W)  kwk2` 2+(W) . Let W : W ! W denote the operator mapping w to (w w?) and note
Z Z
that it has state-space realisation
" # " #" #
xk+1 = A B2 Z3 1L2 B1 B2Z3 1Z2 xk :
wk w?k r 1 Lr I wk
Since spec(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )  D , W is a bounded operator. In fact it has bounded inverse, since
spec(A BZ 1 L)  D and using equation (A.11), a state-space realisation for W 1 is
" # " #" #
sk+1 = A BZ 1L B1 B2Z3 1Z2 sk :
wk r 1 Lr I wk w?k
It follows that kW 1k2 kwk`Z
2 (W)  kw w? k` 2 (W) and therefore, that a suitable  is  =
+ Z+

kW 1 k2 >
0 (cf. equation (A.9)). This completes the proof of suciency.

Necessity: The approach taken by Green and Limebeer [GL95, Appendix B] to prove necessity is
based on the solution of the nite-horizon problem
" # with appropriate terminal-state penalty. That
is, to de ne a causal, LSI control-law u = K x over the nite-horizon [0; N ], such that given
w
> 0 and Xtsp  0,
kzk2` 2 2 kwk2`[02 N ] (W) + hxN +1; XtspxN +1iX  kwk2`[02 N ](W) (A.12)
[0;N ] (Z) ; ;
148 Appendix to Chapter 2

for all w 2 `[02 ;N ] (W) and some  > 0, when x~ = 0. It can be shown [GL95, Theorem B.2.1], that
such a control-law exists if and only if
ZfkN;3+1 ;X tsp g > 0; k = 0; : : : ; N
fN +1;Xtsp g
rk  I; k = 0; : : : ; N
for some > 0, where
" #
Zk fN +1;Xtsp g
:= D~  JD~ + B Xfk+1+1 tspg B =: NZfkN;1+1 tspg (ZfkN;2+1 tspg) ;
;X
;X ;X

ZfkN;2+1 tspg ZfkN;3+1 tspg ;X ;X

" fN +1 tspg #
LkfN +1;Xtsp g f g L
:= D~  JC~ + B Xk+1 tsp A =: fkN;1+1 tsp g ;
N +1 ;X
;X

L2;k ;X

fN +1;Xtsp g fN +1 tsp g fN +1 tsp g  fN +1 tsp g 1 fN +1 tsp g


rk := Zk;1 ;X
(Zk;2 ) (Zk;3 ) Zk;2
;X ;X ;X

and XfkN +1;X tsp g satis es the Riccati di erence equation


XfkN +1 ;X tsp g = A XfkN+1+1 ;X tsp g A + C
~  JC~ (LfkN +1 ;X tsp g ) (ZfN +1;Xtsp g ) 1 LfN +1;Xtsp g ;
k k (A.13)
XfNN+1+1 ;X tsp g = Xtsp:
In this case, XfkN +1 ;X tsp g  0 for k = 0; : : : ; N + 1.

Now assume that (A; B2 ) is stabilisable and


K2 3 = f0g
6 A e I B2
j
7
4 5
C D2
for all  2 [0; 2) and suppose that a causal, LSI, stabilising, full-information control-law exists
such that the in nite-horizon objective (2.12) is achieved. Then for all w 2 `[02 ;N ] (W) (that is,
wk = 0 for k  N + 1),
kwk2`[02 N ](W)  kzk2` 2 (Z)
+
2 kwk2` 2+(W)
Z Z
X
;

1
 kzk2` 2 (Z) 2 kwk2`[02 N ] (W) + stab: min hzk ; zk iZ
[0;N ] ctrl laws
k=N+1
;

= kzk2 2
`[0 N ] (Z) 2 kwk2 2 `[0;N ] (W) + hxN +1 ; X2 xN +1 iX ;
;

where X2  0 is the stabilising solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation (2.10) and the last
equality follows by Proposition 2.21. By the nite-horizon results, XfkN +1 2 g  0 and ;X

rfkN +1;X2 g  I (A.14)


A.2 Proof of Proposition 2.22 149

for all k  N + 1 and some   (without loss of generality it is possible to take =  since this
is independent of the problem horizon.) Furthermore, it can be shown that XfkN +1 2 g is uniformly1
;X

bounded above and monotonically increasing in N. Therefore, it follows that

X1 = Nlim XfN +1
!1 k
;X 2g  0

exists, is independent of k and a is solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation (2.13). Moreover,
since   is independent of the horizon length, r = Nlim rfkN +1 2 g < 0, and by monoticity
;X

!1
(X1 X2 )  0. So it remains to show that spec(A BZ 1L)  D . This is done in two steps: rst
it is shown that it is necessary for spec(A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) to lie inside D , which is then used this to
show that spec(A BZ 1 L)  D .

First note that


:=X1 X2  0 satis es


= (A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) (
+
B2(Z3 B2
B2 ) 1 B2
)(A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) Lr r 1 Lr :

Now since Z3 B2


B2 = D2 D2 + B2 X2 B2 , it is positive-de nite, invertible (cf. Remark 2.19) and
therefore, has positive-de nite square-root [Kre89b, Theorem 9.4-2]. Furthermore, since r < 0,
((A B2 Z3 1 L2 )
B2(Z3 B2
B2) 1 B2
(A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) Lr r 1 Lr )  0 and hence, any eigenvalue
 of (A B2Z3 1L2 ) and corresponding eigenvector x 2 X, satisfy
(1 jj2 )hx;
xiX

= x; ((A B2 Z3 1 L2 )
B2 (Z3 B2
B2 ) 1 B2
(A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) Lrr 1 Lr )x X

 0: (A.15)

Since
 0, this implies spec(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )  D . In fact, this can be strengthened to spec(A
B2Z3 1L2)  D if (B2
(A B2Z3 1L2); A B2Z3 1L2) has no unobservable modes on the unit circle
of the complex plane. To see this, suppose that under the hypothesis that (B2
(A B2 Z3 1 L2 ); A
B2Z3 1L2) has no unobservable modes on T, there exists an eigenvalue of (A B2Z3 1L2) on T and
denote the corresponding eigen-vector by x 2 X. Since r 1 < 0, it follows from equation (A.15),
that

k(Z3 B2
B2) 12 B2
(A B2Z3 1L2)xk2X

L x; r 1 L x  0;
r r X

This implies that (Z3 B2


B2) 12 B2
(A B2 Z3 1L2 )x = 0, which since K(Z3 B
B2 ) 12 = f0g implies
2
that B2
(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )x = 0, contradicting the hypothesis. So in terms of showing that spec(A
1 Independently of N (and k by time-invariance).
150 Appendix to Chapter 2

B2Z3 1L2)  D , it remains to show that (B2


(A B2Z3 1L2); A B2Z3 1L2) has no unobservable
modes on T. This is indeed the case, as can be seen by noting that the spectrum of

A B2Z3 1L2 + B2(Z3 B2


B2) 1 B2
(A B2Z3 1L2)
= A B2 (D2 D2 + B2 X2 B2 ) 1 (D2 C + B2 X2 A) (A.16)

lies inside D , since it corresponds to the optimally-controlled dynamics of the quadratic-regulator


problem. Now, suppose that there exists a jj = 1 and x 2 X such that (A B2 Z3 1 L2 )x = x and
B2
(A B2Z3 1L2)x = 0. Then using equation (A.16), it follows that
(A B2 (D2 D2 + B2 X2 B2 ) 1 (D2 C + B2 X2 A))x = x 0;

which is a contradiction. Hence, (B2


(A B2 Z3 1 L2 ); A B2 Z3 1 L2 ) has no unobservable modes on
T and spec(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )  D .

Now, in so far as the proof of necessity goes, it remains to show that spec(A BZ 1 L)  D . To
this end, recall that

A BZ 1L = (A B2Z3 1L2) (B1 B2Z3 1Z2)r 1 Lr (A.17)

and consider any x 2 K


. Then from equation (A.15), it follows that

0  x; (A B2 Z3 1 L2 )
B2 (Z3 B2
B2 ) 1 B2
(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )x X = Lrx; r 1 Lr x X ;

which since r 1 < 0 implies that Lr x = 0. Hence, from equation (A.17),

x 2 K
) (A BZ 1L)x = (A B2 Z3 1 L2 )x: (A.18)

Now, de ne
k :=(X1 XfkN +1 ;X 2g) and note that
k satis es the di erence equation


k = (A BZ 1 L)
k+1 (I BZ 1 B
k+1) 1 (A BZ 1 L);

with boundary condition


N +1 =
:=(X1 X2 ). Furthermore, Nlim
!1 k

= 0 (k  N ). It follows
that for each  2 spec(A BZ L) and corresponding eigen-vector x 2 X,
1

hx;
N xiX

= jj2 x;
(I BZ 1B
) 1 x X :
(A.19)

