M. FLIESS AND H.
MOUNIER
An algebraic framework for Infinite Dimensional
Linear Systems
M. Fliess, H. Mounier
Abstract An algebraic theory for linear partial differential
systems controlled at the boundary is presented. Some structural
properties, analogous to the differential flatness of nonlinear
systems, are exposed yielding an easy solution to tracking
problems. Examples of the wave and Euler Bernoulli equations
are treated in some detail.
Index Terms Distributed parameter systems, Delay systems,
-freeness, Flatness, controllability, Trajectory tracking, Wave
equation, Euler-Bernoulli equation, Module theory.
I NTRODUCTION
T HE present document reports on recent works in the area
of infinite dimensional systems modelled through delay
differential or partial differential equations [1], [21], [23],
[24], [25], [26], [37], [41], [42], [48], [49], [50], [52]. The
adopted framework emphasizes on equation structure (rather
than solutions) in order to study a given system. When dealing
with linear equations, a system is associated with a module
over a differential ring, this notion playing for differential
equations the role played by vector spaces for linear algebraic
equations.
Keeping constructive notions in mind, a natural general-
ization of Kalmans controllability is -freeness [12], [13],
[21], [48], which allows the tracking of a reference trajectory
in a way bearing some analogy with flat finite dimensional
nonlinear systems (see [17], [18] and the references therein).
This property leads to a complete parametrization of the
system in terms of the so-called basic output. The obtained
formulae yield every variable of the system without any
integration of a differential equation.
These ingredients are complemented by the use of Mikusin-
skis operational calculus [45], [46] which avoids many of
the severe analytical difficulties encountered with the classic
Laplace transform (see, e.g., [8]). Another important tool is a
special type of C -functions, called Gevrey functions [27],
yielding exact solutions to rest to rest problems for distributed
parameter systems.
The paper is organized as follows. We first introduce ab-
stract linear systems over arbitrary commutative rings. Finite
dimensional linear systems are then presented within this
framework. We proceed to delay systems and relate them to
M. Fliess is with the Centre de Mathematiques et de Leurs Applications,
Ecole Normale Superieure de Cachan, 61 avenue du President Wilson, 94235
Cachan, France, AND with the Laboratoire GAGE, Ecole polytechnique,
91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France. E-mail: fliesscmla.ens-cachan.fr
H. Mounier is with the Robotics Center (CAOR) of the Ecole Nationale
Superieure des Mines de Paris, 6062, Boulevard Saint-Michel, 75272 Paris
Cedex 06, France, E-mail: Hugues.Mounier@caor.ensmp.fr
This work was partially supported by the European Commissions Training
and Mobility of Researchers (TMR) Contract # ERBFMRX-CT970137, by the
G.D.R. Medicis and by the G.D.R.-P.R.C. Automatique.
1
the boundary control of the wave equation. The final sections
are devoted to the heat and the Euler-Bernoulli equations.
Acknowledgments 1: Several parts of the work presented
here were done in collaboration with our colleagues and
friends P. Rouchon (Ecole des Mines de Paris, France) and
J. Rudolph (Technische Universitat Dresden, Germany).
I. A BSTRACT LINEAR SYSTEM THEORY
A. Basic definitions
Any ring R is commutative, with 1 and without zero
divisors.
Notation The submodule spanned by a subset S of an R-
module M is written [P ].
An R-system , or a system over R, is an R-module. Two
R-systems 1 and 2 are said to be R-equivalent, or equiva-
lent over R, if the R-modules 1 and 2 are isomorphic.
An R-dynamics, or a dynamics over R, is an R-system
equipped with an input, i. e., a subset u of which may be
empty, such that the quotient R-module /[u] is torsion. The
input u is independent if the R-module [u] is free, with basis
u.
An output y is a subset, which may be empty, of .
An input-output R-system, or an input-output system over
R, is an R-dynamics equipped with an output.
Remarks 1: 1) Kalmans module-theoretic setting [32] is
related to the state variable description, whereas our
module description encompasses all system variables
without any distinction.
2) In informal terms, a system with equation
a(s) x = b(s) u
where s stands for dt d
, the derivation operator, will be
represented by a linear structure consisting in all the
linear combinations of x and u and their derivatives such
that the above relation is satisfied
= {p(s) x + q(s) u| p, q R[s], a(s) x = b(s) u}
3) In the same informal terms, an input u = (u1 , . . . , um )
is such that every variable z of the system satisfies a
relation of the form:
m
X
p(s) z = qi (s) ui
i=1
