Gumussoy Suat

OPTIMAL H-INFINITY CONTROLLER DESIGN AND
STRONG STABILIZATION FOR TIME-DELAY AND

MIMO SYSTEMS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulllment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Suat G um ussoy, B.S.E.E., M.S.
* * * * *
The Ohio State University
2004
Ph.D. Examination Committee:
Professor Hitay

Ozbay, Adviser
Professor Andrea Serrani
Professor Hooshang Hemami
Approved by
Adviser
Department of Electrical
Engineering
ABSTRACT
In this thesis, the problems of optimal H
controller design and strong stabi-

lization for time-delay systems are studied. First, the optimal H
controller design
problem is considered for time-delay plants with nitely many unstable zeros and
innitely many unstable poles. It is shown that this problem is the dual version of
the same problem for the plants with nitely many unstable poles and innitely many
unstable zeros, that is solved by the so-called Skew-Toeplitz approach. The optimal
H
controller is obtained by a simple data transformation. Next, the solution of the

optimal H
controller design problem is given for plants with nitely many unstable
poles or unstable zeros by using duality and the Skew-Toeplitz approach. Necessary
and sucient conditions on time-delay systems are determined for applicability of
the Skew-Toeplitz method to nd optimal H
controllers. Internal unstable pole-

zero cancellations are eliminated and nite impulse response structure of the optimal
H
controller is obtained. The problem of strong stabilization is studied for time

delay and MIMO nite dimensional systems. An indirect approach to design a stable
controller achieving a desired H
performance level for time delay systems is given.

This approach is based on stabilization of H
controller by another H
controller
in the feedback loop. In another approach, when the optimal controller is unstable
(with innitely or nitely many unstable poles), two methods are given based on a
search algorithm to nd a stable suboptimal controller. In this approach, the main
ii
idea is to search for a free parameter which comes from the parameterization of sub-
optimal H
controller, such that it results in a stable H
controller. Finally, the

strong stabilization problem and stable H
controller design for nite dimensional

multi-input multi-output linear time invariant systems are studied. It is shown that
if a certain linear matrix inequality condition has a solution then a stable controller,
whose order is the same as the order of the generalized plant, can be constructed.
This result is applied to design stable H
controller with the order twice of the order

of the generalized plant.
iii
To my mom and dad, Dilek and Kamil,
and my brother, Murat for ...
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my advisor, Professor Hitay

Ozbay, for his understand-
ing, support and help throughout this academic experience. He was the advisor
just I wished. I would also like to thank Professor Andrea Serrani and Professor
Hooshang Hemami for serving in my examination committee. I am thankful to Pro-
fessor Vadim I. Utkin for his valuable discussions.
I would also like to acknowledge the nancial support from the National Science
Foundation, AFRL/VA and AFOSR.
My special thanks are for my parents, Kamil and Dilek G um ussoy, and my brother,
Murat G um ussoy who helped and assisted me at every stage in my life.
Many thanks to my oce-mates, Pierre F.Quet and Xin Yuan for nice chats and
valuable discussions. They were just there, when I need to speak H
ish.
I am thankful to my early-Ph.D.friends, Tankut Acarman, Veysel Gazi, Mehmet
Onder Efe,

Umit O gras, O guz Da gc, Peng Yan and late-Ph.D friends, Cosku Kas-
nako glu, Alvaro E. Gil, Nicanor Quijano, Jorge Finke. Since it is dicult to mention
all the names, I am also thankful to CRL graduate students and faculty.
I want to thank my non-departmental friends Cezmi

Unal, Yelda Serina gao glu,
Gokhan Korkmaz, Sahika Vatan, Tansu Demirbilek, Y ucel and Derya Demirer for
spending their time with me.
v
Although a graduate study in abroad causes to lost many friendship in your home
country, I am thankful to K ursad Erg ut, Hatice Din c, Ulas Bars Sarsoy,

Ilke and
Unsal Soysal for everything they did in spite of distances.

While I were studying all night with no sleep, I were always happy to see my
friend Douglas Ellis, janitor, with smile on his face at 6:00a.m.
My last thanks are for my love,

Ipek. Everything will be too much dicult without
you. When I started to doubt that there exist the one, you came...
vi
VITA
May 16, 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Born - Aksaray, Turkey
September, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.S. in Electrical and Electronics Engi-
neering
Middle East Technical University
Ankara, Turkey
September, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B.S. in Mathematics
Middle East Technical University
Ankara, Turkey
August, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M.S. in Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering
Columbus, Ohio
September, 2000 - Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graduate Research Associate
Columbus, Ohio
vii
PUBLICATIONS
Research Publications
Suat G um ussoy and Hitay

Ozbay, On the Mixed Sensitivity Minimization for Sys-
tems with Innitely Many Unstable Modes, to appear in Systems and Control
Letters, 2004 (available on publishers web site since June 10, 2004).

Ozbay, Remarks on Strong Stabilization and Stable H-
innity Controller Design, to appear in Proceedings of 43rd IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, The Bahamas, December 2004.

Ozbay, On Stable H-innity Controllers for Time Delay
Systems, Proceedings of the conference on Mathematical Theory of Network and
Systems, July 2004.
Murat Sa glam, Sami Ezercan, Suat G um ussoy and Hitay

Ozbay, Controller tuning
for active queue management using a parameter space method, Proceedings of the
conference on Mathematical Theory of Network and Systems, July 2004.

Ozbay, Control of Systems with Innitely Many Unstable
Modes and Strong Stabilizing Controllers Achieving a Desired Sensitivity, Proceed-
ings of the conference on Mathematical Theory of Network and Systems, August 2002.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Electrical Engineering
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Chapters:
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Literature Review on Optimal H
Controller Design for Time-Delay

Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Literature Review on Stable H
Controller Design . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Dissertation Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. On the Mixed Sensitivity Minimization for Systems with Innitely Many
Unstable Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1 Main Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
ix
3. H
Controller Design for Neutral and Retarded Delay Systems . . . . . 16

3.1 Preliminary Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.1 Neutral and Retarded Time Delay Systems with Finitely
Many Unstable Zeros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.2 FIR Structure of Neutral and Retarded Time Delay Systems 24
3.2 Main Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.1 Factorization of the Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2.2 Optimal H
Controller Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.1 IF Plant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.3.2 FF Plant Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4. Stable H
Controllers for Delay Systems: Suboptimal Sensitivity . . . . 40

4.1 Optimal Sensitivity Problem for Delay Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2 Sensitivity Deviation Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5. On Stable H
Controllers for Time-Delay Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5.1 Structure of H
Controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.2 Stable suboptimal H
controllers, when the optimal controller has

innitely many unstable poles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
controllers, when the optimal controller has

nitely many unstable poles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.4.1 Example 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.4.2 Example 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6. Remarks on Strong Stabilization and Stable H
Controller Design . . . 70
6.1 Strong stabilization of MIMO systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2 Stable H
controller design for MIMO systems . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.3 Numerical examples and comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.3.1 Strong stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.3.2 Stable H
controllers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
x
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Appendices:
A. Skew-Toeplitz Approach for Mixed Sensitivity Problem . . . . . . . . . . 85
B. IF and FI Plant Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.1 Example: IF Plant Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
B.2 Example: FF Plant Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 Optimal H
Controller for IF plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.2 Optimal H
Controller for FI plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.3 f
T
(t) for IF plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.4 f

opt
(t) for IF plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.5 f
T
(t) for FF plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.6 f

opt
(t) for FF plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.1 (i) F = 0: the weighted sensitivity is H
optimal; (ii) F = 0: the

controller K is stable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.1 w
max
and
max
versus u
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.2 Z(s) plot for right half plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.3
min
versus n
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.4 Magnitude plot of U(j) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.5 u
values resulting stable H
controller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.1 Standard Feedback System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.2 Comparison for plant G
1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.3 Comparison for plant G
2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
6.1 Stable H
controller design for combustion chamber . . . . . . . . . 77

6.2 Stable H
controller design for Example in [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Mathematical modeling of physical systems is typically based on certain simpli-
fying assumptions and physical laws of nature. Hence it always introduces modeling
errors, i.e., the plant model from which a controller is to be designed is just an ap-
proximation of the actual plant. Therefore, it is important to use design techniques
which guarantee stability and performance against such uncertainties. Robust control
is an important eld of feedback control theory, that is concerned with stability and
performance of systems with uncertainties.
One of the most important tools of robust control is H
control. Since the

H
norm can interpreted as the worst-case gain of the system, it is an appropriate

criterion to pose the disturbance minimization problems in this setting. There are
three major types of plant uncertainties, i.e., additive, multiplicative, coprime factor
uncertainties. Considering these types of uncertainties of the plant, dierent types of
H
controllers are designed to achieve the closed loop stability (Robust Stabilization
Problem) and pre-specied performance level (Robust Performance Problem) [2].
Stable controller design for a given plant is called strong stabilization. It is de-
sirable to have a stable controller for practical and theoretical reasons, ([3, 4]). For
1
example it is well known that the unstable poles of the controller degrades the track-
ing performance and/or disturbance rejection capabilities of the closed loop system
([5, 6, 7]). Moreover, unstable controllers are highly sensitive and their response to
sensor-faults and plant uncertainties/nonlinearities are unpredictable ([8]). It is also
well-known, [3], that the strong stabilization problem has a close connection with
simultaneous stabilization of two or more plants by a single controller. Also, stable
controllers can be tested o-line to check some faults in the implementation and to
compare with the theoretical design specications. Therefore, it is desirable to use
strongly stabilizing controllers in the feedback loop whenever possible.
In this thesis, a fundamental tool in robust control, H
control theory, will be used

to design optimal H
controllers for time-delay systems and stable H
controllers for
time-delay and multi-input multi-output (MIMO) systems. Unless otherwise speci-
ed, the discussion will be primarily be conned to single-input single-output (SISO)
systems. For the rest of this Chapter, a brief overview of the literature on optimal
H
controller and stable H
controller design will be given and the outline of the

dissertation can be found in the last section of this Chapter.
1.1 Literature Review on Optimal H
Controller Design for

Time-Delay Systems
It is well known that H
controllers for linear time invariant systems with nitely

many unstable modes can be determined by various methods, see e.g. [9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15]. In particular, H
control problem for time-delay systems is studied

by many researchers. When the plant is a dead-time system in the form e
hs
P
0
(s),
where P
0
is a rational transfer function, optimal H
controller design problem is

solved in [16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. A general class of innite dimensional H
control
2
problems are solved by operator theoretic methods. In this thesis we will refer to one
of these methods known as the Skew-Teoplitz approach. In [2], a mixed sensitivity
minimization problem is converted into two-block, and then to an one-block H
problem after a series of factorizations and transformations, and the resulting Nehari
problem is solved using the Commutant Lifting Theorem. In [15] the overall algorithm
is signicantly simplied. The optimal H
controller can be obtained by this method

for SISO dead-time systems.
State-space methods for H
control of dead-time systems are given in [21, 22].

In these papers, the innite dimensional problem is reduced to nite dimensional
problems and the corresponding problems are solved. Another solution to same prob-
lem is given in [23] by using the J-spectral factorization approach. Moreover, in the
same work, a special structure of the optimal and suboptimal H
controllers are
shown (i.e., innite dimensional part of the controller can be represented in nite
impulse response lter (FIR)). Optimal H
controller design for MIMO plants with

input/output delays is solved in [24]. In this paper, multiple input/output delays
are decomposed into dead-time systems (so-called adobe plant problems), then opti-
mal controller is constructed from these systems. The FIR structure of the innite
dimensional part of the optimal H
controller is also shown for MIMO plants with

input/output delays.
Although the Skew-Toeplitz approach [2] solves the mixed sensitivity problem for
general innite dimensional systems, connections of these systems with time-delay
systems are little known. In this thesis, the link between Skew-Toeplitz approach and
time-delay systems will be established. Moreover, general time-delay systems will be
considered including dead-time systems.
3
1.2 Literature Review on Stable H
Controller Design
A necessary and sucient condition for the existence of a stable controller is the
parity interlacing property (p.i.p.), [25]. A plant satises the p.i.p. if the number of
poles of the plant (counted according to their McMillan degrees) between any pair
of real right half plane blocking zeros is even. There are several design methods for
constructing strongly stabilizing controllers, see e.g. [3, 25]. In general, the procedures
involve construction of a unit in H
satisfying certain interpolation conditions. A

parameterization of all stabilizing controllers for SISO case is obtained in [3]. For
stable controller design with rational controllers see [26, 27]. It is known that if the
plant is arbitrarily close to violating p.i.p., then the order of the strongly stabilizing
controller can be unbounded [28]. Certain bounds on the norm and the degree of
unit interpolants are given in [29] by using Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation theory. A
conservative bound on controller order of strongly stabilizing controller is obtained in
[30]. Stable controller design for MIMO systems is considered in [7]. The necessary
and sucient condition for strong stabilization, parity interlacing property, is shown
in [31] for SISO delay systems. A design method to nd strongly stabilizing controller
for SISO systems with time delays is given [32] in which the stable controller is
constructed by using the unit satisfying some interpolation conditions.
The H
performance cost minimization with stable controller has also been stud-
ied in the literature. For nite dimensional SISO plants, optimal stable H
con-
troller for weighted sensitivity minimization is given in [33]. Using the interpolation
conditions of sensitivity function and Nevanlinna-Pick approach, optimal stable H
controller is obtained. An explicit formula for this optimal controller is given in [34]
4
where certain parameters of the controller are found from the solution of a set of non-
linear equations. The SISO discrete-time version of the weighted sensitivity problem
is solved in [35] by using a convex integer programming approach. For the mixed
sensitivity problem, certain conditions on the weighting functions and the plant are
determined in [36] for stability of the optimal controller. In [37] a sucient condi-
tion is obtained for the synthesis of SISO nite dimensional suboptimal stable H
controllers, by converting the problem into a Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation problem.

For the same problem with nite dimensional MIMO systems, a design method
has been developed in [38]. The problem of weighted sensitivity minimization with
stable controllers is reduced into nite dimensional optimization problem of nding
a set of integers and some admissible matrices. In [39], the stability of the controller
is guaranteed if nonnegative denite solutions exist to the design equations; further-
more, under this condition, the controller order is less than or equal to that of the
plant. Similarly, in [40], a sucient condition is obtained for the existence of a stable
H
controller. This condition is expressed in terms of an Algebraic Riccati Equation

(ARE) derived from the state-space realization of the central controller. The dimen-
sion of the stable H
controller determined in [40] is less than or equal to 2n, where

n is the dimension of the generalized plant. In [41] strong stabilization problem is
considered for MIMO nite dimensional linear time invariant systems. It is shown
that if a two block H
problem is solvable, then a strongly stabilizing controller can

be derived. The controller is of the same order as the plant. Moreover, under the
given sucient conditions nite dimensional characterizations of strongly stabilizing
controllers are obtained. Another sucient condition is presented for the existence
of a stable H
controller in [42] using chain-scattering approach where the controller

5
design algorithm requires solution of an ARE. An improved H
control design al-

gorithm with strong stability condition is presented in [8]. By choosing a weighting
function, the conservatism in two-block problem for stabilizing controller design is
reduced. However, the weight function causes a substantial increase in the order of
the controller.
The stable H
controller design for innite dimensional systems is still an open

research problem. In this thesis, this problem will be addressed and stable H
controller design methodologies will be given for time-delay systems as well as MIMO
systems.
1.3 Dissertation Outline
In Chapter 2, optimal H
controller design for time-delay systems with nitely

many zeros and innitely many unstable poles are considered. It is assumed that the
unstable zeros and unstable poles of the plant are captured in inner terms and the
stable part of the plant is represented as an outer term. It is shown that this problem
is the dual case of the usual Skew-Toeplitz approach [2, 15], and the optimal H
controller is given for this plant. In Chapter 3, using this result and the Skew-Toeplitz
method, the optimal H
controller design is extended for the time-delay plants with

nitely many zeros or poles. Necessary and sucient conditions are obtained for
the applicability of the Skew-Toeplitz approach on generalized time delay systems.
Moreover, the controller is constructed such that there are no internal unstable pole-
zero cancellations and the FIR structure of the H
controllers are shown for the same

class of plants.
6
An indirect approach to design stable controller achieving a desired H
perfor-
mance level for dead time systems is given in Chapter 4. This approach is based on
stabilization of H
controller in the feedback loop. Sta-

bilization is achieved and the sensitivity deviation is minimized. Then in Chapter
5, two other design methods are given for the same problem. Moreover in Chapter
6, stable H
controller design for nite dimensional linear invariant MIMO plants is

considered. The design method in [41] is generalized using linear matrix inequalities.
The links between the Chapters of thesis are as follows: Chapters 2 and 3 are
concerned with optimal H
controller design for general time-delay systems. In

Chapters 4, 5 and 6, the strong stabilization problem is considered. More specically,
Chapters 4 and 5 give stable H
controller design methods for time-delay systems,

and Chapter 6 deals with the same problem for nite dimensional MIMO systems.
Finally, in Chapter 7 concluding remarks are given.
7
CHAPTER 2
ON THE MIXED SENSITIVITY MINIMIZATION FOR
SYSTEMS WITH INFINITELY MANY UNSTABLE
MODES
The main purpose of this Chapter is to show that H
controllers for systems with

innitely many unstable modes can be obtained by the Skew-Toeplitz approach [2],
using a simple data transformation. An example of such a plant is a high gain system
with delayed feedback (see Section 2.2). Undamped exible beam models, [43], may
also be considered as a system with innitely many unstable modes.
In earlier studies, e.g. [15], H
controllers are computed for weighted sensitivity

minimization involving plants in the form
P(s) =
M
n
(s)
M
d
(s)
N
o
(s) (2.1)
where M
n
(s) is inner and innite dimensional, M
d
(s) is inner and nite dimensional,
and N
o
(s) is the outer part of the plant, that is possibly innite dimensional. In
the weighted sensitivity minimization problem, the optimal controller achieves the
minimum H
cost,
opt
, dened as
opt
= inf
C stabilizing P
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(1 +PC)
1
W
2
PC(1 + PC)
1
__
_
_
_
, (2.2)
where W
1
and W
2
are given nite dimensional weights. Note that in the above
formulation, the plant has nitely many unstable modes, because M
d
(s) is nite
8
dimensional, whereas it may have innitely many zeros in M
n
(s). In this section, by
using duality, the mixed sensitivity minimization problem will be solved for plants
with nitely many right half plane zeros and innitely many unstable modes.
2.1 Main Result
Assume that the plant to be controlled has innitely many unstable modes, nitely
many right half plane zeros and no direct transmission delay. Then, its transfer func-
tion is in the form P =
N
M
, where M is inner and innite dimensional (it has innitely
many zeros in C
+
, that are unstable poles of P), N = N
i
N
o
with N
i
being inner nite
dimensional, and N
o
is the outer part of the plant, possibly innite dimensional. For
simplicity of the presentation we further assume that N
o
, N
1
o
H
.
To use the controller parameterization of Smith, [44], we rst solve for X, Y H
satisfying
NX + MY = 1 i.e. X(s) =
_
1 M(s)Y (s)
N
i
(s)
_
N
1
o
(s). (2.3)
Let z
1
, ..., z
n
be the zeros of N
i
(s) in C
+
, and again for simplicity assume that they
are distinct. Then, there are nitely many interpolation conditions on Y (s) for X(s)
to be stable, i.e.
Y (z
i
) =
1
M(z
i
)
i = 1, . . . , n.
Thus by Lagrange interpolation, we can nd a nite dimensional Y H
and innite
dimensional X H
satisfying (2.3), and all controllers stabilizing the feedback

system formed by the plant P and the controller C are parameterized as follows, [44],
C(s) =
X(s) + M(s)Q(s)
Y (s) N(s)Q(s)
(2.4)
9
where Q(s) H
and Y (s) N(s)Q(s)) = 0.

