Proceedings of 23rd Conference on Decision and Control Las Vegas, NV, December 1984

WP8 5 0 0
O N STATE-SPACE MODELS FOR SYSTEMS DESCRIBED BY PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS *
Stanislaw H. Zak School of Electrical Engineering Purdue T,-niversity \Vest Lafayette, Indiana 47907

ABSTRACT
New first-order differential (PDE) partial equation representationsforsystemsdescribed by higherorderPDEs for analysis of lumped-distributed sysare proposed. Tools tems are suggested: Xlikusinski's operational calculus and the 2-D Laplace transform. system Next, equivalence for lumped-distributedsystems is defined anddiscussed.Finally. modal controllability observability introduced and are and compared with the analogous notions for the proper 2-D systems.

In paper this we suggest generalized a state-space description for 2-D systems. In particular,systemsdescribed by partial differential equations (PDEs) can be represented in this setting. Thus, we attemptto find a representation of distributedparametersystemdynamics in terms of sets of first order PDEs as opposite to higher order P.D.E.

I . TWO-DIMENSIONAL I THE LAPLACE

TRANSFORM
Suppose we are given f ( t l s t 2 )- a real or complexvalued variables t,and t,, defined on the region function of real 0 5 t, < mt 0 5 tz < x: andintegrableoveranarbitrary finite rectangle 0 5 t , 5 a, 0 5 tz 5 b. Consider the integral
a b

I. INTRODUCTION
State-spacemodelshaveplayedimportant roles in the synthesis analysis and of finite-dimensional linear systems. Thestate-spacedescription of a lumped dynamical system canbethought of as arepresentation of systembehavior in terms of sets of first-order differential (difference) equations as opposite nth-order to a differential (difference) equation. Such a representation allows one to consider the pertinent set of system variables in terms of the trajectory of a point in an n-dimensional state-space. powerful can be This tool also applied in the study of lumpedapproximationstosome system described by partial differential equations as was recently demonstrated by Brockett and \Villems 121. In recent ?-ears attempts have been made towards extension of state-spacerepresentationtomoregeneralsystems. or systems modeled by partial e.g. time-delay systems of such differential equations. The state-space repreentation systems allowed to generalize many results analogous to those derived for systemsmodeled by ODES.(seeRussell [I81 for thediscussion of controllabilityandrelatedtopicsforlinear PDEs in terms of stat e-space representation). Anothergeneralization,fromsingle-dimensionaltimeto twc-dimensionalspace, is known as theRoesser'smodel [7). It can be shownthattheRoesser'smodelnaturallyarises in the circuit realization of discrete 2-D systems (see Kung et al. [SI. Sontag [lo]. Eising[4])anddelay-differentialsystems (see e.g.Zaketal. 1131). Also some distributed-parameter systems canberepresented,afterdiscretization, in thismanner(see Tzafestas and Pimenides [Ill for an example). One of the limitations of the Roesser's representation is that it canonlybe used to describethe 2-D propertransfer functions. e.g. Thusthe transfer function of the form 1/(s1s2+s1+sz)canberepresented by theRoesser'smodel, l / l s l + s z ) cannot(see [4] or [IO] while thetransferfunction for thedetails). In otherwords,theRoesser'smodel is suitable only for the representation of northeast quarter plane 2D systems.

F(sl,s2;a,b)2

I e-E1t1-s2ty(tl:tzjdtldt2

0 0

where s1 = o l + j p l a n d s2 = ol+jlr2 are complex parameters ( s l . i 2 )E , where is the set o f comdeterminingapoint plex numbers. Denote by S t e class of all functions f(tl,t2), for at least suchthatthe following conditions satisfied are one point (sl,szj:

4;'

4 '

(i) (ii)

F(s,,s,;a,b) < \l(sl,sz) for all 2 0, b 2 0, where a ;21(sl,sz)is a positive constant independent of a and b at point the (sl,s2j
a- x

lim F(sl,sz;a.b) = F(sl.szj exists.

b-Lx

Denote this limit by

W M

F(sl,s2) 4Lz[f(tl,tz)]

4j
0 0

e-s1t1-s2t~(tI,t2jdtldtz (1)

The integral (1) is calledthe 2-D Laplace transform 1141, [3] of thefunction f(t,,t,) E S . The following formulae will be useful in subsequent considerations

'This work wassupported by the School of Electrical Engineering of the Purdue University

Remark 1 Fortheapplications of 2-D Laplacetransform to some nonlinear systems reader the is referred comprehensive to treatise by Rugh [e]. (see also [SI).

