IEEE TRANSACTIONS OK AUTOMATIC CONTROL. VOL. AC-32, NO.

3, MARCH 1987 20 1

On the Robust Stabilizability of Linear

Time-Invariant Plants with
Unstructured Uncertainty

Abstract-We consider general families of linear time-invariant plants See Nikol'skii [16] for details concerning these definitions.
described by a nominal plant model with unstructured uncertuinty. We
show, under a rather weak assumption, that when a family of systems is 11. INTRODUCTION
not robustly stabilizable by any linear time-invariant feedback controller,
then no nonlinear time-varying controller can robustly stabilize the given Consider the family F A of finite-dimensional linear time-
family. invariant (FDLTI) plants, arising from an unstructured modeling
uncertainty:
I. NOTATION F A (respectively, F.4): = { P ( s ) : I P(j w ) -Po(j w ) l 5
R = Field of real numbers, and 8 : = field
1 W ( j w ) ( . where Po(s) is a givenstrictlyproper nominal
of complex numbers. plant model, thenumberofpolesof P ( s ) inthe right-half
planeisequalto (respectively, lessthan or equalto)the
Fl = Set of positive real numbers.
number of poles of P&) in the right-half plane, P ( s ) has no
RHP (open right-
poles on the imaginary axis: and W is a weightingfunction
half plane) = {s in C:Re (s) > 01.
( >' = "Transpose of."
'
such that Wand W- are both stable and proper (i.e., W is a
unit in RH=(j?l))]. (2.1)
Ld W
j = Hilbert space of square integrable hnctions
on j 2 . In this paper we prove, under a very weak assumption, that if
Hz(j3) = (Hardy) space of square integrable func- there does not exist an LTI controller that robustly stabilizes the
tions on J g i which admit an analytic exten- family F d (respectively, F4),then no nonlinear time-varying
sion to the RHP. (NLTV) controller can robustly stabilize F A (respectively, F A ) .
If K is a subspace of Lz( j R ) , We also prove a similar result for the families of plants F,w (Fb,)
KL = Orthogonal complement of K in L*( j s ) . characterized by multiplicative uncertainty, defined as follows.
( 1- = Projection from L2(j 2 ) onto H I (j;i). F,w (respectively. & ) = ( P ( s ) : I P ( j w ) - P , ( j w ) ( 5
L,( j R ) = Banach space of essentially bounded func- 1 W(jw)P,( j w ) l . where Po(s)is a strictly proper nominal
tions on j 2 , planr model, thenumber of poles of P ( s ) in theright-half
H,( j2) = Banach 'pace Of bounded equal
toplane
is (respectively.
than
less or equal to) the
O n j P 1 which admit an number of poles of P,(s) in the right-half
plane, P ( 5 ) has
no
sion to the RHP. poles
the
on
imaginary axis? and W is a unit in
RH,( j B ) = Space of rations1 functions which are RH,( j i j ) l . (2.2)
bounded o n j 2 and analytic in the RHP.
These results should be considered as a natural continuation of
If P is in L,(j?l), the earlier results obtained by Khargonekar et al. [l 11 and
I'(P) = Hankel 'perator mapping H2(ji2) into Khargonekar and Poolla [12]. In [ 111, the authors have shown that
H: ( j " ) . defined by r ( p ) x = ( p x ) - for for a class of robust control problems with structured uncertainty
all x in Hz(
j;i). (such as gain margin problems), time-varying controllers are
!![GI = nonzero singu1ar value Of an 'per- vastly superior over LTI ones. In contrast, Khargonekar and
ator G Poolla [I21 showed that for problems of uniformly (or H , -)
= (L~(G*G))"~ h m~
l n being the smallest
optimal control of LTI plants, NLTV controllers offer no
and *' the adjoint Of
nonzero

exists.)
'
.' (If is Of finite then d G ]
Manuscript received February 17, 1986: revised August 15, 1986. Paper
recommended by Associate Editor. R . Sivan. This work was supported in part
by the National Science Foundation under Grant ECS-8451519, and in part by
grants from the Honeywzell Corporation. the 3M Company, and the MEIS
Center at the University of Minnesota.
P. P. Khargonekar and A. M. Pascoal are with the Department of Electrical
Engineering and the Center for Control Science and Dynamical Systems,
University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN 55455.
T. T. Georgiou was with the Department of Electrical Engineering and the
Center for Control Science and Dynamical Systems. University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN 55155. He is now with Iowa State University. Ames, IA
50010.
IEEE Log Number 8612620.
advantage over LTI ones. (See also [6] and [ll].)
The principal motivation for this research stems from the need
to understand the intrinsic limitations of feedback control.
Clearly, these results and their implications have a direct bearing
on the subject of robust adaptive control. (see Remark (4.14) for
Some comments in this direction.) It is hoped that further work
along these lines will clarify the relevant issues. particular, the
performance of NLTV controllers for the case of various types of
simukaneous structured and unstructured uncertainty needs to be
addressed.