Now we use the above parameterization in the sensitivity minimization problem.
First note that,
(1 + P(s)C(s))
1
= M(s)(Y (s) N(s)Q(s)),
P(s)C(s)(1 +P(s)C(s))
1
= N(s)(X(s) + M(s)Q(s)). (2.5)
Then,
inf
C stab. P
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(1 + PC)
1
W
2
PC(1 + PC)
1
__
_
_
_
= inf
QH
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(Y NQ)
W
2
N(X + MQ)
__
_
_
_
(2.6)
where Y (s) N(s)Q(s) = 0, W
1
and W
2
are given nite dimensional (rational)
weights. From (2.3) equation, we have
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
Y W
1
NQ
W
2
N
_
1MY
N
_
+ W
2
MNQ
__
_
_
_
=
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(Y N
i
(N
o
Q))
W
2
(1 M(Y N
i
(N
o
Q)))
__
_
_
_
.(2.7)
Thus, the H
optimization problem reduces to
opt
= inf
Q
1
H
and Y N
i
Q
1
=0
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(Y N
i
Q
1
)
W
2
(1 M(Y N
i
Q
1
))
__
_
_
_
(2.8)
where Q
1
= N
o
Q, and note that W
1
(s), W
2
(s), N
i
(s), Y (s) are rational functions, and
M(s) is inner innite dimensional.
The problem dened in (2.8) has the same structure as the problem dealt in
Chapter 5 of the book by Foias,

Ozbay and Tannenbaum [2], where Skew-Toeplitz
approach has been used for computing H
optimal controllers for innite dimensional

systems with nitely many right half plane poles. Our case is the dual of the problem
solved in [2, 45], i.e., there are innitely many poles in C
+
, but the number of zeros in
C
+
is nite. Thus, by mapping the variables as shown below, we can use the results
of [2, 45] to solve our problem:
W
F

OT
1
(s) = W
2
(s) (2.9)
10
W
F

OT
2
(s) = W
1
(s)
X
F

OT
(s) = Y (s)
Y
F

OT
(s) = X(s)
M
F

OT
d
= N
i
(s)
M
F

OT
n
(s) = M(s)
N
F

OT
o
(s) = N
1
o
(s),
and the optimal controller, C, for the two block problem (2.6) is the inverse of optimal
controller for the dual problem in [2], i.e.,
_
C
F

OT
opt
_
1
.
If we only consider the one block problem case, with W
2
= 0, then the minimiza-
tion of
W
1
(Y N
i
Q
1
)
is simply a nite dimensional problem. On the other hand, minimizing

W
2
(1 M(Y N
i
Q
1
))
is an innite dimensional problem.

2.2 Example
In this section, we illustrate the computation of H
controllers for systems with

innitely many right half plane poles. The example is a plant containing an internal
delayed feedback:
P(s) =
R(s)
1 + e
hs
R(s)
11
where R(s) = k
_
sa
s+b
_
with k > 1, a > b > 0 and h > 0. Note that the denominator
term (1 + e
hs
R(s)) has innitely many zeros
n
j
n
, where
n

o
=
ln(k)
h
> 0,
and
n
(2n + 1), as n . Clearly, P(s) has only one right half plane zero at
s = a.
The plant can be written as,
P(s) =
N
i
(s)
M(s)
N
o
(s) (2.10)
where
N
i
(s) =
_
s a
s + a
_
N
o
(s) =
1
1 +
(sb)
k(s+a)
e
hs
M(s) =
(s + b) + k(s a)e
hs
(s b)e
hs
+ k(s + a)
It is clear that N
o
is invertible in H
, because
sb
k(s+a)
< 1. By the same argument,

M is stable. To see that M is inner, we write it as
M(s) =
m(s) + f(s)
1 + m(s)f(s)
with m(s) =
_
sa
s+a
_
e
hs
, and f(s) =
s+b
k(s+a)
. Note that m(s) is inner, m(s)f(s) is
stable, and M(s)M(s) = 1. Thus M is inner, and it has innitely many zeros in
the right half plane.
The optimal H
controller can be designed for weighted sensitivity minimization

problem in (2.2) where P is dened in (2.10) and weight functions are chosen as
W
1
(s) = , > 0 and W
2
(s) =
1+s
+s
, > 0, > 0, < 1. As explained before,
this problem can be solved by the method in [2] (see Appendix A for details) after
necessary assignments are done, W
F

OT
1
(s) =
1+s
+s
, W
F

OT
2
(s) = , M
F

OT
d
=
sa
s+a
,
M
F

OT
n
(s) =
(s + b) + k(s a)e
hs
(s b)e
hs
+ k(s + a)
12
N
F

OT
o
(s) =
(s b)e
hs
+ k(s + a)
k(s + a)
.
We will briey outline the procedure to nd the optimal H
controller.
1) Dene the functions,
F
(s) =
_
s
a
+ b
s
_
,
1
2
2
for > 0
where a
=
_
1 +
2
2
, and b
=
_
(1
2
2
)
2
+
2
.
2) Calculate the minimum singular value of the matrix,
M
=
_
_
1 j
MF
(j
) j
MF
(j
)
1 a MF
(a) aMF
(a)
MF
(j
) j
MF
(j
) 1 j
MF
(a) aMF
(a) 1 a
_
_
for all values of (max{,

1+
2
2
},
1
) and MF
(s) = M(s)F
(s). The
optimal gamma value,
opt
, is the largest gamma which makes the matrix M
singular.
3) Find the eigenvector l = [l
10
, l
11
, l
20
, l
21
]
T
such that M
opt
l = 0.
4) The optimal H
controller can be written as,

C
opt
(s) =
k
f
+ K
2,FIR
(s)
K
1
(s)
13
where k
f
is constant, K
1
(s) is nite dimensional, and K
2,FIR
(s) is a lter whose
impulse response is of nite duration
K
1
(s) =
k(l
21
s + l
20
)
opt
( + s)
,
k
f
=
_
kb
opt
l
11
opt
l
21
2
opt
2
_
,
K
2,FIR
(s) = A(s) + B(s)e
hs
,
k
f
+ A(s) =
k(s + a)c(s) + (s + b)d(s)
((1
2
opt
2
) + (
2
opt
2
)s
2
)(s a)
,
B(s) =
(s b)c(s) + k(s a)d(s)
((1
2
opt
2
) + (
2
opt
2
)s
2
)(s a)
where c(s) = (a
opt
+ b
opt
s)(l
11
s + l
10
) and d(s) =
opt
( s)(l
21
s + l
20
).
As a numerical example, if we choose the plant as P(s) =
2
(
s3
s+1
)
1+2
(
s3
s+1
)
e
0.5s
and
the weight functions as W
1
(s) = 0.5, W
2
(s) =
1+0.1s
0.4+s
, then the optimal H
cost is
opt
= 0.5584, and the corresponding controller is
C
opt
(s) =
_
0.558s + 0.223
2s + 3.725
_
(1.477 + K
2,FIR
(s))
where K
2,FIR
(s) is equal to
(2.081s
2
6.302s 0.826) (0.615s
3
0.768s
2
5.269s + 1.587)e
0.5s
(0.302s
3
0.905s
2
+ 0.950s 2.850)
and its impulse response is of nite duration, k
2,FIR
(t) = L
1
(K
2,FIR
(s)) can be
written as
_
0.27e
3t
+ 7.16 cos(1.77t) + 0.36 sin(1.77t) 2.037(t 0.5) 0 t 0.5
0 t > 0.5
.
2.3 Summary of Results
In this Chapter, we have considered H
control of a class of systems with in-

nitely many right half plane poles and innitely many right half plane zeros. We
14
have demonstrated that the problem can be solved by using the existing H
control
techniques [2] for innite dimensional systems with nitely many right half plane
poles. An example from delay systems is given to illustrate the computational tech-
nique. This result is used in the next Chapter to design optimal H
controller for
general time-delay systems, including dead-time systems.
15
CHAPTER 3
H
CONTROLLER DESIGN FOR NEUTRAL AND

RETARDED DELAY SYSTEMS
In this Chapter, the mixed sensitivity minimization problem is solved for Neutral
and Retarded Delay Systems. Assume that p(s) is a quasi-polynomial which can be
written as
p(s) = p
1
(s)e
h
1
s
+ . . . + p
n
(s)e
h
n
s
where h
1
< h
2
< . . . < h
n
and p
1
(s), p
2
(s), . . . , p
n
(s) are polynomials. If the degree of
the polynomial p
1
(s) is larger or equal to p
2
(s), . . . , p
n
(s), then p(s) is called as neutral
quasi-polynomial and if the degree of the polynomial p
1
(s) is strictly larger than all
the other polynomials, then p(s) is called as retarded quasi-polynomial. Assume that
q(s) is a stable polynomial and the degree of q(s) is equal to that of p
1
(s) and dene
R(s) =
p(s)
q(s)
,
R
i
(s) =
p
i
(s)
q(s)
, i = 1, . . . , n.
Similarly, R(s) is called neutral delay system if p(s) is neutral quasi-polynomial and
R(s) is called retarded delay system if p(s) is retarded quasi-polynomial. The plant
16
is assumed to have a transfer function whose numerator and denominator can be
expressed as Neutral or Retarded Delay System, i.e.,
P(s) =
R(s)
T(s)
=
n
i=1
R
i
(s)e
h
i
s
m
j=1
T
j
(s)e
j
s
.
In this Chapter, optimal H
controllers are designed for neutral/retarded delay

systems. First, a necessary and sucient condition is derived for neutral and retarded
delay systems to have nitely many right half plane zeros. Optimal controllers are
designed for the time-delay systems with nitely many unstable zeros or poles. Spe-
cial structures of the corresponding controllers for these types of plants are studied.
Moreover, in this Chapter, the largest class of neutral/retarded delay systems (see
equation (3.5)) are determined for which the techniques of [2] and [15] are applicable.
The link between [15] and [23] is established for neutral/retarded plants, i.e., the
nite impulse response structure in the controller exists not only for plants in the
form e
hs
P
0
(s), but also for general retarded/neutral delay systems.
In [15], it is assumed that the plant is single input single output (SISO) and admits
the representation as,
P(s) =
m
n
(s)

N
o
(s)
m
d
(s)
(3.1)
where m
n
(s) is inner, innite dimensional and m
d
(s) is inner, nite dimensional and
N
o
(s) is outer, possibly innite dimensional. The optimal H
controller,

C
opt
, stabi-
lizes the feedback system and achieves the minimum H
cost,
opt
:

opt
=
_
_
_
_
_

W
1
(1 +

P

C
opt
)
1
W
2

P

C
opt
(1 +

P

C
opt
)
1
__
_
_
_
(3.2)
where

W
1
and

W
2
are nite dimensional weights for the mixed sensitivity minimization
problem.
17
In Chapter 2, the optimal H
controller design is given for innite dimensional

systems with nitely many unstable zeros by using the duality with the problem (3.2).
The plant has a factorization as,
P(s) =
m
d
(s)

N
o
(s)
m
n
(s)
(3.3)
where m
n
is inner, innite dimensional, m
d
(s) is nite dimensional, inner, and

N
o
(s)
is outer, possibly innite dimensional. For this dual problem, the optimal controller,
C
opt
, and minimum H
cost,
opt
, are found for the mixed sensitivity minimization
problem which can be dened as,

opt
=
_
_
_
_
_

W
1
(1 +

P

C
opt
)
1
W
2

P

C
opt
(1 +

P

C
opt
)
1
__
_
_
_
. (3.4)
Optimal controller designs for problems (3.2) and (3.4) are outlined in Appendix A.
In this Chapter, we will design optimal H
controller for a class of neutral and

retarded time-delay systems,
P(s) =
R(s)
T(s)
=
n
i=1
R
i
(s)e
h
i
s
m
j=1
T
j
(s)e
j
s
.
The assumptions on the plant is given in Section 3.1 as A.1 A.7. We apply the
design methods in [15] and Chapter 2 for this plant. Note that P is the generalized
version of time-delay systems for SISO case. We assume that P has nitely many
right half plane zeros or poles (assumption A.7 in Section 3.1). We give the necessary
and sucient conditions when this assumption is valid in Section 3.1.1. The special
structure of H
controllers is given in this section. Note that single delay plant with
nite dimensional plant is a special case of the plant P. By showing nite impulse
response lter structure of neutral and retarded time-delay systems, we eliminate
right half plane pole-zero cancellation in the controller. The resulting controller in
this structure is numerically stable and easy for implementation.
18
3.1 Preliminary Work
We consider the plant, P, which has a transfer function,
P(s) =
R(s)
T(s)
=
n
i=1
R
i
(s)e
h
i
s
m
j=1
T
j
(s)e
j
s
. (3.5)
satisfying the following assumptions,
A.1 R
i
and T
j
are nite dimensional, stable, proper transfer functions,
A.2 Time delays are nonnegative rational numbers shown as h
i
and
j
with h
i
< h
i+1
for i = 1, . . . , n 1 and
j
<
j+1
for j = 1, . . . , m1,
A.3 h
1

1
,
A.4 Relative degree of R
1
is smaller than or equal to that of R
i
, j = 2, . . . , n and
the relative degree of T
1
is smaller than or equal to that of T
i
, i = 2, . . . , m,
A.5 Relative degree of T
1
is smaller than or equal to that of R
1
,
A.6 P has no imaginary axis zeros or poles,
A.7 R or T has nitely many zeros in the right half plane.
These assumptions are not restrictive. It is always possible to obtain a representa-
tion such that A.1 A.2 are satised. The rst assumption results in stable transfer
functions in the controller which is desired for implementation purposes. The assump-
tion A.3 guarantees that the plant is causal. The numerator and denominator of the
plant is neutral or retarded time delay system by the assumption A.4. The plant is
proper transfer function if the assumption A.5 is valid. Note that the assumptions
A.1A.5 are necessary by denition of neutral and retarded time delay systems. The
19
condition A.6 is a technical assumption which can be removed, but it is assumed for
simplicity in derivation. The last condition comes from the limitation of standard the
skew-toeplitz approach [2] and its dual approach given in Chapter 2.
For example, consider the plant whose dynamical behavior is described in time
domain by the following set of equations:
x
1
(t) = x
1
(t 0.2) x
2
(t) + u(t) + 2u(t 0.4),
x
2
(t) = 5x
1
(t 0.5) 3u(t) + 2u(t 0.4),
y(t) = x
1
(t). (3.6)
Its transfer function is
P(s) =
s + 3 + 2(s 1)e
0.4s
s
2
+ se
0.2s
+ 5e
0.5s
, (3.7)
and it can be re-written in form of (3.5) as,
P =
R
T
=
R
1
e
h
1
s
+ R
2
e
h
2
s
T
1
+ T
2
e
2
s
+ T
3
e
3
s
(3.8)
where
R
1
=
s+3
(s+1)
2
, R
2
=
2(s1)
(s+1)
2
,
T
1
=
s
2
(s+1)
2
, T
2
=
s
(s+1)
2
, T
3
=
5
(s+1)
2
,
are stable proper nite dimensional transfer functions and the delays are
h
1
= 0, h
2
= 0.4,
1
= 0,
2
= 0.2,
3
= 0.5.
It is clear that A.1 A.3 are satised. The relative degree of R
1
is equal to that of
R
2
which is 1 and the relative degree of T
1
, which is 0, is smaller than that of T
2
and
T
3
, which are 1 and 2, respectively. Also, the relative degree of T
1
is smaller than
that of R
1
. Therefore assumptions A.4 A.5 hold. The plant P has no imaginary
20
axis zeros. By a simple computation, T has nitely many right half plane zeros at
0.4672 1.8890j, whereas R has innitely many unstable zeros converging to the
asymptote 1.7329 (5k + 2.5)j as k . In conclusion, this system satises all
the assumptions, A.1 A.7.
We dene the conjugate of R(s) =
n
i=1
R
i
(s)e
h
i
s
as

R(s) := e
h
n
s
R(s)M
C
(s)
where M
C
is inner, nite dimensional whose poles are poles of R. For example, we
can calculate the conjugate of R(s) in the previous example,
R(s) =
s + 3
(s + 1)
2
+
2(s 1)
(s + 1)
2
e
0.4s
where h
2
= 0.4 and M
C
(s) =
_
s1
s+1
_
2
. The conjugate of R(s) can be written as,
R(s) = e
h
2
s
R(s)M
C
(s),
=
_
2
(s + 1)
+
(s 3)
(s + 1)
2
e
0.4s
_
.
We will design an optimal H
controller for the plant in (3.5) which satises the

assumptions A.1 A.7. In the next sections, we will give an equivalent condition
to check whether the assumption A.7 is valid or not and standard Skew-Toeplitz
approach to design H
controller for innite dimensional systems will be outlined.

