Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Control Science and Engineering

Volume 2007, Article ID 93904, 12 pages
doi:10.1155/2007/93904

Research Article
The Best Achievable H2 Tracking Performances
for SIMO Feedback Control Systems

Shinji Hara,1 Toni Bakhtiar,1 and Masaaki Kanno2

1 Department of Information Physics and Computing, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, , Bunkyo-Ku ,
Tokyo 113-8656, Japan
2 Japan Science and Technology Agency, 4-1-8 Honcho, Kawaguchi-Shi , Saitama 332-0012, Japan

Received 20 August 2006; Revised 10 January 2007; Accepted 12 April 2007

Recommended by Sigurd Skogestad

This paper is concerned with the inherent H2 tracking performance limitation of single-input and multiple-output (SIMO) linear
time-invariant (LTI) feedback control systems. The performance is measured by the tracking error between a step reference input
and the plant output with additional penalty on control input. We employ the plant augmentation strategy, which enables us
to derive analytical closed-form expressions of the best achievable performance not only for discrete-time system, but also for
continuous-time system by exploiting the delta domain version of the expressions.

Copyright © 2007 Shinji Hara et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. INTRODUCTION the latter problem, the control performance is measured by

Problems concerning the fundamental performance limita-
tions and tradeoff in feedback control systems have been in-
tensively studied for decades motivated by the work of Bode
on logarithmic sensitivity integral [1]. There are two main re-
search directions in the area. First direction lies in the exten-
sions of Bode’s integral theorem to assess design constraints
and performance limitations via logarithmic type integrals
(see, e.g., [2, 3]). Second direction focuses on the formula-
tions of optimal control problems to quantify and charac-
terize the fundamental performance limits in terms of plant
parameters or properties.
Research in the latter direction relates to the plant/con-
troller design integration, where the main attention is not to
design a robust or optimal controller but to design a plant
which is easily controllable in practice. Therefore, study on
control performance limitations achievable by feedback con-
trol has been paid much attention in the recent years as seen
in a special issue of the IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con-
trol in August 2003 and books by Seron et al. [4] and by Sko-
gestad and Postletwaite [5].
Optimal tracking and regulation problems are two im-
portant research topics which follow the second direction. In
the former problem, the tracking ability is measured by the
minimal tracking error between output and reference input
and is optimized over all possible stabilizing controllers. In
the control input energy against impulsive disturbance input.
In particular, the H2 tracking performance limitation
achievable by feedback control has been intensively in-
vestigated, which has led to some complete results for
single-input and single-output (SISO) continuous/discrete-
time/sampled-data systems. Beyond the SISO case, existing
results on the optimal tracking performance problem include
the single-input and multiple-output (SIMO) [6, 7] and
multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) [8–10] cases.
Results on the H2 energy regulation problem are available
for continuous-time systems [11] and discrete-time systems
[12]. A recent result which is formulated in the state space
approach and in both of the H2 and H∞ optimal control
frameworks can be found in [13]. It is known that the energy
regulation problem relates closely to the problem of feedback
stabilization over signal-to-noise ratio constrained channels
[14, 15].
In general, the existing results demonstrate in a clear
manner how the control performance level may be limited
by plant unstable poles and nonminimum phase zeros, and
additionally the directional aspects of such poles and zeros in
the case of a multivariable system.
This paper focuses on the H2 optimal tracking problems
with control input penalty for possibly unstable, nonmini-
mum phase, SIMO LTI plants. The tracking performance is
measured by the tracking error between the measurement
2 Journal of Control Science and Engineering

r e u y
output and a step reference input with additional penalty on K P
control input. We note that none of the results for the SIMO −

or MIMO cases [6, 7, 9, 10] except one in [8] are practically

useful, since problems without control input constraint were
only treated. Also [8] only considers the marginally stable Figure 1: Unity feedback control system.
case. Moreover, the result in [9] is only valid for the MIMO
right invertible case, where the number of inputs is greater
than or equal to that of outputs. In other words, the result For any z ∈ C, its complex conjugate is denoted by z. For
cannot be applied to the SIMO case. any vector v we will use vT , vH , and v as its transpose, con-
The problem formulation employed here is more realistic jugate transpose, and Euclidean norm, respectively. For any
than the problem without penalty on the control input, since matrix A ∈ Cm×n , we denote its conjugate transpose by AH
the controller cannot produce an input beyond the capabil- and its column space by R[A]. Several subsets in the com-
ity of the actuator in practice. The treatment of the SIMO plex plane are defined as follows: C− := {s ∈ C : Re s < 0},
case is also of practical significance, since in such a case, the C+ := {s ∈ C : Re s > 0}, C+ := {s ∈ C : Re s ≥ 0},
plant to be controlled has only one actuator with two or D := {z ∈ C : |z| < 1}, Dc := {z ∈ C : |z| ≥ 1},
c
more sensors, which commonly appears in real control ap- D := {z ∈ C : |z| > 1}. We denote by RH∞ the set of
plications to get better control performance by putting ex- all rational matrix functions which are bounded and analytic
tra sensors. The classes of feedback systems investigated here in Dc . We define by x(z) the Z-transform of sequence x(k).
cover continuous-time and discrete-time systems and thus The cardinality of a set S is denoted by #S.
are fairly wide. We will provide comprehensive results of the
analytical closed-form expressions on the performance limi- 2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
tations by a unified approach (delta operator).
2.1. Feedback control systems
The main contribution of the present paper is to derive
analytical closed-form expressions of the H2 optimal track- We consider the LTI unity feedback control system depicted
ing performance under control input penalty for SIMO LTI in Figure 1, where P denotes a SIMO LTI plant to be con-
discrete-time systems. The idea of the derivation is to im- trolled and K is a stabilizing controller. The plant P can be
plement the well-known plant augmentation strategy, which written as
enables us to apply directly the result of the problem with-
 T
out control input penalty [6]. Corresponding expressions for P = P1 , P2 , . . . , Pm , (1)
continuous-time systems are derived by reformulating the
problem in terms of the delta operator [16]. Then, parallel where Pi (i = 1, . . . , m) are scalar transfer functions. The sig-
discussions with the continuous-time case can be carried out nals r ∈ Rm , u ∈ R, y ∈ Rm , and e := r − y ∈ Rm are
for the discrete-time case, where we strengthen the expres- the reference input, the control input, the measurement out-
sion for unstable plants presented in [7]. put, and the error signals, respectively. Hereafter, it will be
In general, our results show that the plant gain as well assumed that all the vectors and matrices involved in the se-
as the plant’s nonminimum phase zeros and unstable poles quel have compatible dimensions.
impose inevitable limitation on the tracking performance, The plant rational transfer function P admits right and
and they are confirmed by a numerical example. We also left coprime factorizations
apply the continuous-time results to an inverted pendulum
P = NM −1 = M 
−1 N, (2)
system and provide the closed-form expression of the best
achievable tracking performances in terms of plant param-
eters. This enables us to discuss the selection of the optimal  M
where N, M, N,  ∈ RH∞ , and there exist X, Y , X,
 Y ∈
pendulum length which gives the smallest possible value of RH∞ that satisfy the double Bezout identity
tracking performance without solving the Riccati equation   
or the LMI problem corresponding to the H2 optimal con- X −Y M Y
= I. (3)
trol problem. −N 
 M N X
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, we describe the problem formulation including The set of all stabilizing controllers K is then characterized
the description of the standard unity feedback control system by the Youla parameterization
and a brief explanation about the plant augmentation strat-
egy. Section 3 provides analytical closed-form expressions of K := K : K = (Y − MQ)(NQ − X)−1

