IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. AC-26,NO.

1, FEBRUARY 1981 183

An AlgebraicTheory for the Design of

Controllers for LinearMultivariableSystems-
Part 11: FeedbackRealizations and
FeedbackDesign
LARS PEFWEBO

Absauret-The study of general linear multivariable systems,with p i -

bly different controlled and measmed outputs, is wntinned in this part of
thepaper.Thesbndurematrioes,definedinPartI,areusedtosdvethe
feedback realization problem. Feedback realizable transfer fnnctiwp are
Fig. 1. control input, e-disturbance, y-variables to be controlled,
then used to solve problems ‘of uregulator type.” It is shown that the z=measured variables, u, =command input.
solutions to problems like disturbance depoupliug, output regolation, a d
pole placement are all sperial cases of the sohaion to a more general
problem.Finally,itis~~howtheresoltsofPartIandPartIIcenbe
c o m b i i to wke problems of “servo type” and of %gulator type“
SimUltaneonsly.
-qp
Fig. 2.

I. INTRODUC~ON turban=’ decoupling, output regulation, and pole place-

ment w i be derived from this equation.
l
T HE control configuration in Fig. 1 was introduced in
Part I of this paper.
This part of the paperisorganized as follows. In
Section I1 some additional results for generalizedpoly-
Theassumptions on the linear system S and the re-
nomial matrices will be reviewed. In Section I11 the con-
quirements on the controller R werespecified.Gener-
trol problemisdiscussed and it isshown that the two
alized polynomials wereintroduced to describe the system
classes X and 9 are independent of each other. The
and the left and right structure matrices were defined. It
feedback realization problem is solved in Section IV. In
was shown how the left structure matrix can be used to
describe the class X of all transfer functions from u, toy.
SectionV the linear equation describingtheclass S is
derived and several control problems are solved.The
This led to simple solutions to problems like model match-
results are summarized in Section VI.
ing, decoupling and invertibility.
In this part of the paper we wil consider the class %of 11. FURTHER RESULTS FOR GENERALIZED
all transfer functions from e to y in Fig. 1. This class is POLYNOMIALS
somewhat difficult to describe because an F E S depends
on the controller R in a nonlinear way. We w i circumvent
l The ring of A-generalized polynomials, denoted R,[A],
this difficulty by introducing feedback realizable transfer was defined in Part I of this paper. Let A be a subset of
functions. A transfer function for the controller R f in Fig. the complex plane C that is symmetric with respect to the
2 isfeedbackrealizable if it canbe obtained as the real axis. Then R , [ A ] is the set of rational functions with
transfer from e to u for some admissible controller R in real coefficients and nopolesin A. This subset of the
Fig. 1. rational functions has been studied by, e.g., Forney [ 171. It
The point is that an F E S depends linear& on R,. is aring and a Euclidean domain.Theset of n X m
Necessary and sufficient conditions for a transfer function matrices with entries in R,[A] is denoted R x x m [ h ] The .
to be feedback realizable will be derived. This result will fact that Rh[A] is a Euclidean domain implies that most
make it possible for us to derive a linear equation which results for polynomial matrices are alsovalid, in a p
completelydescribes 9. Necessary and sufficient condi- propriately modified form, for A-generalized polynomial
tions for the existence of solutions to problems like dis- matrices. It is,
e.g.,
possible to define A-unimodular
matrices and A-equivalence for matrices in Rxxm[h].
Manuscript received June 22, 1979; revised May 30,1980. This work
These are analogs of the unimodular matrices and equiva-
was supported by the Swedish Board for Technical Development under lence for polynomial matrices. There also exists a A-Smith
Contract 77-3548. form, which is the analog of the Smithform for poly-
The author is with the Department of Automatic Control, Lund
Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden. nomial matrices. In this section we w igive some further
l