3.1.1 Neutral and Retarded Time Delay Systems with Finitely
Many Unstable Zeros
We begin with preliminary observations (see also [46] for further details). First,
recall that R
1
(s), . . . , R
n
(s) are stable and proper transfer functions. Therefore,
R(s) =
n
i=1
R
i
(s)e
h
i
s
has (innitely) nitely many right half plane zeros if and
only if
R
G
(s) = 1 +
R
2
(s)
R
1
(s)
e
h
1
s
+ . . . +
R
n
(s)
R
1
(s)
e
h
n
s
21
has (innitely) nitely many unstable zeros respectively.
The following fact will be used later in this Chapter and in Chapter 5.
Claim: R
G
(s) has no unstable zeros with real part extending to innity.
Proof: Assume that s =
0
+j. For suciently large
o
, we can write the following
inequalities,
R
i
(
0
+ j)
R
1
(
0
+ j)

+
i
i = 2, . . . , n
because all R
i
(s) terms are nite dimensional. Following holds by the triangle in-
equality,
1
2
e
h
2
0
. . .
n
e
h
n
0
|R
G
(
0
+ j)| 1 +
+
2
e
h
2
0
+ . . . +
+
n
e
h
n
0
This inequality tells us that R
G
(s) has no unstable zeros with real part extending to
innity because lim
|R
G
( + j)| = 1. Therefore, R(s) has no unstable zeros
with real part extending to innity.
Lemma 3.1.1. Assume that R(s) =
n
i=1
R
i
(s)e
h
i
s
is a neutral or retarded time
delay system with no imaginary axis zeros and poles, then the system R has nitely
many right half plane zeros if and only if all the roots of the polynomial, 1+
2
r
h
2
h
1
+
+
n
r
h
n
h
1
has magnitude greater than 1 where
i
= lim
R
i
(j)R
1
1
(j) i = 2, . . . , n,
h
i
=
h
i
N
, N,
h
i
Z
+
, i = 1, . . . , n.
If the system R satises this condition, it is called as F-system where F is an abbre-
viation for nitely many unstable zeros.
Proof. Since the system is neutral or retarded time delay system, it may have innitely
many right half plane zeros extending to innity in imaginary part with xed positive
22
real part [46]. R has innitely many right half plane zeros if and only if for xed
o
> 0, lim
R(
o
+j) has innitely many unstable zeros. Dene r = e
(
o
+j)/N
,
then
lim
R(
o
+ j)
R
1
(
o
+ j)
= r
h
1
+
2
r
h
2
+ +
n
r
h
n
. (3.9)
Let r
0
is the root of (3.9) which satises |r
o
| > 1. Then the system R do not have
innitely many right half plane zeros, since
|r
o
| = e
o
/N
,
o
= N ln |r
o
| < 0
which is a contradiction. Therefore, if all the roots of the polynomial (3.9) has
magnitude less than 1, then the system, R, does not have innitely many unstable
zeros. Assume that there exist a root, r
o
, of (3.9) with magnitude smaller than 1.
Then, there are innitely many right half plane zeros of R converging to the asymptote
r
o,k
=
ln |r
o
|
N
jN(r
o
+ 2k) as k where k Z and r
o
is the phase of the
complex number r
o
. The lemma is also valid when delays are real numbers. If the
delays are rational numbers, the resulting function is polynomial which is easy to
check its roots. When the delays are real numbers, it will be dicult to nd the
roots of the function. Therefore, the delays are assumed as rational numbers for
convenience.
We dene R(s) as I-system (where I is an abbreviation for innitely many unstable
zeros) if

R is F-system. In order to nd whether R is an I-system, we can check the
23
magnitude of all the roots of the polynomial, 1 +
2
r
h
2
h
1
+ +
n
r
h
n
h
1
where
i
= lim
R
i
(j)R
1
1
(j) i = 2, . . . , n,
h
i
=
h
i
N
, N,
h
i
Z
+
, i = 1, . . . , n.
If the magnitude of all the roots is smaller than 1, then R is an I-system.
In this section, the plant in (3.5) has nitely many unstable zeros or poles. This
is guaranteed by assumption A.7. By Lemma 3.1.1, it is easier to check that the
assumption A.7 is valid by nding the magnitude of all roots of the given polynomial.
We can conclude that the assumption A.7 is satised if and only if either R or T is a
F-system (or both).
3.1.2 FIR Structure of Neutral and Retarded Time Delay
Systems
In this section, we will show special structure of neutral and retarded time delay
systems. This is a key lemma to be used in the next section for the proofs of main
results.
Lemma 3.1.2. Let R be as in Lemma 3.1.1 and M
R
be a nite dimensional system.
Dene S
+
z
be the set of common C
+
zeros of R and M
R
. Then
R
M
R
, can always be
decomposed as,
R(s)
M
R
(s)
= H
R
(s) +F
R
(s) (3.10)
where H
R
is an innite dimensional system which does not have any poles in S
+
z
and
F
R
is a nite impulse lter.
Proof. For clarity of the presentation we give the proof for the case where the entries
z
1
, z
2
, . . . , z
n
z
of S
+
z
are distinct. For the general case main idea is the same, except
24
that some of the expressions below may become more complicated (notation needs to
be modied to include the multiplicity of each common zero, and the partial fraction
expansion and inverse Laplace transformation needs to consider these multiplicities).
So, we assume R(z
k
) = M
R
(z
k
) = 0, k = 1, . . . , n
z
. We can rewrite the expression
R
M
R
as
R
M
R
=
n
i=1
R
i
M
R
e
h
i
s
.
We can decompose each term by partial fraction,
R
i
M
R
= H
i
+F
i
where the poles of F
i
are elements of S
+
z
and dene the terms H
R
and F
R
as
H
R
(s) =
n
i=1
H
i
(s)e
h
i
s
,
F
R
(s) =
n
i=1
F
i
(s)e
h
i
s
.
Note that each term, F
k
is strictly proper and F
R
(z
k
) is nite k = 1, . . . , n
z
. The
lemma ends if we can show that F
R
is a FIR lter. Inverse Laplace transform of F
R
can be written as
f
R
(t) =
n
z
k=1
_
n
i=1
Res{F
i
(s)}
s=z
k
e
z
k
(th
i
)
u
h
i
(t)
_
where Res(.) is the residue of the function and u
h
i
(t) is the unit step function delayed
by h
i
. The impulse response is equivalent to
f
R
(t) =
n
z
k=1
e
z
k
t
_
n
i=1
Res{F
i
(s)}
s=z
k
e
h
i
z
k
_
25
for t > h
n
. It is clear from partial fraction that Res{F
i
(s)}
s=z
k
= R
i
(z
k
) which
results f
R
(t) is FIR lter,
f
R
(t) =
n
z
k=1
e
z
k
t
_
n
i=1
R
i
(z
k
) e
h
i
z
k
_
,
=
n
z
k=1
e
z
k
t
R(z
k
) 0 for t > h
n
,
since z
k
is the zero of R, i.e., R(z
k
) = 0. Therefore, we can conclude that F
R
is a
FIR lter with support [0, h
n
].
Note that this decomposition eliminates right half plane pole-zero cancellation in
R
M
R
and brings into form which is easy for numerical implementation. Lemma 3.1.2
explains the FIR structure of H
controllers. Since these controllers satisfy inter-

polation conditions, right half plane pole-zero cancellations occur. By Lemma 3.1.2,
we can see that it is always possible to form an FIR structure in H
controllers for
time-delay systems.
Assume that P is in the form of P(s) =
n
k=1
P
k
(s)e
h
k
s
where P
k
are stable,
proper, nite dimensional transfer functions. Also, P
0
is a bi-proper, nite dimen-
sional system. By partial fraction, we can write
P
k
P
0
as
P
k
(s)
P
0
(s)
= P
k,p
(s) + P
k,0
k = 1, . . . , n
where the P
k,0
is a proper transfer function whose poles are same as the zeros of P
0
.
Then, the decomposition operator, , can be dened as,
(P(s), P
0
(s)) = H
P
(s) +F
P
(s)
where H
P
=
n
k=1
P
k,p
(s)e
h
k
s
and F
P
=
n
k=1
P
k,0
(s)e
h
k
s
are innite dimensional
systems. Note that if the zeros of P
0
are also unstable zeros of P, then F
P
is an FIR
lter shown in Lemma 3.1.2.
26
3.2 Main Results
In this section, we will construct the optimal H
controller for the plant, P, with

a transfer function in the form of (3.5) satisfying assumptions A.1 A.7. The plant,
P =
R
T
, is assumed to be one of the following:
i) R is I-system and T is F-system (IF plant),
ii) R is F-system and T is I-system (FI plant),
iii) R is F-system and T is F-system (FF plant).
For each case, we will nd an optimal H
controller and obtain a structure such that

there is no internal pole-zero cancellations in the controller.
3.2.1 Factorization of the Plants
In order to apply skew-toeplitz approach [2], we need to factorize the plants as in
(3.1) or (3.3).
IF Plant Factorization
Assume that the plant in (3.5) satises the assumptions A.1 A.7, R is I-system
and T is F-system, then we can factorize the plant as
m
n
= e
(h
1
1
)s
M
R
(s)
{e
h
1
s
R(s)}
R(s)
,
m
d
= M
T
(s),
N
o
=
R(s)
M
R
(s)
{e
1
s
T(s)}
M
T
(s)
(3.11)
where M
R
is an inner function whose zeros are the right half plane zeros of

R(s).
Since R is an I-system, the conjugate of R has nitely many right half plane zeros,
27
therefore M
R
is well dened. Similarly, zeros of M
T
are right half plane zeros of T.
Note that m
n
and m
d
are inner functions, nite and innite dimensional respectively.
N
o
is an outer term. Although there are right half plane pole-zero cancellations in
m
d
and

N
o
, this problem will be solved in Section (3.2.2) by using the technique in
Section 3.1.2.
FI Plant Factorization
The plant satises the assumptions A.1 A.7, R is F-system and T is I-system.
Since the design method in Chapter 2 requires the plant and its inverse to be causal
proper transfer functions, we restrict P in (3.5) to satisfy the following additional
assumptions:
B.3 h
1
=
1
= 0,
B.5 Relative degree of T
1
is equal to that of R
1
.
Then the plant P can be factorized as in (3.3),
m
n
= M
T
(s)
T(s)
T(s)
,
m
d
= M
R
(s),
N
o
=
R(s)
M
R
(s)
T(s)
M
T
(s)
. (3.12)
The zeros of inner function M
R
are right half plane zeros of R. The unstable zeros
of

T(s) are the same as the zeros of inner function M
T
. Similar to previous section,
conjugate of T has nitely many right half plane zeros since T is a I-system. The right
half plane pole-zero cancellations in m
n
and

N
o
will be eliminated in Section 3.2.2.
28
FF Plant Factorization
For FF plants, assumptions for IF plants are valid (i.e., assumptions A.1 A.7),
but R and T are F-systems. The plant P has a factorization as in (3.1),
m
n
= e
(h
1
1
)s
M
R
(s),
m
d
= M
T
(s),
N
o
=
{e
h
1
s
R(s)}
M
R
(s)
{e
1
s
T(s)}
M
T
(s)
(3.13)
where M
R
and M
T
are inner functions whose zeros are right half plane zeros of R and
T respectively. Note that when h
1
=
1
, m
n
is nite dimensional term. Then exact
internal pole-zero cancellations are possible for this case (except the ones in

N
o
).
3.2.2 Optimal H
Controller Design
By using the methods in [15] and Chapter 2, given the appropriately chosen weight
functions W
1
and W
2
, the optimal H
cost,
opt
can be found. After
opt
is calculated,
it is easy to obtain E
opt
, F
opt
and L. We will give the structure of optimal H
controllers for each type of plant.

Controller Structure of IF Plants
By using the method in [15] and Chapter 2, we can obtain
opt
, E

opt
, F

opt
, L.
The optimal controller can be written as,
C
opt
=
K

opt
(s)
_
e
1
s
T(s)
M
T
(s)
_
R(s)
M
R
(s)
+ e
1
s
R(s)F

opt
(s)L(s)
(3.14)
where K

opt
(s) = E

opt
(s)F

opt
(s)M
T
(s)L(s). In order to obtain the structure of
controller:
1. Do the necessary cancellations in K

opt
,
29
(H

opt
1) +F

opt
H
T
+F
T
- - - d
6
+
Figure 3.1: Optimal H
Controller for IF plants

2. Partition K

opt
as K

opt
(s) =

opt
(s)
T
(s), where

opt
is a bi-proper transfer
function. The zeros of

opt
are right half plane zeros of E

opt
M
T
,
3. Obtain (H
T
, F
T
), (H
R,1
,F
R
1
) and (H
2
, F
R
2
) by using the partitioning operator
H
T
+F
T
= (e
1
s
T
T
, M
T
),
H
R
1
+F
R
1
= (

R, M
R

opt
),
H
R
2
+F
R
2
= (e
1
s
RF

opt
L,

opt
),
as explained in Section 3.1.2.
Then, the optimal controller has the form
C
opt
=
H
T
+F
T
H

opt
+F

opt
where H
T
, H

opt
= H
R
1
+ H
R
2
are neutral/retarded time-delay systems and F
T
,
F

opt
= F
R
1
+ F
R
2
are FIR lters. The controller has no right half plane pole-zero
cancellations and its structure is shown in Figure 3.1.
30
(H
R
1) +F
R
H

opt
+F

opt
- - - d
6
+
Figure 3.2: Optimal H
Controller for FI plants

Controller Structure of FI Plants
After the data transformation is done as shown in (2.9) in Chapter 2, we can
nd
opt
, E

opt
, F

opt
, L as in IF plant case. We can write the inverse of the optimal
controller similar to (3.14):
C
1
opt
=
K

opt
(s)
_
R(s)
M
R
(s)
_
T(s)
M
T
(s)
+ T(s)F

opt
(s)L(s)
(3.15)
where K

opt
(s) = E

opt
(s)F

opt
(s)M
R
(s)L(s). We can obtain the optimal controller
following exactly same steps for IF plant case (note that R and T are interchanged,
and h
1
=
1
= 0 from assumptions):
C
opt
=
H

opt
+F

opt
H
R
+F
R
.
The optimal controller is the dual of the controller for the IF plants, as expected.
There is no internal right half plane pole-zero cancellations and its structure is shown
in Figure 3.2.
31
Controller Structure of FF Plants
Structure of FF plants is similar to that of IF plants. We can calculate
opt
, E

opt
,
F

opt
, L by the method in [15], Chapter 2 and then write the optimal controller as:
C
opt
=
K

opt
(s)
{e
1
T(s)}
M
T
(s)
{e
h
1
s
R(s)}
M
R
(s)
+ e
1
s
R(s)F

opt
(s)L(s)
(3.16)
where K

opt
(s) = E

opt
(s)F

opt
(s)M
T
(s)L(s). We can nd controller structure follow-
ing similar steps as in IF plants case:
1. Do the cancellations in K

opt
,
2. Factorize K

opt
and nd

opt
,
T
,
3. Obtain (H
T
, F
T
), (H
R
1
, F
R
1
)and (H
R
2
, F
R
2
) by
H
T
+F
T
= (e
1
s
T
T
, M
T
),
H
R
1
+F
R
1
= (e
h
1
s
R, M
R

opt
),
H
R
2
+F
R
2
= (e
1
s
RF

opt
L,

opt
).
The controller structure can be written as:
C
opt
=
H
T
+F
T
H

opt
+F

opt
where H

opt
= H
R
1
+ H
R
2
and F

opt
= F
R
1
+ F
R
2
. Note that the resulting structure
is same as IF plant case. It is possible to cancel the zeros of

opt
with denominator
when h
1
=
1
= 0 which is considered in Example 3.3.2.
32
3.3 Examples
We will show the optimal H
controller design for IF and FF plants. Since FI

plant case is the dual of IF plant case, example of this section is omitted. The plants
in the examples are SISO plants. Sensitivity and complementary sensitivity weight
functions are chosen as,
W
1
(s) = 2
_
s + 1
10s + 1
_
,
W
2
(s) = 0.2(s + 1.1)
which are the same weight functions taken in [2].
3.3.1 IF Plant Example
We will design optimal H
controller for the plant whose time domain represen-

tation is given by (3.6) in Section 3.1. The transfer function for this plant is as in
(3.7). The plant can be written in the form of (3.5) as demonstrated in (3.8). Note
that R is a I-system, since its corresponding polynomial (see Lemma 3.1.1) is 1 + 2r
and the magnitude of root is smaller than 1. It is clear that T is a F-system, since
its corresponding polynomial is a constant, 1. Therefore it has no roots and satises
the condition trivially. Therefore, the plant is a IF plant with h
1
=
1
= 0. In order
to nd optimal controller, the plant is factorized as in (3.1),
m
n
= M
R
(s)
R(s)
R(s)
,
m
d
= M
T
(s),
N
o
=
R(s)
M
R
(s)
T(s)
M
T
(s)
33
where
M
R
=
s 0.2470
s + 0.2470
,
M
T
=
s
2
0.9344s + 3.7866
s
2
+ 0.9344s + 3.7866
,
R =
2(s + 1) + (s 3)e
0.4s
(s + 1)
2
.
For the given plant and weight functions, the optimal H
cost (3.2) is
opt
= 0.7203
and the corresponding optimal controller is [2] (see A.3 at Appendix A),
C
opt
= E

opt
(s) m
d
(s)
N
1
o
(s)F

opt
(s)L(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F

opt
(s)L(s)
where
E

opt
=
3.4812 + 47.8803s
2
0.5188(1 100s
2
)
,
F

opt
=
0.5188(1 10s)
1.384s
2
+ 2.842s + 1.381
,
L =
0.589s
2
0.3564s + 0.1616
0.589s
2
+ 0.3564s + 0.1616
.
The optimal controller,