The robust stabilization problem for LTI plants using LTI
controllers has been considered by several researchers in recent
years. (See. for example, [20], [5]. [41? [14], [lo], and the
references therein.) Kimura [14] gave necessary and sufficient
conditions for the existence of robustly stabilizing LTI controllers

0018-9286/87/0300-0201$01.00 0 1987 IEEE

202 IEEE TRANSACTIONS
for the family FA in (2.1) of single-input single-output (SISO)
plants. (For the multiinput multioutput case, see [24].) Adifferent
approach, that provides alternative conditions for robust stabiliza-
bility of the family F 4 , was recently developed by Glover [ 9 ] ,
Verma [ 2 I], and Verma et a/. [22]. It should be noted that robust
stabilization for LTI plants with LTI controllers can be formulated
as an optimization problem in the Ha-norm. Thus. in this setting,
robust stabilization is closely related to the Ha-optimal control
problem which was pioneered by Zames [27], Zames and Francis
[28], Francis et a/. [7], and Chang and Pearson [2]. However, if
one considers NLTV controllers for the robust stabilization of
families of plants such as in (2.1). (2.2), the equivalence between
the H,-optimization problem and the robust stabilization problem
does not hold. (See the recent survey paper by Francis and Doyle
[SI for a fairly complete bibliography on robust and Ha-optimal
control.)
Recently, Poolla and Ting [ 171 have obtained some very
interesting results for the problem of robust stabilization using
NLTV controllers. In their work, they considered families of
plants described by a nonlinear but stable perturbation of a
nominal plant model:
F , v ~= { P : P = Po + W A , where Po is an LTI nominal plant
model, W is a stable LTI operatorwith a stable inverse,and A
is a possibly NLTV but stable perturbation with 11 All I1).
andprovedthat if F t r L can be robustly stabilized by a general
NLTV controller, then it can also be robustly stabilized using an
LTI controller. Note that the family FA [in (2. l)] that we consider
in this paper can be equivalently described in an analogous form:
+ TV(s)A(s), where P ( s )has the
FA : = { P ( s ) : P ( s )= Po(s)
same number of poles in the right-half plane as Po(s),
W(s),and W(s)-’are both stable and proper. and A is
an
LTI
(possibly unstable)
transfer
function in
L = ( j $ i ) ,with llA!l,s I}.
Strictly speaking, the family F4 which we consider. and the
family F,vL considered by Poolla and Ting, are incomparable.
Hence, it is not easy to make a direct comparison of our results
with those in [ 171. It is clear that the family FA is more structured
than F:vL. Also, FA appears to be a more natural family, since all
plants in this family are linear and time-invariant. (See Remark
(3.15) inPoolla and Ting [I71 onthe difficulties involved in
extending their results when A is linear time-invariant.) It should
be noted that in FA we allow the locations of the unstable poles
of theplunt to vary, whereas in FSr the unstable poles are fixed.
(See also Section VI.) Finally, the methods of Poollaand Ting
[I71 and our techniques bear no resemblance to each other.
In this paper, we only consider the continuous-time case. It is
very easy to check that all our results (with trivial modifications)
extend to the discrete-time case.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section I11 we
give a brief exposition of some background material. In Section
IV we present our main results for the case of plants with additive
uncertainty, and in Section V these results are extended to the case
of multiplicative uncertainty. Finally, we conclude with a discus-
sion of some directions for future research.
111. PRELIMINARY RESULTS
In this section we formulate the problem setting. and give a
brief exposition of the necessary background material that will be
used in the development to follow.
We begin by introducing a functional analytic framework that
can be used to study a very general class of nonlinear time-varying
systems. This approach was introduced in the work of Zames
[26]. Sandberg [18], and Willems [25]. towhichthe reader is
referred for complete details.
Let Y be a normed ( i l - ) linear space, and let + denote the
\ J J f
space of functions f from F1- to ’J. On this space consider the
AC-32.
ON VOL.
AUTOMATIC
CONTROL. NO. 3. MARCH 1987
projection operator ST,defined, for r > 0. by
Let L2[Ol m; ?/) denote the subspace of norm square integrable
functions in \Iif+.and define the extended space
Lz,p[O.m; Y ) : = { f : f i s in Y i t ~ ,
and srf belongs to Lz[O,m; Y ) for all r in ;l+ }.
Any system G is thought of as an operator G:L2,,[0,03; ‘Y) -+
L:.,[O, 03;?I).A causal system is simply an operator G:L2,JO,
03;V) Ll,,[O, 03; -\I)such that ~ , G s T=, T,G for all 7 in $IA. In
+
03;, Y) into Lz.,. The
the sequel we compress the notation L z , ~ [ O
space .Y will usually be identified with $3 or it will be clear from
the context. A causal system G is said to be (jinite gain) stable iff
n,f#O, in A,}
IIGII := sup {Ilr7Gf!lr/llr,f112: f i n Lz,,,
is finite. In fact. if 11 GI1 is finite. then G is a bounded operator
from LJO, a)into itself, and 11 G 11 is the induced operator norm.
This definition of stability agrees withtheusual notion of
stability for linear time-invariant (LTI) systems. An LTI system P
is usually described by means of itstransfer function matrix P(s).
In this case. P is stable if and only if P ( s ) belongs to H,( j??),
and
11 PI1 =sup { 11 P(s)ll : s in the RHP}.
In this setup, the set of all stable systems with the same input
and output spaces is a Banach algebra, where multiplication
corresponds to composition of operators. This algebra is noncom-
mutative and it is not right distributive. (See. for example. [25].)