00.18-9286/81/0200-0183$00.75 01981 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
184 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONIROL, VOL. AC-26, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

results about A-generalized polynomial matrices, that wiU if and only if the gcl Ad of A and B is also a left A-divisor
be needed in this part of the paper. The results can be of c.
proven with the methods of, e.g., MacDuffee [4]. Direct Corollary: Let A E R ~ X " [ hand
] B E R i x k [ X ]be given.
proofs can be found in Pernebo [l]. The equation
I=AX+BY
A. Divisors
has aA-generalizedpolynomial matrix solution if and
LeftA-divisors of A-generalizedpolynomialmatrices only if A and B are relatively left A-prime.
weredefined in Part I of this paper. The definition is Equation (2.1) is linear. Therefore, if it has a solution,
repeated here. then all solutionscan be obtained by addition of all
Definition 2.1: The A-generalized polynomial matrix B solutions to the corresponding homogeneous equation
isa left A-divisorof A E R i x m [ h ]if B has linearly in-
dependentcolumns and there isaA-generalizedpoly- AX+BY=O.
nomial matrix C such that A = BC. This equation was analyzed in the polynomial matrix case
Observe that the matrix A is allowed to be nonsquare by Forney [ 5 ] . The corresponding resultis true for A-
and it does not have to have full rank. Also observe that generalizedpolynomialmatrices.We wiU make useof
the divisor B is, in general, nonsquare. Using this defini- prime polynomial bases, defined in Part I.
tion of divisors it is possible to define the greatest com- Theorem 2.4: Let A E R i X m [ h ]B, E R T X k [ X ]and
, CE
mon divisor of two or more matrices and show that it is R i X ' [ A ]be given and suppose that the equation
essentially unique.
Definition 2.2: Let A E R l x m [ X ] and B E R i x k [ X ] be C=AX+BY
given. The matrix L E R ~ ~ ' [ Afor ] ,some I , isagreatest has asolution X = X , E R T X ' [ X ] and Y = Yo ERy'[X].
common left A-divisor (gclAd) of A and B if it is a left Let (P* beaprimepolynomialbasis for the right
A-divisor of both A and B and if every other left A-divisor null space of ( A B ) . Then any solution X E R T X ' [ h ]and
of A and B is also a left A-divisor of L. Y E R k x ' [ h ]can be written
Theorem 2.I : ThereexistsagclAd L of every pair
. rank ( A B ) is r , then L
] B E R i x k [ A ] If
A E R i X m [ Aand X=X, + PR
has r columns and can be expressed as Y=Y,+QR
L=AX+BY
for some R ERXX'[X ] where 4 = m + k -r and r is the rank
for some X E R T X ' [ A ]and YERY'[A]. Furthermore, ev- of ( A B ) .
ery other gclAd can be obtained via multiplication of L The equation
from the right by a A-unimodular matrix. C=AX+ YB
Definition 2.3: The matrices A E R i x mA[ ] and B E
Rzxk[X ] are relatively left A-prime if the identity matrix I has been studied by Roth [12] for the polynomial matrix
is a gcl Ad of A and B. case. The corresponding result for A-generalizedpoly-
The following theorem gives a characterization of left nomial matrices is given by the following theorem.
A-prime matrices. Theorem 2.5: Let A E R l x m [ A ] , B E R y ' [ X ] ,and CE
Theorem 2.2: Let A E R i x m [ X ] and B E R i X k [ A ]be R i x ' [ h ] be given. The equation
given. Then the following statements are equivalent.
C=AX+ YB
a) A and B are relatively left A-prime.
b) The A-Smith form of ( A B ) is ( I 0). has a s o l ~ t i o n X E R ~ ~ ' [and
X ] Y€R","k[X]if and only if
c) ( A ( X , ) B ( h , ) ) has linearly independent rows for the matrices
all X, E A .
An analogous result for polynomial matrices is shown
in Rosenbrock [3].
are A-equivalent.
3.Matrix Equations Finally, we point out that the dual results of all the-
orems in this section are, of course,valid.They are
Two different kinds of A-generalized polynomial matrix
essentially obtained by transposing all matrices and ma-
equations will be needed in this paper. Variants of the
corresponding equations forpolynomial matrices have trix equations.
been studied by many authors, e.g., MacDuffee [4],
Rosenbrock [3],and Roth [12]. 111. THECONTROL PROBLEM
Theorem 2.3: Let A ,B , and C belongto R i x m [ X ] ,
R;x,"k[X],and Rix;"[[X], respectively. Then there is a solu- Severalproblems of "servotype"like,e.g.,model
tion X E R ; ; X ' [ h ]and Y E A y ' [ h ] to the equation matching, decoupling, and invertibility weresolved in
Section I11 of Part I for stable systems. In Section IV of
C = A X + BY (2.1) Part I it wasshownhow the resultscanbe applied to