571

CH2093-3/84/0000-0571 $ 1 .OO Q 1984 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 05,2010 at 13:40:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

III. SOME BASIC FACTS FROM THE OPERATIONAL CALCULUS [20]

Let C denotethe class of funct,ions which are defined and continuous in the interval 0 5 t < m. Functions of class C mayhavereal or complexvalues.Thefundamental notion of the operational calculus is convolution.

Let us now consider the differential equation of the form

+ an(s2)x(n)(t,)

'

+ ao(s2)x(tl) = u
+ ao(s2)x(tl)= o

(8)

where ai(s2) are arbitrary operators. -4s in thecase of ODES we will seek first a solution of the homogeneous equation

+ an(s2)x(")(tl) . . .

(9)

Definition i The convolution of a ( t ) )b ( t ) E C is the function c(t) defined by the integral

t
t

Having defined thegeneralizedexponentialfunction. tulate a solution of (9) in the form

we pos-

c(t)

4
0

a(t-r)b(T)dr =
0

a(r)b(t-r)dr

(10) Substitution of (10) into (9) yields the characteristic equation of (9) of the form P ( w ) = an(s2)wn . . + ao(s2)= 0 (11)

x = e%

LI'e would like toemphasizeatthispointthattheconvolution can be thought of as a "generalized product" by writing c(t) = (a*b)(t) Observe that if a(t), b(t) E C then (a * b ) ( t ) E C. Furthermore, if a(t), b(t.) E C' are identically not equal to zero.thenneither is ( a * b)(t) identicallyequal to zero. This important property of the convolution proved was by E. Titchmarsh in 1924, [20].

The characteristic equation (11)can be represented in unique way as follows P ( w ) = a,(s2) where each root, i G i has the form
,9ks;/'

n (w-Ti)
n

(12)

i=l

'

'

'

+ >?lsi/q+ 190 +

?jsij/q
j =O

(13)

Ezamples If we take the convolution f(t) E C , then the result is

(1 * f ) ( t )

of the step funct,ion I ( t ) and

Here k and q are nonnegative integers (q we have the following.

5 n). Furthermore

= I f(7)d7
0

l ( t ) is an integral operator. The Therefore function the inverse of theintegraloperator l(t) is thedifferentialoperator, where we have by definition (s * I ) ( t ) = (1 * s ) ( t )

=1

N. GENERALIZED EXPONENTIAL FUNCTIONS

Theexponentialfunctionplaysfundament,alrole in the ordinarydifferentialequations. It turnsoutthatthisnotion canbeextendedandthenappliedtomoregeneral class of differential equations. Given the differential equation

Theorem (Mikusin'ski) The operator (13) is logarithmic whenever k/q >1 and 9, it 0 or if k/q = 1 and /3k is not real. ' The nature of the roots of the characteristic equ a t 1011 determinesthenumber of "constants" in thesolution of (8). Ingeneral,t,henumber of arbitrary"constants" in the solution of (8) is equal to the number of logarithmic roots of the characteristic equation. Thesepowerfulresultscan be effectively applied to systems described by the equations
X(t1) = A(S2b(tl) + B ( s M t 1 ) or even more general systems

(14)

X(t,) = w x(tJ
If w is a number, then the exponent,ial funct,ion x(t,) satisfies equation (6) and the conditions
x(0) = 1

(6)

E(S2)X(tl) = A(s,)x(t,) + B(szlu(t1) (15) of syswhere E(s2) is squarepolynomialmatrix.Examples temsmodeled by (14) and (15) .can befound e.g. in Kamen [15], Russell [18]:Spong 1221, or Zak et al. [13].