In this paper. we consider feedback interconnections of systems
such as the one shown in Fig. 1 . The feedback interconnection of
theplant P and the controller K is defined by means of the
following functional equations:
yI=Pel,y2=Ke2, el=ul-yz.
and e 2 = u z + y I .
The feedback system is we/[ defined when the above system of
equations has a unique solution in Lz,pX L:,, for all inputs (ul,
u2)’in L2,?X Lz.,. If the feedback system is well defined, denote
by G [ P , K ] the operator that maps the input pair (u,,N?) ’ to the
(error) output pair ( e l , e 2 )’. The feedback system is called
internal/y stable iff G [ P , K ] is stable. In this paper. we w i l l not
discuss well-posedness of the feedback systems i n detail. We note
that if the plant P is strictly proper LTI and the controller is
locally Lipschitz continuous. thenthe feedback system iswell
posed. (See [25, Corollary (4.1.2)].) In all our constructions. the
plant turns out to be strictly proper LTI. Hence. the assumption
that the controller is locally Lipschitz continuous guarantees well-
posedness of the feedback systems considered in this paper.
Let P be an LTI plant. andlet K denote a nonlinear time-
varying (NLTV) controller. In this case, G [ P , K] is given by a
fairly simple expression
G [ P ,K ] = [L p] [b] - K ( l +PK)-I [ P 11.
In [12], Khargonekar and Poolla gave a parametrization ofall
NLTV stabilizing controllers for anygiven discrete-time finite-
dimensional LTI plant. It is not difficult to extend their results to
the continuous-time case to obtain the following.
Theorem 3. I : [12, Theorem 2.61. Let P be a strictly proper
continuous-time FDLTI plant. Then, there exists a stable finite-
dimensional linear periodically time-varying controller KO that
internally stabilizes P. Further. there exist stable finjte-dimen-
sional linear periodically time-varying systems N , M , M such that
KHARGONEKAR et al.: ROBUST STABILIZATION OF LINEAR TIME-INVARIANT
PLANTS
Fig. 1
K is an internally stabilizing controller for P if an only if
K=(KO+MQ)(I-NQ)-' (3.1-a)
where Q is a stable (possibly NLTV) system. Moreover, for each
stable Q ,
N(K,+MQ)+~(I-NQ)=I
(i.e., (3.1-a) gives a right coprime factorization for K ) .
We now define two different notions of robust stability. Let us
consider a family of plants F. A controller K is said to uniformly
(respectively, pointwise) stabilize the family F iff there exists a
finite real number M such that 11 G [ P , K ]11 IM (respectively,
11 G [ P , K] 11 < 03) for every P in F. Clearly, the notion of
uniform stability is stronger than the notion of pointwise stability.
In robust control literature, this distinction is generally not made,
since these two notions often turn out to be equivalent (for
example. see Theorem 3 . 2 ) .
As noted in the Introduction, Kimura [14] was the first to obtain
necessary and sufficient conditions for the robust stabilizability of
the family FA in (2.1) using LTI controllers. Another very nice
result on the robust stabilizability ofthe family F4 using LTI
controllers has been given recently by Glover [9], Verma [21],
and Verma e f a/. [22]. This result willbe instrumental to our
approach, and is stated below.
Theorem 3.2: [9, Theorem 4.11, [22$Theorem 21. The family
F 4 (or, FA)is uniformly or pointwise stabilizable byan LTI
controller K if and only if
_a[r(p,(s)W ( s ) -91 > 1 . (3.3)
Proof: Necessity follows directly from Glover [9] and
Verma et al. [22]. They also prove that if (3.3) holds, then there
exists an LTI controller K that pointwise stabilizes FA (in this
case, F 4 equals F A ) .Thus, we only need to show that in this case
there exists a uniform bound on the norm of G [ P ,K ] .
Since K is LTI,
where h l l = ( l + K P ) - ' , h12 = - K ( l + P K ) - ' , h2] =
P ( l + K P ) - l , and hz2 = (1 + P K ) - ' . Since IIG[P, K]II is
bounded for all P in FA, it follows that
IIhij(P,)II 5 II G[P,, Klll SMo
for some constant M , > 0, and i, j take values in { 1,2}. We now
prove that h l l ( P )is uniformly bounded for all P in FA.A similar
argument can be used to show that h12(P), h,,(P),and h,(P)
(and consequently, G [ P , K ] ) are all uniformly bounded. Note
that for any P in FA, P = P, + W A , where A is in L,( jW) and
11A11, I1 . Consider
h,I(P)=(l+KP)-'=(l+KP,+KW~)-l
= ( I + ( 1 + K P , ) - ' K W A ) - ' ( I +KP,)-l
203
+
and note that 11(1 KPJ'II = ~ ~ h l l ( P5,.)M,. ~ ~ By hypothesis,
h l l ( P )is bounded for all P in FA. This lmplles (for instance, see
[23]) that
6 : = )1(1+KP,)-1KWII < 1.