(4)
the optimal performance in the discrete-time case. Section 4 = (QN  −1 (Y − QM);
 − X)  Q ∈ RH∞ .
is devoted to the continuous-time results, where we apply the
results to an inverted pendulum system to show the effective- We only focus on the discrete-time case in the remainder
ness of our result for the plant design. We conclude the paper of this section and the next section, while the continuous-
in Section 5 with remarks on the sampled-data feedback case. time case will be discussed in Section 4.
The notation used throughout this paper is fairly stan- A number η ∈ C is said to be a zero of P if Pi (η) = 0 holds
c
dard. We denote the real set by R and the complex set by C. for some i = 1, . . . , m. In addition, if η lies in D , then η is
Shinji Hara et al. 3

said to be a nonminimum phase zero. The plant P is said to be where So := (I + PK)−1 is the output sensitivity function.
minimum phase if it has no nonminimum phase zeros; oth- Using (2)–(4), the optimal performance can then be repre-
erwise, it is said to be nonminimum phase. A number λ ∈ C sented by
c
is said to be a pole of P if P(λ) is unbounded. If λ lies in D ,      2
 WY 
then λ is an unstable pole of P. We say P is stable if it has no ∗  WM r
Jd = inf 
− Q M  .

(9)
unstable poles; otherwise, it is unstable. An equivalent state- Q∈RH∞ X N 2

ment for pole λ is that M(λ)w = 0 for some unitary vector w,
We make the following standard assumptions to guaran-
and w is called a pole direction vector associated with λ. For tee the finiteness of Jd .
technical reasons, it is assumed that the plant does not have
nonminimum phase zeros and unstable poles at the same lo- Assumption 1. N(1) = 0.
cation.
A transfer function Θ, not necessarily square, is called an Assumption 2. For r(k) in (6), ν ∈ R[N(1)].
inner if Θ is in RH∞ and Θ∼ (z)Θ(z) = I for all z = e jθ .
Here we define Θ∼ (z) := ΘT (z−1 ). A transfer function Φ is Assumption 3. P(z) has a pole at z = 1.
called an outer if Φ is in RH∞ and has a right inverse which
c
is analytic in D . For P ∈ RH∞ , In order for Jd to be finite, it is obvious that the output
sensitivity function So must have a zero at z = 1 with input
P(z) = Θ(z)Φ(z), (5) zero direction ν, that is, So (1)ν = 0. The condition N(1) = 0
is then required to avoid any hidden pole-zero cancelation
where Θ is an inner and Φ is an outer, is called an inner-outer
at z = 1 so that the open loop system has an integrator in
factorization of P. We call Θ the inner factor and Φ the outer
the discrete-time sense. The condition ν ∈ R[N(1)] requires
factor.
that the input signal must enter from the direction lying in
the column space of N(1) and gives the condition of step
2.2. H2 optimal tracking problem reference signal r so that a nonright invertible plant P may
The problem to be investigated in this paper is the standard track. In order to make the steady state error zero, the open-
H2 optimal tracking problem, where we consider a unit step loop transfer function PK must contain an integrator. Con-
function r as the reference input signal defined by sequently, plant P must have an integrator instead of com-
⎧ pensator K, which should have no integrator to maintain a
⎨ν, k≥0 zν finite control energy cost. Assumption 3 is thus necessary.
r(k) = ⎩ , r(z) = (6)
0, k<0 z−1
2.3. Plant augmentation
with ν = (ν1 , ν2 , . . . , νm is a constant vector of unit length
)T
To solve the tracking error problem under control penalty,
and specifies the direction of the reference input. An exten-
we adopt the well-known plant augmentation approach. This
sion of this benchmark case can be undertaken by consider-
key idea is initially implemented in solving the tracking per-
ing other typical classes of reference signals such as real si-
formance problem in one of the authors’ conference papers
nusoids and ramp signals [10]. This result shows that non-
[11].
minimum phase zeros and unstable poles maintain a signifi-
An augmented plant Pa is defined as
cant role even in a more complex fashion and lead to a rather  
complicated expression of the optimal performance. Another W
extension may also dwell on the use of noncausal action for Pa := , (10)
P
tracking such as preview control [17].
The performance index to be minimized in the present from which we obtain the corresponding step input signal
paper is given by ra := (0, r T )T with direction νa := (0, νT )T and the tracking
measure
∞
      ∞
Jd := e(k)2 + uw (k)2 , (7)   
Jda := ea (k)2 , (11)
k=0
k=0
where uw is the weighted control input, that is, uw (k) = where
Z−1 {W(z)u(z)}, with proper, stable, and minimum phase    
weighting function W(z). Note that, if W = 0, the problem 0 uw
ea : = − . (12)
then reduces to an H2 tracking error minimization problem r y
(i.e., the H2 optimal tracking problem without control input
One of the key points addressed by this strategy is that the
penalty), which has been discussed in [6, 7].
tracking measure does not explicitly include the control in-
It follows from the well-known Parseval’s identity that (7)
put penalty u.
can be further written as
Furthermore, the corresponding right and left coprime
 2  2
Jd = e(z)2 + uw (z)2 factorizations of Pa are expressed as
 2  2 (8)
= So (z)r(z)2 + W(z)K(z)So (z)r(z)2 , a−1 N
Pa = Na Ma−1 = M a , (13)
4 Journal of Control Science and Engineering