= e'"

V. FIRST-ORDER EQUATION REPRESENTA(7)

Now, suppose that w = w(s2) is on operator.thenconditions (6) and (7) define generalized exponential function ex''. Observe that for certain operators w there is no (generalized) exponential function, e.g. t,here exists no exponential function eisztl( I' for real t , (see hfikusin'ski [20], pp. 267-269 for details).

TION FOR SYSTEMS DESCRIBED BY HIGHER ORDER PDEs.

A)

Definition 2 The operators w for which the exponential function ewt' exists will be called logarithmic. Remark 2 Complex numbers are logarithmic.
Ezamples 1 s2-1 1 S2

Having at our disposal the 2-D Laplace transform we will proceedsimilarly as in t h e I-D case. In othpr words, we w i l l find the 2-D transfer function of a system drscrilml b u PDE ! andthenweconstruct a first-orderequationrrprcscntation. Let T(sl.s2) E IRPxm(sl.sZ) and T = N(s~.s~)/~(s~.s~ A N/a = where S E IRPxm(s2)[s1] a E IR(sz)[sl],IR(s,,s2) denotes and the set of rational functions in s1 and s2 with real coefficients. Note that nothing is postulat,ed with regard to properness of T. We assume only that a(sl,s2) is monicwithrespecttosl. .s in the 1-D casewe find matrices A(s2), B(s2), C(s2) and 4 D(s2) such that
A + D(s?) (16) T(sl,s2) = T = C(S,)[S,I-A(S~)]-'B(S~) where elements the of 4 . B, C , and D are from IR(s,). Representation (16) of T will be called thefirst-levelrealization of T (compare with Eking's 141 realization theory of 2-D systems). matrices The A(s2)> B(s2),C(s2),D(s2) can be non-proper in general, transfer matrices in viewed as 1-D, themselves. Realizing each of them we obtain the following

Theoperators i+&, are logarithmic, while

522,

2s2-3&,

-,

1, -s2:

-&,

s i l ( I + i ) s Z l - - -1s2 are not.

1 2

&.
2

572
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 05,2010 at 13:40:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

.&(s,,)

= C"[s 2I "'4 - X f ] - ' B t 1

+ Cf'is?J-LI]-'Bt + D" '

+ DB

y(tl,O) 6 b(tl). &'{b(tl)}

av (17)

4 B(sl).
3 .

B ( s 2 )= C'F[s2InB-.A,Bj-'B,B + CF[s2JB-I]-1BB

1 I t2=0 = d(t1). L'(d(t1)) at2

= D(s1).

C(s2) = C ~ [ s 2 1 n c - A ~ ] - ' Bt C'C[S,.J~-I]-'BC + f

DC
,

D(?) = CP[s2InD-AP]-'BP + CD[S,J~-I]-'B,D + DD

Application of the 2-D Laplacetransform to both sides of (19) and some manipulations yield

Representation(17) will betermed, by analogywithEking [4], the second-level realization o f T. A block diagram revealing the first- and second-level realizations is depicted in Fig. 1

The first-level realization the form

of the function transfer has

si-s?'

Remark 3 X t the second-level realization we made use of the theory of systems of the form E i ;L\. -+ Bu with E singular. developed by \-erghese et al. [12]. Choosing state the variables as the outputs of the 1 1 dynamical elements -. s? and - we can describe the resultS1
S?

\e + '

can represent A(s2) as follows .A(sz) = C ' ~ [ s 2 J h 1 3 ] - ' B ~ +

ing internal model of T in a compact way as follows

- -10 0 01-10 -1 sq s2

0 0 - 1 .

"[: 1. 1
0 0

D"

11

(22)

Taking into account (21) and ( 2 2 ) we can draw block diagram of oursystem - see Fig. 2. T h e representingtherealization state-space representation is

with

:1
8%
at:

singular

Example Consider the wave equation

L

If we now assume that initial conditions have the form

+%

- u. O < t 1 < x O < t 2 < c o

with the boundary conditions y(O,tz) A a(t2).&'(a(t2)} 1 ..Z(S~). = =.

t,=O

at 1

2 c(t2).