where p, qi R[s], p 6= 0.
Let A be an R-algebra et and be an R-system. The A-
module A R is an A-system, which extends .
2 M. FLIESS AND H. MOUNIER
B. Relations
Let be an R-system. There exists an exact sequence of
R-modules [59]
0N F 0 (1)
where F is free. The R-module N , which is sometimes called
the module of relations, should be viewed as a system of
equations defining .
Associate to a free presentation [59], i. e., the short exact
sequence of R-modules
F1 F0 0 matrix M is of maximum rank.
where F0 and F1 are free. The R-module is said to be finitely
generated, or of finite type, if there exists a free presentation
where any basis of F0 is finite. It is said to be finitely presented
if there exists a free presentation where any basis of F0 and F1
is finite. The matrix corresponding, for some given bases, to
the mapping F1 F0 is called a presentation matrix of . If
the ring R is Noetherian, it is known [59] that the conditions
of being of finite type and of being finitely presented coincide.
Then (1) may be chosen such that both F and N are of finite
type. This latter case will always be verified in the sequel.
Example 1: Let us determine the R-module correspond-
ing to a system of R-linear equations
X called the transfer matrix of the input-output system, such that
a = 0, a A, = 1, . . . ,
=1
where 1 , . . . , are the unknowns. Let F be the free R-
module spanned by f1 , . . . , f . Let N F P be the module of
relations, i. e., the submodule spanned by =1 a f , =
1, . . . , . Then, = F/N . The s are the residues of the
f s, i. e., the canonical images of the f s.
Take, e.g., the system given in remark 1. The free R[s]-
module F is the one spanned by X and U (i.e. the set
{p(s) X + q(s) U | p, q R[s]} endowed with a linear
structure). The submodule N of relations is spanned by the
element a(s) X b(s) U (i.e. the set {r(s)(a(s) X b(s) U ) |
r R[s]} endowed with a linear structure). Then = F/N =
[X, U ]/[a(s) Xb(s) U ], with generators x and u, the residues
of X and U , and with relation a(s) x = b(s) u.
C. Laplace functor
1) Mathematical preliminaries: Let K the quotient field of
R. The K-vector space = K R is called the transfer
K-vector space of the R-system . The functor K R , from
the category of R-modules to the category of K-vector spaces,
is called the Laplace functor [14]. The (formal) Laplace
transform of any is = 1 . Let us briefly
review some basic properties.
1) The set {i | i I} is R-linearly independent
if, and only if, the set {i | i I} is K-linearly
independent. The rank of , which is written rk (), is,
by definition, the dimension of the K-vector space .
2) The kernel of the R-linear morphism , 7 , is (u1 , . . . , um ) and the output y = (y1 , . . . , yp ) are both finite
the torsion submodule of . The rank of an R-module
is therefore zero if, and only if, it is torsion.
Consider an R-module spanned by 1 , . . . , n which
satisfy
1
M ... = 0
n
where M Ann . The square matrix M is said to be of
maximum rank if det(M ) 6= 0. The matrix M is therefore of
maximum rank if, and only if, it is invertible as a matrix in
K nn .
Theorem 1: The R-module is torsion if, and only if, the
Proof: is torsion if, and only if, = {0}. Note that
is spanned by 1 , . . . , n which satisfy
1
M ... = 0
n
The zero solution is unique if, and only if, M K nn is
invertible.
2) Transfer matrices: Consider an R-system, where the
input u = (u1 , . . . , um ) and the output y = (y1 , . . . , yp )
are, for simplicitys sake, finite. Since /[u] is torsion,
spanK (u1 , . . . , um ) = . There exists a matrix T K pm ,
y1 u1
.. .
. = T ..
yp um
If u is independent, u1 , . . . , um is a basis of . Then, T is
unique.
D. Input-output inversion
1) Generalities: Consider again the R-system with finite
input u = (u1 , . . . , um ) and finite output y = (y1 , . . . , yp ).
Its output rank is, by definition, = rk ([y]). The system is
said to be left invertible (resp. right invertible) if = rk ([u])
(resp. = p).
The quotient R-module /[y] is the residual R-dynamics,
or the zero R-dynamics. The residual dynamics is said to be
trivial if /[y] = {0}.
Proposition 1: The R-system is left invertible if, and only
if, its residual R-dynamics /[y] is torsion.
Proof: From rk(/[y]) = rk ()rk ([y]), we obtain that
rk (/[y]) = 0 is equivalent to rk ([y]) = rk () = rk ([u]).
Remark 1: Left invertibility implies, since /[y] is torsion,
that y plays the role of an input. Any other system variable,
i. e., any element of , may be determined from the output.
Right invertibility means that the components y1 , . . . , yp of
the output are R-linearly independent.
2) Some illustrations: Assume that the input u =
and that u is independent, i. e., that rk([u]) = m. The next
two propositions are clear.
ALGEBRAIC FRAMEWORK FOR INFINITE DIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS 3