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
PERNEBO: DESIGN OF CONTROLLERS FOR MUiTIVARIABLE SYSTEbS-11 185

Fig. 3. The given system

Fig. 4. An equivalent control configuration.
unstable systems. In thissection we will discusshow
control problems may be formulated for the configuration An example of a specification is that the transfer func-
in Fig. 1. We will also show how problemsof “servo type” tion should not transmit certain kinds of disturbances,
and of “regulator type” can be solved simultaneously. eg., steps or sinusoids. Another example is that it should
have its poleswithin a certain subset of thecomplex
A . The System and the Controller plane.
The servo problemwas solved in Part I in the following
Wewillassume that a linear, time-invariant,finite- sense. The class X of transfer functions from u, toy that
dimensional systemof the type shown in Fig.3 is given. can be obtained with admissible controllers in Fig. 1 was
The input vector u consists of the control variables and characterized. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the
the components of e are the disturbances that act on the existence of certain types of transfer functions in X were
system. The output vector y contains all variables to be given. Furthermore, a method to compute the controller R
controlled and z allvariables that aremeasured. The for a given H E X was also presented.
disturbance e is, in general, assumed to be not measurable In this paperthe regulator problem w i be solved
l
and the vectors y and z may have components in com- analogously. The classBof transfer functions from e toy,
mon. which can be obtain with admissible controllers in Fig. 1,
The following assumptions on the system S were dis- will be characterized. Necessary and sufficient conditions
cussed in Section IV of Part I. The transfer function of S for the existence of certain types of transfer functions in B
is assumed to be proper and the transfer function from u willbegiven. Furthermore, it willbeshown that any
to z is assumed to be strictly proper. Furthermore, define H E X and FET can be obtained with the same admissi-
an undesirableregion A$ of thecomplex plane. The ble controller R . A method to compute R for given H E X
region A*, is undesirable in the sense that we will require and FETwill also be presented.
that the controlled systemhas no modes corresponding to
points in A*,. It will also be called the unstable region, C. Separation of the Serm and Regulator Problems
althoughit is not necessarilytheright ‘half-plane for
continuous-time systems or the exterior of the unit circle It was pointed out in Part I that the control configura-
for discrete-time systems. The system S is assumed to be tion in Fig. 1 is equivalent to the one in Fig. 4. The class
X of transfer functions from u, toy that can be obtained
A*,-stabilizable and &-detectable. This means that the
modes of S corresponding to points in A$ are controllable with
in
admissible
Section IV-D
controllers R and R was characterized
of Part I.
,, ,
and observable. An algebraic formulation of the assump-
tions on S is given in Section IV-A of Part I. Let R f b be described by
A controller R is assumed to be connected to the system T(A)u= U ( A ) z + Y(A)u (3.1)
according to Fig. 1. The controller is required to be linear,
time-invariant, and finite-dimensional. Furthermore, it is where T and (U Y ) are relatively left prime polynomial
required to havea proper transfer function and to be such matrices and T is square. and nonsingular. Here we have
that the closed-loop system has no modes, corresponding introduced
to points in A*,. A controller whichfulfillsallthese
requirements is said to be admissible. Necessary and suffi-
cient conditions for R to be admissible are derived in
Section IV-B of Part I. where a is a point on the real axis outside A* and p is the
differential operator for continuous-time systems and the
B. The Servo and Regulator Problems forwardshift operator for discrete-timesystems. It was
shown in Part I that, if T and U have been chosen such
Consider the closed-loop systemin Fig. 1. The system S that R f b is admissible, then any H E X can be obtained by
isassumed to begiven and an admissible controller R proper choices of Y and the controller R,,. On the other
should be found, such that servo and regulator require- hand, Y and R,, do not affect the transfer function from e
ments are met. The requirements are assumed to be of the to y. This means that the servo and regulator problems
following general form. can be separated and solved sequentially in the following
Servo Requirements: The transfer function from u, toy way.
in Fig. 1 should satisfy given specifications. First determine T and U so that the regulator require-
An example of a specification is that the..transfer func- ments are fulfilled and R,, is admissible. Then choose Y
tion should be diagonal. according to Theorem4.6 of Part I, e&, Y = I . Finally, use
Regulator Requirements: The transfer function from e the results of Section 111of Part I to determine an admis-
toy in Fig. 1 should satisfy given specifications. sible R,, so that the servo requirements are fulfilled.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
186 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. AC-26, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