C
opt
, has internal unstable pole-zero cancellations (i.e., the
zeros of E

opt
and m
d
are cancelled by the denominator of the controller). In order
to eliminate this, we will follow the procedure given in Section 3.2.2:
steps 1-2 After cancellation, K

opt
= E

opt
F

opt
M
T
L can be factorized as
K

opt
=

opt
(s)
T
(s),
where

opt
=
3.4812 + 47.8803s
2
(1.384s
2
+ 2.842s + 1.381)
M
T
(s),
T
=
L(s)
(1 + 10s)
.
34
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Impulse response of F
T
(s)
time
Figure 3.3: f
T
(t) for IF plant
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
(s)
time
Figure 3.4: f

opt
(t) for IF plant
step 3 We can nd (H
T
, F
T
), (H
R,1
,F
R
1
) and (H
R
2
, F
R
2
) by the partitioning opera-
tor, . The expressions can be found in Appendix B (see equations (B.1-B.6)).
Then, the optimal controller can be found from,
C
opt
=
H
T
+F
T
H

opt
+F

opt
where H

opt
= H
R
1
+H
R
2
and F

opt
= F
R
1
+F
R
2
. The impulse responses of F

opt
and
F
T
are shown in Figures 3.3 and 3.4.
35
3.3.2 FF Plant Example
We will nd the optimal H
controller for the plant whose time-domain repre-

sentation is
x
1
(t) = x
1
(t) + 3x
2
(t 0.2),
x
2
(t) = x
2
(t) + 2x
3
(t 0.5),
x
3
(t) = x
3
(t) + 2x
1
(t 0.1) + u(t),
y(t) = x
1
(t) + x
2
(t) + x
3
(t). (3.17)
The corresponding transfer function for this plant is
P(s) =
(s 1)
2
+ 2(s 1)e
0.5s
+ 6e
0.7s
(s 1)
3
12e
0.8s
and it can be rewritten as
P(s) =
R(s)
T(s)
=
(s1)
2
(s+1)
3
+
2(s1)
(s+1)
3
e
0.5s
+
6
(s+1)
3
e
0.7s
(s1)
3
(s+1)
3

12
(s+1)
3
e
0.8s
.
It is clear that both R and T are F-system. Since h
1
=
1
= 0, exact cancellation in
the controller is possible, otherwise optimal controller design is the same as previous
example. We can factorize the plant as,
m
n
= M
R
(s),
m
d
= M
T
(s),
N
o
=
R(s)
M
R
(s)
T(s)
M
T
(s)
(3.18)
where
M
R
=
s
2
2.757s + 4.455
s
2
+ 2.757s + 4.455
,
M
T
=
s
3
4.09s
2
+ 8.185s 9.128
s
3
+ 4.09s
2
+ 8.185s + 9.128
.
36
Given the weight functions of the previous example, the optimal H
cost is computed
as
opt
= 0.7031. The optimal controller is as in (A.3) where
E

opt
=
3.5056 + 45.4406s
2
0.4944(1 100s
2
)
,
F

opt
=
0.4944(1 10s)
1.3482s
2
+ 2.7681s + 1.3446
,
L =
0.1364s
3
+ 0.3852s
2
+ 0.5654s + 0.1154
0.1364s
3
0.3852s
2
+ 0.5654s 0.1154
.
Since m
n
is nite dimensional, 1+ m
n
(s)F

opt
(s)L(s) is nite dimensional. Therefore,
the exact cancellation between

opt
and 1 + m
n
(s)F

opt
(s)L(s) is possible. We will
follow the procedure of Section 3.2.2 with a slight modication:
steps 1-2 After the cancellation, K

opt
= E

opt
F

opt
M
T
L can be factorized as
K

opt
=

opt
(s)
T
(s),
where

opt
=
3.5056 + 45.4406s
2
1.3482s
2
+ 2.7681s + 1.3446
M
T
(s),
T
=
L(s)
(1 + 10s)
.
Then, the controller can be written as,
C
opt
=
_
T
T
M
T
_
R
M
R
_
1+M
R
F

opt
L

opt
_
step 3 We perform the cancellations in
K
=
_
1+M
R
F

opt
L

opt
_
as shown in Appendix B
(see equations (B.7-B.8)),
step 4 We can nd the controller parameters (H
T
, F
T
) from
H
T
+F
T
= (T
T
, M
T
)
37
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
T
(s)
time
Figure 3.5: f
T
(t) for FF plant
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
(s)
time
Figure 3.6: f

opt
(t) for FF plant
and (H

opt
,F

opt
) from
H

opt
+F

opt
= (R
K
, M
R
).
See Appendix B for these partitions (equations (B.9-B.12)). In Figure 3.5 and
3.6, impulse responses of F
T
and F

opt
are given.
Note that the structure of controller is same, however exact cancellation simplies
the controller expression.
In this Chapter, we determined a necessary and sucient condition for general
time-delay systems for applicability of the Skew-Toeplitz approach [2]. Note that
the neutral and retarded delay systems are the generalized versions of the time-
delay systems. The optimal H
controllers for these types of generalized time delay

systems can be obtained by using the Skew-Toeplitz method. Moreover, the internal
38
unstable pole-zero cancellation problem is eliminated by using special structure of the
controller.
39
CHAPTER 4
STABLE H
CONTROLLERS FOR DELAY SYSTEMS:

SUBOPTIMAL SENSITIVITY
In this Chapter, an indirect method for strongly stabilizing H
controller design
for systems with time delays is given. It is known that for a certain class of time
delay systems the optimal H
controllers designed for sensitivity minimization lead

to controllers with innitely many unstable modes, [47, 48]. An indirect way to
obtain a strongly stabilizing controller, in this case, is to internally stabilize the
optimal sensitivity minimizing H
controller, while keeping the sensitivity deviation

from the optimum within a desired bound. The proposed scheme is illustrated in
Figure 4.1: the objective is to have a stable feedback system, and to minimize the
weighted sensitivity function WS := W(1+PK)
1
, with a stable K. We will assume
that for given W and P, the optimal H
controller C
opt
is determined. Then, F will
be designed to yield a stable K, such that the feedback system remains stable, and
WS is relatively close to the optimal weighted sensitivity WS
opt
:= W(1+PC
opt
)
1
.
When the plant P contains a time delay, and the sensitivity weight W is bi-proper,
the indirect approach outlined above requires internal stabilization of C (which con-
tains innitely many unstable modes) by F. In Chapter 2, a solution to the two-block
H
control problem involving a plant with innitely many poles in the open right
40
r
z
y
+ +
C P
F
K
W
Figure 4.1: (i) F = 0: the weighted sensitivity is H
optimal; (ii) F = 0: the

controller K is stable.
half plane is given. Then, the results of that Chapter will be used to derive sucient
conditions for solvability of the stable H
controller design problem considered here

for systems with time delays. Namely, in this Chapter we investigate the indirect
method of obtaining a strongly stabilizing controller for systems with time delays,
subject to a bound on the deviation of the sensitivity from its optimal value. First
we examine the optimal sensitivity problem for stable delay systems and illustrate
that the corresponding optimal controller has the structure of the plant introduced
in Chapter 2.
4.1 Optimal Sensitivity Problem for Delay Systems
Consider the feedback system shown in Figure 4.1, where P(s) = e
hs
N
p
(s) and
W(s) =
1+s
s+
. We assume that N
p
,N
1
p
H
. By using the method developed in [2,

15], we calculate the optimal controller C
opt
(s) minimizing the weighted sensitivity
W(1 +PC)
1
over all stabilizing controllers, as follows (See Appendix A for details).
41
The smallest satisfying the phase equation given below is the optimal (smallest
achievable) sensitivity level:
h
+ tan
1
+ tan
1

= (4.1)
where
=
_
1
2
2
, and < <
1
. Once
opt
is computed as above, the corre-
sponding optimal controller is
C
opt
(s) =
(1
2
opt
2
) + (
2
opt
2
)s
2
opt
( + s)(1 + s)
N
1
p
(s)
1 +
opt
_
s
1+s
_
e
hs
. (4.2)
Also, dene the optimal sensitivity function as S
opt
(s) = (1 +P(s)C
opt
(s))
1
, then,
S
opt
(j) =
1 +
_
opt
(j)
1+j
_
e
jh
1 +
_
1j
opt
(+j)
_
e
jh
. (4.3)
In [47], it was mentioned that H
-optimal controllers may have innitely many right

half plane poles. Here we will give a proof based on elementary Nyquist theory:
if S
1
opt
(j) encircles the origin innitely many times, we can say that C
opt
(s) has
innitely many right hand poles, because P(s) does not have any right half plane
poles. For s = j as , we have
S
1
opt
(j)
1

opt
e
jh
1

opt
e
jh
and |S
1
opt
(j)|

opt
. Since <
opt
<
1
, we can say that |S

1
opt
(j)| has constant
magnitude between 0 and 1 for suciently large . For
k
=
2k
h
, as k the
phase of S
1
opt
(j
k
) tends to . In other words, S
1
opt
(j) intersects negative part of
the real axis near
k
=
2k
h
, as k . Similarly, S
1
opt
(j) intersects positive part of
the real axis near
k
=
(2k+1)
h
as k . Thus S
1
opt
(j) encircles the origin innitely
many times, which means that C
opt
(s) has innitely many poles in C
+
.
42
Remark. Let m
1
(j) =
_
j
+j
_
e
jh
, m
2
(j) =
_
1j
1+j
_
e
jh
and g(j) =
opt
_
+j
1+j
_
. Then,
W(j)S
opt
(j) =
opt
_
g
1
(j) + m
1
(j)
1 + g
1
(j)m
2
(j)
_
=
opt
_
1 + g(j)m
1
(j)
g(j) + m
2
(j)
_
and hence |W(j)S
opt
(j)| =
opt
as expected.
4.2 Sensitivity Deviation Problem
Recall that the H
optimal performance level was dened as
0
:=
opt
= inf
C stab. P
W(1 + PC)
1
where W(s) =
1+s
s+
, with > 0, > 0, < 1, and P(s) = N
p
(s)M
p
(s), with
N
p
, N
1
p
H
, and M
p
is inner and innite dimensional, e.g. M
p
(s) = e
hs
. We
have obtained the optimal controller for the sensitivity minimization problem in (4.2).
Claim: The optimal H
controller is in the form

C
opt
(s) =
N
1
p
(s)N
c
(s)
D
c
(s)
(4.4)
where D
c
is inner innite dimensional and N
c
, N
1
c
H
.
It is easy to verify this claim by comparing (4.2) with (4.4): we see that
N
c
(s) =
2
opt
W
2
(s)m
2
(s) m
1
(s)
1 +
1
opt
W(s)m
2
(s)
,
=
1
2
opt
( + s)
2
(1
2
opt
2
) + (
2
opt
2
)s
2
1 +
1
opt
_
1s
+s
_
e
hs
(4.5)
D
c
(s) =
1
opt
W(s) + m
1
(s)
1 +
1
opt
W(s)m
2
(s)
=
1
opt
W(s)
_
1 + m
1
(s)
opt
W
1
(s)
1 +m
2
(s)
1
opt
W(s)
_
,
=
1
opt
W(s)(1 + P(s)C
opt
(s))
1
,
=
_
s
+s
_
e
hs
+
1
0
_
1+s
+s
_
1 +
1
0
_
1s
+s
_
e
hs
(4.6)
43
where m
1
(s) =
_
s
+s
_
e
hs
, m
2
(s) =
_
1s
1+s
_
e
hs
. Note that N
c
(s) has no right half
poles or zeros (it has only two imaginary axis poles that are cancelled by the zeros
at the same locations). Therefore N
c
, N
1
c
H
. Also, it is easy to check that D

c
is
inner and innite dimensional.
Note that,
D
c
=
1
0
WS
0
=
1
0
W(1 + PC
opt
)
1
=
_
1
0
W
D
c
D
c
+ M
p
N
c
_
.
Our goal is to have a stable controller K, by an appropriate selection of F:
K(s) =
C
opt
(s)
1 + F(s)C
opt
(s)
.
At the same time we would like to have the resulting sensitivity function,
S(s) = (1 +P(s)K(s))
1
=
_
1 + M
p
(s)N
p
(s)
N
1
p
(s)
N
c
(s)
D
c
(s)
1 + F(s)N
1
p
(s)
N
c
(s)
D
c
(s)
_
1
, (4.7)
to be close to the optimal sensitivity, S
opt
= (1 +PC
opt
)
1
. By the parameterization
of the set of all stabilizing controllers for C
opt
[44], F can be written as,
F(s) =
X(s) + D
c
(s)Q(s)
Y (s) N
1
p
(s)N
c
(s)Q(s)
with N
1
p
(s)N
c
(s)X(s) + D
c
(s)Y (s) = 1 which can be solved as Y = 0 and X =
N
1
c
N
p
where Q H
, Q(s) = 0. Then, in terms of the design parameter Q, the

functions F(s), K(s) and S(s) can be re-written as,
F(s) =
N
1
c
(s)N
p
(s) + D
c
(s)Q(s)
N
1
p
(s)N
c
(s)Q(s)
= (Q
1
(s) + C
1
opt
(s)) (4.8)
K(s) =
C
opt
(s)
1 C
opt
(s)(Q
1
(s) + C
1
opt
(s))
= Q(s) (4.9)
S(s) = (1 +M
p
(s)N
p
(s)(Q(s)))
1
. (4.10)
44
Also, the sensitivity function S(s) should be stable. We can dene the relative devia-
tion of the sensitivity as W
_
S
0
S
S
_
, then minimizing this deviation over Q H
,
Q(s) = 0 is equivalent to
1,opt
= inf
QH
_
_
_
_
W
_
S
0
S
S
__
_
_
_
,
= inf
QH
_
_
_
_
W
_
(M
p
N
c
)(1 + D
c
N
p
N
1
c
Q)
D
c
+ M
p
N
c
__
_
_
_
. (4.11)
Note that, |D
c
(j) + M
p
(j)N
c
(j)| = |
1
0
W(j)| as shown before. Then,
1,opt
= inf
QH
0
N
c
(1 + D
c
Q)
(4.12)
where

Q = N
p
N
1
c
Q. For stability of the feedback system formed by the resulting
controller K and the original plant P, we also want the sensitivity function S =
(1 M
p
N
p
Q)
1
to be stable. Once the optimal Q is determined from (4.12), a
sucient condition for stability of S (and hence the original feedback system) can be
determined as
|N
p
(j)| < |Q(j)|
1
(4.13)
Note that the problem dened in (4.12) is equivalent to a sensitivity minimization
with an innite dimensional weight
0
N
c
for a stable innite dimensional plant
D
c
. For the case where both the plant and the weight are innite dimensional,
sensitivity minimization problem is dicult to solve. So, we propose to approximate
the weight by a nite dimensional upper bound function: nd a stable rational weight
W
1
such that |
0
N
c
(j)| |W
1
(j)|. We suggest an envelope which is in the form,
W
1
(s) =
0
K
s +
1
s +
1
,
45
where
K = 1 +
1
opt
1
= (
opt
+ )(1
opt
)
1
1
and
1
is determined in some optimal fashion.
Then, we can solve the one following block problem as in Chapter 2
1,opt

2,opt
= inf
QH
W
1
(1 + D
c
Q)
. (4.14)
Note that
2,opt
is the smallest value of
2
, in the range
0
K <
2
< (
0
K)
1
,
satisfying
= tan
1
_

1
_
+ h + tan
1
_
1
0
cos(h) + (
1
0
sin(h))
( +
1
0
cos(h)) +
1
0
sin(h)
_
+tan
1
_
1
_
tan
1
_
1
0
cos(h) (
1
0
sin(h))
( +
1
0
cos(h))
1
0
sin(h)
_
(4.15)
where =
_
(
o
K)
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
(
0
K)
2
. After nding
2,opt
, we can write the C
2,opt
as,
C
2,opt
(s) = A(s)
1
1 D
c
(s)B(s)
(4.16)
where,
A(s) =
(
2
0
K
2
2
1
2
2,opt
2
1
) + (
2
2,opt
2
0
K
2
)s
2
0
K
2,opt
(
1
+ s)(
1
+ s)
B(s) =
_
2,opt
0
K
__
1
s
1
+ s
_
.
In order to calculate