&2{C(t?)}

A '

= C(S2).

4ii.l

Fig. 1. Block diagram of realization of T(sl,sz).

573
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 05,2010 at 13:40:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

or shortly

Fig. 2. Block diagram of the realization of (20). then the 2-D Laplace transform relating Y(sl,s2) and U(sl,sq) withtheinitialcondition (24) computed from (23) hasthe form (20). Observe that the dimension of

The system matrix n ( s 1 , s 2 )corresponding to (26) is the ( q + r + p ) x (q+r+m) matrix SIEl-Al s~EZ-A~ -B,

[ A ~ in (23) in 5. We dl]

pose thefollowing quest.ion. Does there exist anotherstatespace model of (20) with lower dimension? The answer is yes. A state-space model of overall order of 4 has the form x:, - 1 0 0 0 y2 0 0 -1 0 . t l 0 -1 0 1 x3
0 0
1

0 0

- x4

t:

0 -1 0 0 x 1 0 0 0 0 -1 x 2 0 0 0 o o x 3 + - l u 1 0 -1 0 x 4 0

n ( s 1 , s 2 ) s1E3-A3 s2E4-A4 -B2] = (28) -C1 -C2 D Two systemmatrices n l ( s l , s 2 ) and n 2 ( s l , s 2 )aresaid to be system equivalent (s.e) iff one can be obtained from the other by the following operations, which may be carried out in any order and any finite number of times: (i) Multiplication of any one of the first q + r rows (resp. columns) by a rationalfunctionfrom $(sl.sz) notidentically zero. (ii)Addition of a multiple, by arationalfunctionfrom $(s1,s2), of any one of the first q + r rows(resp.columns) to any other row (resp. column). (iii) Interchanging two any among first the q + r rows (resp. columns). to (iv) Addition of a row and a column to n ( s l , s 2 ) from

t2.

or, if thesystemmatrixhasthisform,deletion row and first column to leave n ( s l , s 2 ) .

of thefirst

Ezample Consider the first order P D E of the form

where 0

< t l < c o , 0 < t 2 < 00,

Y(O,t,)

Y(tl!O)

4 b(t1)
to sides both
of (29)

Note that in (25) matrix E is nolongerblockdiagonal. Model (25) is anexample of thegeneralized 2-D statespace model of the form

Application of the operator yields

L2

Application of the realization procedure from previous the section to (30) results in the following state-space model
'1 0
0 0
0

'0

where E is square singular matrix of appropriate dimensions.

.o

0 1 x ; = o >1

1 1 o-'x 1 o x 2 + o u
0 1- x 3
0

olx:

VI.

SYSTEM EQUIVALENCE

Veryimportant,andnaturalatthesametime, in the matrix introduced by analysis of 1-D systems is system Rosenbrock [8] and generalized by Verghese et al. [12]. Here we introduce the analogous notion for the generalized 2-D state-space models. After taking the 2-D Laplace transform of (26) we may rewrite the resulting equations in the form

574
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 05,2010 at 13:40:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

The system matrix corresponding to (31) has the form s, -1 0 -1

0 -1
rIl(Sl.SZ)

a right unimodular matrix in s1 and s2) and a unique A'(sl,sz) [modulo a left unimodular matrix) such that (i)
(32)
&sl.s2) has size mxmand in s2 only
4*(SlrS2)

s:,

0
0

1 .TI

= Z(s2) is a polynomial

= -1
1

0 -1
0 0

Another possible realization of (30) of lower order than (31) has the form

(ii) (iii)

4(s1&)

has size mxqand is primitivew.r.t ($[sz] = A(sl,s2).4'(sl,sz)

Next define polynomialmatrices A(sI:s2) and B(sl,sz) to be 2-D right-coprime iff all their greatest common right divisors (GCRDs) areunimodularones, i.e. A(sl,s2) and B ( s ~ , s ~ ) have no divisor, say R ( s l , s z ) , such that