F = GuyD + Gey (4-2)

for some D( A) E 9. Conversely, for any D €9the relation

Fig. 5. T h e system with a feedback controller.
In the rest of this paper we w lishow how to determine
T and U in order to fulfill the regulator requirements.
IV. FEEDBACK
REALIZATIONS
(4.2) gives an F in the class 4.
The theorem says that the class 4 can be generated by
(4.2)with D in the class of feedback realizable transfer
functions. To be able to use (4.2), we have to find neces-
sary and sufficient conditions for D to belong to 9.
It wasshown in Part I that the system S canbe
described by

In this and the next section the problem to determine

the controller R f b in Fig. 5 will be considered.
Thefeedback controller R f b must bean admissible
controller and should bedetermined so that regulator (4.3)
requirements of the type stated in Section 111-B are
fulfilled.When R,, has beendetermined,it should be Let the region A be defined by
included in the total control system as in shown in Section
A=f(A*) (4.4)
111-c.
The regulator requirements are assumed to be require- where f is given by (3.2) and A* is equal to A*, extended
ments on the transfer function F from e to y in Fig. 5. with the “infinity point.” The right A-structure matrix for
Therefore, it isof interest to determine the class %of all a A-generalized polynomial matrix was defined in Part I.
transfer functions from e t o y that can be obtained with The right A-structure matrix for the system S is defined as
admissible controllers R f b . In this section it will be shown the right A-structure matrix for the polynomial matrix C2
how feedback realizable transfer functions can be used to in (4.3).
characterize 9.It will also be shownhow the structure Let D be any transfer function and define
matrices, defined in Part I, can be used to describe the
class of feedback realizable transfer functions. Z - Gu,D + G,, (4.5)
It wasshown in Part I that the operator A, givenby
(3.2), is very convenient to work with. Therefore, in the where G,, and Ge, are given by (4.1). If D is the transfer
rest of this paper all transfer functions are expressed in A function from e to u in Fig. 5, then 2 is the transfer
instead of the differential or difference operator p. Also, function from e to z.
polynomial matrix representations in A will be used. The Thefollowingtheoremgivesnecessary and sufficient
relation between these and representations in p is given in conditions fora transfer function D(X)to befeedback
Part I. When no confusion can arise, the matrix argu- realizable with respect to a given system S. The theorem
ments will be omitted. makesitpossible to solve the regulator problem in the
followingway. First determine a feedback realizable D
B. Feedback Realizable Transfer Functions such that F in(4.2)getsdesiredproperties. Then de-
termine a feedback controller R,, whichgives D as the
Let the system S begiven and consider the control transfer function from e to u.
configuration inFig. 5 with R,, admissible.Definethe
following two classes of transfer functions.
Theorem 4.2: Let be the right A-structure matrix for e
the system S. The transfer function D belongs to the class
Definition 4.1: The class ci)of feedback realizable trans- of feedback reahable transfer functions if and only if
fer functions for the system S is equal to the class of all the following two conditions are satisfied.
transfer functions from e to u that can be obtained with
admissible feedback controllers in Fig. 5.
a) D is a A-generalize polynomial matrix and is a e
right divisor of D , where D is the right A-structure matrix
Definition 4.2: Let 4 be the class of all transfer func- of D.
tions from e to y that can be obtained withadmissible b) 2 1G,, D Ge, is a A-generalized polynomial ma-+
feedback controllers in Fig. 5. trix and C isarightdivisor of 2 where 2 is the right
Partition the transfer function for the system S as A-structure matrix of 2.
Proofi
Necessity of a) and b): Suppose that D E 9 . By Defi-
nition 4.1 there is an admissible controller R,, such that
the transfer function from e to u in Fig. 5 is D . Let this
The following theorem is a direct consequence of Defini- R f b be described by the fractional representation
tions 4.1 and 4.2.
Pt=z (4.6a)
Theorem 4.1: Any transfer function F ( A ) E % can be
written u=R(. (4.6b)