Hence, in this case 11(1 + (1 + KP,)-IK WA)-'ll 5 (1 - 6)-l,
and ~ ~ h l i (IP ()l -~6~) - i M , for all P i n FA. E
IV. MAINRF,SULTS
Our first main result is the following.
Theorem 4.1: Consider the family of (SISO) FDLTI continu-
ous-time plants
FA := { P ( s ): I P ( j w ) - P , ( j o ) l I I W ( j w ) l , where Po(s)
is a given strictly proper nominal plant model, the number of
poles of P ( s )in the right-half planeis equal to the numbern of
poles of Po(s)in the right-half plane,P ( s ) has no poles on the
irnaginav axis: and W is a unitin RH,( j R ) ) } , (2.1)
and let
u := Crr (p,(s) w(s)- 9 1 < 1 .
- (4.2)
Then, there does not exist any (possibly) nonlinear time-varying
controller that uniformly stabilizes the family FA.
By the results of Glover and Verma, Helton, and Jonckheere
(see Theorem 3.2), it follows that FA cannot be uniformly
stabilized using LTI controllers. Our objective is to show that
even if we resort to more general NLTV controllers, FA is not
uniformly stabilizable. It should be noted that even if _a = 1 , FA is
not uniformly stabilizable using an LTI controller. However, in
the above theorem we only consider the case where g is strictly
less than one.
A key ingredient in the proof of Theorem 4.1 is the following
(special case of a ) well-known result of Adamjan et al. [l].
Theorem 4.3: [ 1 , Theorem 0.21. Let G ( s )be a proper rational
function in L,( j a ) , with n poles in the right-half plane, and let
the multiplicity of _a [r(G(s))] be equal tq m In. Then, there
exists a unique proper rational function G(s) in L m ( j a ) 2with
n - m poles in the right-half plane. such that 11 G(s) - G(s)ll,
= (G(s))l.
A direct corollary of Theorem 4.3 (tc be used in the proof of
Theorem 4.1) is the following.
Corollary 4.4: Consider the family FA in (2.1), and let (4.2)
hold. Then, there exists a family of LTI plants P,(s) in FA,
indexed by E in (0, E , ] , such that
PL(s): = p ( s )+FC(s)belongs to F4 for all e in (0, E , ]
where p(s) and pf(s)are strictly proper rational functions in
L,( j R ) , P ( s ) has n - 1 poles in the RHP, and
FJs) = E W ( s ) / ( s- a), where a> 0 is not a pole of &s).
Proof: Let G(s) = _P,(s)W(s)-'.By Theorem 4.3, there
exists a rational function G(s) in L,( @), with precisely n - rn
poles in the RHP, such that I(G ( s ) - G(s)ll, < 1 . Assume that
G ( s ) has no poles at s = Q, or s = b, for some positive real
constants a and b. Define G l ( s ): = G ( s ) if G ( s ) is strictly
proper, and Gl(s) : = G(s)q/(s + q ) , where q > 0, otherwise.
It can be shown that, for q sufficiently large, 11 G(s) - Gl(s)ll, <
1 . Consider
G<,c,(s): = G ] ( s ) + E ' / ( S - ~ ) " ~ - ~ + E / ( S - a ) .
Clearly, there exist values E ' = E ; , and E
- Gc,6,@)I[ < 1 for E ' = E : and for all E
= E,, such that IlG(s)
in (0, E,]. Define
B(S):= ( G , ( ~ ) + E ~ / ( s - - ) ~ - ' ) W ( S ) ,
:= E W ( s ) / ( s -a).
204 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC
CONTROL. VOL. AC-32. NO. 3, MARCH 1987

Obviously, &s) and pc(s)are strictly proper. Define

P,(s) : = B(s)+Pe(s).
Then, P J s ) = G,,,; (s) W ( s )and II(P,(s) - P J s ) )W ( s ) -' 1 1 < 1
for all E in (0, E , ] . Moreover, P,(s) is strictly proper, has n poles
in the right-half plane for all E in (0, E , ] , and thus belongs to the
family FA.
A similar construction can be found in Glover [9, p. 7431. The
following lemma will also be used in the proof of Theorem 4.1.
Lemma 4.5: Consider the feedback configuration shown in
Fig. 2. Let P I and P2 be two strictly proper (SISO) FDLTI
continuous-time causal plants, and let K be an NLTV controller.
Let PI = n l d ; l , P2 = n2d; be coprime factorizations over
RH,(ja), and suppose that dl and d2 are coprime over
RH,( j 2 ) . Set P := P I + P2 and K2 := K ( l + P2K ) - I .
i) If G [ P , K is ] stable, then GIPI, K2]is stable. Fig. 2.
Now, let n2,d2,dl be fixed, while nl = nl,6depends on a (real)
parameter E in (0, E , ] and is uniformly stable. manipulations and using (4.6) and (4.7), we obtain that
ii) If G [ P , Kis] uniformly stable, then G I P l ,K2]is uniformly
stable.
I- -.