Q
2,opt
(s) corresponding to C
2,opt
(s), we will use the transforma-
tion
Q
2,opt
(s) =
C
2,opt
(s)
1 + P(s)C
2,opt
(s)
.
46
That gives
Q
2,opt
(s) = A(s)
1
1 D
c
(s)B
1
(s)
=
(
2
1
2
K
2
1
) + (
2
K
1)s
2
(
1
+ s)(
K
(
1
+ s) D
c
(s)(
1
s))
(4.17)
where
K
=

2,opt
0
K
. After nding

Q
2,opt
(s), F(s) can be calculated via (4.8),
F(s) = (
Q
1
2,opt
(s) + C
1
opt
(s))
where

Q
2,opt
(s) and C
opt
(s) are found in (4.17) and (4.2) respectively.
Similarly, the resulting controller K(s) is determined as
K(s) =
Q
2,opt
(s)
which is shown in (4.9).
perfor-
mance level for time delay systems is studied. This approach is based on stabilization
of H
controller in the feedback loop. Stabilization of the

controller is achieved and the sensitivity deviation is minimized. However, there are
two main drawbacks of this method. First, the solution of sensitivity deviation brings
conservatism because of nite dimensional approximation of the innite dimensional
weight. Overall system does not achieve the exact performance level, since the op-
timal H
controller is perturbed by deviation. Second, and more importantly, the

stability of overall sensitivity function (feedback system stability) is not guaranteed.
It is possible to keep the feedback system stable as long as the resulting coprime
factor perturbation in the controller is small. However, the perturbation needed to
47
stabilize the controller may be relatively large. For this reason we tried an alternative
method, which is the subject of the next Chapter.
48
CHAPTER 5
ON STABLE H
CONTROLLERS FOR TIME-DELAY

SYSTEMS
In this Chapter we focus on the strong stabilization problem for innite dimen-
sional plants such that the stable controller achieves the pre-specied suboptimal H
performance level. When the optimal controller is unstable (with innitely or nitely
many unstable poles), two methods are given based on a search algorithm to nd
a stable suboptimal controller. However, both methods are conservative. In other
words, there may be a stable suboptimal controller achieving a smaller performance
level, but the designed controller satises the desired overall H
norm. The stability

of optimal and suboptimal controller is discussed and necessity conditions are given
for stability of H
controllers.
It is known that a H
controller for time-delay systems with nitely many un-

stable poles can be designed by the methods in [17, 16, 15, 45]. In general, weighted
sensitivity problem results in an optimal H
controller with innitely unstable modes

[47, 48].
We assume that the plant is single input single output (SISO) and admits the
representation as in [15],
P(s) =
m
n
(s)N
o
(s)
m
d
(s)
(5.1)
49
where m
n
(s) = e
hs
M(s), h > 0, and M(s), m
d
(s) are nite dimensional, inner,
and N
o
controller, C
opt
,
stabilizes the feedback system and achieves the minimum H
cost,
opt
:
opt
=
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(1 +PC
opt
)
1
W
2
PC
opt
(1 + PC
opt
)
1
__
_
_
_
, (5.2)
= inf
C stabilizing P
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(1 + PC)
1
W
2
PC(1 +PC)
1
__
_
_
_
where W
1
and W
2
problem.
In the next section, the structure of optimal and suboptimal H
controllers will
be summarized. The optimal controller with innitely many unstable poles case is
considered in Section 5.2. The conditions and a design method for stable suboptimal
H
controller is given in the same section. Similar work is done in Section 5.3 for
the optimal controller with nitely many unstable poles. Examples related for these
design methods are presented in Section 5.4, and concluding remarks can be found in
Section 5.5.
5.1 Structure of H
Controllers
Assume that the problem (5.2) satises (W
2
N
o
), (W
2
N
o
)
1
H
, then optimal
H
controller can be written as [2] (for controller calculations, see Appendix A),
C
opt
(s) = E
opt
(s)m
d
(s)
N
1
o
(s)F
opt
(s)L(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
opt
(s)L(s)
. (5.3)
Similarly, the suboptimal controller achieving the performance level can be de-
ned as
C
subopt
(s) = E
(s)m
d
(s)
N
1
o
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
. (5.4)
50
Note that the unstable zeros of E
opt
and m
d
are always cancelled by the denomi-
nator in (5.3). Therefore, C
opt
is stable if and only if the denominator in (5.3) has no
unstable zeros except the unstable zeros of E
opt
and m
d
(multiplicities considered).
Same conclusions are valid for the suboptimal case, C
subopt
is stable provided that
the denominator in (5.4) has unstable zeros only at the unstable zeros of E
and m
d
(again, multiplicities considered).
It is clear that the optimal, respectively suboptimal, controllers have innitely
many unstable poles if and only if there exists
o
> 0 such that the following inequality
holds
lim
|F
opt
(
o
+ j)L
opt
(
o
+ j)| > 1, (5.5)
respectively,
lim
|F
(
o
+ j)L
U
(
o
+ j)| > 1. (5.6)
The controller may have innitely many poles because of the delay term in the de-
nominator. All the other terms are nite dimensional.
Even when the optimal controller has innitely many unstable poles, a stable
suboptimal controller may be found by proper selection of the free parameter U(s).
In Section 5.2, this case is discussed.
Note that the previous case covers one and two block cases (i.e., W
2
= 0 and
W
2
=0 respectively). When F
opt
is strictly proper, then the optimal and suboptimal
controllers may have only nitely many unstable poles. Existence of stable suboptimal
H
controllers and their design will be discussed in Section 5.3 for this case.
51
controllers, when the optimal con-

troller has innitely many unstable poles
The following lemma gives the necessary condition for a suboptimal controller to
have nitely many unstable poles.
Lemma 5.2.1. Assume that the optimal controller has innitely many unstable poles
and U(s) is nite dimensional. Then the suboptimal controller has nitely many
unstable poles if and only if
lim
|F
(j)L
U
(j)| 1. (5.7)
Proof Assume that the suboptimal controller has innitely many unstable poles,
then the equation
1 + e
h(+j)
M( + j)F
( + j)L
U
( + j) = 0
has innitely many zeros in the right half plane, i.e. (recall Section 3.1.1) there exists
=
o
> 0 and for suciently large ,
1 + e
h(
o
+j)
lim
(F
(
o
+ j)L
U
(
o
+ j)) = 0 (5.8)
will have innitely many zeros. Since F
and L
U
are nite dimensional,
lim
(j) = lim
( + j)
lim
L
U
(j) = lim
L
U
( + j) > 0.
By using this fact, we can rewrite (5.8) as,
1 + e
h(
o
+j)
lim
(F
(j)L
U
(j)) = 0 (5.9)
52
which implies that in order to have innitely many zeros, the condition in lemma
should be satised. Conversely, a similar idea can be used to show that (5.7) implies
nitely many unstable poles.
Note that this lemma is valid not only for only nite dimensional U(s) term, but
also for any U H
, U
1 provided that
lim
U(j) = lim
U( + j) = u
, > 0. (5.10)
is satised where u
R. Also, we can nd conditions on U which guarantees nitely

many unstable poles by using the lemma.
Assume that U(s) is nite dimensional and bi-proper, and dene
f
= lim
|F
(j)| > 1,
u
= lim
U(j),
k = lim
L
2
(j)
L
1
(j)
.
Lemma 5.2.2. The suboptimal controller has nitely many unstable poles if and only
if the following inequalities hold:
|k|
1
f
, |u
|
1 f
|k|
f
|k|
(5.11)
when (n
1
+ l) is odd (even) and ku
< 0, (ku
> 0), and

|k| < 1,
f
|k| 1
f
|k|
< |u
| <
f
|k| + 1
f
+|k|
(5.12)
when (n
1
> 0, (ku
< 0).
Proof By using Lemma 5.2.1, when (n
1
< 0, (ku
> 0),
we can re-write (5.7) as
f
|k| +|u
|
1 +|k||u
|
1.
53
After algebraic manipulations and using f
> 1, we can show that (5.11) satises

this condition. Similarly, when (n
1
> 0, (ku
< 0), (5.7)

is equivalent to
f
|k| |u
|
1 |k||u
1,
and (5.12) satises this condition.
Note that u
is a design parameter and the range can be determined, by given f
and k.
Theorem 5.2.1. Assume that the optimal and central suboptimal controller (when
U = 0) has innitely many unstable poles, if there exists U H
, U
< 1 such
that L
1U
has no C
+
zeros and |L
U
(j)F
(j)| 1, [0, ), then the suboptimal

controller is stable.
Proof Assume that there exists U satisfying the conditions of the theorem. By
maximum modulus theorem,
|1 + e
hs
o
M(s
o
)F
(s
o
)L
U
(s
o
)| > 1 e
h
|F
(j)L
U
(j)| > 0,
therefore, there is no unstable zero, s
o
= +j with > 0. Since, all imaginary axis
zeros are cancelled by E
, the suboptimal controller has no unstable poles.

The theorem has two disadvantages. First, there is no information for calculation
of an appropriate parameter, U. Second, the inequality brings conservatism and
there may exist stable suboptimal controllers even when the condition is violated. It
is dicult to reveal the rst problem, therefore it is better to use rst order bi-proper
function for U. For the second problem, dene
max
and
max
as,
max
= max
|L
U
(j)F
(j)|=1
,
max
= max
[0,)
|L
U
(j)F
(j)|.
54
It is important to design
max
and
max
as small as possible by the choice of U. Oth-
erwise, at high frequencies the delay term will generate unstable zeros when
max
is
large. Similarly, when
max
is large, although
max
is small, it may cause unstable
zeros. The design method given below searches for a rst order U, and it is based on
the above ideas. An example will be given in Section 5.4.1.
Algorithm
Dene U(s) = u
_
u
z
+s
u
p
+s
_
such that u
, u
p
, u
z
R, |u
| < 1, u
p
> 0 and u
p
u
|u
z
|,
1) Fix >
opt
,
2) Obtain f
and k from the central suboptimal controller,

3) Calculate admissible values of u
by using Lemma (5.2.2),

4) Search admissible values for (u
, u
p
, u
z
) such that L
1U
(s) is stable,
5) Find the minimum
max
and
max
for all admissible (u
, u
p
, u
z
).
6) Check in the region D = {s = +j, 0 : |e
hs
M(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)| > 1} whether
1 + e
hs
M(s)F
(s)L
U
(s) has no C
+
zeros except unstable zeros of E
and m
d
.
When the central suboptimal controller has innitely many unstable poles, it is
not possible to obtain a stable suboptimal controller by a choice of U as strictly proper
or inner function. Once we nd a U from the above algorithm, the resulting stable
suboptimal H
controller can be represented as cascade and feedback connections

of nite dimensional terms and a nite impulse response lter that does not have
unstable pole-zero cancellations in the controller, as explained in [23].
55
controllers, when the optimal con-

troller has nitely many unstable poles
In this section, we will derive the conditions for the H
controllers to have nitely

many unstable poles. A sucient condition for the existence of stable suboptimal H
controllers is given, and a design method will be derived.

The optimal and suboptimal controllers have innitely many unstable poles, when
F
opt
L
opt
and F
L
U
has magnitude greater than one as . It is not dicult to
see that controllers will have nitely many unstable poles if F
opt
and F
are strictly
proper. Since, these terms decrease as and delay term decays as increases,
only nitely many unstable poles may appear. Clearly, there may be H
controllers
(depending on parameter values) with nitely many poles while F
opt
and F
are bi-
proper. However, it is important to nd the sucient conditions when they are strictly
proper, which results in controllers with nitely many unstable poles regardless of
parameters.
Lemma 5.3.1. The H
controller has nitely many unstable poles if the plant is

strictly proper and W
1
is proper (in the sensitivity minimization problem), and if W
1
is proper and W
2
is improper (in the mixed sensitivity minimization problem).
Proof The transfer function F(s) can be written as ratio of two polynomials, N
F
and
D
F
, with degrees m and n respectively. We can dene the relative degree function
as
(F(s)) =
_
N
F
(s)
D
F
(s)
_
= n m.
56
Note that (F
1
(s)F
2
(s)) = (F
1
(s)) +(F
2
(s)) and (F(s)F(s)) = 2(F(s)). Also,
we will use the following shorthand notation for simplicity
G
W
1
(s) := W
1
(s)W
1
(s),
G
W
2
(s) := W
2
(s)W
2
(s).
The optimal controller has nitely many unstable poles if F
opt
is strictly proper,
i.e. (F
opt
(s)) > 0. To show this, we can write by using denition of F
opt
and (A.4),
(F
opt
(s)) = (G
opt
(s)),
=
1
2
(
_
G
W
1
(s) + G
W
2
(s)
2
opt
G
W
1
(s)G
W
2
(s)
_
1
),
=
1
2
(
_
G
W
1
(s) + G
W
2
(s)
2
opt
G
W
1
(s)G
W
2
(s)
_
),
=
1
2
min {(G
W
1
(s)), (G
W
2
(s)), (G
W
1
(s)G
W
2
(s))},
= min {(W
1
(s)), (W
2
(s)), (W
1
(s)) + (W
2
(s))}.
Strictly properness of F
opt
implies,
min {(W
1
(s)), (W
2
(s)), (W
1
(s)) + (W
2
(s))} < 0. (5.13)
We know that (W
1
(s)) 0 and (W
2
(s)) 0, [2]. Therefore, the inequality (5.13)
is satised if and only if (W
1
(s)) 0 and (W
2
(s)) < 0 are valid which means that
W
1
(s) is proper and W
2
(s) is improper. Since we have (W
2
N
o
)
1
RH
[2], we
can conclude that the plant is strictly proper. Same proof is valid for the suboptimal
case.
We know that the suboptimal controllers are written as (5.4),
C
subopt
(s) = E
(s)m
d
(s)
N
1
o
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
57
we can rewrite the suboptimal controllers as,
C
subopt
(s) =
_
N
1
o
(s)F
(s)
dE
(s)dm
d
(s)
__
L
2
(s) + L
1
(s)m
n
(s)F
(s)
P
1
(s) + P
2
(s)U(s)
_
where
P
1
(s) =
L
1
(s) + L
2
(s)m
n
(s)F
(s)
dE
(s)dm
d
(s)
,
P
2
(s) =
L
2
(s) + L
1
(s)m
n
(s)F
(s)
nE
(s)nm
d
(s)
,
and nE
, dE
and nm
d
, dm
d
are numerator and denominator of E
and m
d
respec-
tively. Denominators of P
1
and P
2
are cancelled by numerators.
Note that unstable poles of C
subopt
are the zeros of P
1
+ P
2
U. If there exists a
U RH
with U
< 1, such that P

1
+ P
2
U has no unstable zeros, then the
corresponding suboptimal controller is stable.
Assume that F
is strictly proper which implies P

1
and P
2
has nitely many
unstable zeros. The suboptimal controller is stable if and only if S
U
:= (1 +

PU)
1
is stable where

P =
P
2
P
1
. Note that since P
1
and P
2
has nitely many unstable zeros,
we can write

P as,
P =
M
d
N
o
where

M and

M
d
are inner, nite dimensional and

N
o
is outer and innite dimensional.
Finding stable S
U
with U H
is a sensitivity minimization problem with stable

controller which is considered in [33]. However, in our case, U has a norm restriction
as U
1 and we can write U as

U(s) =
_
1 S
U
(s)
S
U
(s)
__
P
1
(s)
P
2
(s)
_
.
Dene
opt
as
opt
= inf
UH
S
U
= inf
UH
(1 +

PU)
1
.
58
If we x as >
opt
, then there exists a free parameter Q (Q H
and Q
1)
which parameterizes all functions stabilizing S
U
and achieving performance level .
We will show that the sensitivity function achieving performance level as S
U,
(Q).
Lemma 5.3.2. Assume that W
1
and W
2
are proper and improper respectively. If
there exists
o
>
opt
and Q
o
with Q
o
H
and Q
o
1 satisfying
_
1 S
U,
o
(Q
o
(j))
S
U,
o
(Q
o
(j))
__
P
1
(j)
P
2
(j)
_
1, (5.14)
then the suboptimal controller, C
subopt
, achieves the performance level by selecting
the parameter U as,
U(s) =
_
1 S
U,
o
(Q
o
(s))((s)
S
U,
o
(Q
o
(s))
__
P
1
(s)
P
2
(s)
_
(5.15)
Proof The result of theorem is immediate. Since Q
o
satises the norm condition of
U and makes S
U,
(Q
o
) stable, the suboptimal controller has no right half plane poles
by selection of U as shown in theorem.
A stable suboptimal controller can be designed by nding Q
o
for
o
. By using
a search algorithm, we can nd Q
o
satisfying the norm condition for U. Instead of
nding U resulting in a stable suboptimal controller, the problem is converted to nd
Q
o
satisfying the norm condition. First problem needs to check whether a quasi-
polynomial has unstable zeros. However, by using the theorem, this problem reduced
into searching stable function with innity norm less than one and satisfying norm
condition for U. Conservatively, the search algorithm for Q
o
can be done for rst
order bi-proper functions such that Q
o
(s) = u
_
s+z
u
s+p
u
_
where p
u
> 0, z
u
R, and
|u
| max {1,
p
u
|z
u
|
}. The algorithm for this approach is explained below.
59
Algorithm
Assume that the optimal and central suboptimal controllers have nitely many un-
stable poles. We can design a stable suboptimal H
controller by using the following

algorithm:
1) Fix >
opt
,
2) Obtain P
1
and P
2
. If P
1
has no unstable zeros, then the suboptimal controller is
stable for U = 0. If not, go to step 3.
3) Dene the right half plane zeros of P
1
and P
2
as p
i
and s
i
respectively. Note
that these are right half plane zeros of

