Robust

ROBUST
CONTROL
DESIGN:
A POLYNOMIAL
APPROACH
ROBUST
CONTROL
DESIGN:
A POLYNOMIAL
APPROACH
Theodore E. Djaferis
Electrical and Computer Engineering
University0'Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts
...
"
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC
ISBN 978-0-7923-9617-8 ISBN 978-1-4615-2293-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-2293-5
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available

from the Library of Congress.
Copyright ~ 1995 by Springer Science+Business Media New York

Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1995
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1995
Ali rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of
the publisher. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.
Printed on acid-free paper.

To Mary
u but a prudent wife i8 from th.e Lord" Provo 19:14

CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES xv
PREFACE xvii
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 The Control Problem 1
1.2 Book Outline 7
2 SYSTEM DYNAMICS 15
2.1 System Representations 15
2.2 Feedback Configurations 18
2.3 Stability 21
2.4 Stability of Interconnected Systems 24
2.5 'V-Stability 26
2.6 Performance 28
3 STABILITY TESTS 35
3.1 Polynomial Stability 35
3.2 The Routh-Hurwitz Stability Criterion 36
3.3 The Nyquist Stability Theorem 38
3.4 The Finite Nyquist Theorem 40
4 UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUST STABILITY 51

4.1 Uncertainty in System Models 51
4.2 Robust Stability 54
V11l ROBUST CONTROL DESIGN: A Polynomial Approach
4.3 Performance as Robust Polynomial Stability 57

4.4 Robust Performance as Robust Polynomial Stability 59
4.5 Value Sets of Uncertain Polynomials 64
4.6 Rectangular Value Set Overbound 69
4.7 The Need for Robust Analysis and Design Tools 74
5 SOME ROBUST STABILITY TESTS 79

5.1 Polynomial Family Stability 79
5.2 Zero Exclusion Condition 80
5.3 Interval Polynomials 81
5.4 Edge Theorem 82
5.5 A Finite Frequency Test 83
5.6 The Finite Matched Phase Theorem 95
5.7 Simultaneous Polynomial Stability 99
6 THE FINITE INCLUSIONS THEOREM 107

6.1 Robust 'V-Stability 107
6.2 A Finite Number of Polynomial Families 114
6.3 Application of FIT to Robust Analysis 116
6.4 Relationship with Simultaneous Polynomial Stability 119
7 FIT BASED V-STABILIZATION 123

7.1 FIT for Synthesis 123
7.2 FIT Based Algorithm for 'V-Stabilization 125
7.3 Example 1: Mass-Spring-Mass System 127
7.4 Example 2: Automatic Bus Steering System 132
7.5 Example 3: A FIT Software Package 141
7.6 Simultaneous Plant Family Stabilization 144
7.7 An SSFIT Software Package 150
7.8 Other SSFIT Synthesis Algorithms 155
8 FIT SYNTHESIS FOR ROBUST

PERFORMANCE 159
8.1 Robust Performance Synthesis as Robust Polynomial Stabi-
lization 159
8.2 A FIT based Robust Performance Synthesis Algorithm 164
Contents IX
8.3 Example: FIT Robust Pedormance Synthesis 167
9 FIT SYNTHESIS FOR ROBUST

MULTIOBJECTIVE PERFORMANCE 175
9.1 Robust Pedormance Synthesis as Simultaneous Polynomial
Family Stabilisation 175
9.2 An SSFIT Based Robust Performance Synthesis Algorithm 180
9.3 Example: Seeker Stabilisation Loop 183
10 ROBUST DESIGN VIA SIMULTANEOUS

POLYNOMIAL STABILlZATION 195
10.1 Robust Stabilization as Simultaneous Polynomial Stabilization 195
10.2 Single Parameter Uncertainty 197
10.3 Multiple Parameter Uncertainty 204
lOA The Interval Plant Family 215
10.5 Nominal Performance Synthesis via Simultaneous Polynomial
Stabilization 217
10.6 Robust Performance Synthesis via Simultaneous Polynomial
Stabilisation 221
11 FIT FOR ROBUST MULTIVARIABLE DESIGN 225

11.1 System Representations 225
11.2 Feedback Configurations 229
11.3 Stability 232
11.4 Performance 235
11.5 Parameter Uncertainty 237
11.6 A Robust Pole Assignment Scheme 238
11.7 FIT Based Robust V-Stabilization 242
11.8 FIT Based Synthesis for Robust Performance 246
11.9 Robust Decoupling 251
REFERENCES 253
INDEX 259
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 1
1.1 n-link Robotic Manipulator 2
Chapter 2
2.1 Single Revolute Link Robotic Manipulator 16
2.2 Unity Feedback Configuration 19
2.3 Feedback Configuration with Sensor 19
2.4 General Feedback Configuration 20
2.5 Poles of Second Order System 27
2.6 Desired Pole Locations for Second Order System 27
2.8 Basic Feedback Configuration 32
Chapter 3
3.1 (a) poles and zeros of f, (b) image of r under f 39
3.2 A Closed Jordan Curve with Convex Interior 40
3.3 A Closed Jordan Curve with Convex Interior 42
3.4 A Large Semi-circular Contour (R ~ 1) 45
Chapter 4
4.1 a) multiplicative, b) additive, c) divisive 54
4.2 Unity Feedback Configuration, Parametric Uncertainty 55
4.3 Multiplicative Perturbation Unity Feedback 56
4.4 Performance as Robust Stability 59
4.5 Robust Performance, Parametric Uncertainty 59
4.6 Feedback System Affected by Measurement Noise 62
4.7 Robust Performance as Robust Stability 63
xu ROBUST CONTROL DESIGN: A Polynomial Approach
4.8 A 6 Convex Parpolygon 65

4.9 Parameter Overbound 71
4.10 Rectangular Overbound of Value Set 73
Chapter 5
5.1 Parameter Overbound 102
5.2 Rectangular Overbound of a 6 Convex Parpolygon 103
Chapter 6
6.1 Two Value Sets 113
6.2 Two Value Sets 114
6.3 IP(jw,a)1 vs. w for a = (al,a2) E {4,6} X {3,5} 117
6.5 A Plot of 4>( il. 75, EztO ll ) 118
Chapter T
7.2 A Mass-Spring-Mass System 128
7.3 Plot of the Value Set 4>(-0.7471 + j3.3, 011) 134
7.4 The Region 1) 135
7.5 Closed Loop Poles For Nominal Design 136
7.6 Closed Loop Poles of Parameter Space Method Controller 140
7.7 Closed Loop Poles of FIT Synthesis Controller 140
7.8 Bode plots of second order weighting functions 143
7.10 Value set and Convex Hull 150
7.11 The Value Set 4>(jl.9281,0:IT) 152
7.12 The Value Set 4>(j2, O~SPIT) 154
Chapter 8
8.1 Robust Performance, Parametric Uncertainty 161
8.2 Unit Disc, Square and Octagon Overbounds 164
8.3 Bode plot of the cost function TII1"1 172
8.4 Bode plot of the function IW1SI + IW2 TI 172
List of Figures X111
Chapter 9
9.1 Feedback System with Tracking and Noise Requirements 176
9.2 Robust Tracking as Robust Stability 176
9.3 Noise Attenuation ai Robust Stability 177
9.4 Performance as Robust Stability 178
9.5 Seeker Stabilization Loop 185
9.6 Step Response up to .02 seconds 192
9.7 Step Response up to .5 seconds 192
9.8 Magnitude of Transfer Function from Tel to 8 193
9.9 Magnitude of the Transfer Function We to WA 193
Chapter 10
10.2 Feedback System for Finite Plant Family 199
10.3 Unity Feedback Norm Bounded Multiplicative Uncertainty 200
10.4 Unity Feedback Norm Bounded Divisive Uncertainty 203
10.5 Unity Feedback Norm Bounded Additive/Divisive Uncertainty 208
10.6 Feedback Loop in Block Diagonal Bounded Perturbation Form 208
10.8 Square Overbound of a Disc 219
Chapter 11
11.1 Two Link Planar Manipulator with Prismatic Joints 228
11.3 General Feedback Configuration 230
11.5 RLC Circuit 240
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 3
3.1 Frequencies and Sectors Proving Stability 47
Chapter 6
6.1 Frequencies and Sectors Proving Robust Stability 113
6.2 Frequencies and Sectors Proving Robust Stability 114
Chapter 7
7.1 Controller Synthesis Data 130
7.2 Controller Synthesis Data 137
7.3 si
Values of 5 ) 139
Chapter 9
9.1 Seeker System Parameter Values 184
PREFACE
To a large extent, our lives on this earth depend on systems that operate auto-
matically. Many such systems can be found in nature and others are man made.
These systems can be biological, electrical, mechanical, chemical, or ecological,
to name just a few categories. Our human body is full of systems whose conti-
nued automatic operation is vital for our existence. On a daily basis we come
in contact with man made systems whose automatic operation ensures increa-
sed productivity, promotes economic development and improves the quality of
life. A primary component that is responsible for the automatic operation of
a system is a device or mechanism called the controller. In man made systems
one must first design and then implement such a controller either as a piece of
hardware or as software code in a computer. The safe and efficient automatic
operation of such systems is testimony to the success of control theorists and
practitioners over the years. This book presents new methods {or controller
design.
The process of developing a controller or control strategy can be dramatically

improved if one can generate an appropriate dynamic model for the system
under consideration. Robust control design deals with the question of how to
develop such controllers for system models with uncertainty. In many cases
dynamic models can be expressed in terms of linear, time invariant differential
equations or transfer functions. For such systems classical control techniques
have been used over the years to ensure "robustness" through the use of con-
cepts like gain margin and phase margin. Therefore, robust control design is
not new. The innovation in the last two decades is the development of compu-
tationally efficient design strategies for specific types of model uncertainty in
a more direct, automated and nonconservative manner. A perfect example are
the IS/ H oo synthesis methods.
Frequently, linear time invariant system models are generated that involve para-
meter uncertainty. During the 1980's there was an explosion of robust analysis
results for systems with real parameter uncertainty. The hope was that these
XVlli ROBUST CONTROL DESIGN: A Polynomial Approach
would lead to methods for robust controller synthesis as was the case with
~/ Hoc and systems with norm bounded uncertainty.
My emphasis in this book is robust control design for linear time invariant sy-
stem models with parameter uncertainty. Control system design is a very broad
and iterative process involving many steps but my focus here is the design (or
synthesis) ofthe controller. Throughout the book I use the words "design" and
"synthesis" interchangeably. My intention is not to summarize and compare
all the results that have appeared on the subject, but to present a polynomial
approach that I believe does lead to powerful new methods for robust control
design. My emphasis will be on single input single output systems but in the
last chapter I lay the foundation for multivariable design. The most promising
techniques are those derived from the Finite Nyquist Theorem (FNT) and its
corollary the Finite Inclusions Theorem (FIT). These results reduce the robust
control synthesis problem to an iterative process where at each iteration one
solves a finite number of linear inequalitiu in the controller parameters. The
formulation facilitates the development of methods for robust V-stabilization
and robust multiobjective performance synthesis and can lead to less conserva-
tive designs. Furthermore, it allows greater flexibility in the choice of controller
order. Insightful and computationally efficient robust control algorithms can
be developed based on these results and then implemented in software, thus au-
tomating the design process. Some of the proposed synthesis algorithms have
been programmed in the MATLAB environment and used in the solution of
some of the examples. However, no resources were available in order to pro-
duce a "professional" version of this software package and none is included with
the book. contrary to my desires.
Most of the results presented in this book have appeared in journal articles
and conference proceedings over the last few years. I felt that collecting this
material and presenting it in book form gives a clearer and more compelling
picture. My hope is to convince the reader that these techniques are powerful
tools for robust control synthesis and to stimulate further development.
Acknowledgements
There are several individuals without whose help the book would not be a
reality. My sincere gratitude first goes to my wife, Mary Djaferis, for her love,
devotion and continuous encouragement. She is a real blessing in my life!
Preface XIX
The research would not have been possible without the support of my students.
I gratefully acknowledge the efforts of Richard D. Kaminsky, who spearhea-
ded the development of the Finite Nyquis.t Theorem and the Finite Inclusions
Theorem. My professional association with him has been very productive and
enjoyable. Many thanks go to Wojciech Krawiec and Daniel P. Boudreau for
their valued efforts in working out examples which demonstrate that the theory
works. They were the ones who generated the first "experimental" version of
software code in MATLAB that implements some of the synthesis algorithms.
I also would like to take this opportunity to thank some other colleagues who
have had an impact on my work. I first would like to thank Christopher V.
Hollot who over the last decade provided support and encouragement. Ii was
a pleasure to cooperate with him on a number of projects including some that
are reflected in this book. Our discussions on technical matters as well as other
issues of general interest have been very rewarding. I wish to thank Bob Bar-
mish for his sincere help throughout the years. I have benefited a great deal
from our professional association and look forward to our future interactions. I
also wish to thank Doug Loose for his influence in broadening my perspective
on control system design.
In addition, thanks go to a number of graduate students in our Control Group,

Syed Ahmed, Edgardo Esster, Nikolaos Dennis, Prashant Mehta, Christam
Panayiotou, David Pepyne, Yuan Zheng, who attended a semester long semi-
nar in the Spring of 1995 based on an earlier draft of the book. Wengang Zhai
assisted me with Jl.1EX and answered many "computer" questions. I also wish
to thank the University of Massachusetts at Amherst for providing the compu-
ter facilities used for preparing the book in electronic form.
Theodore E. Djaferis
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 THE CONTROL PROBLEM

Our increasingly complex technological society, relies heavily on the automatic
operation of a multitude of dynamic systems that affect our lives. Most of
the time we are not even aware of the presence of the devices responsible for
this automatic operation, and this is how it should be. However, the effects
of a malfunction in these devices are very evident and could be catastrophic.
Appropriate monitoring and control equipment are found in power plants that
ensure the safe and efficient generation of power. An airplane autopilot guaran-
tees that passengers have a safe and comfortable flight. The antilock braking
system on an automobile guards against skidding on wet road sudaces, and the
airbag system provides an extra measure of protection in the event of an acci-
dent. The toner control system on a photo copier ensures high quality prints
day after day. A fundamental component in each of these systems which is
largely responsible for the automatic operation, is a device called the control-
ler. Physically, the controller could either be a piece of hardware or it could be
software code in a computer. Its job is to receive information about the system
from a variety of sensors, process it, and automatically generate commands for
corrective action. Its objective is to maintain system performance. Through-
out the years, Control Theory has made important contributions to our society,
by providing methods for constructing (designing) such controllers for a great
variety of dynamic systems and analysing their performance. This book focu-
ses on these issues and presents new methods for controller analysis and design.
Consider for example the automatic operation of an n-link robotic manipulator

which is a component of a flexible manufacturing cell. The robotic manipulator
2 CHAPTER 1
is to be used in a variety of assembly operations. It is equipped with a number

of sensors (that measure link positions and link velocities), and actuators (that
drive the links). A typical assembly operation of such a robot is composed of a
number of end effector trajectory following tasks. Such operations can be very
easily posed as standard feedback control problems. Actual link positions are
continuously measured and compared with the known reference link positions.
An error signal is created for each link which is the difference between actual
and reference link position. These error signals are used to generate corrective
commands for the link actuators so that the errors are driven to zero (ideally).
This situation is depicted in Figure 1.1.
actuator n-link
reference_ +
link errors commands y
Robotic
positions + Controller
- Manipulator
..
actual link positions
Figure 1.1 n-link Robotic Manipulator
The controller, plays a key role in the efficient automatic operation of such a
feedback control system. At the conceptual level one can think of this controller
as a function that takes the error signals (which frequently are "voltages"), and
maps them to appropriate actuator command signals (also "voltages"). Alter-
natively one can also think of such a controller as a dynamic system where the
"inputs" are the error signals and the "outputs" are the actuator commands. A
crucial question arises: How does one construct a controller that guarantees an
efficient task execution? This is perhaps the most fundamental question that
Control Theory seeks to answer. Another related question might be, given a
controller how does it affect the operation of the system? The first question is
concerned with 8ynthe8U or de8ign, whereas the second with analy8i8.
In general, these two are very challenging questions and there are ample reasons
why this is so. To begin with, the dynamic behavior of most physical systems
is nonlinear. It is almost impossible to accurately express by mathematical
relationships the system dynamics. Even if one could, these expressions would
Introduction 3
be extremely complicated. This is certainly true for the 6-link robotic mani-
pulator. In many cases there are system components that may not be known
precisely. Specifically, the description may involve parameters whose values are
only known to lie in some interval. Furthermore, the controller will rely on
measurements provided by the sensors, which will inevitably be corrupted by
"noise".
For "special classes" of systems one can provide very concrete answers to the
questions of controller analysis and design. One such important class, are
systems whose dynamic behavior can be described by a set of linear differen-
tial equations with constant, coefficients (i.e. Linear Time Invariant (LTI),
Systems). For this class of systems many very elegant solutions have been pro-
vided throughout the years. Chronologically, Cla88ical Control methods were
developed first and they were followed by Multivariable Control techniques.
New contributions to both methodologies continue to be made.
In Cla88ical Control the focus is on systems which are single input, single output
(SISO). System descriptions are either in the "time domain" in terms of "state
equations", or the "frequency domain" in terms of input-output "transfer func-
tions". The concept of .ttability is defined which captures important qualitative
dynamic features. Specifically, a very natural definition of stability requires
that if a system is excited by a "bounded" input then its output must also be
"bounded". Systems that do not exhibit this desirable dynamic behavior are
labeled un.ttable. It is true that many physical systems are inherently unstable
and require some form of compensation in order to be "stabilized". The use of
"feedback" has been shown to be a very successful compensation technique. Not
only is one interested in stability but in measures of relative .ttability. In other
words, one would like to know how far off is a stable system from being made
unstable. For a given system model parameters such as the "gain margin" and
"phase margin" provide partial information for this purpose. A system with
"large" gain and phase margin possesses some measure of rob'lJ.8tneu in that
the system would remain stable even if the model was perturbed. Fundamental
results such as the Nyquist Theorem are used to test for stability and the Ny-
quist plot answers questions about relative stability. The concept of stability
captures only some of the important dynamic characteristics. Others relate to
quic/cneu and accuracy of the response to excitation, the ability to reject di.ttur-
bance8, track reference command.t and attenuate noi.te effect.t. It is known that
the "sensitivity" and "complementary sensitivity" transfer functions of feedb-
ack systems have a strong influence on performance and that specific types of
robust stability ensure certain performance characteristics. The primary Classi-
4 CHAPTER 1
cal Control design methodology is Loop Shaping, which is a graphical approach.
In Multivariable Control the emphasis is on systems with many inputs and

outputs. One is again interested in dynamic characteristics such as stability,
relative stability and performance and can extend the definitions given for SISO
systems. Several methodologies for analysis and design have been proposed and
among the most successful and widely used are the H 00 and JJ methods and
LQG/LTR. "Norm bounded" uncertainty descriptions are used directly in both
analysis and design. An important advantage of these methods (H oo in parti-
cular), is that they provide elegant analytical solutions to a number of robust
analysis and synthesis problems. Moreover, there exist extensive software routi-
nes in MATLAB for carrying out the required computations. As a result robust
controller synthesis can be "automated" in large measure, something which is
very desirable. The majority of these methods were developed for multivariable
systems over the last two decades, but the results have had a strong impact on
the analysis and synthesis of SISO systems as well.
We are fortunate that even though the vast majority of physical systems have
distinct nonlinear dynamic characteristics, they nonetheless can be very fre-
quently modelled (at specific operating points) by LTI dynamic equations. This
allows for the development of insight about the operation of the physical sy-
stems and provides the basis for controller design, using the formidable LTI
tools generated over the last three decades. Very frequently, these LTI designs
suitably modified after simulation and testing on the nonlinear system itself,
provide very effective means of control. This approach is a very successful me-
thod of controller analysis and design for a great variety of dynamic systems,
including n--link robotic manipulators.
In order to more accurately describe the dynamic behavior of some physical

system, the postulated LTI models may involve uncertainty from a variety of
sources. In this setting, not only is one interested in stability and performance
for a single dynamic system but an entire family of systems. It is therefore im-
perative to develop controller analysis and synthesis methods that take uncer-
tainty into account. Such methods are referred to as being rob1Ut. Uncertainty
in a dynamic description can be represented in a variety of ways and it will
characterize the type of robustness achieved.
Introduction 5
In particular, consider the case when the family of plants is given by the transfer
function:
(1.1)
where P(s) is some "nominal" system transfer function, W(s) is some given
minimum phase stable transfer function and t::.. is any arbitrary stable and pro-
per transfer function with IA(jw)1 $ 1, for all w E [0,00). This is "norm
bounded" uncertainty and is referred to as a multiplicative perturbation. This
type of uncertainty can be used to describe a system model which is obtained
from input-output experiments on the actual system or to take into account
"unmodelled dynamics". Many analysis and synthesis results exist for feedback
systems with such plant descriptions. Not only is the theory highly developed,
but software routines in MATLAB are readily available for implementing the
required procedures.
A transfer function or state space description can include entries that are "pa-
rameters". It could be that a number of physical parameters (SUCh as masses,
inertias, friction coefficients etc.) are not known exactly, but rather have values
that lie in known intervals. This form of uncertainty is "parametric". A family
of transfer functions can then be given as:
P(s, a) (1.2)
where np(s, a), d,(s, a) are the numerator and denominator polynomials which
have coefficients that depend on the real parameter vector a, which takes va-
lues in some hypercube Oil' Parameter Space Methods have been developed for
such systems in the 1960's and 1970's which focus on the characteristic poly-
nomial. However, these methods do not provide complete answers for analysis
and synthesis problems and lack the mathematical rigor, theordical develop-
ment and power of H oo • The 1980's brought a flurry of research activity in
the area of analysis of systems with parameter uncertainty and existing lite-
rature contains many important results. Unfortunately, the effort was not as
successful in providing insight into the synthesis problem and the development
of robust design methods. It is true, that norm bounded perturbations can be
used to overbound plants with parameter uncertainty. Once this is done then
H oo techniques can be employed. However, the resulting solutions will invaria-
6 CHAPTER 1
bly be conservative, and a more direct approach is desirable. Furthermore, the

resulting controller from such an H oo design may have an unnecessarily high
order. Another alternative is p. synthesis. In practice, there are compelling
reasons to reduce design conservatism and controller complexity. It is therefore
important to develop robust synthesis techniques for systems with parameter
uncertainty that are insightful, more direct, leu conservative and address the
iBBue of controller order. Furthermore, these techniques must be computatio-
nally efficient and computer programmable for a highly automated controller
design.
We believe that some recent results have made such an approach possible. The
primary purpose of this book is to provide a comprehensive exposition of this
new approach to robust analysis and synthesis of systems with parameter un-
certainty. We present the underlying theory, and show how this formulation
can be used to solve a number of important control problems. We demonstrate
the resulting analysis and design methods on several examples. The approach
exploits the properties of the closed loop characteristic polynomial family and
its "value set" in the complex plane. The primary vehicle used for the inve-
stigation of robust stability is the Finite Incltuion6 Theorem (FIT), which is
derived from the Nyquist Theorem. In some sense, the strength of any ana-
lysis tool can be measured by the amount of insight it provides for controller
synthesis. A prime example of this is the Nyquist Theorem, which has been
the springboard for a multitude of design methods, including some of the ones
presented here. We will demonstrate that not only is FIT useful in robustness
analysis, but that it also provides an appropriate setting for the development
of powerful robust design tools for systems with parameter uncertainty.
We began this Chapter by pointing out the importance of automatic control

in our every day life. The design of the control system plays a crucial role in
the efficient operation of a dynamic system. However, control system design
does not merely consist of the design of a controller, but is a much broader
and iterative process. It involves: 1) the dynamic modelling of the system to
be controlled, 2) the choice and number of sensors and actuators to be used,
3) the specification of appropriate performance objectives, 4) the design of the
controller, 5) the computer simulation of the overall system, 6) the experimen-
tation (if possible), with the actual system. Even if the control system has
been flawlessly designed, the system may still not operate efficiently because
of some hardware or software failure. Depending on what risk one is willing
to take, this may necessitate the incorporation of failure detection mechanisms
Introduction 7
and redundancy. As important as these issues are, in this book we will just be
interested in controller design.
1.2 BOOK OUTLINE

In this book we focus on the analysis and synthesis of LTI systems with pa-
rameter uncertainty. The problems posed are certainly not new and over the
years many formulations and solution methods have been proposed. Our in-
tention is not to summarize all these methods and carry out a comprehensive
evaluation of their effectiveness. Our objective is to present in detail a power-
ful new approach which we believe complements existing methodologies. Our
hope is that the exposition will motivate the reader to use, evaluate and further
develop the methods presented.
The importance of the characteristic polynomial and its roots in the dynamic
behavior of a feedback system are very well known. There is extensive Control
literature on the subject that goes back at least half a century. The Parameter
Space Methods developed in the 1960's and 1970's are prime examples of work
in this direction. The study of root locations of polynomials, has a tradition
in the Mathematics literature of almost two centuries. It is a fact, that most
of the initial results were concerned with only a single polynomial rather than
a family of polynomials. In addition, early results dealt mainly with analysis,
as the issue of "design" is only of major concern to Control theorists and en-
gineers. During the 1980's, great strides were made in the area of analysis of
root locations of families of polynomials whose coefficients depended on para-
meters. However, most of these results did not provide the appropriate setting
for the development of design techniques.
There is no question that the problem of controller synthesis for systems with
parameter uncertainty is very challenging. The problem has not been comple-
tely solved and there are sincere doubts as to whether an elegant, computatio-
nally tractable solution such as the one for norm bounded uncertainty exists.
We believe that the methods presented in this book provide the control system
designer with powerful new tools. In this book we present a new characteristic
polynomial approach to the robust analysis and synthesis of systems with pa-
rameter uncertainty. Most of the book is devoted to single input, single output
systems. This is not due to an inherent limitation in the theory, but reflects
8 CHAPTER 1
the current state of development. Chapter 11, presents initial results on robust
V-stabilization and robust performance of multi input, multi output (MIMO)
systems.
Chapter 2, begins with the state space and transfer function representations
of LTI systems with no uncertainty. Some basic feedback configurations are
described as well as a general system interconnection structure. The notions
of stability (Hurwitz) and V-stability are defined, and their relationship to the
"poles" of the system is demonstrated. The "poles" of a system are merely the
roots of its characteristic polynomial. Very simply, a system is called stable
"Hurwitz" if all its poles lie in the open left half complex plane, it is called
"V-stable" if its poles lie inside a region V in the complex plane. Stability and
V-stability are then defined for interconnected systems, and the link is made
to the closed loop characteristic polynomial. Even though stability is of vital
interest in the operation of a dynamic system it is not the only interest. Other
performance specifications need to be imposed in order to achieve a desired
dynamic response. These can be requirements on the transient or steady state
response. For second order systems many of these requirements can be shown
to be expressible as constraints on the location of system poles. By employing
approximations these can also be used for higher order systems. Other perfor-
mance objectives such as asymptotic tracking and noise attenuation are shown
to be expressible as bounds on the magnitude of the sensitivity and comple-
mentary sensitivity transfer functions respectively.
Chapter 3, lists a number of "tests" for Hurwitz stability and V-stability. In-
deed, one of the most well known criteria for stability is the Routh-Hurwitz
criterion. Even though it has been heavily used in analysis it has not had a
substantial impact in synthesis. A more powerful result is the Nyquist Stabi-
lity Theorem, a result whose influence in control has been dramatic. One can
determine V-stability of a polynomial by examining its Nyquist plot which is
a curve in the complex plane. A variant of this result is introduced in this
Chapter, which provides an essential part of the foundation for this book. The
Finite Nyquist Theorem (FNT) is a test for V-stability of a polynomial when V
is a convez set. In contrast to the Nyquist Theorem, it only requires knowledge
of the approximate location of the value of the polynomial at a finite number
of points in the complex plane. This number could be as low as 2n + 1 where
n is the degree of the polynomial.
Chapter 4, emphasizes the fact that uncertainty can be introduced in order

to obtain more accurate mathematical models for physical systems. Uncer-
Introdu.ction 9
tainty can be norm bounded or parametric. One is now faced with having to
deal with not only individual systems but families of systems. The notions
of robust stability and robust V-stability need to be defined for interconnec-
tions of families of systems. As a result one is now concerned with the robust
stability of families of closed loop characteristic polynomials with parametric
coefficients. It is also shown that performance specifications can be expressed
as robust polynomial stability problems. It follows that this is also true for ro-
bust performance, i.e. performance specifications on families of systems. Some
multiobjective robust performance problems can be posed as simultaneous ro-
bust polynomial stability problems. This implies the need for the development
of robust analysis and synthesis methods. If one chooses a Nyquist Theorem
based characteristic polynomial approach, this would require the manipulation
of "value sets" of uncertain polynomials. In the case of polynomials with af-
fine parametric uncertainty in their coefficients, one can show that at a specific
frequency these value sets are parpolygon6. For more general types parameter
uncertainty (i.e. multiaffine, polynomic), the polynomial value sets have more
complicated shapes that present difficulties in analysis and synthesis. One way
of dealing with this problem is to introduce value set overbounds. It will later
be shown that such overbounds, even though they inevitably introduce con-
servatism, have a "twofold" benefit. They allow one to state analytical results
for robust stabilization and also lead to efficient algorithms for robust synthesis.
Chapter 5, presents some tests for robust stability. Since we are concerned
with polynomials with parameter uncertainty, our approach which is Nyquist
Theorem based requires the checking of polynomial value set locations in the
complex plane. If we know that a single polynomial in our family is stable (i.e.
its Nyquist plot has the appropriate number of encirclements of the origin),
then the entire family will be stable if for each point on the Nyquist path the
polynomial value set does not include the origin. This is referred to as the zero
ezcl'IUion condition. For interval polynomial families, Kharitonov's Theorem
showed that stability of four polynomials is a necessary and sufficient condition
for robust stability. For affine polynomial families the Edge Theorem guaran-
tees that checking the stability of the edge polynomials is a sufficient (and of
course necessary) condition for robust stability. One can show that for the af-
fine polynomial family one need not check for zero exclusion at every point on
the Nyquist path, but only at a finite number of "special" frequencies. In this
Chapter we present one such test which we refer to as the Finite Frequency Test
(FFTEST). In this test the "special" frequencies can be computed apriori from
given data. Another stability test that requires a finite number of frequency
checks is the Finite Matched Phase Theorem (FMPT). A degree n polynomial
q( 6) is stable if and only if there exists some stable degree n polynomial p( 6)
10 CHAPTER 1
such that their phases "match" mod 2?r at a specific number of frequencies. If
one is willing to employ overbounding and thus introduce some conservatism,
one can show that robust stability of the affine family can be guaranteed from
the stability of a finite number of polynomials. In Chapter 10, this rectangular
overbound of a polynomial value set will be shown to allow one to state analy-
tical results for robust stabilization and robust performance synthesis.
Chapter 6, suggests another test for robust 1>-stability, which is singled out
because of its importance. The Finite Inclusions Theorem (FIT) is actually a
corollary of the Finite Nyquist Theorem presented in Chapter 3. Assume that
the set 1> is the interior of some Jordan curve r, and that it is convex. This
new test guarantees robust 1>-stability for a general polynomial family, if the
polynomial value set at a finite number of points on r lies in an appropriately
chosen set of sectors in the complex plane. The number of such points is not
large and can be as small as 2n + I, where n is the degree of the polynomial fa-
mily. In the case of robust stability FIT requires a fewer number of points, and
this is further reduced because of symmetry in the case when the polynomials
have real coefficients. In the case of affine polynomial uncertainty FIT provides
a necessary and sufficient condition for robust 1>-stability. In view of the Map-
ping Theorem, FIT can be used to state a sufficient robust 1>-stability result for
multiaffine polynomial families. Furthermore, it is a test based only on "vertex
information". Examples are presented of how FIT is used as a robust stability
test and how it can be used in other robust analysis applications like the com-
putation of a weighted Boo norm. One can also show a relationship between
FIT and the robust stability test obtained through the rectangular overbound.
A certain equivalence is shown which involves the Hermite-Biehler Theorem in
the case when 90° sectors are used. It is important to mention that a major
difference between FIT and the Finite Frequency Test presented in Chapter 5,
is the fact in FFTEST the test frequencies can be computed apriori from the
given data.
The first six chapters complete the first part of the book and lay the foundation
for the synthesis methods presented in Chapters 7 through 11.
In Chapter 7, we present a method for robust 1>-stabilization based on the Fi-

nite Inclusions Theorem. In the case of multiaffine plant families, FIT requires
that the value set vertices lie in appropriate sectors at specific points along the
Nyquist path. Since controller parameters enter these vertex polynomials in
an affine manner (SISO case), a vertex will lie in such a sector if two linear
Introduction 11
inequalities in these parameters are satisfied. Collecting all these inequalities

from all vertices and all sectors, forms a set of linear inequalities in control-
ler parameters. This leads to an iterative solution of the robust V-stabilisation
problem where at each iteration a set of linear inequalitie, needs to be solved. A
FIT based algorithm for robust V-stabilisation is presented and used in several
examples. FIT robust stabilisation is an iterative process that takes an initial
controller and modifies it in order to guarantee stability for larger uncertain pa-
rameter sets. The initial controller can be designed using any design procedure.
However, the final outcome does depend on the initial choice so it is prudent to
choose the initial controller "intelligently". In the case of a plant family with
polynomic uncertainty, some form of multiaffine overbounding must be introdu-
ced in order to efficiently implement the FIT robust V-stabilization algorithm.
The Finite Inclusions Theorem can also be used as the basis of an algorithm for
,imultaneoUl plant family ,tabilization. There are several reasons why this pro-
blem may be of interest. In the case of multiaffine parameter dependence, one
may reduce the level of conservatism introduced by overbounding if the given
parameter set is divided into several subsets, thus giving rise to a corresponding
number of plant "sub-families". The value sets of these "sub-families" are then
independently overbounded. One is now faced with constructing a controller
that can simultaneously stabilise a finite number of polynomial families. A
second very important reason emphasized in Chapters 4 and 9, is that many
robust performance synthesis problems with multiple performance objectives
can be posed as simultaneous plant family stabilization problems. The SSFIT
algorithm will be proposed as a solution. In the FIT formulation, the solu-
tion of a single robust stabilization problem is an iterative process where at
each iteration a linear program is solved. Similarly, the SSFIT algorithm is
also an iterative process where at each iteration the linear programs from each
stabilization problem are "merged" to form a larger linear program which is
then solved. This process requires additional computation but presents no ad-
ditional conceptual difficulty. One can recall that the problem of simultaneous
plant stabilization, which addresses the case of a finite number of plants with
no uncertainty, received considerable attention in the 1970's and 1980's. For
two plants, the problem has been completely solved and the set of controllers
that simultaneously stabilize two plants can be characterized. It is well known
that the parity interlacing property plays a fundamental role in the existence of
simultaneous stabilizers. The question of simultaneously stabilizing more than
two plants is still open. In view of the fact that FIT does provide an algorithm
for simultaneous plant family stabilization one should expect that it can be
used for simultaneous plant stabilization. The solution is "algorithmic" rather
than "analytical", and the procedure is likely to be successful when applied in
situations where the plants to be simultaneously stabilized are somehow related.
12 CHAPTER 1
In Chapter 8, we consider the problem of robust asymptotic tracking design

as a representative of a large number of synthesis problems where performance
objectives are reflected as bounds on a lingle transfer function. These bounds
can be expressed as a single bound on a single transfer function. This class of
problems is referred to as lingle objective robust performance problems. It was
shown in Chapter 4 that asymptotic tracking for a system with no uncertainty
can be formulated as a robust polynomial stabilization problem. It follows that
robust asymptotic tracking for families of systems can also be posed as a robust
polynomial stabilization problem. In view of this fact, the FIT robust stabi-
lization algorithm developed in Chapter 7 can be used for robust performance
synthesis. Again the key idea is to take an initial controller design which does
not meet the desired robust performance specifications and use the FIT syn-
thesis procedure to redesign it in order to enhance robustness properties. The
initial controller can originate from any design procedure. The FIT synthesis
procedure is implemented on several examples where it is shown how it can
enhance initial H 00 solutions. We again point out, that FIT synthesis is an
iterative process where at each iteration a linear program is solved.
In Chapter 9, we address the problem of robust performance design where per-

formance objectives are expressed as bounds on several transfer functions. This
class of problems is referred to as multiple objective robust performance pro-
blems. In particular, we consider the standard problem of robust asymptotic
tracking and robust noise attenuation which involves bounds on the sensitivity
and complementary sensitivity transfer functions respectively. More objectives
can be added without any additional conceptual difficulty. A "Classical Con-
trol" solution to the problem would take the requirements imposed on the
sensitivity and complementary sensitivity transfer functions and "translate"
them to bounds on the the loop transfer function. Loop shaping would then
be carried out. Requiring a robust solution would certainly complicate mat-
ters as now the uncertainty would have to be reflected into these bounds. A
FIT synthesis approach, considers the problem as one of simultaneous plant
family stabilization. It focuses on the two polynomial families that need to
be simultaneously stabilized, one from the sensitivity transfer function and the
other from the complementary sensitivity. At each iteration, each generates a
set of linear inequalities that need to be satisfied. These two sets are merged
together to form a single linear program which is then solved. The SSFIT al-
gorithm developed in Chapter 7 can thus be used to solve multiple objective
robust performance problems. The iterative process takes an initial "nominal"
controller and redesigns it to enhance robustness properties.
Introduction 13
In Chapter 10, we show how the rectangular value set overbound allows one
to formulate "analytical" robust stabilisation results. Specifically, for an affine
plant family with k uncertain parameters, finding a controller that simulta-
neously stabilises 41: polynomials is sufficient to robustly stabilise the entire
family. For a family of interval plants, the number of polynomials that need
to be checked is reduced to 64. It is important to note that the overbounding
introduced makes these only sufficient robust stabilisation results. The issue
of how to construct controllers that simultaneously stabilize a finite number
of polynomials is also addressed. It is shown how these controllers can be ob-
tained as solutions of appropriately posed Hoc problems. Since overbounding
is introduced one is inevitably faced with the issue of conservatism. In some
cases one can compare the solutions obtained from Simultaneous Polynomial
Stabilization (SPS) with with those obtained from Hoc techniques and show
that they are not more conservative. In view of the connection between robust
stability and robust performance it is evident that the simultaneous polynomial
stabilization approach can provide solutions to robust performance synthesis.
Due to the introduction of overbounding one should expect that the solutions
obtained would involve conservatism. Hoc synthesis and the simultaneous po-
lynomial stabilization approach are carried out in an example and the results
are presented.
In Chapter 11, we turn our attention to MIMO systems. There is extensive

literature on the theory of multivariable systems and comprehensive methods
for robust synthesis. Even though most of the results were developed for sy-
stems with norm bounded uncertainty, these can be employed for systems with
parameter uncertainty, which is the focus of this book. Our main purpose here
is to suggest that FIT synthesis is not merely a tool for robust SISO design,
but that it can be effectively used in robust multivariable system design as well.
The material presented only lays the foundation and is by no means complete.
We assume that the plant is described by either a left or a right polynomial ma-
trix fraction representation and that the numerator and denominator matrices
have entries that depend on parameters. Interconnections of such systems can
be defined in exactly the same manner as in the SISO case and stability can
be shown to depend on the root locations of the closed loop characteristic po-
lynomial. This polynomial will have coefficients which depend on parameters.
Robust V-stability is defined in the natural way and the problem of robust
V-stabilization is the same as for SISO systems. The only difference is that
now the controller coefficients enter the closed loop characteristic polynomial
in a multiaffine manner. We explain how the FIT methodology can be applied
to this problem and suggest appropriate modifications to the FIT synthesis al-
gorithm. We also present a formulation for the robust asymptotic tracking and
14 CHAPTER 1
noise attenuation design problems which turns them into simultaneous polyno-
mial family stabiliJation problems. One can thus carry out multiple objective
robust performance synthesis using a modified SSFIT algorithm. This is again
an iterative process where at each iteration a linear program is solved.
The theory of Linear Time Invariant systems is very well developed and over
the last decade results have been produced that have successfully dealt with
many robustness issues. This book focuses on systems with parameter uncer-
tainty and suggests a different approach for robust analysis and synthesis. Our
methodology exploits the properties of polynomials and is based on fundamen-
tal results from mathematics and control. The methods can be applied to both
single input single output and multivariable systems. The results presented
complement existing theory and provide computationally efficient algorithms
for robust analysis and synthesis. The methods have been used for control-
ler design in several examples that employed software written in a MATLAB
environment. However, this software package does not meet "professional"
standards.
2
SYSTEM DYNAMICS
2.1 SYSTEM REPRESENTATIONS

Considering physical systems as "black boxes", one can characterize some as
having a single scalar input port and a single scalar output port. Such systems
are referred to as single input, single output. Frequently, the dynamic behavior
of such a physical system can be adequately described, (modelled) in terms of
linear, finite dimensional, time invariant, differential equations. A very useful
"time domain" dynamic system model is the date 6pace representation, which
is given by two equations. One is the date equation, a first order matrix
differential equation, and the other is the output equation :
x(t) = A x(t) + B u(t), y(t) = C x(t) (2.1)
The vector z is n-dimensional, u and yare scalars, A is a constant n x n matrix,

B a constant n x 1 matrix, and C a constant 1 x n matrix. The vector z(t) is
the 6tate of the system, u(t) is the input and y(t) is the output. The initial
condition of this differential equation is frequently taken to be the state at time
lero, x(O). In many cases, when laws of physics are applied to system models,
the resulting dynamic description is in terms of a scalar, nth order ordinary
differential equation with constant coefficients. Such an equation can be very
easily transformed to one in state space form.
A single input, single output system can also be modelled by an input-output

description in the "frequency domain" via the tran6fer function P(6) = 4f:r
16 CHAPTER 2
(2.2)
The transfer function P( 6) is just a rational function in 6, where np(6) and dp(6)
are polynomials is 6, with 8(d(6» = n, (8(·) denotes degree), and 8(np(6» < n,
(i.e. the transfer function is atrictl1l proper). We assume that np(6), dp(6) have
no common roots. The roots of np(6) and dp(6) are called zero6 and polel of
P(6) respectively. One can also give the input-output description of such a sy-
stem in the time domain in terms of a convolution operator. Systems described
in an input-output form are normally assumed to be initially "at rest". It is
straightforward to obtain the transfer function from the state space represen-
tation. This is done by taking the Laplace transform of (2.1) (assuming zero
initial conditions), and performing algebraic manipulations. One can easily
verify that P(I) = C(61 - A)-lB. Going the other direction is somewhat
more complicated, and the process is referred to as "realization". There are
a number of realization procedures that have been suggested in the control
literature [18].
Example 2.1 Single revolu.te link robotic manipu.lator
Consider the single revolute link robotic manipulator shown in Figure 2.1.
y
Figure 2.1 Single Revolute Link Robotic Manipulator
Assume that the it is operating in the z - y plane with no gravity. A torque

u(t), the "input", is provided by some actuator at the joint, and there is friction
System Dynamics 17
present which generates an opposing torque 7"J(t), proportional to the angular

velocity. If 8(t) is the angle the link makes with the x-axis, 7"J(t) = 1ft 8(t),
where I the coefficient of friction. The dynamics of this link can be modelled
using Newton's law by the differential equation:
d2 . d
I dt 2 8(t) + I dt 8(t) u(t) (2.3)
where I is the moment of inertia. Both I and I are assumed to be known

constants. The moment of inertia term depends on the link mass and geome-
try. Equation (2.3) is a second order linear differential equation with constant
coefficients. One can write this equation in date 6pace form, by letting:l: 1 = 8,
:1:2 = 8, and y(t) = 8(t). The state x is the column vector [:1:1, :1:2]' (where
" , " denotes matrix transpose), and 8 can be thought of as the "output":
x(t) = [~ _\] x(t) + [ ~ ] u(t), y(t) = [1 0] x(t) (2.4)
The input-output frequency domain description of this differential equation can

be obtained by taking Laplace Transforms (assuming that initial conditions are
lero). The system model is given by:
1
y(s) (Is f) u(s) (2.5)
6 +
where the "transfer function" is P(s)
In the state space representation (2.1), we have assumed that the input affects
the output indirectly through the state. In some cases the input does affect the
output directly through a scalar D, and the state space description becomes:
x(t) = A x(t) + B u(t), y(t) = C x(t) + D u(t) (2.6)

18 CHAPTER 2
The corresponding input-output transfer function is P(6) = C(61 - A)-l B

+D, which now is a proper rational function (numerator degree less than or
equal to the denominator degree).
It is important to emphasise that such dynamic descriptions are only appr~

ximate representations of the dynamic behavior of the actual physical system.
Specifically, in Example 2.1 it may be that the values of J and f are only known
to lie in certain intervals. This would imply that the system model is not just
a single transfer function but a "family" of transfer functions. In addition,
it may be that a more accurate system model for the single link manipulator
also includes other friction forces such as Coulomb friction. This of course will
change the system model and make it nonlinear. Modelling, is a very crucial
step in control system design. The final outcome of any design process is very
much dependent on the model chosen for the system and care must be taken
for this model to be "accurate". Even though modelling is a very important
step, we will not dwell this topic here. We will assume that system models are
given to us in differential equation or transfer function form, and that these are
accurate models. Even though modelling is not a major focus of this book, it
will nevertheless on many occasions help motivate our work on robust control.
2.2 FEEDBACK CONFIGURATIONS

Very frequently the desire to automatically control a physical system requires
its interconnection with other dynamic systems. Many subsystems are thus
connected to form an "overall system" and invariably this process involves the
use of "feedback". Consider the single link robotic manipulator of Section 2.1
whose dynamic behavior has been modelled by equation (2.5). This system
is referred to as the plant and is denoted by P. Assume that the position of
the tip (i.e the angle 6), can be measured. The objective is to have the link
tip "automatically" follow a prescribed trajectory r(t) , which is a function of
time. In order to accomplish this objective, a torque input u(t) to P must
be automatically provided. This is a standard tracking problem , which is
often solved by introducing feedbaclc. The actual tip position y(t) (frequently
converted to a voltage), is compared with the reference trajectory r(t) (also a
voltage), creating the error e(t) = r(t) - y(t). This error (a voltage), is
then used to drive another dynamic system, the controller C, whose output (a
torque), becomes the plant input. If we are to employ this control scheme we
need to "connect" the plant and controller in the feedback configuration shown
System Dynamics 19
in Figure 2.2. The plant P and the controller C become the "subsystems"
which comprise the interconnection.
---
r +
+
e
C
u
P
y
Figure 2.2 Unity Feedback Configuration
This is perhaps the simplest feedback configuration. The effects of "disturban-

ces" and "sensor noise" have not been included, and the sensor for measuring
y(t) has been assumed to have a transfer function equal to unity. A more
general (realistic) feedback configuration is shown in Figure 2.3, where the "di-
sturbance" d, the sensor dynamics F, and the "sensor noise" '7, are specifically
shown.
y
C P
Figure 2.S Feedback Configuration with Sensor
More complicated feedback configurations arise very naturally in the context

of solving a control problem. The subsystems which form the building blocks
of such interconnections can be described in either the time domain in terms of
state space equations or the frequency domain in terms of transfer functions.
It is important to be able to develop the dynamic description of the overall
system. This can either be done in the time domain by writing down the
"overall" state equations, or in the frequency domain by working with transfer
functions. We choose to develop the overall system dynamics in the frequency
domain employing transfer functions.
20 CHAPTER 2
It is important that the subsystems and their feedback interconnections are

well formed systems [15]. The concept of well formnell relates to the absence
of "impulses" in the response of a system , when it is exited by some initial
condition, or by some input u(t) whose Laplace transform is a strictly proper
transfer function.
Definition 2.1 A dynamic sy6tem with tramfer function P(s) is called well
formed if P( s) is a proper rational function.
Consider now a general feedback configuration [15], which is the interconnection

of Ie well formed dynamic systems Gi(S), 1 ~ i ~ Ie. Assume that the input
Ui(S) to each Gi(S) is the sum of some exogenous signal ri(s), as well as a
linear combination of outputs y;(s) from the systems G;(s), 1 ~ j ~ Ie.
In particular, if the systems C, P, F are relabeled as G ll G2 , G3 respectively,
and the exogenous signals r, d, TJ, as rl, r2, r3 respectively, Figure 2.3 becomes
Figure 2.4.
Y2
Y3
G3
Figure ~.4 General Feedback Configuration
For this interconnection we have that:
r3(S) + Y2(S)
(2.7)
Let r, u, y be the 3-vectors [rl' r2, r3]', [Ull U2, U3]', and [Yl' Y2, Y31' respectively.
Let the constant interconnection matrix E be:
System Dynamics 21
Define also the diagonal matrix G as:
Gl(S)
G(s) = ~
[
The interconnection can be expressed in matrix form as:
u(s) = r(s) + Ey(s), y(s) = G(S)U(6) (2.8)
One has to insure that the overall system is well formed. There are two transfer
function matrices associated with this interconnection that describe the overall
system dynamics. Since G1(s), G2(S), G3 (s) are single input, single output
systems these are 3 X 3 matrices. The one from exogenous signals r to u is
denoted as H... (s), and the one from r to y is denoted as H,.. (s). These are
given by:
H.... (s) = (I - EG(s»-l, (2.9)
Definition 2.2 The interconnected system in Figure 2../ is called well formed
if the transfer function matrices H...(s) and H,.. (s) are proper.
2.3 STABILITY
A most fundamental concept associated with every dynamic system is the no-
tion of stability. It has been defined in many ways, but in every case it describes
dynamic characteristics of a system in a qualitative manner. One concept of
stability applies to systems which are described by an input-output relationship
and are initially "at rest". For example, a system is called bounded input, boun-
ded output stable, (BIBO stable) ,iffor every input which is a bounded function
of time, the system output is also a bounded function of time. Consider a sy-
stem described in the frequency domain by equation (2.2). In the case when the
numerator and denominator polynomials of the rational function ::f: ~, have
no roots in common, the following result is wellltnown [18]:
22 CHAPTER 2
Theorem 2.1 Let P be A .yltem with A proper traB6fer function P(.) = ::f:~
where ",,(8), dp(.) Are polynomitd6 with no common root.. The .yltem P i6
BIBO ItAble if And only if the root. of dp(.) lie drictly in the left hAlf complez
plAne.
Frequently, the adjective "BIDO" is dropped from the label and such a system is
just called "stable". Since BIDO stability of some system P is strongly related
to its transfer function P(8), the transfer function itself is called "stable".
Occasionally it is called "Hurwitz stable" and the denominator of its transfer
function dp(8) is referred to as a "Hurwitz" polynomial A system which is not
stable is called uB6tAble. From this result, it follows that the system in example
2.1 is clearly not BIDO stable, as one of the roots of the denominator polynomial
is at the origin of the complex plane. One can immediately reach the same
conclusion, working directly with the definition of BIDO stability. Suppose
that the. input u(t) to the system is a unit step, a perfectly bounded signal.
After expanding G(8)U(") in partial fraction expansion form, it is evident that
the resulting sum will include a term proportional to -!t. The inverse Laplace
transform of such a term is the function t, an unbounded signal.
BIBO stability, provides a qualitative description of the input output properties

of a dynamic system. An alternate definition of stability [72], referred to as
LyApunov da.bility , gives a qualitative charactemation in terms of system 6ta.te.
Consider the system given by equation (2.1), where u(t) == 0, (i.e. no input):
x(t) = A x(t) (2.10)
For such a system, with initial condition Xo = x(to) at time to, let x(t, :1:0, to)
denote the solution of the differential equation for time t ~ to. A state X e
is called an equilibrium "tAte of this system, if x(t, :1:0, to) = x e , 'V t ~ to.
Clearly, for such a system the zero state is always an equilibrium state, since
with u(t) = 0 if the system is at the zero state at some time to, it will remain
there for all time thereafter. Other equilibrium states may exist, as determined
by the structure of the A matrix.
Lyapunov stability, characterizes the evolution of the system state when the
initial condition is "close" to some equilibrium state. Let the Euclidean norm
of x be given by II x II = (:[:=1:1:1) 1/2. The definition of a .tAble equilibrium
da.te is given as follows:
System Dynamics 23
Definition 2.1 An equilibrium Itate Xe of (!.10) iI cAlled ItAble if for Any

given to And positive E, there ezilt. A 6(E) such thAt" Xo - X e "<
6(E),
implies thAt II x(t, Xo, to) - Xe "< E, V t > o.
Stated difl'erently, an equilibrium state X e is stable if given any of its neighbor-

hoods, one can always start close enough to X e , so that the solution will never
leave this neighborhood.
Definition 2.4 An equilibrium stAte X e of (!.10) iI CAlled convergent, if for

Any to there ezilt. A 61(to) such thAt" Xo - Xe II < 61(to), implies
lim t --+ oo x(t, Xo, to) = Xe , V to.
In other words, if the system starts close enough to an equilibrium state, the
system "eventually" reaches it. Combining the two notions of stability and
convergence we have the concept of 46ymptotic ItAbility.
Definition 2.5 An equilibrium .tAte X e of (!.10) iI called 46ymptoticAlly6tAble

if it iI stAble And convergent.
The notion of stability and asymptotic stability of some equilibrium point of a

system as in (2.10), is tied very closely to structural properties ofthe A matrix.
In particular, it can be shown that [72]:
Theorem 2.2 The zero equilibrium stAte of system (2.10) iI 46ymptotically

ItAbie if and only if All the eigenvalues of the A matriz have negative real part..
The notions of stability, convergence and asymptotic stability just defined,

apply to general systems in state space form with no input (Le. "free"). Several
other concepts have been defined in the literature that build up from these
basic ideas, which are not needed or are less important for LTI systems. The
interested reader is referred to the abundant literature on the subject (see for
example [72]).
For LTI systems there is a very close connection between the notions of BIBO
stability and stability in the Lyapunov sense. Consider a system described by
a strictly proper transfer function as in:
24 CHAPTER 2
Y(") np(") u(,,) (2.11)

4(")
where np("), 4 (,,) are polynomials with no common roots and 8(4("» n.
The system can also be described by:
x(t) = A x(t) + B u(t), yet) = C x(t) (2.12)
a state space realization of (2.11), where the dimension of x is n (i.e. a minimal

realization [18]). One has the following result:
Theorem 2.3 The 6y6tem in (2.11) i8 BIBO "table if and only if the zero
equilibrium point of the free 6y.dem cOrTe6ponding to (2.12) i8 a6ymptotically
"table.
2.4 STABILITY OF INTERCONNECTED