where Note that J p contains the index of unstable poles whose di-
  rection is coincident with that of the step input signal r. Due
WM
Na = , Ma = M, to the relation N = PM, J pi contains the index of unstable
N
    (14) poles of P but not those of Pi . The index set J pi will play a
1 0 W key role of strengthening the expression for unstable plants
a =
M Na =
 ,
0 M N
,
in [7], where we explicitly identify the nonminimum phase
zeros of N. To facilitate our derivation, we introduce the fol-
and the corresponding double Bezout identity is written as lowing inner-outer factorization of Na (z):
⎛ ⎞ 
X −Ya ⎠ Ma Ya
⎝ a Na (z) = Θ(z)Φ(z), (22)
= I, (15)
−N a
a M Na Xa
where Θ is an inner factor and Φ is an outer factor.
 Ya = (0, Y ), and
where Ya = (0, Y ), Xa = X,
  Theorem 1. Suppose that the SIMO plant P(z) given in (1)
1 WY has unstable poles λk (k = 1, . . . , nλ ) and Pi (z) has nonmini-
Xa = . (16)
0 X mum phase zeros ηi j (i = 1, . . . , m, j = 1, . . . , ni ). Then, under
With a free parameter Qa = (Q0 , Q) ∈ RH∞ , where Q0 is a Assumptions 1–3, the optimal tracking performance Jd∗ is given
new scalar free parameter, the optimal tracking performance by
∗
Jda can be expressed as
Jd∗ = Jds + Jdu , (23)
  
∗
Jda = inf  Xa − Na Qa Ma ra 2 , (17)
Qa ∈RH∞ 2
where
and subsequently, we have
Jds = Jds1 + Jds2 (24)
     2
 WY 
∗  WM r
Jda = inf  − Q M  . (18) with
Q∈RH∞  X N 
ni  
2
∗   ηi j 2 − 1
The expression of Jda in (18) is exactly equivalent to that of Jds1 := ν2i   ,
Jd∗ in (9) for the original plant P, that is, Jda
∗
= Jd∗ holds. By ηi j − 12
i∈Jz j =1
taking into account that there is no explicit penalty imposed         
 Pi (1)2 P e jθ 2 + W e jθ 2
on the control input for computing Jda ∗
in (18), we can im- 1  2 π
Jds2 := ν log   ×   2
mediately follow the approach of the tracking error problem 2π i∈J i 0 P(1)2 Pi e jθ 
in [6] to derive the analytical closed-form expression of Jd∗ . z

dθ
× ,
1 − cos θ
3. DISCRETE-TIME CASE
Jdu = Jdu1 + Jdu2
3.1. Closed-form expression (25)
This section provides an analytical closed-form expression of with
the optimal tracking performance for the discrete-time case.  
The derivation is almost parallel to the continuous-time case   λk 2 − 1
Jdu1 := ν2i   ,
[7, 11]. λk − 12
i∈Jz k∈J pi
Note first that (17) can be expressed as
   2   
   νa 2  λk  − 1 λ 2 − 1
∗
Jd = inf  I + Na Ya − Qa M
a  . (19) Jdu2 :=    
Qa ∈RH∞
 z − 1 hk h λk − 1 λ − 1 λk λ − 1
2 k, ∈J p
      
Write N = (N1 , . . . , Nm with Ni (i = 0, 1, . . . , m) being
)T × 1 − Θ∼ λk Θ(1) 1 − Θ∼ λ Θ(1) ,
scalar transfer functions, and ⎧
 T ⎪
⎪ #J p = 1,
Na = N0 , N ⎨1;
, (20)  λk − λ
hk : = ⎪ ; #J p ≥ 2.
⎪
⎩
 ∈J p ,  =k 1 − λ λk
c
where N0 = WM. We denote by λk ∈ D (k = 1, . . . , nλ ) the
c
unstable poles of P(z) and by ηi j ∈ D (i = 1, . . . , m, j = (26)
1, . . . , ni ) the nonminimum phase zeros of Pi (z).
We further define the following index sets: Proof. See the appendix for the proof.

Jz := i : Ni (1) = 0 , Theorem 1 reveals that the optimal performance in

 
tracking a step reference signal is explicitly characterized by
J p := k : M λk ν = 0 , (21)
 
