TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO.

11, NOVEMBER 1993

1671
M. Hou, Th. Schmidt, R. Schupphaus, and P. C. Muller, Normal
form and Luenberger observer for linear mechanical descriptor
systems, 1. Dyn. Syst., Measurement, Contr., to be published.
F. L. Lewis, A tutorial on the geometric analysis of linear time-
invariant implicit system, Automatica, vol. 28, pp. 119-137, 1992.
M. Hou and P. C. Muller, A singular matrix pencil theory for
linear descriptor systems, Symposiumon Implicit and Nonlinear
Systems, Ft. Worth, Texas, Dec. 14-15, 1992.
P. Van Dooren, The computation of Kroneckers canonical form
of a singular pencil, LinearAlgebra its Appl., vol. 27, pp. 103-140,
1979.
Expansion of det(A +B ) and Robustness Analysis
of Uncertain State Space Systems
S. J . Xu, M. Darouach, and J. Schaefers
Abstract-In this note, an expansion for the determinant of the sum
of two matrices, det ( A +B) , is given. A robustness analysis approach
for state space systems with uncertain parameters is investigated by
using Kharitonovs theorem. Some useful results are obtained. Several
illustrative examples are given.
I. INTRODUCTION
The stability problem of a family of polynomials has attracted
much attention in recent literature (see [1]-[27]), in which the
most notable result is Kharitonovs theorem introduced in con-
trol literature by Barmish [2], and Bose and Zeheb [3]. However,
there exist three restrictions in the application of Kharitonovs
theorem; 1) it is only applicable to the interval polynomials, 2) it
only considers the strict Hunvitz property of polynomials, and 3)
it assumes that all of the coefficients of polynomials vary inde-
pendently. More recently, many authors have become interested
in the activity of generalization of Kharitonovs theorem. The
strict Hunvitz property and the more general D-stability (i.e.,
the zeros of polynomials exist inside the special region D on the
complex plane, where, D can be the left-half plane, the unit
disk, or other special region) for the general polytopes of poly-
nomials have been discussed in [4]-[14]. The edge Theorem is
given [4]. Some corresponding frequency domain conditions are
obtained by means of the Hermite-Biehler theorem in [lS], [16].
The studies indicate that the minimum number of polynomials
needing to be checked is four for 6-order or more than 6-order
systems. For the systems with orders 3, 4, and 5, [17] indicates
that the polynomials needing to be checked are 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. For the same problem, [ 181gives the corresponding
frequency domain results. In practice, the majority of uncertain
systems have the characteristic polynomials with dependent co-
efficients. I n this case, Kharitonovs theorem degenerates as a
sufficient condition. Using this theorem, one will obtain a con-
servative robustness estimation. For the stability test of the
polynomials with linearly and multilinearly dependent coeffi-
Manuscript received J anuary 31, 1992; revised August 28, 1992.
S. J . Xu is with the CRPHT 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi, L-1359
Luxembourg, the LARAL CRAN CNRS UA-821, Route de Romain,
54400 Longwy, France and The Lab. of Flight Dynamics, Harbin Institute
of Technology, China.
M. Darouach is with the LARAL CRAN CNRS UA-821, Route de
Romain, 54400 Longwy, France.
J . Schaefers is with the CRPHT 6, rue Coudenhove-Kalergi, L-1359
Luxembourg.
IEEE Log Number 9208724.
cients, [4], [19]-[21] propose some useful methods to reduce the
conservativity, but for those with nonlinearly dependent coeffi-
cients, there is no general method to deal with this problem.
One must concretely deal with his/her problem based on the
specific situation. I n this case, the approach proposed by Wei
and Yedavalli [22] and Pujara [23] may be useful, but, generally
speaking, the conservativity cannot be eliminated.
In this note, we give a determinant expansion of the sum of
WO matrices, det(A +B), which is used to obtain the character-
istic polynomials of uncertain state space systems. Kharitonovs
theorem is applied to test the Hunvitz property of corresponding
polynomials. Some useful results are obtained and several illus-
trative examples are presented.
11. KHARITONOVS THEOREM AND EXPANSION
OF det(A +B )
Let us recall Kharitonovs theorem.