If  = 0 then it is immediate that x 2 K


N . In fact, taking the limit as N ! 1 in equation


(A.19), gives x;
(I BZ 1 B
) 1 x X = 0 and hence, x 2 K
N for  6= 0 as well. If it can
A.2 Proof of Proposition 2.22 151

now be shown that K


N  K
, then it would follow from equation (A.18), that   D, since
spec(A B2 Z3 1 L2 )  D . To see that this is true, note that
kzk2` 2 (Z) 2 kwk2`[2k N ](W) + hxN +1; X2 xN +1iX = (A.20)
[k;N ] ;

D E X
N
xk ; XfN +1;X2 gx
k k X+ h(wi w?i); r(wi w?i)iW (A.21)
i=k
and
X
1
kzk2 2
`[k 1)(Z) 2 kwk2 2`[k 1)(W) + hxk ; X1 xk iX = h(wi w?i); r(wi w?i)iW : (A.22)
i=k
; ;

Consider the signal


8
>
< 0 i<k
wi = > w~ i k  i  N
: 0 k>N
for arbitrary w~ i 2 W, k  i  N . Then
X
1
kzk2 2 `[N +1 1) (Z) hxN +1 ; X1 xN +1 iX = h(wi w?i); r(wi w?i)iW :
i=N +1
;

Subtracting equations (A.20) and (A.22), it follows that


D E
hxN +1 ; (X1 X2)xN +1iX = xk ; (X1 XfkN +1 2g)xk X: ;X

Since (X1 X2 )  0, it is possible to conclude from this that KX1 XfN +1 ;X



2g  K(X1 X2 ) and
k
hence, that spec(A BZ 1L)  D . This completes the proof of necessity.
B
Appendix to Chapter 3

B.1 Proof of Lemma 3.9


Before going on to prove Lemma 3.9, a few remarks concerning LTI systems and the signals spaces
on which they are de ned is required (for further details cf. [Fra86]). First note that the Hilbert
space of continuous-time signals L2R+ (U) is isomorphic to the Hardy space H2C + (U) of functions
f^(s) : C + ! U that are analytic in C + and for which
1 Z +j 1 Df^(j!); f^(j!)E d!
2  j 1 U
is uniformly bounded for all  > 0. The isomorphism between L2R+ (U) and H2C + (U) is the Laplace
Transform, which for f (t) 2 L2R+ (U) is de ned by
Z1
f^(s) :=(Lf )(s) := f (t)e st dt:
0
By identifying functions in H2C + (U) with their boundary values on the imaginary axis, H2C + (U) can
be embedded
D ^ ^E as a closed subspace in^ the Hilbert space L2j R(U) of functions f^(j!) : R ! U that
satisfy f; f L2 (U) < 1, where for f; g^ 2 L2j R(U)
jR
D^ E 1 Z1D E
f; g^ L2 (U) := 2 ^
f (j!); g^(j!) U d!:
jR 1
Furthermore, L2j R(U) is isomorphic to the doubly-in nite, continuous-resolution, Hilbert space
L2R (U) of functions f : R ! U that satisfy
Z1
hf (t); f (t)iU dt < 1:
1
The isomorphism between L2j R (U) and L2R (U) is the Fourier transform de ned by
Z1
f^(j!) :=(Ff^)(j!) := f (t)e j!t dt
1
152
B.1 Proof of Lemma 3.9 153

for all f (t) 2 L2R (U). By analytic continuation, the Fourier-Transform isomorphism takes functions
in L2R+ (X)  L2R (U) to H2C + (U) and functions in L2R (X) :=L2R (U) L2R+ (X) to H2C?+ (U) :=L2j R (U)
H2C + (U).
Now as for discrete-time LSI systems, continuous-time LTI systems are equivalent via the Laplace-
Transform isomorphism to multiplication operators de ned on subspaces of H2C + (U). Furthermore,
the multiplication operator equivalent of an LTI system is bounded (that is, its domain is the
whole of H2C + (U) and it has nite induced-norm) if and only if its frequency domain symbol is an
element of H1 C+
(BU!Y ), which is the Hardy space of BU!Y-valued functions F^ (s) : C + ! BU!Y
that are analytic and bounded in the right-half plane C + . That is, an LTI system F : DF 
L2R+ (U) ! L2R+ (Y) is stable if and only if it is equivalent via the Laplace-Transform isomorphism
to a multiplication operator MF^ with F^ (s) 2 H1 C+
(BU!Y ).1 Note also, that for any function
F^ (j!) : j R ! BU!Y the multiplication operator de ned by (MF^ f^)(j!) :=F^ (j!)f^(j!) for all
f^ 2 L2j R(U) is bounded and equivalent via the Fourier-Transform isomorphism to an LTI system
on the doubly-in nite, continuous-time signal-space L2R (U).
In the following proof, the notion of inner and co-inner functions is required. Let U and Y
be nite-dimensional Hilbert-spaces. Then a function F^ (s) 2 H1 C+
(BU!Y) is said to be inner if
F^  (s)F^ (s) = I and co-inner if F^ (s)F^  (s) = I , where F^ (s) :=F ( s)T and the superscript T
denotes matrix transpose (without conjugation). It can be shown that (MF^ ) = H2C+(U) MF^  ,
where recall that the superscript  denotes the Hilbert space adjoint, which in this case is the
adjoint on H2C + (U). To see this, note that MF^  is the L2j R(U) adjoint of MF^ and hence, that for
any f^ 2 H2C + (U) and g^ 2 H2C + (Y),
D E D E D E D E
g^; MF^ f^ H2C+(Y)
= g^; MF^ f^
L2j R(Y)
= MF^  g^; f^
L2j R(U)
= H2C+(U) MF^  g^; f^ L2 (U)
D ^
E jR
= H2C+(U) MF^  g^; f H2C+(U)
;
where all of the equalities follow readily from the fact that H2C + (Y)  L2j R(U). That is, (MF^ ) =
H2C+(U) MF^  as required. So, it follows immediately that if F^ is inner, then F :=L 1MF^ L is an
isometry on L2R+ (U). With this established it is now possible to prove the lemma:
Proof : (of Lemma 3.9) That kGX k = kX k if G^ is inner is obvious, since in this case G is an
isometry on L2R+ (U). The rest of the proof to show that kXGk = kX k when G^ is co-inner, follows
an idea suggested in [Vin96]. Since all operators concerned are linear
kXGk = kG X  k = kL2 +(U) F 1 MG^  FX  k;
R
1 Recall the similar result for discrete-time LSI systems (cf. Proposition 2.2)
154 Appendix to Chapter 3

where all adjoint above are taken on L2R+ (U). Furthermore,



M FX  y; M FX  y
G^  G^  L2j R(U)
kL2 +(U) F 1 MG^  FX  k  sup
R 6 y2L2R+(Y)
0= hy; y iL2 (Y)
R+
= kX  k = kX k;

where the second equality follows from the fact that G^ G^  = I and the fact that MG^ is the L2j R(U)
adjoint of MG^  . Consequently, it is now sucient to show that
kX k  kXGk:

Without loss of generality suppose kX k = 1, which implies that for any  > 0 there exists a
w 2 L2R+ (W) with kwkL2R+(W) < 1 such that
kXwkL2 +(Y) > 1 :
R

Furthermore, since X is a bounded, linear operator it is Lipschitz-continuous and hence, there


exists an  > 0 such that
kX w~ kL2 +(Y) >1  (B.1)
R

for all w~ 2 L2R+ (W) that satisfy kw w~ kL2R+(W) < . Now for notational convenience let w[k] :=Ukhw
(k 2 Z+), where Ukh is the unilateral shift. Then since X is LTPV (with period h)
kXw[k] kL2 +(Y) = kXwkL2R+(Y) > 1 ; (B.2)
R

for all k 2 Z+. Also, since MG^ is a co-isometry on L2j R(W), it follows that G is a co-isometry on
L2R (W) and thus, that there exists a u 2 L2R (U) with kukL2R(U) = kwkL2R+(W) such that
w = Gu
and w[k] = Gu[k] where u[k] :=Ukhu. Then since u 2 L2R (U) there exists a n 2 Z+ such that
kL2 (U) u[n ] kL2 (U) < .2 Hence, with u+
[n ] :=L2R+(U) u[n ] 2 LR+ (U) and w~[n ] :=Gu[n ] it follows
2 +
R R
that
kw[n ] w~[n] kL2R+(W) = kG(u[n] u+[n ])kL2R(W) = kGL2R(U) u[n]kL2R(W) < :
Z
2 To see this note that for any v 2 L2 (U), lim
R ! 1 1
hv(t); v(t)iU dt = 0. De ne v[k] :=L2R(U) Ukh v. Then
Z kh
kv[k] kL2R(U) = hv(t); v(t)iU dt
1

!1 kv[k] kL2R(U) = 0.
and it follows that klim
B.2 Computing the Average-Power Gain Matrix for SD Systems 155

So from equations (B.1) and (B.2),


kX w~[n ] kL2 +(Y)
R
= kXGu+[n ] kL2R+(Y) > 1 :
Then since ku+[n ] kL2R+(U)  kukL2R(U) = kwkL2R+(W) < 1 and it is possible to construct such a
u+[n] 2 L2R+ (U) for any  > 0, it follows that
kXGk := sup kXGukL2 +(U)
kukL2 +(U) 1 R
R
 1 = kX k;
as required.