SYSTEMS
Thus far the discussion centered on the stability of a single dynamic system.
However, there are ample reasons why we should be interested in stability of
interconnected systems. In Section 2.2, a feedback strategy was presented for
the control of a single link robotic manipulator, which "connected" the plant
P with a controller C. This particular plant was shown to be unstable and as a
result the first priority of a control design would be to make the interconnection
a stable system. Therefore, it is of great interest to generalize the concept of
stability to interconnections of systems.
Consider the general feedback configuration presented in section 2.2, which is

well formed. In this setting, BIBO stability should correspond to the notion
that for any bounded exogenous input rt(t), all system inputs Ui(t) and outputs
Yj(t) remain bounded. With regard to Lyapunov stability, if one aggregated the
state vectors from the individual subsystems into a single overall state vector,
and formed the overall system equation in state space form assuming the exo-
genous inputs are zero, one could study the stability properties of the overall
System Dynamics 25
system equilibrium points. In view of the results in the previous section, for
LTI systems one would expect that these notions would be equivalent. Assume
that the interconnection consisted of Ie subsystems, each with transfer func-
tion G,(6) = ::f:~, where the numerator and denominator polynomials have
no roots in common. Let D(6) be the Ie x Ie diagonal matrix containing the
denominator polynomials:
Let N(6) be the Ie x Ie diagonal matrix containing the numerator polynomials:
Define the matrix D g (6) as:
D g (6) = D(6) - EN(6) (2.13)
where E is the appropriate interconnection matrix. The determinant of D g (6)

is the cl06ed loop characteri8tic polynomial. We shall define stability of the
interconnected system in the following manner [15]:
Definition 2.6 A well formed interconnected 6y6tem a6 in Section 2.2 U 6table

if the roou of the determinant of D g (6) have all negative real part6.
In other words the interconnected system is called stable if the closed loop
characteristic polynomial is Hurwitz stable. One can prove that this definition
of stability corresponds to BIBO stability. One can also show that for LTI
systems this is equivalent to Lyapunov stability of the overall system if each
individual system is described in a minimal state space realization.
26 CHAPTER 2
2.5 V-STABILITY
The notion of stability can be extended so as to reflect other dynamic charac-
teristics. Consider again the single link robotic manipulator of Example 2.1 in
a "tracking" task. We would like to have the tip follow a "step function". In
other words go from the position 9(t) = 0 to the position 9 = 91"" where
91,n is some given angle. Clearly, this is somewhat unrealistic in that if we in-
sist on a step reference input we require this move to take place in "zero time".
Consequently, there will be "errors" involved due to physical limitations. In an
actual implementation this reference input is modified appropriately. However,
the step input is still useful in analysis because it can be used to characterize
dynamic behavior. Let us place the transfer function P( s) = .(1. \ j) in a
unity feedback configuration where the controller is assumed to be a positive
gain K. The scalar transfer function from r to y is given by:
K
7" (2.14)
This is the transfer function of a second order system with closed loop cha-
racteristic polynomial equal to ,,2 + ~" + ~. This is stahle since J > 0,
K > 0, f > O. The transfer function is in precisely the form considered in
any standard Classical Control text (see for example [57]). It is more frequently
expressed as:
(2.15)
The parameter ( is called the damping ratio and Wn the undamped natural
frequency . Both are assumed to take positive values. If this system is at rest
at time t = 0 and is subjected to a unit step input at this time (just like in
the robot example), it is well known that there is a direct relationship between
the values of (, W n and the output response of the system. In particular, if
o < ( < 1 the output response is called underdamped, if ( = 1 critically
damped and if ( > 1 overdamped. The poles of the system are at -(wn + jWdl
where Wd = W n VI - (2. In the underdamped case one can show that the
maximum overshoot is e- J~:(2 and the settling time (using the 2% criterion)
is ~. The larger the (, the smaller the overshoot and the larger the product
(w n~"'''
, the shorter the settling time. One can very easily visualize the implications
System Dynamics 27
of these concepts in the context of the single link robotic manipulator example.
Consider a plot of the pole locations of this system.
1m
Re
Figure 2.5 Poles of Second Order System
The ratio ,\_(2 is the tangent of the angle p. The smaller the angle p, the
larger becomes the corresponding , and so the maximum overshoot decreases.
Therefore, if the desired output response is to have maximum overshoot smaller
than a given value and the settling time is to be less than a given bound the
poles of the system must lie in a region such as the one given in Figure 2.6.
1m
Re
Figure 2.8 Desired Pole Locations for Second Order System
This is only one example of a situation where the poles of a dynamic system
may be required to lie in some region of the complex plane, other than the open
left half complex plane. Usually such a region, denoted as 'V, is a subset of the
28 CHAPTER 2
left half complex plane as stability would still be a requirement. If a system

has all its poles in 1) the system is called 1)-,table. Throughout this book we
will assume that 1) will be convex and in many cases that it is the interior of
some closed Jordan curve. In some cases the region 1) may be unbounded.
The notion of 1)-stability can be generalized to interconnected systems in a

straightforward manner:
Definition 2.T A well formed interconnected ,y,tem a, in Section 2.2 il1)-

.table iftke roou oftke determinant of Dg (,) lie in 1).
It is apparent from the above discussion that "stability" or "'I)-stability" of an

LTI system can be ascertained from root locations of a particular polynomial.
We have repeatedly seen the importance of the left half complex plane, as a
desirable region for the location of such roots. In view of this connection and
in the same manner as for Hurwitz stability, we call a polynomial 1)-ltable, if
all its roots are in 1).
It is also evident that in addition to stability pole locations affect other per-
formance characteristics. We have just seen that the transient step response of
a second order system is "shaped" by pole locations. This property holds for
higher order systems as well even though the relationship cannot in general be
"analytically" expressed. However, assuming a higher order system is "second
order dominant" allows one to exploit this relationship.
2.6 PERFORMANCE
Even though stability is a fundamental property of any feedback system, it
seldom is the only desired performance objective. We have already seen how
some transient response performance characteristics can be "mapped" to requi-
rements on closed loop pole locations. However, this cannot be done for every
performance objective. Consider the single link manipulator of Example 2.1,
which was used to motivate the feedback configurations of Section 2.2. Recall
that the position of the tip was measured, and that the performance objective
was to have the link tip track a given reference trajectory r(t), for t 2: o. In
view of our discussion in Section 2.3, if r( t) is a bounded function of time, then
we would at least want the error e(t) to be bounded. This would impose a
stability requirement on the interconnected system. However, having e(t) be a
System Dynamics 29
bounded signal is clearly not acceptable for this application. Ideally, we would
want e(t) == 0, V t ~ O. This however is not possible in general, and one
has to seek other alternatives. One possibility is to try and make e(t) "small"
for all time. Another possibility may be to require that e(t) be "small" asym-
ptotically, i.e. uymptotic traclcing . Still another possibility is to require that
the error be zero asymptotically, lim t _ oo e(t) = O. Combining this asymptotic
requirement with a requirement on the transient response frequently results
in an acceptable performance. Let us focus now on the asymptotic tracking.
Consider the feedback system in Figure 2.7 case when the reference input r(t)
is the sinusoid Rsin(wt) of amplitude R and frequency w.
l_e_'1=-0 _--------_·I'------'_p T
Figure 2.T Unity Feedback Configuration
Let the plant be given by the transfer function P(s) = ~:f:?, and the controller
by the transfer function O(s) = ~;f:? For this interconnection we have that:
D( s) _- [ dc(s)
0
0 ]
dp(s)
N(s) = [ nco(s) 0 ]
np(s)
E _
-
[0 -1]
1 0
The closed loop characteristic polynomial is iP( s) det(Dg(s», where det(·)

stands for determinant. In this case:
30 CHAPTER 2
(2.16)
Assume that the interconnection is stable. Since the reference input r(t) is
a sinusoid of frequency w, it is well known [18], that asymptotically (i.e. in
steady state), both the output y(t) and the error e(t) will also be sinusoids of
the same frequency but with different amplitude and phase. This can be very
easily seen from Laplace transform arguments and the fact that iP( 8) is stable.
For simplicity assume that the n poles of the closed loop system are distinct,
Pi '# Pi for i '# i, 1 ~ i,i ~ n. Let iP(8) = (8 - pI)(8 - P2) ... (8 - Pn). With
zero initial conditions the Laplace Transform of the error signal is given by:
(2.17)
where 5(8) is the sen8itivity transfer function:
(2.18)
Using partial fraction expansion techniques we know that we can express e(8)
as:
a b ~ ~
+ 3W + iw + + ... +
e(8) = - - . (2.19)
8 S - 8 - Pl S - Pn
where a =- =
RSJIIoI) and b RSJr) and the Ci'S are complex numbers. It
follows immediately that e(t) is given by:
e(t) = RI5(jw)lsin(wt + arg(5(jw)) + CleP

1t
+ ... + ~eP .. t (2.20)
where 1·1 and arg(·) denote the magnitude and argument of a complex number
respectively. In steady state as t -+ 00 , the terms CiePit decay to zero since the
Pi'S have negative real parts. The steady state part of the error is given by:
System Dynamics 31
e,,(t) = RIS(jw)1 sin(wt + arg(S(jw)) (2.21)
Clearly, if the objective is to make e,,(t) "small", this can be accomplished

by ensuring that at the specific frequency w the magnitude of the sensitivity
IS(jw)1 is small. Frequently, the performance requirement is to guarantee good
asymptotic tracking over a range of frequencies. This is to address the que-
stion of asymptotic tracking when the reference input is a sum of sinusoids
with frequencies in a given range where only the range is known but not the
specific frequencies. One way in which this can be accomplished is by choosing
W1 (-,) = ~~f:~ to be some strictly proper transfer function with numera-
tor and denominator polynomials that are stable, (i.e. a stable and minimum
phase transfer function), with appropriate magnitude over the frequency range
of interest. Then IW1-1(jW) I is taken to be an upper bound for the sensitivity:
(2.22)
We have just seen the important role that the sensitivity transfer function plays
in the context of asymptotic tracking. It plays an equally important role in the
context of duturbance rejection for disturbance inputs which enter the feedb-
ack loop at the output of the plant P. It is also true that some "time domain"
specifications can be expressed approximately as requirements on the shape of
S(jw). Furthermore, since IS(}IoI)1 is the "distance" of C(jw)P(jw) from the
point -1 in the complex plane it characterises "relative" stability properties of
the closed loop system.
Asymptotic tracking is only one of several desired performance requirements

for a dynamic system. A different performance specification has to do with the
rejection of measurement noise. In order for signals to be "fed back" they must
first be measured by sensors which are physical devices. The measurement
process is almost always corrupted by errors from a variety of sources. It is
important to reduce as much as possible the effects of this noise on the dynamic
system. For noise that can be modelled by sinusoidal signals one possibility is to
guarantee fUymptotic noue attenuation. Consider the feedback configuration
in Figure 2.8.
32 CHAPTER 2
~,---c_
y
p
Figure 2.8 Basic Feedback Configuration
Assume that the reference input r(t) == 0, the disturbance input d(t) == 0
and that '7(t) is some sinusoid of frequency w. In this control problem one is
interested in eliminating the effect of '7(t) from y(t), for all t ~ O. As in the
tracking problem this is not possible in general, and one alternative is to relax
the noise attenuation requirement to asymptotic noise attenuation. In other
words require that in steady state the effects of noise on the output are "small".
Following the same reasoning as above one can identify the complementary
6en6itivity T(6), as the transfer function from -'7(t) to y(t), where
(2.23)
In a similar manner for a stable system, asymptotic noise attenuation can be

accomplished if IT(jw)\ is "small", over an appropriate frequency range. Let
W2(6) = ~:f:? be a proper, minimum phase and stable transfer function
whose inverse serves as the upper bound on T(jw):
(2.24)
In a control problem, performance objectives frequently include both tracking

and noise attenuation. Since 5(6) and T(6) are related by the fundamental
relationship 5(6) + T(6) = I, it is clear that the two performance requirements
cannot be set independently. In other words one cannot have good tracking and
noise attenuation at the 6ame frequency w. This emphasizes the "compromise"
System Dynamics 33
that must made in setting performance objectives and is reflected in the choice
of bounds for S(,,) and T(,,).
The performance objectives discussed in this Section address the steady state
behavior of a dynamic system. They are expressed as specifications set in the
frequency domain in terms of bounds on the sensitivity and complementary
sensitivity. It is true that many more performance objectives than the few di-
scussed here can be recast as requirements on the shape of these two transfer
functions. Actually some of these can be time domain requirements imposed
on the transient response. For instance, the overshoot in the step response of
a second order system is directly related to the peak of the complementary
sensitivity. For higher order systems this becomes only an approximate rela-
tionship, but it remains quite useful. Many more such "associations" can be
stated whose usefulness especially in design far outweigh their limitations. The
very successful Classical Control design techniques rely heavily on such formu-
lations. In this book we shall follow this trend and assume that performance
specifications can be posed either as requirements on the location of closed loop
poles or as requirements on the magnitude of certain transfer functions.
3
STABILITY TESTS
3.1 POLYNOMIAL STABILITY

We have just seen that a number of important dynamic system characteristics
can be deduced from root locations of polynomials. For example, consider the
single link robotic manipulator introduced in Section 2.1. Since the system is
not bounded input bounded output stable we may choose to place it in a unity
feedback system with some controller to guarantee stability and also improve
other performance characteristics (see Section 2.5). We have seen that in this
case there is a direct relationship between the root locations of the closed loop
characteristic polynomial and dynamic behavior.
The study of polynomials and their roots has been carried out by mathemati-
cians and engineers for centuries and there exists extensive literature on this
important subject. Clearly, if one wants to determine whether a univariate
polynomial with complex coefficients has stable roots, one can compute them.
For polynomials of degree up to four, formulas exist that give the roots in terms
of the polynomial coefficients. For higher degree polynomials no such analyti-
cal descriptions exist so one may resort to a numerical computation of roots.
A better alternative is to employ analytical tests that involve only polynomial
coefficients. Further justification for such tests comes from problems in con-
troller synthesis. A fundamental problem in design is to find a controller that
makes the closed loop characteristic polynomial stable or V-stable. In such
problems the polynomial coefficients are no longer constants but functions of
the controller parameters. One would like to develop techniques for choosing
the controller so that the polynomial is stable or V-stable. Developing analyti-
36 CHAPTER 3
cal results for polynomial stability that possess an appropriate structure which
leads to efficient algorithms for design is of paramount importance in control.
In the next two sections we first recall two well known stability results, the
Routh-Hurwitz criterion and the Nyquist Theorem. Both have been extensively
used in control.
3.2 THE ROUTH-HURWITZ STABILITY

CRITERION
One of the most well known stability criteria was developed some one hundred
years ago independently, by A. Hurwitz and E. J. Routh, and bears their
name. It is a necessary and sufficient condition for a polynomial with real
coefficients to be stable. The criterion involves the construction of the Routh
table from the polynomial coefficients. As a matter of fact, the result provides
more information than that required for deducing stability, it actually gives the
number of roots with negative real parts. Stability, is shown to be equivalent to
the positivity of the entries in the first column of the Routh table. Specifically,
let p($) be the nth degree polynomial:
Construct the following table with n + 1 rows, called the Routh table,
Pn Pn-2 Pn-4 Pn-6 ...

Pn-l Pn-3 Pn-5 Pn-7 ...
bn - l bn - 3 bn - 5
Cn-l Cn-3 Cn-5
h.-l
where the entries of row 3 through n + 1 are generated in the following manner:
Stability Tests 37
Pn-lPn-2 - PnPn-3 - Pn-lPn-. - PnPn-S

6n-3 -
Pn-l Pn-l
6n - 1Pn-3 - Pn-1 6n-3
Ct.-I etc.
6n - 1
Theorem 3.1 The real polynomial peS) hQ.6 root,., with negative real part,., if
and only if the element,., in the firlt column of the Routh table are not zero and
have the "ame sign.
It is clear that in forming the Routh table some of the entries in the first column
may be lero, in which case care must be taken in completing the rest of the
table. Such issues are dealt with in most classical control textbooks (see [57]).
From a control perspective this is not important since we are mainly interested
in stability, and generating a lero in the first column during the construction
implies that the polynomial will not be stable. Therefore, proceeding with the
completion of the table is unnecessary.
Example 3.1 Routh-Hurwitz Itability telt
Consider the polynomial:
(3.2)
The Routh table is:
1 11 6
5 13 0
8.4 6 0
9.4286 o 0
6 o 0
Since all entries in the first column are positive, the polynomial is stable. 0
We should remark that through special substitutions the Routh-Hurwitz sta-

bility test can be used to check 'V-stability for some special 1) regions. In
38 CHAPTER 3
generating the Routh table we use "division". Other stability tests have been
developed [14] that do not require "division". This issue is not important for
polynomials with constant coefficients. However, it does make a difference when
the polynomial under investigation has coefficients that are polynomic in some
parameters. The Routh-Hurwits test will then generate expressions that are
rational functions in these parameters. In this case it may be advantageous to
employ a stability test that involves expressions that are polynomic in these
parameters.
3.3 THE NYQUIST STABILITY

THEOREM
The Routh-Hurwits criterion is an analytical result, as formulas for the ele-
ments in the first column of the Routh table can be written down. A second
very powerful criterion for stability was suggested by Nyquist, that has a very
different character in that it is a graphical test. It was developed in order to
determine the stability of feedback configurations, and was based on rational
functions. The study of such functions has a long tradition in complex analysis.
Nyquist developed his stability criterion from a fundamental result proposed
by Cauchy, (the argument principle), which relates the number of poles and
zeros of some function f( I) in the "interior" of some curve r, to the number
of encirclements of the origin of the complex plane made by f(I), as I moves
along the curve r. Cauchy's theorem applies to analytic functions with finite
singularities, but for our purposes we are only interested with rational func-
tions and more specifically with polynomials. Let C denote the set of complex
numbers and R the set of real numbers.
Theorem 3.2 (Nyquut Theorem) Let'D C C be an open, limply connected

let which u the interior of lome curve r a counterclockwue, dOled, rectifiable
Jordan curve. Let f : 'D --+ C be a function analytic on'D ezcept for finitely
many polel and luch that it ha6 neither polel nor zerol on r. Further, let N~
and N" be the number of zero, and polel of f in&ide r, and let N be the net
number of counterclockwue encirclement6 of the origin made by the curve f(r).
Then, N, - N" = N.
Clearly I polynomials can be thought of as rational functions where the de-

nominator is the identity. The Nyquist Theorem can thus be applied for the
stability determination of polynomials. In Hurwitz stability, the region 'D is the
Stability Tests 39
1m 1m
Ie
- + - - - 1 - 4 - - - - - Re --~-4-4--J---I-- Re
(a) (b)
Figure a.l (a) poles and zeros of f, (b) image of r under f
left half complex plane, and r a curve encompassing the left half complex plane
which is made up of the jw axis and a semicircle of "infinite" radius. Such a
curve r is frequently referred to as the Nyqui8t path. However, the region 'D
could be some other region in the complex plane as we have seen in Section
2.5, and it may be that we require V-stability with respect to this region.
The Nyquist Theorem is more powerful than the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, as

it allows one to investigate polynomial V-stability for a large variety of regions
'D. However, in contrast to Routh-Hurwitz it is a graphical result. It should
be pointed out that its graphical character has not prevented it from being
extensively used in control for both analysis and design. Furthermore, it may
be precisely for this reason that it is a very popular design tool with practicing
engineers.
To apply the Nyquist Theorem, the user chooses a number of points on rand
plots their image in the complex plane. "Enough" points are plotted in order
to make the determination about encirclements of the origin. In applications,
this "sacrifice" of mathematical rigor is not a serious limitation as trial and
error, or a very fine grid of r will yield an answer. However, it would be very
beneficial from both a theoretical point of view and for applications, if one
could say with certainty how many points are enough. This is precisely the
contribution made in [47. 49]. with the Finite Nyquist Theorem.
40 CHAPTER 3
3.4 THE FINITE NYQUIST THEOREM

3.4.1 V-Stability
Let r be a closed Jordan curve and let int r, ext r denote its interior and
exterior respectively. Let 'D denote"int r. We have just seen that that if p(6)
is a polynomial of degree n, it will be 'D-stable if and only if the image of r
under p(6) encircles the origin n times in a counterclockwise manner. In other
words the net angle accumulated is 2mI'. To generate such a plot, one has to
sweep over the curve r. In practice, p( 6) is only evaluated at a finite number
of points on r, which are hopefully enough to make a determination relying on
continuity arguments. Clearly, a more precise approach is very desirable. The
Finite Nyquist Theorem is such a result, for the case when int r is convex. It is
a necessary and sufficient condition for 'D-stability, a conclusion arrived at from
the consideration of only a finite number of points. The result has implications
in stability analysis but as we will see in later chapters, a much more dramatic
impact in robU8t analysis and synthesis! .
1m
Sm-l
int r
r(O) = 51
Re
Figure 1.2 A Closed Jordan Curve with Convex Interior
Theorem 3.3 (Finite Nyqui8t Theorem, FNT) Let p(6) = Ei=OOl;si where
01; E C, and let r c C be a do,ed Jordan curve 6uch that int r i,
n ;::: 0 and
convez. Then, p i8 of degree n (i.e., 01" i- 0) and ha6 all ill zero, in int r if
1 Portions reprinted, with permission, from Proceedings 32nd IEEE CDC, San Antonio,
Texas, pp. 508-518, © 1993 IEEE
Stability Tests 41
and only il there ezi8t m ~ 1 angle! (JI; E R and a countercloc1cwue 6equence

01 point6 61; E r, 1 ~ AI ~ m, 6uch that
(3.3)
(3.4)
(3.5)
(3.6)
Proof: The proof requires several preliminary definitions. Firstly, let [ = [0,1)
and define the total variation [52] of a function I: [ -+ R to be:
Intuitively, VI is the total "vertical distance" through which I oscillates on [.

Note, VI is a nonnegative (possibly infinite) quantity, and by the elementary
inequality la +.8/ ~ lal + 1.81, a,.8 E R, we have:
Lemma 3.1 For arbitrary I, g: [ -+ R, V(f + g) ~ VI + Vg.
Secondly, let us parameterize the d06ed Jordan curve r (see Figure 3.2 by a
continuous function r: [ -+ C where r(O) = 61' For convenience both the curve
and function will be denoted by r, and the left-hand limit limt..... 1- r(t) will be
denoted by r(r). The above adjective d06ed refers to the property r(O) =
r(1-) while the adjective Jordan refers to the property V z 'I y, r(z) 'I r(y)
(i.e., r does not intersect itself). Note, an intuitive - but difficult to prove -
fact is that any closed Jordan curve r partitions the plane into two regions: a
bounded, open region int r and an unbounded, open region ext r.
Lastly, let us define the notion of a pha6e function ~: [ -+ R which, simply put,
describes the phase of the first degree polynomial s - z as s traverses r. We
42 CHAPTER 3
denote by arg • the argument of z E C \ {O}, and Arg • the principle argument
of z E C \ {O} with range (-11",11"]. Specifically, for z rt. r define 4>: 1 -+ R to
be any continuoul function such that:
4>(t) == arg(r(t) - z) (mod211") (3.7)
For z E r\ {r(O)} take this same definition but at t' E (0,1) where r(t')-z = 0,
only require 4> to be right continuou!l and limt...t'- 4>(t) - 4>(t') E [0,211"). This
minor complication arises, of course, because (3.7)'s right-hand side is undefined
at t = t'. For technical reasons 4> will be left undefined in the z = r(O) case.
From Figure 3.3 it should be apparent that when int r is convez at least one
phase function 4> - and actually, infinitely many phase functions differing by
multiples of 211" - exists for any given z :j; r(O). Further, 4> will have certain
properties that depend only on whether z is inside, on, or outside r:
1m
Re
Figure a.a A Cloled Jordan Curve with Convex Interior
Case 1: z E int r. Here 4> increases continuously and monotonically by 211"

= = =
(consider z z_ in Figure 3.3). Hence, V4> 211" and 4>(1-) - 4>(0) 211". This
is so because int r is convex.
Stability Tests 43
Case 2: Z E r \ {r(O)}. ~ increases continuously and monotonically by some

amount 80 :$ 1r except at the point t' E (0, I), r(t') - z = 0, where it makes
a downward jump of height 80 (consider Z =
Zo in Figure 3.3. Hence, V~ =
280 :$ 21r and ~(1-) - ~(O) = o. This is so because int r is convex.
Case 3: Z E ext r. ~ increases continuously and monotonically by some

amount 8+ < 1r over a portion of the interval I (consider Z = z+ and the
counterclockwise B - A portion of r in Figure 3.3» while on the other portion
it decreases continuously and monotonically by 8+ (consider the A - B portion
= =
of r). Hence, V~ 28+ < 21r and ~(r) - ~(O) O. Again due to convexity.
Now, from these observations we can prove the "if" part of Theorem 3.3. Let
p be of degree 0 :$ d:$ n and have (not necessarily distinct) zeros {Zk}i so:
n d
p(a) = La;"; = adII(a-zk).
;=0 k=1
Substituting r(t) for a and letting ~k be an arbitrary phase function associated
with Zk, we see:
II
argp(r(t» == argad + L arg(r(t) - Zk) == ~(t) (mod21r)
k=1
d
where ~(t) = Argad + L ~k(t)
k=1
Let 0 = tl < t2 < ... < t m < 1 be such that r(tk) = ak, 1 :::; Ie :::; m, and note
(3.5) implies {r(tk)} n {Zk} = 0i so, (3.6) implies for all Ie and some (k E Z,
~(tk) = 8k + 21r(k. Thus, ~(1-) = ~(O) + 21rN = 81 + 21r(N + (d where N is
the number of zeros Zk lying in int r. Now, observe:
m-l
21rn = 21rn + 81 - 8m +L 8A:+l - 8k (3.8)
k=1
m-l
:::; 121rn + 81 - 8m I + L 18 k +! - 8k I (3.9)
k=1
44 CHAPTER 3
~ 12~n + 81 - 8m + 2~(N + (1 - (m - n)1

m-l
+ L 181:+1 - 81: + 2~«(l:+l - (1:)1 (3.10)
1:=1
m-l
1~(I-) - ~(tm)1 + L I~(tl:+l) - ~(tl:)1 (3.11)
1:=1
tl
~ V~ ~ L V~I: ~ 2~d ~ 2~n (3.12)
1:=1
where in going from (3.9) to (3.10) we used (3.3), (3.4) and the fact n, N, and (I:
are integers. Specifically, we use the fact that if Xis an angle -~ < X < ~ and
i is some integer then Ixl ~ Ix + 2~il. Since the left-hand side of (3.8) and right-
hand side of (3.12) are equal, we would have a contradiction if the inequality
between (3.9) and (3.10) were strict. Hence, necessarily N + (I - (m - n = 0
and (I:+l - (I: = 0, 1 ~ k < m. Summing these equations shows N = n. Thus,
as we set out to prove, p is of degree n and has all its leros in int r.
It now simply remains to prove the "only if" part of Theorem 3.3. Let p be of
degree n and have all of its leros in int r. H n =
0, trivially p(,,)=Qo =I 0,
and Theorem 3.3 is satisfied for m =I, fh =
ArgQo, and any "1 E r.
So, suppose n > O. By Nyquist's theorem, the point p(,,) will revolve hn
radians counterclockwise about the origin as " traverses r. Hence, if we choose
m = 2n + 1 and (JI:= ~(1 - 1/(3n»(A: - 1), 1 ~ A: ~ m, by the continuity of
p(,,) we will be able to determine {"I:} satisfying the theorem. 0
An interesting point here is that m = 2n + 1 is the "malle"t m for which

the theorem can be satisfied. Furthermore, it is clear that convexity played a
crucial role in the proof. With modifications to the statement of the Theorem
the proof can be made to work for some nonconvex sets 1) [49].
3.4.2 Hurwitz Stability

A more useful generalization of Theorem 3.3 is to unbounded convex regions.
This is readily accomplished by approximating a given unbounded region by a
Stability Tests 45
suitably large bounded region. The following corollary, specific to the open left
half plane, illustrates this point. (see [46] for a direct proof).
Corollary 3.1 Let p(s) = Ei=oa;si where a; E C and an E R+. Then, p

hu all itl zeros in the open left half plane if and only if there ezist m ~ 1 angles
(Jj; E R, 1 ~ A: ~ m, and real numbers Wl ~ W2 ~ ••• ~ W m such that
?rn ?rn
- - - ?r < (Jl < - - +?r
2 2
?rn ?rn
- - ?r < (Jm < - + ?r
2 2
Y 1 ~ A: <m 1(Jj;+! - (Jj; I < ?r
Y 1 ~ A: ~ m p(jWj;):f 0
Y 1 ~ A: ~ m argp(jwj;) == (Jj; (mod2?r)
Proof: Consider a contour r comprising part of the imaginary axis and a large
half circle of radius R ~ 1 (see Figure 3.4).
1m
jR = Sm+!
jWm-l = Sm-l
Re
-jR = am
Figure 1.4 A Large Semi-circular Contour (R > 1)
For sufficiently large Rand lal ~ R, argp(a) ~ arg an (mod2?r). In particular,

argp(±jR) ~ ±?rn/2 (mod2?r). Thus, if we define Sj; = jWj;, 1 ~ k ~ m, and
46 CHAPTER 3
define sufficiently many points 61:, m < Ie ~ m, along the circular part of r the
"if" part of Corollary 3.1 should follow from Theorem 3.3 Indeed, if we define
= =
m m + n + 2 and (JI: 1rn/2 + 1rn(1e - m - l)/(n + 1) + £1:, m < Ie ~ m, by
the continuity of p( 6) we can determine 1£1: I ~ 1 and 61:, m < Ie ~ m, along the
circular part of r such that Theorem 3.3 is satisfied (by identifying the m in
Theorem 3.3 with m). So, p's leros all lie in the open left half plane as claimed.
The "only if" part of Corollary 3.1 is trivial when n E {O,l}. For example, one
may take m =
I, (J1 = =
Argao, and W1 O. So, suppose n > I, and note that
=
when p(6) a" n:=1(6 - ZI:) has all its zeros {ZI:} in the open left half plane:
"
~(w) = I: Arg(jw - ZI:) == argp(jw) (mod27r)
1:=1
is a continuous function that monotonically increases from -7rn/2 to 1rn/2 as
w ranges from -00 to 00. Thus, we can define:
(3.13)
1 ~ Ie ~ m = n, and determine WI: from ~O which satisfy the Corollary. An

interesting point here is that m = n is the 6malle6t m for which Corollary 3.1
can be satisfied. 0
A result similar to Corollary 3.1 is also stated in [58]. A further simplification

of this Corollary when p is a real polynomial (i.e., aj E R), is the fact that
the identity p(- jw) = [p(jw)]· can be used to reduce the minimum number of
r
points m required to satisfy this Corollary from n to just n/21. For example,
consider the angles defined by equation (3.13). Since these angles are symmetric
about zero, that is, (JI: = -8,,+1-1: for 1 ~ Ie ~ m = n, the conditions of
Corollary 3.1 are completely satisfied if they are satisfied for some WI: ~ 0 over
r r
1 ~ Ie ~ n/21 and we choose WI: = -wn+i-I: over n/21 < Ie ~ n. Since
polynomials with real coefficients appear frequently in control applications it
is worthwhile to state the Finite Nyquist Theorem result that can be used for
Hurwitz stability of real polynomials.
Theorem 3.4 Let tf>(6) be a real, degree n polynomial with po6itive leading
coefficient. Then tf>( 6) U Hurwitz 6table if there ezuu m ~ 1 intervau (CI:' dl:) C
R, 1 ~ Ie ~ m, and real number6 0 ~ W1 ~ W2 ~ ••• ~ W m 6uch that
7r 7r
--2 <
-
C1 < d1 <-
- 2
Stability Tests 47
~n ~n
--~<Cm<dm<-+~
2- - 2
V 1:$ Ie < m max{dA:+l - CA:, dA: - CA:+l} :$ ~
V 1:$1e:$ m t/>(jWA:) C SA: = {rei 9 lr > 0, 8 E (cA:,dA:)}
Example 3.2 Finite Nyquilt Theorem dability ted
Consider the polynomial from Example 3.1:
(3.14)
We already know from from the Routh-Hurwitz criterion that this is a sta-
ble polynomial. Since the polynomial has real coefficients we can also apply
Theorem 3.4 to check for stability.
k WA: p(jWA:) CA: dA:

1 .5 3.3125 + j5.875 ~/4 ~/2
2 2 -22 - j14 ~ 5~/4
Table S.l Frequencies and Secton Proving Stability
From the data in Table 3.1 it follows that p(s) is Hurwitz stable. The two sectors
satisfy the conditions of the Theorem, and at each of the two frequencies listed
the value of the polynomial lies in its respective sector. 0
An immediate question arises as to how these frequencies and sectors are chosen.
Several options are available. One can choose a set of sectors that satisfy the
theorem and then "judiciously" pick a number of frequencies so as to fit the
polynomial values in their respective sectors. Add more frequencies as they
are needed. Another option is to pick a number of frequencies and evaluate
the polynomial. Based on these values try to choose sectors that satisfy the
Theorem and contain the respective polynomial values. It is fair to say that this
seems to be an "open ended" procedure as we do not have at the present time
a definitive way of choosing frequencies and sectors. Even though the Finite
Nyquist Theorem is a very interesting theoretical result it must be applied with
prudence.
48 CHAPTER 3
3.4.3 FNT and the Hermite-Biehler Theorem

The characterisation of V-stability provided by the Finite Nyquist Theorem
in terms of a finite number of frequencies should not be entirely surprising in
view ofthe Hermite-Biehler Theorem for Hurwitz stability. Recall that [39] two
polynomials 11.(,,) and d(,,) of degree n (or the first of degree n and the second
of de~ree n - 1) form a po"itive pair if the roots "11 "2, ... ,",. and ,,~, ,,;, ... , ,,~
(or "1' ,,;, ... , "~-1) respectively are all distinct, real, and negative and they
alternate as follows:
,,~ < "1 < ,,; < "2 < ... < ,,~ < ",. < 0 (3.15)
, ,
(or "1 < "1 < "2 < ... < ",.-1 < ",. < 0)
and their highest coefficients are of like sign. One can prove (see [39]):
Theorem 3.5 (Hermite-Biehler) The polynomial p(z) = h(z2) + zg(z2) U

HUMlJitz if and 011.1,1 if h(,,) and g(,,) form a po"itive pair.
Let us consider a specific real polynomial of degree three and examine the
implications of the Hermite-Biehler stability conditions. In doing so, we will use
a "complex plane" interpretation of Hermite-Biehler. Consider the polynomial:
p(z) = z3 + 9z 2 + 4z + 1 (3.16)
where we have that h(z2) = 9z 2 + 1 and g(z2) = z2 + 4 are the "even" and
"odd" parts respectively. For Hurwitz stability 9" + 1 and" + 4 must be a po-
sitive pair, which in this case can be easily seen. This property has immediate
ramifications of the plot of p(jw) as w ranges from 0 to 00. The "real" part of
p(jw) is -9w 2 + 1 and the "imaginary" part is w(-w 2 + 4). The fact that the
9" + 1 has a root at -1/9 implies that the "real" part has a root at w = 1/3.
The fact that :I + 4 has a root at -4 implies that the "imaginary" part has a
root at w = 2. Therefore, for the frequency range 0 < w < 1/3 both "real" and
"imaginary" parts are positive (i.e. the point p(jw) is in the first quadrant).
For frequencies in the range 1/3 < w < 2 the "real" part is negative and the
"imaginary" part positive (i.e. the point p(jw) is in the second quadrant). In
Stability Tests 49
the frequency range 2 < w both are negative (i.e. the point p(jw) is in the third
quadrant). In other words there exist three frequencies (say 1/4, 1 and 4) for
= = =
which p(jw) lies in the sectors 51 (0,7(/2), 52 (7(/2,7(), and 53 (7(,37(/2)
respectively. It is immediately clear that the converse is also true. Specifically,
if there exist three frequencies WI < W2 < W3 that place p(jw) in the three
90° sectors 5 1,52,53 respectively then 96 + 1 and 6 + 4 form a positive pair.
Therefore, the existence of a finite number of frequencies for which the value of
the polynomial lies in appropriate 90° sectors guarantees stability. Actually, in
the Russian literature this frequency domain interpretation of Hermite-Biehler
is referred to as the Mikhailov Criterion [65].
This is precisely the flavor of the Finite Nyquist Theorem. Even though this
interpretation ofthe Hermite-Biehler Theorem is closely related to FNT, it will
be seen in later chapters that the Finite Nyquist Theorem is more powerful as it
allows for greater flexibility in choosing sectors. The Hermite-Biehler Theorem
seems to require consecutive nonoverlapping sectors that are 90° wide whereas
the Finite Nyquist Theorem can handle consecutive sectors that are up to 180°
wide with no restrictions on overlapping. This flexibility will be crucial in ro-
bust analysis and the development of robust controller synthesis methods.
The topic of polynomial stability has been extensively studied in the literature.
Our intention here is not to provide a complete exposition of all stability re-
sults that have been generated. Our viewpoint is quite narrow as we are mainly
interested in presenting the new approach for the investigation of stability and
1>-stability, made possible by the Finite Nyquist Theorem. Furthermore, we
are eager to begin to examine the effect of parameter uncertainty on dynamic
system models and its consequences on the stability of families of polynomi-
als. The next Chapter first motivates the presence of parameter uncertainty in
system models and then generalizes the notions ofstability, 1>-stability and per-
formance for families of systems (the notion of robtutne66). This immediately
points to the need for the study of root locations of families of polynomials.
4
UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUST
STABILITY
4.1 UNCERTAINTY IN SYSTEM MODELS
4.1.1 Parameter Uncertainty

In Chapter 2, it was pointed out that the behavior of many dynamic systems can
be modelled by linear, finite dimensional, time invariant differential equations.
Even though these are only approximate models they are frequently adequate
for analysis and design. Modelling, is an integral part of control system de-
sign and a number of system models may be considered as the process evolves.
In many cases these models are obtained via some form of linearization of a
nonlinear set of equations. For instance, Lagrangian mechanic6 can be used to
generate the equations of motion of n link robotic manipulators. These are in
general second order coupled nonlinear differential equations in n generalized
coordinates (say the angular or translational displacement of each link). The
system in Example 2.1 is the simplest such case, as the equation turns out to
be linear (no gravitational effects). These equations include several parameters
such as masses, inertias, distances to link centers of gravity and friction coeffi-
cients. Frequently, the exact values of such parameters are not known, but only
that they lie in some given intervals. The reason is either because it would be to
complicated to compute exact values, or that these values may change during
operation. For example, computing the moment of inertia of some typical ro-
botic manipulator link is not easy, and may involve experiments. Furthermore,
the mass (and moment of inertia) of the end effector (last link) will change as
soon as an object is picked up during some assembly. It is therefore apparent
that there is ample justification for modelling a plant not by a single state
equation or transfer function, but rather a family of state equations or transfer
52 CHAPTER 4
functions. In particular the single link robotic manipulator of Example 2.1 may
more appropriately be modelled by the family of transfer functions :
1
P(s, J,j) (4.1)
s(Js + j)
where J- , J+ ,f- ,f+ , are given values. This is an example of a system model
with parameter uncertainty. We could have used state space equations to
express the dynamics in which case we would have a family of state and output
equations describing the system.
For many different types of systems (mechanical, electrical, chemical), models

can be generated either in the time domain or frequency domain, which include
parameter uncertainty. In the literature such uncertainty is frequently referred
to as 6tructured uncertainty. This type of uncertainty is only one of several
models that have been suggested. The parameter uncertainty in (4.1) is in
the context of linear time invariant models and affects system dynamics in a
continuous manner. In some cases it may be appropriate to employ parameters
that take on discrete values. One can also suggest models of uncertainty for time
varying systems where parameter values can change with time. One possibility
is to use time varying state equations to describe system dynamics and employ
Lyapunov stability methods for analysis and design. Such models are beyond
the scope of this book.
4.1.2 Unstructured Uncertainty

Parameter uncertainty is not the only type of uncertainty that is used when
generating system models of time invariant systems. In many cases other de-
scriptions are more appropriate. As motivation, consider the situation when a
system model is generated ezperimentally. This of course assumes that expe-
riments can be carried out with the (stable) system, and appropriate measure-
ments can be taken. Suppose that the system is excited by a set of sinusoidal
inputs at a number of frequencies WlJ W2, ••• , Wt and that the magnitude and
phase of the steady state output are recorded. This experiment is repeated n
times. Let Ml(W,), 4>l(W,) be the magnitude and phase respectively of the /cth
experiment at frequency Wi. Assume that from this data a nominal plant P(s)
is chosen such that Mi = P(jWs) , 4>,= arg P(jWi) for 1 ::; i ::; t. At each
frequency Wi the values
Uncertainty and Robust Stability 53
represent the normalised plant deviation from unity. One possibility is to iden-
tify a stable transfer function W(a) that is an upper bound ofthese normalised
values for all Wi and 1 ~ k ~ n. We can then assume that the actual plant
belongs to the family of plants P(s) defined by:
P(a) P(a)(1 + ~W(a)) (4.2)
where ~ is any stable and proper transfer function with 1~(jw)1 ~ 1, V wE

[0, 00). Clearly, this model would reflect the information gathered from the
experiments.
This uncertainty representation is "norm bounded" and "unstructured" as it

only takes into account magnitude information. It is referred to as a mu.ltiplica-
tive pertu.rbation ,and has been effectively used to represent model uncertainty
in many applications. Moreover, beyond the fact that it is physically motiva-
ted this representation makes possible the formulation and elegant solution of
many analysis and design problems in the context of H oo theory [36]. It is also
very interesting to point out that such model uncertainty can also be used in
specifying performance objectives for feedback systems. Even though it is not
necessary, in this book whenever we use multiplicative perturbations we will
assume that ~ is such that P(a) and P(s) have the same unstable poles.
Other types of norm bounded unstructured uncertainties can also be defined.

Two that are frequently used are the "additive perturbation" :
P(a) = P(a) + ~W(a) (4.3)
and the "divisive perturbation" :
P(a)
(4.4)
1 + ~W(a)
54 CHAPTER 4
~w
p p
a) b)
----EJ---~ + }-----r----
~w
c)
Figure 4.1 a) multiplic:ative, b) additive, c:) diviaive
Even though our motivation for using models with unstructured uncertainty
came from the experimental determination of transfer functions, this is not
the sole reason. Other dynamic system characteristics can also be modelled
by employing such perturbational models. Taking into account unmodelled
dynamic, is another example. For the single link robotic manipulator, we have
assumed that it is perfectly rigid. Clearly, this is only an approximation which
is valid at low frequencies. 1£ the link is excited by high frequency inputs,
there is no question that some "flexible modes" will be excited, effects of which
are clearly visible during operation. One way of taking into account neglected
dynamics is by the use of some form of unstructured uncertainty.
4.2 ROBUST STABILITY

In view of the fact that system models very frequently involve uncertainty, the
control problems posed in Chapter 2 must be modified to address this issue.
Specifically, one has to define notions of "stability" and "performance" that
apply to families of plants. This is done in a very natural way by extending the
definition and introducing the notion of robUltnell. Consider a system which is
modelled as a family of plants with some uncertainty structure. Such a system is
called robUltly BIBO ,table (with respect to the specific uncertainty structure)
if and only if each member of the family is BIBO stable. In particular, let the
family of plants be given by:
np(",a)
P(", a) (4.5)
d,,(", a)
where a is a k-vector of parameters which take values in some given set 0 0 C

RA:, and R denotes the set of real numbers. It follows that this system is
robU6tly .table if each polynomial in the family d,,(", a), for a E 0 0 , is sta-
ble. An interconnected system, where each subsystem is a specific family of
plants, is robU6tly "table if the family of interconnections are well formed and
stable systems. Similarly, an interconnected system is robU6tly V-.table if the
family of interconnections are well formed and V-stable systems. Consider the
case when each subsystem involves parametric uncertainty and is given by:
Gi ('" a) = ~f;::~. A well formed interconnected system will be robU6tl1l "ta-
ble if the polynomial det Dg (", a) in (2.13) is stable for each a E 0 0 • This
system will be robU6tly V-8table if det Dg (", a) in (2.13) is V-stable for each
a E 0 0 • It follows from these definitions that for systems with real parameter
uncertainty a, robust stability is guaranteed if a family of polynomials in s with
real coefficients that are functions of a is stable. Specifically, consider the unity
T
feedback configuration
l' ·I_C_(S)_-_., Pl', a)
Figure 4.2 Unity Feedback Configuration, Parametric Uncertainty
with plant P(s,a) = ~:~;::~ and controller C(s) = ~;~;~. The closed loop
characteristic polynomial from (2.16) has real coefficients and is given by:
4>(s, a) d,,(s, a)dc(s) + np(s, a)nc(s) (4.6)
It follows that the system in Figure 4.2 will be robustly stable if this polynomial
family is stable.
56 CHAPTER 4
When one uses the adjective "robust" one always assumes some type of uncer-
tainty to which the term applies. We have just seen one example of parameter
uncertainty but the notion can be extended to systems with unstructured per-
turbations. Consider the family of plants P(6), involving the multiplicative
perturbation (4.2), in the unity feedback interconnection:
~W
y
C(6) P(6) I----!.---I
Figure 4.a Multiplicative Perturbation Unity Feedback
If we assume that the "nominal" plant P(6) is strictly proper, one can immedia-
tely recognise that this feedback configuration is a well formed interconnected
system, as defined in Section 2.2. The interconnection of this family of plants
is stable if each interconnected system is stable for each allowable ~.
A very important fact about such an interconnected system is that if the nomi-
nal (~ = 0) feedback system is stable and there exists a ~ that destabilizes
the system then there exists a con.ftant complex ~ that destabilizes the system.
In other words if we can guarantee that the interconnection is robustly stable
for all comtant complex ~ then it would be robustly stable for all allowable
~. Suppose that the complex number ~ with magnitude less than or equal to
unity, is written as: b = b1 + jb 2 , where b1 , b2 are real parameters taking
values in the unit disc. We again see that robust stability of an interconnected
system with unstructured uncertainties can be reduced to checking the stability
of a polynomial, detD g (6, b), with "complex" coefficients, which are functions
of the real parameters b1 , b2 • Consider the feedback interconnection of Figure
4.3 where the multiplicative uncertainty is expressed as a single subsystem with
transfer function 1 + ~W where W(6) = ~:f:l, the controller has transfer
function C(6) = ~:f:l and the nominal plant P(6) = ~:f:l. Assume further
that ~ is replaced by b1 + jb2 • For this interconnection we have:
D(6) = [ ~
de
t
0
1]
00-1]
E=
[o1 0
1
0
0
The closed loop characteristic polynomial is iP( II) det(Dg(II)), and is equal
to:
Robust stability of this polynomial which has real parameter uncertainty but
complex coefficients guarantees robust stability of the feedback interconnection
in Figure 4.3.
Similar arguments can be made regarding the stability of other interconnected

systems with uncertainty. One can in many cases reduce the problem to that of
stability of families of polynomials with real parameter uncertainty but complex
coefficients. In view of this fact it is important to develop efficient analysis and
synthesis tools specifically suited for polynomial families. The next section
demonstrates that this is important not only for achieving robust stability but
other performance objectives as well.
4.3 PERFORMANCE AS ROBUST

POLYNOMIAL STABILITY
Recall the asymptotic tracking problem for a unity feedback system discussed
in Section 2.6. At first glance expression (2.22) seems to have nothing in com-
mon with a stability condition. However, it has been shown in the literature
[34], that such a requirement can be equivalently stated as a robust stability
58 CHAPTER 4
requirement on a specific feedback system. We will now demonstrate how this

can be done for a stable feedback system (see also [17]). One can immediately
see that requirement (2.22) is equivalent to:
IW1(jw)S(jw)1 < 1 V wE [0, (0) (4.8)

for some strictly proper, stable, minimum phase W1(6) = ndwlf'~.
wI ,
This is equi-
valent to:
e(jw)nur1(jW)dc (jW)d,(jW) 1< 1 V wE [0,(0) (4.9)

l dw1(jW )cP(jw)
where cP(6) = d,(6)dc (6) + np(6)nc (6) is the closed loop characteristic polyno-
mial and e(6) is any stable proper transfer function with le(jw)1 ~ 1 for all
wE [0, (0). In other words, for no frequency can we have:
(4.10)
where 0 ~ r1 ~ 1 and 0 ~ a1 < 2'11". This is equivalent to saying (since dw1(6)

and cP(6) are stable) that:
r1~al nur1(jw)dc (jw)d,(jw) + dw1(jW)cP(jW)
::/= 0
V 0~r1~I, a1E[O,2'11"),WE[O,oo) (4.11)
Statement (4.11), continuity and the fact that dw1(6) and cP(6) are stable imply
the stability of the polynomial family:
(4.12)
for all° ~ r1 ~ 1, a1 E [0,2'11"). Furthermore, robust stability of (4.12)

implies the stability of cP(s) and guarantees (4.11). Therefore, robust stability
of 1/1S(8, r1, (1) is a necessary and sufficient condition for asymptotic tracking.
It is interesting to note that the polynomial family 1/1s(s,r1,a1) in (4.12) is

actually the closed loop characteristic polynomial of the feedback system shown
in Figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4 Performance as Robuat Stability
This implies that asymptotic tracking specification can also be thought of as

robust stability condition of a specific feedback loop. This is a well known fact
and a very interesting and useful interpretation. One should expect that such
a characterization is not limited to asymptotic tracking. In a similar manner
other performance objectives can be "transformed" to robust polynomial sta-
bility problems, and can be interpreted as robust stability conditions of specific
feedback loops [34].
4.4 ROBUST PERFORMANCE AS

ROBUST POLYNOMIAL STABILITY
4.4.1 Single Bound Performance Objectives

In many situations one is faced with having to guarantee performance for not
just one but a family of dynamic systems. Just as in the case of stability, one
must extend the definition of performance to cover families of plants. Con-
sider the unity feedback system below and robust asymptotic tracking as a
representative performance objective.
--
r +
-
+
e
C(s) P(s,a)
y
I'isure 4.5 Robuat Performance, Parametric Uncertainty

60 CHAPTER 4
The plant family is strictly proper and involves parameter uncertainty, P( 6) =

SZf:::l, where a lies in a some set 04 C RI: and C(6) = ~;f:~ is a proper
controller. The interconnection is well formed, and assume that the control-
ler makes the feedback loop ,robustly stable. We say that the system meets
the robu.tt tracking 6pecification for this uncertainty structure, if asymptotic
tracking is achieved for all plants in the family. In view of the discussion in the
previous Section, one should expect that a robust tracking specification can be
"translated" into a robust polynomial stability condition.
For this interconnection we know that the closed loop characteristic polynomial
is: (>(6, a) = dc (6)dp(6, a) + n c (6)n,(6, a), and the sensitivity transfer function
is given by: 5(6,a) = de ~ ~.a,·a . Assume that (>(6, a) is robustly stable. The
robust performance objective is then given by:
15(jw,a)1 < IWl(jw)r l V wE [0,00) and a E 04 (4.13)
where, Wl (6) = t:f:lis a given strictly proper, stable, minimum phase, trans-
fer function. This requirement can be equivalently stated as:
IWl(jw)S(jw,a)\ < 1 V wE [0,00) and a E 04 (4.14)
This is equivalent to:
'V wE [0,00), a E 04 (4.15)
where e(6) is any stable proper transfer function with 1E>(jw)1 s 1 for all
w E [0,00). In other words, for no plant in the family and no frequency can we
have:
(4.16)
where 0 ~ rl ~ 1 and 0 ~ Ql < 211". This is equivalent to saying (since d",l(6)

is stable and (>(6, a) robustly stable) that:
r l ei a1 n.l(jw)dc(jw)dp(jw, a) + d.l(jW)iP(jW, a) i= 0
V 0 ~ rl ~ 1, al E [0,211"), a E Oil' wE [0,00) (4.17)
Statement (4.17), continuity, stability of d.l(6) and robust stability of iP(6, a)

imply the stability of the polynomial family:
for all al E [0,211"), rl E [0,1] and a E 011' Furthermore, the robust stability
of .,pS(6, a, rl, ad implies the robust stability of iP(6, a) and guarantees the va-
lidity of (4.17). Therefore, robust stability of the polynomial .,ps(6,a,rl,al)
is a necessary and sufficient condition for robust asymptotic tracking. Robust
asymptotic tracking has thus been expressed as robust polynomial stability of
a 6ingle polynomial family with real parameter uncertainty and complex coef-
ficients. As in the case of no plant uncertainty the polynomial .,pS(6, a, rl, al)
can be.thought of as the closed loop characteristic polynomial of a specific feed-
back loop (replace ~:f:~ in Figure 4.4 by ~f:::~).
4.4.2 Multiple Bound Performance