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
PERNEBO: DESIGN OF CONTROLLERS FOR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS-11 187

Insertion
(4.6)of intogives
(4.3) The equality (4.14) then gives
Z=A;'Q,T -,E. (4.16)
e.
It followsfrom b)that A; 'QoT - is a A-generalized
It followsfrom the factthat R f b is admissible that polynomialmatrix.Since A , and Q, are relativelyleft
det(A, P - B, R ) has no zeros in A (use the criterion in - -in A.
prime, detA, has no zeros
Theorem 4.3of Part I). The transfer function D is given Define the matrices T, V,and @through
by (4.6b) and (4.7) as T O
D=R(A,P-B,R)-'?? (4.8)
'=( 0 T,) (4.17a)

V=(V VI) (4.17b)

where we have usedthe fact thatthere is a left A-invertible
polynomialmatrixsuch that Q=(Qo QI)- (4.17C)
c, = e . (4.9) The polynomial matrices T I , V,, and Q , wli be defined
The transfer function Z is obtained from the second row below.
of (4.3) as Let ( S O)T be the Smith form of E. Thendet S is
nonzero and has no zeros in A since is left A-invertible. e
Z=A,'B,D+A,'C,. (4.10) There are unimodular polynomial matricesN and M such
that
With D as in (4.8) this gives

Z = A ; ' [ B,R(A,P-B,R)-'+I]E? e=N( E)M. (4.18)

=P(A,P-B,R)-'ce. 1) (4.1 Define and C, as

It follows that both D and Z are R-generalizedpoly-
e
nomial matrices.That is a right divisor of both and 2 ~
e=@c,)
follows from (4.8) and (4.11) as in the first half of the (4.19)
proofof Theorem 4.6, Part 1. Therefore, both a) and b)
are satisfied.
Sufficiency of a) and b): Conversely, suppose that D is c
Then det is nonzero and has no zeros in A.
given such that a) and b) are satisfied. A feedback con- Let L , be the gcld of L and B,. Then L , is also a left
troller R f b will be constructed such that the closed-loop divisor to A , because of (4.15a). Since L , is a left divisor
system in Fig. 5 is A-stable and has a transfer function ofboth A , and B,, it follows that detL , has no zeros in A
from e to u that is equal to D. because of Theorem 4.2, Part I.
Step I-Construction of Rfb: It follows from a) that D It isshown,e.g., in Rosenbrock [3] that there are
can be written as relatively right prime polynomial matrices Tl and Y such
that
D = VT -le (4.12)
L;'Co = YT,-'. (4.20)
where T and V are relativelyrightprimepolynomial
matrices and det T has no zeros in A. Define the poly- Here det TI divides det L1.Therefore, det TI has no zeros
nomial matrix Q through in A. It follows that d e ? in (4.17a) has no zeros in A.

Q =B,V+ ET (4.13)
Determine (2,
and VI such that
L I Y = L Q l -B,V,. (4.21)
where 2 is given by (4.9). The transfer function Z is given
by (4.10). With D as in (4.12), this gives This is possible because L , is the gcld of L and B,. (See
Theorem 2.3 applied to polynomial matrices.) The matrices
Z=A;'B,VT-'e+A,'C, T,, V,, and Q , in (4.17) are now determined.
Introduce (4.20) into (4.21,); then
= A , ' ( B , V + ~ : T ) T - ' ~ = = A , ' Q r - ' e (4.14)
COT, =Le,-B,V,. (4.22)
where (4.9) and (4.13) have been used.
Let L be the gcld of A , and Q. Then there are relatively From (4.13) and (4.15b) it follows that
left prime polynomial matricesA , and Q, such that
&= LQ, -B,V- (4.23)
A , =LA, (4.15a)
Using (4.17) and (4.19), the equalities (4.22) and (4.23) can
Q=LQo. (4.15b) be written

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
188 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. AC-26, NO. I, FEBRUARY 1981