M
d
(s) and

M(s) respectively. Calculate
w
i
=
1
M
d
(s
i
)
and z
i
=
s
i
a
s+a
where a > 0.
4) Search for minimum which makes the Pick matrix positive semi-denite,
Q
P
{}
(i,k)
=
_
ln
w
i
ln
w
k
+ j2(n
k
n
i
)
1 z
i
z
k
_
(5.16)
where n
[.]
is integer. Note that most of the integers will not result in posi-
tive semi-denite Pick matrix. Therefore, for each integer set, we can nd the
smallest and
opt
will be the minimum of these vales. For details, see [33].
5) After the integer set and
opt
is found, the function g(z) H
can be obtained
satisfying interpolation conditions,
g(z
i
) = ln
w
i
opt
j2n
i
(5.17)
60
by Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation approach [2, 49]. Then, we can write S
U
(s) =
opt

M
d
(s)e
G(s)
where G(s) = g(
sa
s+a
) and obtain U(s). Check the norm con-
dition U
1. If it is satised, then, U(s) results in stable suboptimal

controller achieving performance level . If not, go to next step.
6) Increase such that >
opt
. For all possible integer set, obtain g(z) H
with
interpolation conditions,
g(z
i
) = ln
w
i
j2n
i
. (5.18)
Note that since g(z) has a free parameter q(z) (q H
and q
1), we can
write the function as g(z, q). Then, search for parameters (u
,z
u
,p
u
) satisfying
_
1

M
d
(j)e
G(j,Q)

M
d
(j)e
G(j,Q)
_
_
P
1
(j)
P
2
(j)
_
1, [0, ) (5.19)
where G(s, Q(s)) = g(
sa
s+a
, q(
sa
s+a
)) and Q(s) = u
_
s+z
u
s+p
u
_
as dened before. If
one of the parameter set satises the inequality, then Q
o
= u
,o
_
s+z
u,o
s+p
u,o
_
and
corresponding U results in a stable suboptimal H
controller. If no parameter
set satises the inequality, go to step 6, and repeat the procedure for suciently
high , until a pre-specied maximum is reached, in which case go next step.
7) Increase , go to step 2, if a maximum pre-specied is reached, stop. This
method fails to provide a stable H
controller.
An illustrative example is presented in Section 5.4.2.
5.4 Examples
Two examples will be given in this section. In the rst example, the optimal and
central suboptimal controllers have innitely many unstable poles; by using the design
61
method, we show that there exists a stable suboptimal controller even the magnitude
condition (|L
U
(j)F
(j)| 1) is violated for low frequencies. In other words, the

example illustrates that the conditions in (5.2.1) are sucient in Section 5.2.
The second example explains the design method for stable suboptimal H
con-
troller whose central controller is unstable with nitely many unstable poles and
implements the algorithm step by step as mentioned in Section 5.3.
5.4.1 Example 1
Let P(s) = e
0.1s
_
s1
s+1
_
and choose W
1
(s) =
1+0.6s
s+1
and W
2
= 0 (one-block prob-
lem). Using Skew-Teoplitz approach in [2], the minimum H
value,
opt
, is 0.8108.
The optimal controller has innitely many unstable poles converging to the asymptote
s = 3.0109 j
(2k+1)
h
as k . If central suboptimal controller (U = 0) is calcu-
lated for = 0.814, it has innitely many unstable poles converging to the asymptote
s = 2.445 j
(2k+1)
h
as k . The suboptimal controllers can be represented as,
C
subopt
(s) = E
(s)
F
(s)L
U
(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
(5.20)
where
m
n
(s) = e
0.1s
_
s 1
s + 1
_
,
E
(s) =
0.3374 + 0.3026s
2
0.6626(1 s
2
)
,
F
(s) = 0.814
_
1 s
1 + 0.6s
_
,
L
U
(s) =
L
2U
(s)
L
1U
(s)
=
L
2
(s) + L
1
(s)U(s)
L
1
(s) + L
2
(s)U(s)
,
L
2
(s) = (0.9413s + 1.8716),
L
1
(s) = (s + 1.8373).
62
We will use the design method of the Section 3 to nd a stable suboptimal con-
troller by search for U. The central suboptimal controller (U = 0) has innitely many
unstable poles as mentioned before. The algorithm is tried for u
z
= u
p
= 0 case, i.e.,
U(s) = u
.
1) Fix = 0.814 >
opt
= 0.8108,
2) k = 0.9413 and f
= 1.3567 are calculated.

3) n
1
= 1, l = 0, n
1
+l is odd and |k| >
1
f
. By using Lemma (5.2.2), the admissible

values for u
are 0.9909 < u
< 0.6668.
4) L
1U
(s) is stable for u
[1, 0.98].
5) Overall admissible values for U are u
[0.9909, 0.6668]. The values of

max
and
max
for all admissible u
range can be seen in Figure 5.1. Since

max
values do not vary much, the minimum value of
max
determines the optimal
u
value as
max
= 19.458 at u
= 0.813.
6) Figure 5.2 shows the plot of Z(s) = |1 + e
hs
M(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)| in the right half
plane. The function has only right half plane zero at s = 1.056j, which is
right half zeros of E
(s). Note that, only one part of right plane is graphed

since the other half is same.
Therefore, we can conclude that suboptimal controller is stable for U(s) = 0.813
and achieves the H
norm = 0.814.
63
1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
max
and
max
versus u
max
max
Figure 5.1: w
max
and
max
versus u
0
10
20
30
40
0
1
2
3
4
5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
j
Graph of Z(+j)
Figure 5.2: Z(s) plot for right half plane

5.4.2 Example 2
For given plant P(s) = e
3s
and weight functions W
1
(s) =
_
2.24+s
1+s
_
and W
2
(s) =
0.5(2.24 + s), we can nd the optimal performance level as
opt
= 1.9452. The
corresponding optimal H
controller can be written as,

C
opt
(s) = E
opt
(s)
F
opt
(s)L
opt
(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
opt
(s)L
opt
(s)
(5.21)
where
m
n
(s) = e
3s
,
E
opt
(s) =
1.2162 + 2.7838s
2
3.7838(1 s
2
)
,
F
(s) = 5.5119
(1 s)
(2.24 + s)
2
,
L
opt
(s) = 1.
The optimal controller has unstable poles at s = 0.0292 2.2354j. Note that
since W
1
and W
2
are proper and improper respectively, all H
controllers will have

64
nitely many unstable poles by Theorem 5.3.2. Therefore we can apply the algorithm
in Section 5.3.
1) Fix = 1.9454 >
opt
= 1.9452,
2) The suboptimal controllers can be written as,
C
subopt
(s) = E
(s)
F
(s)L
U
(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
(5.22)
where
m
n
(s) = e
3s
,
E
(s) =
1.2154 + 2.7846s
2
3.7846(1 s
2
)
,
F
(s) = 5.5115
(1 s)
(2.24 + s)
2
,
L
U
(s) =
L
2U
(s)
L
1U
(s)
=
L
2
(s) + L
1
(s)U(s)
L
1
(s) + L
2
(s)U(s)
,
L
2
(s) = (2.9837 + 0.9946s),
L
1
(s) = (2.9829 +s),
and U is free parameter such that U H
, U
1. We can write P
1
and
P
2
as,
P
1
(s) =
L
1
(s) + m
n
(s)F
(s)L
2
(s)
nE
(s)
,
=
(2.9829 +s)(2.24 + s)
2
+ 5.5115(1 s)(2.9837 + 0.9946s)e
3s
(1.2154 + 2.7846s
2
)(2.24 +s)
2
,
P
2
(s) =
L
2
(s) + m
n
(s)F
(s)L
1
(s)
nE
(s)
,
=
(2.9837 0.9946s)(2.24 + s)
2
+ 5.5115(1 s)(2.9829 s)e
3s
(1.2154 + 2.7846s
2
)(2.24 + s)
2
.
65
Note that P
1
and P
2
has unstable zeros at 0.02872.2346j and 0.02972.2346j
respectively. Therefore, the central controller (U = 0) for the chosen perfor-
mance level, = 1.9458, is unstable.
3) Dene the following variables and functions as,
p
i
= 0.0287 2.2346j, i = 1, 2,
s
i
= 0.0297 2.2346j, i = 1, 2,
M
d
(s) =
(s p
1
)(s p
2
)
(s + p
1
)(s + p
2
)
=
s
2
0.0574s + 4.9943
s
2
+ 0.0574s + 4.9943
,
w
i
=
1
M
d
(s
i
)
= 58.4002 0.7501j, i = 1, 2,
z
i
=
s
i
1
s
i
+ 1
= 0.6598 0.7383i
where conformal mapping parameter, a, is chosen as a = 1.
4) In order to nd the minimum resulting in positive semi-denite Pick matrix,
Q
P
{} =
_
q
11
+2 ln
q
21
(q
11
+q
12
)+2 ln +j2(n
2
n
1
)
q
22
(q
11
q
12
)+2 ln +j2(n
1
n
2
)
q
22
q
11
+2 ln
q
21
_
(5.23)
where q
11
= 8.1348, q
21
= 0.0196, q
12
= 0.0257j and q
22
= 1.1097 0.9742j,
we will nd the minimum for all possible integer pairs (n
1
, n
2
). It is not
dicult to do this search since many integer pairs do not result in positive
semi-denite Pick matrix. For each integer pair, we can nd the minimum ,
min
, and then
opt
will be smallest of all
min
. Note that since Pick matrix
depends on dierence of integers, we can normalize the search by taking n
1
= 0.
In Figure 5.3, we can see the minimum values for integers, n
2
. The minimum
of all
min
values is
opt
= 58.4167.
66
20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 20
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
m
in
n
2
values
The minimum for n
2
values
Figure 5.3:
min
versus n
2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
frequency
|
Q
(
j
)
|
Magnitude plot of U(j)
Figure 5.4: Magnitude plot of U(j)
5) The calculation of U(s) for
opt
is omitted. It does not satisfy the norm condition
U
1.
6) Fix = 64 and n
1
= n
2
= 0. The interpolation conditions for g(z) can be written
as,
g(z
i
) = 0.0915 0.0128j, i = 1, 2. (5.24)
By Nevanlinna-Pick approach, (see e.g.[2]),
g(z, q) =
(1.0878z
2
1.3782z + 0.9804)q(z) + (0.0724z 0.1054)
(0.9804z
2
1.3782z + 1.0878) + (0.0724z 0.1054z
2
)q(z)
(5.25)
where q(z) is a parameterization term such that q H
and q
1. The
search algorithm tries to nd q
o
satisfying the norm condition
_
1

M
d
(j)e
G(j,Q)

M
d
(j)e
G(j,Q)
_
_
P
1
(j)
P
2
(j)
_
1, [0, ) (5.26)
67
where G(s, Q(s)) is equal to
g
_
s 1
s + 1
, q
_
s 1
s + 1
__
,
=
(0.69s
2
0.2148s + 3.4464)Q(s) (0.0330s
2
+ 0.3556s + 0.0330)
(0.69s
2
+ 0.2148s + 3.4464) (0.0330s
2
0.3556s + 0.0330)Q(s)
and Q H
, Q
1. We will search for Q satisfying the norm condition

(5.26) in the form of Q(s) = u
with |u
| 1. Note that we choose z

u
= p
u
= 0
and all functions in norm condition, P
1
, P
2
,

M
d
, are dened before. After search
is done, the condition (5.26) is satised for u
= 0.323. The magnitude of

U(j) is smaller than one for all frequency values as seen in Figure 5.4. (i.e.,
U
= 0.9924). As a result, the suboptimal H
controller achieving the

performance level, = 1.9454, is stable with selection of parameter U as,
U(s) =
_
0.0156

M
1
d
(s)e
_
0.1899s
2
0.4250s+1.0802
0.6793s
2
+0.3297s+3.4357
_
1
__
P
1
(s)
P
2
(s)
_
. (5.27)
By the search algorithm, we can nd many u
values for dierent resulting in

stable H
controller at = 1.94584 provided that U satises the norm condition

for chosen Q = u
. The various u
controller can
be seen in Figure 5.5. We can observe that as is increased, the range of u
stabilizing the controller decreases and the minimum value of U
in the u
range becomes smaller.

In this Chapter, for delay systems, we investigated stability of the H
controllers
whose structure is given in [2, 15]. We considered the controllers in two subsections
68
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.97
0.975
0.98
0.985
0.99
0.995
1
1.005
u
values resulting stable controller

u
in
f
in
it
y

n
o
r
m

o
f

U
(
s
)
=70
=100
=150
=200
=300
=1000
Figure 5.5: u
controller
according to their number of poles (nite, innite). For each case, necessary condi-
tions and design methods based on simple sucient condition are given to nd stable
suboptimal H
controllers.
69
CHAPTER 6
REMARKS ON STRONG STABILIZATION AND STABLE
H
CONTROLLER DESIGN
In this Chapter, a state space based design method is given to nd strongly stabi-
lizing controllers for multi-input-multi-output plants (MIMO). A sucient condition
is derived for the existence of suboptimal stable H
controller in terms of linear ma-

trix inequalities (LMI). Under this condition, the controller order is twice that of the
plant. A new parameterization of strongly stabilizing controllers is determined using
linear fractional transformations (LFT).
The result in this Chapter is the generalization of the work in [41] using LMIs.
The procedure is quite simple, ecient and easy to solve by using the LMI Toolbox
of MATLAB [50]. In the next section, it is shown that if a certain LMI has a feasible
solution, then it is possible to obtain a stable H
controller whose order is twice the

order of the plant. Moreover, a parameterization of strongly stabilizing controllers
can be given in terms of LFT.
The Chapter is organized as follows: The main results are given in Section 6.1.
Stable H
controller design procedure is proposed in Section 6.2. Numerical examples

and comparison with other methods can be found in Section 6.3 and concluding
remarks are made in the last section.
70
G

K
G
-
z
y
w
u
Figure 6.1: Standard Feedback System
Notation
The notation is fairly standard. A state space realization of a transfer function,
G(s) = C(sI A)
1
B + D, is shown by G(s) =
_
A B
C D
_
and the linear frac-
tional transformation of G by K is denoted by F
l
(G, K) which is equivalent to
G
11
+ G
12
K(I G
22
K)
1
G
21
where G is partitioned as G =
_
G
11
G
12
G
21
G
22
_
. As
a shorthand notation for LMI expressions, we will dene (A, B) := B
T
A
T
+ AB
where A, B are matrices with compatible dimensions.
6.1 Strong stabilization of MIMO systems
Consider the standard feedback system shown in Figure 6.1 with generalized plant,
G, which has state space realization,
G(s) =
_
_
A B
1
B
C
1
D
11
D
12
C D
21
0
_
_
. (6.1)
where A R
nn
, D
12
R
p
1
m
2
, D
21
R
p
2
m
1
and other matrices are compatible
with each other. We suppose the plant satises the standard assumptions,
A.1 (A, B) is stabilizable and (C, A) is detectable,
71
A.2
_
A I B
C
1
D
12
_
has full column rank for all Re{} 0,
A.3
_
A I B
1
C D
21
_
has full row rank for all Re{} 0,
A.4 A has no eigenvalues on the imaginary axis.
Let the controller has state space realization, K
G
(s) =
_
A
K
B
K
C
K
0
_
where A
K

R
nn
, B
K
R
np
2
and C
K
R
m
2
n
. Dene the matrix X R
nn
, X = X
T
0 as
the stabilizing solution of
A
T
X + XA XBB
T
X = 0 (6.2)
(i.e., A BB
T
X is stable) and the A-matrix of the closed loop system as A
CL
=
_
A BC
K
B
K
C A
K
_
. Note that since (A, B) is stabilizable, X is unique and A
X
:=
(A BB
T
X) is stable. Also, the closed loop stability is equivalent to whether A
CL
is stable or not.
Lemma 6.1.1. Assume that the plant (6.1) satises the assumptions A.1 A.4.
There exists a stable stabilizing controller K
G
RH
if there exists X
K
R
nn
,
X
K
= X
T
K
> 0 and Z R
np
2
for some
K
> 0 satisfying the LMIs
(X
K
, A) + (Z, C) < 0, (6.3)
_
_
(X
K
, A
X
) + (Z, C) Z XB
Z
T
K
I 0
B
T
X 0
K
I
_
_
< 0, (6.4)
where X is the stabilizing solution of (6.2) and A
X
is as dened previously. Moreover,
a stable controller has state space realization K
G
(s) =
_
A
X
+ X
1
K
ZC X
1
K
Z
B
T
X 0
_
and this controller satises K
G
<
K
.
72
Proof. By using similarity transformation, one can show that A
CL
is stable if and
only if A
X
and A
Z
:= A + X
1
K
ZC are stable. Since X is a stabilizing solution, A
X
is stable. If we rewrite the LMI (6.3) as
(A + X
1
K
ZC)
T
X
K
+ X
K
(A + X
1
K
ZC) < 0,
it can be seen that A
Z
is stable since X
K
> 0. The second LMI (6.4) comes from
KYP lemma and guarantees that K
G
<
K
.
Remark 1 If the design only requires the stability of closed loop system, it is enough
to satisfy the LMI (6.3), (1, 1) block of (6.4), i.e.,
A
T
X
X
K
+ X
K
A
X
+ C
T
Z
T
+ ZC < 0 (6.5)
and the controller has same structure as above.
Remark 2 The Lemma (6.1.1) is generalization of Theorem 2.1 in [41]. If the al-
gebraic riccati equation (ARE) (7) in [41] has a stabilizing solution, Y = Y
T
0,
then there exists a stable controller in the form,
_
A
X

2
K
Y C
T
C
2
K
Y C
T
B
T
X 0
_
. This
structure is the special case of the LMIs (6.3) and (6.4) when X
K
= (
K
Y )
1
and
Z =
K
C
T
. Note that our formulation does not assume special structure on Z. Also
in [41], the stability of A
Z
is guaranteed by the same riccati equation, we satisfy the
stability condition of A
Z
with another LMI (6.3) which is less restrictive. Therefore,
the Lemma (6.1.1) is less conservative as will be demonstrated in examples.
Corollary 6.1.1. Assume that the sucient condition (6.3) and (6.5) holds. Then
all controllers in the set
K
G,ss
:= {K = F
l
(K
0
G,ss
, Q) : Q RH
, Q
<
Q
}
73
are strongly stabilizing where
K
0
G,ss
(s) =
_
_
A
X
+ X
1
K
ZC X
1
K
Z B
B
T
X 0 I
C I 0
_
_
. (6.6)
and
Q
=
_
C(sI (A
X
+ X
1
K
ZC))
1
B
_
1
.
Proof. The result is direct consequence of parameterization of all stabilizing con-
trollers [51].
6.2 Stable H
controller design for MIMO systems

The standard H
problem is dened as nding a stabilizing controller K such

that F
l
(P, K)
where > 0 is the closed loop performance level and P is the

generalized plant. It is well known that if two AREs have unique positive semidenite
solutions and the spectral radius condition is satised, then standard H
problem
is solvable. All suboptimal H
controllers can be parameterized as K = F

l
(M
, Q)
where the central controller is in the form
M
(s) =
_
_
A
c
B
c1
B
c2
C
c1
D
c11
D
c12
C
c2
D
c21
0
_
_
and Q is free parameter satisfying Q RH
and Q
. For derivation and

calculation of M
, see [52, 51].