Objectives
In many control applications several performance requirements are placed on
feedback systems. In addition to stability and tracking requirements these in-
clude specifications on unit step responses in terms of overshoot and settling
time, bandwidth requirements, gain and phase margins, disturbance rejection
and noise attenuation. All these performance objectives must be met (if pos-
sible) simultaneously which would require that constraints on several transfer
functions be satisfied. In particular, suppose that in addition to robust asym-
ptotic tracking we require that the feedback system depicted in Figure 4.6 have
robust noise attenuation properties. This is to say that with '7 = 0 we require
the system to robustly track reference inputs and with r = 0 we require the
system to exhibit robust noise attenuation (multiobjeetive performance).
62 CHAPTER 4
r + y
C(,,) P(",a)
Figure 4.1 Feedback System AfFected by Measurement Noise
In Chapter 2 we saw that asymptotic noise attenuation is expressed as a requi-

rement on the magnitude of the complementary sensitivity. Assume the plant
family is strictly proper and involves parameter uncertainty, P(,,) = 4f;::l,
where a lies in a some set 0 4 C RA: and C(,,) = ~:f;~ is a proper control-
ler. The interconnection is well formed, and assume that the controller makes
the feedback loop robustly stable. Robust asymptotic noise attenuation will
be achieved if for some given proper, stable, minimum phase transfer function
W2 (,,) = ~::f:~ we have:
(4.19)
Following a similar argument as in robust tracking we can show that robust

noise attenuation will be guaranteed if and only if the polynomial family:
(4.20)
is stable for all Q2 E [0, 2'K), r2 E [0,1] and a E 0 4 ,
The robust noise attenuation requirement can again be "translated" to a ro-

bust polynomial stability condition, of a polynomial family with real parameter
uncertainty and complex coefficients. The polynomial family tPT(", a, r2, Q2) is
the closed loop characteristic polynomial of the feedback loop shown in Figure
4.7
r + y
Figure 4.T Robuat Performance all Robust Stability
This immediately implies that for the feedback system in Figure 4.6 the mul-
tiobjective performance requirement of robust asymptotic tracking and robust
asymptotic noise attenuation will be achieved if and only if the two polynomials
,ps(6,8,r2,Q2) and ,pT(6,8,r2,Q2) are 6imultaneou6ly robustly stable.
The performance objectives of asymptotic tracking and noise attenuation can

be "mapped" as requirements on the shape of the sensitivity and complemen-
tary sensitivity transfer functions. It should be mentioned here that many other
performance objectives can also be expressed as requirements on the shape of
these two important transfer functions. Specifically, for a plant family with
multiplicative uncertainty P(6) = P(6}(1 + ~W2(6)) in a unity feedback
system with 5(6) = (1 + P(6)C(6))-1 and T(6) = 1 - 5(6), the re-
quirements IW1(jw)S(jw) I < 1 and IW2 (jw)T(jw) I < 1, V w E [0,00)
would guarantee nominal performance and robust stability respectively. This
implies that such a formulation has a much wider range of applicability as it
can accommodate a large number of performance specifications. Other transfer
functions can be identified that provide important information about system
behavior. In a unity feedback system (Figure 4.2) one such is the transfer func-
tion from reference input to controller output. Such performance requirements
can in turn be expressed as robust stability specifications on polynomials with
real parameter uncertainty and complex coefficients. Each "transfer function
bound" is essentially mapped to a stability requirement on a polynomial fa-
mily. These multiobjective performance requirements are thus expressed as
simultaneous polynomial family stability requirements.
64 CHAPTER 4
4.5 VALUE SETS OF UNCERTAIN

POLYNOMIALS
We have just seen that many control system analysis problems can be expressed
as robust stability problems. The Nyquist Theorem provides one way in which
these problems can be attacked. Now there are several Nyquist based methods
that one can pursue and one possibility is to use the Nyquist Theorem in the
context ofrobust polynomi41stability. Specifically, consider the robust stability
problem of a unity feedback system where the plant family is described by
a transfer function where the numerator and denominator polynomials have
coefficients that are polynomic in a. Suppose that the parameter a takes
values in some hypercube 0 0 , With such a plant family and some controller in
the forward path, the closed loop characteristic polynomial is given by:
(4.21)
and has coefficients that are polynomic in the parameter a. Robust stability of
the loop will follow from the stability of this polynomial family. If for the same
plant family one also requires robust asymptotic tracking as the performance
objective, one would need to check the robust stability of the polynomial family:
Since we are not dealing with a single polynomial but rather a family of poly-
nomials, the image of a point on the Nyquist path will not be a point but a set
of points. These sets are referred to as v41ue leu . In a Nyquist Theorem ba-
sed, polynomial value set approach one is faced with having to construct value
sets of polynomial families. Specifically, one needs to be able to construct the
value set 4J(II,O o ), (or 4JS(II, 0 0 )) at some point II on the Nyquist path. In the
general case when the polynomial coefficients are polynomic in a, no efficient
analytical representations exist for the value set, and its construction may be
quite cumbersome. However, in some important special cases the shape of the
value set can be described very simply [29, 30]. One such case is when the
polynomial 4J(II, a) has coefficients that are affine in a. In particular, let
tP(6, a) = tPO(6) + altPl(6) + a2tP2(6) ... + aA:tPA:(6) (4.23)

'" ... '
q(.,a)
(4.24)
where the tP,(6), 0 ~ i ~ Ie are given polynomials, tPO(6) is monic of

degree n and the rest have degree less than n. Suppose that the parameter a
takes values in the hypercube 0 4 = {a ERA: la; ~ at ~ at,
1 ~ i ~ Ie}, a;
<
0, at > 0, 1 :5 i ~ Ie. Let 6 = jw, be a point on the imaginary axis. We
want to construct the value set tP(jW,0 4 )' Clearly, this set of points in the
complex plane is the set q(jW,04 )' translated by tPo(jw). Our objective is to
demonstrate that the shape of the value set q(jw, 0 4 ) is in general a 21e convex
parpolygon. We choose to work with -q(jW,0 4 ) as the robust stability tests
presented in Chapter 5 require that tPo (jw) be excluded from this value set 1 •
Definition 4.1 An 21e convez parpolygon U a convez polygon with an even

number of ,ide, (21e) in which oppo,ite ,ide, are equal and parallel.
I'igure 4.8 A 6 Convex Parpolygon
For any polynomial g( 6) =

90 +916 + 9262 + ... + g,,6", let E g ( 6) =
90 + 9262
+ 9464 + ... denote the even part and Og(6) = 91 + 93,2 + 9564 + ... the
odd part, so that g(6) = E g (,) + 60 g (,). Let Re(.), Im(·) stand for the real
and imaginary part of a complex expression. For the tP(6,a) in (4.24), define
polynomials 7,." (,) in the following way:
lPortiona reprinted, with permission, from IEEE Trans. on AC, Vol. 34, No. 11,1989,
pp. 1205.1209, @ 1989 IEEE
66 CHAPTER 4
Let
Z Re(-q(jw, a)) = -E4>l (jw)al - E4>2(jw)a2 - ... - E4>,,(jw)at

y Im(-q(jw, a)) = -W04>l (jw)al - W04>2 (jw)a2 - ... - w04>" (jw)at
(4.26)
At a specific frequency w the mapping T : (at, a2, ... , at) --+ (z, y) is linear:
and as such the value set -q(jw,OIl)' which is the image of 011 under T is a
polytope. The shape of this polytope depends on T, and this is not a constant
map but depends on frequency. In particular, if at some frequency the rank of
T is 2, then this will be a 2-dimensional set. If T has rank 1 at some frequency,
this polytope degenerates to a straight line segment, and if T happens to be
lero at some frequency the value set is the origin of the complex plane. More
can be said about the structure of this polytope at each frequency as one can
identify its 2k edges. This can be done by eliminating the lIi parameters from
equations (4.26) one at a time. Consider the parameter ai, and assume that
E4>l (jw) i- O.
W04>l (jw) W(-Y12 a2 + "Y13 a 3 + ... + "Yuat)

y • .....,..<-
_=-"..:;.:::: Z + (4.27)
..'
---..:..:...::..::...~-..:....::::---'-;-:--:------'-'--~
E4>l (]w) E4>l (jw)
,
~dw)
''-------..--------'' .
111(101.112,...•11")
AI(W)Z + YI(w,a2, ... ,at)
Let
Yl (W) = max Yl(W, a:z, ... , al:) attained at ii:z, ii3, ... , iil:
." ...,a.
Yl (W) min Yl(w,a:z,,,.,al:) attainedatii:z, ii3 , .", iil:
·2'·"1·.
One can immediately identify two edges of the polytope which are the parallel
straight line segments:
iu Ye Al(W)Ze + Yl ...... (W)

min z(w, al, ii:z, ... , iil:) < Ze < max z(w, al, ii:z, ... , iil:)
41 41
i 12 Ye Al(W)Ze + Yl..... (W)

minz(w,al,ii:z,,,.,iil:) ~ Ze ~ maxz(w,al,ii:z, ... ,iil:)
41 41
Proceeding in a similar fashion eliminating in turn parameters a:z, a3, ... , al: in
(4.26) one can generate 21 line segments:
Ye Ai(W)Ze + Yi (W) 2 < i < 1 (4.28)

Ye Ai(W)Ze + Yi (W) (4.29)
This means that 2k edges of the -q(jW, 0 0 ) value set can be identified. As a
matter of fact the next result proves that these are all the edges.
Theorem 4.1 Let 4>(6, a) be (U in (4.24). Let all pair6 of column6 of the
matriz T be linearly independent at 60me frequency w. The line 6egment6
itl, it21 1 ~ i ~ 1 are the edge6 of the -q(jw, 0 0 ) value 6et.
Proof: At any frequency W I- 0, the mapping T: (al' a2,"" aA:) -+ (z, y) can
be viewed as being accomplished by first fixing a2, a3, ... , aA: and then allowing
al to vary. All these are straight lines parallel to lu, 112' We know that lu,l12
are both on the -q(jw,O o ) value set. The point 0 must lie between them by
68 CHAPTER 4
construction, (or perhaps lie on one ofthem). No point ofthe -q(jw, Oil) value
set can lie "outside" the space between these parallel lines. Suppose it did,
then it would lie on one suth parallel line, which had a y axis intercept grea-
ter than Yl_. or less than Yl....... But this is a contradiction. Furthermore,
no point of the -q(jw, Oil) value set can lie outside the line segment itself,
as this would also lead to a contradiction. These arguments can be repeated
for all other line segments lo 1 , lo2. Let i; be the unit vector in the complex
plane parallel to line ljll 1 ~ j ~ le. From the assumption that all pairs
of columns in T are linearly independent at this frequency, 'Yu,,(w) '# 0 for
all u '# v. All line segments loll lo2 will be edges with loll ljl not parallel to
each other when i '# j. We have therefore identified 2le edges. Our claim is
that these are all the edges of the q(jw, Oil) value set. To show this we shall
generate the value set in the following manner: Let S. be the subset of Oil
where tIi+l = tII+2 = ... aA:= 0 and al, a2,"" til are allowed to vary.
Let T(S.) denote its image under T. Clearly T(Sl) is a line segment in the
direction i l . T(S2) is obtained by translating T(S.) in the direction i2 as a2 is
allowed to vary. T(S2) is thus a parallelogram since i l '# i2. T(S3) is obtained
by translating T(S2) in the direction i; as a3 is allowed to vary. T(S3) is thus
a polygon with 6 edges since ~ '# i3 , i l '# i;. Assume that T(S.) is such
a polygon with 2i sides for 2 ~ i ~ m. The image of T(Sm+d is obtained
by translating T(Sm) in the direction ~+l as am+l is allowed to vary. Since
i:n+l is different from all previous direction vectors, this will add two additional
edges. The number of edges in T(Sm+d is 2(m + 1). The induction proof is
complete and therefore the -q(jw, Oil) value set has 2le edges. 0
A special case of the polynomial family in (4.24), is the family of interval

polynomials:
tP(s,a) (4.30)
where tPl(S) = 1, tP2(S) = S, tP3(S) = =

s2, tP4(S) s3 + ... and a E Oil'
One can immediately see that the mapping T corresponding to this polynomial
family is given by 1i..t : (al' a2, ... , aA:) -+ (:1:, y):
It is clear that for w = 0 the rank of line is equal to 1 and that for all other
frequencies the rank of line is equal to 2. From the above analysis this means
that at frequency zero the value set -"'(6,0 4 ) is a straight line segment on the
real axis and for all other frequencies it is a rectangle with sides parallel to the
real and imaginary axes [21]. As a matter of fact one can immediately identify
the four vertices of this rectangle. However, rather than reporting the vertices
of -"'(6, 0 4 ) we report the vertices of "'(6,04 ) in order to make connection with
earlier results.
2 3 a-6 4 5
1: 1(6) at + a2"6 +aj6 + a+6
4 + 5 + a-6
6 +
1:2(6) a+1 + a+6 2 a-6 3 a+6 4 a+6 5
2 +aj"6 + 4 + 5 + 6 +
A: 3(6) = a+1 + a2"6 +ai'62 + at 63 + at6 4 + a6"6 5 +
2 a-6 3 a-6 4 5
1:4(6) at + a+6
2 +aj6 + 4 + 5 + a+6
6 +
(4.31)
These four polynomials are frequently referred to as the Kharitonov polyno-

mia16 [6].
4.6 RECTANGULAR VALUE SET

OVERBOUND
If the parameter uncertainty enters into the polynomial coefficients in a no-
naffine manner, one can say little about the shape of the value set at some fre-
quency. In some special cases value sets can be efficiently analytically described
[5, 29, 45, 19], but this is not true in general. However, even if such results
could be developed, it is important to remember that value set construction is
not our ultimate goal. One should not loose sight that our objective should be
70 CHAPTER 4
to provide value set descriptions that facilitate robust control system analysis
and synthesis. In doing so one should be prepared to give up some "accuracy"
and introduce "overbounding" if this can lead to analytical results or more effi-
cient algorithms. Uncertainty representation in many cases is the "key" for the
development of efficient methods for robust analysis and synthesis. A perfect
example of this practice for a family of plants with parameter uncertainty in
the numerator and denominator of the transfer function, is to overbound by
say multiplicative "norm bounded" uncertainty. The parameter uncertainty is
thus overbounded by a due in the complex plane. This formulation allows one
to exploit the powerful Hoo tools for robust analysis and synthesis. One can
argue that the benefits gained by overbounding far outweigh its disadvantages.
When the polynomial family has coefficients that are multiaffine in 8, one can
use a different overbounding scheme. In this case the mapping T : (alt a2, ... , al:)
--+ (z, y) at each frequency is multiaffine. The Mapping Theorem of Zadeh
and Desoer [73] immediately implies that at any frequency w the set T(O.. ) is
included in its convex hull. In other words, the value set at any frequency w
can be overbounded by a set which is analytically represented by its vertices.
This is a very efficient characterization, and is another example of value set
overbounding in the complex plane.
Value sets in the complex plane may be overbounded by various geometric

shapes. We have already mentioned due overbounds and the use of the Mapping
Theorem. We continue this Section by introducing a rectangular polynomial
value set overbound. We will present it in the context of a polynomial family
with affine parameter uncertainty. In view of the fact that in the affine case we
have very accurate value set representations one might rightly question the need
for overbounding. The justification for such an approach stems from the fact
that this formulation leads in Chapter 5 to an analytical sufficient condition
for robust stability and in Chapter 10 to analytical results for robust synthesis
[22]. One could have suggested an "interval polynomial family" overbound in
polynomial coefficient space which would translate to a rectangular overbound
in the complex plane. Even though this would provide analytical results in
robust analysis it would not be an appropriate formulation for robust control
synthesis.
Consider2 the polynomial family:
;(s, al) = hns" + hn_lS,,-l +.,. + ho +al U"s" + f"_l S"-l +... + fo)
" ".. " 'Y .,
4>0(') 4>,(,)
(4.32)
where al E 0 111 = {al E RI- 1 ~ al ~ I}, is a single real parameter and ;o(s),
;1(1), have complex coefficients. Let us first "augment" the given family by in-
troducing "fictitious" uncertainty. Define the new family (referred to as "family
~"):
~(s, all al) = ;0(1) + ,al;l(s) + al~l(S)., (4.33)

...
9(,,11,,4,)
where throughout this section the "-,, operation on a complex polynomial

stands for: ~l(S) = 1,,(-1)" +1"-1( -s) +... + 10, Ii is the complex conjugate
of fi' 1 ~ i ~ n. Furthermore, al depends on al in that (all al) E 0111 C R 2I
where 0111 is the region in Figure 4.9:
Figure 4.8 Parameter Overbound
It is clear that the set of polynomials ;(1, 0 111 ) is included in the set of polyno-
mials ~(s, 0111 ), Therefore if ~(I, 0111 ) is a stable family so will family ;(,.0111 )
[25].
2Portiona reprinted, with permission, Crom Proceedings 30th CDC, Brighton, England,
December 1991, pp. 427-432, @ 1991 IEEE
72 CHAPTER 4
Lemma 4.1 The value 6et q(jw, ( 01 ) at each frequency w u a rectangle, who6e
vertice6 corre6pond to the polynomia16 tPt(jw), -tPt(jw), ~t(jw), -~t(jw).
Proof: Consider the edge of 001 in the first quadrant. Since Re(~t(jw)) =
Re(tPt(jw)),Im(~t(jw)) = -Im(tPt(jw)), its image in the complex plane at
frequency w is:
qt(jw, at, at) attPt(jw) + (1- at}~t(jw), 0 $ at $ 1

2at Im(tPt(jw)) + Re(tPt(jw)) - jlm(tPt(jw))
= Re(tPt(jw)) + j(2at - 1) Im(tPt(jw))
This is a straight line segment parallel to the imaginary axis between the points
(Re(tPt(jw)), -Im(tPt(jw))) and (Re(tPt(jw)),Im(tPt(jw))) which correspond
to polynomials ~t (jw) and tPt (jw) respectively. The image of the edge at =
1 + at is:
This segment is a straight line parallel to the real axis between the points
(Re(tPt(jw)), -Im(tPt(jw))) and (-Re(tPt(jw)), -Im(tPt (jw))) which correspond
to polynomials ~t(jw) and -tPt(jw) respectively. The image of the edge at =
-1- at is:
This is a straight line segment parallel to the imaginary axis between the
points (-Re(tPt(jw), Im(tPt(jw))) and (-Re(tPt(jw)), -Im(tPdjw))) which cor-
respond to polynomials -~t(jw) and -tPt(jw) respectively. Finally the image
of the edge at = -1 + at is:
This is a straight line segment parallel to the real axis between the points
(-Re(<Pl(jW), Im(<Pl(jW))) and (Re(<Pl(jW)), Im(<Pl(jW))) which correspond to
polynomials -~1 (jw) and <PI(jw) respectively. All other points of OGI get map-
ped to the interior of the rectangle shown in Figure 4.10, where for illustrative
purposes we assume Re(<Pl(jW) > 0, Im(l/>l(jw)) > O.
1m
-~ l(jW) <Pl( jw)
- f--
Re
-I/> l(jW) ~1( jw)
Figure 4.10 Rectangular Overbound of Value Set
This rectangle could collapse at some frequencies to a straight line segment

parallel to one of the axes, or even to a single point. It is evident that the
q(jw, (}G,) value set (which is a straight line segment) is included in the "over-
bounding" rectangular value set q(jW,OGl)' This procedure has been used in
[22]. The vertices corresponding to ~1(jW) and -~I(jW) are vertices ofthe fa-
mily ~, which are not vertices of our original family 1/>. These are the "fictitious"
vertices that are introduced by our overbounding. It should be mentioned that
a less conservative overbound can be constructed if the al interval is partitio-
ned into several sub-intervals and the rectangular overbound applied to each.
This however would be at the expense of a more complicated analytical descrip-
tion, which as we will see in subsequent Chapters, also translates to increased
computational burden in analysis and design. 0
In our discussion thus far we have explored how to overbound value sets in the
complex plane. Value set overbounding can also be accomplished indirectly in
parameter space. Consider the case of polynomials families with coefficients
that are quadratic in al. For example the term a~ can be written as Qlq2,
where Ql, Q2 are thought of as independent parameters both taking values
over the same range as al. Clearly, this is a very "crude" overbound and the
representation is by no means unique. As a matter of fact, al -+ aQI + (1- a )q2
and a~ -+ qlq2 is a whole family of substitutions accomplishing this task,
parameterised bya. Note, of all the possible substitutions al -+ aql + (1- a )q2
74 CHAPTER 4
and a~ -+ qlq2 where a E R, the choice of a = 1/2 is least conservative. This

may be seen from the following Lemma [49]:
Lemma 4.2 For arbitrary 0 ~ a1 ~ at define:
2
U {(al' aD E R 1 a1 ~ al ~ at }
Ua {(aql + (1 - a)q2' qlq2) E R 2 1 ai ~ qi ~ at ,1 < i < 2,}
Then, U C Ul / 2 C Ua for all a E R.
Proof: (U C Ul / 2):U is precisely those points of Ua where ql = q2' In particu-

lar, this holds for a = 1/2.
(Ul/2 C Ua ) : Suppose a E Rand (z, y) E Ul / 2. Then, z = (ql + q2)/2
and y = qlq2 for some ql and q2 where 0 ~ ai ~ ql ~ q2 ~ at. Let
f('7) = a'7 + (1 - a)y/'7 - z, and note f(qt) =- f(q2). Hence, f(qt} or
f(q2) is nonnegative while the other is nonpositive. By continuity there exists
a qi E [ql' q2] such that f(qi) = O. So, letting q~ = y/qi implies q~ E [q1J q2],
aq~ + (1- a)q~ = =
:c, and q~q~ y, which implies (:c, y) E Ua . 0
This is only an example of a type of overbounding that takes quadratic terms

and replaces then with multiaffine terms. In Chapter 7, we will show how this
result can be used in conjunction with the Mapping Theorem for robust syn-
thesis.
4.7 THE NEED FOR ROBUST ANALYSIS

AND DESIGN TOOLS
There are ample reasons thatjustify the presence of uncertainty in system mo-
dels. System parameters may not be completely known, unmodelled dynamics
may need to be taken into account, performance problems could be formulated
as robust stability problems. This immediately necessitates the development
of methods for robust analysis and design for families of plants. Therefore,
it is not surprising that robust analysis and design have always been at the
forefront of control theory research and practice. The literature on the subject
is extensive, and the few remarks that follow are narrowly focused on problems
with real parameter uncertainty.
In the context of linear time invariant systems, several analysis and design
methodologies have been proposed and among the most successful and widely
used are the H oo methods [35, 36] and LQG/LTR [37]. Even though, these
methods have been developed with unstructured (norm bounded) uncertainties
in mind, they can be applied to systems with real parameter uncertainty. The
success ofthe H oo methodology stems from the fact that it addresses important
control problems, it is based on a firm theoretical foundation, and it is insightful.
Furthermore, analytical results have been developed and efficient computer
algorithms have been suggested for automated controller design. Consider the
case when the plant family is defined in terms ofthe multiplicative perturbation:
(4.34)
with P(,,) strictly proper. One can show [36] using the Nyquist criterion,
that if the controller of a unity feedback configuration makes the nominal clo-
sed loop (i.e. ~ = 0) stable, the system is robustly stable if and only if
IW(jw)T(jw) I < 1 'V wE [0,(0). The transfer function T(,,) is the nominal
complementary sensitivity. For analysis this is an almost trivial computation.
Even more remarkable is the fact that the problem of finding a controller that
stabilizes the nominal feedback loop and minimizes the H oo norm of W(,,)T(,,)
can be very elegantly solved by H 00 methods (i.e. interpolation theory or the
two Riccati equation method).
In view of such very sophisticated and powerful results, it is natural to apply

these results to plant families with real parameter uncertainty. This is indeed
possible by introducing overbounding, however the price one has to pay is con-
servatism in the solution. Furthermore, in synthesis one cannot apriori fix the
order of the controller to be used. Frequently, the H oo design solution results in
a very high order controller. Model reduction techniques must then be applied
to obtain a sub-optimal reduced order controller, and this may lead to addi-
tional conservatism. In addition, there are several problems in robust control
which cannot be formulated as H oo problems (for example V-stability), which
however can be attacked using other Nyquist Theorem based methods.
76 CHAPTER 4
As an alternative, one can turn to the literature where the investigation of

systems with real parameter uncertainty has a long tradition. For a compre-
hensive survey ofthe work on Parameter Space Methods up to the late eighties
see [64]. The methods in [1] for example are very representative of such analysis
and design techniques, and so is the Quantitative Feedback Theory (QFT).
However, as successful as these techniques may be in specific examples, it is
unfortunate that they lack the mathematical rigor, theoretical development
and power of H oo • This is not to say that these techniques are not useful and
valuable, but they frequently have to rely heavily on "art" and "experience",
especially in controller synthesis.
Over the last decade there has been a great deal of interest in the analysis of
systems with real parameter uncertainty, which was "fueled" in part by Kha-
ritonov's result [50]. Attempts have been made to develop design methods for
parametrically uncertain systems (based on these recent developments), but
thus far have had only limited success [7, 10, 28, 41]. A promising alternative
technique for single input single output systems was presented in [51]. This
machinery however is limited to the single parameter case. An interesting ap-
proach is presented in [60] that addresses synthesis problems for a certain class
of systems with parameter uncertainty in terms of infinite-dimensional convex
optimization.
It has been shown in Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, that many control problems
can be formulated as robust polynomial stability problems. In some cases the
polynomial families have real coefficients, but in general the polynomial families
have complex coefficients. Therefore, if one wishes to employ this formulation
in the analysis and design of control systems, one has to develop appropriate
tools for robust polynomial stability and robust polynomial stabilization.
Consider the problem of robust stability in Section 4.2. Suppose that the plant
involves parameter uncertainty where 0 4 is some hypercube in parameter space
and that a controller has been chosen. The closed loop characteristic polynomial
is given by:
¢(s, a) = 4(s, a)dc(s) + np(s, a)nc(s) (4.35)
One needs to check if this polynomial is robustly stable, in other words, that it
is stable for all values of the parameter a E 0 4 • Since the coefficients are real,
both the Routh-Hurwitz criterion and the Nyquist criterion can be employed.
For the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, the Routh table can be constructed with
the use of a computer with symbolic computation capability, but the entries
will now be functions of the uncertain parameter a. If the coefficients of the
characteristic polynomial are polynomic in a, then the entries in the Routh
table will be rational functions in a. One is now faced with having to check
whether the entries in the first column are positive for all a E 0 0 , One could
have used a different criterion [14] whereby the positivity of a finite number of
polynomial expressions in a need to be checked. These are both problems in
algebraic geometry which in general are very difficult to solve, see [4, 3].
Another possibility is to employ the Nyquist theorem for polynomial families.

In this case the image of some point on the Nyquist path is not going to be a
single point but an entire set parameterized by a, called the value let. These
value sets need to be plotted for each frequency and a determination made
about the number of encirclements of the origin. Even though conceptually
this is easy to visualize, in general the value sets at each point are complicated
2-dimensional figures. We have seen exceptions to this fact that in certain
special cases. An important point in carrying out this procedure is the so
called zero ezclUlion property, (see Chapter 5 for a precise statement). Simply
stated if we show that for a single parameter value we have the appropriate
number of encirclements for stability, then guaranteeing that the origin of the
complex plane is excluded from the value set corresponding to each point on
the Nyquist path, is a necessary and sufficient condition for robust polynomial
stability. This is so because of continuity properties and geometric reasoning.
The Nyquist Theorem (i.e. the argument principle) can also be applied to
rational function families. The standard problem is determining stability of
a unity feedback loop with the family of transfer functions P(6, a)C(6) in the
forward path. Assume that the number of unstable poles of P( I, a) does not
change. At each point on the Nyquist path, one would now have a different value
set, and would have to determine the number of encirclements of the -1 point.
Having the appropriate number of encirclements of the -1 point for a single
parameter value, and the "exclusion" of -1 by each rational function value
set, would guarantee the robust stability of the unity feedback loop. Rational
function value set construction is the cornerstone ofthe QFT methodology [43].
In analysis, whether the polynomial version of the Nyquist Theorem is used

or its rational function counterpart, one is faced with three tasks. The first is
to guarantee stability for a single parameter value. The second is to construct
the value set for each point on the Nyquist path. The third is to check for
zero exclusion. It is evident that value set computation is crucial. In some
78 CHAPTER 4
important special cases value sets can be easily described analytically. However,
in general value sets cannot be described analytically in an efficient manner and
performing value set computations is not an easy undertaking even with the
use of powerful software.
Using this Nyquist Theorem approach for synthesis makes the procedure even
more complex in that the value sets are now parameterized in terms of the
controller parameters. Even though this formulation is straightforward and
easy to explain it makes development of "automated" design procedures very
difficult. One alternative is to sacrifice mathematical rigor by considering only a
finite number of points on the Nyquist path (as in QFT). Another alternative is
to use approximations and rely heavily on experience. Such practices have been
used in the past with success, but one should always strive for new theoretical
results that lead to improvements.
The Finite Nyquist Theorem (FNT) presented in Chapter 3 is a recent innova-

tion which leads to a different Nyquist Theorem based value set approach. This
result along with its Corollary, The Finite Inclusions Theorem (FIT) presented
in Chapter 6, do provide the basis for a new and powerful analysis and design
methodology. FIT works with polynomial value sets and requires only a finite
number of points on the Nyquist path. For multiaffine parameter uncertainty
value sets at these points need only be described by their vertice6 which must lie
sectors ofthe complex plane. The implication of this fact in design is that ite-
rative algorithms can be developed based on FIT, where at each iteration a new
controller is computed by solving linear inequalitie, in controller parameters.
Other value set overbounding techniques can also be explored. The rectangular
value set overbounding introduced is one possibility. We will see in Chapter
10 that such endeavors do lead to efficient analytical value set representations
and to conditions for robust analysis and synthesis. The disadvantage is that
these are only sufficient conditions and result in robust analysis and synthesis
methods that are conservative.
5
SOME ROBUST STABILITY TESTS
5.1 POLYNOMIAL FAMILY STABILITY

We have already discussed the importance of stability and more generally V-
stability to control system analysis and design. We saw that for linear time
invariant systems, these concepts can be expressed in terms of polynomial root
locations. In Chapter 3 we recalled some basic stability tests and introduced
the Finite Nyquist Theorem. From our discussion in Chapter 4, there are ample
reasons for investigating not only root locations of a single polynomial, but rat-
her root locations of families of polynomials with parameter uncertainty. One
can immediately recognise that the Routh-Hurwitz criterion and the Nyquist
Theorem can be used for this purpose. For the Routh-Hurwitz criterion one
constructs the Routh table where the first column will now contain entries that
in general are rational functions of the uncertain parameters. One still needs
to guarantee that for all uncertainty values the first column contains positive
entries. In the case ofthe Nyquist Theorem the image ofthe Nyquist path for
each polynomial in the family must have the appropriate number of encircle-
ments of the origin. These are only two of many robust stability tests that can
be employed. In fact, over the last decade there has been a tremendous amount
of interest in developing efficient analytical results for polynomial family stabi-
lity and V-stability. The book by Barmish [6] provides an excellent reference
for this work.
In this Chapter we will first recall (without proof) some earlier results and then
present in detail two robust stability results. The first is the Finite Frequency
Test which asserts that robust stability of a polynomial family with affine un-
certainty can be determined from a finite number of frequency checks. In other
80 CHAPTER 5
words, no frequency "sweep" is required (cf Nyquist Theorem). The second

is a robust stability result made possible by employing the rectangular over-
bound introduced in Chapter 4. Our discussion will continue by mentioning a
third result: the Finite Matched Phase Theorem. The result is just stated for
a single polynomial rather than a family and in essence says that a polynomial
is stable if its phase "matches" the phase of a stable polynomial at a finite
number of frequencies. A fourth result, the Finite Inclusions Theorem (FIT),
which is derived from the Finite Nyquist Theorem and can address V-stability
will be presented in Chapter 6. Our goal in the development of these results
was to generate analytical robust stability tests with reasonable computational
requirements.
The most general family of polynomials under investigation in this book is given
by:
;(6, a) = ;0(6) + Ql(a);1(6) + Q2(a);2(6) + ... + Qu(a);u(6) (5.1)

= ;0(6) + q(6, a) (5.2)
where the ;i(6), 0 ~ i ~ u are given polynomials. Suppose that the parame-
ter a takes values in the hypercube 0/1 = {a E RI: la; ~ Oi ~ at, 1 ~ i ~ Ie},
a; < 0, at > 0, 1 ~ i ~ Ie. The leading coefficient of ;(6, a) is positive
and the family has degree n. Further assume that Qi(a),l ~ i ~ u are
polynomic in a and such that Qi(O) = O. Both the Routh-Hurwitz criterion
and the Nyquist Theorem can be used for determining robust stability of this
polynomial family. If some of the coefficients are complex or we are interested
in general1>-stability the Routh-Hurwitz criterion cannot be used.
5.2 ZERO EXCLUSION CONDITION

A very useful tool for robust analysis for the class of polynomial families
under investigation is the so called zero ezclU6ion condition. This result fol-
lows directly from the Nyquist Theorem by exploiting continuity and geometric
reasoning (see [6] for a proof).
Some Robust Stability Tests 81
Theorem 5.1 A6Iume that at lefUt one polynomial in the family; i8 'D-dable.
The entire family; i8 'D-,table if and only if 0 fJ. ;(,,04 ), for all , on the
boundary of 'D.
The result states that a polynomial family will be 'D-stable if one of its members
is stable and the origin ofthe complex plane is excluded from the ;(" 0 4 ) value
set for all , on the boundary of 'D. To apply this result one must be able to
construct the value sets and carry out a "sweep" of the boundary of 'D. It
would be very desirable if more efficient analytical solutions could be provided.
5.3 INTERVAL POLYNOMIALS

A perfect example of an efficient analytical solution to the robust stability
problem is Kharitonov's Theorem, [50] for the case of interval polynomial
families (5.3):
(5.3)
where a E 0/1' This family can be expressed as in (5.2) if a "nominal" poly-

nomial ;0(') is chosen and the parameter ranges are redefined. It is a special
affine polynomial family where each polynomial coefficient varies independently.
One can identify four specific polynomials in the family called the Kharitonov
polynomials:
k 1 (,) = a1 + a2"' +at,2 + at,3 + a5",4 + a6',5 +

k 2(,) a+1 + at, + a3",2 + a4",3 + at,4 + at,5 +
k 3(,) a+1 + a2- , +a3- , 2 + at,3 + at,4 + a6',5 +
k 4(,) a1 + at, + 4,2 + a-,3
4 + a-,4
5 + a+,5
6 +
(5.4)
A very elegant characterisation of robust stability for this polynomial family

is given by:
82 CHAPTER 5
Theorem 5.2 The inte1'1lal polynomial family in (5.9) u Itable if and only if
it. four Kharitonov polynomiau are Itable.
A proof of this result can be found in [6]. Unfortunately, an elegant result

such as this cannot be stated even for the family of polynomials with affine
uncertainty (i.e. the polynomials o(a) are affine functions of a), which presents
the next higher level of complexity. Even more importantly, as we will see in
later Chapters, the Kharitonov approach does not provide a basis for efficient
controller synthesis methods.
5.4 EDGE THEOREM

Consider the case of a polynomial family with affine uncertainty:
We shall refer to such a family as an affine polynomial family. For such a

polynomial family one can prove the following beautiful analytical result [9]:
Theorem 5.3 The polynomial family tP(6, a) with affine uncertainty u .!table
if and only if all the edge polynomia16 of the hypercube 0,. are .!table.
Along with Kharitonov's Theorem this result generated a great deal of excite-
ment in the control research community during the 1980's. Even though the
Edge Theorem is a very valuable analytical tool, it carries with it a heavy
computational burden when it is applied. Clearly superior to "gridding", it
nevertheless involves the stability determination of an exponential number of
single parameter families of polynomials.
5.5 A FINITE FREQUENCY TEST

Consider l again the question of Hurwits stability of the family of real polyno-
mials with affine uncertainty (5.5):
~O(6) + al~l(6) + a2~2(6) ... + al~1(6)

~O(6) + q(6, a)
°
where the ~i(6), ~ i ~ Ie are given polynomials with ~O(6) monic of degree n
and the rest of degree less than n and Oil = {a E R11a; ~ at ~ at, 1 ~ i ~ Ie},
a; < 0, at > 0, 1 ~ i ~ Ie. If we are to follow a Nyquist Theorem approach
involving the sero exclusion condition, we are required to compute the value set
~(jw, Oil)' for each nonnegative frequency, (one can show that examining the
entire Nyquist path is not required but only the jw axis). In view of the fact
that we are dealing with a polynomial family of degree n, we need not consider
the entire nonnegative axis. One need only guarantee sero exclusion over some
finite interval "M" of frequencies w E [0, M]. We already know that at each
frequency the value set is a 2k convex parpolygon. In applications, one would
"grid" the frequency axis and check for sero exclusion at a finite number of
points. One would then hope that no critical frequency was "missed" and that
the test results are correct. Certainly, it would be desirable to have rigorous
analytical results and not to have to deal with questions about the outcome
of some test that involves gridding. One can actually show that this is indeed
possible. A stability test for the polynomial family in (5.5) exists, that requires
only a finite number of frequency checks [30]. This number is polynomial in le,
0(1c 3 ), and these critical frequencies correspond to the real nonnegative roots
of some polynomials that can be constructed from given data.
Let us consider first the case when only two parameters are present in the
polynomial family:
~(6, a) = ~O(6) + al~l(6) + a2~2(")

~O(6) + q(6,a) (5.6)
1 Portions reprinted, with permi••ion, Cram IEEE Trana. on AC, Vol. 34, No.9, 1989, pp.
982-986, @ 1989 IEEE
84 CHAPTER 5
Assume that tP(",O) is a stable polynomial. In order to guarantee that the

entire family is stable we need to show that the value set tP(jw, 0 0 ) excludes
the origin for all w E [0,00). We already know that in general the value set
tP(jw,O o) at some frequency w is a 4 convex parpolygon (i.e. a parallelogram).
Checking whether this value set excludes the origin at some frequency w, is
equivalent to checking whether the value set -q(jw,Oo) excludes the point
tPo(jw). It is also clear that the -q(jw,Oo) value set is also a parallelogram.
In Section 4.5 we reported that the edges of this parallelogram lie on the lines:
ill E4>1 (jw) Y W04>1 (jw) Z - W"Y12 (jw )at = 0

i12 E4>I(jW) Y W04>1 (jw) Z - W"Y12 (jw )a2 0
i 21 E4>2(jW) y W04>2(jW) z + W"Y12(jw)at 0
i 22 E4>2(jW) y W04>2(jW) Z + w"Y12(jw)a 1 = 0 (5.7)
These are valid expressions for the edge lines as long as E 4>1 (jw), E 4>2 (jw),
04>1 (jw) or 04>2 (jw) are not zero for some w. Since the polynomial family
contains at least one stable polynomial, then it contains only stable polyno-
mials if and only if the point tPo(jw) lies outside the value set -q(jw, 0 0 )
at each frequency. Given that this value set has a boundary described by
the lines ill,i12,i2lti22, tPo "enters" the -q(jw,Oo) value set if it crosses
one of these lines at some frequency. Evaluating these lines at the point
(z, y) = (E4>o(jw), 04>0 (jw)), generates the four polynomials:
gl(W) = WE4>1 04>0 W°4>I E4>O + W(E4>1 04>2 °4>I E 4>2)at

g2(W) WE4>1 04>0 W04>1 E4>o + W(E4>1 04>2 °4>I E 4>2)a 2
g3(W) WE4>2 04>0 W°4>2 E 4>0 W(E4>1 04>2 04>1 E 4>3 )at
g4(W) wE4>2 04>0 W°4>2 E 4>0 W(E4>1 04>2 °4>I E 4>3)a 1
(5.8)
Let g,(w), i = 1,2,3,4 be those g,(w) which are not identically zero and define
90(W) = W(E4>I 0 4>O - 04>IE4>O)' Let
CF1 =
{wlw = 0, or a real po"itive zero of g" i = 1,2,3,4, E4>I' E4>3' 04>1' 04>2' "Y12}
CF2=
{wlw = 0, or a real po"itive zero of go, E4>lI E4>3' 04>1' 04>2}
Thus if w. E CF2, then w. =

0, or go(w.) =
0, or E"'l(jW.) 0, or =
E"'2(jW.) =0, or O"'l(jW.) =
0, or 0"'2(jW.) =
O. We are now ready to
prove the Finite Frequency Test (FFTEST) for two uncertain parameters.
Theorem 5.4 (Finite Frequency Te.tt, two parameter ctue) Let E"'l' E"'2' 0"'1'
0"'2 be nonzero polynomiaZ,. The family (5.6) contaim only Itable polynomiaZ,
if and only if ;o(jw) lie' outlide the value ,et -q(jw, Oil) at the following
critical frequencie, :
(i) when 1'12 # 0, for all w E CF1.

(ii) when 1'12 = 0, for all wE CF2.
Proof: Let us first consider the case when 1'12 # O. Now if ;0 is outside the
value set -q(jw, Oil) at some frequency (say w = 0) it can enter it through an
edge. This implies that the point ;0 must lie on one of the edge lines at some
frequency. Specifically, we must have:
91(W) WE"'lO",O - WO"'l E",O + W(E"'10"'2 0"'l E"'2)at =0

or 92(W) = WE"'10",O - wO"'lE",o + W(E"'10"'2 0"'lE"'2)a 2 0
or 93(W) WE"'20",O - WO"'2 E",O - W(E"'1 0 "'2 0"'lE"'2)ai = 0
or 94(W) WE"'20",O - WO"'2 E",O - W(E"'10"'2 0"'l E"'2)a1 = 0
(5.9)
These expressions are valid at all frequencies except the zeros of E"'l (jw),
E"'2(jW), O"'l(jW) or 0"'2(jW). Suppose that none of the 9i polynomials are
identically zero, and let C F 1 be the set defined above. It is then clear that ;0
is outside the -q(jw, Oil) value set for all frequencies if and only if ;0 is outside
the -q(jw, Oil) value set at the finite number of frequencies in CF1 • The set
C F 1 contains the potentially troublesome "critical frequencies" that need to
be checked. Suppose that exactly one of the polynomials in (5.9) is identically
zero. This implies that the point ;0 lies on an edge line of the -q(jw, Oil) value
set for all frequencies. Then;o will be outside the -q(jw, Oil) value set for all
frequencies if and only if it is outside the -q(jw, Oil) value set at frequencies
86 CHAPTER 5
in CFt. This is true because the only way the <1>0 point can enter is through
a different edge (one other than that corresponding to the identically lero g,).
If more than one g, is identically lero, then either 112 = 0 (a contradiction
to our assumption), or the frequencies in CFt are adequate to determine loca-
tion. When 112 = 0 we have the following simplification. This is because the
-q(jw, (}Il) value set reduces to a line segment since:
E;2 )
z = -E;1 (at + -a2 = -E;I At
E;I ,
...
Al
0;2 )
y -wO;I(at + Oa2 At -O;I At
;1
which implies:
(5.10)
Then <1>0 will be on this line if and only if:
(5.U)
Now 90 cannot be identically lero because this would imply that [29]:
(5.12)
where g( 6) is arbitrary and et, e2 are even polynomials. Since <1>0 is stable e2
must be equal to a nonzero constant otherwise <1>0 would have at least one root
in the right half complex plane. But then g(6) would be a polynomial of degree
n. However, by assumption <l>t can have degree only up to n - 1. The set of
critical frequencies is thus C F2 • 0
Remark: In the Theorem we have assumed that E;., 0;. are not identically
lero. The Theorem holds in these cases as well as we now demonstrate. Let
112 f. 0, E;I = 0 and E;2' 0;1,0;2 nonzero. The gi polynomials are:
g1(W) E.o + E~at

g2(W) E.o + E~a~
g3(W) w(E.20.0 0.2 E 4>0 + 0 •• E4>24)
g4(W) w(E~O.o 04>2E.o + 0 •• E.2at )
If none of these are identically zero the set of critical frequencies becomes:
CFf = {wlw = 0, or a real po6itive zero 0/ gi, i = 1,2,3,4, E.2, 0." O.2}
Similarly if E.2 = 0, or 0.. = 0, or 0.2 = o. If say E.. = 0 and 0.2 = 0
then:
and the gi polynomials are:
91(W) E4>o + E.24

92(W) = E.o + E. 2 a2
93(W) wO.o + wO•• at
g4(W) wO.o + wO•• at
generating a corresponding set of critical frequencies CF. Appropriate modifi-

cations in C F should be made if some of the gi are identically zero.
Now if 112 = 0 and E..= 0, then we must also have either

E4>2 = o. If 0.. = 0 then at does not appear in ; and we have a single
0.. =
0 or
parameter. If E. 2 = 0 then the -q(jw, nil) value set lives always on the
imaginary axis and thus we need only check frequencies which make E. o = 0
(a finite number).
88 CHAPTER 5
Let us now consider the k-parameter case. We already know that the -q(jw, Oil)
value set is in general a 2k convex parpolygon. However, one can show that
under certain conditions the number of sides can actually be less than 2k. In
Section 4.5 we considered the polynomial family with affine uncertainty:
IP(s, a) = IPo(s) + ailPl(s) + a2IP2(s) ... + atIPt(s)

IPo(s) + q(s, a)
and defined the set of polynomials 'YUlI (s) given by:
'YUlI(s) = O~,.(s)E~,,(s) - E~.. (s)O~,,(s) V1 ~ u, v ~ k, u # v (5.13)
We say that polynomials IPu and IPlI satisfy a ,haping condition [29], if and
only if 'YUlI (jw) is identically lero. One can easily visualise the implication of
such a condition on say polynomials IPl and IP2. If 'Y12(jW) = 0, this implies
that 0 ~1 (jw )E.", (jw) - E~l (jw)O ~2 (jw) is the lero polynomial. Therefore, the
columns in T that correspond to polynomials IPl and IP2 are linearly dependent
for all frequencies. This implies that the direction vectors ii, i2 are collinear
for all frequencies and that the resulting parpolygon has two less sides.
In the next result we will use the fact that the -q(jw, Oil) value set is a parpo-
lygon with at most 2k sides to show that assuming the family of polynomials
with affine uncertainty contains at least one stable polynomial, robust stability
can be determined from a finite number of frequency checks. This number is
shown to be O(k 3 ) and not exponential in k as one might have expected.
Theorem 5.5 (Finite Frequency Ted, FFTEST) Let E~., O~il1 ~ i ~ k be

nonzero polynomiaZ, and IPo be ,table. The family of polynomiaZ, with affine
uncertainty containl only dable polynomiaZ, if and only if IPo lie' outlide the
-q(jw, Oil) value ,et at a finite number of frequencie, which are given /II the
real nonnegative zero, of real polynomiaZ, in the ,ingle variable w.
Proof: First consider the case when no shaping conditions are satisfied (i.e.
'YulI(jw) # 0, 1 ~ u,v ~ k,u # v). Let
VI {W Iw 0 real po6itive zero 0/ 60me 119, 2 ~ v ~ Ie in the intervol M}

{Wl,W2, ... W~l-l}
These seros partition the interval M into open intervals M ll , M 12 , ... , M b1 •

In each of these intervals the sign of the 119'S remains the same. In particular
assume that in M ll , 112,114,111: are positive whereas the rest are negative.
Then it is clear that for wE M ll :
Cl..... (W) =
max (11202
·2,.·.,0,11
+ .. ,+ 111: 0 1:) = 1124 + 1130 3" + 1144 + 115 0 5" + ... + 111: 0 t
Cl......(W) =
mm . (11202 + ... +
111: 0)
1: = 11202-+ 11303
+ + 11404- + 11505+ + ... + 1a01:-
·2, ... ,011
This implies that at frequencies in M ll (which are not leros of E~l' O~l) the
two edge lines are:
W(1124 + 113 0 3" + t + 1150 5" + + 1a o t)

114 0
= W(112 0 2" + 113 0 t + 114 0 4" + 11s o t + + 111: 0 ; )
This procedure can be repeated for all other parameters as well (i.e. 02,03, •.. ,01:),
Specifically, for polynomials 1"., 1 ~ v ~ le, u f. v let
V. =
{wlw 0 reol po6itive zero 0/ 60me 1"., 1 ~ v ~ le, u f. v in the intervol M}
and V = VI U V2 ••• U VA:. It is evident that these frequencies will

partition the interval M into open intervals M 1 ,M2,M3' ... M~. The number
z is computable as it represents the number of real positive leros of a finite
number of polynomials. Since the leros of 1.. and 1.. , u f. v are the same
we will have at most I: 2 lle such polynomials each with at most n real positive
seros. Then we must have:
90 CHAPTER 5
k-1
z ~ n --k
2
+ 1 (5.14)
What we now have is that within each interval Mi the 2k edge lines are:
E. 1 Y wO. 1 Z = WClimaz
E. , Y wO., Z WClimi"
E. 2 Y wO. 2 Z WC2imaz
E. 2 Y wO. 2 Z WC2imi"
E•• Y wO•• Z WCkimaz

E•• Y wO•• Z WCkimi" (5.15)
where the -Cjima:C1 -Cjimi" are solely functions offrequency and do not depend
parametrically on the tit '5. It is then clear that the point ifJo will be on anyone
of these lines for w E Mi if anyone of the 2k polynomials:
= w((E.,O.O Climaz)
= w((E.,O.O Climi,,)
g2k-li(W) = w((E•• O.o Ckimaz)

g2ki(W) w((E•• O.o Ckimi,,)
(5.16)
has a real positive zero in Mi' Assuming that none of the polynomials gti are
identically zero define:
Ui = {wlw a real positive zero of some gti,l ~ t ~ 2k, in the interval Mi}
and let U = U 1 U U 2 U ••• U•• We are now in a position define the set of
"critical frequencies":
CFl = U U V u {w = 0, real po6itive zero of E~" O~J
This is clearly a finite set of frequencies. It contains all the frequencies that
are potentially troublesome in the sense that it is at one of these that the tPo
point has a chance of entering the -q(jw, (}/I) value set. If then tPo lies outside
the -q(jw, (}/I) value set at these frequencies it must be outside this value set
for all w.
tion 1..
Suppose that some (not all) of the gei are identically equal to zero. Our assump-
:f:. 0 for all u, v, is still in effect. This corresponds to the situation
where tPo lies on one or more of the gti for all frequencies. Now if the -q(jw, 0/1)
value set continues to be of dimension 2 for most frequencies (except perhaps
at positive real zeros of 1•• ) and tPo lies outside the -q(jw, 0/1) value set for
some w (say w = 0) it can enter only through a different edge. We now modify
the sets Ui and U by excluding these zero polynomials. Specifically, let
Vi = {wlw a real po6itive zero of anyone of the nonzero gei,l :5 t :5 2k,

in the interval M,}
and V Vl U V2 ••• u V~. The set of critical frequencies then becomes:
CF2 = V U V u {w = 0, real positive zero of E~" O",.}
Now suppose that some shaping conditions are satisfied. The consequence of
condition (i.e. 1..

this fact will be the following: Suppose that tPl' tP2,' .. ,tPil satisfy a shaping
= 0 for 1 :5 u :5 il, 1 :5 v :5 jl, U :f:. v). When we
then eliminate al, we will also eliminate a2, a3, ... , ail' This will result in a
-q(jw,O/l) value set with fewer than 2k edges. Specifically, if k* such groups
of at parameters are formed then the -q(jw,O/l) value set will have at most
"size" k* rather than k. If all 1..