B.2 Computing the Average-Power Gain Matrix for SD Systems


In this section state-space formulae are derived for computing the average-power gain matrix of
an SD control-system. The formulae derived are expressible explicitly in terms of the state-space
matrices of the continuous-time plant and discrete-time controller. Speci cally, the stable, closed-
z  w
y G  u

- AD - K - DA

Figure B.1 SD Closed-Loop

loop system shown in Figure B.1 is considered, where AD is an ideal, h-periodic sampling device
synchronised with the zero-order hold DA and for xed t 2 R the signals w(t) 2 Rm1 , u(t) 2 Rm2 ,
z(t) 2 Rp1 and y(t) 2 Rp2 . Let the LTI, generalised plant G and the LSI controller K have
state-space realisations
2 3
6 A B1 B2 7 " #
G = 64 C1 D11 D12 75
A B
and K = d d ;
Cd Dd
C2 0 0
where the realisation for G has n states and that for K has l states. In the sequel, state-space
formulae are derived for computing the average-power gain matrix of the stable, closed-loop system
P :=F`(G; DA KAD) 2 PRm1 !Rp1 . The formulae derived are expressible explicitly in terms of the
state-space realisations of G and K.
156 Appendix to Chapter 3

Recall that the average-power gain matrix is de ned in terms of the transfer operator. To charac-
terise this for the system shown in Figure B.1, it is rst necessary to obtain a state-space realisation
of
P :=WP W 1 :=WF`(G; DA KAD)W 12D 2 m
LH(R 1 )!L2H(Rp1 ) :
This can be achieved using the technique used in section 2.5. Absorbing the ideal sample and
hold devices into G and the expressing the evolution of the closed-loop in terms of the state at the
sampling instances kh, yields the following discrete-time, LSI state-space realisation of P:
" # " # " # " #
xk+1 = A xk + B w( (); x0 = 0 ; (B.3a)
cl cl k
sk+1 sk s0 0
" #
(z k () = Ccl xk + Dcl w(k (); (B.3b)
sk
where
" #
Acl :=
A + B2Dd C2 B2Cd : Rn+l ! Rn+l ;
BC Ad
" #d 2
Bcl :=
B1 : L2 (Rm1 ) ! Rn+l ;
H
0
h i
Ccl := C1 + D12 Dd C2 D12 Cd : Rn+l ! L2H (Rp1 );
Dcl := D11 : L2H (Rm1 ) ! L2H (Rp1 );
and for any x 2 Rn+l , u 2 Rm2 and w( 2 L2H (Rm1 )
A : Rn ! Rn ; Ax :=ehAx; (B.4a)
Zh
B2 : Rm2 ! Rn ; B2u := e(h  )A d B2 u; (B.4b)
Zh
0
B1 : L2 (Rm1 ) ! Rn ;
H B1 w( := e(h (( ) d;
 )A B1 w (B.4c)
0
C1 : Rn ! L2H (Rp1 ); (C1 x)() :=C1 eA x; (B.4d)
Z
D11 : L2H (Rm1 ) ! L2H (Rp1 ); (D11 w()() :=D11 w(() + C1 e(  )A B (
1 w ( ) d (B.4e)
0
and
Z
D12 : Rm2 ! L2H (Rp1 ); (D12 u)() :=D12 u + C1 e(  )A dB
2 u: (B.4f)
0
The transfer operator P^ () is de ned to be the symbol of the multiplication operator equivalent
of P, where the equivalence is via the Z-Transform isomorphism. Using the state-space realisation
B.2 Computing the Average-Power Gain Matrix for SD Systems 157

given in equation (B.3), it is possible to characterise P^ () in terms of Acl , Bcl , Ccl and Dcl as
follows: Let (z = P w
(, then using equation (B.3) it is straightforward to show that
!
(^z () :=(Z (z )() := X (z k k = X k X Ccl Ak
1 1 k 1
n 1B ( ( (
cl wn + Dcl wk + Dcl w0 ;
cl
k=0 k=0 n=0

which since spec(Acl )  D (because P is stable), converges (with respect to k  kL2H() ) for all  2 D .
Simple rearrangement of terms yields
X
1 !X
1
(^z () = (l+1 C l
cl Acl Bcl ) + Dcl w(q q
l=0 q=0
= (Ccl (I Acl ) Bcl + Dcl )w() =: P^ ()w(^ ():
1 (
^

It then follows that (cf. equations (3.2{3.5))

P (j!)P (j!) := h1 ( P (j!)) P (j!) :=(


(j!)) (P^ (ej!0h)) P^ (ej!0 h)
(j!);
= h1 (
(j!)) (Bcl A^ (ej!0 h ) Ccl + Dcl )(Ccl A^ cl (ej!0 )Bcl + Dcl )
(j!); (B.5)

where !0 :=! !h
  2 ^ j!0 
2 h and A(e ) :=(e
j!0 h I Acl ) 1 . By expanding the expression in equation
(B.5), it follows that it is necessary to determine nite-dimensional expressions for the following
operators:
" #
A; B2; B1
(j!); C1 h i
C 1 D 12 ;
D12
h i

(j!) D11 D11
(j!);
(j!) D11 C1 D12 :

This can be achieved using equations (B.4) and a technique used in [CG97] (cf. also Chapters 5 and
6), to characterise nite-dimensional combinations of these types of integral operator expressions in
terms of TPBVPs. Subsequent computation of P (j!) is then a simple matter of standard nite-
dimensional matrix arithmetic. State-Space formulae for the required nite-dimensional expressions
are given in Theorem B.1 below. Note that the formulae are expressed explicitly in terms of the
state-space matrices of the realisations of G and K and involve a single matrix exponential of
a Hamiltonian-structured matrix. Since the resultant formula are similar to those obtained for
the SD, H1 -synthesis problem (cf. [CG97] and Theorem 6.1), it is possible to re-structure the
formulae presented here in a similar manner to that described in Section 6.3, to render the formulae
numerically robust.
158 Appendix to Chapter 3
" #
A B2
The following matrices are required in Theorem B.1. Let A := ,
0 0
2 " #3
A~ :=
66 A B1 77; h
C~ := C1 D12 D11 ;
i
4 0 5
0 (j!Im )
" #
A~ 0
E := (B.6)
0
C~ C~ A~0
and
" #
Q11 Q12
Q := = ehE ; (B.7)
Q21 Q22
where the partitioning of Q conforms with that of E .
Theorem B.1 Recall that m1 (respectively n) is the number of inputs to (respectively the number
of states of the realisation of) 11-block of G and that m2 is the number of outputs from Kd . For
notational convenience, de ne i :=n + m2 , k :=n + m1 and m :=m1 + m2 . Then,
h i " #
0i;m1

(j!) D11 D11
(j!) = 0m1 ;i Im Q221 Q21 ;
Im1
h i h i 1 " Ik #

(j!) D11 C1 D12 = 0m1 ;i Im Q22 Q21 ;
0m2 ;k
" #h i h i " #
C1 Ik
C1 D12 = Ik 0k;m2 Q221 Q21 ;
D12 0m2 ;k
h i " 0i;m1 #
B1
(j!) = In 0n;m Q11 ;
Im 1
h i " In #
A = In 0n;m Q11 ;
0
2 m;n 3
h i 66 0n;m2 77;
B2 = In 0n;m Q11 4 Im2 5
0m1 ;m2
where 0p;r denotes an p  p matrix of zeros and Ip the p  p identity.
Proof : Consider z~ =
(j!) D11 D11
(j!)z for some z 2 Rm1 and let (u :=
(j!)z, (y :=D11 u and
(v :=D11 (y . By the de nition of
(j!) (cf. equation (3.3)), (u :=
(j!)z can be characterised as
d (a = (j!I ) (a (); (a (0) = z; (B.8a)
d m1
u() = (a (): (B.8b)
B.2 Computing the Average-Power Gain Matrix for SD Systems 159

It follows then, that z~ =


(j!) (v can be expressed as
d (b = (j!I ) (b () (v (); (b (h) = 0; (B.9a)
d m1
z~ = (b (0): (B.9b)
From equation (B.4e), it follows that (
y = D11 (u and respectively (v = D11 (y , can be characterised
by the system of equations
" #
d (g = A (g () + B1 (u (); (g (0) = 0; (B.10a)
d 0
(y () = h C1 D12 i(
g () + D11 (u (); (B.10b)
respectively
" #
d (e = A (e () C1 (
y (); (e (h) = 0; (B.11a)
d 
D12
h i
(v () = B  0 (e () + D11 (y ():
1 (B.11b)
Combining equations (B.8{B.11) gives the TPBVP
02 (g 31 2 (g 3 2 (g (0) 3 2 3
B66 77CC 66 77 66 77 66 0 77
dB B66 (a 77CC = E 66 (a 77 (); 66 (a (0) 77 = 66 z 77
d B
B@64 (e 75CA 64 (e 75 64 (e (h) 75 64 0 75
(b (b 0
(b (h)
where E is de ned in equation (B.6). The solution to this TPBVP satis es
2 3
(g (h) 2 (g (0) 3
66 77 6 77
66 77 = etE 666
(a (h) (a (0) 77 :
64 (e (h)75 64 (e (0) 75
(b (h) (b (0)
"( # " #
e (h) 0
Using the terminal condition (b (h) = 0 it follows that
"( # "( # " #
e (0) g (0) 0
(b (0) = Q221Q21 (a 0 = Q221Q21 z :
(
where Q is de ned in equation (B.7). Hence, noting that z~ = b (0) =
(j!) D11 D11
(j!)z gives
h i " #
0l;m