If we consider M
as plant and =
K
, by using Lemma (6.1.1), we can nd
a strictly proper stable K
M
stabilizing M
and resulting stable H
controller,
C
= F
l
(M
, K
M
) where K
M
<
K
. If sucient conditions (6.3) and (6.4) are
satised, then K
M
can be written as,

K
M
(s) =
_
A
c
B
c2
B
T
c2
X
c
+ X
1
Kc
Z
c
C
c2
X
1
Kc
Z
c
B
T
c2
X
c
0
_
74
and by similarity transformation, we can obtain the state space realization of C
as,
C
(s) =
_
A
C
B
C
C
C
D
c11
_
where X
c
is the stabilizing solution of
A
T
c
X
c
+ X
c
A
c
X
c
B
c2
B
T
c2
X
c
= 0
as in (6.2) and X
Kc
, Z
c
are the solution of (6.3), (6.4) respectively and the matrices,
A
C
=
_
A
c
B
c2
B
T
c2
X
c
B
c2
B
T
c2
X
c
0 A
c
+ X
1
Kc
Z
c
C
c2
_
B
C
=
_
B
c1
B
c1
X
1
Kc
Z
c
D
c21
_
C
C
=
_
C
c1
D
c12
B
T
c2
X
c
D
c12
B
T
c2
X
c
Note that C
is stable stabilizing controller such that F

l
(P, C
< .
6.3 Numerical examples and comparisons
6.3.1 Strong stabilization
The numerical example is chosen from [41]. In order to see the performance of our
method, we calculated the minimum
K
satisfying the sucient conditions in Lemma
(6.1.1) for the following plants:
G
1
(s) =
_
_
(s+5)(s1)(s5)
(s+2+j)(s+2j)(s)(s20)
(s+1)(s1)(s5)
(s+2+j)(s+2j)(s)(s20)
_
_
G
2
(s) =
_
_
(s+1)(s2j)(s2+j)
(s+2+j)(s+2j)(s1)(s5)
(s+5)(s2j)(s2+j)
(s+2+j)(s+2j)(s1)(s5)
_
_
For various values, the minimum
K
is found. Figure 6.2 and 6.3 illustrates the
conservatism of [41] mentioned in Remark 2 (where
min
is the minimum value of the
free parameter
K
corresponding to the method of [41]).
75
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Comparison for G
1
min
K
Figure 6.2: Comparison for plant G
1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Comparison for G
2
min
K
Figure 6.3: Comparison for plant G
2
6.3.2 Stable H
controllers
We applied our method to stable H
controller design. As a common benchmark

example, the following system is taken from [42]:
P =
_
_
A B
1
B
2
C
1
D
11
D
12
C
2
D
21
0
_
_
(6.7)
where
A =
_
2 1.7321
1.7321 0
_
,
_
B
1
B
2
=
_
0.1 0.1 1
0.5 0.5 0
_
,
_
C
1
C
2
_
=
_
_
0.2 1
0 0
10 11.5470
_
_
,
_
D
11
D
12
D
21
0
_
=
_
_
0 0 0
0 0 1
0.7071 0.7071 0
_
_
.
76
The optimal value for standard H
problem is
opt
= 1.2929. Using the syn-
thesis in [42], a stable H
controller is found at
min
= 1.36994. When our method
applied, we reached stable H
controller for
K,min
= 1.36957. Although it seems
slight improvement, our method is much more simpler with help of LMI problem
formulation. Apart from standard problem solution (nding M
), the algorithm in
[42] nds the stable H
controller by solving an additional H
problem.
Another common benchmark example is from suppression of thermoacoustical
instabilities in a combustion chamber and this example is used to nd stable H
controller in [40, 8]. The generalized plant is described by the following equations:
z
1
=
0.03s
7
+ 0.008s
6
+ 0.19s
5
+ 0.037s
4
+ 0.36s
3
+ 0.05s
2
+ 0.18s + 0.015
s
8
+ 0.161s
7
+ 6s
6
+ 0.582s
5
+ 9.984s
4
+ 0.407s
3
+ 3.9822s
2
(w
1
+ u),
z
2
= u,
y = w
2
+
0.0064s
5
+ 0.0024s
4
+ 0.071s
3
+ s
2
+ 0.1045s + 1
s
8
+ 0.161s
7
+ 6s
6
+ 0.582s
5
+ 9.984s
4
+ 0.407s
3
+ 3.9822s
2
(w
1
+ u).
In [40], it is noted that for this problem, the sucient condition in [37] is not
satised for even large values of and the method is not applicable. As we can
see from Table 6.1, the performance of our method is better than the method in
[40] except the last case. For all cases, the result of [8] is superior from all other
Gumussoy-Ozbay(GO) [40] [8]

opt

GO

ZO

CZ
0.1 0.232 0.241 0.245 0.237
0.01 0.142 0.176 0.178 0.151
0.001 0.122 0.170 0.170 0.132
Table 6.1: Stable H
controller design for combustion chamber

77
methods. However, the controller order in [8] is 24 which is greater than our controller
order, 16. This brings extra freedom in [8] and gives better results. Furthermore,
design of the method in [8] involves solution of an additional H
problem which
is complicated compared to our simple LMI formulation. Also if the algorithm in
[8] fails, selection of a new parameter Q is suggested which is an ad-hoc procedure.
Although the performance of the controller suggested in this Chapter is slightly worse,
it is numerically stable and easily formulated.
The following example is taken from [1]. Stable H
controller is designed for the

real plant
P(s) =
s
2
+ 0.1s + 0.1
(s 0.1)(s 1)(s
2
+ 2s + 3)
.
For the given plant, assume that the state space representation is as P =
_
A B
C D
_
.
For sensitivity and complementary sensitivity function minimization problem, the
generalized plant can be written as shown in [1]. The comparison of the methods
[40, 1, 53] and our method can be seen in Table 6.2. There is a compromise between
the methods. The performance of the method in [1] is worse than our method, but
the order of the our controller has twice order of the controller in [1]. Although the
method in [53] gives better results than our method, the order of the controller in
[53] is considerably higher than our controller order. However, this example clearly
shows that our method is superior than [40].
As a remark, the method also gives very good results for single-input-single-output
systems. The SISO case example is taken from [41]. For the given plant and weight
functions,
P(s) =
(s + 5)(s 1)(s 5)
(s + 2 + j)(s + 2 j)(s 20)(s 30)
,
78
Gumussoy-Ozbay [40] [1] [53], Thm 7
min
32.557 37.551 43.167 21.787
Order 2n 2n n 3n
Table 6.2: Stable H
controller design for Example in [1]

W
1
(s) =
1
s + 1
,
W
2
(s) = 0.2,
the optimal H
problem is dened as
opt
= inf
KstabilizingP
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(1 + PK)
1
W
2
K(1 + PK)
1
__
_
_
_
and the optimal performance for given data is

opt
= 34.24. The stable H
controller
can be found for = 42.51 with the method in [41], whereas our method, which can be
seen as a generalization of [41], gives = 35.29. In numerical simulations, we observed
that when approaches to the minimum value satisfying sucient conditions, the
solutions of algebraic riccati equations of [41] become numerically ill-posed. However,
the LMI based solution proposed here does not have such a problem.
In this Chapter, sucient conditions for strong stabilization of MIMO systems are
obtained and applied to stable H
controller design. Our conditions are based on

linear matrix inequalities which can be easily solved by the LMI Toolbox of MATLAB.
The method is very ecient from numerical point of view as demonstrated with
examples. The benchmark examples show that the proposed method is a signicant
79
improvement over the existing techniques available in the literature. The exceptions
to this claim are the methods of [8, 53]. In [8], the controller design is based on ad-hoc
search method and both methods, [8, 53], result in higher order controllers than the
one designed by our method.
80
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS
In this thesis, the optimal H
controller design for time-delay systems and stable

H
controller design for time-delay systems and MIMO systems are studied.
In Chapter 2, the optimal H
controller design for innite dimensional plants

with innitely many unstable modes is given. By using duality, it is shown that
this problem can be solved by the Skew-Toeplitz approach [2]. After a simple data
transformation, the problem is reduced to a dual problem solved in [2, 15]. Then, the
optimal H
controller can be obtained by back-transformation of the solution to the

original problem parameters.
Chapter 3 deals with optimal H
controller design for time-delay systems. The

methods in Chapter 2 and [2, 15] are dened for innite dimensional systems. In this
Chapter, the necessary and sucient conditions are given such that these methods are
applicable to generalized time-delay systems. It is well known that there are internal
unstable pole-zero cancellations in H
controllers because of interpolation conditions.

For controller implementation, it is necessary to eliminate these cancellations. It is
shown in this Chapter that it is possible to construct the H
controller without
cancellations due to its special structure. Therefore, the result in [23] is extended
from dead-time systems to general time-delay systems.
81
perfor-
mance level for time delay systems is given in Chapter 4. This approach is based
on stabilization of H
controller in the feedback loop. In

Chapter 4, stabilization is achieved and the sensitivity deviation is minimized. There
are two main drawbacks of this method. First, the solution of sensitivity deviation
brings conservatism because of nite dimensional approximation of the innite dimen-
sional weight. Second, the stability of overall sensitivity function is not guaranteed.
Also, overall system does not achieve the exact performance level, since the optimal
H
controller is perturbed by deviation.

Chapter 5 focuses on strong stabilization problem for innite dimensional plants
such that the stable controller achieves the pre-specied suboptimal H
performance
level. When the optimal controller is unstable with innitely many unstable poles,
a method is given to choose the free parameter of suboptimal controller such that
the controller itself is stable. When the optimal controller is unstable with nitely
many unstable poles, a search algorithm is given to nd stable H
controller using
Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation approach. However, both methods are conservative.
In other words, there may be a stable suboptimal controller achieving a smaller per-
formance level, but the designed controller satises the desired overall H
norm. The
stability of optimal and suboptimal controller is discussed and necessity conditions
are given.
Strong stabilization problem for MIMO systems is studied in Chapter 6. A state
space based design method is given to nd strongly stabilizing controllers for nite
dimensional MIMO plants. A sucient condition is derived for the existence of sub-
optimal stable H
controller in terms of LMIs. A new parameterization of strongly

82
stabilizing controllers is determined using linear fractional transformations. The re-
sult in the Chapter is the generalization of the work in [41] using LMIs. The procedure
is quite simple, ecient and easy to solve by using the LMI Toolbox of MATLAB
[50].
In summary, this thesis presents the link between time-delay systems and Skew-
Toeplitz approach for optimal H
controller design and shows the special structure

of H
controllers for time-delay systems. Moreover, stable H
controller design is
considered for time-delay and MIMO systems.
In Chapter 2, the plant is assumed to be bi-proper in order to guarantee the
well-posedness of the plant and its inverse. This assumption is needed since the
method is dual version of Skew-Toeplitz approach. Although, it is not shown in this
thesis, strictly proper plant case with innitely many unstable poles and nitely many
unstable zeros can be solved as well.
It may be possible to generalize H
controller design for Neutral and Retarded

Delay Systems. It is assumed that the plant satisfy a special factorization in Skew-
Toeplitz approach. Recently, in [12], it is shown that the optimal H
controller can
also be designed without the factorization. Therefore, the work in Chapter 3 can be
generalized according to this development.
In Chapter 5, the stable H
controller is designed for standard delay systems,

i.e. P(s) = e
hs
P
0
(s) where P
0
is rational transfer function. As a future work,
stable H
controller of mixed sensitivity minimization problem can be considered for

more general type delay systems, such as IF, FI, FF plants. As special cases, we
can obtain stable optimal H
controller for sensitivity or complementary sensitivity

minimization problem using the method in [33] for IF, FI, FF plants.
83
The order of the stable H
controller in Chapter 6 is twice of the order of the

plant. However, when the pole-zero locations of the plant are close to violate the
p.i.p., the order of stable stabilizing controller is necessarily large. Therefore, the
idea in Chapter 6 can be reconsidered for higher order controllers such that the
strong stabilization problem is still a convex problem.
A natural future direction is to consider the saturation type nonlinearities in
feedback path in H
controller design for time delay systems. The analysis can

be divided into two groups. First, for time-delay plants an H
controller can be
designed and an upper bound on input signal can be calculated such that the feedback
system operates in the linear region with no saturation in signals. Second, state space
representation of the H
controller can be written and by using Lyapunov theory

sucient conditions can be derived for the region of attraction of the system when
there exists saturation type nonlinearities.
84
APPENDIX A
SKEW-TOEPLITZ APPROACH FOR MIXED
SENSITIVITY PROBLEM
In this section, the Skew-Toeplitz approach for mixed sensitivity problem is re-
viewed [2, 15]. The plant is single input single output (SISO) and admits the repre-
sentation as in [15],
P(s) =
m
n
(s)N
o
(s)
m
d
(s)
(A.1)
where m
n
(s) is inner, innite dimensional and m
d
(s) is inner, nite dimensional and
N
o
controller, C
opt
, stabi-
lizes the feedback system and achieves the minimum H
cost,
opt
:
opt
=
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(1 +PC
opt
)
1
W
2
PC
opt
(1 + PC
opt
)
1
__
_
_
_
= inf
Cstab.P
_
_
_
_
_
W
1
(1 + PC)
1
W
2
PC(1 + PC)
1
__
_
_
_
(A.2)
where W
1
and W
2
problem.
Assume that the problem (A.2) satises (W
2
N
o
), (W
2
N
o
)
1
H
, then optimal
H
controller can be written as, [2, 15],

C
opt
(s) = E
opt
(s)m
d
(s)
N
1
o
(s)F
opt
(s)L(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
opt
(s)L(s)
(A.3)
85
where E
=
_
W
1
(s)W
1
(s)
2
1
_
, and for the denition of the other terms, let the right
half plane zeros of E
(s) be
i
, i = 1, . . . , n
1
, the right half plane poles of P(s) be
i
,
i = 1, . . . , l and that of W
1
(s) be
i
i = 1, . . . , n
1
. Then, F
(s) = G
(s)
n
1
i=1
s
i
s+
i
where
G
(s)G
(s) =
_
1
_
W
2
(s)W
2
(s)
2
1
_
E
_
1
(A.4)
and G
, G
1
, and L(s) =
L
2
(s)
L
1
(s)
, L
1
(s) and L
2
(s) are polynomials with degrees
less than or equal to (n
1
+l1) and they are determined by the following interpolation
conditions,
0 = L
1
(
i
) + m
n
(
i
)F
(
i
)L
2
(
i
) i = 1, . . . , n
1
(A.5)
0 = L
1
(
i
) + m
n
(
i
)F
(
i
)L
2
(
i
) i = 1, . . . , l
0 = L
2
(
i
) + m
n
(
i
)F
(
i
)L
1
(
i
) i = 1, . . . , n
1
0 = L
2
(
i
) + m
n
(
i
)F
(
i
)L
1
(
i
) i = 1, . . . , l.
The optimal performance level,
opt
, is the largest value such that spectral factor-
ization (A.4) exists and interpolation conditions (A.5) are satised.
Similarly, the suboptimal controller achieving the performance level, , can be
dened as,
C
subopt
(s) = E
(s)m
d
(s)
N
1
o
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
1 + m
n
(s)F
(s)L
U
(s)
(A.6)
where >
opt
and L
U
(s) =
L
2U
(s)
L
1U
(s)
=
L
2
(s)+L
1
(s)U(s)
L
1
(s)+L
2
(s)U(s)
with U H
, U
1. The
polynomials, L
1
(s) and L
2
(s), have degrees less than or equal to n
1
+ l. Same inter-
polation conditions are valid with instead of . Moreover, there are two additional
86
interpolation conditions for L
1
(s) and L
2
(s):
0 = L
2
(a) + (E
(a) + 1)F
(a)m
n
(a)L
1
(a) (A.7)
0 = L
1
(a) (A.8)
where a R
+
is arbitrary. The above terms and notations are the same as in [2, 15].
87
APPENDIX B
IF AND FI PLANT CALCULATIONS
In this section, we compute certain terms appearing in the examples at Chapter
3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
B.1 Example: IF Plant Case
The optimal controller for the plant (3.6) can be written as,
C
opt
=
H
T
+F
T
H