Let the interval polynomial be represented by
6(s) =6,) +6,s +6,s2 +.. + 8 n S n
x, I 6, 5 y , .
(1)
( 2 )
Lemma 1 (Khantonor 1978): The polynomial (1)-(2) is Hunvitz
with
if and only if the following four polynomials are Hunvitz:
Sl (s) =y, , + X I S +x2s2 +y,s +y4s4 +x5s5 +X 6 S 6 +.. +
a*($) = y o +y , s +x*s2 +X3S3 +y,s4 +y5s5 +X 6 S 6 +... +
6s) =xi , + X I S +y,s2 +Y3S +x4s4 +x5s5 +y,s6 +.. +
64(s) =x,, +yls +y2s2 +X 3 S 3 +x4s4 +y,s5 +y,s6 +... +.
(3a)
(3b)
(3c)
(3d)
Definition 1: r; det ( A / B ) is defined as a sum of the combi-
nation of determinants, in which the i rows of A are substituted
by the corresponding rows of B. For example, let A ={arj > and
B ={b,,] E R3x 3, then
Pro06 The various proofs can be found in [24]-[27].
ri det(A/B1) =det
a31 a32 a33 a31 a32 a33
+det[i i l ;:; ;;] a13
r:det(A/B*) =det
a31 32 33
+det[: ;: ; : I .
b,, 4 2 b33
Lemmu 2: Let A , B E R, then
n- 1
det(A +B ) =det(A) +det(B) + r,:det(A/B ) (4)
i = 1
0018-9286/93$03.00 0 1993 IEEE
1672 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1 I , NOVEMBER 1993
or
n
det ( A +B ) = r,: det ( A/ B' ) (5 )
i = 0
where det (.) represents the determinant of (.).
lemma see Appendix A.
For the properties of r: det ( A/ B' ) and the proof of this
111. ROBUSTNESS ANALYSIS OF UNCERTAIN
STATE SPACE SYSTEMS
Consider the following uncertain system:
X ( t ) =( A +AA) X( t ) (6)
where X E R", A is a constant matrix and AA an uncertain
matrix with lAAl 5 D, D is a nonnegative matrix,)(.)l represents
the module matrix of (.I.
Theorem I : System (6) is asymptotically stable if the following
polynomials are Hunvitz:
6I (s) =a, +bl s +b,s2 +u3s3 +ads4 +bss5 +b,s6 +... +
(7a)
S * ( S ) =U, +U, S +b,s2 +b3s3 +ads4 +asss +b,s6 +... +
(7b)
(7c)
(7d)
(8a)
(8b)
Proof: By using Lemma 2, the characteristic polynomial of
S 3 ( s ) =bo +b, s +a2s 2 +u3s3 +bds4 +bsss +ahsh +... +
S4( s) =b, +a,$ +a2s 2 +b3s3 +b4s4 +asss +U,S' +... +
where
ai =r;det[-(A +AA)/I J J ma
b, =ri det [ - ( A +AA)/l'],in
and I is an identity matrix.
(6) can be given by
det[sZ - ( A +AA11
=det [ - ( A +AA) +sZ1
=
n
r,: det [ - ( A +AA)/(sZ)'l
r',: det [ - ( A +AA)/ l ' l s'
1 = O
n
=
=det [ - ( A +AA)]
i = U
+rddet [ - ( A +AA)/Z1ls +...
+r;-I det[-(A +AA) / I n- l l s n- l +s"
from notation (8) and Kharitonov's theorem, the theorem is
proved.
Remark 1: The coefficients of the above characteristic poly-
nomial are not independent, so the theorem gives a sufficient
condition of the stability of system (6).