2k* edges at any frequency. This will in essence reduce the problem to one of
= 0 for 1 :5 u :5 k, 1 :5 v :5 v, u :f:. v,
then the -q(jw, 0/1) value set will lie on a straight line and be of dimension
less than 2 for all frequencies.
In the case we are considering (not all 1•• = 0) we have k* > 1. The required
modifications to the set of critical frequencies are: First define for 1 :5 u :5 k*,
92 CHAPTER 5
V. = {wlw a real po6itive zero of 60me nonzero '1.11' 1 ~ v ~ Ie, u::l v

in the interval M}
and let V VI U V2 ••• U Vt•. The frequency range M will be partitioned

by these frequencies into open intervals MI , •.. M,. Equations for the21e*
edges can again be derived and polynomials gei defined, 21e* in each interval
Mi. The sets (ji and (j are modified accordingly, (j becomes fJ and in the case
when the gei are nonzero the set of critical frequencies becomes:
CFa = fJ u V u {w = 0, real po6itive zero of E~" O~.}
If some of the gei now become zero the set of critical frequencies should be
suitably modified (as in the 2 parameter case) and set equal to CF4 •
Finally let us direct our attention to the situation when all '1.11 = 0, but ;0
does not lie on the -q(jw, 0 4 ) value set for all frequencies. The -q(jw, 0 4 )
value set is a straight line segment given by:
(5.17)
where z = -E~lal - E~2a2 - E~"at, with a; ~ at ~ at. Clearly

;0 will be on this line if go(w) = w(E~IO~o - O~lE~o) = o. The set of
critical frequencies now is:
CFs ={wlw =O,real po6itive zero of go(w) or E~i10~.}

As we saw in the 2 parameter case it is impossible for go to be the zero poly-
nomial. 0
We have just presented the Finite Frequency Test, a robust stability result
for families of polynomials with affine parameter uncertainty. The basic idea
behind the proof was the fact that the only way the point ;o(jw) could enter
the -q(jW,04 ) is through some edge. This happens at the roots of specific
polynomials which implies that we do not have to "sweep" frequencies but

check at only a finite number of frequencies. A similar result would hold in
the case where the value set at each frequency was some other type of convex
polygon or even some more general shape, whose edges can be identified. This
is true for some special cases of polynomial families with multiaffine parameter
dependence [29], as is the case in the following example.
Example 5.1 Application of the Finite Frequency Te,t for ,tability
Consider the state space model for a "crane" [1] where me is the crab mass, mt
is the load mass, l the rope length, g the gravitational constant, Zl the crab
position, Z2 the crab velocity, Z3 the rope angle, Z4 the rope velocity, and u
the input force accelerating the crab.
o
~
x me
o y =Z (5.18)
(me+mt)g
mel
Suppose that all states are available for feedback purposes and that we employ
a constant state feedback controller C, (u = -CZ), in order to robustly
stabilise the system. For this Example assume that the rope length land
the load mass mt are only known to lie in given intervals. Let l = 1/1 with
l = alO + al, mt =
a20 + a2 where alO =
1/10 corresponds to some
nominal rope length and a20 = 1 is the nominal load mass. Let 0 ~ al ~ .01,
and 0 ~ a2 ~ 10. Let g =
10 and me =
10. One can verify that the
controller C = [240 500 - 990 4000] places the poles of the nominal closed
loop characteristic polynomial at -1, -2, -3, -4. The closed loop characteristic
polynomial det(,I - (A - BC)) is given by:
+ + + +
4>(" a) ,4 10,3
..
35,2 + 50, 24,
"'0(')
,,2
+ + + + + --.-.-
,,2 at
.,.,(...
(-400,3 110,,2 500" 240), at a2
--.-.-
a2
, 10
) .,..(.)
.,.,(.)
94 CHAPTER 5
We would like to use a variant of the Finite Frequency Test in order to de-
termine whether this polynomial family is robustly stable. Even though the
uncertainty enters the polynomial coefficients in a multiaffine manner, one can
show [31] that the -q(jw, 0/1) value set at each frequency is a polygon (actually
a trapezoid). It is then clear that the ideas presented earlier in this Section ap-
ply and that we should expect to be able to verify robust stability from checking
the location of the -q(jw,O/l) value set at a finite number of frequencies. Let
E. 1 (jw) = -1l0w 2 + 240, O.l(jW) = 400w 2 + 500

E•• (~w) = -~~, O•• (jw) = 0
E•• (1W) = -w , O•• (jw) = 0
One can identify the four edge lines of the trapezoid as:
-(1l0w 2 - 240)
y = 0, y = -w(4w 2 + 5), 100w(4w 2 + 5) y,
= (-120w 2 + 240) + w2
:z: lOOw(4w 2 + 5) Y
The four 9, polynomials are:
91(W) wO.o(jw)
92(W) wO.o(jw) + w(4w 2 + 5)
93(W) wO.o(jw)(1l0w 2 240) + 100w(4w
2
+ 5)E.o(jw)
94(W) wO.o(jw)(120w 2 - 240) + 100w(4w 2 + 5)(E.o(jw) - w2)
where
The 9, polynomials are therefore given as:
w(-10w 2 + 50),w(-6w 2 + 55),w 5 (400w 2 - 14600),w 5 (400w 2 - 15100)

The nonnegative roots are given by:
{w O,w = v'S},{w = O,w ~},{w 0, w = 6.041523009},

{w = O,w = 6.144102841}
The set of critical frequencies are:
V24 v'55
CF = {O, r.-:t' v'S, ID ,6.041523009,6.144102841}
yll y6
For these frequencies we need to construct the -q(jW,04 ) value set. For this
example a check reveals that the point 4Io(jw) is excluded in each case and the
polynomial family is thus stable. 0
5.6 THE FINITE MATCHED PHASE

THEOREM
Using the main idea in the proof of FFTEST, one can proceed to develop a
different Hurwitz stability test which however is still based on the knowledge
of polynomial values at a finite number of points on the imaginary axis. We
will state and prove the result for a /lingle polynomial. The idea is the follo-
wing: Suppose that we know that a particular degree n monic polynomial p( II)
is stable. Our objective is to show whether some other degree n monic polyno-
mial q( a) is stable. One might then seek to determine a relationship between
p(a) and q(a) that will guarantee the stability of q(a). It turns out that if the
phases of p(jw) and q(jw) are the same modulo 2'lr (i.e. they match) at a finite
number of frequencies, then q( a) will also be stable.
Assume that arg z (the argument (phase) of a complex number z), takes non-
negative values. For polynomials p(a), q(a), let again the polynomial 'Yqp(lI)
be:
(5.19)
96 CHAPTER 5
Theorem 5.6 (Finite Matched PJuue Theorem, FMPT) Let q(6) be a degree n
monic polynomial with real coefficienu. Then q( 6) u ,table if and only if there
ezuU a degree n monic ,table polynomial p( 6) ,uch that for the nonnegative
rooU Wi of w'Yqp(jw), we have erg p(jWi) = erg q(jwi) (mod 2,..).
Proof: Necessity comes from the fact that since q(6) is stable then there exists
a small enough ( > 0 such that for all the frequencies Wi which are the
nonnegative roots of OIJ(jw), (0 < Wl < W2 < W3 < ...), we have:
EIJ(jO) + E > 0, EIJ(jwI) +( < 0,

EIJ(jw2) + E > 0, EIJ(jW3) +E < 0,
and P(6) = =
q(6) + E is stable. Then 'Yqp(8) 01J(6)E,,(6) - EIJ(8)0,,(6) =
0'1(1)(. By construction erg p(jWi) = erg q(jw,) (mod 2,..) for all the nonne-
gative roots of w'Yqp(jw).
Sufficiency can be shown in the following manner. Consider the polynomial

family:
(1 - A)p(6) + Aq(I) (5.20)
where p( I) is some degree n monic stable polynomial and A takes on values

in the interval O~ = [O,IJ. Clearly for A = 0, ¢J("O) = p(6) and for
A = =
1, ¢J(I, 1) q(6). Now by the zero exclusion condition, the entire family
¢J(8, O~) will be stable if for all frequencies w E [0,00) the origin of the com-
plex plane is excluded from the value set ¢J(6, O~). From Chapter 4 we know
that this value set is a straight line segment at each frequency. Now the only
frequencies that are of importance are those for which the straight line that in-
cludes the value set ¢J(6, O~) also includes the origin. For all other frequencies
it is not possible for the value set to include the origin. One can argue using
the ideas of Section 5.5 that these frequencies are the real nonnegative roots
ofthe polynomial w'Yqp(jw). For a degree n polynomial q(6) there are at most
n such frequencies. Therefore, if for these frequencies the value set ;(6,OA)
excludes the origin the family ;(6, OA) will be stable. This is guaranteed if at
these frequencies Wi, we have that arg P(jwi) = arg q(jWi) (mod 2'll'). Since
the family includes polynomial q(6), then it also will be stable. 0
Actually, in Theorem 5.6 we have proved more than just stability of the q(6)
polynomial. The entire polynomial family (5.20) will also be stable, so FMPT
is actually a robust stability result.
It is interesting to compare the Finite Nyquist Theorem and the Finite Matched
Phase Theorem. Even though both results have to do with the value structure
of polynomials at a finite number of points on the imaginary axis, they ne-
vertheless are different in some respects. Whereas in FNT the frequencies are
chosen so that no two consecutive points are more than 1800 apart, no such
requirement is imposed in FMPT. The frequencies that need to be checked are
simply the real roots of some polynomial w'Y"q(jw). This fact also has implicati-
ons on the number of frequencies that need to be checked. In FNT the number
r
of frequencies cannot be less than n/21 whereas in FMPT it could be just the
single frequency w = 0 if 'Yqp(w) has no real positive roots. Furthermore, in
FMPT the frequencies can be computed apriori from given data whereas in
FNT one needs to find frequencies (and sectors). The following corollary to
Theorem 5.6 sheds some more light on this relationship.
Corollary 6.1 Let q(6) be II degree three polynomilliwith q(O) po,itive, which
lit frequency W1 lie, on II line of po,itive ,lope 1:1 in the fir6t qUlldrant lind lit
frequency W2, W2 > W1 lie, on II line of po6itive 610pe 1: 2 in the third quadrant.
Then q(,) i6 6table if 1:2 /1: 1 < W2/W1.
Proof: In view of Theorem 5.6 all we need to show is that the conditions given
guarantee the existence of a stable polynomial p(,,) that matches the phase of
q(,,) at the appropriate finite number of frequencies. Let p(,,) = ,,3 + P2,,2 +
P1" + Po, with E,,(jw) = -P2w 2 + Po and O,,(jw) = _w 2 + Pl. Let P1 be
positive with wJ < P1 < w~ and choose P2,Po as the solution to the linear
equations:
98 CHAPTER 5
-k1P2w: + k1Po = W1(-W: + pt}

- k2P2W~ + k2Po W2(-W~ + P1)
which will ensure that at frequencies W1, W2 the phases of q( 6) and p( 6) match
mod21l'. The solution is:
k2W1(P1 - wn +
k1W2(W~ - pd
=
k1k2(W~ - wn
k2W1WHp1 - wn + k1W2WHw~ P1)
Po
k1k2(W~ - wD
Some algebra shows that:
(w~ - P1)(wf - pd(k 2Wl - k 1W 2)

P2Pl - Po
klk2(W~ - wf)
One can immediately see that if k 1l k 2, W1, W2 satisfy the conditions of the
Corollary, then such a p( 6) is stable since Po > 0, P1 > 0, P2 > 0 and P2P1 - Po >
0. We can therefore construct a stable polynomial whose phase matches that
of q(6) at frequencies 0, W1,W2' By Theorem 5.6, q(6) is stable. 0
Example 5.2 Hurwitz Stability via FMPT
Consider the polynomial:
q(6) = 63 + 119/4862 + 26 + 215/48 (5.21)
At frequency w = °its value is positive, at frequency W1 1 its value is

the complex number (2,j1) and at frequency W2 = 5 its value is the complex
number (-115/2,-j115). At frequency W1 = 1 it lies in the first quadrant on
a line with slope 1/2 and at frequency W2 = 5 it lies in the third quadrant on
a line with slope 2. By Corollary 5.1, q(,,) is a stable polynomial. 0
It is interesting to note that with the data given in the previous example one
would not have been able to conclude that q(,,) is a stable polynomial if one
employed the Finite Nyquist Theorem. The reason is that the points (2,;1) and
(-115/2,-;115) are more than 1800 apart. However, stability can be deduced
from the Finite Matched Phase Theorem. One would expect that results such
as Corollary 5.1 can be stated in a broader context for higher degree polynomi-
als. It is also true that one can generate robust stability results for polynomial
families based on this concept. However, at the present time we do not have
strong results to present. An additional reason why we have not pursued more
research along this direction is that the Finite Matched Phase Theorem does
not seem to lead to efficient methods for controller synthesis.
5.7 SIMULTANEOUS POLYNOMIAL

STABILITY
Kharitonov's result is very elegant, but it cannot be generalised to even the
affine polynomial family. It would be great if other necessary and sufficient
conditions for robust stability of polynomial families could be stated which gua-
rantee stability of the entire family from the stability of a few polynomials. For
the plant family with affine uncertainty, it turns out that if one is willing to give
up the "tightness" of the Kharitonov, Edge and Finite Frequency Test results
one can obtain analytical results and more computationally efficient conditions
for robust stability. Tightness here refers to the necessity of a robust stability
condition. By introducing overbounding we state a condition for robust stabi-
lity of a "larger" polynomial family that includes the original. Stability of the
larger family guarantees stability of the smaller family but the converse is not
true.
In this Section we exploit the rectangular value set overbound introduced in

Section 4.6 and develop a result with a Kharitonov "flavor". Specifically, we
will show that the affine polynomial family is stable if 41: specially constructed
polynomials that come from a "larger" family are stable. Consider first the
case of polynomials with a single affine uncertainty (5.22):
100 CHAPTER 5
'(8, al) = hn8" + hn_18,,-1 +... + h.o +al (1,,8" + f"_1 8"-1 +... + fo)
, v ,,, ". ,
·M·) .,(.)
(5.22)
where al E {lG' = {alt:RI- 1 :5 al :5 I}, is a single real parameter and 'o(s),

'1(8), have complex coefficients. Assume further that hn + ad" ¥ 0 for all
al E {lG" Let us now use the rectangular overbound introduced in Section 4.6
and overbound this family by:
¢(s, al, al) = '0(8) +,al'1(8) + al~1(8), (5.23)

...
q(.,G"iid
This allows us to prove the following result [22]:
Lemm~ 5.1 As,ume that hn + ad" + ad" ::P 0 for all (al' (h) E OGI' The
family, i8 a ,table if and only if the four polynomial8 tPO(8) + tP1(8), tPo(s)-
'1(8), '0(8) + ~1(8), '0(8) - ~1(8) are 8table.
Proof: Necessity is clear. Suppose then that the four given polynomials are
stable. Note that the entire family ¢ is of degree n. From [ll] it is clear
that since '0(8) + '1(8) and '0(8) + ~1(8) are stable then the following convex
combination, 0 :5 a1 :5 1 is also stable (real parts are the same when 8 = iw):
But this set of polynomials is derived from the first quadrant edge of OG" and
they are all stable. Consider the convex combination, 0 :5 a1 :5 1:
Again from [11] we conclude these are stable polynomials, and these are derived
from the second quadrant edge of 001 , Consider now the convex combination,
0:$ iii :$ 1:
These are again stable polynomials, derived from the third quadrant edge of
001 , Finally consider the convex combination, 0 :$ al :$ 1:
(1 - al)(tPO(S) - ~1(8)) + al(tPO(S) + tPl(S))

= tPO(8) + altPl(S) - (1 - aI)( -~l(S))
These are again stable polynomials, derived from the fourth quadrant edge of
001 • Since the "ed~e" [9] polynomials are stable and the leading coefficient
nonzero, the entire tP family is stable. It is evident, that Lemma 5.1 is thus a
sufficient condition for the stability of (5.22). 0
The result for an affine family with Ie parameters follows in a natural way. Two
options are available to us. We can employ the single parameter analysis to
each of the edges and overbound each of them with a rectangular overbound or
impose a rectangular overbound on the entire value set. We choose to pursue
the second alternative. A similar result would be obtained if we proceeded with
each edge. Consider the Ie-parameter affine family of monic polynomials:
tP(S, a) ~o(s) + altPl(8) + a2tP2(s) ••. + aA:tPA:(8)

= tPO(8) + q(s,a)
where the tPi(8), 0 :$ i :$ u are given polynomials with complex coefficients,
~o(,,) monic of degree n and the rest of degree less than n. Each ~ lies in
OOi = {~eRI - 1 :$ ~ :$ 1} One can overbound each uncertain parameter in-
dependently using the rectangular overbound, and obtain the new polynomial
family:
102 CHAPTER 5
where throughout this section the "-,, operation on a complex polynomial

tPi(6) = A.. 6" + Ii"-l 6,,-1 + ...+ fio stands for: ~i(6) = h.. (-6)" + h"-l (-6)+
k
...+ho, is the complex conjugate of fi;1 1 $ i $ Ie, 1 $ j $ n. Furthermore,
l
~ depends on 4i in th~t (4i I ~ E 00, C R2 , w.here 00, is the region in Figure
5.1. Furthermore, let {l01 x {loa X ••• X (loll be the cartesian product of
the Oo,'s.
1
~=1+4i
a..=-l-aa
Figure 5.1 Parameter Overbound
Let
~i(6), ,pi. = -~i(6), 1 $ i $ Ie.

(5.25)
Lemma 5.2 The value 6et q(jw, ( 0 ) at each frequency w u a rectangle, who6e
vertice6 come from 60me four polynomial6 taken from the 6et:
Proof: From Lemma 5.1 the value set for each term a;f;(jw) + a.;~;(jw) is a
rectangle whose vertices correspond to polynomiaJa ,p;1 (jw), ,p;2(jW), ,p;.(jw),
,p;.(jw). The a; parameters are independent and thus the value set q(jw,Ota)
is the sum of k rectangles with sides parallel to the axes. The overall set
q(jw,Ota) is thus a rectangle with sides parallel to the axes. It is interesting
to note that summing hon.ontal sides one from each of the k rectangles, ge-
nerates a hon.ontalline segment in q(jw, Ota), (there are up to 21 such lines).
The hon.ontal sides of the q rectangle will be generated from two such com-
binations. At this point we do not know from which two, and at different
frequencies these may change. Similarly, summing vertical sides one from each
of the k rectangles generates a vedicalline segment in q(jw, Ota), (there are up
to 21 such lines). The vertical sides of the q rectangle are generated from two
such combinations. The four vertices of q(jw, Ota) clearly come from the set
,pl'1 (jw) + ,p2'2 (jw) + ... + ,pt,. (jw), 1 $ i l $ 4, 1 $ i 2 $ 4, 1 $ i3 $
4, 1 $ i" $ 4. There may be frequencies at which this rectangle collapses to a
line segment on one of the axes, or even to the origin. 0
Remark We know the the q(jw, (}ta) value set at each frequency is in general
a 2k convex parpolygon. By construction we know that it is included in the
rectangular value set in q(jw, Ota). We illustrate the rectangular overbound for
the case when A: = 3. The "thick" lines of Figure 5.2 show the q(jw, Ota) value
set and the "thin" lines the q(jw, Ota) value set. It is interesting to note that for
this frequency the "edge-wise" rectangular overbound is identical to the "value
set-wise" rectangular overbound.
Figure 5.2 Rectangular Overbound of a 6 Convex Parpolygon
In view of this result one can generalize Lemma 5.1 to the k parameter case.
104 CHAPTER 5
Lemma 5.3 The family ~ iI ,table if and only if the 4A: polynomiall
tPo(") + "'1'1 (,,) + "'2'2 (,) + ... + "'A:•• (,,)

1 ~ il ~ 4, 1 ~ i 2 ~ 4, 1 ~ i 3 ~ 4, 1 ~ i 4 ~ 4. (5.27)
are dable.
Proof: Necessity is clear. Consider the family of polynomials which are gene-
rated from the first quadrant edges of the k parameter rectangles fiG.:
tPo(") + altPl(") + (1 - al)~l(") + a2tP2(") + (1 - a2)~2(") +

... + aA:tPA:(") + (1 - aA:)iA:(")' 0 ~ Gi ~ 1, 1 ~ i ~ k
(5.28)
We claim that this family is stable. To show this fix parameters a2 through aA:
at either +1 or 0 and let al vary. This is precisely the situation encountered
in Lemma 5.1, where a2tP2(") + ... (1 - aA:)~A:(") is now lumped with tPo(")
and is labeled ~o(")' Therefore, one can write:
~o(") + altPl(') + (1 al)~l(")

(1 - al)(~o(") + ~l(")) + al(~o(") + tPl("))' 0 ~ al ~ 1 (5.29)
This is a convex combination of stable polynomials (since "vertex" polynomials

are stable) whose even parts are the same. The combination is thus stable
[11]. This can be repeated for all 2A:-l such combinations (corresponding to
al varying and the rest fixed at 1 or 0) and repeated for all Gi, 1 ~ i ~ k.
This makes the edges of family (5.28) stable. This can be repeated for any
one combination of k sides, one from each fiG. rectangle from the first or third
quadrant. There are 2A: such combinations. Following similar reasoning as
above all these polynomial families are stable. This is also true of combinations
originating from sides coming exclusively from the second or fourth quadrants.
All these polynomials families will also be stable. Now since these polynomial
families form the set from which the four sides of the q(jw,OG) value set are
generated at each frequency, the entire family ~ is stable by the "zero exclusion
condition". 0
By introducing the rectangular overbounding of the value set in the complex

plane, we are able to formulate analytical results for the robust stability pr<r
blem of affine polynomial families. The affine polynomial family was shown to
be stable if 41: polynomials are (simultaneously) stable. The case of an affine
polynomial family with real coefficients was considered in [22]. This is an ana-
lytical result which has a Kharitonov "flavor". In order to accomplish this, i)
we had to give up "necessity", and ii) we had to increase the computational
burden, as the number of polynomials to be checked depends exponentially on
the number of parameters. Other versions of this result can be stated that over-
bound each edge individually and which generate in general a non-rectangular
overbound. In that case fewer polynomials need to be checked for stability but
this number is still exponential in k. In contrast, regardless of the degree of
the interval polynomial family, Kharitonov's result is both "tight" and invol-
ves checking the stability of only four polynomials regardless of the number
of uncertain parameters. However, the power of rectangular overbounding will
become evident in controller synthesis where we will demonstrate in Chapter 10
that Lemma 5.3 does lead to a design methodology referred to as Simultaneo1U
Polynomial Stabilization.
6
THE FINITE INCLUSIONS
THEOREM
6.1 ROBUST V-STABILITY

In Chapter 5 we reported a number of results that can be used for checking
stability and V-stability of polynomial families with parameter uncertainty.
Kharitonov's theorem is an excellent stability analysis tool in the case of in-
terval polynomial families, as it reduces the problem to checking the stability
of four polynomials. The Edge Theorem shows the importance of edge po-
lynomials for the family with affine uncertainty. Even though it provides the
theoretical framework for many other results and is a tremendous improvement
over "gridding" it nevertheless carries with it a heavy computational burden.
The sero exclusion condition provides a solid foundation for V-stability tests
but requires "boundary sweeping". In the case of robust stability of affine fa-
milies the Finite Frequency Test replaces the "frequency sweep" by checking
lero exclusion at a finite number of frequencies. If one is willing to give up
"tightness" by introducing overbounding then robust stability of the affine po-
lynomial family can be guaranteed by checking the stability of a finite number
of polynomials.
In this chapter we present a very powerful tool for robust V-stability, namely
the Finite Incl'IUionl Theorem [47, 49]. It is actually a Corollary of the Fi-
nite Nyquist Theorem presented in Chapter 3. Recall that the Finite Nyquist
Theorem guarantees that one can determine the V-stability of a lingle poly-
nomial, from only the approximate knowledge of the polynomial's phase at
finitely many points. For stability, at each frequency the polynomial evaluates
to a complex number and these points must lie in appropriately chosen sectors
in the complex plane. It is important to mention that the required number of
108 CHAPTER 6
frequencies is not high and could be as low as the degree of the polynomial.
Therefore, one should not interpret this as some form of "gridding". The Finite
Nyquist Theorem can be immediately extended to robust 1>-stability for poly-
nomial families. Specifically, if one is not dealing with a single polynomial but
rather a polynomial family, the Finite Inclusions Theorem guarantees robust
1>-stability if the polynomial value let lies in appropriately defined sectors at a
finite number of boundary points.
Let iP('" a) be the polynomial family:
iP(", a)
where the iP,(,,), °:: ;

i :::; 14 are given polynomials. Suppose that the parame-
ter a takes values in the hypercube 0 0 = {a E RI: la, :::; at :::; at,
1 :::; i :::; k},
a, < 0, at> 0, 1 :::; i :::; Ie. Further assume that a,(a), 1 :::; i :::; 14 are
polynomic in a and such that a,(O) = o.
For such a family we have the following result [47, 49]:
Theorem 6.1 (The Finite InclU6ion6 Theorem, FIT)

Let iP('" a) = Ei=o a; (a)"i , a E 0 0 n ~ 0, and a; : 0 0 -+ C. Further,
let r c C be a cloled Jordan curve luch that int r iI convez. Then for all
a E 0 0 , iP('" a) iI of degree nand ha6 all it. root. in int r if there ezilt. m ~ 1
intervall (Cl:' dl:) C R and a countercloclcwile lequence of point. "I: E r,l :::;
k :::; m, luch that
maz{dm - (Cl + 2'm), (d1 + 21m) - em}:::; 1r (6.3)

The Finite Inclusions Theorem 109
Proof: For each a E 011, condition (6.4) implies that for allie, 4>(SI:, a) -# 0 and
that there exists a 81: E (CI:' dl:) such that arg4>(sl:' a) == 81:(mod211"). Further,
from the inequality
V9E (II,b) 18 - 8'1 < sup 18 - 8'1 = maz{d - a, b - c}

, -e(&.')
9 E(c,d) 9'E(c,d)
we see conditions (6.2), (6.3) imply that for all 1 $ Ie < m, 181;+1 - 81: I < 11" and
1211"n + 81 - 8m l < 11". Hence, for each a E 011 Theorem 3.3 implies ph a) is of
degree n and has all its zeros in int r. 0
The Finite Inclusions Theorem (FIT) basically says the following for the case
when 'D is the convex interior of some Jordan curve r: If one can find a finite
number of open sectors SI: which are consecutively "spaced" no more than 11"
radians apart and revolving a net 211"n radians about the origin of the complex
plane, and if we can find a counterclockwise sequence of points Sl: on the bo-
undary r such that the 4>(SI:, 011) value set lies in the corresponding sector SI:
for each Ie, then each polynomial in the family 4> is of degree n and is 'D-stable.
For polynomial families with polynomic parameter dependence FIT provides
only a sufficient condition for robust 'D-stability. It is clear that the Theorem
would apply to more general classes of polynomial families such as polynomials
with coefficients that are rational functions in a which are bounded in 011' Ho-
wever, the next theorem shows that in the important case of an affine family
of polynomials (the Qi(a) are affine expressions in a) the result is necessary as
well [47, 49].
Theorem 6.2 Let 4>( s, a) =

~;=o Qj(a)";, be an affine polynomial family,
a E 011 n ~ 0, and Qj : 011 -+ C. Further, let rc
C be a closed Jordan curve
such that int r is convez. Then for all a E 011, 4>(s, a) is of degree n and has all
its roots in int r if and only if there ezists m ~ 1 intervals (Cl:' dl:) c R and a
countercloclewise sequence of points Sl: E r, 1 $ Ie $ m, such that
(6.5)
(6.6)
110 CHAPTER 6
(6.7)
Proof: Sufficiency follows directly from Theorem 6.1. Suppose then that r/>(II, a)
is an affine polynomial family and that for all a E 0/1, r/>('" a) is a degree n
polynomial with all its leros in V, the interior of r. First note, r/>(", 0/1) is a
compact, convex set that revolves n times counterclockwise about the origin
without touching the origin as" traverses r (since for arbitrary a E 0/1, r/>(",a)
revolves in this fashion). By the above facts and the continuous deformation of
r/>(II,O/l) as " traverses r, we may define two continuous functions a, b: [0,1]-
R, such that for all tEl = [0, I], {re ill I r > 0, 8 E [a(t), b(t)]} is the smallest
sector containing r/>(r(t), 0/1)' and so, 0 ~ b(t) - a(t) < '11", a(I-) = a(O) + 2'11"n,
and b(I-) = b(O) + 2'11"n. Since a continuous function defined on a compact
set achieves its supremum and is uniformly continuous on that set, we see
that c = sup(b(t) - a(t» = maz (b(t) - a(t» < 'II" and that a and bare
uniformly continuous. Thus, for an arbitrary 0 < £ < ('II"-c)/2 we can choose a
sufficiently fine partition {tl;} of I such that conditions (6.5), (6.6) are satisfied
with CI; = a(t1:) - £ and dl; = b(tl;) + £, and by construction, condition (6.7) is
satisfied with 81; = r(tl;). 0
For the real affine polynomial family case and Hurwitz stability one can compare
the Finite Inclusions Theorem (FIT) and the Finite Frequency Test (FFTEST)
presented in Chapter 5. Both are necessary and sufficient conditions for robust
stability and both require that a "test" be performed at a finite number of
frequencies. In FFTEST, stability of a single polynomial must also be checked
in addition to the test at these frequencies. A major difference between them
is the fact that in FFTEST the frequencies where the test will be made can be
identified apriori from given data. They are shown to be the roots of specific
polynomials. At these frequencies the value set, a 2k convex parpolygon in
general, must be shown to exclude the origin. In FIT one does not have these
frequencies apriori but needs to find them along with the corresponding set of
sectors which must include the value sets. So, even though FIT is an analytical
result for robust stability in this sense it is not "constructive". From this, one
would be inclined to say that FFTEST is superior to FIT for robust analysis.
On the other hand in FFTEST one needs to find roots of polynomials which
in general must be done numerically. This inevitably involves approximations.
It would be interesting to explore the possibility of combining both results in
order to generate a new more computationally efficient test for robust stability.
It will also be seen in later chapters that FIT has a distinct advantage over FF-
TEST in robust synthesis. Whereas FIT possesses a structure which facilitates
the development of methods for controller synthesis, the same is not true for
FFTEST.
The same ideas used to derive Theorem 6.1 from Theorem 3.3 (that is, intr<r
ducing value sets and sectors) can be used to generate robustness results. For
example, the following two theorems on robust Hurwitz stability are derived
from Corollary 3.1 [49].
Theorem 6.3 Let ;(6, a) = Ei=o Qj(a)";, a E {lel1 n~ 0, Qj: {l4 --+ C,
Q,,: {l4 --+ R+. Then, for all a E Q, ;(6, a) hu all iu zero6 in the open left half
plane if there ezut m ~ 1 interva16 (Ci, di ) C R, 1 ~ lc ~ m, and real number6
WI ~ W2 ~ ••• ~ W m 6uch that
Many problems encountered in control are characterised by value sets that have
the complex conjugate symmetry ;( -jWj (la) =
[;(jWj {la)]*. This symmetry,
allows one to get away with using roughly half the number of sectors that would
otherwise be needed. One situation when this occurs is in the robust stability
determination of a unity feedback system where the plant is described by a
transfer function with real parameter uncertainty. The resulting closed loop
characteristic polynomial will have coefficients that are real expressions of the
parameter a [47, 49].
Theorem 6.4 Let ;(6, a) = Ei=o Qj(a)";, a E {la, n~ 0, Qj: {la --+ C,
Q,,: {la --+ R+, and for all W E R, ;( -jw, (la) = [;(jw, {la)]*. Then, for all
a E Q, ;( 6 , a) hu all iu zero6 in the open left half plane if there ezut m ~ 1
interva16 (Ci, d i ) C R, 1 ~ Ie ~ m, and real number6 0 ~ WI ~ W2 ~ ... ~ W m
luch that
'If 'If
--2 <
-
CI < d l <-
- 2
112 CHAPTER 6
~n ~n
--~<Cm<dm<-+~
2 - - 2
V 1 ~ Ie < m max{dl:+l- CI:, dl: - CI:+l} ~ ~
V 1 ~ Ie ~ m ~(jWI:, no) c 51: = {re'" 6 Ir > 0, 8 E (CI:, dl:)}
Several versions of the Finite Inclusions Theorem have been presented and their
usefulness in robust 1'-stability of polynomial families with parameter uncer-
tainty is immediately apparent. The Finite Inclusions Theorem requires that
a finite number of points on the boundary of l' be found such that the corre-
sponding polynomial value sets lie in appropriate sedors. One alternative in
implementing the result is to choose a set of frequencies and plot the correspon-
ding value sets. One then seeks to find sectors that satisfy the conditions of
the theorem that "fit' the value sets. One may not be able to conclude robust
1'-stability from this data and additional frequencies and sectors may be requi-
red. Another alternative is to pick a set of sedors that satisfy the theorem and
then choose frequencies that "fit' value sets in them. Again, one may need to
modify the initial choice with additional frequencies and sectors. Clearly, this
is an iterative process and at the present time no definitive procedure exists for
choosing frequencies and sectors.
To apply FIT one must also be concerned with the computation of the value
sets at each required point. For polynomial families with polynomic parameter
dependency this is in general is not an easy task. The boundary of each value
set will not come from the image of the edges or boundary of no' For affine
parameter dependence since the value sets will be convex polygons we would
just need the value set vertices in order to determine sector inclusion. This
corresponds to a dramatic reduction in complexity. In the multiaffine parameter
case one can employ the Mapping Theorem to overbound each value set and
again work with value set vertices [46].
Example 6.1 Rob1Ut Stability
Consider the situation where the stability of the following polynomial family is
to be determined:
where a E no = [-2,3] x [-1,2] and a = (alla2)' Figure 6.1 is a plot of

~(jw i no) for two values of w. Since parameters enter the polynomial coefficients
in an affine manner, it is known from Chapter 4 that the value sets at each
frequency will be parallelograms. From these plots it can be seen that Theorem
6.4 holds with m = 2 and the Wt, Ct, and d~" of Table 6.1. Therefore, the
family is stable. Data from only two frequencies are shown. One should not
get the impression that an arbitrary choice of two frequencies would work. As
mentioned the procedure is iterative. 0
400
300
200
q,(j7, 0 0 ) q,(j2.6,O o ) _
~-----------
----
100
~
.51 0
f
.5 ---
.... " -
-100
-200
·300
--- -
-400 L....-~~~_~..L-~~~~~-'
-500 400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
real
Figure 1.1 Two Value Seta
k WI: cl: dA:

1 2.6 7(/7 7(/2
2 7 7(/2 87(/7
Table 1.1 F'requencie. and Seeton Proving Robuat Stability
In Example 6.1 the polynomial family had parameter uncertainty which appea-
red in an affine manner in the coefficients. It is interesting to note that in this
case one could determine the location of the value sets with respect to the sec-
tors by plotting only value set vertices and not the entire value set. This is due
to the fact that for affine uncertainty a value set will lie in a sector if and only
if its vertices lie in the sector. This is generally not true for more complicated
uncertainty structures. In the next example parameter uncertainty appears in
a multiaffine manner. The value sets at each frequency will not in general be
polygons but more complicated shapes [47, 49].
Example 6.2 RobU6t Stability
Consider the following polynomial family with multiaffine uncertainty:

114 CHAPTER 6
where a E 0 0 =
[-1,1] x [-1,1] and a =
(al' a2)' Figure 6.2 is a plot of
~(jWi 0 0 ) for two values of w. Note that the value sets are not polygons. From
these plots it can be seen that Theorem 6.4 holds with m = 2 and the WI;, Cl,
and d l 6 of Table 6.2. 0
3..--------------,....------.
X
I
I
I
2 I
~(j, 0 0 ) ~(j.• 7, 0 0 )
~
:; 1 :< ",
I ",,'
..
'.",~
....., 0 1- , ' . -: ••••••
.=
~
-1
" ",
"" ... " . . . :
-3 +---l~-+-+---lf---+-+---lf---+--l
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 2
real
Figure 8.2 Two Value Sets
k Wl Cl dl
1 .47 27(/17 7(/2
2 1 7(/2 197(/17
Table 8.2 Frequencies and Seeton Proving Robust Stability
6.2 A FINITE NUMBER OF

POLYNOMIAL FAMILIES
There are several instances in Control, where one is required to deal with the
robust stability not of a single polynomial family but several. We have already
encountered this situation in Chapter 4 when dealing with robust performance
and multiple performance objectives. For the multiobjective performance re-

quirement of robust asymptotic tracking and robust noise attenuation, the pro-
blem was equivalently stated in terms of the robust stability of two polynomial
families. Another situatiou might arise in the context of robust stability analy-
sis for a polynomial family with multiaffine parameter dependence. In this case
we know that when we apply the Finite Inclusions Theorem the result may be
conservative since it is only a sufficient condition. A value set may "wrap aro-
und" the origin of the complex plane without including it. One possibility for
reducing conservatism is to "break-up" the given family into several subfami-
lies and apply FIT to each subfamily. Motivation can also come from the case
when the dynamic description of a plant is different at different operating con-
ditions. At each operating condition it may be described by a different transfer
function family. Rather than opting for a "gain scheduled" solution one might
be interested in developing a single controller that stabilizes the system at all
operating conditions. This implies that a finite number of polynomial families
would need to be simultaneously stable.
The Finite Inclusions Theorem can also provide a characterization of robust

stability for a finite number of polynomial families. In the context of ana-
lysis the following result, called the Simultaneous Stability Finite Inclusions
Theorem (SSFIT) is in essence a restatement of the Finite Inclusions Theorem.
However, it is important to state this version as in later chapters it will be used
to generate powerful synthesis procedures.
Theorem 6.5 (Simultaneo1U Stability Finite Incl1Uion8 Theorem, SSFIT)

Let 4>i(6,a) = Ei~oOij(a)";, a E 0 4,1 =:; i =:; l,"'i ~ 0, Oij:04 --+ C,
0in,: 0 4 --+ R+. Then, for all a E 0 4 , 4>i(6, a) have all their zero6 in the open
left half plane if there ezut 1l1i ~ 1 interva18 (Cik, ~k) C R, 1 =:; Ie ~ 1l1i,
1 ~ i ~ l and real number6 Wi! ~ Wi2 ~ ... ~ Wim, luch that
'lr"'i 'lr"'i 'lr

V 1<
- i < l, --
2 - 'lr <
- Cil < ~l <
- 2 +
-- 2
'lr"'i 'lr"'i
VI=:; i < l, T - 'lr ~ Cim, < ~m, =:; T + 'lr
VI=:; i < l, VI:::; Ie < 1l1i, max{dik+l - Cik, dik - Cik+l} :::; 'lr
V 1 ~ i ~ l, V 1 ~ Ie < 1l1i, 4>i(jWik,04) C Sk = {rei lr > 0, 9 E (Cik,~k)}
8
116 CHAPTER 6
As in the case of FIT a special version of this theorem can be stated for the
case when value sets possess complex conjugate symmetry. As we saw earlier
the required number of sectors is roughly halved.
6.3 APPLICATION OF FIT TO ROBUST

ANALYSIS
In addition to robust V-stability the Finite Inclusions Theorem can also be
used in a broader robust stability context [47, 49]. Consider the problem of
computing
-y = sup IW(jw)P(jW,B)1 (6.10)

O'eR
Ben..
where P(6, B), BE Oell is a stable family ofrational transfer functions and W
is a stable, minimum phase, rational "weighting" transfer function. Recall that
a transfer function is &table (minimum phase), if all its poles (zeros) are in the
open left half plane.
In several contexts -y is a useful quantity in analyzing robust performance. One

context, for example, is where P represents the sensitivity transfer function of
a closed loop system. Here, (6.10) defines the smallest number -y such that
IP(jw, B)I ~ -YIW-1(jw)1 for all w E Rand B E 0 0 , Thus, the magnitude
Bode plot of -yW- 1 is, in a certain sense, a best fit envelope to the possible
magnitude plots of P. If -yW- 1 is small over some range of frequencies, then
we are guaranteed good (i.e., robust) tracking over that range offrequencies.
Another useful context is where P represents a parametric family of pertur-

bations that we wish to "cover" by a weighted, H oo norm bounded family of
perturbations. Our motivation for doing this may be to later apply I" analysis
[35] or 1"/ H 00 synthesis to the system containing P. Clearly, by the inequality
in the previous paragraph the smallest, norm bounded family of perturbations
covering P for a given W is -yW-l(6)Ll(6) where Ll(6) is any stable, proper,
transfer function with H oo norm less than 1. The Hoo-norm of a stable and
proper transfer function Ll(6) is 6upwILl(jw)l.
In practice, (6.10) is often "computed" by plotting IW(jw)P(jw,a)1 at several

hundred wE R and a E 011, and then assuming 'Y ~ 'Y- where 'Y- is the largest
value plotted. This assumption may, of course, be wrong. Even when W = 1
and P has a certain interval structure, so one can restrict attention to just 16
"Kharitonov plants" (that is, to just 16 special a's) [17], the need to grid the
frequency axis w poses a problem. All we can be certain of is that 'Y ~ 'Y-,
which is not a useful fact if our aim is to prove (rather than disprove) some
robust stabilityjperformance property. What we really need is a (hopefully
tight) upper bound 'Y+ to 'Y.
FIT is helpful here in that it provides a way to verify that a given number 'Y+
is indeed an upper bound to 'Y. For example, suppose in (6.10) that W(s) = 1
and
(6.11)
where G1 E [4,6] and G2 E [3,5]. From the plot of IP(jw, a)1 vs. w for a =
(G1G2) E {4,6} X {3,5} we see 'Y- = 20.4 is a lower bound for 'Y.
lL...---,-~~-'-""""'~-_-"'---'---'-~~'-'-:'
.1 1 10
frequency
Figure 8.3 IP(j",,-)1 va. '" for _ =(111,112) E {4,6} x {3,5}

Consider now the feedback system depicted in Figure 6.4, where G3 is thought
of as an additional uncertain parameter allowed to take values in the set {z E
c Ilzl ~ 'Y.;1}. The loop will be stable for all uncertain parameter values if
118 CHAPTER 6
and only if "y+ is a strict upper bound on "y. So, "y < "y+ if and only if the
dosed loop characteristic polynomial ;(6,a) has all its roots in the open left
T
half plane for all a E 011'
l' ,'_°_-·13
P(.,a)
Figure 8.4 Unity Feedback Configuration
For "y+ = 25 this is indeed the case as shown by Theorem 6.4 (with m = I,
"'1 = 1.75, =0, and b =
01 1 1r /2), multiaffine uncertainty, and Figure 6.5. The
symbol EztO Il is used to denote the extreme points of the set 011' Recall that
an extreme point of some convex set q is a point which is not contained in any
open line segment contained in q. Thus, with complete certainty we can say
20.4 $ "y < 25.
10 , . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . ,
·i.s o ----------------------
-5 +----+---+----+---+----i
-10 -5 o 5 10 IS
real
Figure 8.5 A Plot of q,{i1.75,E2tO.)

6.4 RELATIONSHIP WITH

SIMULTANEOUS POLYNOMIAL
STABILITY
Recall the single parameter affine polynomial family studied in Chapter 5,
where we presented a sufficient condition for the robust stability:
(6.12)
with 4>0(") monic of degree n, 4>1(") of degree less than n and a1 E [-1,1].
We presented a sufficient condition for the robust stability by introducing the
rectangular value set overbound. Assume for simplicity that 4>0(,,),4>1(") have
real coefficients. The result was proved by overbounding the polynomial family
(6.12), by the polynomial family:
(6.13)
In Lemma 5.1 we proved that the polynomial family (6.13) is stable if and only
if the four polynomials
1/11(") 4>0(") + 4>1(")

1/12(") 4>0(") - 4>1(")
1/13(") 4>0(") + ~1(")
1/14(") 4>0(") - ~1(")
(6.14)
are stable. This is a necessary and sufficient condition for robust stability of
family (6.13). Since parameter uncertainty appears in an affine manner one can
also obtain such a characterization from FIT. The following result clarifies this
relationship and at the same time makes a connection with the Hermite-Biehler
Theorem.
120 CHAPTER 6
Lemma 6.1 Let the four polynomia18 tPi(6) 1:::; i :::; 4, be monic and degree
n. Define n non-overlapping, cOn6ecutive, 90° 6ector, in the complez plane a6:
The four tPi(6) polynomia18 in (6.1,j) are ,table if and only if there ezut po6itive
frequencie6 Wl < W2 < ... < Wn 6uch that tPi(jWIc) E Sic for 1:::; i ~ 4 and each
1:, 1:::; Ie ~ n.
Proof:
Sufficiency follows directly from Theorem 6.4.
We shall prove necessity for n even and m = n/2. The case when n is
odd follows in a similar way. Assume then that tPl' tP2' tP3' tP4 are stable. By
construction we have:
tPl(jW) = rl(w) + jtl(W), =

tP2(jW) r2(w) + jt2(W)
tP3(jW) = rl(w) + jt2(W), tP4(jW) = r2(w) + jt1(w)
Let Ul < U2 < U3 ••• < Urn be the positive real roots of rl (w) and u~ < u~ ••• u:n
be those of r2(w), Let Vl < V2 ... < Vm-l be the positive real roots of tt(w)
and v~ < v~ ... < v:n_l those oft2(w), This fact as well as the ordering below
follows from the Hermite-Biehler theorem. To simplify notation assume that
Ul :::; U~,U2 :::; u~, ... ,Urn ~ u:n and Vl ~ V~,V2 :::; v~, ... ,Vm-l ~ v:n-l' We
now have:
Ul < Vl < U2 < V2 ... Vm-l < Urn, u~ < v~ < u~ < v~ ... V:n_l < u:n
(6.15)
Vm-l < u mI
(6.16)
Therefore, the following ordering holds:

Ul ~ U~ < VI ~ V~ < U2 ~ U~ < V2 ~ V~ ••• V m -l ~ V~_1 < Um ~ u~

(6.17)
If anyone of the strict inequalities above is violated it would contradict (6.16),

the fact that "'i(") are stable. Therefore, choose frequencies WI: as follows:
WI < Ul, ui < W2 < VI, vi < Wa < U2 ••• v~_1 < W n -l < Um, u:n < W n •
Frequency WI can be chosen so that the "'i(jwd are in sector 51. Frequency W2
can be chosen such that the "'i(jW2) are in sector 52, etc.. 0
The importance of this result will become evident in Chapter 10, when we will
use the Simultaneous Polynomial Stability result for robust synthesis. One can
easily envision how this will be accomplished. Think of the family in (6.12)
as the closed loop characteristic polynomial of some feedback loop where the
plant contains the single parameter 41 and the controller parameters affect the
coefficients of tPo(") and tPl(")' It is clear that the feedback loop will be robustly
stabilised if a controller can be found that 6tabilize6 the four 1/1,(") polynomials.
In this context Lemma 6.1 is helpful in two ways: First, it provides a way for
designing such controllers by using the Finite Inclusions Theorem. Second, it
shows that this technique may be more conservative than FIT as value sets are
forced to be rectangles and sectors are only 90 0 wide, whereas sectors in FIT
can be up to 180 0 and no such requirement is imposed on the value sets!
After presenting some background material and pertinent definitions the first
six chapters of the book dealt with control system analysis for systems with
parameter uncertainty. We stated a number of important control problems and
proposed solution methods by formulating them as robust polynomial stability
problems. This motivated the development of several tools for robust analysis:
the Finite Frequency Test, the Finite Matched Phase Theorem, the Simulta-
neous Polynomial Stability result, and the Finite Inclusions Theorem. These
results complement existing literature on robust analysis for systems with para-
meter uncertainty. However, we do not view the development ofrobust analysis
tools as our main objective but rather the "means" towards the development
of robust synthesis methods.
Our task in the second part of the book is to demonstrate that the Finite
Inclusions Theorem and the Simultaneous Polynomial Stability result are par-
ticularly suited for the development of robust synthesis methods for systems
122 CHAPTER 6
with parameter uncertainty. We will show first how the Finite Inclusions Theo-
rem provides the foundation for powerful new robust synthesis methods. We
call these methods FIT Iynthelil and use them to solve control problems posed
earlier in the book. A key element in the design approach is that the formu-
lation leads to iterative robust synthesis algorithms where at each iteration
a controller is designed by solving a set of linear inequalitiel. We will then
show that the Simultaneous Polynomial Stability theorem can be used to ge-
nerate analytical results for robust synthesis. In a typical result, a controller is
shown to satisfy some specific robust performance objective for a plant family
with parameter uncertainty if the controller simultaneously stabilizes a finite
number of polynomials. These design methods are referred to as SimultaneoUl
Polynomial Stabilization.
7
FIT BASED V-STABILIZATION
7.1 FIT FOR SYNTHESIS

The first part of this book, Chapters 2 through 6, dealt with anal1l6u. Given a
particular feedback interconnection and system descriptions, the objective was
to verify whether or not the overall system possessed certain dynamic charac-
teristics. Even though some of the system blocks had dynamics that involved
uncertainty the dynamic descriptions were known. In particular, the controller
was given. For such a system it is of interest to know if it is V-stable or ro-
bustly V-stable or whether additional performance requirements are satisfied.
Having computationally efficient tests for checking dynamic system properties
is of great importance. Tests such as the Routh-Hurwitz criterion and the Ny-
quist Theorem for stability, the Finite Frequency Test for robust stability and
the Finite Inclusions Theorem for robust V-stability are are but a few exam-
ples. Other tests for performance involve the sensitivity and complementary
sensitivity transfer functions.
For Control Engineers perhaps a more fundamental problem is that of control-

ler 611nthe6u. A model of some dynamic system such as a robotic manipulator
is given and the goal is to de6ign a controller such that a desired performance is
achieved. In some instances the structure of the interconnection is prescribed
and in others it may be part of the design. Most frequently the interconnection
involves feedback. It is of paramount importance to have insightful and compu-
tationally efficient methods for controller design. Of course methods of robust
synthesis in cases when plant descriptions involve uncertainty are much more
challenging. Over the years a number of successful methods have been proposed
and many are currently employed in controller synthesis. One example is the
technique of loop 6haping in Classical Control. The Parameter Space Methods
124 CHAPTER 7
[1] and Quantitative Feedback Theory [43] have been employed for systems
with parameter uncertainty. More recently Linear Quadratic methods [54] and
pi H oo techniques [36] were developed which are particularly helpful in multi-
variable system design. All of these design techniques have their foundation on
results from analysis and it is a fact that some analysis results are better suited
for design than others. A good example is provided by the Routh-Hurwitz test
for stability and the Nyquist Theorem. They both are good analysis tools but
the Nyquist Theorem has proved much more valuable in developing methods
for controller design.
Our major thrust in this book is the development of new tools for robust con-
trol synthesis. During the eighties there was a great deal of work that was done
on systems with parameter uncertainty. Most of the emphasis was on robust
analysis issues and [6] contains a comprehensive exposition of many of these
results. In view of our emphasis on synthesis it is rather disappointing that
these efforts did not lead to the development of comprehensive methods for
robust design.
We would like to suggest that the Finite Nyquist Theorem and the Finite
Inclusions Theorem do provide the foundation for the development of methods
for controller synthesis for systems with parameter uncertainty. In contrast to
several of the existing methods the technique works directly with polynomials
and polynomial value sets. Essentially, it is a method of robust V-stabilization,
but has much broader applicability as other performance specifications can
be recast in this setting. The method can best be described as a rob1Utneu
enhancement technique in that an initial controller needs to be provided. The
initial controller can be constructed by employing one's favorite technique and
it mayor may not have any robustness properties apriori. Then in an iterative
manner the region ofrobustness is enlarged with the hope that it will encompass
the given region. Controllers are described in terms of a finite number of
parameters and at each iteration a new controller is designed by solving a linear
let of inequ.alitiel in these parameters. This provides a great computational
advantage. Even though graphics can be used to display pertinent data, the
technique is analytical and thus can be au.tomated. Main elements of the theory
behind the methodology have been developed as well as specific algorithms
for implementation. Some of these have been programmed in the MATLAB
environment and used to perform the computations in the examples that follow.
FIT based 'V-Stabilization 125
7.2 FIT BASED ALGORITHM FOR

V-STABILIZATION
We have already seen that a number of design problems in control can be cast
as robust V-stabilization problems. Our first priority is to develop a FIT based
method for robust V-stabilization for systems with parameter uncertainty. As-
sume that we have the following canonical stabilization problem. We are given
the following feedback system
--
r +
-
+
e
C(s) P(s, a)
y
Figure T.l Unity Feedback Configuration, Parametric Uncertainty
where the family of plants is strictly proper given by
_ n,(s, a)
P( s, a ) - dp(s, a) (7.1)
where dp(s, a) is monic of degree n and the parameter a takes values in some
hypercube 0/1. We assume that the uncertain parameters enter in a multiaffine
manner in the coefficients of n,(s, a), dp(s, a). The controller is proper of order
q and given as:
Z2q+lsq + :l:2qSq-1 + ... + :l:q+l nc(s)

()
Cs= q =-d() (7.2)
sq + :l:qS - + :l:q_1sq- + ... + :1:1
1 2 c s
The controller parameters are grouped in the vector x = (:1:1, :1:2,· •• , :l:2q+l)
E R d where d = 2q + 1 and the closed loop characteristic polynomial is given
by:
~(s,a) = dc(s)dp(s, a) + nc(s)n,(s, a) (7.3)

126 CHAPTER 7
By assumption ;(6, a) has coefficients which are multiaffine in a and affine in

x. We assume that the region 'D is a convex set. The design problem is now to
find (if possible) a controller of order q that 'D-&tabilises ;(6, a, x) for all values
ofa E {lo.
A FIT based robust 'D-stabilisation solution to this canonical problem pro-

ceeds by choosing points 61: along the boundary of'D and sectors 51: satisfying
the Finite Inclusions Theorem and then (if possible) determining a vector of
controller parameters x such that ;(81:, {la, x) C 51: for all Ie. Because of the
multiaffine structure of the uncertainty and the fact that a sector can be re-
presented as the intersection oHwo half planes, say 51: = HI: n HL the latter
problem is equivalent to determining an x such that ;(81:, EztO o , x) C HI: and
;(81:, EztO o , x) C H~ for all Ie. This in turn is equivalent to a finite set of linear
inequalities in x, and therefore, a number of well known algorithms (e.g., the
simplex method) may be used to compute a solution x.
To the nontrivial problem of computing a set of points 81: and sectors 51: for
which a solution x exists, we propose the following sequential procedure: The
basic idea is to design an initial controller x(l) by employing some design tech-
nique, such as pole placement, classical loop shaping, jJ/ Hoo synthesis, etc..
This initial controller may robustly 'D-stabilise for a "small" region of uncer-
tainty, say {l~l) C (lo. This controller is then iteratively improved upon using
FIT. This can be done by choosing a new set of points 81: that "center" the
value sets in their corresponding sectors, or by choosing new sectors. When
(if) a controller x(i) is obtained that guarantees 'D-stability over the entire set
(la, the procedure terminates with x = x(i) and the desired set of points 81:
and sectors 51: having been found.
It should be emphasized that at each step of the procedure (with points 81: and
sectors 51: fixed), the solution of the linear inequalities is a convez problem.
However, the entire procedure is not a convex problem and there should be no
expectation of a "globally optimal" solution. Clearly, the solution will depend
on the "initial" controller and therefore care should be taken at this step. One
should use available knowledge and insight to guide the initial design. As will
seen in the examples that follow, a variety of such designs have been used such
as HOCJ' loopshaping and root locus.
FIT based V-Stabilization 127
A number of algorithms can be constructed which are based on these ideas.