Since P I + P2 is strictly proper, the system G [ P , K ]is well- R'G[P, K ] R = G [ P I , K 2 ] +
posed if the controller K is assumed to be causal and locally
Lipschitz continuous (see [25, Corollary 4.1.2, p. 991). With this The second term on the right-hand side of the above equation is
assumption, K 2 defined above is a causal. locally Lipschitz uniformly stable. Consequently, G [ P , , K 2 ]is uniformly stable,
operator, thereby implying well posedness of G I P l , K 2 ] . and this completes the proof of the lemma. c
Note that the statement in the lemma is obvious when K is a Proof of Theorem 4.1: Let K be a NLTV controller that
linear time-invariant controller. uniformly stabilizes the family F 4 . Based on the conditions of the
Proof of Lemma 4.5: Both statements i) and ii) will follow theorem? we will show that this leads to a cpntradiction.
from the same reasoning. Thus, we consider directly the case Consider the family of plants Pc(s)-= P ( s ) + P f ( s ) in F A ,
when n, = nl.e. obtained in Corollary 4.4. The plant P ( s ) is fixed (and indepen-
Since d l and d2 are coprime over RH,( j R ) , there exist (fixed dent of E ) , whereas
and independent of E ) x and y in RH,( j R ) such thatxd,+ yd2 =
1. Define the following (linear) stable operators: = E W ( s ) / ( s -a ) , with a > 0 and
pe(s) E in (0,E , ]
Let Pi@)= Pl,,(s): = pe(s),and P&) : = P(s). Notethat
P l ( s ) has a coprime factorization n l d ; ' . with nl = E W ( S ) /
( s + a ) and dl = (s - a ) / ( s + a ) . Clearly, lim,,,, ~ ~ n l=, 0,
e~~
while dl is independent of E . In fact,
It is clear that even though they depend on E through n l , these
operators are in fact unifomdy stable. Itis straightforward to T : = dl is an isometry from L2[0, m) into itself.
verify that
It follows from Lemma 4.5 that G [ P , ,Kz] is uniformly stable for

[ P l ] R = [ P 1 11. and
that R' [A] [;]= . (4.6)
all E in (0,E , ] . In particular, the controller K2 stabilizes internally
the LTI plant Pi,Efor E = E , . It follows from Theorem 3.1 that K2
admits a (right) coprime representation
Internal stability of the feedback interconnection of P and K , is
K2 = ab-'
equivalent to stability of the mapping betweenthe inputs (ul, u2)' ,
and the (error) outputs ( e l ,e2)' , given by where a, b are stable operators satisfying a (right) Bezout identity

xa+yb= I (4.8)
and x , y are also stable operators. Using this representation we
Similarly, internal stability of the feedback interconnection of P I show that b l l , and consequently K2, are both stable.
and K2 is equivalent to the stability of the mapping between the Since G[P,, K2]is uniformly stable for E in (0,E , ] , it follows
inputs (u3, u4)' and the outputs (e3, e4)' (with uI = u2 = o), that the operators
given by
r
( l + ~ c K z ) - L = ( T-'n,ab-')-'
l+
=b[Tb+n,~]-'T (4.9)
and
Suppose G [ P , K is
] uniformly stable. We first note that
K2(l + P & - ' = . b - ' ( l + T-'niab-l)-'
Q := K ( l + P K ) - ' = K [ l + ( P , + P z ) K ] - '
=a(Tb+nla)-'T (4.10)
= K ( 1 +P2K)-'(1 +P,K(1 +P2K)-')-'
are uniformly stable. Multiplying the above expressions (4.9),
=Kz(l +P'K&'. (4.10) on the left, respectively, by y and x and using (4.8),we
deduce that
NOWconsider R # G [ P , K ] Rwhich is uniformly stable. since it is
a composition of uniformly stable operators. By straightforward
is stable. Define
C, : = Tb+nla,
and let T* denote the adjoint of T. Since T i s an isometry, T* is a
bounded but not causal operator, and T*T = I [where I is the
identity on Lz[O,w)]. It readily follows that
T*C,B, = T*T=I, and
11 T*C,-bll= 11 T*nlall+O when E + O .
Thus, (PC,)- = B, is a stable operator (causal and
bounded), and T*C, tends to b in norm as E tends to 0. We show
that these two facts imply that b-I is bounded.
Let llB, 11 < A4 for E in (0, E , ] , where A4 is a positive real
constant. Now, fix E in (0, E,] so that 11 T*C, - bll < ( 2 h f - l .
Clearly:
b = b - T*C,+ T*C,.
Multiplying the above expression on the right by B, we get
bB,=(b-T*C,)B,+I:= D,.
Notice that 11(b - T*C,)B,II < 1/2, and
( b- T*C,)B, = D, - I = bB, - I
is a causal and bounded operator. Since Il(b - T*C,)B,II < I /
2. it is also an attenuating operator. (See (25, Ch. 21.) Further,
( I + ( b - T*C,)B,)-l=B,-'b-'
exists as a causal and possibly unbounded operator. However, it
follows from the small gain theorem (see [25, Theorem 2.171)
that
(r+(b-T*CJB,)-I=D;I
is in fact a bounded causal operator. Hence.
bB,D;'=I
with BED,' a causal and bounded operator. It follows that b - ',
and therefore
K?=K2bB,Dt1=aB,D;',
are both stable operators.
To conclude the proof of Theorem 4.1, we will now show teat
no stable controller can uniformly stabilize the family of plants P,.