Proposition 2: An R-system with finite and independent II. F INITE DIMENSIONAL LINEAR SYSTEMS
input and finite output is left invertible (resp. right invertible) A. Modules over principal ideal rings
if, and only if, its transfer matrix is left invertible (resp. right
invertible). In this section R is theP principal ideal ring k[s], whose

The above system is said to be square if m = p. elements are of the form f inite a s , a k, where k
d
Proposition 3: Consider a square R-system with an inde- is a field, and s stands for dt . All k[s]-modules are finitely
pendent input. Then, the two following properties are equiva- generated and, therefore, finitely presented. The following two
lent: theorems are classic (see, e.g., [36])
the system is left invertible;
Theorem 2: For a k[s]-module M , the next two conditions
the system is right invertible.
are equivalent:
An R-system with an independent input, which is both left 1) M is torsion,
and right invertible, is necessarily square. 2) the dimension of M as a k-vector space is finite, i. e.,
Such a left and right invertible system is called invertible. dimk M < .
Theorem 3: Any k[s]-module M may be written

E. Different notions of controllability M F t(M )

An R-system is said to be R-torsion free controllable where t(M ) is the torsion submodule and F a free module.
(resp. R-projective controllable, R-free controllable) if the R- Corollary 2: Any k[s]-module is free if, and only if, it is
module is torsion free (resp. projective, free). Elementary torsion free.
homological algebra (see, e.g., [59]) yields the
Proposition 4: R-free (resp. R-projective) controllability
implies R-projective (resp. R-torsion free) controllability. B. State variable representation
Take an R-free controllable system with a finite output Let M be a torsion k[s]-module. The derivation s induces
y. This output is said to be flat, or basic, if y is a basis of . a k-linear endomorphism : M M . The next property is
The next proposition is clear. clear.
Proposition 5: Take an R-system with a finite output. Proposition 6: Let M be a torsion k[s]-module. It corre-
The output is flat if, and only if, the following two properties sponds to
hold x1 x1
the system is right invertible, s ... = F ... (2)

the residual dynamics is trivial.
xn xn
Then, is R-free controllable. Moreover, if there is an
independent input, the system is square. where F k nn is the matrix of with respect to a basis
Remark 2: This notion corresponds, for SISO finite di- x1 , . . . , xn of the finite dimensional k-vector space M .
mensional systems, to a transfer function with a constant Consider a k[s]-dynamics with input u = (u1 , . . . , um ).
numerator. Take, e.g., a second order system in mechanics Set n = dimk (/[u]). Take in a set = (1 , . . . , n ) whose
residue in /[u] is a basis. From (2) we obtain
M x + x + x = u
1 1 u1
where x is homogeneous to a length, u to a force, M to a mass, s ... = F ... + G s ... (3)
X
and to damping and stiffness coefficients respectively. This =1
system is R[s]-free, with basis x; its transfer function is n n um

1 where F k nn , G k nm . We say that is a generalized

M s2 + s + k state, and (3) a generalized state variable representation.
Let = (1 , . . . , n ) be another generalized state. As the
residues of and in /[u] are bases, we obtain
F. freeness

The next result [21] follows at once from [60, Proposition 1 1 u1
.. .
Q s ... (4)
X
2.12.17, p. 233]: . = P .. +

Theorem and Definition 1: Let be an Rsystem, A an R n n f inite um
algebra, and S a multiplicative part of A such that is S 1 R
free controllable. Then, there exists an element in S such where P GLk (n), Q k np . Note that the generalized
that is R[ 1 ]free controllable. The preceding system will state variable transformation (4) depends in general from the
then be called free. An output being a basis of R[ 1 ]R input and a finite number of its derivatives.
is called -flat or -basic. Assume that > 1 and J 6= 0 in (3). Following (4) set
Corollary 1: Let be an Rtorsion free controllable R
1 1 u1
system and S a multiplicative part of R such that S 1 R is a .. .. 1 ..
principal ideal ring. Then, there exists S such that is . = . + G s .
R[ 1 ]free controllable and is free. n n um
4 M. FLIESS AND H. MOUNIER

It yields III. D ELAY SYSTEMS

d
Let R be the ring k[s, e , ehs ], s playing the role of dt
hs
,
1 1 1 u1 h1 s hr s hi s
and e hs
= (e ,...,e ), the e being (localized)
s ... = F ... + G s ...
X
delay operators of non commensurate amplitudes; the hi s
n n =1 um (hi R, hi > 0) are the amplitudes of the corresponding
delays. This ring may be considered as derived from a ring of
The maximal order of derivation of u is at most 1. By polynomials in r + 1 indeterminates over the field k, knowing
induction we get that s, eh1 s , . . ., ehr s are algebraically independent. We
shall do so in all subsequent sections, except for the spectral
x1 x1 u1 controllability (subsection III-A.2) where this ring will be
s ... = A ... + B ... (5) viewed as a subring of the convergent power series ring k{{s}}.

xn xn um A (linear) delay system will be a k[s, ehs , ehs ]-system.

where A k nn , B k nm . We say that (5) is a Kalman
state variable representation. The n-tuple x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) is
a Kalman state. Two Kalman states x and x = (x1 , . . . , xn )
are related by
x1 x1
.. . states that, on a polynomial ring, a projective module is free.
. = P .. (6)
xn xn
where P GLk (n). As a matter of fact the presence of u and
of its derivatives as in (4) would yield in (5) derivatives of u
of order > 1. We have proved [12] the
Theorem 4: Any k[s]-dynamics admits a Kalman state vari-
able representation (5). Two Kalman states are related by (6).
C. Controllability
1) Definition: The three notions of free, projective and
torsion free controllability over k[s] coincide. A k[s]-system
is therefore said to be controllable [12], if the k[s]-module
is free.
2) Comparison: The dynamics (5), where u is assumed to
be independent, is said to be controllable a la Kalman if
rk(B, AB, . . . , An1 B) = n
Theorem 5: The Kalman state variable representation (5) is
controllable if, and only if, it is controllable a la Kalman.
Proof: First assume that (5) is uncontrollable in the
Kalman sense. Write the uncontrollable part in the Kalman
decomposition:
1
1
s ... = F ...
Note that the present definition slightly differs from previous
ones [21], [49], where the advances ehi s where not included.
A. Controllability
The resolution of Serres conjecture [61] due to Quillen [54]
and Suslin [64] (see also [35], [68] for a detailed exposition)
Thus, in the present context, Quillen-Suslins theorem may be
stated as [21]:
Proposition 7: A k[s, ehs ]system is k[s, ehs ]free con-
trollable if, and only if, it is k[s, ehs ]projective controllable.
Very many notions can then be considered (through torsion
freeness and freeness on the one hand, and through the varia-
tion of the ground ring on the other hand). Among these, the
k[s, ehs ]-free controllability is certainly the most appealing
from an algebraic viewpoint. The existence of a basis is an
extremely useful feature; but this notion seems quite rare in
practice (see, e.g., [48], [50]). The -freeness retains the main
advantage of freeness (existence of a basis) while being almost
always satisfied in applications. Indeed, we have [21]
Proposition 8: A torsion free controllable delay system
is free, where may be chosen in k[ehs , ehs ].
Note that a free controllable delay system is a free
k[s, ehs , ehs ]-module, which is weaker than the freeness over
k[s, ehs ]. This ehs -freeness is quite common in practice
for the special case of quasi-finite systems (see subsection III-
A.3).
1) Criteria for k[s, ehs ]free and k[s, ehs ]torsion free
controllability: We establish (see [21]) two criteria for
k[s, ehs ]free and k[s, ehs ]torsion free controllability. The
first one uses the resolution of Serres conjecture [54], [64],
and the second one1 uses [67].
Theorem 6: A delay system with presentation matrix P
of full generic rank is k[s, ehs ]free controllable if, and
only if,