The algorithm we shall propose is presented below and is labelled as the "FIT
Synthe,iI Algorithm". Several variations of this algorithm will be employed
throughout the book for the solution of robust synthesis problems.
FIT Synthesis Algorithm
STEP 1: Let x(l) E Rd and 0~1) C 0 4 be such that 4>(.f,O~l),x(l»)

is V-stable and set j:=1.
STEP 2: Determine m(j) ~ 1 sectors 51;), 1 ~ Ie ~ m(j), and points .f~)
along the boundary of V such that 4>(.f~), EztO~), x(j») c si;)
By FIT, 4>(.f,O~),x(j») is V-stable. Each .f~) should
roughly center (angularly) the set 4>(.f~), EztO~), x(j») in 51;).
STEP 3: Choose a slightly larger set O~+l) :::> O~).
STEP 4: Compute a new vector of controller parameters x(j+l) such
that 4>(.f~),Ezt O~+l),x(;+l») C S~) for all Ie. Note, this is
equivalent to solving a system of linear inequalities in X(j+1).
If no solutions exist to this system of inequalities, return to
Step 3 and choose a smaller O~+l).
STEP 5: Let j := j + 1, and if O~) :::> 0 4 , stop; otherwise, go to Step 2.
If this algorithm terminates, then a robust V-stabilizer would have been found
and the controller parameters would be x = x(j). In order to guard against
unnecessarily long computations in the event that the "growth" of the uncer-
tainty hypercube is very slow, one may introduce some early stopping condi-
tions. One possible variation of this algorithm is to use a single set of sectors
= =
throughout (Le., si;) Sl: and m(;) m for all j).
7.3 EXAMPLE 1: MASS-SPRING-MASS

SYSTEM
We now will demonstrate this synthesis procedure on the mass-spring-mass
benchmark problem proposed in [71]. The solution reported here 1 appears in
1 Portions reprinted, with pennillion, from Proceedings 31st CDC, Tucson, Arisona, De-
cember 1992, pp.333-338, @ 1992 IEEE
128 CHAPTER 7
[46, 49]. The system is comprised of two masses and a spring conneded as in
Figure 7.2. A control force u(t) ads on mass m1, and the position :112(t) of
mass m2 is measured.
u(t) 1L....-_m_1_1 ~_m_2_
Figure T.2 A Ma..-Spring-Mau SYltem
Note, the plant transfer function is given by:
(7.4)
=
where a (k, m1, ffl2) and k, mtt m2 take values in the set 0 .. = {(k, m1, m2)1
.4 ~ k ~ 2, .8 ~ m1 ~ 3, .8 ~ m2 ~ 2}.
The specific problem we will solve is the following: design a controller for this
mass-spring-mass system that places the closed loop poles of the system in the
region 'D = {" E CIRe(,,) < -.2} for all a EO... The position :112 is the con-
troller's input, and the force u(t) is the controller's only output.
Using the standard change ofvariable, v = ,,+.2, the above robust 'D-stabilization
problem can be turned into a robust stabilisation problem. In the following im-
plementation of the FIT algorithm we execute the steps in a "manual" fashion.
In other words the choice of frequencies that center value sets and the en-
largement of the uncertainty region are done by inspection. This makes the
exposition clearer. Later on, we will demonstrate implementations of this al-
gorithm where the entire procedure is carried out "automatically" in software.
STEP 1
Our first priority is to design an initial controller. In this case we choose to use
the H oo controller designed for this problem in [20]. This controller is given by:
n c (v,x(l») = 4.162400 x 105v4 + 4.181800 X 10 7v3 + 1.636600 X 107v 2

+ 2.788200 X 10 7v + 3.057200 X 106
dc(v, X(l») = v4 + 207.7800v3 + 16374v 2 + 604580v + 9348300
It can be easily checked that this controller does not meet our robust 'D-
stabilization objective because for a = (04,3,2) the closed loop characteristic
polynomial does not have all its roots in 'D. As a matter of fact the polynomial
is not even stable. However, this controller does guarantee robust 'D-stability
for the "smaller" set, with k taking values in the range .5 ~ k ~ 2, and
m1 = ~ = 1. In view of this initial design we will also use a 4th order proper
controller for the robustness enhancement:
nc(v, x) _ zgv 4 + zsv 3 + Z7v2 + Z6V + Z5 (7.5)

dc(z, x) - v4 + Z4v3 + Z3v2 + Z2V + Zl
With such a controller the closed loop characteristic polynomial becomes:
,p(v, x, a) = (Z9V4 + zsv 3 + Z7v2 + Z6V + z5)k

+(v 4+ Z4v3 + Z3v2 + Z2V + zl)(m1m2(v - .2)4 + k(m1 + m2)(v - .2)2)
Our design has to find a controller that makes this polynomial robustly stable
for the entire region of interest.
STEP 2
Our next priority is to find and sectors SI: that satisfy the conditions of FIT
and points 61:, which in this case are "frequencies" WI:, that place the value
sets ,p(WI:, oil), XCl») in SI:. In view of the conjugate symmetry present in this
example we can use Theorem 604 to reduce the number of sectors to roughly
130 CHAPTER 7
half. The sectors are chosen as follows: Sector 51 has boundaries C1 = -11:/4,
d1 = 11:/4, and 5" C" = =
1I:(k-2}/4, d" 1I:(k-2}/4+311:/4, for 2 ~ k ~ m 15. =
Note that with the exception of the first one the sectors are 135° wide and that
they overlap. The frequencies that roughly center the corresponding value sets
in these sectors are given in Column 1 of table 7.1. In addition to this data
Column 1 gives the uncertainty set oil) = [.5,2.0] x [1,1] x [1,1] as well as the
controller coefficients x( 1) •
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

k .50 - 2.00 .39 - 2.01 .39 - 2.01
m1 1.00 - 1.00 .79 - 2.00 .79 - 3.01
m2 1.00 - 1.00 .79 - 1.50 .79 - 2.01
Zl 9348300 3184858 1563817
Z2 604580 515154.8 276651.5
Z3 16374 4978.095 4450.123
Z4 207.7800 167.5059 87.25761
Z5 3057200 2863363 2799191
Z6 27882000 8970651 6765943
Zr 16366000 16215820 17047640
Zs 41818000 38036000 28968980
Zg 416240 746073.6 901250.7
W1 0 0 0
W2 .1561692 .3426624 .3426624
W3 .3486783 .3486783 .3594460
W4 .5607200 .4016887 .4047800
W5 .8886813 .5006091 .6247847
W6 1.257489 1.068269 1.101466
wr 2.282319 1.599416 1.350441
Ws 6.014189 5.048458 4.586205
Wg 12.24489 13.92477 15.34179
WlO 17.62050 21.48221 24.29196
Wu 24.88961 39.46459 43.29423
W12 39.69594 53.08110 52.46942
W13 56.16998 54.23943 53.46505
W14 79.25158 57.36595 58.67175
W15 168.7947 99.15175 68.79175
Table 1.1 Controller Synthesis Data

STEP 3
We now choose a "larger" uncertainty set o~Z) ::) O~l).
STEP 4
The set of linear inequalities is now solved to obtain a new controller z(Z) that
guarantees robust stability for O~2) = [.39,2.01] x [.79,2] x [.79, 1.5]. In this
example the projection method was used [49]. The parameters of such a con-
troller and the frequencies that center the new value sets in their corresponding
sectors are given in Column 2 of Table 7.1. Clearly, the size of O~2) may be too
large in this step and a solution may not be found. Some trial and error might
be required in identifying an appropriate uncertainty set.
STEP 5
The set O~2) does not encompass the required uncertainty range so the enlar-
gement procedure must be repeated followed by the solution of a new set of
linear inequalities. The set oi3
) = [.39,2.01] x [.79,3.01] x [.79,2.01] is shown
in Column 3 of Table 7.1, along with the new controller parameters and the
corresponding frequencies. It is evident that in this example the FIT algorithm
was successful in finding a robustly stabilizing controller for the required region
of uncertainty.
Recall that at the beginning we introduced a change of variable which implies

that the controller coefficients listed in Column 3 of Table 7.1 are for polyno-
mials in "v". The controller that solves this robust 1>-stabilization problem
is:
x) _
R C ('"
dc(",x) -
901,250,,4 + 29,690,000,,3 + 34,645,000,,2 + 17,090,000" + 5, 067, 500
,,4 + 88.058,,3 + 4502.7,,2 + 278,440" + 1,619,300
132 CHAPTER 7
7.4 EXAMPLE 2: AUTOMATIC BUS

STEERING SYSTEM
The next problem we would like to consider was posed in [1]. The solution
discussed here appeared in [48,49]. A bus is to be automatically steered along
a road in which a guiding wire has been buried. A study of the bus's linea-
rized model shows that the transfer function from the input of an integrating
hydraulic actuator attached to the bus's steering mechanism to the output of
a displacement sensor attached to its front end is:
where m is the bus's "virtual mass" in kilograms and v its velocity in meters
per second. A complete explanation of how this transfer function is developed
from the nonlinear dynamics is given in [1]. It is also important to note that
unlike the previous example, parameter uncertainty enters the numerator and
denominator of P(6, m, v) in a polynomic manner.
Assume that this transfer function is placed in the unity feedback configuration
of Figure 7.1. The goal here is to design a controller C(6) = ~ to place all
closed loop poles in the hyperbolic region {cr + iwlcr < -.35Jl + (w/1.75)2}
for all (m, v) E 0 4 = [9950,32000] x [3,20]. The above hyperbolic region was
chosen to assure passenger comfort (see [1]), and to further this aim and simplify
implementation we would also like both the loop's bandwidth and controller's
order to be as low as practically possible. We impose this requirement by
insisting that the closed loop poles not be more than a specified distance from
the origin of the complex plane. In particular the region 1) is defined as:
The three goals of robust pole placement (for polynomic parameter uncer-
tainty), low loop bandwidth, and low controller order make this a very challen-
ging robust synthesis problem.
The design carried out in [1] began with the realization that for fixed m and v
Root Locus arguments show that a suitable controller has the structure:
(7.8)
This is so because the system's two zeros lie in the hyperbolic region. See-
ing this, the author of [1] rightly conjectured that a rolnut controller of the
same form could be found. The design was then carried out using Parame-
ter Space Methods. In particular, the parameters Wo = 100 and k l = 2.5
were fixed, and via a graphical method the set of all k 2 and k 3 's was de-
termined that robustly placed the closed loop poles in the above region for
(m, v) E EztO o = {9950, 32000} x {3,20} (recall that EztO o denotes the ez-
treme point" or "vertices" of ( 0 ), After choosing the point k 2 =.7 and k3 = .15
from this set, which turns out to be nonempty, he further adjusted the para-
meters Wo and k l to lower the controller's bandwidth. The final controller he
obtained was:
.6 + .78 + .158
2
C( ) (7.9)
$ = (1 + 8/25 + 82 /25 2 )(1 + 8/25)
which guaranteed robustness for only the "vertex plants" (m, v) E EztO o CO o '
After checking, it so happens that this controller solves the original problem
(i.e., it is robust for all (m, v) E ( 0 ), This was verified graphically via a plot
of stability boundaries in parameter space (see [1] for details).
This example draws attention to a limitation associated with Parameter Space

Methods. The graphical design is carried out by considering only a finite num-
ber of "representative" plants (frequently the "vertex" plants). Once a design
is completed based on this set of plants it is tested on the entire family. There
is no guarantee that the design will be successful for the entire family because
the entire family was not taken into account in the design. However, as in this
example, in many cases and with some trial and error the technique works.
One indication that solving this problem through FIT synthesis may be diffi-
cult is that for the controller in (7.9) the value set of the loop's characteristic
polynomial
t/J(8j m, v) = (.6 + .78 + .158 2 )(607876mv 2 82 + 387· 109 v8 + 48· 10 9 v 2 )
+(1 + $/25 + 82 /25 2 )(1 + 8/25)8 3 (m 2 v 2 $2 + 106 mv8 + 16630mv2 + 269.109 )
evaluated at a point on the stability region's boundary can exceed 1800 in width
(see Figure 7.3). Hence, FIT cannot be directly used to verify this controller
134 CHAPTER 7
is robust. This can be accomplished via "parameter range partitioning" I that

is, breaking up OG into a union of smaller sets and employing Theorem 6.5.
This of course will be done at the expense of more computations. However,
in this case we shall demonstrate that, FIT synthesis can easily be used to
obtain a controller of similar performance to that designed by Parameter Space
Methods.
x1013
1.------.----,----..,.----,...-----,
0.5 1- _ -f """'ii!!!iI +_ ; ; ""
01-···················· ; ; '''~~::-.: ; -I
1.0.5 1- ; ·_········;··········11"1-""1"-+-.1=-·"
«I
.5
·11-···_·······_··········_····+··············.. ········~'Y'V:
-1.5 1-······..·····..·..··.. ·····+,~"'4,"""
_2L~~~::E:~--L_----l_~
.0.5 0 0.5 1.5 2
real x10 13
Figure T.I Plot oCthe Value Set 1/>( -0.7471 +;3.3, n..)
The other obstacle we have to overcome is the presence of polynomic uncer-

tainty. FIT becomes a computationally efficient design tool when the location
of value sets with respect to the sectors can be determined from a finite number
of vertices. In the case of multiaffine uncertainty we can rely on the Mapping
Theorem, and vertices can be used. This does not in general hold for value
sets from polynomic uncertainty. A realistic alternative is to overbound the po-
lynomic uncertainty by multiaffine uncertainty. This of course will negatively
impact the conservatism of the solution. In this case we employ the multiaffine
parameter space overbound presented in Lemma 4.2. Specifically, we make the
substitutions:
m - (al + a2)/2 v - (a3 + a4)/2

m2 _ ala2 v 2 - a3a4
where a = (all a2, a3, a4) E OG = [9950,32000] x [9950,32000] x [3,20] x [3,20]

We now consider this "modified" robust 'V-stabilization problem. Given the

system:
design a controller that will place the closed loop poles in 'V for all a E 00 •
Clearly, this plant family encompasses the original plant family. The region 'V
is given in Figure 7.4.
70 "T'""-------:,-T"'""-------...,
, ,
'- - ...
~
"60
.§
0
l.:f""\
+-------Ji;i;i§~~~;;:;+----~--___I
~r:::::::::~::::j:::~:~::~:r:::~::~:~:~I:~; :
'ijl~ l i li l l li~li ilililililr ",/

~:~{tt~r!
,
. ""
,,
-70 +---------+----------1
-90 o 90
real
Figure T.4 The Region 1)
It is interesting to point out a distinct advantage of FIT synthesis over Pa-

rameter Space Methods. By employing overbounding a new family of plants
is generated which includes the given plant family and at the same time has
a structure (multiaffine uncertainty) that allows one to take into account in
the design process the entire family of plants. In contrast, Parameter Space
Methods have to rely on only a few representative members of the given plant
family. Let us now employ the FIT algorithm to this synthesis problem.
136 CHAPTER 7
STEP 1
In view of the Root Locus arguments mentioned earlier it makes sense to choose
a controller with the structure:
(7.10)
The closed loop characteristic polynomial is then:
(7.11)
The initial controller places the closed loop poles of the "nominal" system
= =
m 20975, v 11.5 in the desired region. The closed loop poles of the nominal
design are shown in Figure 7.5. The coefficients of this controller are: :1:1 =
15630, Z2 = 1250, Z3 = 50, Z4 =
24620, Z5 =
18850, Z6 = 4546. This controller
guarantees 'D stability for the "modified" system for O~I) = [20975,20975] x
[20975,20975] x [11.5,11.5) x [11.5,11.5). This information is also displayed in
Column 1 of Table 7.2.
55 -r------------,
}.----
~
.~ 0
.5
-55
,----
+-----+------1
-55 o 55
real
Figure T.5 Clolcd Loop Poles For Nominal DClign
Column 1 Column 2 Col~mn 3 Column 4 Column 5

a1 20975-20975 16000-32000 9950-32000 9950-32000 9950-32000
a2 20975-20975 16000-32000 9950-32000 9950-32000 9950-32000
a3 11.5-11.5 9-20 9-20 7-20 6.25-20
a4 11.5-11.5 9-20 9-20 7-20 6.25-20
Z1 15630 16530 19140 20170 21860
Z2 1250 1318 1760 1859 1895
Z3 50 44.90 36.19 32.31 29.92
Z4 24620 23920 14890 14960 14550
Z5 18850 17890 15310 14190 14320
Z6 4546 4888 4737 4724 4707
Table T.2 Controller Synthesis Data
STEP 2
The sequence of sectors must revolve counterclockwise about the origin by

360 x 8 degrees and be "spaced" no more than 1800 from one another. For our
synthesis we choose:
(7.12)
where -47 ~ Ie ~ 48. In this implementation these sectors will remain fixed
throughout the procedure. By the Finite Inclusions Theorem and the above
observations x will be a robust controller if there exists a counterclockwise
sequence of points (SA:) along the boundary of V such that ifJ(SA:! Ezt0 4 , x) C SA:
for all Ie. This condition is easily checked since ifJ(s, Ezt0 4 , x) is a finite set,
which deforms continuously as S traverses V's boundary. Further, because of
the complex conjugate symmetries ifJ(so, .) = ifJ(S, .)*, S-A: = Si, and V = V* ,
we need only check roughly half of these sectors. Namely, if (SA:), 0 ~ Ie ~ 48,
lie on or above the real axis and satisfy the above inclusions, all the inclusions
will be satisfied upon setting SA: = s:'l: for -47 ~ Ie < O. We therefore compute
a counterclockwise sequence of points (s~» along the upper half of V such
that ifJ(s~),EztO~),x(j» is roughly centered (angularly) within SA: for each
o ~ Ie ~ 48. Some of these points are depicted in Figure 7.4.
STEP 3
Next we choose a set O~+1) :J O~).
138 CHAPTER 7
STEP 4
We now compute a new vector of controller coefficients x(i+l) such that:
(7.13)
Since tP is affine in x(i+l) , computing these coefficients is equivalent to sol-

ving a system of 882 linear inequalities. The number 882 = 9· 2 . 49 co-
mes from the fact that there are at most 3 . 3 = 9 di$tind points in the
set tP(6~), Eztfi!1+l), x(i+l») (the conjugate symmetry reduces this from the
4·4= 16 one might otherwise expect), that the condition a given point is in a
sector requires 2 linear inequalities to express, and that there are 49 sectors.
To solve this system of inequalities, in our synthesis we applied the projection

method (see [2, 16, 56]). Several implementation tricks were used to improve
efficiency. The most important of these was to scale the controller coefficients
in the inequalities by x(1) to roughly equalise their orders of magnitude. Ano-
ther important trick was to make repeated "passes" through the inequalities
where on each pass all the inequalities were projected onto once and then the
inequalities found to be violated were projected onto again another 25 times.
It may be that the above system of inequalities has no solution. In this case,
one must go back to STEP :I and try a smaller set fi!1+1).
STEP 5
A check is made whether fi!1+1) CO... If not, we go back to STEP 2 and

try a new set of points. The data from the sequence of steps performed is
depicted in Table 7.2, showing the five iterations. Table 7.3 lists the points
6~5), 0 ~ Ie ~ 48 from the fifth and last iteration. At these points the value
sets tP(,,~5), EztO~5), X(5») are included in their corresponding sectors. In this
procedure we were not entirely successful in expanding the range of uncertain
parameters to m E [9950,32000] and v E [3,20]. As can be seen, the controller
C(,,) obtained from the coefficients in Column 5 of Table 7.2 only appears to
be V-stabilising for (m, v) E [9950,32000] x [6.25,20]. It could be that it is V-
stabiliJing for a larger region, since conservatism has been introduced in the
design process via overbounding. At this stage we have several alternatives.
The simplest is to go back and increase sector size which had been set to
150 0 • Another, is to attempt to break up the uncertainty region and carry
out a design procedure based on SSFIT. However, it would be prudent before
we embark on additional work to checle whether the controller obtained is V-
stabilising. In fact, it turns out that this controller is V-stabilising for all
(m, v) E 0 0 = [9950,32000] X [3,20]. This was verified by partitioning 0 0 into
several smaller sets and then by using FIT to verify V-stability over each set
individually.
k si5
) k ,;p)
0 -.3500+jO 25 -8.251 +j41.22
1 -.3526+j.2130 26 -10.39+j48.91
2 -.3663+j.50411 27 -12.78+j48.34
3 -.3915+j.8769 28 -15.08+j47.67
4 -,4197+j1.158 29 -17.19+j46.95
5 -,4523+j1.432 30 -19.54+j46.02
6 -,4874+j1.696 31 -22.32+j44.74
7 -.5179+j1.909 32 -25.00+j43.30
8 -.5480+j2.108 33 -27,43+j41.80
9 -.5806+j2.317 34 -29.98+j40.01
10 -.6236+j2.581 35 -32,40+j38.08
11 -.6754+j2.888 36 -34.70+j36.00
12 -.7692+j3.425 37 -36.76+j33.90
13 -.9493+j4.412 38 -39.01+j31.28
14 -1.269+j6.097 39 -41.04+j28.56
15 -1.731+j8,477 40 -42.79+j25.87
16 -2.309+jl1.41 41 -44.55+j22.70
17 -2.925+jI4.52 42 -45.88+jI9.87
18 -3.755+jI8.69 43 -47.19+jI6.52
19 -4.850+j24.19 44 -48.10+jI3.66
20 -5.799+j28.94 45 -48.94+jl0.22
21 -6.861+j34.26 46 -49.55+j6.688
22 -7.625+j38.09 47 -49.88+j3,409
23 -7.846+j39.19 48 -50.00+jO
24 -7.932+j39.62
Table T.I Values of ,~5)
Plots of the closed loop poles for both the design carried out in [1] and our
controller over (m, v) E {9950, 20975, 32000} x {3, 11.5,20} are given in Figures
7.6 and 7.7, respectively. These figures show the controller from [1] is slightly
better than ours at keeping the system's poles close in to the origin and hence,
may provide passengers with a slightly smoother ride by better attenuating high
frequency disturbances. Our controller, however, is nearly as good and was ob-
tained from a general synthesis procedure. While our FIT synthesis procedure
140 CHAPTER 7
can easily handle problems with (approximately) ~8 uncertain parameters and

~50 controller coefficients, the Parameter Space Methods employed in [1] are
limited by their graph.ical nature. More details on the computational aspects
of our design can be found in [49].
55 T"'------------,
.'-~r::~.~ - -- .........."
,,
,
\
\
,
\
\
~ I
.S 0
,,
I
~
.S ,
,, ,
,
,,
-55 +-------+------1
-55 o 55
real
Figure T.8 Closed Loop Poles or Parameter Space Method Controller
55
..:~::r::J - - - -",
~
'i 0
.S
'j----
-55
-55 o 55
real
Figure T.T Closed Loop Poles or FIT Synthesis Controller

7.5 EXAMPLE 3: A FIT SOFTWARE

PACKAGE
In the previous two examples the FIT algorithm was implemented in a "semi-
automated" fashion as at each iteration the uncertainty region was enlarged
"manually" and the points that centered value sets were computed by "ins-
pection". There no intrinsic reason for preventing a fully automated software
implementation of the algorithm. All the required operations can be performed
without "human intervention". As a matter for fact, a FIT software package
was produced in [53] for implementing a version of the FIT algorithm for robust
stabilisation based on Theorem 6.3. The software was written in the MATLAB
environment because of its widespread use in control applications and in order
to take advantage of its graphic capabilities. In this example we would like to
use the FIT software package in the solution of a robust stabilisation problem.
Consider the following family of plants described by the transfer function:
P( ) _ .:..("_+_1...:.)..:..("_+_1_0~)+_a~I(=-=-5._5"_+---:-:-7)_+_a~2...:..(,,_2_+_0_.5_"_+~2) (7.14)
", a - (" + 2)(" + 4)(" - 1)
where a = (al,a2) lies in thereetangle 0 .. {(al,a2)I-Q < al < Q,=
-Q < a2 < Q}. The positive parameter Q regulates the "sise" of the rec-
tangle. The plant is in the feedback configuration of Figure 7.1. The objective
is to find a robustly stabilizing controller for as large a value of Q as possi-
ble. An additional requirement is to try and keep the order of the controller
as low as possible. Note that unlike the previous two examples, the family
of plants can contain non-minimum ph/Ue systems for values of Q larger than
= =
unity (e.g. al -I,a2 -1.1), so that a "high gain" solution is not possible.
Furthermore, the family is unstable.
This is a "stability margin optimisation" problem and we know that such pro-
blems have been considered in the past and solved in appropriate settings. Re-
call that [51] provides a complete solution in the case when P(", al) = aIPO(")'
It provides a constructive solution for the controller that robustly stabilises
such a system in the feedback configuration of Figure 7.1 for the largest range
of values of al. Several "single parameter" problems can be cast into such
a formulation, however our example does not fall in this category because of
the presence of two uncertain parameters. The authors in [36] consider the
problem of multiplicative perturbations and norm bounded uncertainty. Let
the plant family be given by P e (,,) = P(")(1 + ~W2("» where ~ is any sta-
142 CHAPTER 7
ble proper transfer function with 1I~lIoo < E, P(s) a nominal transfer function
and W2 (,) a stable and proper weighting function. One seeks to find E,."the
least upper bound on E such that a robustly stabilising controller can be found.
The solution to this problem comes from a "model matching problem" and
in [36] it is solved using Nevanlina-Pick Interpolation. When compared with
these "analytical" solutions our approach, even though it is based on a sound
theoretical foundation, is more "algorithmic". Furthermore, since the overall
problem is not convex we cannot make any statements about global optimality
of the solution.
The algorithm requires that an initial controller be supplied. In view of the fact
that the plant family can be expressed in a multiplicative perturbation form,
it makes good sense to exploit the existing theory. Specifically, we will design
an H oo controller assuming a multiplicative, norm bounded uncertainty struc-
ture. In order to employ this methodology, our first priority will be to find an
appropriate weighting function W 2 (,), for the parameter uncertainty:
Ql(S,S, + 7) + Q2(,2 + O.S, + 2)

(7.1S)
(, + 1)(' + 10)
Clearly, there is a multitude of bounds that can be constructed. Figure 7.8,

where Q is assumed to be unity, shows that there is a "corner" in the plot
representing the maximum value of uncertainty as a function of frequency.
It is reasonable to expect that the better the "fit" of the overbound W2 the
less conservative would be the norm bounded approximation. It then follows
that the higher the order of the transfer function W2 , the better becomes the
approximation. In turn, the higher the order of W2 the higher the order of the
controller. Figure 7.8 shows two second order W 2 (,)'s called the "suboptimal"
,2+ 7.28, + 9 (7.16)

(, + 1)(' + 10)
101 ........-.....--..,.-..,.--r-........T"T"T--....--.---r-.........................----,..---.--.-.........,..,....,
':.:::::::::::::::::: . . . .. . ::t:):: ~::j::;:;.. . + ~ ~ +.. +.+. +.:
.....•.••••.••c.••.•.... c••••.•e.••..•.••(.•. i..(.. c•.•••.•••••••••.••·;...•.••.•; i (. i j. ••; •• i.(················(.··.·····.(.·.·..(.·.. ·j.,.(. •• i...;.(
..............1 i. i i j i.. ~.. ~ ..i ~ .i i i i.. l..i..i.i l i l i l.. ~..l.;
..............1. ~ i i ~ i.. ~..i..i i i ; 1. ;.. 1..i..i.1. i ~ l i 1 i...~.;
..............L L L L..j LLLL L L L..L.Ll..LLl. L ~ i. L..L.Ll.;
. . . . . . . . . . . . t.:.: j:.' ~:.' .. ·!:.'· ..1..·.. 1+ · · . I:' ;:.' L.. t·++H-f.... · ·.. l l....··.. ++H·i
: : : :::: .....
.. ··········r······T·····r....1.....:.. ~ . ~..: ·....T· ·+···r···~··~··~··:·~···.. ······f···..t····~···~··~··~ ;
1 ! : !·1. . !Ill i
..... ~,: "solid'.' ""-.'-

uue ~,'.·m:.·~.::.:·o·.:~.'multl·p1~.·ft
J: .."-.:.: .~.;
J',.CII."""
~ j .....:.:.l.::. ;:.'
_ c':".'....
....-s.." "f• ~ ; ;: -:-;.. ;:.. -:-;..;
~
. . . . . . . i..~~.~~t.~~.~<+.t.~~~+~B.h~~:~~.i~l. L....L.i.. l..U.!

: d«red tine - s~nr~ (~t) wci&h~ng ~~oo I : :, ,..
10-1 l...-_-'---'---'-................................_ _-'----'---'-...............i....i....L.i...._---i'--.................i.....i....i...i...u
10-1 10° 101 102
Frequency - radls
F1lure T.8 Bode plot. of aecond order weighting fundiona
and the "optimal"
1.1336608,,2 + 6.8857303" + 9
(7.17)
(" + 1)(" + 10)
These were developed in [53] where more details of the procedure can also
be found. Using these bounds one can now employ the Boo methodology to
compute the controller that maximises the value of Q for which robust stability
can be guaranteed. Using Nevanlina-Pick Interpolation [36] the Boo controller
computed for the bound (7.16) was found to be:
c _ n c (") _ (" + 2)(" + 4) (7.18)

00 .".(,,) - d c (") - 1.273(.214545" - 1.14545)
which guaranteed robust stability for Q as large as Q:'IIZ = 1.273. Observe that
this controller is improper! In this case an "easy" way of obtaining a proper
144 CHAPTER 7
controller with "comparable" dynamic characteristics is to "add" a stable fac-

tor to the controller of the form (~. ~ I)' where T is a "small" enough number.
Such a "suboptimal" controller will of course not be able to robustly stabwe
for as large a value of a. For more discussion on a different scheme the reader
is referred to [36].
For this design we chose to add the factor (17100~. + I) and use:
C OO (6) _ n e (6) _ (6 + 2)(6 + 4)

(7.19)
- de (6) - 1.273(.2145456 - 1.14545)(lf>o6 + 1)
as the initial controller for the FIT software package. The FIT software routine
generated the controller:
C F1T (6) = 243.950266Z + 1455.783626 + 2001.06074

(7.20)
6Z + 106.066996 - 571.96263
which guarantees robust stability for a~~ = 1.3644.
Clearly, one could develop an H oo controller through a different procedure which

would result in different a: 4Z ' One possibility is to choose a different second
order W Z(6). For the one labelled "optimal" in (7.17) one can show [53] that
again an improper controller gives a:GZ
= 1.2926, a number smaller than a~~~.
Better results could of course be obtained with higher order WZ(6)'S but these
would inevitably lead to higher order controller designs. Since low controller
order is a design requirement this would require some form of "reduction" after
the design. This example demonstrated that th.e combination of H00 and FIT
synthesis became a powerful tool for controller synthesis.
7.6 SIMULTANEOUS PLANT FAMILY

STABILIZATION
An arbitrary single input single output finite dimensional linear time invariant
plant can be stabwed by a finite dimensional linear time invariant plant con-
troller. Not only is it possible to stabwe such a plant, but in fact one can
provide a parameteriJation of all stabilizing controllers. 1£ one is not dealing

with a single plant but rather a finite number plants , it is very appropriate to
inquire whether or not a single controller exists that simultaneously stabilizes
all the plants. It is of great interest to develop specific formulations that lead
to necessary and sufficient conditions for simultaneous stabilization and to con-
structive methods ofsolution. For two plants it is well known that simultaneous
stabilization is related to the concept of Itrong stabilization which in turn is
related to the "parity interlacing property" [68, 69]. For this case a complete
solution has been provided along with procedures for constructing controllers
[67]. The case of more than two plants remains an open problem which by all
accounts is very difficult. Some partial results are available [8, 12, 40, 62].
Justifiably, the problem of simultaneous plant family stabilization has not re-
ceived as much attention in the literature [70]. Its importance is undeniable.
Recall that in Chapter 4 the problem of asymptotic tracking was posed as a ro-
bust polynomial stabilization problem. SpecificallYI a controller C(6) =
~;f:~
was needed to be found that robustly stabilizes the polynomial family:
(7.21)
for all 0 ~ rl ~ I, Ql E [0,211"). Expressed differently we have:
In other words the controller would need to robustly stabilize the "plant family":
(7.22)
Suppose now that this same controller needs to guarantee asymptotic noise
attenuation as discussed in Chapter 4. This requirement can be expressed as a
robust stabilization requirement for the polynomial family:
(7.23)
146 CHAPTER 7
This can be re-written as:
In other words the controller must robustly stabilise the "plant family":
np(6)(r2~a2n.2(6) + d.2(6))
dp(6)d.2(6)
It is evident that if this multiobjedive performance requirement is placed on

the system then a single controller would need to be construded that simulta-
neously stabilised two polynomial familie6. If in addition to these two require-
ments others are also placed (e.g. on controller effort), that can be expressed in
terms of bounds on specific transfer fundions this would generate more plant
families. The reader is also referred to Chapter 11 where it is shown that si-
multaneous polynomial family stabilisation is also required in our approach to
robust performance synthesis of multivariable systems.
For additional motivation of the importance of the simultaneous plant family

stabilisation problem we can turn our attention to the FIT baaed approach to
robust stabilisation. There are no restridions placed when the problem under
consideration involves affine uncertainty. However, in the case of multiaffine
or polynomic uncertainty the fact that FIT requires sedors which are at most
1800 wide imposes limitations. Value sets can "wrap" themselves around the
origin without containing it. In order to alleviate this problem we introduce
approximations by overbounding value sets with polygons via the Mapping
Theorem. Much better approximations could be made if the value sets were
"broken up" and then individual sedions were overbounded. In other words
one could "break up" the parameter hypercube into a finite number of smal-
ler hypercubes, thus creating a finite number of plant families. A controller
can then be sought that simultaneously stabilises these plant families. Such a
scheme could have been used in the automatic bus steering example of Section
7.4.
One possible solution to the simultaneous plant family stabilisation problem is

offered by overbounding. We could identify a single new plant family with a
nominal plant and multiplicative norm bounded uncertainty that includes the
given plant families. Specifically, let
(7.24)
where P(6) is some "nominal" system transfer function, W(6) is some given mi-
nimum phase stable transfer function and Ii. is any arbitrary stable and proper
transfer function with IIi. (jw) I :5 I, for all wE [0,00). The transfer function
W(6) would need to be appropriately shaped. Then a necessary and sufficient
condition for robust stability is IW(jw)T(jw) I < 1 for all w E [0,00), where
T is the nominal complementary sensitivity. This elegant characterization of
robust stability allows for controller synthesis as a solution to a Nevanlina-Pick
interpolation problem. This solution may lead to conservative designs because
of excessive overbounding.
In Chapter 6 SSFIT was presented, a result which is very well suited for the
development of algorithms for simultaneous plant family stabilization. We will
concentrate on the development of such an algorithm for plant families with
parameter uncertainty. Consider the following canonical stabilization problem:
We are given the unity feedback system
l_ e
_·I'---_C-=-(6)-====,I=p._,-"(6,a:) y
Figure T.8 Unity Feedb.c:k Configuration, Parametric Uncertainty
where Pi(6, a), 1 ::; i :5l is a family of strictly proper plants given by:
7lpi( 6,a) (7.25)

= d,n(6, a) ,
where all the d,n(6, a) are of degree 7ii and the parameters a take values in some
hypercube 0 0 and with positive leading coefficients. Uncertain parameters
enter polynomial coefficients in a multiaffine manner. For now we will also
assume the following:
148 CHAPTER 7
Assumption
We can construct a controller that simultaneously stabilises the finite number
nominal of plants, P1 (", 0), P3 (", 0), ... Pt(", 0).
For the two motivating paradigms of simultaneous plant stabilisation this as-
sumption is true. The development of the more general algorithm will be
considered at the end of the Section. We use a proper, order q controller given
by:
C(,,) = :l:2q+l"q + :l:3q"q-l + ... + :l:q+l _ n c(")

(7.26)
"q + :l: q "q-l + :l: q _l"q-3+ '" +:1:1 dc (")
Controller parameters are grouped in the vector x = (:1:1, :1:3,' .. , :l:2q+d and
the closed loop characteristic polynomials are given by:
(7.27)
The ~i('" a) have coefficients that are multiaffine in a and affine in x. The
design problem is now to find (if possible) a controller of order q that stabilises
~'('" a, x) for all 1 ~ i ~ l and values of a E 011'
A FIT based simultaneous stabilisation solution to this canonical problem pro-

ceeds by choosing frequencies W,A: along the jw axis and sectors 5,,.
satisfying
SSFIT and then (if possible) determining a vector of controller parameters x
such that 4>,(jw,,., 011, x) C 5,k for all Icand all i. Because of the multiaf-
fine structure of the uncertainty and the fact that a sector can be represented
as the intersection of two half planes, say 5,k = H'k n Hik' the latter pro-
blem is equivalent to determining a x such that 4>,(jW'k, E:l:tO lI , x) C H'k and
4>,(jw,,., E:l:tOlI , x) C HiA: for alllc and all i. For each polynomial this in turn is
equivalent to a finite set of linear inequalities in x. Collecting all these inequa-
lities one can create a single larger set of inequalities. As in the FIT algorithm,
a number of well known algorithms (e.g., the simplex method) may be used to
solve this set of linear inequalities and compute a solution x.
The development of a simultaneous stabilisation algorithm follows that of the

FIT synthesis algorithm: The basic idea is to design an initial controller x(l) by
employing some design technique, such as pole placement, classical loop sha-
ping, lSI H oo synthesis, etc.. This initial controller may simultaneously stabwe
for a "small" region of uncertainty, say oil) COo • This controller is then ite-
ratively improved upon using SSFIT. This can be done by choosing a new set
of frequencies Wil: that "center" the individual value sets ;i(jW, O~j>, xCi») in
their corresponding sectors, or by choosing new sectors. When (if) a controller
x(j) is obtained that simultaneously stabwes over the entire set 0 0 , the pro-
cedure terminates with x = xCi) and the desired set of points Wil: and sectors
Sil: having been found.
With frequencies Wil: and sectors Sil: fixed, the solution of the linear inequalities
is a convez problem. However, as in the case of the FIT algorithm, the overall
problem is not convex. The algorithm we propose below is called the SSFIT
Synthe,iI Algorithm.
SSFIT Synthesis Algorithm
STEP 1: Let X(l) E ad and oil) C 0 0 be such that ;i(" oil), x(l»)
are stable and set j:=l.
STEP 2: Determine m~j)1_ II:' 1 <
> 1 sectors ~;) _k_ < m~j)
II 1 <_i_ <l
and frequencies W!~) along the iw axis such that
;i(jw!~),EztO~j>,xCi»)C S!~). By FIT, ;i("o~),x(i») are
stable. Each w!!)should roughly center (angularly) the set
;i (iw!~), EztO~), xCi») in S!t).
STEP 3: Choose a slightly larger set O~+l) :::> O~).
STEP 4: Compute a new vector of controller parameters xU+l) such
that ;i(jW!~), Ezt O~+l), x Ci + I ») C s~t) for allk and i.
Note this is equivalent to solving a system of linear
inequalities in x(i+l). If no solutions exist to this system of
inequalities, return to Step 3 and choose a smaller O~+l).
STEP 5: Let i := i + 1, and if O~) :::> 0 0 , stop; otherwise, go to Step 2.
If this aigorithm terminates, then a simultaneously stabwing controller would

have been found with parameters x = xCi). In order to guard against unne-
cessarily long computations in the event that the "growth" of the uncertainty
hypercube is very slow, one may introduce some early stopping conditions. One
possible variation of this algorithm is to use a single set of sectors throughout
•
( I.e., rlor each'1, S(i) r all')
il: = Sil: an d m i(;) = mt lor J.
150 CHAPTER 7
7.7 AN SSFIT SOFTWARE PACKAGE

The FIT software package generated in [53] was suitably modified in [13] for
implementing a version of the SSFIT algorithm for simultaneous plant family
stabilisation. The new software package is labeled SSFIT and it is baaed on
Theorem 6.5. The SSFIT software package provides the capability of placing
value sets from c:lift'erent plants in individual sectors at specific frequencies and
solving for a single controller. In this example we run SSFIT and show how
it can be used to design a controller that guarantees robust stability for a
larger range of uncertainty than it would be possible by running FIT. Consider
the situation where we are asked to robustly stabilise a plant with multiaffine
parameter uncertainty. When FIT is used, at each frequency the convex hulls
of value sets must lie in sectors that are less than 11' radians wide. In view
of the overbounding introduced it can happen that a particular convex hull
does include the origin of the complex plane but that the actual value set does
not. This could imply that one could design a controller for a larger range of
uncertainty but that one would be limited by sector sise. The value set shown
in Figure 7.10 depicts this situation.
2Or----r----r----,r----r-----r-----,--.----,
15 - .; ;--... .,- -.: - ,- --. ..._ -:- ..
10 : ; i : ; ( ; .
··· .. .
. . . .
· .
.
. ... ..
. .
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5 ; : :....... : :
. ...~ ...
:J 0 , .:'/ : ...
,
)(
.
:
,
; : , .
.. .
-5 ~ : : : : ~ ~ .
: : : : : : :
· : ~ : : : :
....
; :
• ••• ~ .......•.. ;, .. , ••••...:..•••••.••. i
: : :
., .: .•••••.... <....
·10
-15 : :
.
······i·········
..
: ·f··· ~ :. .
: :. .:
·~--.1L,-5- -....,.10,..---.~5-~0'---75----:1"::-0---!:15~---::!20
real
Figure T.l0 Value set and Convex Hull
One would be inclined to say that by "breaking up" the plant family into a
number of "sub-families" and then using SSFIT one can design a controller
that guarantees robust stability for a larger uncertainty set.
We should remark that in comparing different design algorithms, we compare

the uncertainty regions for robust stability that are computed by the design
process. These are the regions of robust stability guaranteed by the design
algorithm. It could be, due to various reasons that the controller designed
actually achieves robust stability for a larger uncertainty region. This can be
verified after the design is completed.
Consider the plant family in a unity feedback configuration of Figure 7.1 with
transfer function:
P(..,a) = np(..,a) =
dp(.., a)
(18a1aZ - 12.5a2 - 12.5a1 + 3.583333).. + 8a1aZ - 6az - 6a1 + 1.083333
..2 + (- 37a1az + 24.5az + 23.5a1 - 5.916667).. - 3az + a1 + 4.916667
where the uncertainty lies in the set Oa, with -a ~ a1 ~ a, -a ~ a2 ~ a.

Our objective is to construct a controller that robustly stabilises for as large
a value of a as possible. It should be noted that the family does contain
nonminimum phase seros for large enough a. Specifically, when a1 = 0 and
az = .22, the numerator of P becomes equal to .833333" - .236667. If the
family for lOme given a did not contain any seros in the right half complex
plane then a "high gain" controller could have been constructed that robustly
stabilises. The closed loop characteristic polynomial is given by:
(7.28)
It should mentioned that our techniques do not guarantee that the largest
computed a is the largest attainable. Rather, FIT can be used to compute
lower bounds. Our purpose here is to demonstrate that SSFIT can be used
to compute improved lower bounds. This is done by exploiting the fact that
SSFIT in essence allows one to work with sectors that are wider than 180 0 •
This in turn can lead to controllers that guarantee robust stability for larger a.
Let us first design a controller using FIT. The initial controller is chosen by
t
pole placement and is given by: z,' 11. It places the poles of the nominal
closed loop system at: -0.3189 ± j1.9026, -1.61216. The FIT software [53]
was run with this initial controller and with equally saed sectors 311"/4 radians
152 CHAPTER 7
wide. There is one such sector symmetrically positioned about the positive real
axis and the others follow by rotating 45° at a time. The procedure terminated
with the controller:
2.01736 + .96559
6 + 1.0032
This controller guaranteed to robustly stabilize the family for a value of Q

up to Qt:~~ = .40963. Denote the corresponding parameter value set as
O:IT. Clearly, the controller was not modified a great deal. Furthermore, had
"wider" sectors been used a larger value of Q maz would have been obtained.
A more important observation is the geometry of the value set at frequency
w = 1.9281. This is shown in Figure 7.11.
10,.---,....--,....--,....--,....--,....--,....--,....--.---.-----.
8 , . . ..;...
.. .
6 ; ; : ; : : :- , , .
··· .
..
. .
.
· .
.: : ~
·· .
~
..
~ .
.;
.: :.
· .
;
.
: .
·
· ... ..
~ ··· .. ...
.r
.E .., Q ; ; : .
.
..
.
..
.
.
....
-2 ; ; , : : : , , .
: : .
-4 ; ~ : : : + : i ; .
·6 , , -: .
·8 .
. 1~~0--.8~-.6~--4L--.2~-0~-2~-4L--6~-8~---!10·
real
Figure T.11 The Value Set t/I(j1.9281,n~lT)
From this value set it would seem that as Q increases the convex hull will include
the origin but the actual value set would not. We must caution here that a
single value set at a specific frequency does not tell the whole story, because this
may not be the "critical" frequency. It could happen that as the uncertainty
range increases some vertex or other plant family member goes unstable first,
and this could occur at a different frequency. However, this seems to be a
good candidate for SSFIT. The geometry of this value set suggests that we
"partition" the family along the 02-axis. We will partition the given plant
family in two sub-families and run the SSFIT software. The first plant family
is obtained from the original by substituting 02 - .25 for 02. This results in:
n,1('" a)
Pl(6,a) = d, ( ) =
1 ",a
(180102 - 12.502 - 1701 + 6.708333)6 + 80102 - 602 - 801 + 2.583333
62 + (-370102 + 24.502 + 32.7501 - 12.041667)6 - 302 + 01 + 5.666667
The second plant family is obtained by substituting 02 + .25 for 02. The
transfer function is:
n,2('" a)
P2 (",a) = d, ( ) =
2 ",a
(180102 - 12.502 - 801 + .45833)" + 80102 - 602 - 401 - .4166667
62 + (-370102 + 24.502 + 14.2501 + .208333)" - 302 + 01 + 4.166661
We now seek to find a controller that simultaneously stabilizes these two plant
families for parameters in the range [-a ::5 01 ::5 a] and [-a/2 ::5 02 ::5 a/2],
for the largest possible a. The manner in which the SSFIT software is written
allows one to use different a's for each plant family. Using the same initial
controller as in the running of FIT and with the same sector assignment for
both families, the SSFIT software generated the controller:
2.01526 + .9735
(7.29)
6 + 1.0001
This controller is guaranteed to simultaneously robustly stabilize the first plant

family for a mllz = .6212 and the second for a mllz = .5743. From this data
an easy computation shows that this controller guarantees robust stability of
the original plant family for an a~~~1T = .531. Denote the corresponding
parameter value set by n: SF1T • Of course, had wider sectors been employed
a larger region of stability would have been guaranteed. Figure 7.12 shows the
value set for this controller at frequency w = 2.
154 CHAPTER 7
15r---"'T-"--~---r----.----,.----,
10 ..
5 .
:i
~
0 .. · ·9 · ..
-5 . ..
-10
-1_i':-5---....J.1o::-----~5---0~----!5:----..Ll0-----l15
,eal
F1lure T.12 The Value Set t/1{j2, n: SP1T )
The value set 1/>(j2, O~SFIT), lies in a sector which is 188.60 wide! In essence
the SSFIT algorithm gave us the ability to manipulate value sets that are wider
than 1800 , guaranteeing robust stability for a larger uncertainty region. It is
important to point out that such a value set could never have appeared in the
execution of the FIT algorithm.
We reiterate, that one should distinguish between what is guaranteed at the end
of a design procedure and what can be shown to be true after further analysis
of the results. It could happen, because of the overbounding introduced, that
the designed controller does actually robustly stabilize for a larger uncertainty
range than what the procedure guarantees. This is a matter of chance, and
one cannot speculate apriori that it will occur. Furthermore, this example by
no means proved in a theoretical sense, that SSFIT can design controllers for
larger uncertainty ranges than what would be possible with FIT. It may very
well be that had a different initial controller been chosen in FIT, it could have
been shown to guarantee robust stability for the region O~SFIT. We simply
do not know. However, the example did demonstrate that for this case SSFIT
with little effort generated a robust controller for a larger uncertainty set.
7.8 OTHER SSFIT SYNTHESIS

ALGORITHMS
In order to implement the SSFIT algorithm it was assumed that a simultaneoWl
stabilDer for the nominal plants was available. In a number of applications
this assumption is valid. Specifically, in the case of multiple objective robust
performance design a controller can frequently be identified that guarantees
performance for the "nominal" plant. Similarly, when the SSFIT algorithm is
emllloyed after "parameter range partitioning" in order to improve upon the s0-
lution from obtained from executing the FIT algorithm, an initial simultaneous
stabilDer exists. But one can envision many situations when a simultaneous
stabilDer for the nominal plants is not available.
In this section we address the question of simultaneous stabilDation in the con-

text of the Finite Inclusions Theorem and its Corollaries. There are several
problems that can be posed. One is the problem of simultaneous polynomial
stabilDation where we are just interested in a finite number of polynomials.
Another is the simultaneous polynomial family stabilDation when no "nomi-
nal" simultaneous stabilDer is available. Our interest here is in developing
"algorithmic" solutions that are based on FIT. We should say at the outset
that these efforts are more likely to be successful if the given polynomials or
polynomial families are "related" somehow. This statement is vague but what
we intend to say is that one should not expect these algorithms to work on
polynomials and polynomial families that are "randomly" picked. We first
present a FIT based algorithm labelled SSFITl, for the problem of simulta-
neous polynomial stabilDation and this is followed by outlining an algorithm
for simultaneous plant family stabilDation.
Consider the situation when a finite number oCstrictly proper plants Pl (6), P:Z(6),
... , Pt(6) of the same order are to be simultaneously stabilDed. The basic idea
of an algorithm is the following: Identify one of these plants as the "center"
plant, say Pl. If these plants are thought of as points in plant coefficient space,
the center plant should correspond to the plant closest to the geometric cen-
ter. A "robust" controller is then designed for the center plant, for as large
a range of an uncertainty region as possible. Clearly, if all the other plants
fall inside this ball our job is done. If not, then "auxiliary" plants are defined
Piou = :;...... inside this ball and closest to the actual plants. In an iterative
.....
manner, the choice of auxiliary plants is improved so as to get closer and clo-
Ier to the actual plants. Associated with these auxiliary plants are families of
"auxiliary" characteristic polynomial families formed in the following manner:
156 CHAPTER 7
4>iou:I:(S,~)=
dc (s)((1 - ~)~OU:I:(s) + ~d,n(s)) + n c (s)((1 - ~)~OU:I:(s) + ~7lpi(s))
where ~ takes values in the interval A C [0,1] and 2 :S i :S i. These are used
in the iterative procedure in order to identify "new" auxiliary plants that are
increassingly closer to the actual plants .
SSFITI Synthesis Algorithm
STEP I: Let X(l) E R d be a controller be such that 4>1(S,X(1» is stable.