(ii) The system matrix corresponding to ( 3 3 ) has the form

s,
n2(S,,s2) =

s2 -1

-1 1 0 (34) . 1 0 0. We will show that n l ( s 1 , s 2and ~ , ( s , , s 2 ) are s.e. T o d o this ) it is enough to perform the following operations on n I ( s I , s 2 ) : Addamultiple by ( - 1 ) of thesecond row tothe first one, next add a multiple by s2 of the second column to the third one. The result of these ouerations is
[SI

(i) (ii)

det R f const et al. [23])that A and B are It can be shown (see hlorf 2-D right coprime iff A and B arerightcoprimew.r.t. ($(sl)[sz] and . and B arerightcoprimew.r.t. $(s2)[sl]. 4

As in 2-D case (see Kung et al. notions.

[SI)we introduce the following

Definition 4 A s w t em

0 -s2 -11

0 - 1 0 -1 0 -1 1 0 0

0 0 0

(35)

is said to be modallv controllable

iff the matrices

Llultiplication of thesecondcolumnandthethirdcolumn of (35) by (-1) and deletion then of the second and row the second column brings us to I12(s1.s2). In the case when both realizations are of the same order we introduce the notion of restricted system equivalence.

are 2-D left coprime

Definition 3 Two systems S and SI aresaidtoberestrictedsystem equivalent (r.s.e) if their associated system matrices are related bv

Definition 5 modally observable System (37) is said to be matrices s1E1-241 S2Ez-a42

and
[slE3-A3 s2E,-A4

iff the

where

bl,

s diag[s,I, s21r]. 11 = diag{11,,Lf2}, E p x q * ?f2 E 4""'. both nonsingular. and N = d1ag{\,.N2}with N, and N2 complexand of appropri-

are 2-D right coprime. Notions of modal controllability and modal observability proved to be very useful in the realization of theory, both in [8]) and in the 2-D case(see the 1-D case(seeRosenbrock K u n g e t al. 1-51 and Zak et al. (131). For example, in the realis1 f s 2 . zation of T = -In the form s,sp-l

ate dimensions. and nonsingular.

W.REMARKS ON MODALCONTROLLABILITY
AND OBSERVABILITY
The following results will be needed later. Let A(s,,s2)E ~ x ~ [ s l . sbe ]full rank 2-D polpomial 2 matrix with m l q . hen A(sl.s,) is said to be primitiw with respect t o q [ s 2 ] (resp. $is1]) iff themxmminors of ?I(s1,s2) havenocommondivisorthat is. apolynomial in s2 (resp. in sl) only [ l ] , [?3]. Primitive Factorization Theorem (see [l],[SI, [?3], [?dl for its proof and applications). Let A(sl,s2) be a given mxq full rank pobnomial matrix A(sl.s2) (modulo such that m l q . Then there exists a unique

IC1 C2l = 1 1 the modal controllability matrix

11,
s1 -1
0 -1
0 0

-A3 s21-.t4 slI-A1 -4 .2

.. -B2 = -Bl]

-1

s2

0 -1

s2 -1

is notprimitive w1.r.t $[s2], rank of thismatrix is less than threefor sz = 0. Thisindicatesthat (40) is notaminimal
s,s2-l of lower order than (40). and it has the form

realization of T = - Indeed,thereexistsarealization

sicsz.

575
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 05,2010 at 13:40:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

which is both modally cont,rollable observable. and In the case of generalized 2-D state-spacemodels(26),situation is us considertworealizat,ions of muchmorecomplicated.Let T=as given by (31) and(33).Onecan easily check
S I +s2

diflerent orders, are that realizations, both despite controllable and modally observable?!

modally

VIII.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of t>his paper was to demonstrate that the recentlyobtainedresults in thealgebraictheory of 2-D systems combined the with operational calculus the and 2-D Laplacetransformmayshed new light intotheanalysis of systems described by PDEs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank Dennis discussions on the subject.
M . Goodman for