n0 n0 (s, z1 , . . . , zr ) k r+1 , rk k P (s, z1 , . . . , zr ) =

where k is the algebraic closure of k. This rank criterion is
where F k n0 n0 . We know that the corresponding module equivalent to the common minors of P of order having no
is torsion. Therefore the module corresponding to (5) cannot common zero in k r+1 .
be free. A similar argument shows that free corresponds to Theorem 7: A delay system is k[s, ehs ]torsion free
a realization (5) which is controllable in the sense of Kalman. controllable if, and only if, the gcd of the minors of P
belongs to k.
Remark 3: See [13] for the comparison with Willems
behavioral approach [65]. 1 See [69] for related results.
ALGEBRAIC FRAMEWORK FOR INFINITE DIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS 5

Examples 1: 1) The system y + y = u is k[s, ehs ]-free sentation (see [12], [19], [20])
controllable, with basis y. fut fut
x1 x1 u1
2) The system y = (1 + )u is k[s, ehs ]-torsion free .. .. .
s . = A . + B .. (7)

controllable, but not k[s, ehs ]-free controllable.
3) The system y = u is free (e.g., k[s, ehs , ehs ]-free xfut
n xfut um
controllable), but not k[s, ehs ]-free controllable. L sn
y1fut
fut
e y1
1
x1 u1
2) Spectral controllability: The following definition of .. =
..
= C
..
+ D
..
spectral controllability extends previous ones (see, e.g., [4],
. . . .
[57]) in our context. ypfut eL p s yp xfut
n um
(8)
Definition 1: Let be a delay system, with presentation
matrix P of full generic rank . It is called spectrally where
controllable if
A k nn , B k nm , C
k pn , D k[s]pm ;
s C, rkC P (s, ehs ) =
n = dimk spec /spank[s] (u)
Set Sr = k(s)[ehs , ehs ] E, where E denotes the ring The definition of quasi-finite input-output systems leads at
of entire functions. We have the following interpretation of once to the following property
spectral controllability [49] (see also [28] and [5]): Proposition 11: The matrix T k(s, eLs )pm is the
Proposition 9: Let be a torsion free controllable delay transfer matrix of a nominal (i.e. perturbation-free) quasi-finite
system. It is spectrally controllable if, and only if, it is Sr input-output system if, and only if, it is of the form
torsion free controllable.
0

The following result [21] gives implication relationships be- eL1 s
tween the notion of k[s, ehs , ehs ]-freeness, k[s, ehs , ehs ]-
eL2 s


torsion freeness and spectral controllability. T = .. R
Proposition 10: Let be a delay system. The following

.

chain of implications is true 0 eLp s
free = spectrally controllable = torsion free.
Proof: The proof follows directly from the inclusion where R k(s)pm . In particular, T k(s, eLs ) is the
nominal transfer function of a quasi-finite SISO system if,
k[s, ehs , ehs ] Sr . and only if, T = ReLs , R k(s), L 0.
Such a transfer matrix, or function, will also be called quasi-
finite.
Example 2: The SISO unperturbed system sx = (1
3) Quasi-finite systems: These systems, quite frequent in
eLs )u, y = x, with a 1-dimensional state, is not quasi-finite,
practice, are typically ones with a transfer matrix of the form Ls

H(s)ehs with H(s) a transfer matrix without delays. since its transfer function 1es is not quasi-finite.
A linear delay system is said to be special if =
k[s, ehs , ehs ] k[s] spec , where spec is a finitely generated B. The wave equation
k[s]-module. It is equivalent saying there exists a presentation
matrix with entries in k[s]. Note that spec is not unique: it 1) The torsional behavior of a flexible rod: Consider [50]
may be replaced by ehs spec , spec spec , h spanN (h). the torsional behavior of a flexible rod with a torque applied
The k[s]-linear mapping spec , spec 7 = 1 spec to one end. A mass is attached to the other end. The system
is injective. We will therefore consider, with a slight abuse of is described by the one dimensional wave equation.
notations, spec as a subset of . A dynamics is said to be
quasi-finite if it is special and there exists spec such that the
2q 2q
control variables u belong to it. This spec is of course unique. 2 (, z) = (, z) (9)
2 z 2
It is called the fundamental dynamics, or module, and will be
q q 2q
designated by spec0 . (, 0) = u( ), (, L) = J 2 (, L) (10)
z z
A special input-output system is said to be quasi-finite if q
the next two conditions are satisfied: q (0, z) = q0 (z), (0, z) = q1 (z) (11)

