Act-and-wait control concept for discrete-time

systems with feedback delay

T. Insperger and G. Stepan
Abstract: Linear n-dimensional discrete-time systems are considered with feedback delay r at the
m-dimensional input. These systems have n mr poles. The act-and-wait control concept is introduced: the feedback is periodically switched on and off during the control with period k. It is
switched on for one step (act) and switched off for (k 2 1) number of steps (wait). It is shown
that if the act-and-wait period is larger than the time delay (i.e. k . r), then mr poles of the
system are equal to zero, and the remaining poles can be placed arbitrarily if the system matrices
satisfy certain controllability conditions.

Introduction

Time delay in the feedback loop of control systems often

leads to instability or poor performance of the system; therefore pole placing of delayed systems is a crucial problem in
modern control theory. Classical pole-placement techniques
of ordinary-differential equations cannot be applied for
delayed systems, since the number of poles to be controlled
is much larger than the degrees of freedom in the controller
[1 3]. Although, complete pole placement is usually not
possible for delayed systems, finding the optimal control
parameters that result in the smallest spectral radius is
still a difficult task.
Periodic controllers can effectively be used in poleoptimisation problems. Several papers have been published
on the possible stabilisation effect of periodic feedback for
both discrete-time systems [4, 5] and continuous-time
systems [6, 7]. An effective technique is the use of generalised sampled-data hold functions by sampling the output
periodically and using special hold functions [8].
In this paper, a special case of periodic controllers is
introduced for discrete-time systems that we call
act-and-wait controller. Using this method, all the poles of
the system can be assigned to zero if certain controllability
conditions hold for the system and input matrices.

might be several reasons for such time delay, for example,

acquisition of response and excitation data, information
transmission, on-line data processing and computation and
application of control forces.
Note that the general form of (1) includes the semidiscrete system
~
~ j
r;
x_ t Axt
Bu

t [ j; j 1

This system describes a continuous-time system under a

digital control like computer-controlled machines [9]. The
solution of system (2) over the interval [ j, j 1) results in
the discrete system (1) with
1

A eA ;

eA1
s dsB~

We consider the linear discrete-time systems with input

delay in the form
x j 1 Ax j Bu j
r

where x [ Rn is the state, u [ Rm the input, A [ Rnn and

B [ Rnm are constants and j [ Z. We assume that the
feedback delay r [ Z is a given parameter of the system
and cannot be tuned during the control design. There
# The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2007
doi:10.1049/iet-cta:20060051
Paper first received 1st February and in revised form 5th June 2006
The authors are with the Department of Applied Mechanics, Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, Budapest H-1521, Hungary
E-mail: inspi@mm.bme.hu
IET Control Theory Appl., 2007, 1, (3), pp. 553 557

Consider the autonomous controller

u j Dx j

with D [ Rmn. Equations (1) and (4) imply the discrete

map
zj1 Czj

2
Discrete-time systems with input delay and
the autonomous controller

with zj (xT( j), uT( j 2 1), . . . , uT( j 2 r))T [ Rnmr. The

coefficient matrix
0

A
BD
B
B
CB0
B ..
@.
0

1
0  0 B
0  0 0 C
C
I  0 0 C
C
.. C
..
.A
.
0  I 0

is actually the (n mr)  (n mr) monodromy matrix of

the system [10 12]. The identity submatrix I below the
diagonal in C represents the delay effect in the feedback.
Stability properties of the system are determined by the
eigenvalues of matrix C, which are also called characteristic multipliers or poles. The system is asymptotically
stable if all the (n mr) poles are in the open-unit disc of
the complex plane.
553

The characteristic equation of C can be given in the form


1
detmI
C det mI
A
r BD 0
7
m

arbitrarily be placed if and only if the pair (Ak, Ak2r21B)

is controllable.

In the rest of the paper, we make the following assumption.