(j!) D11 D11
(j!) = 0m;l Im Q221 Q21 :
Im
The proof follows in a similar manner for the other operators and is therefore omitted.
C
Appendix to Chapter 5

C.1 Proof of Lemma 5.9


Although Assumption 5.8 holds throughout, in what follows it is convenient to maintain the nota-
tional distinction between Da and Db . First consider the operator
   
Q :=C~  I D~ D~  JD~ D~  C~ =
"     # " #
Fa (Ca + Fa Da ) I 0
Fb (Cb + Fb Db ) 0 I
" # "  #" # " 2 2 #! 1 "  #1
I I I Da I I Va 0 I Da A 
Da Db 
I Db Da Db 0 0 I Db
" #
Fa Fb :=z 7! x; (C.1)
(Ca + Da Fa ) (Cb + Db Fb )

where Ca , Cb , Da , Db , Fa , Fb and Va are de ned in equations (5.16) and (5.21) and z 2 Xa  Xb .


Let
" #
(y 1 := I Da (y ; (C.2)
I Db
"  #" # " 2 2 #! 1
(u 1 := I D a I I Va 0 (y 1 ; (C.3)

I Db Da Db 0 0
" #
(u := I I (u (C.4)
Da Db 1
160
C.1 Proof of Lemma 5.9 161

and
" # " #
(v 1 := 2 Va 2 0 ( 2 (I + Da Da + BaXa Ba) 0 (
u1 = u1 (C.5a)
0 0 0 0
" # " #
=
I Da (u (y = I Da ( (u (y ); (C.5b)
1
I Db I Db
where (y will be de ned later and equation (C.5b) follows from equation (C.3). It follows from
equations (5.16) and (C.4) that for 0    h, 1
" # " #
d (a = Aa 0 (
a () + a
B 0 (u 1 (); (a (0) = 0; (C.6a)
d 0 Ab 0 Bb
" # " #
(u () = 0 0 ( I I (u 1():
a () + (C.6b)
Ca Cb Da Db
Furthermore (cf. equation (C.5b)),
" # " #
d (b = Aa 0 (b () 0 Ca ( ( (
( u y )(); b (h) = 0; (C.7a)
d 0 Ab 0 Cb
" # " #
(v 1 () = Ba 0 (b () + I Da ( (
( u y )() (C.7b)
0 Bb I Db
and similarly (cf. equation (C.5a)),
d (c = A (c () h  i( h  i( ( h i(
d a Ca Ca 0 a () Ca Da 0 1u (  ); c (h) = Xa 0 a (h); (C.8a)
" # " # " 2 #
(v 1 () = 2Ba (c () + 2 DaCa 0 
(a () + (I + Da Da ) 0 (u 1 (); (C.8b)
0 0 0 0 0
where Xa is a self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising solution to the algebraic Riccati equation
(5.22). Using the two expressions for (v 1 in equations (C.7b) and (C.8b), ( u 1 can be expressed in
( (
terms of a , b , c and y only. The following TPBVP characterisation of the operator mapping (y
( (
to (
u can then be obtained via elementary state-space manipulation of equations (C.6-C.8):
" # " # " #!
d (a = Aa 0 Ba 0
R 1
(1 2 )Da Ca Da Cb (a ()
d 0 Ab 0 B 
Db Ca 
D b Cb
" # "  b #
Ba 0 1 Ba 0 (
R b ( )
0 Bb 0 Bb
" # " 2 # " # " 
#
+ a
B 0 R 1 Ba ( c () + B a 0
R 1 I D a (y (); (C.9a)
0 Bb 0 0 Bb I Db 
1 For notational convenience time () dependence of the state-space matrices is suppressed.
162 Appendix to Chapter 5
" # " # " # " #!
d (b = 0 Ca 0 0 I I
R 1
(1 2 )Da Ca DaCb (a ()
d 0 Cb Ca Cb Da Db Db Ca DbCb
" # " #" # " #!
+
Aa 0
+
0 Ca I I R 1 Ba 0 (b ()
0 Ab 0 Cb Da Db 0 Bb
" #" # " 2 #
0 Ca I I 1 Ba (
 R c ()
0 Cb Da Db 0
" # " # " #!
0 Ca I I I D 
a (y ();
+ I R 1 (C.9b)
0 Cb Da Db I Db
h i " # h i! (
d (c = 1 (1 2 )Da Ca Da Cb
d Ca Da 0 R Ca Ca 0 a ()
Db Ca Db Cb
h i " # h  i 1" 2 Ba #! (
1 Ba 0 ( 
CaDa 0 R b () Aa + Ca Da 0 R c ()
0 Bb 0
h i " #
I Da (
CA Da 0 R 1 y () (C.9c)
I Db
with boundary conditions
(a (0) = 0; (b (h) = 0; (c (h) = h Xa 0 i (a (h); (C.9d)
and
" # " # " #!
(u () = 0 0 I I (1 2 )Da Ca Da Cb (a ()
R 1
Ca Cb Da Db DbCa Db Cb
" # "  # " # " 2 #
I I R 1 B a 0 (
b () + I I R 1 Ba (c ()
D Db 0 Bb  Da Db 0
" a # " 
#
I I 1 I Da (
+ R y (); (C.9e)
Da Db I Db
where
" #
(1 2 )(I + Da Da ) (I + Da Db )
R := :
(I + Db Da ) (I + Db Db )
To see that R is invertible, recall that by Assumption 5.8 Da (t) = Db (t) for all t and hence, note
that
" #" #
(1 2 )I I (I + Da Da ) 0
R= :
I I 0 (I + Da Da )
Given > 0, both terms on the right-hand side are clearly invertible and the invertibility of R
follows.
C.1 Proof of Lemma 5.9 163

Now, de ne
" #
(y := Fa Fb z (C.10)
(Ca + Da Fa ) (Cb + Db Fb )
" # " #" 2 #"  #!
0 0 I I Va 0 (Ba Xa Aa + Da Ca ) 0
= z;
Ca Cb Da Db 0 Vb2 0 (Bb Xb Ab + Db Cb )
for some some arbitrary z 2 Xa  Xb , where Aa and Ab are de ned in equation (5.16) and Xb is a
self-adjoint, positive-semide nite, stabilising solution to the algebraic, Riccati equation (5.22) with
the subscript a replaced by b. Moreover, let
" #" #
(v := Va2 0 (Ba Xa Aa + Da Ca ) 0
z: (C.11)
0 Vb2 0 (Bb Xb Ab + Db Cb )
Then, using equation (5.21a), it follows that
" #
(Ba Xa Aa + Da Ca ) 0
0 = z
0 (Bb Xb Ab + Db Cb )

" #
(I + Da Da + Ba Xa Ba ) 0
+   ( (v ): (C.12)
0 (I + Db Db + Bb Xb Bb )
Again, this can all be expressed in terms of a TPBVP. From equation (5.16), it follows that the
initial-condition response of
" # " #
d (e = Aa 0 (
e () +
Ba 0
( (v )(); (e (0) = z; (C.13a)
d 0 Aa 0 Bb
" # " #
C 0 Da 0
w(() = a (e () + ( (v )(); (C.13b)
0 Cb 0 Db
" # " # " #
gives Ca 0 z + Aa 0 z, and that the zero, initial-condition response gives Ba 0 ( (v )+
" 0 # Cb 0 Ab 0 Bb
Da 0 ( (v ). Similarly, from equation (C.12),
0 Db
" # " # " #
d (g = Aa 0 ( Ca 0 (
g ( ) w (); (g (h) = a
X 0 (e (h); (C.14a)
d 0 Ab 0 C 0 Xb
"  # "  b#
Ba 0 ( D 0
0 =  g () + a  w(() + ( (v )(): (C.14b)
0 Bb 0 Db
164 Appendix to Chapter 5