CT= L e - B,V. (4.24) The transfer

function X from e to u is obtained from
(4.30) as
It follows from Theorem 4.2, Part I that B,(O) = 0. There-
fore, 1) x.=j 7 T - 1 p C 2 . (4.3
C(O)T(o)=L(o)~(o). (4.25)
From
the left equality
in (4.19) follows
it that
Itshown
been
has that neither det nor det any
has c I= c-yc c,). (4.32)
zero in A. Therefore, det T(0)# 0 and det #O and it c(0) The first block column of (4.32) gives
follows from (4.25) that
det G(0)#O. (4.26) (;) = C-'l?. (4.33)
Choose the feedback controller R f bin Fig. 5 as the system use(4.17), (4.91, and (4.12) to re-te (4.31).
(4.27a)
u= F[. (4.27b)
This is a well-defined system since det
(4.26).
is nonzero by e
Step 2-Check of Conditiom: It remains to be shown
that the controller (4.27) is admissible and that it gives a (4.34)
transfer function from e to u equal to D . 17
The clOsed-lOoP system is described by (4'3) and (4*27)? Remark: netransfer function z = G,, D + G,, is in b)
which can be written requiredto be aA-generalizedpolynomialmatrix.Ob-
serve that this does not prevent G ,-and G,, from having
' A , A3 B , 0' Y' %'
poles in A.
0 A , B, 0 z
- - C, e . (4.28) The following heuristic argument gives an explanation
-
0 A, 0 -0 - U 0 of the conditions a) and b) of Theorem 4.2.
- It wasshown in SectionIV-D of PartI that any
.o 0 I V , , < O > -$<
estimate t of e that an admissible controller can obtain, is
It follows from Theorem 4.3of Part 1 that the controlleris of the form t =M c e for some A-generalized polynomial
admissible if thedeterminant of the matrix in theleft matrix M. This estimate can then be used to compute the
member of (4.28) has no zeros in A. input u. Of course, u must depend on e in a stable way. It
Perform the following operations of strict system equiv- follows that u must depend on e as u = Do& for some
alence (Rosenbrock [3J) on the system (4.28). Subtract L A-generalizedpolynomialmatrix Do. This isprecisely
times row 3 from row 2and use (4.15a). Subtract B, times condition a). Condition b) says that Z must be A-stable,
row4fromrow2 and use(4.24). Finally,subtract B , which means that D must not excite any unstable modes
times row 4 from row 1. The result is of S. This is clearly a necessary condtion on D because
no admissible controller R f b can produce unstable solu-
tions. Condition b) also requires Z io contain 2as Z = Zoe.
Thismeansthat D must not besuch that itmakesit
possible to obtain better estimatesof e than P = M e e from
z. This is also a necessaryconditionbecausethebest
estimate that can be obtained with an admissible R,, is of
the form t = M c e .
which can be written We summarize the construction procedure of the proof
of Theorem 4.2 in the following algorithm.
Algorithm 4.1: Let D ( h ) be a feedback realizable trans-
fer function for a given system S described by (4.3).
1)Let 2 be therightA-structurematrix of S and
compute polynomial matrices T and V such that VT -'2
= D.
u=
(4'30b)
F[.
2) Computethematrix Q = B,V+ ET where B,- and l?
-
It followsfromTheorem4.2,PartI that det A , has no are given by (4.3) and (4.9).
zeros in A, and it has been shown herethat det A,, det 3) Computethegcld c,
L of A , and Q and compute
and det T have no zeros in A. Therefore, the controller is polynomial matrices A , and Q,, such that A , =LA, and
admissible. Q=LQo.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
PERNEBO: DESlGN OF CONTROLLERS FOR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS-11
4) If e is square, put e=
Qo and v=
V and go to 10).
5) Determine C, such that the Smith form of the square
matrix (e C,) is diag( S, I ) , where ( S O)= is the Smith
form of c.
6) Compute the gcld L , of L and B2 and compute
polynomial matrices Lo and Bo such that L = L l Lo and
B2 = LIBO.
7) Computepolynomial matrices Y and T, such that
YT,-' = L ; ~ c , .
8) Solve the equation Y = LoQ, - BoVl for polynomial
matrices Q , and V,.
9) Put v = ( V V , ) and @= ( Q , (2,).
10) The transfer function of the feedback controller is
vQ- 'Ao.
Observe that the condition in step 4) is fulfilled if C,
has linearly independent rows. In this important special
case the algorithm simplifies to the first three steps.
Theorem 4.2 can besimplified if S hasaA-stable
transfer function.
Corollary: If the system S is A-stable, then D belongs to
the class 9of feedback realizable transfer functions if and
only if D can be written
D =D&
where Do is a A-generalized polynomial matrix and 6 is
the right A-structure matrix of the system S.
Pro08 The transfer functions G,, and G,, are given
by (4.1). They are both A-generalized polynomial matrices
since S is A-stable. It follows from Theorem 4.5 of Part I
that there isaA-generalizedpolynomial matrix 6 such
that
- A
G,, = GC.
Suppose that (4.35)issatisfied. Then a) is satisfied. The
transfer function 2 is given by
z=G,, + G , , D = ( ~ + G , , D ~ ) ~ .
Here (6+G,, Do) is a A-generalized polynomial matrix.
Therefore, b) is satisfied. It follows from Theorem4.2 that
D €9.
Conversely, if D €9then (4.35)isvalidby Theorem
4.2. 0 Example 4.2: Consider the system in Example 4.1. The
Remark: The special case of Theorem 4.2 when z is the
state vector has been shown in Bengtsson[7]. Observe that
the state vector cannot be reconstructed by a Luenberger
observer since the disturbance e cannot be measured.
Example 4.1: Let the system S be described bythe
transfer function
cp-2 2 1
and let the unstable region AX be the closed right half of
+
the complex plane. Introduce X =(p 1)- l . Then the cor-
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
189
responding unstable region A becomes the closeddisk
with radius 1/2 and center at 1/2.
A fractional representation for the system is given by
The right A-structure matrix e is
e=(1-2A)2.
Observe that Theorem 4.5 of Part I cannot be used to
calculate e
because the system is unstable. The right
A-structure matrix for the transfer function from e to z is
(1 -2X)ZC.
The transfer function D , '(1 -2h)' satisfies a) of The-
orem 4.2, but it does not satisfy b). Therefore, D l is not
feedback realizable. The transfer function D, = -2(1-
2h)' does satisfy both a) and b) and is therefore feedback
realizable.Afeedback realization canbe obtained via
Algorithm 4.1, which is terminated at step 4) since 1. c=
The feedback realization is u= -22. O
B. Measured Disturbances
(4.35)
Assume that the disturbance vector can be partitioned
as e = (eT aT)=where z can be measured, but not 6. Let
the system S be described by (4.3) and introduce the
system $given by
(4.36)
Thevector ,?=(zT is the measured output vector.
The results of Section IV-A can then be applied to the
system 9.
In the special case when all of e can be measured, we
(4.37) have the following result.
Theorem 4.3: Assume that the disturbance vector e can
be measured. Then D is feedback realizable if and only if
both D and G,,D+ G,, are A-generalizedpolynomial
matrices.
transfer function D , = (1 -2A)' is feedback realizable if e
can bemeasured. A feedback realization is givenby
u= -22 +3(1- 2A)e. Observe that a pure feedforward
controller from e to u cannot be used since the system is
unstable. 17
V. THEREGULATOR
The regulator problem was formulated in Section 111.
PROBLEM
An admissiblefeedback controller R f b should be de-
termined so that the transfer function from e t o y in the
closed-loop system in Fig. 5 satisfies given specifications.
In this section the class %of all transfer functions that
can be obtained from e to y withadmissiblefeedback
 190 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATICCONTROL, VOL. AC-26,NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