Proof: System (1) with controller (10) can be written in the

discrete map form

Assumption 1: The pair (A, B) in system (1) is controllable.

zj1 G j zj

Assumption 1 implies that if the delay is zero (r 0),

then system (1) is controllable, consequently its poles can
be placed arbitrarily.
If r  1, then pole placement is not possible, and there are
always at least r poles that cannot arbitrarily be placed as it
is demonstrated subsequently.
Consider the single input case (m 1, u [ R). Owing to
Assumption 1, the pair (A, B) can be written in the control
canonical form
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
B .. C
B
C
..
..
B
B
C
C
.
.
Ac B
C; Bc B . C 8
@
@
A
0
1
0 A

a1
a2   
an

1
Let D (d1 , d2 , . . . , dn). Equation (7) yields the characteristic equation

mn

n
X
ai m
r di mi
1 0

where zj is the same vector

matrix is
0
A
B g jD
B
B
Gj B 0
B ..
@ .
0

12

as in (5), and the coefficient

0  0
0  0
I  0
..
.

1
B
0C
C
0C
C
.. C
.A

0 

13

Owing to (11), Gj is also k-periodic

G j G jk

with

G 0 = G 1    G k
1

14

The coupling of the solutions over k subsequent steps (i.e.

over a full act-and-wait period) results in the map
zjk Fj zj

j[Z

15

where

i1

This equation has r n roots. Direct placement of n different poles is always possible using the n control parameters
d1 , d2 , . . . , dn , since (9) depends linearly on the elements of
D. However, the control over the location of the remaining r
poles is lost and these poles may cause instability.
In the multiple input case (m . 1), the characteristic
equation has n mr roots. Using the corresponding
control canonical form of (A, B), it can be shown that r
coefficients in the characteristic polynomial do not
depend on any of the control parameters d1 , d2 , . . . , dn .
Consequently, in this case, again, there are at least r eigenvalues that cannot arbitrarily be placed.
3

Act-and-wait controller

Consider the act-and-wait controller

u j g jDx j

10

where g( j) is the k-periodic switching function defined as


1; if j hk; h [ Z
g j
11
0; otherwise
In the rest of the paper, integer r will be called delay parameter and integer k will be called period parameter.
Although r is a given system parameter, k can be chosen
during the control design.
If k 1, then g( j) ; 1. This case corresponds to the
autonomous controller (4).
If k  2, then g( j) alternates between 1 and 0. In the first
discrete step, g( j) ; 1 and the control is active (act),
whereas in the following (k 2 1) number of steps,
g( j) ; 0 and the control term is switched off (wait); then
in the (k 1)st step, the control is active again and so on.
Theorem 1: If k  r 1, then system (1) with controller
(10) has mr poles at zero. The remaining n poles can
554

Fj Gjk
1 Gjk
2    G j

16

is the monodromy matrix over period k associated with the

initial instant j. Stability properties of the system are determined by the eigenvalues of Fj .
Note that Fj Fjk because of the k-periodicity of Gj .
Consequently, k number of different monodromy matrices
can be given, namely F0 , F1 , . . . , Fk21 , which are similar.
Thus, consider the monodromy matrix F0 associated with
j 0 only. It can be seen that

F0 Gk
1 Gk
2    G0 Gk
1

1 G0

17

because of (14). In the following, the structure of the

monodromy matrix F0 is presented for different timeperiod parameters k.
If the period parameter is k 1, then the monodromy
matrix is F0 G0, which is just identical to C in (6).
This case corresponds to the autonomous controller (4).
If k 2, then the monodromy matrix reads
0 2
1
A 0    0 B AB
B 0 0  0 0 0 C
B
C
B D 0  0 0 0 C
B
C
18
F0 G 1 G 0 B 0 I    0 0 0 C
B
C
B .
C
.. A
..
..
@ ..
.
.
.
0



Note that the second row in F0 is zero. As k is increased

further by one, the rows of the submatrix D and the identity
matrices move downwards by one, and another zero row
appears instead. Increasing k step by step, the rank of the
system, and consequently the number of non-zero poles,
decreases this way.
If k r 1, that is, if the time period is just larger than
the time delay, then all the submatrices except the ones in
the first row become zeros. For the general case k  r 1,
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007

and with the continuous extension





1 1
1=2
A
; B
if a 0
0 1
1

the monodromy matrix reads

F0 G1k
1 G0
0
1
M Ak
r B Ak
r1 B    Ar
1 B
B
C
B 0
0
0

0 C
B
B .
..
..
.. C
C
@ ..
.
.
. A
0
0
0

0

19

where
M Ak Ak
r
1 BD

20

Clearly, mr eigenvalues of F0 are zeros, whereas the

remaining n eigenvalues are determined by M. Since
matrix M corresponds to a system with pair (Ak, Ak2r21B),
its poles can be placed arbitrarily if and only if the pair
(Ak, Ak-r21B) is controllable.
A
Remark 1: M can also be presented as the transition matrix
of system (1) corresponding to r subsequent steps in the
open-loop system, followed by a close-loop step using (4),
then followed again by (k 2 r 2 1) open-loop steps
xr Ar x0

xk Ak
r
1 Ar1 BDx0 Mx0

k

28

22

Definition 1: The decay index is r jm1j1/k, where m1 is the

critical eigenvalue, that is, jm1j  jmij, i 2, 3, . . . , n rm.