Then, elementary manipulation of equations (C.13) and (C.14) yields the following TPBVP char-
acterisation of the operator mapping z to (y :
" #
d (e = (Aa Ba Ra 1 Da Ca ) 0 (e ()
d 0 1 
(Ab Bb Rb Db Cb )
" #
BaRa 1 Ba 0 (g (); (C.15a)
0 Bb Rb 1 Bb
" #
d (g = Ca R~ a 1 Ca 0 (e ()
d 0  ~ 1
Cb Rb Cb
" #
(Aa CaDa Ra 1 Ba ) 0 (g (); (C.15b)
0 (Ab Cb Db Rb 1 Bb )
 
with boundary conditions
" #
(e (0) = z; (g (h) = Xa 0 (e (h) (C.15c)
0 Xb
and
" # " #" #" #" #!
(y () = 0 0 I I Ra 1 0 Da 0 Ca 0 (e ()
CA Cb 0 Rb 1Da Db 0 Db 0 Cb
" #" 1 #"  #
I I Ra 0 Ba 0 (g (); (C.15d)
Da Db 0 Rb 1 0 Bb
where Ra :=I + Da Da , Rb :=I + Db Db , R~ a :=I + Da Da and R~ b :=I + Db Db .
Note that from equation (C.1), (C.4) and (C.10),
   
x := C~  I D~ D~  JD~ D~  C~ z (C.16)
"  #
Fa (Ca + Fa Da ) ( (
= ( y u)
Fb (Cb + Fb Db )
" #
0 Ca
=
0 Cb
"  #" 2 #"  #!
(Aa Xa Ba + Ca Da ) 0 Va 0 I Da ( (y (u ):
0  
(Ab Xb Bb + Cb Db ) 0 Vb
2 I Db
Now de ne
" #" #
(r := Va2 0 I Da ( (y (u ); (C.17)
0 Vb2 I Db
C.1 Proof of Lemma 5.9 165

so that
" # " #
0 Ca ( ( (Aa Xa Ba + Ca Da ) 0
x=  ( y u ) +   ( (r ):
0 Cb 0 (Ab Xb Bb + Cb Db )
As in the preceding paragraphs it is possible to express all of this in terms of a TPBVP.
( " # " #
dm Aa 0 ( Ba 0
d = m() + ( (r )(); m
((0) = 0; (C.18a)
0 Ab 0 Bb
" # " #
(p = Ca 0 m (() + Da 0
( (r )(); (C.18b)
0 Cb 0 Db
" # " #
d (n = Aa 0 (
n (  )
Ca 0 (p ()
d 0 Ab 0 Cb
" # " #
0 Ca ( ( ( X 0 m((h);
( y u )(); n (h) = a (C.19a)
0 Cb 0 Xb
x = (
n (0): (C.19b)
Note "that in equation (C.19), the nal-condition
# response plus the response to the forcing term (p
 
gives (Aa Xa Ba + Ca Da )  0  r ) and that the response to the forcing term ( (
( ( y (u )
" # 0 (Ab Xb Bb + Cb Db )
gives 0 Ca ( (
y (u ). Using equation (C.17), ( (, (
r can be expressed in terms of m n and ( (y (u )
0 Cb
only:
" # " # " # " # !
(r () = Ra 1 0 Ba 0 ( DaCa 0 ( I Da ( (
n (  ) + m(  ) + (y u) :
0 Rb 1 0 Bb 0 Db Cb I Db
Substituting this into, and further manipulating equations (C.18) and (C.19), yields the following
TPBVP characterisation of the operator mapping ( (y ( u ) to x:
( " # " #
dm (Aa Ba Ra 1 Da Ca ) 0 (() Ba Ra 1 Ba 0 (n ()
d = m
0 (Ab Bb Rb 1 Db Cb ) 0 Bb Rb 1 Bb
" #" 1 #" #
Ba 0 Ra 0 I Da ( (u )();
(y (C.20a)
0 Bb 0 Rb 1 I Db
" # " #
d(
n = Ca R~ a 1 Ca 0 (()
m
(Aa Ca Da Ra 1 Ba) 0 (n ()
d 0 Cb R~b 1Cb
 0 (Ab Cb Db Rb 1 Bb)
 
" # " #" #" 1 #" #!
0 Ca Ca 0 Da 0 Ra 0 I Da
( (y (
u )(); (C.20b)
0 Cb 0 Cb 0 Db 0 Rb 1 I Db
166 Appendix to Chapter 5

with boundary conditions


" #
((0) = 0; (n (h) = Xa 0 m((h)
m (C.20c)
0 Xb
and

x= (
n (0): (C.20d)

Finally, combining equations (C.9-C.20) yields the TPBVP


02 ( 31 2 32 ( 3
BB66 m( 77CC 66 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 77 66 m( 77
BB66 a 77CC 66 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 77 66 a 77
BB66 (e 77CC 66 E31 E32 E33 E34 E35 E36 E37 77 66 (e 77
dB B 66 (c 77CC = 66 E41 77 66 (c 77 ();
d B66 ( 77C
B 66 E42 E43 E44 E45 E46 E47 77 66 ( 77
n C
BB66 ( 77CC 66 E51 E52 E53 E54 E55 E56 E57 77 66 n( 77
B@64 b 75CA 64 E61 E62 E63 E64 E65 E66 E67 75 64 b 75
g ( E71 E72 E73 E74 E75 E76 E77 g (

with boundary conditions


2 3
2 ( 3 66 0
0
77
66 ( 77 6m (0) 6 77
66 a (0) 77 66 h z i 77
66 e (0) 77 6 Xa 0 a (h) 77
( 6 (
66 (c (h) 77 = 66 " Xa 0 # 77 ;
66 ( 77 6 6 ((h) 77
m
66 (n (h) 77 66 0 Xb 77
64 b (h) 75 66 0 # 77
(g (h) 64 Xa 0 ( 775
6 "
e (h)
0 Xb
and

x= (
n (0);

where the Eij 's are de ned in Appendix C.2. This completely characterises the operator
   
C~  I D~ D~  JD~ D~  C~ :=z 7! x:
C.1 Proof of Lemma 5.9 167

Let E :=E (t) (h; 0), where E (t) (t;  ) is the state-transition operator associated with E (t). It
follows readily that
2    3


2 3 66 0 E43 Xa 0 E23 1 7
77
(c (0) 66 @ 2
X 0
3
7E A 7
66 7
(n (0) 77 66 E53
6 a
5 13 7
E~ 666
4
0 Xb 77 z;
(b (0) 77 = 66 77 (C.21)
4 (g (0)
5 666 0 2
E63
3 1 77
64 @E X
6 a 0 7E A 7
5 33 5
73 4
0 Xb
where        
2 " # " # " # " # 3
6
6
6
6
0 E44 2
Xa 0 E24 1
3
0 E45 2
Xa 0 E25 1
3
0 E46 2
Xa 0 E26 1
3
0 E47 2
Xa 0 E27 1 77
3 7
6
6
6 @E54 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E14 A @E55 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E15 A @E56 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E16 A @E57 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E17 A 7777
6 7
E~ =
6
6
6
4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 7
7
7 :
6 7
6
6
6
6 0 E64 1 0 E65 1 0 E66 1 0 E67 17
7
7
7
6 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
6
6
6 @E74 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E34 A @E75 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E35 A @E76 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E36 A @E77 6
6
6
Xa 0 777E37 A 7777
4 5
4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5 4
0 Xb 5
To see that E~ is invertible, take z = 0 and suppose that there exists a non-zero
2 (c 0 3
66 ( 77
66 n0
(b 77 2 K~ : (C.22)
64 0 75 E
(g 0
This clearly satis es equation (C.21) and since z = 0, the unique solution to equations (C.13)
and (C.14) is ( y  (e  (g  0. Consequently, the unique solution to equations (C.6-C.8) is
(a  (b  (c  0 and thus, the only possible non-zero element of (C.22) is ( n0 . This contradicts
(
linearity of the operator mapping z to x = n0 and hence, KE~ = f0g. Equation (5.29) (which
constitutes a nite-dimensional characterisation of Q ) now follows directly from equation (C.21).
Consider the operator A . Let z be an arbitrary element in Xa  Xb and recall that
 ~ ~ 1  
A z = A B D JD D~ JC~ z
" # " #
(Aa + Ba Fa ) 0 B 0 (u
= z+ a 1
0 (Ab + Bb Fb ) 0 Bb
" # " # " #
=
A a 0
z+
B a 0 (
( v)
B a 0 (
u1
0 Ab 0 Bb 0 Bb
= (e (h) (a (h);
168 Appendix to Chapter 5

where ( u 1 , (a , (v and (e are de ned in equations (C.3), (C.6a), (C.11) and (C.13a) respectively.
Since z is arbitrary, the nite-dimensional characterisation of A given in equation (5.31) follows
directly from equation (C.21).