the plant’s nonminimum phase zeros ηi j and unstable poles
J pi := k : Ni λk = 0 (i = 0, 1, . . . , m). λk , the plant direction [18] which is mostly determined by
Shinji Hara et al.
the plant gain, and the reference input direction ν. Further-
more, the problem of minimizing the tracking error under
control input penalty generally provides additional limits im-
posed by W, which appears in the logarithmic term in Jds2
and the inner factor Θ in Jdu2 .
If we set W = 0 then we can easily obtain the nonpenalty
result [6]. If the plant is marginally stable, we can see Jd∗ = Jds
(or, Jdu = 0). In this theorem we also provide a stronger ex-
pression than that in [7] by examining explicitly additional
effects caused by unstable poles λk in Jcu1 . We defer the dis-
cussion of this part until the end of Section 4.2, while stating
first a number of remarks and corollaries of Theorem 1.
We may also derive the optimal controller within this
approach. For (marginally) stable case, for instance, we can
make the term (A.9) in the appendix zero by selecting the
optimal free parameter Qa∗ as
Θ∼ (1)  a−1 (z).
Qa∗ (z) =
Φ(z)
+ Ya (z) M (27)
The expression of the optimal controller can then be ob-
tained by following the Youla parameterization (4). For un-
stable case, we need additional effort to simplify the expres-
sion of Qa∗ .
3.2. Remarks and corollaries
We here note that Jds1 and Jdu1 in Theorem 1 reflect the ef-
fects contributed by nonminimum phase zeros and unsta-
ble poles. Such zeros or poles close to the unit circle may
or may not have a significant effect depending on the in-
put direction νi and those farther outside the unit circle
provide less effect. An interesting fact may also be drawn
concerning with the zero at infinity. Immediately we have
(|ηi j |2 − 1)/ |ηi j − 1|2 → 1 as ηi j → ∞, which reveals that
in discrete-time system one zero at infinity contribute one
penalty to the performance level. Therefore without loss of
generality the effect of time delays can be treated as a num-
ber of zeros at infinity, instead of directly handled as a time
delay system as in [8, 10], which provides a consistent result.
The second term Jds2 concerns the effect due to the changes
in the plant direction with frequency, (see [7, 18]).
Now we make a couple of remarks on the last term Jdu2 ,
in particular, on the existence of the inner factor Θ(z).
(1) The expression in the theorem is complete for SIMO
marginally stable plants in the sense that the best
achievable tracking performance with control input
penalty is characterized by nonminimum phase ze-
ros and the gain of the plant without using any in-
ner outer factors or solving any Riccati equation. (See
Corollary 1 for the SISO case).
(2) The expression for the general unstable case is not
complete in that it includes an inner factor Θ(z) in the
last term Jdu2 . We can only obtain a closed-form ex-
pression of Θ(z) for the SISO without control input
penalty case. (see Corollary 2).
(3) However, fortunately, there exists a special case where
the term Jdu2 caused by unstable poles is zero even if
the plant is unstable. (see Corollary 3).
5
(4) We can also show that Jdu = Jdu1 + Jdu2 is zero when
the sets of all unstable poles of Pi (z) (i = 1, . . . , m) are
completely the same as seen in Corollary 4. The case
often happens for practical applications where we have
only one actuator but we may add one or more extra
sensors. The extra sensor can dramatically improve the
tracking performance for unstable and nonminimum
phase plants as seen in the example of an inverted pen-
dulum in Section 4.3.
We now consider four specific cases for illustrating the
implication of Theorem 1. The first case is the simplest case,
where we consider a (marginally) stable scalar system.
Corollary 1. Suppose that the plant P(z) is SISO marginally
stable and has nonminimum phase zeros ηi (i = 1, . . . , nη ).
Under Assumptions 1 and 3, one has
nη  2     
 ηi  − 1 1  π log 1+ W e jθ 
2 P e jθ 2
∗
Jd =  2 + dθ.
  2π 0 1 − cos θ
i=1 ηi − 1
(28)
By Corollary 1, the effect of constant wighting function
W can be understood easily, where a bigger W makes the
control effort more costly and thus worsen the performance
level. The performance can also be constrained by minimum
phase zeros close to the unit circle, since in the vicinity of
such zeros |P(e jθ )| is rather small. In addition, in the low-
frequency range such zeros may have more negative effect
due to the terms 1/(1 − cos θ). In some limited and sim-
ple cases, we can obtain the closed expression of the integral
term. For example, if P(z) = (z − η)/z(z − 1) (0 < η < 1)
and W = 1, then
!
η − η2 + 2η + 5 + 1
Jd∗ = 1 + , (29)
2(η − 1)
where the first term of the right-hand side is caused by a zero
at infinity and the second one corresponds to the integral
term. We can readily see from the second term that the mini-
mum phase zero η also affects the performance limit and that
it tends to infinity as η goes to one.
The second corollary is for the SISO without control in-
put penalty case, that is, W(z) = 0. Suppose the plant has
nonminimum phase zeros ηi (i = 1, . . . , nη ). Then the inner
factor in (22) can, without loss of generality, be fixed as
nη
 z − ηi
Θ(z) = , (30)
i=1
1 − ηi z
from which we get Θ(1) = 1. Let φ(z) := Θ∼ (z)Θ(1), that is,
nη
 1 − ηi z
φ(z) = . (31)
i=1
z − ηi
Then the achievable performance for SISO without control
input penalty case can be stated as follows.
6 Journal of Control Science and Engineering

Corollary 2. Consider the nonpenalty case, that is, W(z) = 0, 7.5

for the SISO plant P(z) which has nonminimum phase zeros ηi
(i = 1, . . . , nη ) and unstable poles λk (k = 1, . . . , nλ ). Then, one
has
7 k=4
nη  2  2   
 ηi  − 1  λk  − 1 λ 2 − 1
∗
Jd =  2 +    
 

Jd∗
i=1 ηi − 1 k, ∈J p hk h λk − 1 λ − 1 λk λ − 1
    
× 1 − φ λk 1 − φ λ . k=2
6.5
(32)
k=1
The third corollary is for a special class of SIMO unstable
systems, where the tracking performance limit is explicitly
6
given in terms of plant characteristics. 0 0.5 1 1.5
W
Corollary 3. Let the SIMO plant P satisfy P(1) =
[P1 (1), 0, . . . , 0]T , and let the input signal r be given by (6) Figure 2: Jd∗ with respect to k and W.
with ν = (1, 0, . . . , 0)T . Suppose that P1 (z) is (marginally) sta-
ble and has nonminimum phase zeros η1 j ( j = 1, . . . , n1 ) and
P has unstable poles λk (k = 1, . . . , nλ ). Then, one has
3.3. Numerical example
n1  
η1 j 2 − 1  
 λk 2 − 1
Jd∗ =  2 +  2 Consider a single-input two-output discrete-time plant P(z)
   
j =1 η1 j − 1 k∈J p1 λk − 1 given by
  2   2    2 
1 π log P(e jθ  +W e jθ  P1 e jθ  ⎡ ⎤
+ dθ. z−η
2π 0 1 − cos θ  
⎢ ⎥
(33) P (z) ⎢ (z − 1)(1 − 2z) ⎥
P(z) = 1 =⎢ ⎥, (35)
P2 (z) ⎣ k(z − 1) ⎦
z(z − λ)
Proof. Since ν = (1, 0, . . . , 0)T , only the nonminimum phase
zeros and the plant gain of P1 (z) give effects. The unstable
poles of P(z) contributed by Pi (z) (i ≥ 2), if any, will not give where |λ| > 1 and k > 0. Thus, P1 (z) is (marginally) stable
effects through Jdu2 , that is, Jdu2 = 0, since the pole directions and has nonminimum phase zeros at z = ∞ and z = η pro-
 k )ν = vided |η| > 1, and P2 (z) has one nonminimum phase zero at
do not coincide with that of the input signal, that is M(λ
z = ∞ and one unstable pole at z = λ.
0, but through Jdu1 as the nonminimum phase zeros of N1 (z).
We can easily see that coprime factors of P(z) can be writ-
ten as
⎡ ⎤
(z − η)(z − λ)
The last corollary deals with SIMO plant P(z), in which ⎢ z(1 − 2z)(1 − λz) ⎥ (z − 1)(z − λ)
⎢ ⎥
the set of unstable poles of Pi (z) (i = 1, . . . , m) are completely N(z) = ⎢ ⎥, M(z) = ,
⎣ k(z − 1)2 ⎦ z(1 − λz)
the same.
z2 (1 − λz)
⎡
Corollary 4. Consider the SIMO plant P(z) given in (1).
z−1
⎡ ⎤ z−η ⎤
Suppose that Pi (z) has nonminimum phase zeros ηi j (i = ⎢ z 0 ⎥ ⎢ z(1 − 2z) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
1, . . . , m, j = 1, . . . , ni ) and has unstable poles λk (k = 
M(z) =⎢
⎣
⎥
z − λ ⎦,