Let ~ou:I:(s)ne1D = ~oU:l:(s)old = dp1(s) and ~oU:l:(s)ne1D =
~ou:I:(s)old = flp1 for all 2 :S i:S i. Set j := l.
STEP 2: Form "auxiliary" characteristic polynomial families
4>iou:I:(S,~, xU» = d c (s)((1 - ~)~OU:I:(s)ne1D + ~dpi(S)) +
n c (s)((1 - ~)~OU:l:(s)ne1D + ~7lpi(s)) for 2 :S i:S i. Set ~ = O.
Determine m~j) ~ 1 sectors sU), and frequencies w~~) along the
jw axis such that 4>l(jWW, xU» c si{>
and 4>illU:I:(jW~~),0, x(j» c sU) for 2 :S c i.
Each w.\~) should roughly. center (angula~ly) the points
4>l(jW~~ ,xU», 4>illU:l:(jW~~),0, xU» in S!~).
STEP 3: Choose a larger set A by increasing ~.
STEP 4: Compute a new vector of controller parameters x(i+ 1) such
that 4>l(jWW,X U+l» c si{> for alllc and that
\1;" Ezt A x(;+1» c S~j)
¥'A..\OU:I: (]'w~j) \1; for all lc and 2 <
_ < i'
i -
inequalities in x U+1 ). If no solutions exist to this system of
inequalities, return to Step 3 and choose a smaller set A.
STEP 5: Let ~mo:l: be the largest value achieved. Let ~OU:I:(s)ne1ll =
(1 - ~mo:l:)~ou:I:(s)old + ~mo:l:d,n(s) and ~OU:I:(s)ne1ll =
(1 - ~mo:l:)~ou:I:(s)old + ~mo:l:flpi(S), 2:S i :S i.
If ~mo:l: = I, stop; otherwise let j := j + I, and go to Step 2.
We should again mention that this is simply an iterative algorithm for stabili-
zing a finite number of plants. It has been inspired by SSFIT, but there is no
guarantee that it will find a simultaneous stabilizer if one exists.
A version of this algorithm can also be stated for directly performing simulta-
neous plant famil1l stabilisation for families Pt(", a), P2 ('" a), ... Pt(", a) with
multiafline uncertainty. Assume that each family involves the parameter a
which takes values in the set 0/1. In the same spirit as above, a "center" plant
family is chosen (say Pt('" a)) and a controller computed that robustly stabili-
les this family for as large an uncertainty region 0/1 as possible (0/1 :J 0/1). If
this controller also robustly stabilises the rest of the plant families our job is
done. Otherwise, "auxiliary" plant families are defined PI(", a) inside 0/1 for
2 ~ i ~ l in the "direction" of the actual plant families. Using SSFIT, in an
iterative manner these auxiliary plant families are "enlarged" and a controller
computed that simultaneously robustly stabilizes Pt ('" a), P~('" a), ... PI(", a).
I! the original plant families are included in this set the process terminates. I!
not, new auxiliary plant families are defined inside the "old" auxiliary plant
families (in the "direction" of the actual plant families) and the "enlargement"
procedure is repeated. I! during the execution of the algorithm the actual
plant families are found to be included in a set of auxiliary plant families the
algorithm terminates successfully.
8
FIT SYNTHESIS FOR ROBUST
PERFORMANCE
8.1 ROBUST PERFORMANCE

SYNTHESIS AS ROBUST
POLYNOMIAL STABILIZATION
There is a great variety of performance requirements that can be imposed on
the operation of a dynamic system. In addition to stability, these may include
time domain or frequency domain specifications which are application depen-
dent. Specifically, there may be unit step response requirements on the system
with bounds being placed on the rise time, the maximum overshoot and the
settling time. There may be performance criteria such as the integral square-
error or the integral absolute-error that must be minimised. There may be
performance specifications on asymptotic tracking, disturbance rejection and
noise attenuation of sinusoidal inputs. As we saw earlier in the book, some of
these can be posed as magnitude requirements on the weighted sensitivity and
weighted complementary sensitivity transfer functions. Of course in the case
when uncertainty is present in the system descriptions all these requirements
need to be robustly met.
Having the ability to design controllers that achieve the desired performance
objectives is of paramount importance to control. Throughout the years a great
deal of effort has been directed in the development of such methodologies and
a number of successful formulations and solutions have been proposed. Among
the earlier ones is the classical technique of "loop-shaping" which is primarily
a single input, single output technique. As the label denotes it is a formulation
that takes performance objectives and "maps" them on the shape of the loop
160 CHAPTER 8
transfer function L (L = PC in a unity feedback system). One then uses the

freedom in C to "shape" L. One of the most recent is the "H00" methodology
which very effectively deals with multi input, multi output systems as well.
The control literature of the last fifty years is quite rich in such techniques
especially for linear time invariant systems.
One specific .example for which existing H oo techniques giYe an elegant cha-
racterization for robust stability, is the case of SISO plants with multiplicative
uncertainty. Consider the family:
(8.1)
where P(,,) is some "nominal" system transfer function, W2 (,,) is some given
minimum phase stable transfer function and ti. is any arbitrary stable and
proper transfer function with lti.(jw)1 :5 1, for all w E [0, (0). Let the con-
troller C(,,) and the plant P(s) be in the forward path of a unity feedback
configuration and assume that C(,,) stabilises the nominal plant P(,,). Then a
necessary and sufficient condition for robust stability is IW2 (jw)T(jw) 1 < 1
for all w E [0, (0), where T(,,) is the nominal complementary sensitivity [36].
This elegant characterization of robust stability allows for controller synthesis
as a solution to a Nevanlina-Pick interpolation problem [36].
For this feedback system let us in addition require robust asymptotic tracking as
a performance requirement. In other words we insist that IW1(jw)S(jw)1 < 1
for all w E [0, (0), where S(,,) is the sensitivity transfer function of the plant
family, 5(,,) the nominal sensitivity and WI (,,) is some minimum phase stable
transfer function providing the "weight" for S(,,). A characterization of robust
stability and robust performance (assuming nominal stability) is [36]:
11WI (jw) S(jw) I + IW2 (jw)T(jw) 11 < 1 V wE [0, (0). (8.2)
Unfortunately, even though this is a necessary and sufficient condition this for-
mulation does not lend itself directly to controller synthesis, unlike the case of
mere robust stability. One is forced to introduce conservatism by overbounding.
Specifically, rather than working directly with I IWI(jW)S(jW) 1 + IW2 (jw)T(jw)ll,
one employs the expression 1 IW1(jw)S(jwW + IW2 (jw)T(jwW 11/ 2 • Using
geometry one can show that:
FIT Synthesis for Robust Performance 161
~IIWl(jw)S(jw)I+IW2(jW)T(jW)11 < IIWl (jw)S(jwW+IW2(jw)T(jwW 11 / 2

(8.3)
Working with this expression does lead to Riccati equation solution methods.
Our focus in this book is the development of robust control synthesis methods
for linear time invariant systems with parameter uncertainty. Even though
most of our emphasis is on SISO systems in the last Chapter we will discuss
the application of our techniques to MIM0 systems as well. Our method of
attack is to take the given performance requirements and first express them
as specifications in the frequency domain or on the location of system poles.
The frequency domain approach is a "standard" practice used by both clas-
sical control techniques as well as the more modern H oo synthesis methods.
We then take these performance requirements and pose them as robust poly-
nomial stability requirements or robust polynomial 1>-stability requirements.
We have already seen how this can be done in Chapter 4. With this formula-
tion the robust design problem then becomes a problem of polynomial family
stabilisation or 1>-stabilisation. The solution of this problem is then carried
out by using Finite Inclusions Theorem synthesis or Simultaneous Polynomial
Stabilisation. We will first focus on FIT synthesis and discuss Simultaneous
Polynomial Stabilisation in Chapter 10.
For some performance requirements one can immediately see how they can be
expressed as specifications on the magnitude of some transfer function. One
example is asymptotic tracking. In Chapter 4, we considered the unity feedback
system depicted in Figure 8.1
-
r +
-
+
e
C(6) P(6,a)
y
Filure 1.1 Robuat PerCormance, Parametric Uncertainty

162 CHAPTER 8
where the plant family is strictly proper and involves parameter uncertainty,
P(,,) = 'Zf:::I.
The parameter a lies in some hypercube O. C R i , the degree of
dp(", a) is n and its leading coefficient is positive. The controller C(,,) = ~:f:1 is
proper. The input is a sinusoid of some frequency w which belongs to some given
frequency range. For a robustly stable system the robust asymptotic tracking
requirement imposes a magnitude constraint on the sensitivity, namely:
IW1(jw)S(jw,a)1 < 1 V wE [0,00) and a EO. (8.4)
where W 1 (,,) is an appropriate strictly proper, stable, minimum phase transfer

function.
The process of taking other performance requirements and relating them to

bounds on the magnitude of specific transfer functions may not be as direct.
Consider the overshoot requirement to a reference step input. For second order
systems there is a very explicit relationship between the overshoot, the peak in
the magnitude curve of the complementary sensitivity and the phase margin.
Even though such a relationship cannot be stated as explicitly for higher order
systems, second order approximations can be used very successfully. Similar
approximations can be used for other important time domain specifications.
Once requirements are expressed in the frequency domain as transfer function

magnitude bounds, the next step is to express these as polynomial family sta-
bility problems. We have already seen in Chapter 4 that robust stability and
robust asymptotic tracking will be achieved for the system in Figure 8.1 if and
only if the polynomial family:
is stable for all Ql E [0,211"), rl E [0,1] and a EO•. Let 1/Js('" a, rl, Ql) be a
degree n polynomial family where n = 8(d..l(8» + 8(dp(8, a» + 8(dc (8».
In view of the Finite Inclusions Theorem one can immediately formulate the
following sufficient condition for robust asymptotic tracking. From our work
in Chapter 7 we expect that this result will provide the foundation for a robust
performance synthesis procedure.
Theorem 8.1 (Rollult A.ymptotic TrtJding) A degree q proper controller C(.)

with monic denominator robutly .tt&bilize. the family of order n plant. P(., a) =
~:::I and maU.IW1 (jw)S(jw, a)1 < I, V w E [0,00) and a E 0 .. if for.ome
m ~ 1 there emt real Wi, Cl, dl , Cl < d l , 1 ~ A: ~ m .uch. that
W1 ~ W2 ~ W3 ~ ••• ~ Wm
wn wn
-2 - w ~ C1 < d1 ~ 2 +w
wn wn
--w<em<dm<-+w
2 - - 2
V 1 ~ A: < m, maz{dl - cl+1,dl+ 1 - cll ~ w
1PS (jWl , 0/1, r1, (1) E {rei I r > 0, Cl < <
'(}
1 ~ A: ~ m, (J dll
Now there may be additional performance requirements that also lead to con-
straints on the magnitude of the sensitivity transfer function all of which can be
taken into account by a proper choice of the weighting function W 1 (.). Again,
all these would result in the stability of a ,ingle polynomial family.
In the case of time domain specifications on the step response an alternate for-
mulation would be to exploit the pole placement method and express these as
requirements on the location of the closed loop poles. In that case an appro-
priate 'D region would be defined and the closed loop characteristic polynomial
would need to be robustly 'D-stable. Again these requirements are translated
to the V-stability of a ,ingle polynomial family.
In this Chapter we show how FIT synthesis can be carried out based on Theo-
rem 8.1, in the case when performance objectives lead to the requirement of
stability of a single polynomial family. We will use the robust asymptotic
tracking paradigm as a representative of this class of problems and will develop
a FIT based algorithm for its solution. In the next Chapter we will consider the
more general case when performance requirements are translated to stability of
a finite number of polynomial families.
One of the important characteristics of our FIT robust stabilisation formula-

tion was the fact that we dealt with value sets that were polygonl. In other
words, value sets whose locations with respect to sectors can be determined
from lIertice,. This allowed us to propose a FIT based algorithm which requi-
red the solution of a finite number of inequalities at each stage of an iterative
164 CHAPTER 8
procedure. Even in the case of affine parameter uncertainty in the plant, a

glance at the polynomial family in (8.5) reveals that this polynomial family in
general does not have polygonal value sets because of the presence of the term
r1ei° 1 • This obstacle can be overcome by introducing some form of overboun-
ding of the disc uncertainty. This can be done in a variety of ways and at any
desired level of accuracy. The first alternative is to overbound by a "square" t
(see Figure 8.2). A much tighter overbound is provided by an "octagon" which
is also shown in Figure 8.2. It is evident that by using higher order polygons
the conservatism can be reduced to any level of accuracy. Of course there is an
expense associated with this scheme. As more vertices are used in the overbo-
unding process more inequalities would need to be solved at each iteration and
this requires additional computation.
1m
--.Re
Filure 8.:1 Unit Disc. Square and Octagon Overbounda
8.2 A FIT BASED ROBUST

PERFORMANCE SYNTHESIS
ALGORITHM
We will now present a FIT based algorithm for robust performance. We discuss
in detail such an algorithm for robust asymptotic tracking. However, as men-
tioned in the previous section a great variety of robust performance problems
can be formulated as robust stabilization problems and similar algorithms can
be constructed for their solution. Since this is an algorithm for robust stabi-
lisation which is based on the Finite Inclusions Theorem it will have the same
structure as the FIT algorithm presented in Chapter 7. It will be an iterative
algorithm where again some initial controller is redesigned in order to enhance
robustness. At each iteration a new controller is computed as the solution of a
set of linear inequalities.
Consider the feedback system in Figure 8.1 where the family of plants is strictly
proper given by:
P(",a) = n,(", a) (8.6)

dp(", a)
where dp(", a) is of degree fl., the parameter a takes values in some hypercube (lei
and the leading coefficient of dp(", a) is positive. We assume that the uncertain
parameters enter in a multiaffine manner in the coefficients of n,(", a), dp(", a).
The controller is proper of order q and given by:
C(,,) = Z2Q+l"q + Z2q"Q-l + ... + Zq+l n c (") (8.7)

119 + :1: 9 119 - 1 + :1:9_1119-2 + ... + :1:1 = d c (lI)
The controller parameters are grouped in the vector x = (Zl' :1:2,·· ., Z29+l)
E R II where d = 2q + 1 and the closed loop characteristic polynomial is given
by:
4>('" a) = dc(")dp(", a) + nc(")n,(", a) (8.8)
By assumption 4>('" a) has coefficients which are multiaffine in a and affine in

x. The robust asymptotic tracking requirement is given by:
IW1(jw)S(jw,a)1 <1 V wE [0,00) and a E (lei (8.9)
where Wl(") = :::f:l

is an appropriate strictly proper, stable. minimum
phase transfer function. Robust asymptotic tracking will be guaranteed with
an order q controller if and only if the polynomial family:
166 CHAPTER 8
is robustly stabilised. If we replace the complex term r 1 ei a1 which takes values

in the unit disc with the complex parameter b which takes values in 06, some
polygonal overbound of the unit disc, robust performance will result if the
polynomial family:
(8.11)
is robustly stabilised. This is true since the polynomial family tPs(" a, r1, (1)
is included in the polynomial family tPS(" a, b). We will denote by 06. the
"square" overbound and by 060 the "octagon" overbound. Due to the over-
bounding this is only a sufficient condition for robust asymptotic tracking. In
order to make the discussion more concrete let us assume that the square over-
bounding is used (i.e. b = b1 + jb2, bE 06.). Structurally, this problem is
no different than the one encountered in Chapter 7. The polynomial family has
complex coefficients and real parameter uncertainty which includes the plant
uncertainty a and the "performance" uncertainty b. Even though there is no
structural difference, parameters a and b have a different interpretation and
this distinction must be maintained in any algorithm. Furthermore, we are
only required to robustly stabilize. With these issues in mind, appropriate mo-
difications are made to the FIT algorithm of Chapter 7 in order to generate
the Performance FIT (PFIT) Synthesis Algorithm.
Just as in the case of the FIT algorithm, one needs to chose an initial controller
(1)
X • Let 046 = 04 X 06" an
d 1et 0(1)
46 = 04(1) X 0 6(1)
• C 046. T 18
h'
controller must stabilise tPs(" o~i), x(l» and can be designed by employing
any design technique. This controller is then iteratively improved upon using
FIT. At each iteration frequencies "'~) are found that place the value sets
tPs(j",~), o~/, xC;»~ in their corresponding sectors 51;). By FIT this guarantees
the robust stability of tPs(', o~/, x(j». At each iteration the uncertainty set
o~/ is enlarged. Initially only the b parameters are affected until (if possible)
for some j, the desired performance is attained o~;) = 0".. Once this is
accomplished the procedure continues this time with an enlargement of o~/
where the a parameters are affected and the b parameters remain unchanged.
The algorithm terminates when (if) n~~ ::> nail, with x(j) being the desired
controller.
PFIT Synthesis Algorithm
STEP 1: Let x(l) E Ref and n~i) c nail be such that 4>(8, n~i), X(I»)
is stable and set j:=1.
STEP 2: Determine m(j) ~ 1 sectors sij), 1 ~ A: ~ m(j), and frequencies
w(j)
Ie
along the J'w axis such that Y'
.l.(w(j)
Ie ,
EztO(j)
all'
x(j») C S(j)
Ie
By FIT, 4>(8, n~~, x(j») is stable. Each wij) should
roughly center (angularly) the set 4>(w~j),EztO~!,,>,x(j») in sij).
STEP 3: Choose a slightly larger set n~+I) ::> n~). First this should
affect the b parameters. When (if) n~j) ::> nil" the
enlargement in the b-direction terminates and the enlargement
in the a-direction commences.
STEP 4: Compute a new vector of controller parameters x(i+1) such
that ; (jwij) , Ezt n~+1)I x(i+ I ») C sij) for allA:. Note, this is
equivalent to solving a system of linear inequalities in x(i +1).
If no solutions exist to this system of inequalities, return to
Step 3 and choose a smaller n~+l).
STEP 5: Let j := j + 1, and if n~b) ::> nail, stop; otherwise, go to Step 2.
This is one of several synthesis algorithms that can be proposed which are based
on the Finite Inclusions Theorem formulation.
8.3 EXAMPLE: FIT ROBUST

We will now demonstrate FIT synthesis for robust performance by solving the
following problem [27]. Consider the family of plants described by the transfer
function l :
1 Poniona reprinted, with permiuion, from Proceeding. 33rd CDC, Lake Buena Vi.ta,
Florida, December 1994, pp. 484-489, @ 1994 IEEE
168 CHAPTER 8
where a = (al,a2) lies in the rectangle Oa. = {(alJ a 2) I - Q < al < Q,

-Q < a2 < Q}. This same plant family was used in Example 3, Chapter 7,
in relation to a gain margin problem. The positive parameter Q regulates the
"size" of the rectangle. The system is in the unity feedback configuration of
Figure 8.1 with controller C(8) = ~;f;l. The performance objectives are robust
stability and robust asymptotic tracking where the bound on the sensitivity
transfer function is generated by:
(8.13)
We would like to achieve these objectives for as large a value of Q as possible.
Using the formulation presented in Section 8.1 we translate this objective to

the robust stabilization of the polynomial family:
where
n(8, a, b) = (400a2 + 400)84 + (2200al + 240a2 + 4440)83 + (3020al +

821a2 + 4441)82 + (285.5al + 80.5a2 + 411)8 + 7al + 2a2 + 10
d(8, a, b) = 40085 + 204084 + (2b + 1001)83 +

(lOb - 3115)82 + (4b - 318)8 - 16b - 8
and where a E Oa and b EO". As mentioned earlier we have several choices

for 0". In this example we will use the square overbound 0",.
The software package written in [53], has the capability of executing a version
of the PFIT synthesis algorithm. The first step in this algorithm is the design
of an initial controller. We have a number of alternatives at this point. One
alternative is to use the initial controller used in Example 3, Chapter 7, which

was developed using Boo techniques for robust stabilisation. Recall that turned
out to be a first order improper controller. Another pouibility is to use the
robust stabilisation controller developed by the FIT software in Chapter 7.
However, before we proceed with FIT synthesis we would like to demonstrate
one 'lIIlIy in which Boo could be used to solve our problem.
8.3.1 H oo Synthesis
The plant family is already represented in terms of a multiplicative uncertainty
model where the nominal plant is:
(8.15)
and the multiplicative uncertainty is:
(8.16)
In order to carry out an Boo design we need to take the parameter uncertainty
model and turn it into a norm bounded uncertainty model. In so doing, very
frequently overbounding takes place and care must be exercised so that this is
minimi.ed. This was done in Example 3, Chapter 7. Several such weighting
functions were developed from which the "best" from an Boo point of view (i.e.
it gave the largest Q for which robust stability could be guaranteed) was:
w: (,,) = 1.13366082837215,,3 + 6.88573032033468" + 9

(8.17)
3 (" + 1)(" + 10)
Beiter weighting functions can be developed, in the sense that the Boo design
will produce a controller for a larger Qmll%' if one uses higher order transfer
functions W 3 (,,) or if one chooses the appropriate shape for W 3 (,,). Picking
one of higher order is straightforward, but in general it would lead to a design
with higher order controllers. Since controller order is an issue in applications
it is prudent to try and keep the controller order as low as possible. Choosing
an appropriate shape for W 3 (-,) is quite more difficult and at this stage of
development it involves trial and error and reliance on "experience". Since one
170 CHAPTER 8
of the goals of controllYltem design is to develop Iynthesis procedurel that are

"automated" u much u posaible, the choice of W~(6) does prelent obstacles.
With W2(6) defined, the norm bounded uncertainty becomes A(6) = W~(6)9(6),
where 9(6) is any proper Itable tranlfer function with H oo norm less than or
equal to 1. Recall that the Hoo-norm of a stable and proper tranlfer function
9(6) is 6up",19(jw)l. We further ulume that no unltable poles of PO(6) are
canceled. It is clear that this norm bounded uncertainty includes the original
parametric plant family. Therefore, any H oo controller bued on this represen-
tation of uncertainty will guarantee robust stability and performance for the
given plant family. The design will bf! conservative since overbounding has been
introduced.
A necessary and sufficient condition for robust stability and robust performance
for the loop with norm bounded uncertainty (assuming nominal stability) is
[36]:
IIW1 (jw)S(jw)1 + IW2 (Jw)T(jw) I I < 1 V wE [0,00) (8.18)
However, this expression does not ealily lend itself to Iynthesis and one works
instead with:
This is equivalent to finding a controller for which the infinity norm of the
transfer function:
(8.20)
is less than 1/../2.
In our case we want to find the largest Q for which robust stability and robust
performance can be achieved. This Wal accomplished by multiplying W~(6) by
Q, solving the corresponding H oo problem, and iteratively increasing Q until
condition (8.19) could no longer be satisfied. The controller for the largest a
(using our procedure) was found to be:
(8.21)
where
n c (6) = 8450443.5566 + 14438418365 + 72220169064 + 131189919063

+ 78454483462 + 59833785.96 + 920190.862
dc (6) = 61 + 952191.88366 + 20260790.465 + 11169549264 +
+3.6955730.563 - 6.1657555.76 2 - 6.387707.176 - 161313.783
for
a: 4Z = 0.8399 (8.22)
Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show the magnitude plots of T'l t1 1 and IW1SI + IW2TI
respectively.
Clearly, one sees from Figure 8.4 that there is room for improvement, if one was
able within the context of H oo synthesis to work directly with IW1SI + IW2 TI.
8.3.2 FIT Synthesis

We have just seen how H 00 can be used to solve the problem under conside-
ration. We now demonstrate how the FIT software package written in [53]
can be used to solve the same problem. The first step is to develop an initial
controller. We chose to use the initial controller used in Example 3, Chapter
7, which was developed using H oo techniques for robust stabilisation. The first
order improper controller constructed by H 00 was made proper by adding a
pole at 6 = -100 which results in:
C(8) = 3.6614562 + 21.96876 + 29.2916

(8.23)
(6 - 5.33897)( 1~6 + 1)
172 CHAPTER 8
!inii
:: l.::
: : ::::
......; ..... ~ ....h.·'.·I .. I.:..$~·
: :::::
: : ::::
.... • j
:
.l::!!!
i i.. i.i.~.~.i
!::
~ j••.• i
. : . : : : : ::
i.~.i.i.~~ i
:..
~ ~ i..i.. i.~~~
. : ::
~
::;"
; i j ~·i.:
..
.
~ ~
=€I
>
Ul
-4.5 ···+····;···j··j·j·t·ii ·.. ·······+······;····~···t·i·t~·rr· ~ ~ ~ :.......
.:..:.+.;+ :..
: : I:::
: : I:::
-5 ..!..... ~.! "'i . .':..'I...':..':. :•.:•,....·.. ·.·.:.······1·· .~.. f... '•••••••• " •• '•• ··········1 ..... ~ ·+··!··j··j·nf········· .~....+..
· ··!H
·. ..
..
-5.5 ~-..i.......i-.L..i...i....i..l..i"":---'-....i-.L..i...i..i..i.i.L---'-....i-.L..i...' .....~_.L-i-i...i.... .....i.iJ
10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101
Frequency - Rad/Sec
I'ilure I.a Bode plot of the coet function T'l_l
. : :::::
......
-1.5 -····f·· · .. ~. ·····1 ·..1
-2 'L r..·f.. !·+,~;·;, .. ···..·····.. ··.!..·· .Ll.ll.L ,.., l,..L.U ~", , _ i..,.,_ ..
: i : iii::
-2.5 ··········!······~,···~···f··i.i·t·~·~···········+····
; ....:
·.! ..·.i···t·1·: :.~~ i······t····}···~··j··l·tit···········t······;····;···~··t·~·i.
; : : :::; : : ..
.. '.{..~~ ~ ..
·3.5
...
-4.5
; :::::
~· ..~·"·I·I·I· ··········i ..... ~... !.++ 1'~"~f ..;
-5 , ; ; !.,;.;.;.;" , ! i ;.j.;.'.e' . ..f.... ~ ...;.. ~.. ~.~~~ ...
•5.5
;: ::;;
L.....-I................................._-'---........................'---'--'-
..
_"'--
. .
........
10.3 10.2 10. 1 100 101
Frequency - RadlScc
One can verify that if a = I, this controller does not satisfy the robust
performance requirement. Specifically, for 01 =
-1,02 = -I, the sum of
the weighted sensitivity and complementary sensitivity is larger than unity at
low frequencies. The software was run using the "square" overbound for the
performance parameter and generated the controller
C FIT (6) = 340.756

2
+ 542.678 + 10857 (8.24)
82 + 48.5598 - .22574
which guarantees robust performance of the family up to:
FIT
a maz = 1.1065 (8.25)
We should again point out that the values of a maz that are reported are those
generated by the particular synthesis procedure used. It may be that the con-
trollers constructed after testing are shown to actually provide robust perfor-
mance for a larger uncertainty range.
It is interesting to compare these results with those obtained from Hoc synthe-
sis. For this example, FIT synthesis generated a 8econd order controller that
satisfies the objectives for a considerably larger range of uncertainty. However,
one has to be careful not to draw general conclusions about the two synthesis
procedures. We are comparing olgorithTn6 and not theoTeTn6. At this stage,
all we can say is that for this example, the formulation used and the solution
method applied, FIT synthesis gave favorable results. Much more testing is
needed in order to draw concrete conclusions about FIT synthesis. Just like
any other synthesis method there will be classes of systems for which FIT syn-
thesis will be advantageous and some for which it will not. Our hope is that the
reader will be motivated enough by our exposition in order to use FIT synthesis
in control applications.
9
FIT SYNTHESIS FOR ROBUST
MULTIOBJECTIVE
PERFORMANCE

SYNTHESIS AS SIMULTANEOUS
POLYNOMIAL FAMILY
STABILIZATION
Earlier in the book we saw how a number of performance specifications can be
expressed as bounds on a particular transfer function or a specific combina-
tion of transfer functions. Asymptotic tracking places a bound on the weighted
sensitivity, noise attenuation on the weighted complementary sensitivity. The
requirement of robust asymptotic tracking for plants with multiplicative norm
bounded uncertainty is expressed as a bound on the sum ofthe weighted sensiti-
vity and complementary sensitivity. In these and many other control problems
there is a ,ingle bound that needs to be satisfied. Frequently, the implication
this has on a robust stability formulation is that it becomes a robust stability
requirement of a ,ingle feedback system or polynomial family. We have seen
several examples of this in Chapters 4 and 8.
In contrast, a number of control applications have performance requirements

that are stated in terms of frequency domain specifications on several transfer
functions. In this case there is not a ,ingle bound that has to be dealt with but
,everal bounds on dift'erent transfer functions. A perfect example is the multi-
objective requirement of tracking and noise attenuation presented in Chapter
4. In this case there is one bound placed on the weighted sensitivity transfer
function and a second bound on the weighted complementary sensitivity trans-
fer function. If a formulation is used that expresses the specification in terms
176 CHAPTER 9
of robust stability this becomes a robust stability requirement on two feedback

systems. This can be viewed as a stability requirement on two polynomial fa-
milies. The distinction between a lingle bound and multiple bounds may be
somewhat confusing because one can rightly argue that for multiple bounds the
robust stability requirement on two feedback systems can be posed as a robust
stability on a lingle system. It is important to keep in mind here is that even
though this could be done it may involve some form of "overbounding", which
may lead to more conservative designs. We will discuss this issue in more detail
by considering the case of robust tracking and noise attenuation.
Our design philosophy throughout this book is to take specifications on system

performance and translate them into robust polynomial stabilization require-
ments. This "translation" from performance to robust stability can be done in
a number of ways. Furthermore, this process can introduce varying degrees of
conservatism in the design. It is therefore important to be very careful in choo-
sing formulations that reduce the level of conservatism. Consider the standard
feedback loop of Figure 9.1:
y
nt~
de ,
Figure 8.1 Feedback SYltern with Tracking and Noile Requirementl
where the plant involves parameter uncertainty and robust performance requi-
rements include asymptotic tracking and noise attenuation. From the discus-
sion in Chapter 4, one can take the tracking requirement and turn it into a
robust stability requirement of the feedback configuration in Figure 9.2.
r y
Figure 8.2 RobUit Tracking .. RobUit Stability

FIT Synthesis for Robust Multiobjeetive Performance 177
Therefore, robust tracking (and robust stability) is guaranteed if and only if a

controller C(s) = ~;f:~ can be found that stabilizes the polynomial family:
VJs(s, rl, (ll) = dc(s)dp(s, a)(d..,l(s) + r 1ei Q1 n",1(S)) + nc(s)d..,l(S)np(S, a)

(9.1)
for a EO.. , 0 ~ rl ~ 1, (ll E [0,2?l'). In addition, one can take the noise
attenuation requirement and turn into a robust stability requirement of the
feedback configuration in Figure 9.3.
Figure 9.S Noise Attenuation as Robust Stability
Therefore, robust noise attenuation (and robust stability) is guaranteed if and

only if a controller can be found that stabilizes the polynomial family:
VJT(S, a, r2, 02) = dc(S)d..,2(S)dp (s, a) +

nc(s)np(s, a)(d..,2(s) + r2eia'n",2(S)) (9.2)
for all (l2 E [0, 2?l'), r2 E [0,1] and a EO...
In the formulation just presented each performance requirement is individually

translated into a stability requirement of a specific polynomial family. This
leads to a simultaneo1U polynomial family stability requirement. However,
this is only one possible formulation and others can also be suggested. The
178 CHAPTER 9
exposition in Chapter 4 gives a hint for a different formulation. One can take the
two requirements and translate them into a 6ingle robust stability requirement
of the feedback configuration of Figure 9.4:
y
p
Figure 8.4 Performance .. Robmt Stability
where ~l = r l ei a1 and..1.:z = r:zei a2 • Now, this feedback system will be

robustly stable if and only if a controller stabilises the polynomial family:
,pST(6, a, rl, Ql, r:z, Q:Z) = dc (6)d.:z(")d,.(", a)(d.l (,,) + r l ei a1 n,.,l("n +

n c (")d.l(")n,(6,a)(d.:Z(6) + r:zei a2 n.:Z(6n
(9.3)
for all Q:z E [0, 2~), r:z E [0, I], Ql E [0, 2~), rl E [0,1] and a E no' Since po-
lynomials d.l(a), d.:z(a) are stable one can immediately see that if polynomial
family ,pST in (9.3) ia stable then polynomial families ,ps and ,pT will be sta-
ble. With this formulation the stability of a 6ingle polynomial family would
guarantee both requirements. However, since ,pST is a "larger" family there is
conservatism introduced. We may be able to simultaneously robustly stabilize
,ps and ,pT, but not be able to robustly stabilize ,pST.
So the first issue to consider when formulating a robust pedormance synthesis

problem as a robust stabilization problem is related to conservatism. A second
just as important consideration is the issue of computability. Indeed, it may
be possible to pose a problem in a way that no conservatism is introduced,
but have no efficient method to compute the required controller. This is pre-
cisely what we are confronted with here. We have a great variety of design
FIT Synthesis for Robust Multiobjective Performance 179
tools for robustly stabilising a 6ingk polynomial family. Robustly stabilising

,pST is an "easier" problem to solve even though it would lead to more conser-
vative designs. A non conservative approach would be to design a controller
that simultaneously stabilises the two polynomial families ,pS and ,pT. Rather
than working with polynomial families one can also choose to simultaneously
stabilise the two feedback loops in Figures 9.2 and 9.3 instead. The arsenal
of tools available to us for solving either of these problems is much more limi-
ted. Even though the problem of simultaneously stabilising two plants (with
no uncertainty) has been solved [67], the case of two plant familie6 has not
received much attention. We note the work in [70] where the authors develop
an algorithm for the simultaneous stabilisation of two "plant balls" for plants
described in matrix fraction representations and norm bounded uncertainty.
The issue of problem formulation in thee context of multiobjective performance

and the related conservatism in the solution has been recognised by researchers
in the past, including the authors of [61]. Even though it is highly desirable
to employ non-conservative formulations, tools for carrying out such synthesis
procedures are not as plentiful nor as well developed. The Finite Inclusions
Theorem and its corollaries offer a different alternative. If we choose to work
with simultaneous polynomial family stabilisation we can employ SSFIT (Theo-
rem 6.5) and a modified version of the SSFIT algorithm that was proposed in
Chapter 7.
Consider the unity feedback system of Figure 9.1 where the plant family is
strictly proper of order ti and involves parameter uncertainty, pea) = Zf;::~.
The parameter a lies in some hypercube 0/1 C R i , the leading coefficient
of dp(a, a) is positive and C(a) = ~:f;l is some proper order q controller.
Let W1(a) be an appropriate strictly proper, stable, minimum phase trans-
fer function which is the weight on the sensitivity and W2 (a) be a proper,
stable, minimum phase transfer function which is the weight on the comple-
mentary sensitivity. Let ns, AT be the degrees of ,pS,,pT respectively and let
rs = =
rl, Ots =
Otl, rT =
r2, OtT Ot2. The following result is a restatement of
the SSFIT result (Theorem 6.5) presented in Chapter 6, that applies specifi-
cally to robust asymptotic tracking and noise attenuation. It provides the basis
for the multiobjective synthesis algorithm presented in the next Section.
180 CHAPTER 9
Theorem 9.1 (RobfUt A'1Imptotic Tracking and Noile Attenuation)

A degree q proper controller C(,) with monic denominator robfUtl1l Itabilize,
the family of order n plantl P(" a) = :f:::~ and make, IW1 (jw)S(jw,a)1 < 1
and IW 2 (jw)T(jw , a)1 < 1 V w E [0, (0) and a E 0Il if for ,ome 77l.i ~ 1
where i=S or i=T there ezilt real Wi1la CiA:, ~A:, CiA: < ~A:, 1 ~ k ~ 77l.i ,uch
that
9.2 AN SSFIT BASED ROBUST

ALGORITHM
We will now suggest an SSFIT based algorithm for robust performance syn-
thesis, for problems with multiple bound performance specifications. We will
focus our discussion on the problem of robust asymptotic tracking and noise
attenuation as an important representative of this class of problems. There
is no structural limitation on the number of bounds (i.e. number of polyno-
mial families) that can be handled when additional performance requirements
are imposed. Of course the more polynomial families that need to be simulta-
neously stabilized the greater will be the computational burden.
Consider the feedback system in Figure 9.1 where the family of plants is strictly
proper given by:
_ np(s, a)
P( s, a ) - dp(s, a) (9.4)
where dp(s,a) is of degree n, the parameters a take values in some hyper-

cube (}II' and the leading coefficient of dp(s, a) is positive. We assume that
the uncertain parameters enter in a multiaffine manner in the coefficients of

np(s, a), dp(s, a). The controller is proper of order q and given by:
The controller parameters are grouped in the vedor x = (Zt, Z2, ••. , Z2q+t)
E R d where d = 2q + 1 and the closed loop characteristic polynomial is given
by:
(9.6)
By assumption 4>(s, a) has coefficients which are multiaffine in a and affine in

x. The robust asymptotic tracking requirement is given by:
IWt(jw)S(jw, a)1 <1 V wE [0,00) and a E 04 (9.7)
where Wt(s) = 't:f:~ is an appropriate strictly proper, stable, minimum

phase transfer fundion. The robust noise aUenuation requirement is given by:
IW2 (jw)T(jw,a)1 < 1 V wE [0,00) and a E 0 4 (9.8)
where W 2 (s) = ~::f:~ is an appropriate proper, stable, minimum phase trans-

fer fundion.
The multiobjedive performance requirement of robust asymptotic tracking and

robust noise aUenuation will be guaranteed with an order q controller if and
only if the two polynomial families:
tPs(s, a, rt, Ot) r t e"a 1 n",t(S )dc(s )dp(s, a) + dwt(s)4>(s, a) (9.9)

tPT(S, a, r2, 02) r 2e"a'n",2(S)dc(s)np(s, a) + dw2(S )4>(s, a) (9.10)
182 CHAPTER 9
are simultaneously stabilised. A solution to this problem based on SSFIT

(albeit sufficient) can be crafted using Theorem 9.1. Recall that polygonal
value sets lead to computationally efficient implementations of FIT synthesis.
Therefore, If we replace the complex terms r1e1a1, r ze1 a., which take values in
the unit disc, with the complex parameter b which takes values in 0", some
polygonal overbound of the unit disc, robust asymptotic tracking and noise
attenuation will result if the two polynomial families:
tPs(6,a,b) bn",1(6)dc (6)dp(6, a) + dw,1(6)~(6, a)

tPT(6,a, b) bn",2(6)dc (6)np(6, a) + dw,2(6)~(6, a)
are simultaneously stabilised. We will denote by 0", the "square" overbound

and by 0"0 the "octagon" overbound of the unit disc (see Chapter 8). This
overbounding will of course increase the conservatism in the solution. In order
to make the discussion more clear let us assume that the square overbounding
is used (i.e. b = b1 + jb 2 , b EO",). This problem of simultaneous polyno-
mial family stabilisation is very similar to that encountered in Chapter 7. The
polynomial families have complex coefficients and re41 parameter uncertainty
which include the plant uncertainty a and the "performance" uncertainty b.
Even though there is no structural difference, parameters a and b have a diffe-
rent interpretation and this distinction must be maintained in any algorithm.
Furthermore, we are only required to robustly stabilise (rather than robustly
1>-stabilise). Appropriate modifications are made to the SSFIT algorithm of
Chapter 7, in order to generate the PSSFIT Synthesis Algorithm (Performance
SSFIT) for robust multiobjective performance synthesis.
Our first priority in the PSSFIT algorithm, is to chose an initial controller x(1).
Let Oel" = (1)
0el X 0"" and let 0el" = (1) (1) •
Oel X 0", C Oel'" This controller must
simultaneously stabilise tPi(6, O~~), x(1») for i = 5, T. Such a controller could
be designed by loop shaping techniques applied to the "nominal" system. Ano-
ther possibility might be to employ "standard" Hoc techniques to the problem,
which we know are conservative. This controller is then iteratively improved
upon using SSFIT. At each iteration frequencies w~~) are found that place the
value sets tPi(jW~~), o~2, x(j») in their corresponding sectors ~~). By FIT this
guarantees the robust stability of tPi(6, O~,,>, x(i») , i = 5, T. At each iteration
the uncertainty set O~,,> is enlarged. Initially only the b parameters are affected
until (if possible) for some j, the desired performance is attained O~i) = 0",.
Once this is accomplished the procedure continues this time with an enlarge-
ment of O~~ where the a parameters are affected and the b parameters remain
unchanged. The algorithm terminates when (if) O~~ :::> OGb, with x(j) being
the desired controller .
PSSFIT Synthesis Algorithm
STEP 1: Let x(l) E R d and O~~) C 0Gb be such that tPi(",O~~),X(l»)

are stable and set j:=l.
STEP 2: Determine m~j) > 1 sectors ~i) 1 -< Ie-
< m~j) 1 <i <l
w!:) jw
1- 11;' 1'--
and frequencies along the axis such that
tPi(jW!:), EztO({), x(j») C s!:). By FIT, tPi('" O~), x(j») are
stable. Each wr~) should roughly center (angularly) the set
·1.·(J·w(i)
"I 11;' Gb , x(j») in S(i)
EztO(j) II; •
STEP 3: Choose a slightly larger set 0~+1) :::> O~). First this should
affect the b parameters. When (if) 01~) :::> 0b" the
STEP 4: Compute a new vector of controller parameters x(i+1) such
that ·J··(J·w(i)
"I II;' Gb' x(i+1) c S~j)
Ezt O(j+l) 11
for all Ie and i .
inequalities in x(i+1). If no solutions exist to this system of
inequalities, return to Step 3 and choose a smaller {}~+1).
STEP 5: Let j := j + I, and if O~) :::> 0Gb' stoPi otherwise, go to Step 2.
9.3 EXAMPLE: SEEKER STABILIZATION

LOOP
We will now use FIT synthesis in order to design a controller for a seeker
stabilisation loop. The seeker is a device commonly positioned in the nose
of a missile. Its primary function is to acquire and track targets, providing
measurements of the spatial relationships between the target and the missile
(i.e. relative position and relative velocity). These measurements are then
incorporated in the development of guidance commands. Due to the large
body dynamics of the missile, a stability loop is required to space stabilise the
seeker antenna which in addition must provide a well damped response and
a small tracking error. The system dynamics are nonlinear and in addition
184 CHAPTER 9
include uncertain parameters. After linearisation, a simplified dynamic model

for the seeker system is given by the differential equation:
(9.11)
where J D is the polar moment of inertia of the antenna dish, TM is the DC-
motor torque, KCA a cable stiffness gain and B a viscous friction gain. In this
simplified model the DC-motor dynamics are assumed to be a gain K t • A rate
sensor measures the angular rate WA = -lie
and is a second order system with
transfer function:
n (6)
G(6) = g
dg (6)
Table 9.1 provides the values for the system parameters where it can be seen
the J D and B are uncertain.
Parameter Symbol Values Units

DC-motor gain let 120 (Ollin)jamp
polar moment of inertia JD 0.9 - 1.1 Oll in
cable stiffness gain KCA .75 (Oll in)jrad
viscous friction gain B 0.4 - 0.7 (Oll in)jrps
rate sensor natural frequency WR 942.5 rps
rate sensor damping ratio (R .5
Table 8.1 Seeker Sy.tem Parameter Value.
The primary performance objective for the seeker system is to have the actual
seeker rate WA follow a commanded seeker rate Wc. In addition to this tracking
requirement the system must also reject a disturbance torque Til at the input
of the plant. Specifically, there is a bound placed on the magnitude of the
e
transfer function from Til to for high frequencies. In view of the presence
of the parameter uncertainty the system must exhibit robust performance. A
block diagram of the overall system including the controller is shown in Figure
9.5.
we
1
JD'
WF
• +B
!lla
Figure 8.5 Seeker Stabilisation Loop
The robust performance objectives for the system if Figure 9.5 in more detail
are as follows:
• The system must exhibit a transient step response between the comman-
ded seeker rate We, and the achieved seeker rate WA, with the following
properties:
- The time to reach its peak value Tp , must be less than .013 seconds.
- The overshoot must be less than 20% (corresponding to a damping
ratio greater than .5 for a second order dominant system).
- The step response must reach a ±2% envelope by .05 seconds and
remain in this envelope up to .5 seconds.
• The bandwidth of the closed loop transfer function :~~:~ (with Td = 0),
must be less than the rate sensor's natural frequency.
• The magnitude of the transfer function from Td(-') to 9(-,) should be less
than -100 db for frequencies higher than 300 rps.
Even though some of the design specifications are given in the frequency do-
main, some also refer to the transient response. In general, there is no direct
method for taking such design specifications and posing them as frequency do-
main objectives or as requirements on the location of closed loop poles. This
must be done in an indirect manner which involves approximations. Here we
have two alternatives: The first, is try to identify a region 1) in the complex
plane such that if the closed loop poles, are in 1) the system has the desired
186 CHAPTER 9
transient response. The second, is to use a second order dominant model for the
system and employ existing results to relate transient response characteristics
to the shape of specific transfer functions. One could also use some "combina-
tion" of these alternatives. In view of the fact that some of the frequency design
specifications already involve the sensitivity and complementary sensitivity, in
this example we will exploit the second alternative.
The plant in this example (which includes the DC-motor gain) has a transfer
function:
P(,,) (9.12)
and other transfer functions of importance are the loop, sensitivity, comple-
mentary sensitivity and closed loop transfer functions respectively:
L(,,) = C(,,)P(,,)G(,,)
1
S(,,) = 1 + C(,,)P(,,)G(,,)
C(,,)P(,,)G(,,)
T(,,)
1 + C(,,)P(,,)G(,,)
C(,,)P(,,)
TCL(") 1 + C(,,)P(,,)G(,,)
where T(,,) = TCL(,,)G(,,).

Our design approach will take the design specifications and by employing ap-
proximations pose them as requirements on the magnitudes of the sensitivity
and complementary sensitivity. In view of the relationship between T(,,) and
TCL(") we can also express these in terms of TCL("). A performance weight
W 1 (,,) will be developed for the sensitivity and a performance weight W 2 (,,)
for the complementary sensitivity. The design problem then becomes one of
robustly satisfying multiple bounds (two in this case), which can be solved
using FIT synthesis. This will become a problem of simultaneously stabilizing
two polynomial families. The initial controller will be constructed using loop
shaping on the nominal system:
120s
Po(S)
S2 + .55s + .75
This initial controller will then be used as input to the SSFIT software which
in essence performs "robustness enhancement".
A complete description of how the performance specifications are translated

to magnitude bounds on the sensitivity and complementary sensitivity can be
found in [13]. Here we will only present a summary of this procedure for the
nominal system. The subscript "0" refers to nominal.
The nominal transfer function from Td( s) to O(s) is"ifl7\l So( s). In order to
",.0\' )
satisfy the requirement placed on this transfer function we must have:
where Wi1(jw) takes values less than -100 db in the frequency range
w E [300,00). Such a WF(S) will be incorporated into W1(s).
The step response "speed" requirement can be related to the system bandwidth.
For a second order system the bandwidth WB is approximately related to the
undamped natural frequency w" by wB ~ 1.2w". And for a second order
system:
If' = .5 and T p = .013 then WB ~ 335 rplJ. At approximately the

frequency WB, ITo(jw) I starts to roll off and So(jw) begins to increase. This
will be used as the crossover frequency for W1(s) (at high frequencies).
188 CHAPTER 9
In view of the presence of 6 in the numerator of the plant, the step response
will eventually go to zero. Our goal is to have the response reach unity and
stay in the +2% envelope up to .5 seconds. This implies that Lo(jw) which at
low frequencies is zero must cross the 0 db line at a "small enough" frequency
7. The smaller the 7 the longer the response stays in the envelope. At frequen-
cies just above 7, ILo(w)1 is large and therefore ISo(jw)1 ~ ILo(jw)l- l begins
to decrease. The frequency 7 will thus be used as the crossover frequency for
W l (6) (at low frequencies).
Finally, the magnitude of the loop transfer function must attain a high enough
value in the low/mid frequency range so the the step response will reach the
value 1. This is reflected in the shape of W l (6) in this frequency range.
There are two more performance requirements that must be taken into account,
the restriction on the overshoot and the high frequency bandwidth and roll off
requirement imposed by the rate sensor. These naturally can be stated as
restrictions on the shape of TCLO(6). One additional requirement will also be
imposed which is not present in the specifications of the loop but is a sensible
thing to do. In an automated synthesis software package as SSFIT, one has to
guard against having the zero at the origin being "canceled" by the controller.
In actuality, since closed loop stability is guaranteed the cancellation will not
occur, but one might have a "near cancellation" which is not appropriate. A
W2(6) needs to be constructed which incorporates all these requirements.
The bandwidth limit and roll off characteristics of TCLO(6) are directly affected
by the those of W 2(6). In view of the relationship between TO(6) and TCLO(6)
this can be immediately reflected on To( 6).
Using again the second order approximation the requirement on the overshoot
is expressed as a restriction on the magnitude of TCLO(jW) to be less than 6 db.
Finally, the additional requirement placed to prevent the near pole-zero cancel-
lation is imposed as a low frequency crossover limit on Lo(jw) and consequently
TCLO(jW).
Our explanation of the development of W l (6) and W 2(6) concentrated on the

nominal system. In view of the fact that W l (/I) includes part of the dynamics
of the plant, the uncertainties must be taken into account when generating this
weight. The details of how this was done are included in [13]. The plant family
is given by:
where Oil = {a E R2 I al E [-1,1] , a2 E [-1, I]}. A W1 (,,) which satisfies

all these requirements is found to be [13]:
26.352,,3 + 14.8b2 + 19.938" + .23717
A W2 (,,) which satisfies all the requirements is given by W2 (,,) = WH,,)G(,,)-l

where WH") is chosen as:
W'(,,) = 6.9628 x 10- 4 ,,3 + .51247,,2 + 445.6" + 3.1623

2 2.2222 x 10- 4 09 3 + .4713092 + 50009 + 1
The design requirements (in addition to robust stability) can now be expressed
as:
IW~(jw)TcL(jw,a)1 < 1 V a E Oil and w E [0,00)

IW1(jw)S(jw,a)1 < 1 V a E Oil and w E [0,00)
The closed loop characteristic polynomial is given by:
From the previous section we have that the requirements will be robustly met
if a controller can be found that simultaneously stabilizes the following two
polynomial families:
190 CHAPTER 9
tPs(6,a,b) bn,.1 (6)dc(6)dp(6, a)dg (6) + d..l(6)4>(", a)

tPTc,,(6,a,b) = bn~2(6)dc(")np(6, a)dg (") + d~2(6)4>(", a)
where the complex parameter b takes values in some polygonal overbound of

the unit disc (octagon in this case). Re-writing these expressions we have:
tPS('" a, b) = dc(,,)dpl(6, a, b) + n c (6)npl(6, a, b)

tPTc"(,,, a, b) = dc (")dp2(,,,a, b) + n c (")np2 (", a, b)
where
5.4726 X 10- 56'7 + .026889,,6 + 6.6059,,5 + 67.5129,,4+

142.1882,,3 + 101.7999,,2 + 90"
(5.1339 x 10- H al + 5.1339 x 10- 13 ),,10 + (7.7009 x 10- H a2+
7.3612 x 1O-11al + 7.3641 x 10- 1°),,9 + (1.1042 x 1O-10a2+
7.5577 x 10- s al + 7.5617 x 10-'7),,8 + (1.1337 x 1O-'7a2 +
{2.8312 x 10- 5 + 2.9667 x 10- 6b }al + 2.8353 x 10- 4+
2.9667 x 10- 5 b),,'7 + ({4.2467 X 10- 5 + 4.4499 x 10- 6b}a2+
{5.5647 x 10- 3 + 2.7977 x 10- 3b}al + .0558 + .028b),,6+
({8.3471 X 10- 3 + 4.1965 x 1O- 3b}a2 + {.0564+ 2.636b}al+
.5947 + 26.3835b),,5 + ({.0846 + 3.9552b}a2 + {.1186+
1.4831b}al + 1.5377 + 29.3546b),,4 + ({.1779 + 2.2247b}a2+
{.0849 + 1.9938b}al + 1.9242 + 47.8716b)63 + ({.1274+
2.9908b }a2 + {.075 + .0237b }al + 2.1064 + 22.3267b),,2+
({.1125 + .0356b}a2 + 1.0493 + 15.0843b)6 + .5625 + .1779b
9.4061 X 1O- 8b,,6 + 1.5788 X 10- 4b,5 + (.209b + .0267),4+

(118.235b + 56.556),3 + (53475b + 60000.1),,2+
(379.473b + 120),
(2.5014 x 10- 11 al + 2.5014 x 10- 1°),,'7 + (3.7521 x 1O-11a2+
7.6632 x 10- 8 al + 7.6645 x 10-'7),,6 + (1.1495 x 10-'7a2 +
1.2851 x 10- 4al + 1.2855 x 10- 3),5 + (1.9277 x 1O-4a2+
.1002al + 1.0025),4 + (.1503a2 + 50.0001al+
500.5539)63 + (75.0003a2 + .1al + 276.75),,2+
(.15a2 + 375.55)6 + .75
The following controller was designed employing loop shaping on the nominal
system and used as the initial controller for the PSSFIT algorithm:
e LS (6) =
5.418664 + 5.101 X 103 63 + 4.8161 X 106 62 + 2.6512 X 106 6 + 3.61 X 106
64 + 1.4194 X 103 63 + 1.0076 X 106 62 + 5.3936 X 106 6 + 1.444 X 107
One can check that this controller does not satisfy the robust performance
requirements, as there are parameter values for which the overshoot objective
is violated. Had this been an acceptable controller the design would have been
complete. At this stage one could go back and modify the weights such that
they reflect the parameter uncertainty in the plant and carry out a new loop
shaping design. Rather than following this avenue, the controller is input to the
SSFIT software package [13] (which implements the PSSFIT algorithm) where
sector size is set to \1:
rad. The resulting controller is:
F1T
C (6) =
5.96264 + 4.6132 X 103 63 + 4.407 X 106 6 2 + 4.1894 X 106 6 + 4.8806 X 106
64 + 1.4242 X 103 6 3 + 8.9185 X 1056 2 + 6.4548 X 106 6 + 1.4667 X 107
which guarantees robust performance for not only the given range but for
the parameter set 0/1 = {a E R 2 I at E [-1.3672,1.3672] , a2 E
[-1.3672,1.3672)}. The three plots that follow show the results of the de-
sign. Figure 9.6 shows the step response of the family of plants for the time
period up to .02 seconds. This allows one to see that the overshoot is less than
20%, the peak time is less than .013 seconds and that the response is inside the
±2% envelope by .05 seconds.
192 CHAPTER 9
1.4
1.2
•
!0.8
t
t o. 6
0.4
0.2
00 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
time in seconds
Figure 8.8 Step ReIPOnse up to .02 leconda
Figure 9.7 gives the step response of the family of plants up to time .5 seconds,
showing that the response remains in the ±2% envelope for up to this time.
1.4
1.2 _._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.
- - - - - -- - --- -- -- - - -- - - -- - --- - - -- -- -- ---
•
!0.8
t
t o. 6
0.4
0.2
00 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
time in seconds
Figure 8.T Step ReIPOnse up to .5 leconda

Figure 9.8 is the magnitude plot for the family of transfer functions from Til to
6, showing that for frequencies above 300 rps values are less than -100 db.
50..---~-........-~--..---~- ........-~----,
o : : : ..
e.Ii ·50
«
i
ie ·1OO .
·150 ~ ; , .
··· ...:
···: ...
··· ...
· .
·200·L,------'-:,....-~--"":c------'-:,....-~-----l
10~ 10" 10· 10' 10'
lI8quency In rps
Figure '.8 Magnitude or Transfer FUnction from T" to 8
Finally, Figure 9.9 shows that the bandwidth of the closed loop transfer function
(we to WA) is below 942.5 rps.
10....-----.,-----..------.,------,
o : .._.-------~-,
,~
·10
·50L.:·----"-:·,....-~--""::·,....-~--1""::0·,....-~---'10·
10~ 10' 10
lI8quency In rps
Figure ,., Magnitude or the Tranarer FUnction lIIe to IIIA

10
ROBUST DESIGN VIA
STABILIZATION
10.1 ROBUST STABILIZATION AS

STABILIZATION
Our approach to robust analysis and synthesis of systems with parameter
uncertainty exploits properties of polynomials. Robust stability and robust
performance requirements are expressed as stability requirements of polyno-
mit.ll families with parameter uncertainty. The last four Chapters we have
demonstrated that the Finite Inclusions Theorem is a powerful tool for analy-
sis and synthesis as it provides the foundation of a number of robust analysis
and synthesis algorithms. The resulting FIT synthesis algorithms are iterative
procedures where at each iteration the controller is redesigned to enhance ro-
bustness. The controller parameters are computed from the solution of linear
inequalities.
This Chapter presents a different polynomial approach to robust synthesis, one

that is more analytical and exploits the rectangular value set overbound pre-
sented in Chapter 4. Recall that, (Lemma 5.1), an affine polynomial family
with a single uncertainty is stable if four polynomials are stable. For an af-
fine polynomial family with Ie uncertain parameters one can show (Lemma 5.3)
that stability of 41: polynomials is a sufficient condition. Therefore, stability
of an entire family can be deduced from the stability of a finite number of
polynomials. Being able to state this t.lnt.lI1ltict.l1 result comes at the expense
of overbounding. In this Chapter we will show that these results from robust
analysis lead directly to robust stabilisation techniques as well as more gene-
196 CHAPTER 10
ral robust performance synthesis procedures which are based on ,imultaneo1U

polynomial Itabilization.
T
Consider the standard robust stabilisation problem of Figure 10.1:
~lf--e-·I_C_(S)_ -~IIL--p_(s,a_)
Figure 10.1 Unity Feedback Configuration, Parametric Uncertainty
where the family of plants is strictly proper given by:
n,(s, a)
P(s,a) (10.1)
d,,(s, a)
where d,,(s, a) is monic of degree n and the parameters a take values in some
hypercube 0 ... The controller is order q and described by some proper transfer
function C(s) = ~:f:~. The closed loop characteristic polynomial is given by:
;(s, a) = de (s)d,,(s, a) + nc(s)n,(s, a) (10.2)
and we seek to construct such a controller that stabilises (if possible) this
polynomial family.
Our first objective is to develop conditions for robust polynomial stabilisation

in terms of simultaneo1U polynomial ,tabilization. In other words show that
stabilisation of a polynomial family can be guaranteed from the stabilisation
of a finite number of polynomials. Our second objective is then to develop syn-
thesis methods for simultaneous polynomial stabilisation. Since the conditions
developed will only be sufficient, our third objective is to address the question
of conservatism. In view of the fact that a wide range of robust performance
synthesis problems can be posed as robust polynomial stabilization problems
the results presented are of general interest.
Robust Design via Simultaneous Polynomial Stabilization 197
The question of how to construct a controller that simultaneously stabilizes a

finite number of polynomials is a key issue. In this Chapter we will show how
to obtain an answer to this question by viewing the problem of simultaneous
polynomial stabilization as a problem of simultaneously stabilizing a correspon-
ding number of "plants". We will then introduce norm bounded uncertainty
models that include these "plants" and use the H 00 methodology to examine
stabilizability. In addition to providing the means for constructing controllers
for simultaneous polynomial stabilization this formulation also characterizes
the conservatism of the approach.
10.2 SINGLE PARAMETER

UNCERTAINTY
For the feedback system in Figure 10.1 assume that the plant transfer function
has affine uncertainty in its numerator and denominator. We will investigate
several special special cases.
Let us begin with the simplest case of a single parameter uncertainty. In par-
ticular, let the plant family be described by:
=npo(s) + alnpl(s) (10.3)

d,o(s) + ald,l(s)
where al E 0/1 = [-1,1], dpo(s) is monic of degree n, npo(s), npl(S), d,l(S)

are of degree less than nand 8(npo) ~ 8(npI). The closed loop characteristic
polynomial is:
tP(s,al) = dc(8)dpo(S) + nc(s)npo(s) + al(dc(s)d,l(S) + nc(s)npl(S))

= tPO(8) + altPl(s) (lOA)
An immediate consequence of Lemma 5.1 is the result:
Theorem 10.1 The plant family in (10.3) ia robu.atly 8tabilized by a proper

controller C(s) = ~;f:~ if the fou.r polynomials are stabilized
198 CHAPTER 10
1/11(8) = d c (8)d,o(8) + n C (8)n,o(8) + (dc (8)d,1(") + n c (")11p1("n

1/12(-) = d c (8)d,o(8) + n c (8)n,o(8) - (dc (8)d,1(8) +
n C (8)11p1(-n
1/13(-) = dC (8)d,o(8) + n c (8)n,o(_) + (dc (-8)d,1(-8) + n c (-8)11p1(-8n
1/14(8) = dC (8)d,o(8) + n c (8)n,o(8) - (dc (-8)d,1(-8) + n c (-8)11p1(-"n
(10.5)
It is important to note that the first two polynomials 1/11 (8), 1/12(_) come from
family "vertex plants", but that the other two come from "fictitious vertices".
At this point we have two concerns: Firstly, even though this is a very inte-
resting interpretation of robust stabilisability it does not provide any insight
into the problem of how to construct such a controller. The requirement here is
to find a controller that simultaneously stabilizes four polynomials. Well, this
is a problem very similar to simultaneous plant stabilization which we know is
unsolved for more than two plants. Secondly, in order to obtain this analyti-
cal result we had to resort to rectangular value set overbounding, a procedure
which is inherently conservative. We now focus our attention on these issues
and provide some answers.
Consider the plant family in (10.3) where n,o(8) is stable, and d,1(") = 0
(i.e. a single parameter affecting the numerator). Theorem 10.1 guarantees
that the family will be stabilised if a controller is found that stabilizes the four
polynomials:
1/11(-) = dc (_)d,O(8) + n c (8)npo(8) + n c (8)11p1(8)