Definition 2: Let A ={ai j } E R"'", then S det(A) E R is
defined as a projection from RnX" to R, the Laplace expansion
of S det ( A ) is defined as:
n n
S det ( A ) = (a,,lS det ( Ai j ) = (n,lS det (Ai,) (9)
where A, , is the ij-th submatrix of A resulting from the deletion
of row i and column j , for example,
S det [ al l ] =lalll
i = 1 j = 1
Sdet [ "121 =lull1 la*J +lUl*l lu211.
a21 a22
The following relationships are obvious:
S det ( A ) 2 det ( A ) (10)
Sdet(- A) =Sdet(A). (11)
Theorem 2: System (6) is asymptotically stable if the following
6'(s) =e, +fl s +f 2 s 2 +e3s3 +e4s 4 +fsss +f 6s 6 +... +
polynomials are Hunvitz:
(12a)
s2(s) =e, +el s +f 2 s 2 +f 3s 3 +eds4 +esss +f 6 s 6 +... +
(12b)
~3 ( s ) =f,, +fls +e2s2 +e3s3 +f4s4 +f 5 s 5 +e6s6 +... +
(12c)
s4(s) =f, +el s +e2s 2 +f 3s 3 +f4s4 +esss +e& +... +
(12d)
with
det ( - A, ) +S det ( D, )
n - r -
+ e
,=1
fi =r,: det
i
n - r -
- c
j = 1
where A, and D, are the submatrices of A and D resulting
from the deletion of the i rows and corresponding i columns,
i.e., A, and D, are ( n - i )(n - i)-dimension matrices,
respectively.
Proof: From Theorem 1 and Lemma 2, we have
U, =r,: det [ - ( A +AA)/I'l,,, =r,l det [ - A, - AA,l,,,
=r; det(-A,) +det(-AA,)
n - 1 - 1
i
- i
+ r;-$ det [ -A, / (-AA, )' ]
I = 1
<r,: det(-A,) +Sdet(D,)
,=1
b, =r; det [ - ( A +AA)/Z'l,,, =r,l det [ - A, - AA,l,,,
det(-A,) +det(- AA,)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 1 I , NOVEMBER 1993
1673
hence f, I b, I a, I e,, i.e., interval [f, e,] 2 [b, a,]. Therefore,
if (12) are Hurwitz, which implies that (7) are also Hurwitz,
according to Theorem I, the system (6) is asymptotically stable.
For the low order systems ( n I 5), we have the following
corollaries.
Corollary 1: (n =2) The system (6) is asymptotically stable if
f, >0, i =0, I. Where
f o =det ( - A ) - S det ( D) - S det (A/dl ) - S det ( A / d , )
(14a)
and
fl =tr(- A) - tr( D) (14b)
tr(.) denotes the trace of (.) and (A/d,) denotes the submatrix
of A resulting from the substitution of the i-th row by, d,, the
i-th row of D.
Proof: We know that, for the four 2-order polynomials of
(12), the stability conditions are that all of the coefficients
of polynomials are positive, if f, >0 is true, then the above
conditions are satisfied.
Corollary 2: ( n =3, 4, and 5). The system (6) is asymptotically
stable if f, >0 and the following polynomials are Hunvitz,
respectively
1) for n =3
~ ' ( s ) =e,, +f l s + f 2 s 2 +s3 (15)
2) for n =4
6I (s) =e, +f,s +f , s 2 +e3s3 +s4
S2(s) =eo +e, s +f 2s2 +f 3 s 3 +s 4
(16a)
(16b)
3) for n =5
S1(s) =e, +f,s +f 2 s 2 +e3s3 +e4s 4 +s 5 (17a)
S2(s) =e , +el s +f 2 s 2 + f 3 s 3 +e4s 4 +s5 (17b)
S4( s ) = f o +e,s +e2s 2 +f 3 s 3 +f4s4 +s5 ( 17~)
where f, and e, are defined by (13).
corollary is proved immediately.
Proof: By noting Theorem 2 and the results of [17], the
IV. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
Example 1: Consider the system described by (6), where
det ( - A ) =14, S det ( D ) =1.25,
S det ( A / d , 1 =7,
S det (A/d,) =4.75
tr ( - A ) =9,
it is obvious that the condition of Corollary 1 is satisfied,
therefore the system is stable.
tr( D) =2
Example 2: Consider the system (61, where
where q1 and q2 are the uncertain parameter respectively, we
will give out the allowable bounds of q1 and q2 which the system
holds stable. We have
tr ( - A) =6, tr ( D) =lq21
the conditions for which Corollary 1 is true are:
1411<10, l q2l <6.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this note, we have given an important determinant expan-
sion of sum matrices, det ( A +B). Some useful robustness crite-
ria are derived for uncertain state space systems. The results
obtained are still conservative, the level of conservativity relies
on dependence of coefficients. The examples show that the
robustness estimation of Example 1 is conservative because of
the nonlinearly dependent coefficients resulting from uncertain
matrix AA. But, in the Example 2, these coefficients are inde-
pendent, therefore, the robustness estimation is necessary and
sufficient. How to reduce the conservativity of robustness analy-
sis for the polynomials with nonlinearly dependent coefficients,
is still a problem to be studied in the future.