opt
+F

opt
where
H
T
= H
T,1
(s) + H
T,2
(s)e
0.2s
+ H
T,3
(s)e
0.5s
(B.1)
and
H
T,1
=
0.04538s
4
0.05342s
3
+ 0.02919s
2
+ 0.00159s + 0.0001374
s
5
+ 2.705s
4
+ 2.745s
3
+ 1.402s
2
+ 0.3897s + 0.02744
,
H
T,2
=
0.005009s
4
+ 0.03183s
3
0.06717s
2
+ 0.02217s 0.0003618
s
5
+ 2.705s
4
+ 2.745s
3
+ 1.402s
2
+ 0.3897s + 0.02744
,
H
T,3
=
0.06594s
5
+ 1.065s
4
+ 2.713s
3
+ 2.039s
2
+ 1.156s + 0.262
s
6
+ 2.805s
5
+ 3.015s
4
+ 1.677s
3
+ 0.5299s
2
+ 0.06641s + 0.002744
,
F
T
= F
T,1
(s) +F
T,2
(s)e
0.2s
+F
T,3
(s)e
0.5s
(B.2)
and
F
T,1
=
0.05462s 0.01897
s
2
0.9344s + 3.787
,
F
T,2
=
0.005009s + 0.04994
s
2
0.9344s + 3.787
,
F
T,3
=
0.06594s + 0.08666
s
2
0.9344s + 3.787
.
88
Note that H

opt
= H
R
1
+ H
R
2
and F

opt
= F
R
1
+F
R
2
where
H
R
1
= H
R
1
,1
(s) + H
R
1
,2
(s)e
0.4s
(B.3)
and
H
R
1
,1
=
0.001218
s + 1
,
H
R
1
,2
=
0.0008883s + 0.003325
s
2
+ 2s + 1
,
F
R
1
= F
R
1
,1
(s) +F
R
1
,2
(s)e
0.4s
(B.4)
and
F
R
1
,1
=
0.05903s
4
+ 0.1265s
3
+ 0.3086s
2
+ 0.2892s + 0.05386
s
5
1.181s
4
+ 4.09s
3
1.021s
2
+ 0.2921s 0.068
,
F
R
1
,2
=
0.02802s
4
0.05152s
3
+ 0.009902s
2
0.3267s 0.08069
s
5
1.181s
4
+ 4.09s
3
1.021s
2
+ 0.2921s 0.068
,
H
R
2
= H
R
2
,1
(s) + H
R
2
,2
(s)e
0.4s
(B.5)
and
H
R
2
,1
=
0.04701s
3
+ 0.1765s
2
+ 0.2979s + 0.4496
s
4
+ 2.605s
3
+ 2.484s
2
+ 1.154s + 0.2744
,
H
R
2
,2
=
0.06055s
3
0.009855s
2
+ 0.1892s 0.3028
s
4
+ 2.605s
3
+ 2.484s
2
+ 1.154s + 0.2744
,
F
R
2
= F
R
2
,1
(s) +F
R
2
,2
(s)e
0.4s
(B.6)
and
F
R
2
,1
=
0.04701s
3
0.1185s
2
0.2389s 0.3281
s
4
0.9344s
3
+ 3.859s
2
0.06794s + 0.2753
,
F
R
2
,2
=
0.06055s
3
+ 0.007461s
2
0.1341s + 0.2218
s
4
0.9344s
3
+ 3.859s
2
0.06794s + 0.2753
.
B.2 Example: FF Plant Case
Since h
1
=
1
= 0, m
n
= M
R
is nite dimensional term, it is possible to do exact
cancellation in the term
K
as
89
K
=
_
1 + M
R
F

opt
L
_

opt
, (B.7)
=
_
(s2.255)(s
2
+0.077)(s
2
+2.408s+3.377)(s
2
1.835s+4.048)
(s+1.264)(s+0.789)(s0.240)(s
2
2.584s+3.524)(s
2
+2.757s+4.455)
_
_
33.705(s2.255)(s
2
+0.077)(s
2
1.835s+4.048)
(s+2.255)(s+1.264)(s+0.789)(s
2
+1.835s+4.048)
_ .
After cancellations, we obtain
K
=
0.030s
5
+ 0.193s
4
+ 0.635s
3
+ 1.265s
2
+ 1.472s + 0.915
s
5
0.067s
4
+ 0.813s
3
2.002s
2
+ 16.130s 3.771
. (B.8)
The optimal controller for the plant (3.17) can be written as,
C
opt
=
H
T
+F
T
H

opt
+F

opt
where
H
T
= H
T,1
(s) + H
T,2
(s)e
0.8s
(B.9)
and
H
T,1
=
0.393s
6
+ 1.399s
5
+ 1.657s
4
+ 0.533s
3
0.174s
2
+ 0.232s + 0.076
s
7
+ 0.275s
6
1.311s
5
+ 3.983s
4
+ 7.483s
3
+ 2.313s
2
0.686s 0.085
,
H
T,2
=
0.424s
6
+ 3.658s
5
+ 10.890s
4
+ 16.410s
3
+ 14.200s
2
+ 6.767s + 1.011
s
7
+ 0.275s
6
1.311s
5
+ 3.983s
4
+ 7.483s
3
+ 2.313s
2
0.686s 0.085
,
F
T
= F
T,1
(s) +F
T,2
(s)e
0.8s
(B.10)
and
F
T,1
=
0.293s
2
+ 0.680s + 0.893
s
3
4.090s
2
+ 8.185s 9.128
,
F
T,2
=
0.424s
2
1.808s + 0.548
s
3
4.090s
2
+ 8.185s 9.128
,
H

opt
= H

opt
,1
(s) + H

opt
,2
(s)e
0.5s
+ H

opt
,3
(s)e
0.7s
(B.11)
and
H

opt
,1
=
0.329s
5
0.070s
4
1.983s
3
2.187s
2
0.293s + 0.426
s
6
+ 0.175s
5
1.328s
4
+ 4.115s
3
+ 7.072s
2
+ 1.606s 0.846
,
H

opt
,2
=
0.640s
5
+ 1.411s
4
+ 0.420s
3
0.909s
2
0.754s 0.310
s
6
+ 0.175s
5
1.328s
4
+ 4.115s
3
+ 7.072s
2
+ 1.606s 0.846
,
H

opt
,3
=
0.127s
5
+ 1.773s
4
+ 6.175s
3
+ 6.913s
2
+ 3.290s + 0.824
s
6
+ 0.175s
5
1.328s
4
+ 4.115s
3
+ 7.072s
2
+ 1.606s 0.846
,
90
F

opt
= F

opt
,1
(s) +F

opt
,2
(s)e
0.5s
+F

opt
,3
(s)e
0.7s
(B.12)
and
F

opt
,1
=
0.299s + 1.164
s
2
2.757s + 4.455
,
F

opt
,2
=
0.641s + 0.526
s
2
2.757s + 4.455
,
F

opt
,3
=
0.127s 2.145
s
2
2.757s + 4.455
.
91
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Y. Choi and W. Chung, On the stable H
controller parameterization un-

der sucient condition, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 46,
pp. 16181623, 2001.
[2] C. Foias, H.

Ozbay, and A. Tannenbaum, Robust Control of Innite Dimensional
Systems: Frequency Domain Methods. Springer-Verlag, No.209 in LNCIS, 1996.
[3] M. Vidyasagar, Control System Synthesis: A Factorization Approach. MIT Press,
1985.
[4] M. Zeren and H.

Ozbay, On stable H
controller design, Proc. American

Control Conf., vol. 38, pp. 485488, 1993.
[5] J. Doyle, B. Francis, and A. Tannenbaum, Feedback Control Theory. New York:
MacMillan Publishing Co., 1992.
[6] J. Freudenberg and D. Looze, Right half plane poles and zeros and design trade-
os in feedback systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 30,
pp. 555565, 1985.
[7] A. Saif, D. Gu, and I. Postlethwaite, Strong stabilization of MIMO systems via
H
optimization, System and Control Letters, vol. 32, pp. 111120, 1997.
[8] D. U. Campos-Delgado and K. Zhou, H
strong stabilization, IEEE Transac-

tions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, pp. 19681972, 2001.
[9] C. Bonnet and J. Partington, Analysis of fractional delay systems of retarded
and neutral type, Automatica, vol. 38, pp. 11331138, 2002.
[10] R. Curtain and Y. Zhou, A weighted mixed-sensitivity H
-control design for

irrational transfer matrices, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 41,
pp. 13121321, 1996.
[11] D. Flamm and H. Yang, Optimal mixed sensitivity for SISO distributed plants,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 39, pp. 11501165, 1994.
92
[12] K. Hirata, Y. Yamamoto, and A. Tannenbaum, A hamiltonian-based solution
to the two-block H
problem for general plants in H
and rational weights,

Systems and Control Letters, vol. 40, pp. 8396, 2000.
[13] K. Kashima and Y. Yamamoto, Equivalent characterization of invariant sub-
spaces of H
2
and applications to optimal sensitivity problem, Proc. of the 42nd
IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 18241829, 2003.
[14] H.

Ozbay, M. Smith, and A. Tannenbaum, Mixed sensitivity optimization for a
class of unstable innite dimensional systems, Linear Algebra and its Applica-
tions, vol. 178, pp. 4383, 1993.
[15] O. Toker and H.

Ozbay, H
optimal and suboptimal controllers for innite

dimensional SISO plants, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 40,
pp. 751755, 1995.
[16] K. Zhou and P. Khargonekar, On the weighted sensitivity minimization problem
for delay systems, Systems and Control Letters, vol. 8, pp. 307312, 1987.
[17] C. Foias, A. Tannenbaum, and G. Zames, Weighted sensitivity minimization for
delay systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 31, pp. 763766,
1986.
[18] M. Smith, Singular-values and vectors of a class of Hankel-operators, Systems
and Control Letters, vol. 12, pp. 301308, 1989.
[19] H.

Ozbay, A simpler formula for the singular-values of a certain Hankel opera-
tor, Systems and Control Letters, vol. 15, pp. 381390, 1990.
[20] H. Dym, T. Georgiou, and M. C. Smith, Explicit formulas for optimally robust
controllers for delay systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 40,
pp. 656669, 1995.
[21] A. Kojima and S. Ishjima, Robust controller design for delay systems in the gap
metric, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 40, pp. 370374, 1995.
[22] G. Tadmor, Weighted sensitivity minimization in systems with a single input
delay: A state space solution, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization,
vol. 35, p. 14451469, 1997.
[23] G. Meinsma and H. Zwart, On H
control for dead-time systems, IEEE Trans-

actions on Automatic Control, vol. 45, pp. 272285, 2000.
[24] G. Meinsma and L. Mirkin, H
control of systems with multiple I/O delays

via decomposition to adobe problems, submitted to IEEE Transactions on Au-
tomatic Control.
93
[25] D. Youla, J. Bongiorno, and C. Lu, Single-loop feedback stabilization of linear
multivariable dynamical plants, Automatica, vol. 10, pp. 159173, 1974.
[26] S. Cusumano, K. Poolla, and T. Ting, On robust stabilization synthesis for
block structured modeling uncertainty, Conference on Decision and Control,
pp. 423428, 1987.
[27] P. Dorato, H. Park, and Y. Li, An algorithm for interpolation with units in H
with applications to feedback stabilization, Automatica, vol. 25, pp. 427430,

1989.
[28] M. Smith and K. Sondergeld, On the order of stable compensators, Automatica,
vol. 22, pp. 127129, 1986.
[29] Y. Ohta, H. Maeda, and S. Kodama, Unit interpolation in H
: bounds of norm
and degree of interpolants, Systems and Control Letters, vol. 17, pp. 251256,
1991.
[30] O. Toker, On the order of simultaneously stabilizing controllers, IEEE Trans-
actions on Automatic Control, vol. 41, pp. 430433, 1996.
[31] J.L.Abedor and K.Poolla, On the strong stabilization of delay systems, Proc.
Decision and Control Conference, pp. 23172318, 1989.
[32] K. Suyama, Strong stabilization of systems with time-delays, Proc. IEEE In-
dustrial Electronics Society Conference, pp. 17581763, 1991.
[33] C. Ganesh and J. Pearson, Design of optimal control systems with stable feed-
back, Proc. American Control Conf., pp. 19691973, 1986.
[34] A. Barabanov, Design of H
optimal stable controller, Proc. Conference on

Decision and Control, pp. 734738, 1996.
[35] S. Boyd, Stable H
-optimal controllers. Stanford University Information Sys-

tems Laboratory, Technical Report No. L-104-87-1, 1987.
[36] O. Toker and H.

Ozbay, On the structure of H
controllers, Proc. Conference

on Decision and Control, pp. 39493954, 1994.
[37] H. Ito, H. Ohmori, and A. Sano, Design of stable controllers attaining low H
weighted sensitivity, Proc. American Control Conf., pp. 13021306, 1997.

[38] A. Sideris and M. Safonov, Innity-norm optimization with a stable controller,
Proc. American Control Conf., pp. 804805, 1985.
94
[39] M. Jacobus, M. Jamshidi, C. Abdullah, P. Dorato, and D. Bernstein, Subopti-
mal strong stabilization using xed-order dynamic compensation, Proc. Amer-
ican Control Conf., pp. 26592660, 1990.
[40] M. Zeren and H.

Ozbay, On the synthesis of stable H
controllers, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 44, pp. 431435, 1999.

Ozbay, On the strong stabilization and stable H
-controller
design problems for MIMO systems, Automatica, vol. 36, pp. 16751684, 2000.
[42] P. Lee and Y. Soh, Synthesis of stable H
controller via the chain scattering

framework, System and Control Letters, vol. 46, pp. 19681972, 2002.
[43] Y. Halevi, On control of exible structures, Proc. of the 41st IEEE Conference
on Decision and Control, pp. 232237, December 2002.
[44] M. Smith, On stabilization and the existence of coprime factorizations, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 34, pp. 10051007, 1989.
[45] H.

Ozbay, M. Smith, and A. Tannenbaum, Mixed sensitivity optimization for a
class of unstable innite dimensional systems, Linear Algebra and its Applica-
tions, vol. 178, pp. 4383, 1993.
[46] R. Bellman and K. Cooke, Dierential-Dierence Equations. New York: New
York: Academic Press, 1963.
[47] D. Flamm and S. Mitter, H
sensitivity minimization for delay systems, Sys-

tems and Control Letters, vol. 9, pp. 1724, 1987.
[48] K. Lenz, Properties of optimal weighted sensitivity designs, IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, vol. 40, pp. 298301, 1995.

Ozbay, Comments solutions to the combined sensitivity and
complementary sensitivity problem in control systems, IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, vol. 43, p. 724, 1998.
[50] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A. Laub, and M. Chilali, LMI Toolbox. Natick, MA:
The Mathworks: Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, 1995.
[51] K. Zhou, J. Doyle, and K. Glover, Robust and Optimal Control. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[52] J. Doyle, K. Glover, P. Khargonekar, and B. Francis, State-space solutions
to standard H
2
and H
control problems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic

Control, vol. 46, pp. 19681972, 1989.
95
[53] Y. Chou, T. Wu, and J. Leu, On strong stabilization and H
strong-
stabilization problems, Proc. Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 5155
5160, 2003.
96

Gumussoy Suat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gumussoy Suat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OPTIMAL H-INFINITY CONTROLLER DESIGN AND

STRONG STABILIZATION FOR TIME-DELAY AND

controller design and strong stabi-

controller is obtained by a simple data transformation. Next, the solution of the

controllers. Internal unstable pole-

controller is obtained. The problem of strong stabilization is studied for time

performance level for time delay systems is given.

controller, such that it results in a stable H

controller. Finally, the

controller design for nite dimensional

controller with the order twice of the order

Unsal Soysal for everything they did in spite of distances.

Controller Design for Time-Delay

Controller Design for Neutral and Retarded Delay Systems . . . . . 16

Controllers for Delay Systems: Suboptimal Sensitivity . . . . 40

Controllers for Time-Delay Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

controllers, when the optimal controller has

controllers, when the optimal controller has

controller design for MIMO systems . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Controller for IF plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Controller for FI plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

optimal; (ii) F = 0: the

values resulting stable H

controller design for combustion chamber . . . . . . . . . 77

controller design for Example in [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

control. Since the

norm can interpreted as the worst-case gain of the system, it is an appropriate

control theory, will be used

controllers for time-delay systems and stable H

controller and stable H

controller design will be given and the outline of the

Controller Design for

controllers for linear time invariant systems with nitely

control problem for time-delay systems is studied

controller design problem is

controller can be obtained by this method

control of dead-time systems are given in [21, 22].

controller design for MIMO plants with

controller is also shown for MIMO plants with

satisfying certain interpolation conditions. A

controllers, by converting the problem into a Nevanlinna-Pick interpolation problem.

controller. This condition is expressed in terms of an Algebraic Riccati Equation

controller determined in [40] is less than or equal to 2n, where

problem is solvable, then a strongly stabilizing controller can

controller in [42] using chain-scattering approach where the controller

control design al-

controller design for innite dimensional systems is still an open

controller design for time-delay systems with nitely

controller design is extended for the time-delay plants with

controllers are shown for the same

controller in the feedback loop. Sta-

controller design for nite dimensional linear invariant MIMO plants is

controller design for general time-delay systems. In

controller design methods for time-delay systems,

controllers for systems with

controllers are computed for weighted sensitivity

satisfying (2.3), and all controllers stabilizing the feedback

and Y (s) N(s)Q(s)) = 0.

optimization problem reduces to

optimal controllers for innite dimensional

is simply a nite dimensional problem. On the other hand, minimizing

is an innite dimensional problem.

controllers for systems with