1) its corresponding dynamics is quasi-finite,
Here q(, z) denotes the angular displacement from the unex-
2) there exists p non-negative real numbers L =
cited position at a point z [0, L] at time > 0, as shown
(L1 , . . . , Lp ) such that
in Figure 1; L is the length of the rod, the inverse of the
spec wave propagation speed, J the inertial momentum of the mass,
y1fut = eL1 s y1 , . . . , ypfut = eLp s yp 0 u( ) the control torque and q0 , q1 describe the initial angular
displacement and velocity, respectively.
The definition of quasi-finite input-output systems leads to
the following nominal (i.e. unperturbed) state-variable repre-
6 M. FLIESS AND H. MOUNIER

and the convolution product where

Z t Z t
(f g)(t) = (gf )(t) = f ( )g(t )d = g( )f (t )d
J 0 0

q (; z0 + dz ) According to a famous theorem due to Titchmarsh (see [45],

q (; z0 ) [46], [66]), C does not possess zero divisors, i. e.,
f g =0 f = 0 or g = 0

z The quotient field M of C is called the Mikusinski field. Any

element of M is called an operator.
Notations 1) A function f (t) in C is sometimes written {f (t)}
u( ) L
when viewed as an operator in M.
z0 + dz
2) The (convolution) product of two operators a, b M is
z0
written ab.
Examples 2: 1) The neutral element 1 for the (convolu-
0
tion) product is the Dirac operator. It is the analogue of the
Dirac distribution in Schwartzs distribution theory. The Dirac
operator 1 should not be confused with the Heaviside function
Fig. 1. The flexible rod. {1} C.
2) The inverse in M of the Heaviside function {1} is the
differential operator s. It obeys to the classic rules, i. e., if f
2) Delay system model: As well known, the general solu- C is C 1 , then {sf } = {f}+{f (0)}. The meaning of operators
tion of (9) may be written in the subfield C(s) of rational functions in the variable s
with
complex coefficients is clear. The fractional derivative
q(, z) = ( + z) + ( z) s appears as the inverse of 1s = { 2t1
}.
where and are one variable functions. The control objec- 3) The field M contains the subring S of piecewise continuous
tive will be to assign a trajectory to the angular position of functions R R with left bounded supports, i. e., for any
the mass; the output is thus f S, there exists a constant R, such that, for t < ,
f (t) = 0. The translation operator ehs , h R acts on f S
y( ) = q(, L) by ehs {f (t)} = {f (t h)}. The inverse of ehs is ehs .
Notice that es 1 is not an operator, i. e., it does not belong
Set t = (/J) , v(t) = (2J/ 2 )u(t) and T = L. Easy
to M.
calculations (see [50] for details) yield the following delay
A sequence an , n > 0, of operators is said to be opera-
system (compare with [9]):
tionally convergent [45], [46] if there exists an operator p such
y(t) + y(t 2T ) + y(t) y(t 2T ) = v(t T ) (12) that the an ps belong to C and converge almost uniformly, i. e.,
uniformly onP any finite interval, to a function in C. A series
One readily has of operators >0 P b is said to be operationally convergent
v = (eT s + eT s )y + (eT s eT s )y (13) if the sequence n=0 bn is operationally

convergent.
Example 3: The operator e s , C, may be defined by
which implies its Taylor expansion
Proposition 12: The delay system with equation (12) is
X n s n2
free, with basis y. e s = (14)
3) Tracking: Equation (13), yields the open loop control n!
n>0

vd (t) = yd (t + T ) + yd (t T ) + yd (t + T ) yd (t T ) which is operationally convergent [46]. This property does not

The displacements of the other points of the rod can be
obtained as (see [50])
1h
qd (z, t) = yd (t z + T ) + yd (t z + T ) + yd (t T + z)
2 i
yd (t T + z) B. Gevrey functions
IV. H EAT AND E ULER -B ERNOULLI EQUATIONS
A. Mikusinskis operational calculus
The set of continuous functions [0, +) C 1is a commu-
tative ring C with respect to the pointwise addition + where
(f + g)(t) = f (t) + g(t)
hold for the translation operator ehs , h R.
An operational function [45] is a mapping R M. One
can define the continuity, differentiability and integrability of
operational functions.
A C -function (t) of the real variable t is said to be
Gevrey [27]2 of order, or class, > 1 if for any compact
subset K R and for any integer n > 0
| (n) (t)| 6 C n+1 (n!) tK
2 This notion has now become classic among analysts (see, e.g., [30], [33],
[40], [55], [58]). See, also, [29] and [46] for a slightly different setting.
ALGEBRAIC FRAMEWORK FOR INFINITE DIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS 7

where C > 0 is a constant depending on and K.

The function

0 if t 6 0
(t) = d
e1/t if t > 0
where d > 0, is flat3 at t = 0, i. e., () (0) = 0 for > 1. It Fig. 2. A rotating Euler-Bernoulli beam with an end mass.
is not analytic but Gevrey of class (1 + d)/d (see, e.g., [58]).
The function


0 if t < 0 we assume that the function (t), which corresponds to the
Z t/T
operator , is flat at t = 0.
exp 1/( (1 ))d d




Theorem 8: The series
d (t) = 0
Z 1 if t [0, T ] X x2n X 1

d
exp 1/( (1 )) d

(n) (t) and (n) (t)
(2n)! (2n)!