Here, we use an argument due to Takeda and Bergen [ 191. The
plant P, = d ; In, represents a bounded operator onlywhen
restricted to the range of d , = T. This is the closed subspace
N : = TL2[0,00) of L2[0,03). In fact, and when restricted to N,
the normofPCis llPcl,yll= Iln,ll = €11 W ( s ) / ( s +1)11. Apply now
an input u1 in N -to the feedback configuration shown in Fig. 3.
Since the closed-loop system is stable ( K was assumed to stabilize
uniformly the family F A ) , the error e, belongs to N (otherwise y I
would be unbounded). The output u I of the controller K2 is u , =
u , - e , . But. since u, is in N' and e , is in N,it follows that
On the other hand, let M2 denote the norm of K2 (which is stable) niques of the previous section carry over to this case. We first
and M I : = 11 W ( s ) / ( s +1)1!. Then, for E < ( M 2 M I ) - 'we
, have state a result which is analogous to Theorem 3.2.
I I ~ I I I ~ ~ ( ~ I ~ ~ ) ~ ~ ~ I (4.12) ~ J ~ I ous-time
The relations (4.1 1) and (4.12) reveal a contradiction, thus
proving the theorem. 0 P,,(s) is a strictlyproper nominalplantmodel,the
I I
Fig. 3.
The techniques used in the proof of Theorem 4.1 can be usedto
prove the following.
Theorem 4.13: Consider the family of (SISO) FDLTI continu-
ous-time plants
FA := { P ( s ): l P ( ~ w ) - P o ( j w ) l ~ l ~ ( where
; ~ ) l ~P,(s)
is a givenstrictlypropernominalplantmodel,thenumber
of poles of P ( s ) in the right-half plane is less than or equal
to the number of poles of Po(s)in the right-half plane, P(s)
hasnopoleson theimaginaryaxis,and W is a unit in
RH,(;a}, (2.1)
and let
g : = g[r(P,(s)W ( S ) - ~ ) ]1.< (4.2)
Then, there does not exist any (possibly) nonlinear, time-varying
controller that pointwise stabilizes the family F A .
We will very briefly outline the proof- of Theorem 4.13,
omitting all the details. It is easy to see that P ( s ) in Corollary 4.4
actually belongs to F A . This clearly implies that K 2 (as defined in
the proof of Theorem 4.1) is stable. Finally, use the lastpart of the
proof of Theorem 4.1 involving the argument of Takeda and
Bergen to conclude the proof.
The main difference between Theorems 4.1 and 4.13 is that in
Theorem 4.1 we require that the controller K uniformly stabilize
F 4 while in Theorem 4.13 we only require that K pointwise
stabilize F A . Now, condition (4.2) implies that there does not exist
any pointwise or uniformly stabilizing LTI controller K for either
F 4 or FA. Theorem 4.1 (respectively, 4.13) implies that there
does not exist any NLTV controller K that uniformly stabilizes
(the smaller) family F A (respectively, pointwise stabilizes (the
bigger) family FA1.
Remark 4.14: Although it seems intuitively true that the family
{ E / ( s- 1 ) : ~in (0, E , ] } cannot be robustly stabilized using a
single controller, it should be noted that some results in adaptive
control theory imply thateven the largerfamily { E / @ - 1 ) : in ~ [01
E , ] } canbe stabilized by an adaptive controller, whichcanbe
viewed as a particular NLTV controller. Of course, the key
difference between the situation in adaptive control and in the
present paper is that our notion of stability is stronger than the
usual stability notions in adaptive control. This observation shows
that Theorems 4. loand 4.13 are nontrivial. Indeed, basedon
recent results of Martensson [ 151, we conjecture that the families
F q and FA canbe stabilized (in theusual sense of stability in
adaptive control) by an adaptive controller.
V . MULTIPLICATIVE UNCERTAINTY
In this section we consider a family of plants characterized by
an unstructured multiplicative uncertainty. The results and tech-
Theorem 5.1: Consider the family of (SISO) FDLTI continu-
~ ~ ~ I plants
I .
II W ( j w ) P , ( j w ) l , where
F,,,:= { P ( s ) : 1 P ( j w )- P,(jw)l
206 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC COhTROL, VOL. AC-32. NO. 3. MARCH 1987

number of poles ofP(s) in the right-half planeis equal W(s)-’ are both stable and proper, and A is a stable
to the number of poles ofP J s ) in the right-half plane, LTI transfer function in H - ( j R ) , with I(A / I rn 5 1 ) .