23

k2r21

Case study

As a case study, the semi-discrete system (2) subjected to

controller (10) will be investigated with





T


~A 0 1 ; B~ 0 ; D
d1
24
a 0

d2
1
This system with a . 0 corresponds to the digital control of
the inverted pendulum [9] where the feedback delay is
r-multiple of the sampling period. If a . 0, then the openloop system is unstable; if a , 0, then it is stable. The
case a 0 gives a double integrator. Here, we will concentrate on the case a  0.
Using (3), the semi-discrete system (2) with (24) can be
transformed into the discrete map (1) with the corresponding matrices
0
1
p
p
1
p sinh a
cosh
a

A
a
A@
p
p
p
a sinh a
cosh a
0
p 1
1

p2 1
cosh a
B
C
a
C if a . 0
BB
25
@
A
p
1
p sinh a
a
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007

For r 1, this formula reduces to

p


5
2 3
acrit ln
2

which was derived for the digitally controlled inverted

pendulum in Enikov and Stepan [9].
For the further analyses, we introduce the decay index.

B) is controllable, then
Corollary 1: If the pair (A , A
all the eigenvalues of M can be assigned to zero. Since in
this case Mn 0, the system is deadbeat within the period
of length nk.
This corollary is a straightforward consequence of
Theorem 1. Since the deadbeat period is proportional to
the period parameter k, the optimal choice is k r 1,
which results in the smallest deadbeat period.
4

Note that rank[B, AB] 2, that is, the pair (A, B) is controllable. Consequently, if the delay is zero (r 0), then the
arbitrary pole placement is always possible.
If k 1 in controller (10) [that corresponds to the
autonomous controller (4)] and r  1, then the system is
described by the monodromy matrix C given in (6).
Since in this case study, n 2 and m 1, the system has
n mr 2 r poles that cannot arbitrarily be placed
using the control parameters (d1 , d2). Moreover, it can be
shown that the system cannot even be stabilised if
p!!2
rr 1 1 2rr 1 1
27
a . acrit ln
rr 1

21

xr 1 Axr BDxr
r
Ar1 BDx0

26

Decay index r characterises the average error decay over

a single discrete step, whereas m1 characterises the average
error decay over the principal period k
jzj1 j  rjzj j

and

jzjk j  jm1 jjzj j

29

The decay index is a measure that will be used to compare

systems with different periods k of the act-and-wait controller for a given delay r of the system.
In the next sections, the delay parameter is fixed to r 5,
and consequently, the system has n mr 7 poles. In this
case, formula (27) gives acrit 0.0663. The act-and-wait
controller (10) with k r 1 6 will be compared with
the case k 1 [to the autonomous controller (4)]. Two
cases will be investigated: a 0 and 0.1.
4.1

Case r 5, a 0

If the autonomous controller (4) is used (k 1), then the

system can be stabilised, since a , acrit 0.0663.
However, arbitrary placement of the seven poles is not possible using the two-control parameters (d1 , d2). The optimal
control parameters resulting minimal decay index can be
found numerically: (d1 , d2) (0.0026, 0.0840). The corresponding decay index is r 0.8987.
If the act-and-wait controller is used with period
k r 1 6, then five poles are directly assigned to
zero as it is shown in Theorem 1. The remaining two
poles are determined by



1
12 d1 6
12 d2
6
M A BD
30

d1
1
d2
It can be seen that rank[B, A6B] 2, that is, the pair (A6, B)
is controllable. Thus, according to Corollary 1, the eigenvalues of M can also be assigned to zero. Indeed, it can
be shown that the two remaining eigenvalues are zeros if
d1 1/6 0.1667 and d2 23/12 1.9167. Using these
555