REFERENCES
Ti. K. Bose, AppliedX!ulfidin~ensionalSystemsTheory. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1082. 121 R . W . Brockett and J. L. M-illems, Discretizedpartial differential equations: Examples of control systems defined onmodules, Automatica, Vol. 10,pp. 507-515, 1974. V . A. Ditkin and A . P. Prudnikov, Operational Calculus 131 in Two Variables and Its Applications, Pergamon Press, London,1962. Realizat,ion stabilization and of 2-D sys141 R . Eising, tems, IEEE Trans.Automat.Contr., Vol. AC-23, No. 5 , pp. 793-799, 1978. I51 S-Y Kung, B. C. Levyl M. hlorf, and T. Kailath. Tiew results in 2-D systemstheory,Part 11: 2-D state-space of cont,rollability, models - Realizationandthenotions Proc. IEEE, Vol. 65, observability, minimality, and NO. 6, pp. 945-961, 1977. Lubbock V. and S. Bansal, Multidimensional P I J. K. Laplace transforms for solution of nonlinear equations, Proc. IEE, Vol. 116, No. 12, pp. 2075-2082, 19G9. P I R . T . Roesser, .4 discretestate-spacemodelforlinear Vol. imageprocessing. IEEE Trans.Automat.Contr., AC-20, NO. 1, pp. 1-10, 1975. P I H. H. Rosenbrock, State-space and Multivariable Theory, Wiley, New York, 1970. System Theory, 191 W . J. Rugh, Konlinear The Volterral Wiener Approach. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1881.

Ill

E. D. Sontag, On first-order equations for multidimensional filters, IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Processing, Vol. ASSP-26, No. 5, pp. 480-482, 1978. S. G. Tzafestas and T. G. Pimenides, Feedback characteristicpolynomialcontroller design of 3-D systems in stat,e-space, Journal of theFranklinInstitute, V O ~ 314, NO. 3, pp. 169-189, 1982. . G.C.Verghese,B. C;. Levy, and T. Kailath,Ageneralizedstate-space for singularsystems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., Vol. AC-26, No. 4, pp. 811-831, 1981. S. H. Zak, E. B.Lee,andW-S.Lu,Minimalrealizations of 2-D filtersandtimedelaysystems,submitted for publicat,ion. D. Voelker and G. Do&ch, Die Zzueidimensionale Laplace-Transforl,~ation,Verlng Birkhauser Bnsel, 1950. E. W. Kamen, A not,e on the representation and realizat,ion of lumped-distributed networks, delay-differential systems,and 2-D systems, IEEE Trans.CircuitsSyst., 101. CAS-27, NO. pp. 430-432,1980. 5, B. Levy, M. Morf, and S. Y. Kung, Tew results in 2-D systems theory, Part 111: Recursive realization and estimation algorithms for 2-D systems, Proc. C.S.C. Conference, Lubbock, TX, Aug. 1977. E. W. Kamen, On an algebraic theory of systems defined by convolution operators, Systems Math. Theory, Vol. 9, pp. .57-74. 1975/76. D. L . Russell, Controllability and stabilizability theory forlinearpartialdifferentialequat,ions.Recentprogress andopenquestions, SIAM Review, Vol. 20, So. 4, pp. 639-739, 1978. E. B.Leeand S. H.Zak,Smithformsover R[zl,z2], IEEE Trans.Automat.Contr.. Vol.AC-28, No. 1, pp. 115-118. 1983. J. Mikusidski, Operational Calculus, Pergamon Press, Warsaw, 1959. R . J. Walker, Algebraic Curues, SpringerVerlag, New York. 1978. M. W . Spong, Hereditary realizat,ions of linear neutral delay-differential systems,appear to in the Systems and Control Letters, Vol. 3 . No. 6. M. hlorf,B. C. L&y,and S-Y. Kung,Newresults in 2-D systemstheory,Part I: 2-D polynomial matrices, Proc. IEEE, Vol. 65, factorization, coprimeness, and S O .6, pp. 861-872. 1977. J. P. Guiver and N.K. Bose. Polynomial mat,rix primitive factorization arbitrary over coefficient field and IEEE Trans. Circuits 3 Syst., Vol. !. related results. CAC-29, NO. 10; pp. 649-657, 1982.

570
Authorized licensed use limited to: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KHARAGPUR. Downloaded on May 05,2010 at 13:40:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.