P(s) has no poles on the imaginary axis, and W is a
unit in R H , ( j l ) f . Clearly, FA contains FAS. Also, F& contains FAs. Now, it is a
fact that if FAs is robustly stabilizable by an LTI controller, then
Let n,(s) be an outer function in Ha(j 8 ) such that \Po(jw)( = the same controller stabilizes robustly both FA and FKL.We
lno(ju)l a.e. on j i l . (Then P,(s)n,(s)-’ isbounded on j;J.) conjecture that a result analogous to Theorem 4.1 can be obtained
Then, there exists an LTI controller that uniformly stabilizes Fw if for the family F 4 s . If this is obtained, then it would contain both
and only if rhe results of Poolla and Ting (17j and the results in this
paper.
a[r(P,(s)n,(s)-lW(s)-L)]>1. (5.2) iii) Further investigation is needed for the case of families of
plants with block diagonal structural uncertainty in the sense of
The above theorem follows readily from the work of Glover [9], Doyle [4]> as well as with parameter variations that arise in
Verma [21], and Verma et ai. [22]. Also, an analogous result adaptive control. The objective is to determine possible advan-
holds for F + f (defined in Theorem 5.5 below). Our main results in tages of NLTV controllers over LTIones. Finally, for the
this case are the following theorems. problem of robust performance of a set of plants (see [4]),similar
Theorem 5.3: Consider the family of (SISO) FDLTI continu- investigations should prove quite interesting.
ous-time plants FM.described in Theorem 5.1. If
REFERENCES
9 : = g[r(P,(s)n,(s)-l W ( S ) - I ) I < 1, (5.4) V. M. Adamjan, D. Z. Arov, and M . G. Krein, “Analytic properties of
Schmidt pairs for a Hankel operator and the generalized Schur-Takagi
then there exits no NLTV controller that uniformly stabilizes the problem,” Math. USSR Sbornik, vol. 15, no. 1. pp. 31-73, 1971.
family F M . B. C. Chang andJ. B. Pearson, “Optimal disturbance reduction in
Theorem 5.5: Consider the family of (SISO) FDLTI continu- linear multivariable systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol.
AC-29. pp. 880-887. Oct. 1984.
ous-time plants R. F. Curtain andK.Glover, “Robust stabilizatjon of infinite
dimensional systems by finite dimensional controllers, Syst. Contr.
$,w:= { P ( s ) := ~ P ( j w ) - P , ~ w ) ( ~ ( W ( j w ) P , ( j wwhere
)~, Lerr., vol. 7, pp. 41-47. Feb. 1986.
Po@)is a strictly proper nominal plant model, the number J. C. Doyle, “Synthesis of robust controllers and filters.” in Proc.
of poles of P ( s ) in the right-half plane is less than or equal 22ndIEEE Conf. Decision Contr., San Antonio, TX:Dec. 1983, pp.
109-1 14.
to the number of poles of P,(s) in the right-half plane, J. C. Doyle and G. Stein, “Multivariable feedback design: Concepts
P(s)has no poles on the imaginary axis, andWis a unit in for a classicalimodern synthesis,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
RHa(jFl)]. vol. AC-26, pp. 4-16, Feb. 1981.
A. Feintuch and B. A. Francis, “Uniformly optimal control of linear
Let n,(s) be an outer function in H , ( j 2 ) such that \Po(ju)( = time-varying systems,” Automutica, vol. 21, pp. 563-574, Sept.
1985.
In,( j w ) l a.e. on j R . If B. A. Francis, J . W . Helton, and G . Zames, “H”-optimal feedback
controllers for linear multivariable systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat.
:= _o[r(P,(s)n,(s)-lW(s)-l)]<l, Contr., vol. AC-29. pp. 888-900, Oct. 1984.
B. A. Francis and J. C. Doyle, “Linear control theory with an H ,
then there does not exist any NLTV controller K that pointwise optimality criterion,” preprint. Oct. 1985.
K. Glover, “Robust stabilization of linear multivariable systems:
stabilizes Fw. Relations to approximation,” Inr. J. Contr., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 741-
The proofs of the above theorems are quite similar to the proofs 766, 1986.
of Theorems 4.1 and 4.13, and will therefore be omitted. P. P. Khargonekar and A. Tannenbaum, “Noneuclidean metrics and
Remark 5.6: Note that Theorem 5.1 can be generalized to the robust stabilization of systems with parameter uncertainty,” IEEE
Tram. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-30. pp. 1005-1013, Oct. 1985.
multiinput. multioutput systems. We also point out thatusing P. P. Khargonekar, K. Poolla, and A. Tannenbaum, “Robust control
Theorem 5.1, one can obtain alternative necessary and sufficient of linear time-invariant plants using periodic compensation,” IEEE
conditions for robust stabilization of families of distributed Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-30, pp, 1088-1096. Nov. 1985.
systems described by multiplicarive uncertainty (see [13]. and P. P. Khargonekar and K. Poolla. “Uniformly optimal control of linear
time-invariant plants: Nonlinear time-varying controllers,” Syst.
PI). Contr. Lett., vol. 6 , pp. 303-308, Jan. 1986.
Remark 5.7: It is easy to obtain results analogous to Theorems .- . “Robust stabilization of distributed systems.” Automaticu, vol.
4.1, 4.13, 5.3, and 5.5 for additive and multiplicative families of 22. pp. 77-84, Jan.1986.
plants (similar to FA,F,w, F A , and FM),in which the uncertainty
H. Kimura, “Robust stabilization for a class of transfer functions,”
IEEE Trans. Automat.Contr., vol. AC-29, pp. 788-793. Sept.
A lies in the open unit ball in L,( jR). Since these extensions are 1984.
straightforward, we will not state them explicitly. B Mirtensson, “The order of any stabilizing regular is sufficient a
Driori information for adaDtive stabilization.”.~ Svst. Contr. Lett.. vol.