N(z) =⎢ ⎥.
⎣ k(z − 1) ⎦
1, . . . , nλ ) for all i = 1, . . . , m, that is, the set of unstable poles 0
1 − λz z(1 − λz)
of Pi (z) are the same. Then, one has (36)

Jd∗ = Jds1 + Jds2 . (34)

Proof. If the set of unstable poles of Pi (z) (i = 1, . . . , m) are
completely the same, then it is not difficult to verify that J pi
is empty for i = 1, . . . , m. Note that J p0 may not be empty,
but this will not give any effect since the first element of νa
is zero. Furthermore, we know that J p is also empty for the
 k )ν = 0 for all k = 1, . . . , nλ . These two facts
case, since M(λ
make Jdu1 = 0 and Jdu2 = 0. Hence, Jdu = 0.
We choose ν = (1, 0)T ∈ R[N(1)], which gives M(λ)ν =
0. Therefore, this example is in the case of Corollary 3. We
calculate the optimal tracking performance Jd∗ based on the
expression in the corollary. Note that the first element of
N(z), N1 (z), includes a nonminimum phase zero at z = λ
which is an unstable pole of P2 (s) in addition to the original
zeros at z = ∞ and z = η. This extra zero in N1 (z) yields the
second term of Jd∗ . For example, Figure 2 depicts the optimal
tracking performance for η = 2 and λ = 3 with respect to
Shinji Hara et al. 7

50 expression by reformulating the discrete-time problem in

45 terms of the delta operator [16], and we show that we can
readily derive the continuous-time counterpart based on the
40
discrete-time result obtained in the previous section.
35 For any sequence x(k), k = 1, 2, . . . , the delta operator δ
30 is defined by
Jd∗

25 x(k + 1) − x(k)
δx(k) = , (40)
20 T
15 where T > 0 is the sampling time. By taking the Z-transform
10 of the above equation we obtain
5 z−1
δ x(z) = x(z). (41)
0 T
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
η Hence, we obtain the relationship between the Z-transform
variable z and the delta operator δ as
W =1
W =2
W =3 z−1
δ= or z = Tδ + 1. (42)
T
Figure 3: Jd∗ with respect to η and W.
Furthermore, for any sequence x(k) we define its delta trans-
form by

k = {1, 2, 4} and W from 0 to 1.5. In this case, the optimal

∞

performance is given by D x(k) = xT (δ) := T x(k)(Tδ + 1)−k , (43)
k=0
π    2   2 
1 log 1 + P2 e jθ  + W 2 P1 (e jθ )
Jd∗ = 6 + dθ, or equivalently, xT (δ) = T x(z)|z=Tδ+1 .
2π 0 1 − cos θ The optimal performance Jc∗ is then recovered by letting
(37)
the sampling time T approach zero in the following perfor-
where the first term of the right-hand side is calculated as mance index:
∞
     
2 −1
η∞ λ2 − 1 η2 − 1 JT := T e(k)2 + uw (k)2 , (44)
6 = lim   2 + 2 + 2 (38)
η∞ →∞ η − 1 η−1 λ−1 k=0
∞

with η = 2 and λ = 3.
We can see from Figure 2 that bigger k increases the gain
of P2 (z) while larger W makes the control effort more expen-
sive. Furthermore, Figure 3 plots the achievable performance
for k = 1, W = {1, 2, 3}, and λ = 3 when η varies from 0.6
to 1.5. It is shown that the performance tends to infinity as η
tends to 1 from either side. A minimum phase zero close to 1
makes |P1 (e jθ )| small, thus rendering the integral term large,
and a nonminimum phase zero close to 1 blows the first term
up.
where uw (k) = D −1 {W(δ)uT (δ)}. We here omit the deriva-
tion process since it can be done in a straightforward man-
ner. For instance, it is immediate to derive the delta domain
counterparts of Lemmas 1 and 2 in the appendix. The com-
plete derivation is given in [19].
The delta domain expression, however, helps us to under-
stand the dynamics of the solution with respect to the sam-
pling time T. In addition, making T tend to zero will recover
the continuous-time results in [7], which is rewritten in the
following section.

4. CONTINUOUS-TIME CASE 4.2. Closed-form expression

4.1. Approach using δ-operator For the finiteness of Jc we impose the following assumptions
for P(s) with coprime factorizations (2).
This section is devoted to the continuous-time case and we
derive an analytical closed-form expression of the minimal Assumption 4. N(0) = 0.
value of the performance index
∞
Assumption 5. ν ∈ R[N(0)].
    
Jc := e(t)2 + uw (t)2 dt (39)
0 Assumption 6. P(s) has a pole at s = 0.

for the continuous-time plant P(s), where uw (t) = We denote by pk ∈ C+ (k = 1, . . . , n p ) the unstable poles
L−1 {W(s)u(s)}. To this end, we invoke the delta domain of P(s) and by zi j ∈ C+ (i = 1, . . . , m, j = 1, . . . , ni ) the
8 Journal of Control Science and Engineering

nonminimum phase zeros of Pi (s). We further introduce the

following index sets:

θ
Iz := i : Ni (0) = 0 ,
 
mg
 pk ν = 0 ,
I p := k : M (45)
 

I pi := k : Ni pk = 0 (i = 0, 1, . . . , m).
u
M
Define an inner-outer factorization of Na (s) such that

Na (s) = Θ(s)Φ(s), (46) x

and subsequently define Θ∼ (s) := ΘT (−s). Figure 4: The inverted pendulum system.