n>0 n>0

10


if t > T
are absolutely convergent if, and only if, is a Gevrey function
(15)
of class strictly less than 2. Moreover, if is flat
at t = 0,
is also Gevrey of class (1 + d)/d. It is flat at t = 0 and t = 1.
then their
sums are respectively equal to cosh(x s) {} and
cosh( s) {}.
C. The heat equation Proof: The absolute convergence of the series follows at
In order to illustrate our tools consider a boundary control once from Stirlings formula
problem of the heat equation 1
n! en nn 2 2, n +
2 w(x, t) w(x, t)
2
= 0 < x < 1, t > 0 (16) The second part follows from the operational convergence of
x t the expansion (14).
The initial condition is w(x, 0) = 0. Its boundary conditions
are w(0,t)
x = 0 and w(1, t) = u(t) where u(t) designates the D. The Euler-Bernoulli equation
control variable. Operational calculus is replacing (16) with
1) The flexural behavior of a flexible rod: Take a flexible
the ordinary differential equation, where x is the independent
beam of length R, the end x = 0 of which is clamped into
variable,
a motors axle with angle , the other end x = R being a
wxx (x, s) sw(x, s) = 0 (17)
mass m [24]. Suppose that its motion obeys to the Euler
subject to the boundary conditions wx (0, s) = 0, w(1, s) = u Bernoulli equation (linear elasticity, weak flexion, inertia of
(u is an operator and w an operator function). The solution of the beam negligible with respect to the mass m, Coriolis forces
(17) reads negligible, i. e., small) with the boundary conditions:
cosh(x s) 2w 4w
w(x, s) = u(s) (18)
cosh( s) 2
= 4 (21)
x
Replace (18) by w(0, )
w(0, ) = 0, =0
x
cosh( s) w = cosh(x s) u 2 w(1, ) 3 w(1, ) d2 2 w(1, )
2
= 0, 3
= k1 2 ( ) + k2
which definesa C[P, Q]-module M , where P = cosh(x s), x x d 2
Q = cosh( s), which is torsion free, but not free. The where w(x, t) is the deformations field with respect to the
localized C[P, Q, (P Q)1 ]-module d2
rotating axis of angle and where d 2 is the control. For

notational simplicity, the quantity u( ) = k1 ( ) + k2 w(1, ),

C[P, Q, (P Q)1 ] C[P,Q] M
will play the role of an input
p variable. The following param-
is free, of rank 1, with basis = w(0, s): eters are the time t = R2 S/(EI) , the length r = Rx
where E, I, R, and S are the usual physical quantities.
w = cosh(x s) 2) Operational calculus and controllability: With initial

u = cosh( s) conditions
w(x, 0)
w(x, 0) = 0, =0
When setting
 X x2n dn  operational calculus associates to (21) the ordinary differential
w(x, t) = (t) (19) equation s2 w = w(4) . Its general solution reads
(2n)! dtn
n>0
 X 1 dn  w(x, s) = aex s
+ bex s
+ cex s
+ dex s

u(t) = (t) (20)