1.1.05
1

1 0.
95

1
0.95

0.02

0.4

0.6

(d1, d2) = (0.1667, 1.9167)

r=0

1
0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

Fig. 1 Stability diagrams (top) and optimal time histories

(bottom) for system (2) with (10) and (24), a 0, r 5; k 1
(left, autonomous controller) and k 6 (right, act-and-wait
controller)
Note the different scales of the top plots
556

1.
3

d2

1. 1.1
2

1.1
1.
2

(d1, d2) = (1.835, 5.796)

r=0

x1

d2
x1

2
d1

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

10

20

30

40

50

Fig. 2 Stability diagrams (top) and optimal time histories

(bottom) for system (2) with (10) and (24), a 0.1, r 5; k 1
(left, autonomous controller) and k 6 (right, act-and-wait
controller)

this tendency is reversed, and the deadbeat convergence is

completed in the next act-and-wait period.
4.3

Summary of the case studies

Besides the capability of attaining deadbeat control, some

other features of the act-and-wait control technique should
also be mentioned. Both case studies showed that the
optimal control parameters for the act-and-wait system are
much larger than those of the autonomous system. Note,
however, that the large control gains of the act-and-wait
controller are used every kth step only, whereas the small
control gains of the autonomous controller are used continuously. This is the point of the method: instead of using small
control parameters continuously according to the autonomous control technique, large control gains are used in
the acting steps and zero gains in the waiting periods.
Clearly, its application could be limited by the saturation
of actuators in certain cases.
Although, deadbeat control can be achieved by the
act-and-wait technique, it should be mentioned that this
pole-assignment process is very sensitive to parameter variations. In the case a 0, k 6, 10% perturbation of the
control parameters around the optimal deadbeat values
may result in an increase in the decay ratio up to
r 0.9073. This is a significant increase, but it is still
better than the autonomous case with k 1 where a 10%
perturbation of the optimal control parameters results in
r 0.9570. In the case a 0.1, the robustness of the
act-and-wait controller is even weaker, but in this case,
the autonomous controller cannot stabilise the system at all.
Conclusions

1.1

0.2
d1

0.5

(d1, d2) =
(0.0996, 0.5700)
r = 1.045

20

0
0

1.0
5

x1

d2

1.

02

0.98

d2
x1

(d1, d2) = (0.0026, 0.0840)

r = 0.8987

0.5
d1

40

1.3

4
1.0

0.01
d1

1.05

0
0

1.2

1.2

1.4

1.02

k=6

0.9
1

1 .4

1.k04= 1

0.1

1.3

It can be shown that both eigenvalues of M are zeros for the

control parameters (d1 , d2) (1.835, 5.796). Consequently,
these parameters with k 6 result in a deadbeat control
with the deadbeat period nk 12.
The corresponding contour plots of the decay index and
optimal time histories are shown in Fig. 2. Left panels
show that the system with k 1 is always unstable, even
in the optimal case. In the case k 6, there is a stable parameter domain bounded by thick lines. Time history corresponding to the optimal parameters shows the deadbeat
convergence of the system with deadbeat period 12. It can
be seen that the system grows exponentially in the first
wait period [0, 5), but after the first acting at t 5,

0.2

0.5
1.2
1.3

31

1.02

1.3
1.1

k=6
1.3

1.2

In this case, a . acrit 0.0663, consequently, the system

cannot be stabilised with the autonomous controller (4)
(k 1). The optimal control parameters (d1 , d2) (0.0996,
0.5700) result in the decay index r 1.0448 . 1 that
corresponds to an unstable behaviour.
If the act-and-wait controller is applied with
k r 1 6, then according to Theorem 1, all the poles
can be placed to the origin. In this case, matrix M reads




0:5042d1 3:409 10:3064
0:5042d2
M
1:0306
1:0168d1
1:0168d2 3:4091

0.3

1.5

10

k=1

Note the different scales of the plots

Case r 5, a 0.1

4.2

2
1 .3

parameters with k 6, all the seven poles are placed to the

origin, and the control is deadbeat in the period of length
nk 12.
Contour plots of the decay index r in the plane (d1 , d2)
are shown in Fig. 1. Stability boundaries (r 1) are
denoted by thick lines. Time histories corresponding to
the optimal control parameters are also presented (here, x1
denotes the first element of vector x). The instants of
acting are denoted by circles, whereas instants of waiting
steps are denoted by dots. In the case k 1 (left panels),
the control is continuously active, and the convergence is
relatively slow. In the case k 6 (right panels), the
system actually converges to zero within the period of
length 12. The controller is switched on at instant t 5
forcing the system to zero (we are acting), then it is
switched off (we are waiting) until t 11, and when it is
switched on again, this completes the deadbeat
convergence.