Theorem 2. Suppose that the SIMO plant P(s) given in (1)

has unstable poles pk (k = 1, . . . , n p ) and Pi (s) has nonmini- version, Jcs1 accounts for the effects contributed by nonmini-
mum phase zeros zi j (i = 1, . . . , m, j = 1, . . . , ni ). Then, under mum phase zeros zi j (i ∈ Iz ) of the plant P and Jcu1 identifies
Assumptions 4–6, the optimal tracking performance Jc∗ is given those affected by unstable poles pk (k ∈ I pi ). Then it is re-
by vealed that unstable poles may also deteriorate the achievable
performance in the same way as nonminimum phase zeros.
Jc∗ = Jcs + Jcu , (47) This fact, however, is not elucidated in [7].
where
4.3. Application to inverted pendulum system
Jcs = Jcs1 + Jcs2 (48)
As an illustration of our results, we consider the inverted pen-
dulum system shown in Figure 4, where an inverted pendu-
with
lum is mounted on a motor-driven cart. We assume that the
 
ni
2 Re zi j pendulum moves only in the vertical plane, that is, a two di-
Jcs1 := ν2i  2 , mensional control problem is considered. Let M, m, and 2l
 zi j 
i∈Iz j =1 denote the mass of the cart, the mass of the pendulum, and
         the length of the pendulum, respectively. Also we assume that
1  2 ∞ Pi (0)2 P( jω)2 + W( jω)2
Jcs2 := ν log   ×   the friction between the track and the cart is μt and that be-
π i∈Iz i 0 P(0)2 Pi ( jω)2 tween the pendulum and the cart is μ p . We consider a uni-
dω form pendulum so that its inertia is given by I = (1/3)ml2 .
× 2, The equations of motion between the control input u,
ω
Jcu = Jcu1 + Jcu2 which is the force to the cart, the position of the cart x, the
angle of the pendulum θ are represented by
(49)
4 2
with ml θ̈ + μ p θ̇ − mglθ = −mlẍ,
3 (51)
  2 Re pk (M + m)ẍ + μt ẋ − mlθ̈ = u,
Jcu1 := ν2i  2 ,
 pk 
i∈Iz k∈I pi under the assumption that the angle θ is small. Then, the
 transfer functions from u to x (denoted by Px ) and from u
4 Re pk Re p
Jcu2 :=   to θ (denoted by Pθ ) are, respectively, given by
k, ∈I p
p k + p  p k p  σ k σ
       (50) (4/3)ml2 s2 + μ p s − mgl −mls
× 1 − Θ∼ pk Θ(0) 1 − Θ∼ p Θ(0) , Px (s) = , Pθ (s) = ,
sD(s) D(s)
⎧
⎪
⎪ #I p = 1,
⎨1;  (52)
σk : = ⎪ p  − p k
⎪ ; #I p ≥ 2.
⎩ ∈I , =k p + pk where D(s) := a3 s3 + a2 s2 + a1 s + a0 with a3 := (1/3)(4M +
p
m)ml2 , a2 := (M + m)μ p + (4/3)μt ml2 , a1 := −(M + m)mgl +
In the case of W = 0, that is, the problem without control μ p μt , and a0 := −μt mgl.
input penalty, the expressions in Theorem 2 validate those in Note that both of the transfer functions have a common
[7, Theorem 3.3] in a more explicit form. In the above the- unstable pole p and Px (s) has one nonminimum phase zero
orem we explicitly spell out the effect of the nonminimum at
phase zeros of N into two terms Jcs1 and Jcu1 , while [7, Theo- !
rem 3.3] writes it out as a single term Js∗ , the optimal perfor- −3μ p + 9μ2p + 48m2 gl3
z= . (53)
mance with respect to the stable part of the plant Ps . In our 8ml2
Shinji Hara et al. 9

Now we derive analytical closed-form expressions for the ×105

best achievable tracking error performance Jc∗ for two differ- 1.2
ent cases, namely, the SISO case (Case 1): P(s) = Px (s), and
the SITO case (Case 2): P(s) = [Px (s), Pθ (s)]T . We assume 1.15
W(s) = 1 for simplicity and define the following functions:
 2  2  1.1
f1 (ω) := ω2 a0 − a2 ω2 + a1 ω − a3 ω3 ,
( )2 (54)
4 2

Jc1
∗
f2 (ω) := m2 l2 lω + g + μ2p ω2 . 1.05
3
Case 1. The control objective in this case is to stabilize the 1
system by measuring the cart position x only. The optimal
tracking performance is given by 0.95
∞  
∗ 1 f1 (ω) dω
Jc1 = Jz + log 1 + 0.9
π 0 f2 (ω) ω2 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
 2 (55)
2 1 − Θ∼ (p)Θ(0) l (m)
+ ,
p
Figure 5: The optimal tracking performance of Case 1.
where p is the unstable pole of Px (s) and
16ml2
Jz = ! . (56) 6
−3μ p + 9μ2p + 48m2 gl3
5.5
Note that, in (55), Θ(s) is determined from the following
inner-outer factorization:
  5
Mx (s)
= Θ(s)Φ(s), (57)
Nx (s)
Jc2

4.5
∗

where Px (s) = Nx (s)Mx (s)−1 .

Figure 5 illustrates the situation in Case 1. Here we as- 4
sume that the ratio between the mass and the length of the
pendulum is constant, that is, m/l = 2.145π [kg/m] and 3.5
M = 2 [kg]. We also assume that μt = 1/4 and μ p = 1/3. We
compute the optimal tracking performance for l from 1 to
3
4 [m] by using (55), that is, Theorem 2. We can see from the 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
∗
figure that the values of Jc1 are fairly large which are caused by l (m)
∗
the third term of Jc1 . Although the optimal length of the pen-
∗
dulum which gives the lowest possible value of Jc1 is around Figure 6: The optimal tracking performance of Case 2.
2.8 [m], it is implied that the stabilization by a single sensor
of the cart position is very hard in practice.
One of the reasonable practical solutions is to add an ex-
tra sensor which measures the pendulum angle θ. Indeed, the is that the unstable pole p does not give any effect, that is,
continuous-time counterpart of Corollary 4 can be applied ∗
Jcu = 0, since p is a common pole of Px (s) and Pθ (s), and its
to the case and a reasonable result can be obtained as seen direction is not coincident with that of step input signal, that
below. 
is, M(p)ν = 0.
Although the expression (58) is rather complicated, it
Case 2. We will control both the cart position x and the pen-
only includes the plant parameters. Hence, we can directly
dulum angle θ by measuring those two quantities. Note that
see the relation between the best achievable control perfor-
Pθ (0) = 0, which leads to the step input direction ν = (1, 0)T .
mance and the plant parameters without solving the corre-
Thanks to the shared unstable pole in both Px (s) and Pθ (s),
sponding Riccati equation or the LMI problem. This is one
the optimal tracking error performance is simply represented
of the advantages of deriving the closed-form expression. For
by
example, we can see that Jz is a monotone increasing func-
∞   tion of the length l, while the second term in (58) tends to
∗ 1 f1 (ω) + m2 l2 ω4 dω
Jc2 = Jz + log 1 + . (58) infinity when the length l goes to zero. These clearly indicate
π 0 f2 (ω) ω2
that there exists an optimal length l which minimizes the H2
∗
The values of optimal costs Jc2 for Case 2 are quite small cost (58). In fact, Figure 6 shows that the best length of the
∗
in comparison with Jc1 as seen in Figure 6. The main reason pendulum is about 0.2 [m] for this case.
10 Journal of Control Science and Engineering