1/12(8) dc (8)d,o(_) + n c (8)npo(8) - n c (8)11p1(8)
1/13(-) = dc (8)d,O(8) + n c (8)npo(8) + n c (-8)11p1(-8)
1/14(8) = dc (8)d,o(8) + n c (8)11pO(8) - n c (-8)11p1(-8)
(10.6)
Suppose that in addition we require that this controller be minimum ph4le,

i.e. n c ( 8) is stable. It is clear that if this is the case, simultaneously stabilizing
the 1/1.(8) in (10.6), is equivalent in finding a controller that simultaneously
stabilizes n c (8)1/1. (8), for 1 ~ i ~ 4. A quick reflection reveals that these are
the four characteristic polynomials of the four feedback loops:
r + e y
+ "cf·
dc•~ PiCa)
-
I'ilure 10.2 Feedback Sy.tem Cor Finite Plant Family
where the four PiCa) plants are:
(1 + ne(6)npl(6»
Pl(a) = ".0(. }!lc(. )+".,(.)".(.)
"c(. jilPo (.) = ne(a)npo(6)
ne(a)~(6) ne(6)npo(6)
ne(6)npo(6) (1 _ ne(6)npl(6»
P:z(a) "po(. )"c(. )-",,(. )"c(.)
"c(.)lI,o(.) = ne(6)~(6) ne(6)npo(6)
ne(6)npo(6) (1 + ne(-a)npl(-a»
P3 (6) = ".0(. )"c(. ~+"Pl~-. )"c(-.)
ftc .)11,0 .) = nc (6)d,.o(6) nc (6)npo(6)
P.(6) "po(.}!lc(. ~-""~-. )nc( -.)
=
ne(6)npo(6) (1 _ ne(-6)npl (-"»
ftc .)11,0 .) nc(6)~(6) nc(")npo (,,)
(10.7)
It is instructive to express these descriptions in a "multiplicative uncertainty"

form. The first two plants are vertex plants from the original plant family but
the remaining two are certainly not, and moreover they "include" the controller.
Let We,,) be a stable, proper, minimum phase transfer function such that:
Since nee,,) is stable ":~~» is a Blaschke product and I".:~&t» I= 1 for all
wE [0,00). Furthermore, I":;~&~»I = 1:::f~:~1 for all w E [0,00). Let 6(,,) be
200 CHAPTER 10
any proper and stable transfer function with 1~(jw)1 ~ 1 for all w E [0,00).
We are now able to define via this norm bounded perturbation the family of
plants with multiplicative norm bounded uncertainty:
pes) Po(s)(1 + ~W(s)) (10.9)
where Po(s) = ~:f:~. One can easily verify that the four plants pieS) in (10.7)
are members of this plant family. Since ne(s) and noes) are stable, choose the
4 ~(s)'s as:
~l(S)
_ W- 1 (s) ne(s)npl(S)
ne(s)npo(s)
~3(S) = W-l(s)n.(-.~n'lf-·) -W- 1 (s) ne (-s)npl( -s)
n.(. npo .) , n e (s)npo (s)
For the plant family (10.9), in the feedback loop of Figure 10.3:
~W
Figure 10.1 Unity Feedback Nonn Bounded Multiplicative Uncertainty
we know from [36] that a necessary and sufficient condition for robust stabiliz-
ability is the existence of a controller that stabilizes the nominal plant poes)
and satisfies:
IW(jw)To(jw)/ < 1 Ir/ w E [0,00) (10.10)

where To(') = 1 ~(~~~)~!(,r This allows us to state a condition for simulta-

neous stabiliJation of the four polynomials in (10.6).
Theorem 10.2 Let P("al) be a.fa.mily ofpla.nt6 til in (10.9) withal E 0/1,
dpl(') = 0 and npo(') dable. Let W(,) be a proper, minimum phtlle, da.ble
tranlfer function that ,atilfie, (10.8). Suppo,e that C(,,) = ~:f:l iI a. mi-
nimum pktlle controller tkat dabilize, poe,,) and ,atilfie, (10.10). Tken thil
controller ,imultaneoUlly ,tabilize, tke ,pi(S) in (10.6).
Theorem 10.2 gives insightful answers to several issues related to simultaneous

polynomial stabiliJation. Firstly, it provides conditions (albeit sufficient) for
the existence of a controller that simultaneously stabiliJes the required four
polynomials. Secondly, In view of the fact that these conditions are obtained
from a norm bounded multiplicative uncertainty formulation, H 00 methods can
be used to construct the required controllers. Thirdly, the approach also sheds
light on the issue of conservatism. Specifically, taking the parameter uncer-
tainty and expressing it as norm bounded multiplicative uncertainty would be
a "natural" way of solving the robust stabililllation problem by H 00 methods.
Theorem 10.2 implies that if a proper minimum phase controller can be found
that stabiliJes the nominal system and satisfies (10.10) then it will simulta-
neously stabiliJe the four polynomials. In other words simultaneously stabi-
uing the four polynomials is not more cOnlervative (with a minimum phase
controller) than a solution obtained from this specific H 00 formulation. Of
course from this we cannot conclude that the simultaneous polynomial stabi-
uation approach is "less" conservative.
Let us now consider a second, single uncertainty strictly proper plant family
with uncertainty solely in the denominator:
(10.11)
where dpo(s) is monic of degree n, stable, 8(dpo) > 8(dpt}, and al E

0/1 = [-1,1]. In this case the four polynomials that need to be simulta-
neously stabiliJled are:
202 CHAPTER 10
1/11(,,) = dc(")d,o(") + nC(")npo(") + dc(,,)dpl(")

1/1z(") = dc(")d,o(") + nC(")npo(") - dc(,,)dpl(")
1/13(,,) = dc(")d,o(") + nc(")npo(") + dc(-,,)dpl(-,,)
1/1.(") = dc(")d,o(") + nc(")npo(") - dc(-")dpl(-,,)
(10.12)
Suppose that we now restrict ourselves to &table controllers (dc (") is stable).
Then it is evident that simultaneously stabilizing the four 1/1,(") in (10.12)
is equivalent to simultaneously stabilizing dc (")1/1,("), 1 ~ i ~ 4. However,
these four are the closed loop characteristic polynomials of the unity feedback
configurations as in Figure 10.1, where the four plants are:
+ dC(,,)dpl("))_1
Pl(") = npoC.)dt)
d.(. )dpo(.)+d•• )dpl(.) = dc(")npo(")(1
dc(")d,o(") dc(")d,o(")
Pz(") = .. ~o(.)dt\
d.(.)dpo .) d•• dpl(.) = dc(")npo(,,)
dc(")d,o(")
(1 _ dc(,,)dpl(") )-1
dc(")d,o(")
(1 + dc(-a)dp1( -6) )-1
P3 (,,) = n..oC.)d.C.\
d.(. )dpo(I)+d.( -. dpl(-.) = dc(")npo(")
dc(6)d,o(6) dc(6)d,o(6)
p.(,,) = npoC.)d.(.~
d.(.)dpo(. )-d.( -. dpl( -.) = dc(")npo(")
dc(")d,o(")
(1 _ dc(-")dpl(-,,) )-1
dc(")d,o(")
(10.13)
Here we have also employed a "divisive" uncertainty model to express the

plants. We again recognize that the first two are vertex plants from the gi-
ven plant family and the other two are "fictitious" plants which involve the
controller.
Let W(,,) be a stable, proper, minimum phase transfer function such that:
(10.14)
Since d c(") is stable dd~~» is a Blaschke product and Idd~&~» I = 1 for all
I I I I
wE [0,00). Furthermore, 't~U~» = ~:f::~ for all wE [0,00). Let ~(,,) be
any proper and stable transfer function with 1~(jw)1 ~ 1 for all w E [0,00).
We are now able to define via this norm bounded perturbation the family of
plants with divisive norm bounded uncertainty:
(10.15)
where Po(") = ~:f;l. One can easily verify that the four plants Pi(") in
(10.13) are members of this plant family. Since d c (") and do(,,) are stable,
choose the 4 ~(")'s as:
For the plant family in (10.15) in the feedback loop of Figure 10.4:
~w
I'ilure 10.4 Unity Feedback Norm Bounded Divi.ive Uncertainty
we know from [36] that a necessary and sufficient condition for robust stabilis-
ability is the existence of a controller that stabilises the nominal plant Po(")
and satisfies:
204 CHAPTER 10
IW(jw)50 (jw) I < 1 v w E [0,00) (10.16)
where 5 0(6) = 1 +l epo ' This allows us to state a condition for simultaneous
stabilUation of the four polynomials in (10.12).
Theorem 10.3 Let P(6, al) be a family of planu a6 in (10.11) with al E 011,
7Ipl(6) = 0 and dpo(6) &table. Let W(,) be a proper, minimum pha6e, 6table
tranafer function that ,atilfie, (10.14). SUPpo6e that C(6) = ~:f:~ iI a 6ta-
ble controller that 6tabilize6 PO(6) and 6atilfie6 (10.16). Then thil controller
6imultaneowly 6tabilizu the 1/1,(6) in (10.1~).
As in the case of Theorem 10.2 this result provides concrete answers to questi-
ons of existence and computation of a controller for simultaneous polynomial
stabilUation. Since the controller is computed via H00 synthesis this also gives
us the opportunity to compare the two designs.
10.3 MULTIPLE PARAMETER

UNCERTAINTY
The ideas presented in the previous section can be applied to broader classes of
systems. Consider next [24] the strictly proper plant family with A: uncertain
parameters which enter the numerator and denominator in an affine manner 1 :
(10.17)
and where a = (al,a2,' .. ,al:) EO.. = {a E RI:Ia; E [-1, 1],1 ~ i ~ k},

dpo(6) is monic of degree n, and np.(6), dpt(6), 1 ~ i ~ k are of degree less than
n. The closed loop characteristic polynomial is:
1 Portions reprinted, with penni••ion, from Sy.tema and Control Lettera, Vol. 22, 1994,
pp. 9-16, @ 1994 ELSEVIER SCIENCE B.V.
;(6, a) de (6)dpo(6)
...
+ ne (6)n,o(6),+a1 ...(ne (6)np1(6) + de (6)d,1(6)) + ",
v v
;0(.) ;1(.)
... + al: ...(ne (6)npl:(6) + de (6)d,1: (6)),
...
;.(.)
= ;0(6) + a1;1(6) + a2;2(") + ... + al:;I:(") (10.18)
A direct consequence of Lemma 5.3 is the following result:
Theorem 10.4 The plant family in (10.11) u robwtly Itabilized by a pro-

per controller C(6) = ~:f:? if thu controller 6imultaneowly ltabilize6 the 41:
pol1lnomia18
Lemma 5.3 places a rectangular overbound on the entire value set and identifies
the set of polynomials which contains the four vertex polynomials (at each
frequency). An alternative overbounding approach would be to overbound
each value set "edge" by a rectangle. The value set overbound will then be a
union of rectangles. Simultaneous stabilisation of the set of vertex polynomials
from each of the individual rectangles will guarantee the robust stabilisability
of each edge, and by the Edge Theorem [9] the entire family would be robustly
stabilised.
Even though Theorem 10.4 provides a very interesting interpretation of robust

stabilisation, it does not answer the important question of how to construct
such a controller. In the single parameter case, overbounding the parameter
uncertainty with norm bounded uncertainty proved very useful. Consider first
a plant family with two uncertain parameters:
P(6,a) (10.20)
206 CHAPTER 10
where a = (aI, a2) E 0 4 =

{a I al E [-1,1], a2 E [-1,1]}, dpo(6)
is monic, stable, 8(dpo) > 8(dp2) and 8(npo) > 8(npl)' The closed loop
characteristic polynomial is:
4>(6, at} = de (6)dpo(6) + ne (6)npo(6) + al n (6)npl(6) + a2 d (6)dp2(6)

, ...
';0(-)
'-..............'
e
';,(-)
e
... '
';2(-)
= 4>0(6) + al4>1(6) + a24>2(6) (10.21)
From Theorem 10.4 we know that a controller robustly stabilizes the plant
family if it simultaneously stabilizes 16 polynomials. If we overbound each
edge there will only be 12 distind polynomials:
1J1t(6) 4>0(6) + nc (6)npl(6) + de (6)dp2(6)

1/12(6) = 4>0(6) + ne (6)npl(6) - de (6)dp2(6)
1/13(6) = 4>0(") + ne (6)npl(6) + de (-6)dp2(-6)
tP4(") = 4>0(") + nc (")npl(") - d c (-6)d,,2(-")
tP5( 6) = 4>0(6) - ne (")npl(") + d c (")d,,2(6)
1/16(6) = 4>0(") - ne (6)npl(") - de (6)dp2(")
1/11(6) = 4>0(6) - ne (6)npl(6) + d c ( -6)dp2(-6)
1/18(6) = 4>0(6) - nc (6)npl(") - de ( -6)dp2(-,,)
1/19(6) = 4>0(6) + nc (-6)npl(-6) + de (,,)dp2(")
1/110(") 4>0(6) - ne ( -6)npl(-6) + de (6)dp2(6)
1/111(6) = 4>0(6) + ne ( -6)npl(-6) - de (,,)dp2(")
1/112(6) = 4>0(6) - ne (-6)npl(-6) - de (,,)dp2(6)
(10.22)
Suppose tlo.at we restrid the controller to be stable and minimum phase. The
twelve polynomials in (10.22) will be stable if and only if the twelve polynomials
n e (,,)de (")1/Ii (6), 1 $ i $ 12 are stable. These twelve polynomials are closed loop
characteristic polynomials ofthe unity feedback systems as in Figure 10.1 where
the twelve plants are:
P1(I) =
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) + de(I)ne(I)np1(I))(1 + de (I)dp2 (I) )-1
de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)~(I)
P2(I) =
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) + de(I)ne(I)np1(I))(I_ de(I)dp2(I))_1
P3(I) =
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) + de (I)ne(I)np1 (I) )(1 + de(-I)dp2(-I) )-1
P.(,) =
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) + de (I)ne(I)np1 (I) )(1 _ de( -I)dp2(-I) )-1
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) _ de(I)ne(I)np1(I))(I+ de(I)dp2(I))_1
P5(I) =
de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)dpO(I)
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) _ de(I)ne(I)np1(I))(1 _ de(I)dp2(I))_1
P6(I) =
de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)dpO(I)
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) _ de(I)ne(I)np1(I))(1 + de( -I)dp2(-I) )-1
P1(I) =
de( I )ne( I )~( I) de( I )ne( I )~( I) de( I )~( I)
(de(.)ne(I)npo(I) _ de(.)ne(I)np1(I))(1 _ de(-I)dp2(-I) )-1
P8(I) =
de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)dpo(I)
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) + de(I)ne(-I)np1(-I))(1 + de(I)dp2(I))_1
Pg (.) = de(I)ne(I)dpo(I) de(I)ne(I)dpo(I) de(I)~(I)
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) _ de(I)ne(-I)np1(-I) )(1 + de(I)dp2(I) )-1
PlO (I) = de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)~(I)
Pll (I)
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) + de(I)ne(-I)np1(-I))(I_ de(I)dp2(I))_1
= de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)ne(I)~(I) de(I)~(I)
(de(I)ne(I)npo(I) _ de(I)ne(-')np1(-1))(1 _ de(I)dp2(I) )-1
P12 (I) =
(10.23)
Let us now introduce an additive/divisive norm bounded uncertainty model

that overbounds the uncertainty. Specifically, let W/1(')' W4(I) be proper, sta-
ble, minimum phase transfer functions such that:
la1:::~~:~1 < IW/1(jw) I Y a1E0/1 and wE [0,00)

la2 ~:~~:~ I < IW4 (jw)1 Y a2 E0/1 and wE [0,00) (10.24)
208 CHAPTER 10
Let ..1..(,,),..1.4(") be arbitrary proper and stable transfer functions with 1..1..(;"')1
:5 1,1..1.4(;"')1 :5 1 for all '" E [0,(0). We can now define the following plant
family with additive/divisive norm bounded uncertainty:
(10.25)
where pOe,,) = Z:f:~. Consider the plant family in (10.25) and the feedback
configuration of Figure 10.5.
Figure 10.5 Unity Feedback Norm Bounded Additive/Divisive Uncertainty
Figure 10.6 shows this system with the uncertainty blocks "pulled-out"
+ M
-
b..W. 0
0 b.4W 4
Figure 10.8 Feedback Loop in Block Diagonal Bounded Perturbation Form
where the 2 x 2 transfer function matrix M is given by:

M( ) _ [C(1 + CPO)-l -C(1 + CPO)-l ]

6 - -(1 + CPO)-l (1 + CPO)-l
Assuming that C stabilises the nominal system Po and since the largest singular
value of diag[.:1., .:14] is leu than or equal to unity, we know from [34] that this
feedback: system is stable if:
J.&c = 6uP",J.&(W(jw)M(jw)) < 1
where J.' is the structured singular value. Since n c (6), dc (6) are stable n·<n)
n. ,
and 4,i~(,» are Blaschke products and have unity magnitude on the imaginary
p1
<-.i"')I
axis and in addition l±n11,0('''') d,o ,'" and 1±d,2<-.i"'
= In'l~~"'~1 d,o(,"') )I = I~I
~
on
the jw axis we have that plants Pi(6), 1 $ i $ 12 included in plant family
(10.25). Therefore any controller that stabilises (10.25) will also simultaneously
stabilise the Pi'S. We have thus proved:
Theorem 10.5 Let W.(6), WII(6) be tu in (10.2-1). If a 6table, proper and

minimum phtue controller C( 6) can be found that ,tabilizel Po( 6) and ,ati6jie6
J.&c < 1 then thi6 controller ,imultaneowly ,tabilize6 (10.22) and ltabilize6
plant family (10.20).
We again see how standard H oo theory can be used to provide answers to

questions of simultaneous polynomial stabilisation. Using the framework just
presented one first solves the resulting H oo problem. If the controller obtained
is stable, proper and minimum phase this controller will also solve the origi-
nalsimultaneous polynomial stabilisation problem. Moreover, this method of
solution also provides a comparison between thi6 6pedfic H oo formulation and
the "41: polynomial" approach.
These ideas can be generalised to an arbitrary number of parameters. We will

end this Section by considering the strictly proper plant family:
npo(6) + Olnpl(6) + ... + Om7'lpm(6)

P(6,a) (10.26)
dpo(6) + Om+ldpm+l(6) + ... + Ol:dl:(6)
210 CHAPTER 10
where a = (al,a2, ... ,al) E 0 0 =

{a I CJi E [-1,1],1 ~ i ~ k}, dpo(s)
is monic of degree ti, stable and 8(40) > 8(dpj),m+ 1 ~ j ~ k. Note that
parameters in the numerator are independent of those in the denominator. By
employing the "4 polynomial" result on each edge, we know that a control-
ler C(s) robustly stabilizes this family if it simultaneously stabilizes a finite
number of polynomials. Following the earlier analysis and assuming that the
controller is stable and minimum phase, we can identify a "plant" with each
such polynomial. These vertex plants will have the form:
p.(,) =
de(,)(npa(,)n e(,) ± npl(,)ne(,) ± ... ± npi( -,)ne(-,) ± ... ± npm(,)n e(,»
ne(' )(dpa(, )de(,) ± dpm+1 ( ' )de(,) ± ... ± dpA:(')de(,»
(10.27)
or the form:
n e(, )(dpa(, )d e(,) ± dpm+1 ( , )d e(,) ± ... ± dpj( -, )de ( - , ) ± ... ± dpA:(')d e(,»
(10.28)
where a lingle term appears either in the numerator or denominator of the form
npo(-8)ne (-8), 1 ~ i ~ m, or dpj(-s)de (-8),m+l ~ j ~ Ie, respectively. With
the nominal plant PO(8) = ~o' no • ~ o' and employing an additive/divisive
c: • ftc' 1'0'
uncertainty model these plants can be expressed as:
(10.29)
For plants as in (10.27) we have:
de (S)(±7lpl(8)ne (s) ± ... ± 7lpi( -s)ne ( -s) ± ... ± npm(8)ne (s))

de (8)n e (8)dpo(S)
±de (8)d,n..+l(S) ± ... ± de (8)dpl; (8))
P4j(8)
d e (S)dpO(8)
(10.30)
For plants as in (10.28) we have:
dC (8)(±nc(s)npl(S) ± ... ± nc(s)npm(S))

dc(s)nc(s)dpo(s)
±dpm+l(8)dc(s) ± ... ± dpj( -s)dc(-8) ... ± dpJ;(s)dc(s)
dc(s)dpo(S)
(10.31)
We are now in a position to define norm bounded perturbations that over-

bound the terms with parameter uncertainty that also involve the controller.
Specifically, consider P/I'(s) in (10.30). We can rewrite it as:
(10.32)
On the imaginary axis we have:
I ± 11pl(jW) ± ... ± n «.i1>np.(jw) ± ... ± npm(jw)1

c
= n
I4:(jw)I (10.33)
Since nc(s) is stable, nc<n)

nc , is a Blaschke product and since nothing else is
known about nc(s) its phase is arbitrary. At a specific frequency we can replace
nc<t1)
nc,w
by ei' where (J E [0,27r]. Define the function of frequency:
This is repeated for the denominator uncertainty and a similar function is

defined:
212 CHAPTER 10
Now, let W ..(s), Wd(s) be proper, stable and minimum phase transfer functions
such that:
Let il.. (s) and ild(S) be arbitrary proper and stable transfer functions with
la.. (jw) I ~ 1, lild(jW)1 ~ 1 for all w E [0, (0). We can now define the
following plant family with additive/divisive norm bounded uncertainty:
(10.35)
where Po(s) = ~::f:l. By construction this family includes the plants Pi, Pi.
For this plant family in the feedback configuration of Figure 10.5 we have
conditions for stability in terms of the structured singular value as in the two
parameter case. This allows us to state:
Theorem 10.6 Let W ..(s), Wd(s) be as in (10.34). If a stable, proper, mi-

nimum phase controller C(s) can be found that stabilizes Po(s) and satisfies
IJ.c < 1 then this controller simultaneously stabilizes the required polynomials
and stabilizes plant family (10.26).
This is again an Hoo based solution for simultaneous polynomial stabilization.

Now, one could have opted to solve the original problem by overbounding the
parameter uncertainty directly by norm bounded uncertainty. This could be
done by employing an additive/divisive uncertainty model and overbounding
the terms:
a1n,,1(jw) + ... + amn,,1:(jw) I am+ld"m+l(jW) + ... + a1: d1:(jw) I

l n"o(jw) , l dpo(jw)
(10.36)
Once this was done H oo methods would be used to design the controller. At
each frequency the expreuions in (10.36) would have given lower bounds for
the uncertainty blocks. However, one would not be able to say at this point
whether this would translate into an overall less conservative design than would
be p088ible with simultaneous polynomial stabilisation.
10.3.1 Example
The simultaneous polynomial stabilisation (SPS) approach provides interesting
analytical results for polynomial family stabilisation. More than this, it can
also be used as a practical design tool for systems with parameter uncertainty.
The idea we have been promoting throughout the Chapter is to take a plant
family and overbound it by norm bounded uncertainty in a way that we can
exploit the H 00 methodology. In several cases we showed that controllers obtai-
ned from the solution of specific H oo problems do simultaneously stabilise the
required number of polynomials. However, if one has to solve an H oo problem
in order to find a controller that simultaneously stabilizes the required number
of polynomials, one might question the value of the SPS approach as a prac-
tical design tool. Just as with FIT synthesis, we can view the SPS approach
as a "robustne88 enhancement" technique. Specifically, we can employ some
design technique to obtain an initial controller which we then modify in order
to enhance robustne88 properties. To demonstrate this technique we return to
Example 3, considered in Chapter 7. The plant family is given by:
(a + l)(a + 10) + al(5.5a + 7) + a,(a' + 0.5a + 2)

P(a,a) =
(a + 2)(a + 4)(a - 1)
flpo(a) + alflpl(a) + a,fIp,(a)
dpo(a)
where a = (ai, a,) lies in the rectangle Oil = {(ai, a,) I - < al < Q,
a,
Q
-Q < < The positive parameter Q regulates the "size" of the rec-
Q}.
tangle. This plant family is placed in a unity feedback system and a controller
is sought that robustly stabilizes for as larg~ a value of Q as possible. We can
represent the parameter uncertainty in a multiplicative form and are able to
then overbound the family with a norm bounded multiplicative perturbation
214 CHAPTER 10
. t erms 0 f th e Wetg
m . ht w:2 (8 ) -_ + 1)(.
.3 +
(. 1.2S.++lOr
9 In part'lC ular, WI'th t his w:2 (8 )
we have that:
and wE [0,00)
We can account for an arbitrary a by multiplying by this factor both sides of
this expression. The nominal system is minimum phase as would be required
by our procedure. We then employed a Nevanlina-Pick technique to compute
the controller C(8) = ::f:l !
= 1.213t.~1~5~~(: 1~i4545) which guaranteed robust
stability for a~z = 1.273. Note that the controller is minimum phase as would
be required for this case.
Employing the SPS approach for this example would require the simultaneous
stabiliJation of the twelve polynomials:
1/1t(6) iPO(6) + anc (6)npl(6) + anc (6)np2(6)

=
tP2( 6) = iPO(6) + anc (6)npl(6) - anc (6)np2(6)
tP3( 6) = iPO(6) + anc (6)npl(6) + anc ( -6)np2(-6)
tP4( 6) = iPO(6) + anc (6)npl(6) - anc (-6)np2(-6)
tP5( 6) = iPO(6) - anc (6)npl(6) + anc (6)np2(a)
tP6( a) = iPo(a) - anc (a)npl(a) - anc (a)np2(a)
tP1( a) = iPo(a) - anC (a)npl(a) + anc ( -a)np2(-a)
tPS(a) = iPo(a) - anc (a)npl(a) - anc ( -a)np2(-a)
tPg(a) = iPo(a) + anc ( -a)npl(-a) + anc (a)np2(a)
tPl0(a) = iPo(s) - anc ( -S)npl(-s) + anc (s)np2(S)
tP11(S) = iPo(s) + anc ( -6)npl(-s) - anc (s)np2(S)
tP12( 6) = iPo(s) - anc (-6)npl(-6) - anc (6)np2(6)
(10.37)
At this point one could take the H oo controller and modify it by introducing
two or three parameters and use graphical techniques to determine regions for
which all twelve polynomials are stable for as large an a as possible. For low
order controllers and systems this may be feasible but one has to say that FIT
synthesis would provide a much better alternative. In this example, we simply
multiplied the controller by a single gain and performed this procedure. We
concluded that the controller:
.64 (6 + 2)(6 + 4) (10.38)

1.273(.2145456 - 1.14545)
simultaneously stabilizes the twelve polynomials for up to asps = 1.36, thus

enhancing the robustness of the original design. This compares favorably with
1.273 and 1.2926, which were values obtained in Section 7.5 using specific H oo
designs. Of course, the controller is improper. One could make it proper by
introducing a factor in the denominator of the controller, say (u + I), where
€ is small. For €= .01, one has robust stability for a =
1.21.
10.4 THE INTERVAL PLANT FAMILY

A very special plant family is the intert1al plant family, where the transfer fun-
ction is the ratio of two interval polynomials. In other words each coefficient
in the numerator and denominator is independently perturbed. For this family
of plants and fird order controller. the authors in [7] have shown that it is
necessary and sufficient to simultaneously stabilize .izteen vertex plants. Un-
fortunately, this result does not generalise to the case of controllers of arbitrary
order. In order to simplify the notation let the parameter vectors be 8, e, (,
g, with each parameter taking values in intervals [ai, at], [ei, etl, [f,-, 1,+],
[g;, gt]. Consider then the plant family:
P(6, 8, e, (, g)
npO(6) + npe(6) + 6npo(6) (10.39)
dpo(6) + dpe(6) + 6dpo(6)
where
216 CHAPTER 10
= el + e262 + e364 + .
It + 1262 + 1364 + .
= 91 + 9262 + 93 64 (10.40)
with 8(dpo) = n, 8(dpe) < n, 8(dpo) < n - 1, 8(npo) < n, 8(r&pe) < n
and 8(r&po) < n - 1. If this interval plant family is placed the unity feedback
configuration of Figure 10.1, the closed loop characteristic polynomial will be:
where <;0(6) = de(6)dpo(6) + n e(6)npo(6). If one was to directly apply the

"41: polynomial" result then it would be required to simultaneously stabilise
an exponential number of polynomials (in the number of parameters). This
however would be wasteful as no particular attention would have been placed
on the special structure present. This is done in detail in [23] where it is
shown that it suffices to simultaneously stabilise only 64 polynomials. Define
polynomials:
a+(6) =
a-(6) =
e+(6) =
e-(6)
/+(6) =
r(6) =
9+(6) =
9-(6) (10.41)
Let <;0(6) = de(6)dpo(6) + ne(6)npo(6) and define polynomials:
1/11(6) = a+(6)de (") e+("),,de (-,,)

-
1/12(") = a+(,,)de (,,) - e- ("),,d e ( -,,)

1/13(,,) a- (" )de(,,) - e+ (")"de (-,,)
Robust Design via Simu.ltaneous Polynomial Stabilization 217
,p4(") = a- (,,)dc (") - e- ("),,dc ( -,,)

,p5(") a+(,,)dc ( -,,) + e+("),,dc (")
,p6(") a+(")dc(-,,) + e- (") "de (,,)
,p7(") = a-(,,)dc (-") + e+("),,dc (")
,ps(") a-(,,)dc (-") + e-("),,dc (")
Xl(") = r(,,)n c(") - g+("),,nc (-")
X2(") j+(,,)nc (") - g-("),,nc (-")
X3(") = r(,,)n c (") - g+("),,nc (-")
X4(") = r(,,)nc (") - g-("),,nc (-")
X5(") r(,,)n c (-") + g+("),,nc (")
X6(") r(,,)n c ( -,,) + g- ("),,nc (")
X7(") r(,,)n c (-") + g+("),,nc (")
Xs(") r(,,)n c (-") + g-(")6nc (")
One can show that [23]:
Theorem 10.T There ezuu II controller C(,,) thllt Itllbilize, the intervtJlfllmilJl
in (10.39) ifthu controller ,imulttJneoualJl "tllbilize" the 6~ polJlnomillu ;0(")+
,p.(,,) + X;(,,), 1 ~ i ~ 8, 1 ~ j ~ 8.
10.5 NOMINAL PERFORMANCE

SYNTHESIS VIA SIMULTANEOUS
We have repeatedly seen how performance specifications can be expressed as
polynomial robust stability problems and how performance synthesis beco-
mes a robust stabilisation problem. In Chapters 8 and 9, we suggested ro-
bust performance synthesis methods based on the Finite Inclusions Theorem
and its extensions. The synthesis methods were "algorithmic" in character.
In this Chapter we stated sufficient "analytic" conditions for stabilisation of
polynomial families with parameter uncertainty in terms of the simultaneous
stabilisation of a finite number of polynomials. It is natural to expect that
such conditions can also be stated for performance synthesis. Even though a
great variety of performance specifications can be handled in this manner we
218 CHAPTER 10
will limit our discussion to asymptotic tracking and noise attenuation. In this
Section we consider a plant as in Figure 10.7 with no uncertainty and state
conditions for nominal performance synthesis.
-
r + C(,,) P(,,)
y
Figure 10.T Feedback Sy.tem with Tracking and Noiae Requirement.
Let us first consider the problem of nominal tracking (and nominal stability).
Suppose that the plant is described by a strictly proper transfer function P(,,) =
zf:~ where 8(dp(")) = n. From Chapter 8, we know that performance would
be guaranteed (IW1(jw)S(jw)1 < 1 V wE [0,00)), if a controller can be found
that stabilizes the polynomial family:
(10.42)
for all 0 ::; rl ::; 1 and Ql E [O,2?l'), q,(,,) being the closed loop characteristic
polynomial. The uncertainty r1ei a1 corresponds to the unit disc. The key
element that allowed us to state simultaneous polynomial stabilization results
was our ability to overbound straight line segments in the complex plane with
rectangles. The disc uncertainty present in (10.42) prevents us from directly
implementing this scheme. We are therefore forced to first overbound the disc
by a polygon and then apply the rectangular overbounding. Of course, both
these procedures will introduce conservatism in the design. This conservatism
can be reduced by employing tight polygonal overbounds of the disc. If the
polygon edges are "short" this will also help the second stage when the rectan-
gular overbound is employed. For simplicity (at the expense of conservatism)
we overbound the disc by a square:
1m
1
1/
'-
"
./
1 Re
I'iaure 10.' Square Overbound of. Di.c
In other words we replace r 1ei a1 by the complex uncertainty b = b1 + jb2 ,

where -1 ~ b1 ~ I, -1 ~ ~ ~ 1. Clearly, if tPS(6, b) = b11v1(6) z(6)do(6) +
d.1(6)(Z(6)do(6) + Y(6)no(6)), is stable for b in the square then tPS(6, r1, a1)
will also be stable. Let 4>SO(6) = d..,1(6)(dc(6)dpo(6) + n c(6)npo(6)), 4>Sl(6) =
11v1(6)dc(6)dpo(6), 4>S2(6) = j4>Sl(6), then
(10.43)
The overbounding introduced by h, now allows us to use the results of Chapter

4. We can now use the rectangular overbounding on the family tPS(6, b1 , b2) by
employing additional parameters ;;1, ;;2' Specifically,
Recall from Chapter 4 that the "-,, operation on a complex polynomial stands
for: 4)1(6) = fn( _6)n + fn-1( -6) + ... + fo, It is the complex conjugate of
Ii, 1 ~ i ~ n. At each frequency the value set ~s(jw, 011 1 , 0112 ) is a rectangle.
Now it is important to realise that because 4>S2(6) = j4>Sl(6), at each frequency
w the value set ~s(jw, 011 1 , 0h) will have corners that are formed by the sum
of an "actual" vertex of the rectan$lc: bl 4>s(jw) + bl 4)Sl(6) and a "fictitious"
vertex of the rectangle b24>S2(6) + b24>S2(6) and vise versa. This implies that
the four vertices of the '¢ S (jw, 011 1 , 011 2 ) rectangle come from the set of eight
vertices:
~Sl(6) 4>SO(6) + 4>Sl(6) + 4)S2(6), '¢S2(6) = 4>SO(6) + 4>Sl(6) - 4)S2(6)

'¢S3(6) 4>SO(6) - 4>Sl(6) + 4)S2(6), '¢S4(6) = 4>SO(6) - 4>Sl(6) - 4)S2(6)
"bS5(6) 4>SO(6) + 4)Sl(6) + 4>S2(S), ~S6(S) = 4>so(s) - 4)Sl(S) + 4>S2(S)
220 CHAPTER 10
t$S7(6) = ;SO(6) + ~SI(6) - ;52(6), t$SS(6) = ;SO(6) - ~SI(6) - ;S2(6)

(10.44)
Now if these eight polynomials are stable the t$S(6, 61 , b1, 62 , b2) family will be
stable [11] and consequently the 1/1S(6, 61 , 62 ) and 1/1S(6, rl, Ql) families will be
stable. Nominal performance will thus have been achieved. We have proved:
Theorem 10.8 (nominal a6ymptotic tracking) Let P(6) = ~f:~ be a nominal

plant and WI (6) a given weight for the 6en6itivity tran6fer function. A controller
C(,,) ezuu which "ta6ilize" the "ydem and guarantee" nominal performance if
thu controller "imultaneoualy "ta6ilize" the eight polynomiaz" ~Si(")' 1 ~ i ~ 8
in (10.~.IJ.
Suppose now that in addition to tracking we also have the noise attenuation
specification: IW2 (jw)T(jw) I < 1 V w E [0,00). We know that this will be
achieved if a controller can be found that stabilizes the polynomial family:
1/1T(6,r2,Q2) = dc(")dw2(6)d,,(") + n c (")np(,,)(d.2(6) + r2 eia2 1l.v2("))

(10.45)
{or all Q2 E [0,211"), r2 E [0,1]. Let us again overbound the unit disc by a
square, in other words we replace r 2 ei a2 by the complex uncertainty b = 61 +
j6 2,-1 ~ 61 ~ I, -1 ~ 62 ~ 1. Clearly, if 1/1T(6, b) = b1l.v2(") n c (")npo(6) +
dw2(6)(dc (6)d,,0(6)+n c(6)npo(6», is stable {or b in the square then 1/1T(6, r2, Q2)
will be stable. Let ;TO(6) = dw2(6)(dc (6)d,,0(6) + nc (s)npo(6)), ;Tl(6) =
1l.v2(6)nc (6)npo(6), ;T2(6) = #T1(6), then:
(10.46)
Following the exact same procedure as above we generate the following 8 po-
lynomials:
~Tl(S) tPTO(S) + tPT1(S) + $T2(S), ~T2(S) = tPTO(S) + tPT1(S) - $T2(8)

~T3(S) tPTO(S) - tPT1(8) + $52(8), ~T4(8) = tPTO(S) - tPT1(8) - $T2(S)
~T5(S) tPTO(S) + $Tl(S) + tPT2(S), ~T6(S) = tPTO(S) - $Tl(8) + tPT2(S)
~T7(S) tPTO(S) + $Tl(8) - tPT2(S), ~T8(S) = tPTO(S) - $Tl(S) - tPT2(S)
(10.47)
and state a result for the multiobjeetive problem of tracking and noise attenua-
tion.
Theorem 10.9 (nominal a8ymptotic tracking and noi8e attenuation)

Let P(s) = ~f:~ be a nominal plant and W 1 (s), W 2 (s), the weight8 on the 8en-
,itivity and complementary sensitivity tran8fer functions re8peetively. A con-
troller C(s) ezi8u which 8tabilize, the 8Y8tem and guarantees nominal tracking
and noi8e attenuation if thi8 controller 8imultaneou81y 8tabilize8 the 8izteen po-
lynomia18 ~Si(S), 1 ~ i ~ 8 and ~Ti(8), 1 ~ i ~ 8.

SYNTHESIS VIA SIMULTANEOUS
The problem of robust performance synthesis for plants with parameter uncer-
tainty is structurally identical to that of nominal performance. It also can be
expressed as a robust stabilization problem but of more complicated polyno-
mial families. From the discussion thus far, one would expect to be able to give
sufficient conditions for robust performance synthesis in terms of simultaneous
polynomial stabilization. Consider first the plant family:
(10.48)
222 CHAPTER 10
in the unity feedback configuration of Figure 10.7, where 8(dpo(s)) = n, 8(n"i(S))

~ n -I, 0 ~ i ~ Ie and ft = (all a2, ... , ak) is a Ie-vector ofreal uncertain para-
meters, lying in the hypercube no = {ft E R k I - 1 ~ t1i ~ I, 1 ~ i ~ Ie}. We
know that robust tracking (and robust stability) would be guaranteed if the
polynomial family:
rl ei a1 nwl dc(S)dpO(S) + ~l(s)dc(s)dpo(s) +

~l(s)nc(s)(n"o(s) + a1n"I(s) + ... + akn"k(s)))
(10.49)
is stable for all 0 ~ r1 ~ 1, 01 E [O,21r) and ft E no' Overbounding the

complex uncertainty r1e1a1 with the b-square of Figure 10.8 implies that if the
polynomial family:
bnwl(S)dc(s)dpo + ~l(s)dc(s)dpo +
d,.,l(s)n c(s)(n"o(s) + a1n,,1(s) + ... + akn"k(s)))
(10.50)
is stable for b in the square and ft E no, then ,ps(s, ft, rl, ot} will be stable. Let
4>so(s) = d,.,l(s)(dc(s))dpo(s) + nc(s)n"o(s)), 4>Si(S) = d,.,l(s)n c(s)TLpi(s), i ~
i ~ Ie, 4>Sk+1(S) = n,.,l(s)dc(s)dpo(s), 4>Sk+2(S) = i4>Sk+I(S), and
f/JS(s, ft, b) = 4>so(s) + al4>sl(s) + ... + ak4>sk(s) + bl4>Sk+I(S) + b24>Sk+2(S)

(10.51)
Now employ the rectangular overbounding of Chapter 4 to overbound this
family (done for each real parameter ~, bj ), and generate the polynomial family:
.(iJS(s, ai, al," .ak, ak, b1, b1, b2, b2) = 4>so(s) + al4>sl(s) + al~Sl(S) ...
bl 4>sk+l(S) + b1, ~Sk+1(S) + b24>sk+2(S) + b2~Sk+2(S)
At each frequency the value set .(iJs(jw, no, nb)

is a rectangle. The four corners
of the rectangle come from the sum of corners from the rectangles ~s(jw, 0) no,
and bd'sl:+l(jw)+bl~SI:+l(jw)+b2;SI:+2(jW)+b2~SI:+2(jW).T he first has four

corners from a p088ible (A: + 1)21: vertices and the second from 8 (from previous
section). Therefore the value set -¢s(jw, 04 , 06 1 ) has four corners that come
from a set of 8( A: + 1)21: possible vertices. We have thus proved:
Theorem 10.10 (rob1Ut tUymptotic tracking) Let P(s, 8) be the strictly proper
family in (10.-18). A controller C(s) ezisu which guarantees rob1Ut tUymptotic
tracking (and rob1Ut stability) if this controller simultaneo1Uly stabilizes 8( A: +
1)21: polynomials.
An identical result can be stated for the feedback system in Figure 10.7 with
a family of plants with affine parameter uncertainty in the denominator of the
plant transfer function and robust noise attenuation as a performance requi-
rement. In the case of more complicated plant family uncertainty or multiob-
jective sensitivity and complementary sensitivity requirements similar results
can be stated. Consider the case when the plant family has affine uncertainty
in both numerator and denominator and robust tracking and robust noise at-
tenuation are the design requirements. Then 1/Is(s, 8, b) and 1h(s, 8, b) will
have multiaffine uncertainty in their coefficients. In order to use the rectangu-
lar overbounding techniques presented in this Chapter, the multiaffine terms
would need to be overbounded by affine terms. This would be done by first in-
troducing a polygonal overbound for the disc uncertainty (say a square). Then
the vertex plants of the corresponding polynomial family would need to be
identified and line segments introduced connecting them. These line segments
would form the edges of the convex hull of value sets in the complex plane. The
rectangular overbound procedure would then be applied to each of these edges
which would lead to a sufficient condition for robust performance. Clearly, all
this overbounding would lead to conservative designs.
In this Chapter we presented robust performance synthesis techniques for sy-

stems with parameter uncertainty based on the concept of simultaneous poly-
nomial stabilisation. We were able to state analytical synthesis results which
are intellectually appealing in that robust performance design requirements for
families of plants can be guaranteed from the stabilisation of a finite number of
polynomials. In specific cases it was demonstrated how such controllers can be
constructed via the Boo methodology. These designs can be further improved
by introducing one or two parameters in the controller and performing simple
(perhaps graphical) parameter searches.
11
FIT FOR ROBUST
MULTIVARIABLE DESIGN
11.1 SYSTEM REPRESENTATIONS

The first ten Chapters of this book dealt exclusively with single input single
output systems with parameter uncertainty. We presented methods for robust
analysis and synthesis using formulations that exploited properties of polyno-
mials. A major part of the book was influenced by a variant of the Nyquist
Theorem which holds for polynomials, that allowed us to determine V-stability
from a finite set of Nyquist plot data. This provided the basis of synthe-
sis procedures for V-stabifusation and robust performance. A second approach
employed a rectangular polynomial value set overbound which led to conditions
for polynomial family stabifusation in terms of the simultaneous stabifusation of
a finite number of polynomials. Since dynamic descriptions and properties of
multi input multi output systems are generalizations and extensions of those
for SISO systems and the Nyquist Theorem can still be applied, one would
expect that our methods can be extended to the multivariable case. In this
Chapter we will demonstrate how the Finite Inclusions Theorem can be used
in robust analysis and synthesis of multi input multi output systems with pa-
rameter uncertainty.
Over the last twenty years extensive work has been done on multivariable sy-
stems and fundamental results have been produced for both robust analysis and
synthesis [63, 38, 10, 54, 67, 42, 55]. For the very successful design methodolo-
gies such as H oo , LQG/LTR,~, widely available software exist in MATLAB. In
the context of this very well developed theory, the material presented here can
only be characterised as "foundational". More work needs to be done in order
to completely develop the methodology. However, we felt that is was important
226 CHAPTER 11
to introduce these new ideas in order to help motivate future research on the
subject. We target multivariable systems with parameter uncertainty and focus
on robust 1>-stabwation and specific problems in robust performance design.
Just as in the 5150 case, in many applications it is appropriate to represent

the dynamic behavior of a multivariable system in terms of the linear time
invariant ,tate ,pace representation:
x(t) = A x(t) + B u(t), y(t) = C x(t) + D (11.1)
where x is an n-dimensional vector, u is an i-vector and y is an m-vector. A is

a constant n x n matrix, B a constant n x l matrix, C a constant m x n matrix
and D is a constant m x l matrix. The vector x(t) is the .tate ofthe system,
u(t) is the input and y(t) is the output. An input-output representation can be
given by assuming lero initial conditions and taking Laplace transforms of the
state and output equat:~ns. This takes the form of the m x l tran,fer function
matriz P(6) = C(61 - A)-l B + D:
(11.2)
where P(6) has entries which are rational functions in 6. Using polynomial ma-
triz fraction repre,entation6 [15], one can express the transfer function matrix
in terms of a right matriz fraction repre6entation :
(11.3)
where NJW (6), DJW (8) are m x l,l x l polynomial matrices respectively, or a left
matriz fraction repre6entation :
(11.4)
where N,,(6), D,,(6) are m x l, m x m polynomial matrices respectively. These

descriptions are reminiscent of 5150 descriptions but since matrix products are
FIT for Robust Multivariable Design 227
involved one must distinguish between left and right multiplication. Polyno-
mial matrices whose determinant is a nonzero constant are called unimodular.
With elementary row operations [15] one can compute a greatest common right
divisor of N",.(6), D",.(")' By multiplying matrices N",.(,,), D",.(6) on the right
by the inverse of this greatest common right divisor one can obtain a right re-
presentation N",.(6), D",.(6) which is right coprime, (i.e. the greatest common
right divisor of N",.(6), D",.(,) is a unimodular matrix). One can also find a
unimodular matrix L(6) [15], such that D",.(6)L(,,) is column reduced (i.e. its
highest column coefficient matrix is invertible).
A similar procedure can be carried out with a left matrix representation N,,(,,),
Dpl(6) and elementary column operations to obtain a left representation N,,(,,),
D,'(6) which is left coprime (i.e. the greatest common left divisor of N,'(6),
Dpl(6) is a unimodular matrix). One can find a unimodular matrix M(6) [15],
such that M (6 )D" (,,) is row reduced (i.e. its highest row coefficient matrix is
invertible). The transfer function matrix is proper (,trictlll proper) if all its
entries are proper (strictly proper) rational functions. In particular, the transfer
function matrix of a system as in (11.1) is clearly proper and if D = 0, strictly
proper.
Let the normal rank of a matrix with entries that are rational functions in 6
be its rank over the field of rational functions. Let P(,,) = N",.(")D,,,.(,,)-1
= Dpl(6)-1 N,,(,,) be right coprime and left coprime representations of P(6)
respectively and r = min(m,l) be the normal rank of P(,,). The roots of
<let D",.(6) and <let D,,(,,) are identical [15] and are called the pole, of P(,,).
The zero, of P(s) are those complex" that make the rank of N",.(,,) less than
r. These are identical to complex numbers" that make the rank of N,,(,,) less
than r [15].
Example 11.1 Two link robotic manipulator with pri8matic joint.
Consider a two link planar robotic manipulator with prismatic joints operating
in the horizontal plane (no gravity). One can think oHhis as a model for an
X - Y Plotter. A top view is shown in Figure 11.1.
Link I, has mass m1 and length l1 and is constrained to move along the y-
axis. Let h 1 (t) be the position ofits "tip" relative to the "base". Assume that
some actuator applies some force h (t) on link 1 and that there is a friction force
acting on it which is equal to d1h. 1(t) where d1 is some constant coefficient. Link
2, has mass mz and length lz and moves along the z-axis. Let hz(t) be the
228 CHAPTER 11
f1 y
h h
1
1 2
x V
m
2 t
Figure 11.1 Two Link Planar Manipulator with Priamatic Jointl
position of its tip. Assume that some actuator applies some force h(t) on link
2 and that there is a friction force acting on it which is equal to d2 h.2 (t) where
d2 is some constant coefficient. Since the motion in the :I: and y directions
is "decoupled", one need not resort to the Lagrange formulation in order to
obtain the equations of motion. One can simply apply Newton's law of motion
in the :I: and y directions to obtain:
d2
+ m2) dt 2 hl(t) =
d2
m2 dt 2 h2 (t) =
If we let:l:l =
h l ,:l:2 = Zl,:l:3 = h21 :1:4 = Z31 these two equations can be
expressed in state space form as:
1 0 0 0
[~
II, 1
-(m,+m2) 0 0 (m,+m2)
=
1. ]
:ic(t) ] x(.) + [ u(t),
0 0 1 0
0 0 _h. 0
m2
y(t) [~ 0
0
o 0] x(t)
1 0
(11.5)
The system transfer function matrix has two inputs and two outputs and is
expected to be diagonal:
(11.6)
A consequence of the diagonality is the ease of generating right and left matrix
fraction representations. In particular, we can write:
P(6)
These are "coprime" representations for any positive parameter values. 0
The system in Example 11.1 is a very special multivariable system because

its transfer function is diagonal. It is used here because of its simplicity to
introduce system descriptions and polynomial matrix representations. This will
not be the case for a general multivariable system. In fact, control problems
of multivariable systems with diagonal transfer functions can usually be solved
using SISO methods.
11.2 FEEDBACK CONFIGURATIONS

Multivariable systems are interconnected in exactly the same manner as SISO
systems. Frequently these interconnections are the result of a desire to achieve
a certain level of performance from a given plant. Consider the example of
Section 11.1 where the dynamic model could be that of an X - Y Plotter.
A pen may be attached to the tip of the second link and the performance
specification may be to "draw" a specified :z: - y graph. In other words the
manipulator tip is to follow a specified line in the :z: - y plane. In order to
230 CHAPTER 11
accomplish this objective, an input u(t) to P must be provided. This is a

standard traclring problem, which is frequently solved by introducing feedbac1c.
The actual tip position 1'(t) is compared with the reference trajectory r(t),
creating the errore(t) = r(t) - 1'(t). This error is then used to drive another
dynamic system, the controller 0, whose output becomes the plant input. Such
a unity feedback configuration is shown in Figure 11.2.
-
r +
-
+
e
0
u
P
l'
Figure 11.2 Unity Feedback Conficuration
This is one specific system interconnection and one can expect that these can
be investigated using a similar approach [15] to that introduced in Chapter 2
for SISO systems. We again insist that systems be well formed .
Definition 11.1 A dynamic ,yltem with tranlfer function matriz P(,) iI cal-
led well formed if each entry of P(,) iI a proper rational function.
Consider now a general feedback configuration , which is the interconnection

of m well formed dynamic systems Gi(')' 1 ~ i ~ k. Assume that the
input Ui(') to each Gi(') is the sum of somt exogenous signal ri(')' as well as
a linear combination of outputs 1'j(') from the systems Gj('), 1 ~ j ~ k.
For illustrative purposes consider the interconnection of three blocks as shown
in Figure 11.3:
1'2
1'3
Figure 11.1 General Feedback Conficuration

The only difference between this interconnection and a similar one presented in
Chapter 2 is that system blocks are represented by matrices rather than scalars
and the signal paths are vectors rather than scalars. For this interconnection
we have that:
(11.8)
r = [r1' r2, r3]', U= [U1,U2,U3]', and Y =[Y1' Y2, Y3]', where'" tI denotes
matrix transpose. Let the constant interconnection matrix E be:
where I stands for an appropriately dimensioned identity matrix. Define also

the diagonal matrix G as:
The interconnection can be expressed in matrix form as:
U =r + Ey (11.9)
One has to insure that the overall system is well formed. There are two transfer
function matrices associated with this interconnection. The one from exogenous
signals r to u, denoted as H. r , and the one from r to y denoted as H,r'
H,r = G(I - EG(1 (11.10)
Definition 11.2 The interconnected ,yltem in Figure 11.3 iI called well for-
med if the tmnlfer function matrice, H. r and H,r are proper.
232 CHAPTER 11
11.3 STABILITY
The notion of stability defined in Chapter 2 for SISO systems can be generalised
to the multivanable case. Recall that we presented two definitions, one for
systems described by input output relations and one for systems in state space
form. A multivanable system which is initially at rest is called BIBO ,table
if for every input which is a bounded function of time, the system output is
also a bounded function of time. Since inputs and outputs are vectors, a signal
is bounded if its norm is a bounded function of time. The Euclidean norm,
vi
IIxli = zt + z~ +... + z~, is a good example. In the SISO case conditions
for BIBO stability were given in terms of the pole locations of transfer functions.
The generalisation of Theorem 2.1 for multivanable systems becomes [18]:
Theorem 11.1 Let P(,) = NJW(,)DJW(,)-l be proper, where NJW (,), DJW(')
are right coprime. The ,y,tem P iI BIBO Itable if and only if the root. of
det DJW(') lie ,trictly in the left half complez plane.
One could have used a left coprime matrix fraction representation and related
BIBO stability to det D,,(,), which is a polynomial with identical roots.
The concept of Lyapunov stability remains exactly the same as it was stated
for systems in state space form with no input. The aero equilibrium state of
x(t) = A x(t), is asymptotically stable if the eigenvalues of A lie strictly in the
left half complex plane. The relationship between BIBO stability and Lyapunov
stability is immediate, (for the definition of minimal realisation see [18]).
Theorem 11.2 Let P(,) = NJW(,)DJW(,)-l be a right coprime repre,entation

of ,ome proper P(,) and x(t) = A x(t)+B u(t), y(t) = C x(t) + D a minimal
realization. The ,yltem P(,) iI BIBO ,table if and only if the zero equilibrium
point of x(t) = A x(t) iI alymptotically,table.
If the region of stability is not the left half complex plane but some other region
'D, one deals with 'D-stability in exactly the same manner as for SISO systems.
For interconnections of multivariable systems one can again extend the no-
tions of BIBO stability and Lyapunov stability. An interconnected system
which is initially at rest is BIBO stable if for any bounded exogenous input
ri(t), all system inputs Uj(t) and outputs Yj(t) are bounded. Assume that
the interconnection consisted of Ie subsystems, each given by a proper transfer

function matrix Gi(-) expressed in a coprime polynomial matrix fraction re-
presentation. If the i th subsystem is given by the right coprime representation
Gi(-) = Nir(_)Di(_)-l, we assume Di(-) is column reduced and define a
matrix Nil(-) = I. If the i'h subsystem is given by the left coprime repre-
sentation Gi(-) = Di(_)-lNil(_), we assume Di(-) is row reduced and define
a matrix Nir(-) = I. The polynomial matrix Di(-), which may come from
either a left or a right representation is referred to as the denominator matriz
for the i th subsystem. Let D(6) be the lc x lc block diagonal matrix containing
the denominator polynomial matrices from all the subsystems:
o
o
o o
Let N r (_) be the the block diagonal matrix containing all the Nir(6) matrices:
o
o
o o
Let NI(6) be the block diagonal matrix containing all the Nil(6) matrices:
o
o
o o
Define the matrix D g (6) as:

234 CHAPTER 11
D,(6) = D(6) - Nr(6)ENr (6) (11.11)
where E is the interconnection matrix. The closed loop characteristic poly-

nomial of such a well formed interconnected system is det D,(6). The inter-
connected system is BIBO stable if the roots of det D,(6) are strictly in the
left half complex plane. It will be 1>-stable if the roots of det D,(6) are inside
the region 1>.
Such a well formed interconnected system is Lyapunov stable if the aggregate

state equation formed from the minimal state descriptions of each of the indi-
vidual system blocks, has an "A" matrix with eigenvalues strictly in the left
complex plane. One can show that the eigenvalues of this "A" matrix are the
roots of det D,(6) [15, 18].
Example 11.2 The Standard Unity Feedback Interconnection
Consider the feedback interconnection of Figure 11.2. Let the plant be de-
scribed by a the proper transfer function matrix P(s) with left coprime repre-
sentation D,r(6)-1 N,r(6) where D,,(6) is row reduced. Let the controller be
described by the proper transfer function matrix C( 6) with the right coprime re-
presentation C(6) = Ncr (6)Dcr (6)-1 where Dcr (6) is column reduced. Think
of C(6) as subsystem 1 and of P(6) as subsystem 2. We then have:
The interconnection matrix E and D,(6) are given by:
E= [10-1]
0 '
Multiplying D g (6) on the right by the unimodular matrix:

generates the matrix:
with the same determinant as Dg (6). It is then clear that det Dg (6) dif-
fers from det (Dp /(6)Da (6) + Np /(6)Na (6)) by a nonzero constant. There-
fore, in examining the stability or V-stability of the standard feedback in-
terconnection, one can work with det ~( ..) where ~(6) = (Dp /(6)D a (6) +
Npl(6)Na (6)). If the plant is given by a right matrix fraction representa-
tion Npr(6)DJI"(6)-t and the controller by a left matrix fraction representation
Dc:l(6)-t Nc:l(6) then one can show that the closed loop poles are the roots of
det(D c/(6)DJI"(6) + Nc/(6)NJI" (6)).
11.4 PERFORMANCE
Just as in the SISO case, stability or more generally V-stability is only the first
desired performance specification for a multivanable feedback system. Addi-
tional performance requirements are also imposed that address other aspects of
dynamic behavior. Some of these requirements involve time domain specificati-
ons while others are posed as frequency domain constraints. As we saw in single
input single output systems, some time domain specifications can be approxi-
mately expressed as frequency domain objectives. Many, such as asymptotic
tracking and noise attenuation are generalizations of SISO concepts. Others,
such as decoupling, are inherent to the multivanable character of the feedback
system. Let us first discuss asymptotic tracking and noise attenuation and see
what kind of conditions will guarantee this behavior for multivariable systems.
Consider the feedback system of Figure 11.4 where the plant is described by a
strictly proper transfer function matrix P(,,) and C(6) is a proper controller.
236 CHAPTER 11
--
r +
+
e
C(,) P(,)
y
+ '7
++
Filure 11.4 Feedback System with Tracking and Noise Requirements
The transfer function from the reference input vector r to the error vector e is
given by the sensitivity transfer function 5 = (1 + pC)-l. If the system
is stable, '7 = 0 and the reference input is a vector of sinusoids of some
frequency w, in steady state all loop signals including e will tend to sinusoidal
signals. In particular, if r(t) = M IIII , where R is some complex vector,
then e(t) asymptotically will tend to S(jw)r(t) [15]. Therefore, if we desire
good tracking the "operator" S(jw), the sensitivity, must be "small" in the
frequency range of interest. Since 5 is a matrix, one can interpret "smallness"
in a variety of ways. A very appropriate interpretation is to make the ,pectral
norm u(S) of 5 small. The spectral norm u(A) of some complex matrix A is
defined to be the square root ofthe largest eigenvalue of A* A, where A* stands
for complex conjugate transpose. This has been a particularly useful measure
of "sise". Specifically, let Wll (,), W12 (,) be a strictly proper rational matrices
with stable and minimum phase entries which reflect desired requirements, then
asymptotic tracking will be guaranteed if:
U(Wll (jW)S(jW)W12 (jw» < 1 V w E [0,00)
The transfer function from the noise vector '7(t) to the output vector y(t) is
-T(,) = -PC(l + pC)-l. If the system is stable, for the same reasons as
above, the effect ofnoise on the output y(t) will be small if the operator T(jw),
the complementary sensitivity, is "small" over the frequencies of interest. Let
W21(')' Wz z(') be proper rational matrices with stable and minimum phase
entries chosen to shape T(,) appropriately. Then noise attenuation will be
achieved if:
u(W21 (jw)T(jw)Wzz (jw» < 1 V w E [0,00)

In the multivariable case one can choose to define the "sise" of an operator
in several ways. Suppose we are interested in asymptotic tracking where our
goal is to make the error small. An alternative way of achieving this goal is to
insist that every entry 6i;(jW) of S(jw) is "small" over the appropriate range of
frequencies. In particular we may express the asymptotic tracking requirement
as:
(11.12)
where Wli;(6) is the (i,j)th element of some matrix W 1(6) which is strictly
proper and has stable and minimum phase entries. Similarly, in the case of
noise attenuation where our objective is to keep T(jw) small, we can insist that
every entry t.;(jw) is small in the desired frequency range and require that:
IW2i;(jW)t.;(jw))1 < 1 V w E [0, (0) and all i, j (11.13)
where W2i;(6) is the (i,j)th element of some matrix W 2(6) which is proper and
has stable and minimum phase entries. The idea of placing bounds on individual
entries of the sensitivity and complementary sensitivity transfer functions has
been used in the past [44, 66].
11.5 PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY

Uncertainty in multivariable system models can be introduced in a variety of
ways just as it was done in the SISO case. Models for norm bounded unstructu-
red uncertainty may take the form of additive P(6) = P(6) + Wl(6)~W2(6),
divisive P(6) = P(6)(I + Wl(6)~W2(6))-1 or multiplicative P(6) =
P(6)(I + W1(6)AW(6)) perturbations. In each case W1(6), W2(6) are pro-
per matrices with poles and zeros strictly in the left half complex plane. The
matrix ~ is proper, stable with q(~(jw)) ~ 1 for all wE [0, (0). Other forms
of norm bounded uncertainty have also been used. In [42] perturbations are
defined in the context of matrix fraction representations of systems. Parame-
ter uncertainty in a system model frequently appears due to partially known
system data. In the two link robotic manipulator example it may be that the
values of the friction coefficients are not exactly known, but do lie in known in-
tervals. If the manipulator is to be used in a pick and place operation the mass
238 CHAPTER 11
of the objects being picked up may lie in a range. This implies that the tran..
fer function matrices of plants will involve parameters. In this Chapter we will
assume that the plant family has parameter uncertainty that can be expressed
in a polynomial matrix fraction representation. Specifically, the plant transfer
function matrix is strictly proper and can be described by the polynomial left
matrix fraction representation:
P(6,a) (11.14)
where the polynomial entries of Np l(6 1 a), Dp l(6, a) have coefficients that are po-
lynomic in a and where a E 0 4 , some hypercube. Such parametric uncertainty
could also have been defined for plants with polynomial right matrix fraction
representations P(6 1 a) = Npr(6 1 a)Dpr(6 1 a)-I. One can easily envision how
such representations can be obtained. For some systems it may be that dy-
namic descriptions are already given in this form. This is the case with the
two link robotic manipulator example presented earlier. Another example is a
system in state space form where C = I and the" A" and" B" matrices have
entries that are polynomic in a. If the given plant matrix has rational function
entries which are polynomials in " with coefficients that are polynomic in a,
one can form the left or right polynomial matrix representation by carrying out
operations over the field of rational functions in a. This will result in a polyno-
mial matrix fraction representation where the coefficients are rational function6
in a. Using Taylor Series expansions on each of these terms will provide (at
any degree of accuracy) expressions that are polynomic in a.
11.6 A ROBUST POLE ASSIGNMENT

SCHEME
The robust 'V-stabilization problem for multivariable systems is much more
challenging than its SISO counterpart. On the one hand, it presents the dis-
advantage of having to work with det( ~), which is a nonlinear function of its
arguments. This implies that even if controller parameters appear in an affine
manner in ~l after forming the determinant this is in general no longer true.
On the other hand, the multivanable structure allows for more "degrees of fre-
edom" in the controller. The controller is now a matrix of rational functions
and not a single rational function. Let us consider these issues in the context
of our polynomial value set approach. The key element of our polynomial ap-
proach to robust control design is the manipulation or shaping of polynomial
value sets. Specifically, in FIT synthesis for robust stabilization, we try to "fit"
or "squeeze" the value set in specified sectors at particular frequencies. In the
simultaneous polynomial stabilization approach to robust stabilization we do
more or less the same thing but are limited to sector mes that are 90 0 wide.
(see Lemma 6.1). We again manipulate polynomial value sets. This process
would have been greatly facilitated, if there were "enough" degrees of freedom
in the controller. One possibility could have been the existence of a controller
with enough degrees of freedom so that we could have been able to arbitrarily
pole assign the nominal system and at the same time eliminate the presence
of the uncertainty from the characteristic polynomial. This would have forced
the polynomial value set to be a single point at each frequency and this "ro-
bust pole assignment" method would have been a very effective technique for
robust V-stabilization. As nice as this sounds, in the SISO case there cannot
be enough degrees of freedom for such an approach. We explain why this is
true 1 • Let P(6, al) be some arbitrary strictly proper plant family with transfer
function:
fapO(6) + alfapl(6)
dpo(6) + aldpl(6)
where a E 0/1 and dpo(6) is monic with 8(dpo) = n. Suppose that we use a
proper order q controller C(6) = ::f:~ with monic dc (6), in a standard unity
feedback configuration. The closed loop characteristic polynomial is
= ,dc (6)dpO(6) + nc (6)npo(6), + a1 ,(d c (6)dpl(6) + n c (6)7lpl(6)),

~ v
~o(,) ~1(')
Suppose that our design objective is twofold:
1. Place at arbitrarily locations the roots of the n+ q degree polynomial

tPO(6) = dc (6)dpO(6) + n c (6)npo(6),
1 PortioIUI reprinted, with permission, f'rom Int. J. Control, Vol. 46, No.4, 1987, pp.
1461-1475, © Taylor" Francis
240 CHAPTER 11
2. Eliminate the parameter uncertainty from 4>(s, ad, i.e. make 4>l(S)
de(S)dpl(S) + ne(s)npl(S) = o.
The second condition will make the value set 4>(s, ( 4 ) be a single point at each
frequency regardleu of the size of 0 4 • One can show [32] that this is impossible
to accomplish. A fact which can be easily proved: If npl(S) = 0 then we
must have de(s) = o. If dpl(S) = 0 then we must have ne(s) = O. In
either case we cannot achieve our design objective. Suppose then that de and
n e are nonzero. If 8(dpd > 8(npd then we must have an improper controller
in order to satisfy the second condition. Suppose then that 8(dpd ~ 8(npd.
Then de ()S -- - fi.(')"p'(')
d,,(,)
-
- -
".(,)n,,(,)
d,,(')
h
were - ()
npl S, d-pi () •
S are copnme.
Since dpl(S) divides the product iipl(S)dpl(S) it must divide ne(s), ie ne(s) =
dpl(S)Y(S). So de(s) = Y(S)iipl(S). But this implies that:
which cannot be an arbitrary polynomial of degree n + q. There are simply

not enough degrees of freedom in the controller to be able to carry out this
procedure.
It would be very interesting to see if in the multivariable case the additional

degrees of freedom in the controller would allow one to carry out this "robust
pole assignment" scheme. Consider the RLC circuit of Figure 11.5:
v =y +
R 1
Figure 11.5 RLC Circuit

where we auume that the value of the resistance R is only known to lie in some
range. With the capacitor voltage Vc and indudor current iL as state variables
the dynamic equations for this system in state space form are:
[ ~~ ] = [-~R ~2] [~~] + [ ~ ] u, [:~] = [~ ~] [~~]

In the frequency domain one can write the right matrix fraction representation:
Suppose that we use a first order controller in a standard unity feedback con-
figuration described by the left matrix fraction representation:
The closed loop characteristic polynomial will be:
In order to guarantee arbitrary pole assignment of the nominal system (i.e.

R = 0) and eliminate the presence of the uncertainty from the closed loop
characteristic polynomial we need to have the "Augmented Resultant Matrix"
[32]:
1 0 2 0 2 0
o 0 0 0 2 0
002 020
o 1 0 202
000 002
000 202
242 CHAPTER 11
be full column rank. It is clear that this condition is satisfied and that the
"robust pole assignment" scheme presented above can be carried out. In par-
ticular, the controller
9
C(I) -I -
2
3]
will make the closed loop characteristic polynomial equal to ,,3 + 6,,2 + 116 + 6.
Notice that the parameter R has been eliminated. This implies that for this
multivanable system controllers can be constructed that robustly 1>-stabilise
for any range of parameter values.
It seems rather remarkable that in this example one is able to guarantee robust
1>-stabiliJation with an "infinite" stability margin. It would be great if this
could be accomplished for an arbitrary multivanable system. This however, is
not true because in addition to "enough" degrees of freedom in the controller
the system itself must have an appropriate parameter uncertainty structure.
What can be shown [32], is that robust pole assignment is a "generic" property.
Even though it is good to have "generic" results, they are more of theoretical
significance. In applications one can easily encounter systems that do not have
the required parameter uncertainty structure. Therefore, one should develop in
addition "general purpose" robust 1>-stabilisation methods that can be applied
to any multivariable system.
11.7 FIT BASED ROBUST

V-STABILIZATION
Consider the m x l plant family P(", a) described by a left matrix fraction
representation with parameter uncertainty a, with a E no:
where
diag(6",,-1)N,hc(a) + Nplot(6,a)
diag(""")D,hc + D,'ot(6,a)
(11.15)
The plant family denominator matrix D,,(6, a) is an m x m polynomial ma-

trix in 6, with row degrees JJi and where J.41 ~ J.42 ~ ••• ~ Jlom are positive
integers, L:::l JJi = n. The highest row coefficient matrix D,hc is a constant in-
vertible matrix which does not involve the parameters. The polynomial matrix
Dplot(6, a) contains the lower order terms in 6 and its entries have coefficients
that are polynomic in a. The plant family numerator matrix N,,(s, a) is an
m x l. polynomial matrix in 6, with row degrees JJi - 1, 1 ~ i ~ m. The
highest column coefficient matrix N,hc(a) may include parameter uncertainty
and the polynomial matrix N,'ot(6, a) contains lower order terms in s, which
have coefficients that are polynomic in a. By construction the plant family is
strictly proper. We assume the plant family is in the standard unity feedb-
ack configuration of Figure 11.2 with a controller in the right matrix fraction
representation:
where
X2,+1'" + X 2,,,,-1 + ... X,+1

= Ii' + X,i'-l + ... Xl
(11.16)
The matrix Dcr (8) is m x m and N cr (8) is l x m. The controller is proper,

order q = mp and the column degrees of Dcr(I) and Ncr(s) are all taken to
be equal to p for notational convenience. The (pm + (p + 1)l) x m matrix
244 CHAPTER 11
contains the d = m(pm + (p + 1)l) controller parameters. Let Xi, 1 ~ i ~ m

be the it" column of X. The closed loop characteristic polynomial has degree
n = n + q and is given by:
(11.17)
For this plant family the polynomial <p('" a) has coefficients that in general are
polynomic in a and multiaffine in X. Therefore, the problem of 'V-stabilization
of multivariable systems with parameter uncertainty is expressed in terms of
the 'V-stabilization of a single polynomial family. It is evident that this pro-
blem can be attacked using the Finite Inclusions Theorem in a manner similar
to that presented in Chapter 7. We will first assume that by introducing addi-
tional uncertain parameters (and consequently overbounding), the polynomial
coefficients are made multiaffine in a. This allows one to work with value set
vertices as a consequence of the Mapping Theorem and leads to computatio-
nally efficient synthesis algorithms.
The basic idea behind the algorithm remains the same: Pick an initial control-
ler, and an appropriate set of points and sectors that satisfy the conditions of
the Finite Inclusions Theorem (see Chapter 6). Expand the uncertainty range
and solve for a new controller that fits the new value sets in the sectors. Center
the value sets (i.e. pick new frequencies) and repeat the process. The only
"structural" difference with the SISO case is the fact that the coefficients of
a general <p('" a) depend on controller coefficients in a multiaffine manner rat-
her than in an affine manner. Consequently, the inequalities that need to be
!IOlved in a FIT based procedure are multia.ffine in the controller parameters.
Existing FIT based 'V-stabilization algorithms must therefore be modified to
address this issue. However, it is important to point out that if all but one
(say the it"), of the columns of X take specific values then the coefficients of
<p('" a) become affine in the remaining controller parameters Xi and so do the
corresponding inequalities. A natural suggestion for solving the required ine-

qualities would then be to go through an additional iteration where all but one
of the columns of X are kept fixed. A FIT based algorithm for multivariable
robust V-stabilisation can be structured as follows:
FIT m Synthesis Algorithm
STEP 1: Let X(l) E R d and O~l) C 0 .. be such that 4>(8, O~l), X(l))
is V-stable and set j:=1.
STEP 2: Determine m(j) ~ 1 sectors sin, 1 ~ Ie ~ m(j), and points 8~)
along the boundary of V such that 4>(B~),EztO~j>,X(j)) c sin
By FIT, 4>( 8, O~), X(j») is V-stable. Each 8~) should
roughly center (angularly) the set 4>( 8~), E:z:tO~), X(j») in sin.
STEP 3: Choose a slightly larger set O~+l) :::) o~).
STEP 4: Compute a new vector of controller parameters X(i+ 1) such
that 4>(B~), E:z:t O~+l), X(i+ 1») c sin for all Ie. This is
equivalent to solving a system of multiaffine inequalities in
X(j+l). Fix all columns of X(i+ 1) but one at current values.
Solve the corresponding set of linear inequalities. Iterate over
the choice of column. If no solutions are found to this system
of inequalities, return to Step 3 and choose a smaller O~+l).
STEP 5: Let j := j + 1, and if O~) :::) 0 .. , stop; otherwise, go to Step 2.
If this algorithm terminates than a multivariable controller would have been

constructed that guarantees V-stabilisation. No simplifying assumptions about
the structure of the controller have been made (like diagonality), that would
restrict its applicability. However, this is an iterative algorithm which may not
be able to find a robustly V-stabilizing controller if one exists. Furthermore,
the results will depend on the initial controller, and it is therefore prudent to
use available information and insight to guide the choice. We have seen how
this can be successfully done in the SISO case and this will continue to be true
for multivariable systems. One can certainly employ the Hoo methodology,
LQG/LTR, Pole Placement or any other multivariable design technique. Even
though this has not been done yet, software that implement this multivariable
version of the FIT algorithm can be written with little difficulty.
246 CHAPTER 11
11.8 FIT BASED SYNTHESIS FOR

ROBUST PERFORMANCE
Robust performance synthesis for multivanable systems has been at center
stage over the last two decades. Very successful techniques for robust multiva-
liable design such as H CXl , LQG/LTR and p synthesis have been established for
which MATLAB software is currently readily available. In addition to these
methodologies, others [54] have also been proposed (like QFT) which are gene-
ralisations of SISO design techniques to multivariable systems. In this section
we demonstrate that for systems with parameter uncertainty FIT synthesis
does provide a viable alternative method for robust multivanable system de-
sign. Multivariable FIT synthesis is only at the very early stages of development
and material presented here is mostly intended to motivate future work. Even
though the work is not complete it is important to include this material and
show that it is a very natural extension of the design techniques for SISO sy-
stems. We will concentrate on the robust design for asymptotic tracking and
noise attenuation, but it will be clear that the methods can be used so solve a
wider class of controller synthesis problems.
Consider a multivariable plant family P('" a) with parameter uncertainty a E

011 which is described in the left matrix fraction representation:
(11.18)
with Npl('" a) and Dpl('" a) as in (11.15). The plant family is in the unity
feedback configuration of Figure 11.4. The controller is described in the right
matrix fraction representation:
with Nct'(") and Dct'(") as in (11.16). The performance specification in addition

to robust stability is robust asymptotic tracking and noise attenuation. The
sensitivity transfer function matrix 5(", a) = ("i;(", a» is given by:
5(", a) = (1 + P(",a)C("n- 1
= Dcr (6)(D,z (6, a)Dcr (6) + N,z(6, a) Ncr (6))-1 Dp l(6, a)

= Dcr(6)~(6,a)-lD,z(6,a)
where ~(6, a) = det~(6, a) is the dosed loop characteristic polynomial. This

polynomial family must have roots in the left half complex plane to guarantee
robust stability. Each entry 6ij (6, a) of 5(6, a) can be thought of as a rational
function with denominator ~(6, a). The robust asymptotic tracking require-
ment is expressed as:
IWlij(jW)6ij(jw,a))l < 1 'r/ W E [0,00), a E 0/1 andalli, i (11.19)
where Wlij(6) is the (i,i)th element of some matrix W1(6) which is strictly
proper and has stable and minimum phase entries. Since the plant transfer
function matrix is m x L there will be m 2 such conditions.
The complementary sensitivity transfer function matrix T(6, a)

is given by:
T(6,a) =I - 5(6,a)
Its diagonal entries are ~i(6, a) = 1 - 6ii(6, a) and the off diagonal entries are
~j(6, a) = -6ij(6, a). They too can be thought of as rational functions with
denominator ~(6, a). The robust noise attenuation requirement is expressed as:
IW2ij(jW)tij(jw, ani < 1 'r/ W E [0,00), a E 0/1 and all i, i (11.20)
where W2ij(6) is the (i, j)th element of some matrix W 2(6) which is proper
and has stable and minimum phase entries. There will be m 2 such conditions.
One can immediately see that the weights W 1(6) and W 2(6) cannot be chosen
independently because the diagonal entries 6ii(jW, a) and 1 - 6ii (jw , a) are
very related. In particular, both cannot be made "small" at the same frequency.
Fortunately, in many cases tracking and noise attenuation requirements are
placed at sufficiently disjoint frequency ranges.
248 CHAPTER 11
Lemma 11.1 The entriu of 5(", a) and T(", a) are rational junctiof1.8 in "
who"e numerator and denominator polllnomiaU are multiaffine ezpre",iof1.8 of
the controller parameter".
Proof: We know that 5(8, a) = Dcr (8)9(8, a)-1 Dp l(8, a). Write 9(8, a)-1 =
··k~~~»)) where adj(·) denotes adjoint of a matrix. This implies that:
5(8,a)
T(8, a)
The elements of the itll. column of 9(8, a) are affine expressions of the controller
parameters from the itll. column of X. As a result 4>(8, a) = det9(8, a) is a
polynomial in 8 with coefficients that are multiaffine expressions in controller
parameters. This also implies that the elements ofthe itll. row of adj( 9( 8, a))
do not contain controller parameters from the it'" column of X. These elements
are multiaffine expressions of controller parameters from columns of X other
than the itll.. Furthermore, when the product D cr (8)adj(9(8, a)) is formed, the
elements of this matrix are multiaffine expressions of the controller parameters.
Multiplying this product on the right by the matrix Dpl (8, a) does not change
the structure. As a result the elements n,ij(8, a) are polynomials in 8 with
coefficients that are multiaffine in controller parameters. Since T(8, a) = I -
5(8, a), the same holds for the numerator polynomials ntij(8, a). 0
Consider now any one of the m 2 conditions for robust tracking. If Wlij(8)
"vii·' it can be equivalently stated as:
d... H; ,
n.1ij(8)n,ij(jw, a) I< 1 V [ ) n.
I dwlij(8)4>(8, a)
w E 0,00, a E (11.21)
This is equivalent to:
0('
\':7 JW
) n.lij (jw)n'ij (jw, a) 1< 1 \J
v W E [0 ,00,
) a En • (11.22)
1 dwlij(jW)4>(jw, a)
where 9(,,) is any stable proper transfer function with 19(jw)1 ~ 1 for all
w E [0,00). In other words, for no plant in the family and no frequency can we
have:
reia n.1i;(jw)n'i;(jw,a) =-1

(11.23)
d.1i;(jw );(jw, a)
° °
where ~ r ~ 1 and ~ a < 211". This is equivalent to saying (since d..,1i;(")
and ;('" a) are stable) that the polynomial:
(11.24)
should not be lero for any °

~ r ~ 1, a E [0,211"), a E 0 4 , W E [0,00). Clearly
if the polynomial:
is stable for all a E [0,211"), r E [0,1] and a E 00' then the robust performance
requirement corresponding to the (i, j)th. sensitivity transfer function element
will have been met.
One can express the performance requirements for all the other sensitivity trans-
fer function elements in a similar manner. The robust tracking requirement can
therefore be expressed as a simultaneous polynomial family stabilisation requi-
rement. In exactly the same manner one can express the robust noise attenua-
tion requirement as a simultaneous polynomial family stabilization problem
where polynomial families are of the form:
Just as in Chapters 8 and 9, we need to overbound the disc uncertainty rei a as-
sociated with performance by some polygonal overbound and in the following
algorithm we choose the square overbound Ob,. Now, each such polynomial
family will in general have coefficients that are polynomic in the plant uncer-
tain parameters a and multiaffine in the controller parameters X. In order to
250 CHAPTER 11
employ the FIT based algorithms for simultaneous stabilisation developed in

the earlier Chapters, we must do two things: Firstly, by introducing additio-
nal uncertain parameters we make the plant uncertain parameter dependence
multiaffine whenever it is required. This of course will be a source of conser-
vatism in the design. Secondly, we modify the existing FIT algorithms, just as
we did for multivariable robust stabilisation, to deal with the multiaffine con-
troller parameter dependence. One easy solution is to introduce an iteration
when solving the multiaffine inequalities, where controller parameters are kept
fixed for all but one column of X. In particular, the multivariable version of
the PSSFIT algorithm presented in Chapter 9 becomes (to simplify notation
polynomial families VJ.ij(6, a, r, ex),VJCij(6, a, r, ex) are relabelled 4>i(6, a)):
PSSFITm Synthesis Algorithm
STEP 1: Let XCl) E R d and n~~) c nab be such that 4>i(6, n~~), XCl»)
are stable and set j:=1.
STEP 2: Determine m(j) ,-
> 1 sectors S~i)
,A:'
< lc -
1 - < m(j)
,,--
1 <i <l
and frequencies w~~) along the jw axis such that
Cj ) Eztn(j) X(j») c SCi) By FIT ,J,·(6 n(j) XCi») are
,J,·(]·wiA:'
.", tb , iA: • ,.", , lib'
stable. Each Wi~) should roughly center (angularly) the set
Cj
.", d.' Eztn ab') xCj») in ~j)
,J,·(l·W~j) ,A:'
STEP 3: Choose a slightly larger set n~+1) J n~). First this should
affect the b parameters. When (if) n~i) J nb" the
STEP 4: Compute a new vector of controller parameters X(j+1) such
that 4>i(jW~~), Ezt n~+l), XCj+1») c S~~) for alllc and i.
This is equivalent to solving a system of multiaffine inequalities
in XCH1). Fix all columns of X(j+1) but one at current values.
Solve the corresponding set of linear inequalities. Iterate over
the choice of column. If no solutions are found to this system
of inequalities, return to Step 3 and choose a smaller n~+l).
STEP 5: Let j := j + I, and if n~~ J nllb, stop; otherwise, go to Step 2.
It should be clear that this algorithm can be employed for both single objec-
tive and multiobjective robust performance synthesis. This formulation and
algorithms can also be used to solve a number of other robust multivariable
synthesis problems. One such is the problem of RobU6t Decoupling discussed in
the next Section.
FIT for Robust Mtdtivariable Design 251
11.9 ROBUST DECOUPLING

In some applications performance specifications may require that a square clo-
sed loop transfer function be made "diagonal" . In other words the closed loop
system be decoupled. Even though perfect decoupling may not be possible,
especially if there is plant uncertainty involved, it may be possible to make
the closed loop system "diagonally dominant" [54]. Specifically, make the off
diagonal entries of the closed loop transfer function "small" compared to the
diagonal entries. This implies that the it" input "only" affects the it" output.
In this situation the overall system behaves as a collection of SISO systems,
which may be very desirable. In the extensive literature on the subject, one
can find necessary and sufficient conditions for decoupling of systems with no
uncertainty. The problem becomes much more challenging if parameter un-
certainty is present in the plant dynamics. As a matter of fact, the method
of decoupling has been criticised for its lack of robustness properties. One can
give some "generic" sufficient conditions for robust decoupling for systems with
parameter uncertainty [33] which are of more theoretical interest.
The problem ofrobust decoupling for systems with parameter uncertainty in the
sense of making the closed loop system diagonally dominant can be attacked
using FIT based methods. We can pose the following decoupling problem:
Let the given plant family be P(8,a) = P(8,a) = Dp l(8,a)-1Np l(8,a)
with Np l(8, a), Dp l(8, a) as in (11.15) where a E 0 4 It is in the standard unity
feedback configuration of Figure 11.2. The closed loop transfer function is
T(8, a) = P(8, a)C(8)(1 + P(8, a)C(8»-1. Let W 2(8) be a proper transfer
function matrix with stable, minimum phase entries. It is chosen to achieve
diagonal dominance over the appropriate frequency range (i.e. its off diagonal
entries are "larger" than the diagonal entries). Find (if possible) a controller
C(8) such that robust stability is guaranteed and:
IW2ij(jW)tij(jw,a»1 < 1 V w E [0,00) aE04 andalli, j (11.27)
This formulation leads to the solution of a simultaneous polynomial family

stabilization problem which can be attempted via the SSFIT synthesis metho-
dology.
We have just presented a formulation that will allow FIT synthesis to be used for
the solution a number of robust performance design problems for multivariable
systems with parameter uncertainty. This was done without compromising the
multivariable structure of the plant family nor the structure of the controller.
252 CHAPTER 11
In this respect one can characterize these as "bonafide" multivariable robust

analysis and synthesis methods. The resulting FIT synthesis algorithms are
multivariable versions of algorithms suggested for SISO systems which include
an additional iteration to accommodate the multivariable nature of the con-
troller. In view of the substantial work in robust multivariable synthesis done
over the last twenty years and the "infancy" of the proposed approach it is too
early to gage its impact. The first priority is to write computationally efficient
software that implement the synthesis algorithms and apply the methodology
to multivariable systems. It is only after extensive testing that one would be
able to evaluate their efficacy. In view of the success of the SISO methods we
are optimistic that these will prove to be powerful robust synthesis methods
for large classes of multivariable systems.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Ackermann, Robwt Control; Sy6tem6 with Uncertain PhY6icai Parame-

ter6, Springer-Verlag, London, 1993.
[2] S. Agmon, "The Relaxation Method for Linear Inequalities," Canadian

Journal of Mathematic6, vol. 6, 1954, pp. 382-392.
[3] B. D. O. Anderson, R. W. Scott, "Output Feedback Stabilization-Solution

by Algebraic Geometry Methods," Proceeding6 of the IEEE Vol. 65, No.
6, 1977, pp. 849-861.
[4] B. D. O. Anderson, N. K. Bose, E. I. Jury, "Output Feedback Stabilization
and Related Problems-Solution via Decision Methods," IEEE TraM. on
AC Vol. 20, No. I, 1975, pp. 53-66.
[5] B. D. O. Anderson, F. J. Kraus, M. Mansour, S. Dasgupta, "Sufficient
Conditions for the Robust Stability of Systems with Multiaf6ne Parameter
Dependence," Proceeding62'''' IFAC Woruhop on SY6tem Structure and
Contro~ Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1992.
[6] B. R. Barmish, New Too16 for Robwtne66 of Linear Sy6tem6, McMillan,

New York, 1993.
[7] B. R. Barmish, C. V. Hollot, F. J. Kraus, R. Tempo, "Extreme Point
Results for Robust Stabilization of Interval Plants with First Order Com-
pensators," IEEE TraM. on AC, Vol. 37, No.6, 1992, pp. 707-714.
[8] B. R. Barmish, K. H. Wei, "Simultaneous Stabilizability of Single Input

Single Output Systems," Modelling, Identification and Robwt Control, By-
rnes and Linquist edts, Elsevier, 1986, pp. 431-444.
[9] A. C. Bartlett, C. V. Hollot, L. Huang, "Root Locations of an Entire
Polytope of Polynomials: It Suffices to Check the Edges," Mathematic6 of
Control, Signa16 and Sy6tem6, Vol. I, 1988, pp. 61-71.
[10] S. P. Bhattacharyya, Robwt Stabilization AgaiMt Structured Perturbati-

OM, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987.
254 ROBUST CONTROL DESIGN: A Polynomial Approach
[11] S. Bialas, J. Garloff, "Convex Combinations of Stable Polynomials," J.

Franklin but. Vol. 319, 1985, pp. 373-377.
[12] V. Blondel, G. Campion, M. Gevers, "Avoidance and Intersection in the

Complex Plane, a Tool for Simultaneous Stabililation," Proceeding, IEEE
CDC, Brighton, England, 1991, pp. 47-48.
[13] D. P. Boudreau, "Controller Synthesis Guaranteeing Robust Stabililation

for a Finite Set of Plant Families," MS Thesis, University ofMaasachusetts,
February, 1995.
[14] R. W. Brockett, Finite Dime1Uional Linear Sy8teml, John Wiley, New
York, 1970.
[15] F. M. Callier, C. A. Desoer, Multivariable Feedback Sy8teml, Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1982.
[16] Y. Censor, "Row-Action Methods for Huge and Sparse Systems and Their
Applications," SIAM Review, Vol. 23, No.4, Oct. 1981, pp. 444-466.
[17] H. Chapellat, M. Dahleh, S. Bhattacharyya, "Robust Stability Under
Structured and Unstructured Perturbations," IEEE Tra1U. on AC, Vol.
35, No. 20, 1990, pp. 1100-1108.
(18) C.-T. Chen, Linear Sy8tem, Th.eory and De,ign, Holt, Rinehart and Win-
ston, New York, 1984.
[19] W. Chen, I. R. Petersen, "A class of multilinear uncertain polynomials
to which the Edge Theorem is applicable," Proceeding, IEEE CDC, Lake
Buena Vista, FL, 1994, pp. 579-584.
[20] R. Y. Chiang, M. G. Safonov, "HOC Robust Control Synthesis for an Un-
damped, Non-colocated Spring-Mass-Spring System," Proceeding, ACC,
San Diego, CA, 1990, pp. 966-967.
(21) S. Dasgupta, "Kharitonov's theorem revisited," Sy,teml and Control Let-
ter" Vol. 11, 1988, pp. 381-384.
[22] T. E. Djaferis, "To Stabilize a Ie real parameter affine family of plants it
suffices to simultaneously stabilize 41: polynomials," Sy8teml and Control
Letter" Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 187-193.
[23] T. E. Djaferis, "To Stabilize an Interval Plant Family it Suffices to Simul-
taneously Stabilile Sixty-Four Polynomials," IEEE Trans. on AC, Vol. 38,
No.5, 1993, pp. 760-764.
REFERENCES 255
[24] T. E. Djaferis, W. Krawiec, "Controller Synthesis via the 4A:-polynomial

approach," Syltem6 and Control Letter" Vol. 22, 1994, pp. 9-16.
[25] T. E. Djaferis, "Vertex-Like Design Methods For Systems With Real Pa-
rameter Uncertainty," Proceeding, IEEE CDC, Brighton, England, 1991,
pp. 427-432.
[26] T. E. Djaferis, W. Krawiec, "Controller Synthesis and the Simultaneous
Stabilisation of Polynomials," Proceeding, IEEE CDC, Tucson, AZ, 1992,
pp. 331-332.
[27] T. E. Djaferis, W. Krawiec, "FIT Synthesis for Robust Performance,"

Proceeding, IEEE CDC, Lake Buena Vista, FL, 1994, pp. 484-489.
[28] T. E. Djaferis, J. Ciolfi, "Representations of Robustly Stabilising Control-
lers for Systems with Parameter Uncertainty," Intern. Journal of Control,
Vol. 56, 1992, pp. 35-49.
[29] T. E. Djaferis, C. V. Hollot, "Parameter Partitioning Via Shaping Con-
ditions for the Stability of Families of Polynomials," IEEE Trans. on AC,
Vol. 34, No. 11, 1989, pp. 1205-1209.
[30] T. E. Djaferis, C. V. Hollot, "The Stability of a Family of Polynomials Can

Be Deduced from a Finite Number O(k 3 ) of Frequency Checks," IEEE
7Nm. on AC, Vol. 34, No.9, 1989, pp. 982-986.
[31] T. E. Djaferis, "Shaping Conditions for the Robust Stability of Polynomials
with Multilinear Parameter Uncertainty," Proceeding, IEEE CDC, Austin,
TX, 1988, pp. 526-531.
[32] T. E. Djaferis, "Robust Pole Assignment for Systems with Parameters,"
Int. J. Control, Vol. 46, No.4, 1987, pp. 1461-1475.
[33] T. E. Djaferis, "Robust Decoupling For Systems With Parameters," chap-
ter in: Modelling, Identification and Rolnut Control, edited by C. I. Byrnes,
A. Lindquist, North-Holland, 1986, pp. 457-470.
[34] J. C. Doyle, J. E. Wall, G. Stein, "Robustness and Performance Analysis
for Structured Uncertainty," Proceeding, IEEE CDC, Orlando, FL, 1982,
pp. 624-636.
[35] J. C. Doyle, K. Glover, P. P. Khargonekar, B. A. Francis, "State-Space
Solutions to Standard H 2 and Hoc Control Problems," IEEE 7Nm. on
AC, Vol. 34, No.8, 1989, pp. 831-847.
[36] J. C. Doyle, B. A. Francis, A. R. Tannenbaum, Feedback Control Tkeof"1J,

Macmillan, New York, 1992.
[37] J. C. Doyle, G. Stein, "Multivariable Feedback Design: Concepts for a

Classical/Modern Synthesis," IEEE TraM. on AC, Vol. 26, No. I, 1981,
pp.4-16.
[38) B. A. Francis, A Cour.e in H oo Control Tkeof"1J, Springer-Verlag, Lecture

Notes in Control and Information Sciences, No. 88, 1986.
[39] F., R., Gantmacher, Tke Tkeof"1J of Matrice., vols. I and II, Chelsea, New
York,1959.
[40] B. K. Ghosh, C. I. Byrnes, "Simultaneous Stabilization and Pole-
Placement by Nonswitching Dynamic Compensation," IEEE TraM. on
AC, Vol. 28, No.6, 1983, pp. 735-741.
[41] B. K. Ghosh, "Some New Results on the Simultaneous Stabilization of a

family of single input single output systems," Sy8teTn6 and Control Letter.,
Vol. 6, 1985, pp. 39-45.
[42] D. C. McFarlane, K. Glover Robu8t Controller De.ign U.ing Normali-
zed Coprime Factor Plant DucriptioM, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in
Control and Information Sciences, No. 138, Heidelberg, 1990.
[43] I. M. Horowib, Syntke.i8 of Feedback Sy.teTn6, Academic Press, New York,
1963.
[44] I. M. Horowib, "Quantitative Synthesis of uncertain Multiple Input-
Output Feedback Systems," Int. Jour. Contro~ Vol. 30, 1979, pp. 81-106.
[45] C. V. Hollot, Z.-L. Xu, "When is the image of a multilinear function a

polytope?," Proceeding. IEEE CDC, Tampa, FL, 1989, pp. 1890-1891.
[46] R. D. Kaminsky, T. E. Djaferis, "A Novel Approach to the Analysis and

Synthesis of Controllers for Parametrically Uncertain Systems," Procee-
ding. IEEE CDC, Tucson, AZ, 1992, pp. 333-338, (modified version IEEE
TraM. on AC, Vol. 39, No.4, 1994, pp. 874-876).
[47] R. D. Kaminsky, T. E. Djaferis, "The Finite Inclusions Theorem," Procee-

ding. IEEE CDC, San Antonio TX, 1993, pp. 508-518, (modified version
IEEE TraM. on AC, Vol. 40, No.3, 1995, pp. 549-551).
[48] R. D. Kaminsky, T. E. Djaferis, "FIT Synthesis applied to an Automatic

Bus Steering Problem," Proceeding. ACe, Baltimore, MD, 1994, pp. 2958-
2959.
REFERENCES 257
[49] R. D. Kaminsky, "A Novel Approach to the Analysis and Synthesis of Con-
trollers for Parametrically Uncertain Systems," PhD Thesis, University of
Massachusetts Amherst, 1993.
[50] V. L. Kharitonov, "Asymptotic Stability of an equilibrium position of a
family of systems of differential equations," Differential'nye Uravneniya,
Vol. 11, 1978, pp. 2086-2088.
[51] P. P. Khargonekar, A. Tannenbaum, "Non-Euclidean Metrics and the Ro-
bust StabiJUation of Systems with Parameter Uncertainty," IEEE Trani.
on AC, Vol. 30, No.10, 1985, pp. 1005-1013.
[52] A. N. Kolmogorov, S. V. Fomin, Introductory Teal AnalY6i6, trans. & ed.

by R. A. Silverman, Dover, New York, 1970.
[53] W. Krawiec, "Controller Synthesis Via Simultaneous Polynomial StabiJUa-
tion," MS Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst, February, 1994.
[54] J. M. Machiejowski, Multivariable Feedback De6ign, Addison-Wesley, 1989.
[55] M. Morari, E. Zafiriou, Robust Process Control, Prentice Hall, 1989.
[56] T. S. Motzkin, I. J. Schoenberg, "The Relaxation Method for Linear Ine-

qualities," Canadian Journal of Mathematic6, Vol. 6, 1954, pp. 393-404.
[57] K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2''''
edition, 1990.
[58] A. Ranber, "A Finite Zero Exclusion Principle," Proceeding6 of the Inter-
national Sympo6ium MTNS-89, Vol. II, pp. 239-245.
[59] A. Ranber, "Parametric Uncertainty an Feedback Complexity in Linear

Control Systems," Doctoral Thesis, Division of Optimization and Systems
Theory, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, December, 1991.
[60] A. Rantzer, A. MegretsD, "A Convex Parameterization of Robustly Sta-
biJUing Controllers," IEEE Trani. on AC, Vol. 39, No.9, 1994, pp. 1802-
1808.
[61] M. Rotea, R. Prasanth, "The p performance measure: A new tool for con-
troller design with multiple frequency domain specifications," Proceeding6
ACC, Baltimore, MD, 1994, pp. 430-435.
[62] R. Saeks, J. Murray, "Fractional Representations, Algebraic Geometry and
the Simultaneous Stabilization Problem," IEEE Trani. on AC, Vol. 27, No.
4, 1982, pp. 895-903.
[63] M. G. Safonov, Stability and RobUltnell of Multivariable Feedback Sy6tem8,

MIT Press, 1980.
[64] D. D. Siljak, "Parameter Space Methods for Robust Control Design,"

IEEE 7hJM. on AC, Vol. 34, No.7, 1989, pp. 674-688.
[65] Ya. Z. TSYPDn, B. T. Polyak, "Frequency Domain Criteria for LP-Robust

Stability of Continuous Linear Systems," IEEE 7hJn6. on AC, Vol.36, NO.
12, 1991, pp. 1464-1469.
[66] F. Van Diggelen, K. Glover, "Element-by-Element Weighted H oo -

Frobenius and H 2 Norm Problems," Proceeding6 IEEE CDC, Brighton,
England, 1991, pp. 923-924.
[67] M. Vidyasagar, Sy6tem Control Synthe8u: A Factorization Approach, MIT

Press, 1985.
[68] M. Vidyasagar, N. Viswanadham, "Algebraic Design Techniques for Relia-

ble Stabilization," IEEE 7hJn6. on AC, Vol. 27, No.5, 1982, pp. 1085-1095.
[69] D. C. Youla, J. J. Bongiorno, C. N. Lu, "Single-loop Feedback Stabilization

of Linear Multivariable Dynamical Plants," Automatica, Vol. 10, 1974, pp.
159-173.
[70] S. Wang, F. W. Fairman, "Simultaneous Stabilization of Two Plant Balls,"
Proceeding6 IEEE CDC, Tucson, AZ, 1992, pp. 339-340.
[71] B. Wie, D. S. Bernstein, "A Benchmark Problem for Robust Control De-
sign," Proceeding8 ACC, San Diego, CA, 1990, pp. 961-962.
[72] J. L. Willems, Stability Theory of Dynamical Sy6tem8, John Wiley and

Sons, New York, 1970.
[73] L. A. Zadeh, C. A. Desoer, Linear Sy6tem Theory, McGraw-Hill, New

York, 1963.
INDEX
Extreme point, 118

.A.
F
Affine polynomial family, 64, 82,
109 Feedback interconnection, 18, 230
Affine uncertainty, 52 Finite Frequency Test, 83
Finite Inclusions Theorem
B affine, 109
BIBO stable, 21, 234 general, 108
Blaschke product, 199 robust Hurwitz stability, 111
Boundary sweep, 81 robust real Hurwitz, 111
robust simultaneous stability,
c 115
Characteristic polynomial, 25 Finite Matched Phase Theorem, 95
Complementary sensitivity, 32 Finite Nyquist Theorem, 40
Convex parpolygon, 65 FIT software package, 141
Convex problem, 126 FIT Synthesis Algorithm, 127
Critical frequencies, 85 F IT" Synthesis Algorithm, 245
FIT Synthesis MIMO
D
1>-stabilization, 242
1>-stability test robust decoupling, 251
Finite Nyquist Theorem, 40 robust multiobjective
1>-stability test performance, 250
Nyquist Theorem, 38 robust performance, 246
Damping ratio, 26 FIT Synthesis SISO
Denominator matrix, 233 1>-stabilization, 123
Disturbance, 19 robust multiobjective
rejection, 31 performance, 175
E robust performance, 159
simultaneous plant family
Edge Theorem, 82 stabilization, 145
Equilibrium state, 22 Frequency sweep, 80
asymptotically stable, 23
convergent, 23 H
stable, 22 Hoc-norm, 116
Euclidean norm, 22, 232 Hermite-Biehler, 48
260
Hurwitz polynomial, 22 Nyquist Theorem, 38

I o
Input, 15 Output, 15
Input-output, 15, 226 Output equation, 15, 226
Interconnected system, 24 Overall system, 18
Interval polynomial, 81 p
J
Parameter Space Methods, 5,1,
Jordan Curve, 41 16, 124, 133
Parameter space overbound, 13
K
Performance
Kharitonov polynomials, 69, 81 as robust polynomial stability, 51
L Perturbation
additive, 53
LTI, 3 divisive, 53
Lyapunov stability, 22, 232 multiplicative, 53
M PFIT Synthesis Algorithm, 161
Poles, 16, 221
Mapping Theorem, 10
Positive pair, 48
Matrix fraction representation
Projection method, 131, 138
left polynomial, 226
Proper, 18, 221
right polynomial, 226
PSSFIT Synthesis Algorithm, 183
Matrix p S S F IT"" Synthesis Algorithm,
column reduced, 221
250
left coprime, 221
normal rank, 221 Q
right coprime, 221 QFT, 16,124
row reduced, 221
R
unimodular, 221
MIMO, 8 Realization, 16
Minimum phase, 31 minimal, 24
Multiafine parameter overbound, Robotic manipulator
13 prismatic, 221
Multiobjective performance, 61 revolute, 16
Robust asymptotic tracking, 162
N
Robust 'V-stability, 55
Nevanlina-Pick Interpolation, 143 Robust 'V-stability test
Noise attenuation Finite Inclusions Theorem, 101
asymptotic, 31 Robust 'V-stability test
Nyquist path, 39 zero exclusion condition, 80
Index 261
Robust 1>-stabilisation Algorithm for robust performance, 221

FIT, 127 interval family, 217
Robust 1>-stabilisation Algorithm SSFIT1 Algorithm, 156
FI'J'"l,245 SISO, 3
Robust decoupling, 251 Spectral norm, 236
Robust noise attenuation, 177 SSFIT software package, 150
Robust performance SSFIT Synthesis Algorithm, 149
as robust polynomial stability, 59 SSFIT1 Synthesis Algorithm, 156
multiobjective, 61, 175 Stability, 21
Robust performance synthesis 1>,26,234
algorithms Hurwitz, 22
PSSFlrm Algorithm, 250 interconnected system, 25
PFIT Algorithm, 167 Lyapunov, 22, 232
PSSFIT Algorithm, 183 MIMO, 232
Robust pole assignment, 238 Stability tests
Robust stability, 54 Finite Matched Phase Theorem,
Robust stability tests 95
Edge Theorem, 82 Finite Nyquist Theorem real
Finite Frequency Test, 83 case, 46
Finite Inclusions Theorem, 111 Finite Nyquist Theorem, 45
Kharitonov, 81 Hermite-Biehler Theorem, 48
simultaneous polynomial Nyquist Theorem, 38
stability, 99 Routh-Hurwitz, 37
sero exclusion condition, 80 Stable transfer function, 22
Robust synthesis examples State equation, 15, 226
Mass-Spring-Mass, 127 State, 15, 226
Automatic Bus Steering, 132 Strictly proper, 16, 227
Seeker Stabilisation, 183 Structured singular value, 209
Routh-Hurwitz Criterion, 36 Subsystem, 19
s T
Sensitivity, 30 Total variation, 41
Sensor noise, 19 Tracking, 18
Simultaneous plant family asymptotic, 29
stabilisation, 144, 149-150, Transfer function matrix, 226
157,175, 189 Transfer function, 15
Simultaneous polynomial stability,
u
99
Simultaneous polynomial Uncertainty
stabilisation, 195 affine, 64, 104
41: result, 205 multiaffine, 70, 93
for nominal performance, 217 parameter, 52
262
polynomic, 64, 80, 108, 132

unstructured, 52
Undamped natural frequency, 26
Unit disc overbound, 164
Unstable system, 22
v
Value set, 64
rectangular overbound, 69
W
VVellformed, 20,230
x
X-Y Plotter, 227
z
Zero exclusion condition, 80
Zeros, 16, 227

Robust

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Robust

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ROBUST

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available

Copyright ~ 1995 by Springer Science+Business Media New York

Ali rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

Printed on acid-free paper.

u but a prudent wife i8 from th.e Lord" Provo 19:14

4 UNCERTAINTY AND ROBUST STABILITY 51

4.3 Performance as Robust Polynomial Stability 57

5 SOME ROBUST STABILITY TESTS 79

6 THE FINITE INCLUSIONS THEOREM 107

7 FIT BASED V-STABILIZATION 123

8 FIT SYNTHESIS FOR ROBUST

8.3 Example: FIT Robust Pedormance Synthesis 167

9 FIT SYNTHESIS FOR ROBUST

10 ROBUST DESIGN VIA SIMULTANEOUS

11 FIT FOR ROBUST MULTIVARIABLE DESIGN 225

4.8 A 6 Convex Parpolygon 65

The process of developing a controller or control strategy can be dramatically

In addition, thanks go to a number of graduate students in our Control Group,

1.1 THE CONTROL PROBLEM

Consider for example the automatic operation of an n-link robotic manipulator

is to be used in a variety of assembly operations. It is equipped with a number

Figure 1.1 n-link Robotic Manipulator

cal Control design methodology is Loop Shaping, which is a graphical approach.

In Multivariable Control the emphasis is on systems with many inputs and

In order to more accurately describe the dynamic behavior of some physical

bly be conservative, and a more direct approach is desirable. Furthermore, the

We began this Chapter by pointing out the importance of automatic control

1.2 BOOK OUTLINE

Chapter 4, emphasizes the fact that uncertainty can be introduced in order

In Chapter 7, we present a method for robust 1>-stabilization based on the Fi-

inequalities in these parameters are satisfied. Collecting all these inequalities

In Chapter 8, we consider the problem of robust asymptotic tracking design

In Chapter 9, we address the problem of robust performance design where per-

In Chapter 11, we turn our attention to MIMO systems. There is extensive

2.1 SYSTEM REPRESENTATIONS

x(t) = A x(t) + B u(t), y(t) = C x(t) (2.1)

The vector z is n-dimensional, u and yare scalars, A is a constant n x n matrix,

A single input, single output system can also be modelled by an input-output

Example 2.1 Single revolu.te link robotic manipu.lator

Figure 2.1 Single Revolute Link Robotic Manipulator

Assume that the it is operating in the z - y plane with no gravity. A torque

present which generates an opposing torque 7"J(t), proportional to the angular

where I is the moment of inertia. Both I and I are assumed to be known

x(t) = [~ _\] x(t) + [ ~ ] u(t), y(t) = [1 0] x(t) (2.4)

The input-output frequency domain description of this differential equation can

where the "transfer function" is P(s)

x(t) = A x(t) + B u(t), y(t) = C x(t) + D u(t) (2.6)

The corresponding input-output transfer function is P(6) = C(61 - A)-l B

It is important to emphasise that such dynamic descriptions are only appr~

2.2 FEEDBACK CONFIGURATIONS

Figure 2.2 Unity Feedback Configuration

This is perhaps the simplest feedback configuration. The effects of "disturban-

Figure 2.S Feedback Configuration with Sensor

More complicated feedback configurations arise very naturally in the context

It is important that the subsystems and their feedback interconnections are

Consider now a general feedback configuration [15], which is the interconnection

Figure ~.4 General Feedback Configuration

For this interconnection we have that:

Define also the diagonal matrix G as:

The interconnection can be expressed in matrix form as:

u(s) = r(s) + Ey(s), y(s) = G(S)U(6) (2.8)