(2n)! dtn where = exp(i/4) and a, b, c, d are determined from the
n>0
boundary conditions. After some calculations [24], one has
3 The word flat possesses a large variety of mathematical meanings. Think h i
of flat coordinates, flat modules, etc. u = 2 2 + cosh( 2s) + cosh(i 2s) y
8 M. FLIESS AND H. MOUNIER
h
w(x, s) = (cosh( s) + cosh( s))(i sinh(x s)+
sinh(x s)) + (i sinh( s) sinh( s))
i2 s
( cosh(x s) + cosh(x s) y linear system interconnections, System Control Lett., 27, 1996,
where
(c + d) i sinh( s) sinh( s)
y = 1 and =
2 s s
Set u = y and w = y. The next result [24] is obtained in
the same manner as in Subsection IV-C.
Theorem 9: The C[, ]module spanned by u and
w is torsion free, of rank 1, but not free. The localized
C[, , ()1 ]module , is free, with basis y.
C ONCLUSION
The comparison with other approaches [3], [7], [11], [34],
[38], [39] on the control of partial differential equations will
be made in forthcoming papers.
Related methods have been recently employed for linear
systems with fractional derivatives [16], [31]. Other works in
progress [51], [53] are also exploring the same circle of ideas
for some types of infinite dimensional nonlinear systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] Y. AOUSTIN, M. F LIESS , H. M OUNIER , P. ROUCHON and J.
RUDOLPH, Theory and practice in the motion planning control
of a flexible robot arm using Mikusinski operators, Proc. 4th
Symp. Robotics Control, Nantes, 1997, pp. 287293.
[2] Z. A RSTEIN, Linear systems with delayed control: a reduction,
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 27, 1982, pp. 869879.
[3] A. B ENSOUSSAN, G. DA P RATO, M.C. D ELFOUR and S.K.
M ITTER, Representation and Control of Infinite Dimensional
Systems, vol. 1 & 2, Birkhauser, Boston, 1992 & 1993.
[4] K. B HAT and H. KOIVO, Modal characterizations of control-
lability and observability for time-delay systems, IEEE Trans.
Automat. Contr., 21, 1976, pp. 292293.
[5] B RETH E , D. and L OISEAU , J.J., Stabilization of time-delay
systems, Journal europeen des systemes automatises, 31, 1997,
pp. 10251042.
[6] C.I. B YRNES , M. S PONG and T.J. TARN, A several complex
variables approach to feedback stabilization of linear neutral
delay-differential systems, Math. Systems Theory, 17, 1984,
pp. 97133.
[7] R.F. C URTAIN and H.J. Z WART , An Introduction to Infinite
Dimensional Linear Systems Theory, Springer, New York, 1995.
[8] G. D OETSCH, Theorie und Anwendung der Laplace-
Transformation, Springer, Berlin, 1937.
[9] S. D RAKUNOV and U. O ZG UNER, Generalized sliding modes
for manifold control of distributed parameter systems, in
Variable Structure and Lyapounov Control, A. S. Zinober, Ed.,
Lect. Notes Control Inform. Sci. 193, pp. 109129. Springer,
London, 1994.
[10] F. D UBOIS, N. P ETIT and P. ROUCHON, Motion planning and
nonlinear simulations for a tank containing a fluid, Proc.5th
European Control Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany, 1999.
[11] A. E L JAI and A.J. P RITCHARD, Capteurs et actionneurs dans
lanalyse des systemes distribues, Masson, Paris, 1986.
[12] M. F LIESS, Some basic structural properties of generalized
linear systems, Systems Control. Lett., 15, 1990, pp. 391-396.
[13] M. F LIESS, A remark on Willems trajectory characterization of
linear controllability, Systems Control Lett., 19, 1992, pp. 43-45.
[14] M. F LIESS, Une interpretation algebrique de la transformation
de Laplace et des matrices de transfert, Linear Algebra Appl.,
203-204, 1994, pp. 429-442.
[15] M. F LIESS and H. B OURL ES, Discussing some examples of
pp. 1-7.
[16] M. F LIESS and R. H OTZEL , Sur les systemes lineaires a
derivation non entiere, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, IIb-324, 1997,
pp. 99-105.
[17] M. F LIESS, J. L EVINE , P. M ARTIN and P. ROUCHON, Flat-
ness and defect of non-linear systems: introductory theory and
applications, Internat. J. Control, 61, 1995, pp. 1327-1361.
[18] M. F LIESS, J. L EVINE , P. M ARTIN and P. ROUCHON, A Lie-
Backlund approach to equivalence and flatness of nonlinear
systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 44, 1999, pp. 928937.
[19] F LIESS , M. and M ARQUEZ , R., Continuous-time linear pre-
dictive control and flatness: a module-theoretic setting with
examples, International Journal of Control, 73, 2000, pp. 606
623.
[20] F LIESS , M., M ARQUEZ , R., D ELALEAU , E., and S IRA -
R AM IREZ H., Correcteurs proportionnels-integraux generalises,
ESAIM COCV, 7, 2002, pp. 2342.
URL: http://www.edpsciences.org/cocv.
[21] M. F LIESS and H. M OUNIER, Controllability and observability
of linear delay systems: an algebraic approach, ESAIM COCV,
3, 1998, pp. 301314.
URL: http://www.edpsciences.org/cocv.
[22] M. F LIESS and H. M OUNIER, Quasi-finite linear delay systems:
theory and applications, Proc. IFAC Workshop Linear Time
Delay Systems, Grenoble, 1998, pp. 211215.
[23] M. F LIESS and H. M OUNIER, Tracking control and -freeness
of inifinite dimensional linear systems, in Dynamical Sys-
tems, Control, Coding and Computer Vision, G. P ICCI and D.
G ILLIAM Eds., Birkhauser, 1999, pp. 4568.
[24] M. F LIESS , H. M OUNIER , P. ROUCHON and J. RUDOLPH,
Systemes lineaires sur les operateurs de Mikusinski et com-
mande dune poutre flexible, ESAIM Proc., 2, 1997, pp. 183
193.
URL: http://www.edpsciences.com/cocv.html.
[25] M. F LIESS , H. M OUNIER , P. ROUCHON and J. RUDOLPH,
Controlling the transient of a chemical reactor: a distributed
parameter approach, Proc. CESA 98, Hammamet, Tunisia, 1998.
[26] M. F LIESS , H. M OUNIER , P. ROUCHON and J. RUDOLPH,
A distributed parameter approach to the control of a tubular
reactor: a multi-variable case, Proc. CDC, 1998.
[27] M. G EVREY, La nature analytique des solutions des equations
aux derivees partielles, Ann. Sci. Ec. Norm. Sup., 25, 1918,
pp. 125190.
[28] H. G LUESING -L UERSSEN, Linear Delay-Differential Systems
with Commensurate Delays: An Algebraic Approach, Springer,
Berlin, 2002.
[29] I.M. G UELFAND and G.E. C HILOV, Les distributions, vols. 2
& 3, Dunod, Paris, 1964 & 1965.
[30] L. H ORMANDER, The Analysis of Partial Differential Opera-
tors, vol. 1, Springer, Berlin, 1983.
[31] R. H OTZEL , Contributions a la theorie structurelle et la com-
mande des systemes lineaires fractionnaires, These, Universite
Paris-Sud, Orsay, 1998.
[32] R.E. K ALMAN , L. FALB and M.A. A RBIB, Topics in Mathe-
matical System Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969.
[33] H. KOMATSU, Microlocal Analysis in Gevrey classes and
in complex domains, in Microlocal Analysis and Applications,
L. Cattabriga and L. Rodino, Eds., Lect. Notes Math. 1495,
pp. 161236. Springer, Berlin, 1991.
[34] V. KOMORNIK, Exact Controllability and Stabilization, Wiley,
Chichester & Masson, Paris, 1994.
[35] T.Y. L AM, Serres Conjecture. Springer, Berlin, 1978.
[36] S. L ANG, Algebra, 3rd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA,
1993.
ALGEBRAIC FRAMEWORK FOR INFINITE DIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS 9