r(t) e(t) ek uk u(t) y(t) APPENDIX

S Kd H Pc
−
PROOF OF THEOREM 1
We introduce two lemmas which play important roles in the
Figure 7: Sampled-data feedback control system. proof of Theorem 1. These lemmas serve as the discrete-time
counterparts of [7, Lemmas 1 and 2]. The proofs are imme-
rk rk ek uk yk0
diate by application of bilinear transformation. Consider the
[1 0 . . . 0] Kd P f0 class of functions in
−   jθ 
*  f Re  +
yk ek F := f : lim max =0 . (A.1)
Pt R→∞ θ ∈[−π/2,π/2] R
−
The above class consists of functions with restricted behavior
Figure 8: Approximation of the sampled-data feedback control sys-
at infinity. By this, we intend to deal with integration over a
tem. contour that becomes arbitrarily long. Generally speaking, if
f is analytic and bounded magnitude in Dc , then f is of class
F.

5. CONCLUSION Lemma 1. Let f (z) ∈ F and analytic in Dc . Denote that

f (e jθ ) = f1 (θ) + j f2 (θ). Suppose that f (z) is conjugate sym-
We have examined the H2 tracking performance problem metric, that is, f (z) = f (z). Then
for SIMO LTI feedback control systems, where the tracking π
1 f1 (θ) − f1 (0)
performance is quantified by the error response with con- f (1) = dθ. (A.2)
trol input penalty. We first provided analytical closed-form 2π −π 1 − cos θ
expressions of the best achievable tracking performance for Lemma 2. Let f (z) be a meromorphic function in Dc and has
discrete-time systems by introducing the idea of plant aug- no zero or pole on unit circle. Suppose that f (z) is conjugate
mentation. We have addressed several cases where we can c
symmetric and log f (z) ∈ F. Also, suppose that ηi ∈ D (i =
have complete solutions for the H2 performance limits. We c
1, . . . , nη ) and λk ∈ D (k = 1, . . . , nλ ) are, respectively, the
next discussed the continuous-time case by exploiting the zeros and the poles of f (z), all counting multiplicities. Provided
delta domain expression based on the discrete-time result that f (1) = 0, then
and derived the continuous-time counterpart. We then ap-
π  
plied the result to an inverted pendulum system to confirm 1  f (e jθ )  dθ
the effectiveness of the closed-form expression in plant de- log 



2π −π f (1) 1 − cos θ
sign. nη  2 nλ   (A.3)
 ηi  − 1  λk 2 − 1 f (1)
Before closing the paper, it should be noted that the idea =  2 −  2 + .
    f (1)
of plant augmentation proposed in this paper can be ap- i=1 ηi − 1 k=1 λk − 1
plied to the performance limitation for a single-input single-
We are now ready to prove Theorem 1. Define
output sampled-data feedback control system depicted in
 
Figure 7, where Pc (s) represents the continuous-time plant Θ∼ (z)
and Kd (z) the discrete-time stabilizing controller. Note that Ψ(z) := . (A.4)
I − Θ(z)Θ∼ (z)
ek and uk represent digital signals related to e(t) and u(t) by
the sampler S and the zero-order hold H with sampling time It is easy to show that Ψ(z) is a norm-preserving function,
T. We here evaluate the tracking measure in the continuous- that is, Ψ∼ (e jθ )Ψ(e jθ ) = I. By premultiplying Ψ to (19), we
time setting rather than the discrete-time setting. In other get
words, we take the inter-sample behavior into account to  ∼  
a νa 
 Θ + Φ Ya − Qa M 2
evaluate the tracking performance. The study on perfor- Jd∗ := 
inf 
Qa ∈RH∞
 z−1 
mance limitations has been done for years, for example, see 2
   (A.5)
[20, 21].  I − ΘΘ∼ νa  2

Under the fast sampling procedure, a fast sampler with +


 .

z−1 2
sampling time T/N is embedded at the reference input and
the plant output, from which we subdivide the kth sampling Noting that
interval [kT, (k +1)T) into N subintervals [kT +(i/N)T, kT +  
Θ∼ − Θ∼ (1) νa
(i + 1/N)T), i = 0, 1, . . . , N − 1. Then the feedback control ∈ H2⊥ , (A.6)
z−1
setup of Figure 7 can be approximated by that of Figure 8.
Then, we can use the idea of plant augmentation and de- we may select Qa ∈ RH∞ such that Θ∼ (1) − Φ(1)(Ya (1) +
rive the corresponding expression to approximate the opti- a (1)) = 0, and therefore
Qa (1)M
mal tracking performance of the sampled-data system. (see   
[19] for the closed-form expression of the approximated per- a νa
Θ∼ (1) + Φ Ya − Qa M
∈ H2 . (A.7)
formance limit and a numerical example). z−1
Shinji Hara et al. 11

As a result, we can write Jd∗ = J1 + J2 , where ∗

This completes the proof of J1 = Jds1 ∗
+Jds2 +Jdu1 . Next, by fac-
a (z)νa = gm (z)h(z), where gm (z) is left invertible
torizing M
 ∼     
 Θ − Θ∼ (1) νa 2  I − ΘΘ∼ νa 2
    , in RH∞ and h(z) is defined by
J1 :=   +  (A.8)
z−1 2 z−1 2
 z − λk
 ∼   2 h(z) = , (A.16)
 Θ (1) + Φ Ya − Qa M
a νa  1 − λk z
J2 := inf  
 .
 (A.9) k∈J p
Qa ∈RH∞ z−1 2

∗ ∗
we can show that J2 = Jdu2 by following the standard partial
Next we will show that J1 = Jds1 + Jds2 + Jdu1 and J2 = Jdu2 . fraction expansion using in the proof of [7, Theorem 3.3].
A direct calculation leads to
π   
jθ Θ∼ (1)ν − 1
 REFERENCES
1 Re νH
aΘ e a
J1 = − dθ. (A.10)
2π −π 1 − cos θ [1] H. W. Bode, Network Analysis and Feedback Amplifier Design,
Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1945.
Let f (z) := νH ∼
a Θ(z)Θ (1)νa . Under Assumption 2, we ob- [2] J. Chen, “Logarithmic integrals, interpolation bounds, and
tain f (1) = 1. Applying Lemma 1 yields J1 = − f (1) = performance limitations in MIMO feedback systems,” IEEE
−νH ∼
a Θ(1)Θ (1)νa . Denote the inner factor Θ(z) in (22) as Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1098–
Θ(z) = [w0 (z), w1 (z), . . . , wm (z)]T . According to Assump- 1115, 2000.
tion 2, we may select νa = Θ(1) without loss of generality. [3] J. S. Freudenberg and D. P. Looze, “Right half plane poles and
Noting that the first element of νa is zero, we have zeros and design tradeoffs in feedback systems,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Automatic Control, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 555–565, 1985.