Linear n-dimensional discrete-time control systems with

m-dimensional delayed input and delay r were considered.
The system is described by n mr poles that cannot arbitrarily be placed using an autonomous controller with mn
control parameters.
As a special case of periodic controllers, the act-and-wait
controller was introduced: the controller is periodically
switched off and on with period k. It was shown that if
the period of being switched off is just larger than the
time delay (i.e. k  r 1), then rm poles of the system
are assigned directly to zero, and the remaining n poles
can also be placed arbitrarily if the pair (Ak, Ak2r21B) is
controllable.
IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007

As a case study, a two-dimensional semi-discrete system

with delayed feedback was investigated. It was shown that
all the poles can be assigned to zero using the act-and-wait
method resulting deadbeat control even in the case when the
original autonomous controller cannot stabilise the system.
The main conclusion of this paper is that the act-and-wait
concept provides an alternative for control systems with
feedback delays. The traditional way is the continuous use
of small control gains according to the autonomous controller (4), when a cautious, slow feedback is applied with small
gains resulting slow convergence, if it can stabilise the
system at all (see cases k 1 in Figs. 1 and 2). The proposed alternative way is the act-and-wait control concept,
when large control gains are used in the acting steps, and
zero gains are used in the waiting periods according to
cases k 6 in Figs. 1 and 2.
Several (actually, infinitely many) periodic functions
could be chosen as time-periodic controllers. The main
idea behind choosing the one that involves waiting
periods just larger than the feedback delay is that it kills
the memory effect by waiting for the system answer
induced by the previous action. This explains our choice
in (11). Although it might seem unnatural not to actuate
during the wait period, act-and-wait concept is still a
natural control logic for time-delayed systems. This is the
way, for example, that one would adjust the shower temperature considering the delay between the controller (tap)
and the sensed output (skin).
6

Acknowledgment

This research was supported in part by the Janos Bolyai

Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of

IET Control Theory Appl., Vol. 1, No. 3, May 2007

Sciences and by the Hungarian National Science

Foundation under grants OTKA F047318 and OTKA
T043368.

References

1 Manitius, A., and Olbrot, A.: Finite spectrum assignment problem for
systems with delays, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1979, 24, (4),
pp. 541 553
2 Stepan, G.: Retarded dynamical systems (Longman, Harlow, 1989)
3 Michiels, W., Engelborghs, K., Vansevenant, P., and Roose, D.:
Continuous pole placement for delay equations, Automatica, 2002,
38, (5), pp. 747761
4 Khargonekar, P.P., Poolla, K., and Tannenbaum, A.: Robust control
of linear time-invariant plants using periodic compensation, IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, 1985, 3, (11), pp. 10881096
5 Aeyels, D., and Willems, J.L.: Pole assignment for linear
time-invariant systems by periodic memoryless output feedback,
Automatica, 1992, 28, (6), pp. 11591168
6 Michiels, W., Niculescu, S.-I., and Moreau, L.: Using delays and
time-varying gains to improve the static output feedback
stabilizability of linear systems: a comparision, IMA J. Math.
Control Inf., 2004, 21, (4), pp. 393418
7 Insperger, T., and Stepan, G.: Stability chart for the delayed Mathieu
equation, Proc. R. Soc., Math., Phys. Eng. Sci., 2002, 458, (2024),
pp. 19891998
8 Kabamba, P.: Control of linear systems using generalized
sampled-data hold functions, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1987,
32, (9), pp. 772783
9 Enikov, E., and Stepan, G.: Micro-chaotic motion of digitally
controlled machines, J. Vib. Control, 1998, 4, (4), pp. 427443
strom, K.J., and Wittenmark, B.: Computer controlled systems:
10 A
theory and design (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984)
11 Olgac, N., and Elmali, H.: Analysis and design of delayed resonator
in discrete domain, J. Vib. Control, 2000, 6, pp. 273 289
12 Cai, G., and Huang, J.: Optimal control method with time delay in
control, J. Sound Vib., 251, (13), pp. 383 394

557