APPENDIX A
The properties of combination ri det ( A/ B' ) :
1) r; det ( A/ B' ) =r;-' det ( B/ A' ) (A-1)
2) ri 'det(A/Bo) =det(A) (A-2)
(A-3)
3) r; det ( A / B " ) =det ( B)
if B =I . then
6) det(A/I ") =1. (A-6)
The proof of lemma 2:
This lemma can be proved by the induction. I n fact, from the
Laplace expansion of determinant of A +B directly, we know
that the lemma is true for n =2 and n =3. We assume that it is
true for n =k , and then prove that it is true for n =k +1. If
n =k, then
k - I
det ( A +B ) =det ( A ) +det ( B) + r; det ( A/ B' )
1 = 1
for n =k +I, the expansion of det ( A +B) based on the final
row of A +B is given by
1674
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 1993
where
the deletion of the i-th row and j-th column of (.). Then
{a,+,,,det[(A +B ) ~+I , I ]
represents the ij-th submatrix of (.) resulting from
k + l + l
det(A +B ) =(-1)
+bk+l , l det[(A +B)k+i ,i ]} +...
+ ( - l ) k + l + h { a k + l , h det[(A +B)k+i ,hI
+ ( - l ) k + l + k { a k + l , k det[(A +B)k+i ,kI
+bk+l ,kdet[(A +B)k+i ,kl )
+~, +~, ~+~d et [ ( A +B)k+i ,k+i I
+bk+l , k+l det[(A +B)k+i ,k+i I
+bk+l ,h det [ ( A +B)k+l .h]} +'..
hence
=r;+det ( A / B ' )
... ...
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 38, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 1993 1675
REFERENCES
V. L. Kharitonov, Asymptotic stability of an equilibrium posi-
tion of a family of systems of linear differential equations, Difjer-
entialnye Uracneniya, vol. 14, pp. 2086-2088, 1978.
B. R. Barmish, Invariance of the strict Hunvitz property for
polynomials with perturbed coefficients, IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., AC-28, pp. 935-937, 1984.
N. K. Bose and E. Zeheb, Kharitonovs theorem and stability
test of multidimensional digital filters, IEE Proc. G, vol. 133, pp.
A. C. Bartlett, C. V. Hollot, and H. Lin, Root locations of an
entire polytope of polynomials: It suffices to check the edges,
Math. Contr. Signals. Syst., vol. 1, pp. 61-71, 1988.
B. R. Barmish, A generalization of Kharitonovs four-polynomials
concept for robust stability problems with linearly dependent
coefficients, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp. 157-165,
1989.
H. Chapellat and S. P. Bhattacharyya, A generalization of
Kharitonovs theorem: Robust stability of interval plants, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp. 306-311, 1989.
Y. C. Soh, Stability of an entire polynomials, Inf. J. Contr.,
vol. 49, pp. 993-999, 1989.
M. Fu and B. R. Barmish, Polytopes of polynomials with zero in a
prescribed set, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp. 544-546,
1989.
I. R. Petersen, A new extension to Kharitonovs theorem, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, pp. 825-828, 1990.
A. Cavallo, G. Celentano, and G. de Maria, Robust stability
analysis of polynomials with linearly dependent coefficient pertur-
bations, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 36, pp. 380-384, 1991.
I. R. Petersen, A class of stability regions for which a
Kharitonov-like theorem holds, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
Y. C. Soh, Strict Hunvitz property of polynomials under coeffi-
cient perturbation, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34,
pp. 629-632, 1989.
Y. K. Foo and Y. C. Soh, A generalization of strong Kharitonovs
theoremto polytopes of polynomials, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
vol. 35, pp. 936-939, 1990.
-, Kharitonovs regions: It suffices to check a subset of
vertex polynomials, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 36,
pp. 1102-1105, 1991.