Similarly, consider the bounded, linear operator


 
R := B D~ JD~ B
" # " #" # " #! 1 " #
=
Ba 0 I Da I I Ba 0 :=z 7! x;
2 Va 2 0
0 Bb I Db Da Db 0 0 0 Bb
for z 2 Xa Xb . If the initial condition in equation (C.13a) is set to 0 then (e ()  (g ()  (y ()  0.
Now replacing equation (C.2) by
" #
(y 1 = Ba 0 z;
0 Bb
equation (C.5) becomes
" # " #
(v 1 := 2 Va 2 0 ( 2 (I + Da Da + Ba Xa Ba) 0 (
u1 = u1 (C.23a)
0 0 0 0
" # " # " #
=
I Da (u (y = I Da (u + Ba 0 ( z): (C.23b)
1
I Db I Db 0 Bb
It then follows from equation (5.16) and (C.23b) that
" # " #
d (b = Aa 0 (
b ()
0 Ca (
u (); (b (h) = z; (C.24a)
d 0 Ab 0 Cb
" # " #
(v 1 () = Ba 0 (b () + I Da (
u ( ): (C.24b)
0 Bb I Db
The only di erences between equation (C.24) and equation (C.7) are the nal condition and since
it is identically 0, (
y has been omitted in (C.24). Similarly, using equation (C.23a), (v 1 can be
expressed in terms of (a and (c de ned in equations (C.6) and (C.8). Furthermore, it can be shown
that
x = (a (h):
Since m
(
( and (n do not come into the equations de ning (a , b and (c , they can be ignored. Hence,
it follows that the action of the operator R can be expressed in terms of a TPBVP with the
C.1 Proof of Lemma 5.9 169

same system of di erential equations a the TPBVP characterisation of Q but di erent boundary
conditions, given by
2 3
2 ( 3 66 0
0
77
66 ( 77 6m (0) 6 77
66 a (0) 77 6 h 6 0 i 77
66 (e (0) 77 66 Xa 0 (a (h) 77
66 (c (h) 77 = 66 " Xa 0 # 77 :
66 6
77 6 m(h) 777
(
6
66 ((h) 77 6 0 Xb 77
64 b (h) 75 66 z# 77
66 "
(g (h) 4 Xa 0 (e (h) 75
0 Xb
Consequently, it is possible to write
2 3 1" #
h i  E64    E66   5 I
R = E24 E26 4 E   :
44 Xa 0 E24 E46 Xa 0 E26 0
It remains to establish nite-dimensional expressions for the operators that appear in the two alge-
braic, Riccati equations associated with the normalised, coprime-factorisation of the two, original,
LPTV systems. Consider
" # " #
R a 0 B a (I + Da Da ) 1 Ba 0
x := z := z;
0 R b 0 Bb(I + Db Db) 1 Bb
for some arbitrary z 2 Xa  Xb . De ne
"  Da ) 1
#"  #
w( :=
( I + D a 0 Ba 0 z; (C.25a)
0 
(I + Db Db ) 1 0 Bb
and
" #
(v := Da 0 w: ( (C.25b)
0 Db
Then, from equation (C.25a),
"  # "  #
(
w=
B a 0
z
D a 0 (
v: (C.25c)
0 Bb 0 Db
Using equations (5.16), it follows from equation (C.25b), that
" # " #
d (e = Aa 0 (e () + Ba 0 w((); (e (0) = 0; (C.26a)
d 0 Aa 0 Bb
" # " #
C 0 D 0
w(() = a (e () + a
w((); (C.26b)
0 Cb 0 Db
170 Appendix to Chapter 5

and from equation (C.25c), that


" # " #
d (g = Aa 0 (g ()Ca 0 (v (); (g (h) = z; (C.27a)
d 0 A 0 C
"  b # "  b #
Ba 0 Da 0
w( = (g () (v (); (C.27b)
0 Bb 0 Db
"  #
where the nal-condition response gives Ba 0 z and the zero, nal-condition response gives
" # 0 Bb
Da 0 (v . Furthermore,
0 Db
" #
B 0 w( = (e (h):
x := a
0 Bb
Elementary manipulation of equations (C.27) and (C.26) leads to a TPBVP with dynamics de-
scribed by equations (C.15a) and (C.15b) subject to the boundary conditions
(e (0) = 0 and (g (h) = z:
By the structure of E and consequently, that of E :=E (t) (h; 0), it follows that
"( # " #" ( #
e (h)
=
E33 E37 e (0)
(C.28)
(g (h) E73 E77 (g (0)
and hence, since z is arbitrary, that
" #
Ra 0 = E E 1:
37 77
0 R b
" #
Note that E33 E37
is invertible since it is simply the state-transmission operator associated
E73 E77
with the di erential system described by equations (C.15a) and (C.15b). To see that E77 is also
invertible, suppose there exist a non-zero (g~ 2 KE77 and take z = (g (h) = 0. Then by linearity,
x = (e (h) = 0 and hence from equation (C.28) that
" #
E37 (~g = 0;
E77
" #
which contradicts the invertibility of E33 E37 . Hence, KE77 = f0g and E77 is invertible.
E73 E77
The expression for Q a , Q b , A a and A b presented in the lemma statement follow similarly. This
completes the proof of Lemma 5.9.
C.2 De nition of Matrices Used in Lemma 5.9 171

C.2 De nition of Matrices Used in Lemma 5.9


For notational convenience time-dependence is not expressed explicitly.

Ra := I + Da Da ; R~ a :=I + Da Da ;


Rb := I + Db Db ; R~ b :=I + Db Db;
" #
(1 2 )Ra I + Da Db
R := ;
I + Db Da Rb

" #" #" #


Ba 0 Ra 1 0 I Da
S1 := ;
0 Bb 0 Rb 1 I Db
" # " #!
I I I Da
S2 := I R 1 ;
Da Db I Db
" # " #" 1 #"  #" #!
0 0 I I Ra 0 Da 0 Ca 0
S3 := ;
C C D D 0 R 1 0 Db 0 Cb
" a b# " a b # " b2  #!
S4 := 0 0 I I R 1 (1  )Da Ca Da Cb ;
Ca Cb Da Db Db Ca Db Cb

" #
E11 := Aa BaRa 1 Da Ca 0
;
0 Ab Bb Rb 1 Db Cb
E12 := S1 S2 S4 ;
E13 := S"1S2S3; # " #
I I 2B
E14 := S1 R 1 a ;
Da Db 0
" #
Ba Ra 1 Ba 0
E15 := ;
0 Bb Rb 1 Bb
" # "  #
E16 := S1 I I R 1 B a 0
;
Da Db 0 Bb
E17 := S1 S2 S1 ;
172 Appendix to Chapter 5

E21 := 0;" # " # " #!


Aa 0 Ba 0 1 (1 2 )Da Ca Da Cb
E22 := R ;
0 Ab 0 Bb Db Ca Db Cb
" # " #
Ba 0 1 I Da
E23 := R S;
0 Bb I Db 3
" # " 2 #
E24 := B a 0
R 1 Ba ;
0 Bb 0
E25 := 0;" # "  #
Ba 0 1 Ba 0
E26 := R ;
0 Bb 0 Bb
" # " #
Ba 0 1 I Da 
E27 := R S;
0 Bb I Db 1

E31 := 0;
E32 := 0;
E33 := E11 ;
E34 := 0;
E35 := 0;
E36 := 0;
E37 := E15 ;

E41 := 0; " # h
h i 1 (1 2 )Da Ca Da Cb i!
E42 := CaDa 0 R Ca Ca 0 ;
DbCa Db Cb
h  i " #
I Da S ;
E43 := Ca Da 0 R 1
I Db 3
h i " 2  #!
Ba
E44 := Aa + Ca Da 0 R 1 ;
0
E45 := 0; " #
h i
B 0
E46 := Ca Da 0 R 1 a  ;
0 Bb
h  i 1 I Da # 
"
E47 := Ca Da 0 R S;
I Db 1
C.2 De nition of Matrices Used in Lemma 5.9 173
" #
Ca R~ a 1 Ca 0
E51 := ;
0 CbR~ b 1 Cb
E52 := S3 S4 ;
E53 := S  S2 S3 ;
"3 2
# " #
E54 := S3 I I R 1 Ba ;
Da Db 0
E55 := E11 ;
" # "  #
 I I 1 Ba 0
E56 := S3 R ;
Da Db 0 Bb
E57 := S3 S2 S1 ;

E61 := 0;" #
0 Ca
E62 := S4 ;
0 Cb
" #
0 Ca
E63 := S2 S3 ;
0 Cb
" #" # " 2 #
0 Ca I I 1 Ba ;
E64 := R
0 Cb Da Db 0
E65 := 0; " # " #" # "  #!
Aa 0 0 Ca I I 1 Ba 0
E66 := R ;
0 Ab 0 Cb Da Db 0 Bb
" #
0 Ca
E67 :=  S2 S1
0 Cb

E71 := 0;
E72 := 0;
E73 := E51 ;
E74 := 0;
E75 := 0;
E76 := 0;
E77 := E11 :
D
Appendix to Chapter 6