m  wi (1) [4] M. M. Seron, J. H. Braslavsky, and G. C. Goodwin, Fundamen-
J1 = − wi (1)wi (1) = − ν2i . (A.11) tal Limitations in Filtering and Control, Springer, London, UK,
i=0 i∈Jz
wi (1) 1997.
[5] S. Skogestad and I. Postletwaite, Multivariable Feedback Con-
Condition i ∈ Jz guarantees that wi (1) = 0. Since wi (z) is an trol: Analysis and Design, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK,
element of the inner factor Θ(z), it has the same set of non- 2nd edition, 2005.
minimum phase zeros as Ni (z), which includes the set of un- [6] T. Bakhtiar and S. Hara, “H2 control performance limitations
stable poles of P but not those of Pi as well as the set of non- for SIMO systems: a unified approach,” in Proceedings of the
minimum phase zeros of Pi (z). Hence, by invoking Lemma 2, 6th Asian Control Conference (ASCC ’06), pp. 555–563, Bali,
Indonesia, July 2006.
we have1
[7] G. Chen, J. Chen, and R. Middleton, “Optimal tracking per-
ni      formance for SIMO systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic
ηi j  − 1  λk 2 − 1
2
wi (1) 
=−  2 −  2 Control, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1770–1775, 2002.
wi (1)    
j =1 ηi j − 1 k∈J pi λk − 1 [8] J. Chen, S. Hara, and G. Chen, “Best tracking and regulation
(A.12)
π   jθ   performance under control energy constraint,” IEEE Transac-
1  wi e  dθ
+ log  
 w (1)  1 − cos θ .
tions on Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 1320–1336, 2003.
2π −π i [9] J. Chen, L. Qiu, and O. Toker, “Limitations on maximal track-
ing accuracy,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 45,
Noting here that |wi (e jθ )| = |Pi (e jθ )|/ Pa (e jθ ), we obtain no. 2, pp. 326–331, 2000.
[10] O. Toker, J. Chen, and L. Qiu, “Tracking performance limita-
  jθ    
Pi (1)2
  jθ 2 
Pa e  tions in LTI multivariable discrete-time systems,” IEEE Trans-
 wi e  1

log   = − log     2 . (A.13) actions on Circuits and Systems I, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 657–670,
wi (1)  2 Pa (1)2 Pi e jθ  2002.
[11] S. Hara and C. Kogure, “Relationship between H2 control per-
We can see from Assumption 3 that |Pi (1)| and P(1) are formance limits and RHP pole/zero locations,” in Proceedings
infinite but |W(1)| is finite, and therefore of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers Annual Con-
ference (SICE ’03), pp. 1242–1246, Fukui, Japan, August 2003.
      [12] T. Bakhtiar and S. Hara, “H2 regulation performance limits
Pi (1)2 Pi (1)2 Pi (1)2
  =     =   (A.14) for SIMO feedback control systems,” in Proceedings of the 17th
Pa (1)2 P(1)2 + W(1)2 P(1)2 International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks
and Systems (MTNS ’06), pp. 1966–1973, Kyoto, Japan, July
holds. Also note that 2006.
[13] V. Kariwala, S. Skogestad, J. F. Forbes, and E. S. Meadows,
  jθ 2   jθ 2   jθ 2
Pa e  P e  + W e  “Achievable input performance of linear systems under feed-
  2 =   2 . (A.15) back control,” International Journal of Control, vol. 78, no. 16,
Pi e jθ  Pi e jθ 
pp. 1327–1341, 2005.
[14] J. H. Braslavsky, R. Middleton, and J. S. Freudenberg, “Feed-
back stabilization over signal-to-noise ratio constrained chan-
1 The second term in the right-hand side is not explicitly examined in the nels,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, vol. 6,
expression in [7]. pp. 4903–4908, Boston, Mass, USA, June-July 2004.
12 Journal of Control Science and Engineering

[15] R. Middleton, J. H. Braslavsky, and J. Freudenberg, “Stabiliza-

tion of non-minimum phase plants over signal-to-noise ra-
tio constrained channels,” in Proceedings of the 5th Asian Con-
trol Conference (ASCC ’04), vol. 3, pp. 1914–1922, Melbourne,
Australia, July 2004.
[16] R. Middleton and G. C. Goodwin, Digital Control and Estima-
tion: A Unified Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
USA, 1990.
[17] J. Chen, Z. Ren, S. Hara, and L. Qiu, “Optimal tracking perfor-
mance: preview control and exponential signals,” IEEE Trans-
actions on Automatic Control, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1647–1653,
2001.
[18] A. R. Woodyatt, M. M. Seron, J. S. Freudenberg, and R. Mid-
dleton, “Cheap control tracking performance for non-right-
invertible systems,” International Journal of Robust and Non-
linear Control, vol. 12, no. 15, pp. 1253–1273, 2002.
[19] S. Hara and T. Bakhtiar, “H2 tracking performance limitations
for SIMO feedback systems: a unified approach to control in-
put penalty case,” Tech. Rep. METR2006-33, Department of
Mathematical Informatics, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo,
Japan, May 2006.
[20] J. Chen, S. Hara, L. Qui, and R. Middleton, “Best achievable
tracking performance in sampled-data control systems,” in
Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Con-
trol (CDC ’02), vol. 4, pp. 3889–3894, Las Vegas, Nev, USA,
December 2002.
[21] J. S. Freudenberg, R. Middleton, and J. H. Braslavsky, “Inher-
ent design limitations for linear sampled-data feedback sys-
tems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 1387–
1421, 1995.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

The Scientific
Engineering
Journal of Advances in
Journal of Mechanical
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Distributed Advances in
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Advances in Submit your manuscripts at

OptoElectronics http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
http://www.hindawi.com

VLSI Design

Modelling &
International Journal of Simulation
International Journal of Navigation and in Engineering Advances in
Chemical Engineering Observation Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

International Journal of Journal of

Active and Passive Antennas and Electrical and Computer
Electronic Components Propagation Shock and Vibration Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014