M. B. Argoun, Frequency domain conditions for the stability of
perturbed polynomials, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 32, pp.
913-916, 1987.
S. Dasgupta, P. J. Parker, B. D. 0. Anderson, F. J . Kraus, and
M. Mansour, Frequency domain conditions for the robust stabil-
ity of linear and nonlinear dynamical systems, IEEE Trans. Circ.
B. D. 0. Anderson, E. I. J ury, and Mansour, On robust Hunvitz
polynomials, IEEE Trans. Automat. Confr., vol. 32, pp. 909-913,
1987.
M. B. Argoun, On the stability of low-order perturbed polynomi-
als, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, pp. 180-182, 1990.
F. Kraus, B. D. 0. Anderson, and M. Mansour, Robust stability
of polynomials with multilinear parameter dependence, Int. J.
Contr., vol. 50, pp. 1745-1762, 1989.
B. R. Barmish and Z. C. Shi, Robust stability of a class of
polynomials with coefficients depending multilinearly on perturba-
tions, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, pp. 1040-1043, 1990.
J. Ackermann, H. Z. Hu, and D. Kaesbauer, Robustness analysis:
A case study, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, pp. 352-356,
187-190, 1986.
vol. 34, pp. 1111-1115, 1989.
Syst., vol. 38, pp. 389-397, 1991.
[26]
[27]
K. S. Yeung and S. S. Wang, A simple proof of Kharitonovs
theorem, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 32, pp. 822-823, 1987.
H. Chapellat and S. P. Bhattacharyya, An alternative proof of
Kharitonovs theorem, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp.
F. R. Gantmacher, Theory of Matrices, vol. 11, New York Chelsea,
1964.
448-450, 1989.
[28]
Nonlinear Control of Induction Motors: Torque
Tracking with Unknown Load Disturbance
Romeo Ortega, Carlos Canudas,
and Seleme I. Seleme
Abstrecf-In a recent note Ortega and Espinosa [SI presented a
globally stable controller for torque regulation of a complete induction
motor model with partial state feedback, i.e., no assumption of flux
measurement. The result was established under the assumptions that
both the desired and load torques are constant, that the former does not
exceed certain bounds which depend on the systems natural damping,
and that the motor parameters are known. In the present contributions
we extend these results in several directions. First, by adding mechani-
cal damping to the closed-loop system we relax the upper bound
condition on the desired torque. Second, we use a new controller struc-
ture that allows us to treat the case of time-varying desired torque.
Finally, a new estimator is proposed to handle time-varying (linearly
parameterized) unknown loads.
I. PROBLEM FORMULATI ON
We consider in this note the classical dq model [lo] of the
induction motor
(1.1)
(1.2)
with generated torque
1990.
1221 K. H. We1 and R. K. Yedavalli, Invariance of strict Hunvitz
property for uncertain polynomials with dependent coefficients,
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 32, pp. 907-909, 1987.
[231 L. R. Pujara, On the stability of uncertain polynomials with
dependent coefficients, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, pp.
756-759, 1990.
1241 N. K. Bose, A systemtheoretic approach to stability of sets of
polynomials, Contemporary Math., vol. 47, pp, 25-34, 1985.
[251 N. K. Boseand Y. Q. Shi, A simple general proof of Kharitonovs
generalized stability criterion, IEEE Trans. Circults Syst., vol. 34,
pp. 1233-1237, 1987.
Manuscript received March 14, 1992; revised August 21, 1992.
R. Ortega is with Genie Informatique, Universite de Technologie de
Compiegne, BP 649-60206, Cedex, France. He was a Visiting Professor
at the Department of Electrical Engineering, McGill University, Mon-
treal, Canada, when this work was completed.
C. Canudas is with the Laboratoire DAutomatique de Grenoble,
ENSIEG, BP 46, 38402, Saint Martin DHeres, France.
S. I. Seleme is on leave fromFaculdad de Engenharia de Joinville,
UDESC, Brazil and iscurrently with the Laboratoire DAutomatique, de
Grenoble, ENSIEG, BP 46, 38402, Saint Martin DHeres, France. His
work was supported in part by CNPq/CEFI, Brazil-France.
IEEE Log Number 9208709.
0018-9286/93$03.00 0 1993 IEEE