D.1 Proof of Lemma 6.5


Before proving Lemma 6.5, the following technical result is required.
Lemma D.1 The matrix M11 M21 = M21 M11 and M~ 11 M~ 12 = M~ 12 M~ 11 .
Proof : This proof is similar to that of Theorem 13.3 in [ZDG95]. From equation (6.27), it follows
that
" # " #
M M11
E 11 = T
M21 M21 11
and therefore, that
" # " # " # " #
M11 M M11 M
J E 11 = J 11 T11 ; (D.1)
M21 M21 M21 M21
where J is de ned in equation (6.25). Since E is Hamiltonian, J E is symmetric and hence, so is
the right-hand side of the equation (D.1). That is,
" # " # " # " #
M11 M M11 M
J 11 T11 = T11 J 11 ;
M21 M21 M21 M21
which leads to the Lyapunov equation
( M11 M21 + M21 M11 )T11 ( T11 )( M11 M21 + M21 M11 ) = 0:
Since spec(T11 ) \ spec( T11 ) = ;, this has unique solution
M11 M21 + M21 M11 = 0;
174
D.1 Proof of Lemma 6.5 175

and therefore, M21 M11 is symmetric. Similarly, by noting from equation (6.27) that
h i h i
M~ 11 M~ 12 E = T11 M~ 11 M~ 12 ;
it follows that M~ 11 M~ 12 is symmetric.
Proof of Lemma 6.5: This proof is similar to that of Theorem 13.6 in [ZDG95]. From equation
(6.27), it follows that
" # " #" # " #
M A C C M11 M11
E 11 =    = T ; (D.2)
M12 BB A M12 M12 11
and therefore, that
A M11 C CM
 21 = M11 T11 : (D.3)
Let (A; C1 ) have no unobservable modes in C > and suppose that M11 is column-rank de cient.
That is, KM11 6= f0g. For any x 2 KM11 , post-multiply (D.3) by x and pre-multiply by x M21 .
Then
x M21 A M11 x x M21 C  CM
 21 x = x M21 M11 T11 x;
which by the symmetry of M21 M11 (cf. Lemma D.1) implies that
x M21 C  CM
 21 x = 0:
Since M21 C  CM
 21 is positive semi-de nite, this implies CM
 21 x = 0. So simply post-multiplying
(D.3) by x gives M11 T11 x = 0. Since T11 has full rank, it follows that KM11 is T11 -invariant. That
is there exists a  2 C and a corresponding eigenvector v 2 KM11 , such that
T11 v = v:
Note that since spec(T11 )  C > ,  >  0. Now, from equation (D.2) it follows that
B B  M11 + AM
 21 = M21 T11 ;
which when post-multiplied by v gives,
(A I )M21 v = 0:
 21 v = 0 and hence, note that
Recall that for v 2 KM11 , CM
" #
A I
M21 v = 0: (D.4)
C
176 Appendix to Chapter 6

Furthermore,
2 32 3
" # 66 I 2 B1 R 1 D 
11 0 77 66 A I B 2 77 ;
A I
= 4 0 0 I 54 C 1 D 12 5 (D.5)
C 1
0 S 2 0 0 I
where importantly the rst matrix on the right-hand side has "full rank. #Since  >  0 and
(A; C1 ) has no unobservable modes in C > , I has full rank and
A I has full column rank.
C1
"  #
Thus, it follows from equation (D.5), that
A I also has full column rank. From equation
C
" #
M11
(D.4), this then implies that M21 v = 0, which since M11 v = 0 contradicts the fact that
M21
has full column rank. Therefore, if (A; C1 ) has no unobservable modes in C > , M11 has full column
rank.

Similarly, noting that


h i h i
M~ 11 M~ 12 E = T11 M~ 11 M~ 12 ;
it can be shown that if (A; B1 ) has no uncontrollable modes in C > , then M~ 11 has full row rank.
Bibliography

[AHI93] M. Araki, T. Hagiwara, and Y. Ito. Frequency-response of sampled-data systems II:


Closed-loop consideration. In Proceedings of the 12th IFAC World Congress, pages
293{296, 1993.
[Ahl79] L. V. Ahlfors. Complex Analysis. Mathematics Series. McGraw-Hill International Edi-
tions, Singapore, 1979.
[AI93] M. Araki and Y. Ito. Frequency-response of sampled-data systems I: Open-loop con-
sideration. In Proceedings of the 12th IFAC World Congress, pages 289{292, 1993.
[Bel62] R. E. Bellman. Applied Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, New Jersey,
1962.
[BGPK85] R. R. Bitmead, M. R. Gevers, I. R. Petersen, and R. J. Kaye. Monoticity and stabilis-
ability properties of solutions of the Riccati di erence equation: Propositions, lemmas,
theorems, fallacious conjectures and counterexamples. Systems and Control Letters,
5:309{315, 1985.
[BLW91] S. Bittanti, A. J. Laub, and J. C. Willems, editors. The Riccati Equation, Berlin, 1991.
Springer Verlag.
[Bol90] B. Bollobas. Linear Analysis : An Introductory Course. Cambridge Mathematical
Textbooks. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[BP92] B. A. Bamieh and J. B. Pearson. A general framework for linear periodic systems with
applications to H1 sampled-data control. IEEE Transactions of Automatic Control,
37:418{435, 1992.
177
178 Bibliography

[BPFT91] B. A. Bamieh, J. B. Pearson, B. A. Francis, and A. R. Tannenbaum. A lifting technique


for linear periodic systems with applications to sampled-data control. Systems and
Control Letters, 17:79{88, 1991.
[Bro70] R. W. Brockett. Finite-Dimensional Linear Systems. Wiley, New York, 1970.
[BS79] C. Bavely and G. W. Stewart. An algorithm for computing reducing subspaces by block
diagonalisation. SIAM Journal of Numerical Analysis, 16:359{367, 1979.
[CD91] F. M. Callier and C. A. Desoer. Linear Systems Theory. Springer Verlag, New York,
1991.
[CF90] T. Chen and B. A. Francis. On the L2 -induced norm of a sampled-data system. Systems
and Control Letters, 15:211{219, 1990.
[CF91] T. Chen and B. A. Francis. Input-output stability of sampled-data systems. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 36:50{58, 1991.
[CF95] T. Chen and B. A. Francis. Optimal Sampled-Data Control Systems. Communications
and Control Engineering Series. Springer-Verlag, London, 1995.
[CG96] M. W. Cantoni and K. Glover. A design-framework for continuous-time systems under
sampled-data control. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE CDC, pages 458{463, 1996.
[CG97] M. W. Cantoni and K. Glover. H1 sampled-data synthesis and related numerical issues.
Automatica, 33:2233{2241, 1997.
[Che84] C. T. Chen. Linear Systems Theory and Design. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984.
[DFT92] J. C. Doyle, B. A. Francis, and A. R. Tannenbaum. Feedback Control Theory. Maxwell
Macmillan International, Oxford, 1992.
[DG84] C. A. Desoer and C. L. Gustafson. Algebraic theory of linear multivariable feedback
systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 29:909{917, 1984.
[DGG86] C. E. DeSouza, M. R. Gevers, and G. C. Goodwin. Riccati equations in optimal ltering
of nonstabilisable systems having singular state transition matrices. IEEE Transaction
on Automatic Control, 31:831{838, 1986.
[DGKF89] J. C. Doyle, K. Glover, P. P. Khargonekar, and B. A. Francis. State space solutions
to standard H2 and H1 control problems. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control,
34:831{847, 1989.
Bibliography 179

[DGS93] J. C. Doyle, T. T. Georgiou, and M. C. Smith. The parallel projection operators of a


nonlinear feedback system. Systems and Control Letters, 20:79{85, 1993.
[DL70] P. Dorato and A. H. Levis. Optimal linear regulators: The discrete-time case. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 16:613{620, 1970.
[DLJS80] C. A. Desoer, Murray Liu, R-W., J., and R. Saeks. Feedback system design: The
fractional representation approach to analysis and synthesis. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 25:399{412, 1980.
[DS88] N. Dunford and J. T. Schwartz. Linear Operators, Part I : General Theory and Part
II : Spectral Theory{Self Adjoint Operators in Hilbert Space. Wiley Classics Library.
Wiley, New York, 1988.
[DS93] W. N Dale and M. C. Smith. Stabilizability and existence of system representations
for discrete-time time-varying systems. SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization,
31:1538{1557, 1993.
[Dul94] G. E. Dullerud. Control of Uncertain Sampled-Data Systems. PhD thesis, University
of Cambridge, England, 1994.
[DV75] C. A. Desoer and M. Vidyasagar. Feedback Systems: Input{Output Properties. Academic
Press, New York, 1975.
[ES85] A. K. El-Sakkary. The gap metric: Robustness of stabilisation of feedback systems.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 30:240{247, 1985.
[FF90] C. Foias and A. Frazho. The Commutant Lifting Approach to Interpolation Problems,
volume 44 of Operator Theory : Advances and Applications. Birkhauser Verlag, Berlin,
1990.
[FG88] B. A. Francis and T. T. Georgiou. Stability theory for linear time-invariant plants with
periodic digital control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 33:820{83, 1988.
[FGS93] C. Foias, T. T. Georgiou, and M. C. Smith. Robust stability of feedback systems: A
geometric approach using the gap metric. SIAM Journal of Control and Optimization,
31:1518{1537, 1993.
[Fra86] B. A. Francis. A Course in H1 Control Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986.
[FS82] A. Feintuch and R. Saeks. System Theory : a Hilbert Space Approach. Pure and Applied
Mathematics,. Academic Press, 1982.
180 Bibliography

[GA94] P. Gahinet and P. Apkarian. A linear matrix inequality approach to H1 control.