VI. COKCLUSIONS b. pp. 87-91, July 1985.’
N. K. Nikol’skii, Treatise on the Shift .Operator.
. New York:
In this paper we have shown, under a rather weak assumption, Springer-Verlag, 1986.
K. Poolla and T. Ting, “Nonlinear time-varying controllers for robust
thatwhen a family of plants as in (2.1), (2.2) is not robustly stabilization.” Dep.Elec.Eng.,Univ. Illinois. Urbana,Jan. 1986;
stabilizable by any linear time-invariant feedback controller, then also in this issue. pp. 195-200:
no nonlinear time-varying controller can robustly stabilize the 1. W . Sandberg,“On the L2-boundedness of solutions of nonlinear
family. Thus, for these robust stabilization problems, NLTV functional equations,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 43. pp. 1601-1608,
controllers offer no advantage over LTI ones. 1965.
S. Takeda and A. R. Bergen, ”Instability of feedback systems by
We conclude this paper with the following open problems. orthogonal decomposition of Lz,” IEEE Truns. Auromar. Confr.,
i) We have assumed in Theorems 4.1, 4.13, 5.3, and 5.5 that vol. AC-18, pp. 631-636. Dec. 1973.
< 1. Of course even if u = 1, there does not exist an LTI A. Tannenbaum. “Feedback stabilization of plants with uncertainty in
the gain factor.” Inr. J. Contr., vol. 32, pp. 1-16, July 1980.
controller that robustly stabilizes the family of plants. We M. S . Verma, ”Synthesis of infinity norm optimal linear feedback
conjecture that even in this case there does not exist a robustly systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dep. Elec. Eng.. Univ. Southern
stabilizing NLTV controller. However, new techniques are California, 1985.
needed to approach this problem. M . S . Verma, J. W . Helton, and E. A. Jonckheere. “Robust
ii) A very interesting family of plants is obtained by considering stabilization of a family of plants with vaqing number of right half
plane poles.” in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., Seattle. WA. June 1986.
M. Vidyasagar. Control Systems Synthesis: A Factorization Ap-
proach. Cambridge. MA: M.I.T. Press, 1984.
KHARGONEKAR etSTABILIZATION
ai.: ROBUST TIME-INVARIANT
PLANTS
OF LINEAR 207
[24] M. VidyasagarKimura,
H.
and“Robust
controllers
for uncertain Tryphon T. Georgiou (S’79-”83) was born in
linear multivariable systems,”
Aufomatica, vol. 85-94,
pp.
22,Jan.
Athens,
Greece,
October
on 18, 1956. He received
1986. the
Diploma
mechanical
in and
electrical
[25] J. C.Willems,TheAnalysis of FeedbackSystems.Cambridge, engineering from the National Technical University
MA: M.I.T. Press, 1971. of Athens, Athens, Greece, in 1979, and the Ph.D.
[26] G. Zames,“Functionalanalysis applied to nonlinear feedback sys-
terns,” ZEEE Trans.CircuitTheory, vol. 10, pp. 392-402, Sept. degree from the University of Florida, Gainesville,
1963. in 1983.
[27] G. Zames,“Feedback and optimal sensitivity: Model reference He was with Florida Atlantic University, Boca
transformations, multiplicative seminorms, and
approximate in- Raton, until 1985,and with the University of
verses,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-26, pp. 301-320, Minnesota during the academicyear 1985-1986.
Apr. 1981. Since August 1986 he has been with Iowa State
[281 G. Zames and €3. A.Francis, ‘‘Feedback minimax sensitivity and University, Ames,as an Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer
Optimal robustness,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.* vOl. AC-28, Engineering. Hisresearchinterests lie in theareas of control and system
pp. 585-601, May 1983.
theory, signal processing, and applied mathematics.

Pramod P. Khargonekar (S’81-M’81) was born in

Indore,India, in 1956.He received the B.Tech. Antbnio M. Pascoal (S’83) was born in Figueira
degree in electrical engineering from the Indian da Foz, Portugal, in 1951. He received the
Institute of Technology, Bombay, in 1977, and the Licenciatura in electrical engineermgfrom the
M.S. degree in mathematics, and the Ph.D. degree InstitutoSuperiorTecnico,Lisbon,Portugal, in
in electrical engineering from the University of 1975,and the M.S.E.E.from the University of
Florida,
Gainesville. in 1980and
1981, Minnesota,Minneapolis, in 1983, where he is
respectively. currently pursuing the Ph.D.degree in control
From
1981 to 1984, he was an Assistant science.
Professor with the Department of Electrical From 1975 to 1979 he worked as a Research
Eneineering. Universitv of Florida. In 1984, he
~
0 ~~ VI
Associate atthe Gulbenkian Institute of Science,
joined the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Oeiras,
Portugal,
and in 1981 he joined the
Minneapolis, as an Associate Professor. His research interests include robust Department of Electrical Engineering, Instituto SuperiorTecnico,Lisbon,
control, algebraic system theory, and distributed systems. where he holds the position of Assistant Lecturer. He is currently a Research
Dr. Khargonekar was awarded the Presidential Young Investigator Award Assistant at the University of Minnesota. His research interests include CAD
by the National Science Foundation in 1985. of control systems, robust and adaptive control, and distributed systems.