controllers in Fig. 5 w li be characterized. Necessary and follows from Theorem4.2 that D €9if and only if there is
sufficient conditions for certain types of transfer functions a A-generalized polynomial matrix Y such that
to belong to F w libe given. The types that are examined
are, e.g., those with poles within a specified region of the );( = Y2. (5.10)
complex plane or those,which do not transmit certain
kinds of disturbances. The disturbance decoupling prob- Insert (5.10) into (5.9); then
lem, defined by, e.g., Wonham [9], will also be solved for
the more general system in Fig. 5. C=(-B A2)YC?+AlF. (5.1 1)
It has thus been shown that FE9if and only if F satisfies
A . A Characterization of the Cluss of Tramfer Functions (5.11) for some A-generalized polynomial matrix Y.
from the Disturbance to the Controlled Output Let I?be the left A-structure matrix of the polynomial
matrix (- B A 2 ) . Then there is a right A-invertible ma-
In this section the class T'given by Definition4.2 wlibe
characterized. trix k such that
Let the system S be described by the fractional repre- kg= (- B A2). (5.12)
sentation
The matrix f? is, in fact, a polynomial matrix by Lemma
A()I)=Bu+Ce (5.1) 2.2 of Part I. The following lemma can now be proven.
Lemma 5.1: There isaA-generalizedpolynomialma-
where A and ( B C ) are relatively left prime polynomial trix Y satisfying (5.1 l) if and only if there is a A-
matrices. Furthermore, let the transfer function for S be generalized polynomial matrix X satisfying
partitioned as
c=&&A,F. (5.13)
Proof: If Y is a A-generalizedpolynomial matrix
satisfying(5.1 l), then X=&Y is aA-generalizedpoly-
It followsfromTheorem 4.1 that the class F can be nomial matrix satisfying (5.13).
obtained as all transfer functions F that are given by There is a A-generalized polynomial matrixE such that
kz=I since ii?is right A-invertible. If X is a &generalized
F= GuyD + Gey (5.3) polynomialmatrixsatisfying(5.13),then Y = fi isa
A-generalizedpolynomial matrix, satisfying (5.1 1).
where D belongs to the class 9 of feedbackrealizable The following theorem has now been shown.
transfer functions. In Theorem 4.2 it wasshown that Theorem 5.I: Let A be partitioned as (5.8) and let k be
D E 9 if and only if D and the left A-structure matrix of the matrix (- B A 2 ) . Then
Z = G,, D + G,, F E T if and only if there is a A-generalized polynomial
matrix X such that
satisfy conditions a) and b) of that theorem. c=I&~'+A,F. (5.14)
The equalities (5.3) and (5.4) can be written
CoroZZary : Assume that the whole disturbance vector e
canbemeasured; then F€Te if and only if there isa
A-generalized polynomial matrix X such that