International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 4:421{448, 1994.
[Geo88] T. T. Georgiou. On the computation of the gap metric. Systems and Control Letters,
11:253{257, 1988.
[GL95] M. Green and D. J. N. Limebeer. Linear Robust Control. Information and Systems
Science Series. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1995.
[GNVL79] G. H. Golub, S. Nash, and C. F. Van Loan. A hessenberg-schur method for the matrix
problem AX + XB = C . IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 24:909{913, 1979.
[GS90] T. T. Georgiou and M. C. Smith. Optimal robustness in the gap metric. IEEE Trans-
actions on Automatic Control, 35:673{686, 1990.
[GS93] T. T. Georgiou and M. C. Smith. Graphs, causality and stabilizability: Linear, shift-
invariant systems on L2 ([0; 1)). Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems, 6:195{
223, 1993.
[GS94] G. C. Goodwin and M. Salgado. Frequency domain sensitivity functions for continuous-
time systems under sampled-data control. Automatica, 30:1263{1270, 1994.
[GVL89] G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan. Matrix Computations. Johns Hopkins Series in the
Mathematical Sciences. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, second edition,
1989.
[Hal82] P. R. Halmos. A Hilbert Space Problem Book. Springer Verlag, New York, 1982.
[Hof62] K. Ho man. Banach Spaces of Analytic Functions. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1962.
[Hyd95] R. A. Hyde. H1 Aerospace Control Design - A VSTOL Flight Application. Advances
in Industrial Control Series. Springer-Verlag, 1995.
[IG91] P. A. Iglesias and K. Glover. State-space approach to discrete-time H1 control. Inter-
national Journal of Control, 54:1031{1073, 1991.
[IOW97] W. Ionescu, C. Oara, and M. Weiss. General matrix pencil techniques for the solution of
algebraic Riccati equations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 42:1085{1098,
1997.
[Kai80] T. Kailath. Linear Systems. Information and System Science Series. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 1980.
Bibliography 181

[Kat66] T. Kato. Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators. Springer Verlag, New York, 1966.
[KF75] A. N. Kolmogorov and S. V. Fomin. Introductory Functional Analysis. Dover, New
York, 1975.
[KH93] P. T. Kabamba and S. Hara. Worst-case analysis and design of sampled-data control
systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 38:1337{1357, 1993.
[KHI90] R. Kondo, S. Hara, and T. Itou. Characterisation of discrete-time H1 controllers via
bilinear transformation. In Proceedings of the 29th IEEE CDC, pages 1763{1768, 1990.
[Kre89a] R. Kress. Linear Integral Equations. Number 82 in Applied Mathematical Sciences.
Springer-Verlag, 1989.
[Kre89b] E. Kreyszig. Introductory Functional Analysis With Applications. Wiley Classics Li-
brary. Wiley, New York, 1989.
[Kuc72] V. Kucera. A contribution to matrix quadratic equations. IEEE Transaction on Auto-
matic Control, 17:344{347, 1972.
[KVZ+ 72] M. A. Krasnosel'skii, G. M. Vainikko, P. P. Zabreiko, Rutitskii, Y. B., and V. Y.
Stetsenko. Approximate Solution of Operator Equations. Wolters-Noordho Publishing,
Groningen, The Netherlands, 1972.
[Lax59] P. D. Lax. Translation invariant subspaces. Acta Mathematica, 101:163{178, 1959.
[LR95] P. Lancaster and L. Rodman. Algebraic Riccati Equations. Oxford Science Publications,
Oxford, 1995.
[MAT92] The Maths Works Inc., Natick, Massachusetts. High-Performance Numeric Computa-
tion and Visualisation Software: Reference Guide, 1992.
[MG90] D. C. McFarlane and K. Glover. Robust Controller Design Using Normalised Coprime
Factorisation Plant Descriptions. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
[MH87] J. E. Marsden and M. J. Ho man. Basic Complex Analysis. Freeman, New York, second
edition, 1987.
[Nik86] N. K. Nikol'skii. Treatise on the Shift Operator. Springer-Verlag, 1986.
182 Bibliography

[NJB84] C. N. Nett, C. A. Jacobson, and N. J. Balas. A connection between state-spaces and


doubly coprime fractional representations. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
29:831{832, 1984.
[OS91] R. J. Ober and J. A. Sefton. Stability of control systems and graphs of linear systems.
Systems and Control Letters, 17:265{280, 1991.
[Pap98] G. Papageorgiou. Robust Control System Design: H1 Loop shaping and Aerospace
Applications. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, 1998.
[PLS80] T. Pappas, A. J. Laub, and N. R. Sandell. On the numerical solution of the discrete-
time algebraic Riccati equation. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, 25:631{641,
1980.
[RPK92] R. Ravi, A. M. Pascoal, and P. P Khargonekar. Normalized coprime factorizations for
linear time-varying systems. Systems and Control Letter, 18:455{465, 1992.
[RR85] M. Rosenblum and J Rovnyak. Hardy Classes and Operator Theory. Oxford University
Press, 1985.
[Rud86] W. Rudin. Real and Complex Analysis. Mathematics Series. McGraw-Hill International
Editions, Singapore, 1986.
[Rud91] W. Rudin. Functional Analysis. Mathematics Series. McGraw-Hill International Edi-
tions, Singapore, 1991.
[SLC90] M. G. Safonov, D. N. J. Limebeer, and R. Y. Chiang. Simplifying the H1 theory via
loop-shifting, matrix pencil and descriptor concepts. International Journal of Control,
50:2467{2488, 1990.
[Smi89] M. C. Smith. On stabilisation and the existence of coprime factorisations. IEEE Trans-
actions on Automatic Control, 34:1005{1007, 1989.
[SNF70] B. Sz-Nagy and C. Foias. Harmonic Analysis of Operators on Hilbert Space. North-
Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1970.
[SO93] J. A. Sefton and R. J. Ober. On the gap metric and coprime factor perturbations.
Automatica, 29:723{734, 1993.
[Sut93] W. A. Sutherland. Introduction to Metric and Topological Spaces. Oxford Science
Publications, Oxford, 1993.
Bibliography 183

[Toi92] H. T. Toivonen. Sampled-data control of continuous-time systems with an H1 opti-


mality criterion. Automatica, 28:45{54, 1992.
[Toi93] H. T. Toivonen. Worst-case sampling for sampled-data H1 design. In Proceedings of
the 32nd IEEE CDC, San Antonio, Texas, pages 337{342, 1993.
[TS97] H. T. Toivonen and M. F. Sagfors. The sampled-data H1 problem: A uni ed framework
for discretization based methods and Riccati equation solution. International Journal
of Control, 66:289{309, 1997.
[Vid78] M. Vidyasagar. Nonlinear Systems Analysis. Networks Series. Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
1978.
[Vid84] M. Vidyasagar. The graph metric for unstable plants and robustness estimates for
feedback stability. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 29:403{417, 1984.
[Vid85] M. Vidyasagar. Control System Synthesis : A Factorization Approach. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1985.
[Vin93a] G. Vinnicombe. Frequency domain uncertainty and the graph topology. IEEE Trans-
actions on Automatic Control, 38:1371{1383, 1993.
[Vin93b] G. Vinnicombe. Measuring the Robustness of Feedback Systems. PhD thesis, University
of Cambridge, England, 1993.
[Vin96] G. Vinnicombe. Personal communication, 1996.
[Vin98] G. Vinnicombe. Uncertainty and Feedback. Imperial College Press, London, In Press
1998.
[VK86] M. Vidyasagar and H. Kimura. Robust controllers for uncertain linear multivariable
systems. Automatica, 22:85{94, 1986.
[VL78] C. F. Van Loan. Computing integrals involving the matrix exponential. IEEE Trans-
actions on Automatic Control, 23:395{404, 1978.
[VSF83] M. Vidyasagar, H. Schneider, and B. A. Francis. Algebraic and topological aspects of
feedback stabilisation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 27:880{894, 1983.
[Wil71] J. C. Willems. The Analysis of Feedback Systems, volume 62 of Research Monographs.
The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971.
[Won85] W. M. Wonham. Linear Multivariable Control. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1985.
184 Bibliography

[WR71] J. H. Wilkinson and C. Reinsch. Handbook for Automatic Computation, volume II


Linear Algebra. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.
[YA94] Y. Yamamoto and M. Araki. Frequency responses for sampled-data systems - their
equivalence and relationships. Linear Algebra and its Applications, 205-206:1319{1339,
1994.
[Yam94] Y. Yamamoto. A function space approach to sampled-data control systems and tracking
problems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 39:703{713, 1994.
[YJB76] D. C. Youla, H. A. Jabr, and J. J. Bongiorno. Modern Wiener-Hopf design of optimal
controllers - part II: The multivariable case. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
21:319{338, 1976.
[YK96] Y. Yamamoto and P. P. Khargonekar. Frequency response of sampled-data systems.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 41:166{176, 1996.
[You86] N. Young. The nevanlinna-pick problem for matrix-valued functions. Journal of Oper-
ator Theory, 15:239{265, 1986.
[Zam66] G. Zames. On the input-output stability for time-varying nonlinear feedback systems {
Part I conditions using concepts of loop gain, conicity and positivity. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 2:228{238, 1966.
[Zam81] G. Zames. Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference transformations, multi-
plicative seminorms and approximate inverses. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con-
trol, 26:301{320, 1981.
[ZDG95] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, and K. Glover. Robust and Optimal Control. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 1995.
[ZES80] G. Zames and A. K. El-Sakkary. Unstable systems and feedback: The gap metric. In
Proceedings of the Allerton Conference, pages 380{385, 1980.