[37] B. L AROCHE , P. M ARTIN and P. ROUCHON, Motion planning [64] A.A. S USLIN, Projectives modules over a polynomial ring
for the heat equation, Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control, 10, are free (in russian), Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 229, 1976,
2000, pp. 629643. pp. 1063-1066 (english translation: Soviet. Math. Dokl., 17,
[38] J.L. L IONS, Controle optimal des systemes gouvernes par des 1976, pp. 1160-1164).
equations aux derivees partielles, Dunod, Paris, 1968. [65] J.C. W ILLEMS, Paradigms and puzzles in the theory of dynam-
[39] J.L. L IONS, Controlabilite exacte, perturbations et stabilisa- ical systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 36, 1991, pp. 259-
tion des systemes distribues, vol. 1 & 2, Masson, Paris, 1988. 294.
[40] J.L. L IONS and E. M AGENES, Problemes aux limites non [66] K. YOSIDA, Operational Calculus, Springer, New York, 1984.
homogenes et applications, vol. 3, Dunod, Paris, 1970. [67] D.C. YOULA and G. G NAVI, Notes on n-dimensional system
[41] A.F. LYNCH and J. RUDOLPH, Flachheitsbasierte Rands- theory, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., 26, 1979, pp. 105111.
teuerung parabolischer Systeme mit verteilen Parametern, Au- [68] D.C. YOULA and P.F. P ICKEL , The Quillen-Suslin theorem and
tomatisierungstechnik, 48, 2000, pp. 478486. the structure of n-dimensional elementary polynomial matrices,
[42] A.F. LYNCH and J. RUDOLPH, Flatness based boundary control IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., 31, 1984, pp. 513518.
of a nonlinear parabolic equation modelling a tubular reactor, [69] S. Z AMPIERI, Modellizzazione di Sequenze di Dati Mutlidi-
Nonlinear Control in the Year 2000, A. I SIDORI, F. L AMNABHI - mensionali, Tesi, Universita di Padova, 1993.
L AGARRIGUE and W. R ESPONDEK Eds., pp. 4554, Springer-
Verlag, 2000.
[43] J. M ARSHALL , H. G ORECKI, A. KORYTOWSKI and K. WAL -
TON Time delay systems stability and performance criteria with
applications, Ellis Horwood, New York, 1992.
[44] P. M ARTIN, R.M. M URRAY and P. ROUCHON, Flat Systems,
in Plenary Lectures and Mini-Courses, ECC 97, G. Bastin and
M. Gevers, Eds., Brussels, 1997, pp. 211-264.
[45] J. M IKUSI NSKI, Operational Calculus, vol. 1, Pergamon, Ox-
ford & PWN, Warsaw, 1983.
[46] J. M IKUSI NSKI and T.K. B OEHME , Operational Calculus,
vol. 2, Pergamon, Oxford & PWN, Warsaw, 1987.
[47] A.S. M ORSE , Ring models for delay-differential systems, Au-
tomatica, 12, 1976, pp. 529531.
[48] H. M OUNIER, Proprietes structurelles des systemes lineaires a
retards : aspects theoriques et pratiques, These, Universite Paris-
Sud, Orsay, 1995.
[49] H. M OUNIER, Algebraic interpretations of the spectral con-
trollability of a linear delay system, Forum Mathematicum, 10,
1998, pp. 3958.
[50] H. M OUNIER , P. ROUCHON and J. RUDOLPH, Some examples
of linear systems with delays, J. Europ. Syst. Autom., 31, 1997,
pp. 911925.
[51] H. M OUNIER and J. RUDOLPH, Flatness based control of non-
linear delay systems: Example of a class of chemical reactors,
Internat. J. Contr., 71, 1998, pp. 838-871.
[52] H. M OUNIER , J. RUDOLPH , M. F LIESS and P. ROUCHON,
Tracking control of a vibrating string with an interior mass
viewed as delay system, ESAIM COCV, 3, 1998, pp. 315321.
URL: http://www.epdsciences.org/cocv
[53] N. P ETIT, Y. C REFF and P. ROUCHON, Motion planning for
two classes of nonlinear systems with delays depending on the
control, Proc. CDC, 1998.
[54] D. Q UILLEN, Projective modules over polynomial rings, Inven-
tiones Math., 36, 1976, pp. 167-171.
[55] J.P. R AMIS, Series divergentes et theories asymptotiques, Soc.
Math. France, Marseille, 1993.
[56] B. R AO, Uniform stabilization of a hybrid system of elasticity,
SIAM J. Contr. Optim., 33, 1995, pp. 440454.
[57] P. ROCHA and J.C. W ILLEMS, Behavioral controllability of
D-D systems. SIAM J. Contr. Opt., 35, 1987, pp. 254264.
[58] L. RODINO, Linear Partial Differential Operators in Gevrey
Spaces, World Scientific, Singapore, 1993.
[59] J. ROTMAN, An Introduction to Homological Algebra, Aca-
demic Press, Orlando, 1979.
[60] L.H. ROWEN, Ring Theory, Academic Press, Boston, 1991.
[61] J.P. S ERRE , Faisceaux algebriques coherents. Annals. of
Math., 61, 1955, pp. 197278.
[62] E. D. S ONTAG, Linear systems over commutative rings: a
survey, Richerche di Automatica, 7, 1976, pp. 134.
[63] M.W. S PONG and T.J. TARN, On the spectral controllability of
delay-differential equations, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., 26,
1981, pp. 527528.