Use (5.1) to rewrite (5.5) as c=&+A,F. (5.15)

'C. If a solution ( X , F ) to (5.14) has been found, then a

feedback realizable transfer function D from e to u can be
computed in the following way.
which is equivalent to Algorithm 5.1:
1) Compute a right A-inverse E of k,which is defined
A( ; ) = B D + c . through kk= (- B A 2 ) .
. If A is partitioned as
2) D is the first dim(u) rows of fie.
Algorithm 4.1 can then be used to compute a feedback
A=(A, A2), (5.8) controller which gives F as a transfer function from e to y
in the closed-loop system.
then (5.7) can be written Theorem 5.1 gives a complete solution to the regulator
problem in the sense that it completely characterizes the
c=( - B /I2)( ); +A,F. (5 -9) class T. We will nowspecialize the problem and de-
terminenecessary and sufficient conditions for certain
Let C? be the right A-structure matrix of the system S. It types of transfer functions to belong to 9.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
PERNEBO: DESIGN OF CONTROLLERS FOR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS-11 191

[13] was further generalized in Antsaklis and Pearson [14]

to the case of a general t . Here we will showhow the
solution to the most general case, with different regionsQ
and A, follows from Theorem 5.1.
Fig, 6. T h e closed-loop s y s t e m with a disturbance generator. Let the transfer function T be written
T = R -'M (5.17)
B. DisturbanceDecoupling
where R and M are relatively left primepolynomial
The problem to Check if F= 0 can be obtained bY state It follows from neorem 5.1 that F ~ if$ and
feedback Was fOlYlldated and Solved in wonham and only if there is a nestable x such that
Morse [lo]. It was in Wonham [9] called the disturbance
decoupling
problem. The generalization of this problem to c=&~+A,F. (5.18)
a general measured output z can be obtained from The-
orem 5.1. Let E be the transfer function from 6 toy. Then E is given
It follows from (5.14) that F=O belongs to 9if and only by
if C can be written E = FR - 5 ~ . (5.19)
C=&d (5.16)
Both E and F are required to be astable. This implies
for some &generalized polynomial matrix X. In fact, it that
follows from Lemma 2.2of Part I that if there is such a
h-generalized polynomial matrix X , then X must be poly- Y=FR-' (5.20)
nomial. must be O-stable, since R and M are relatively left prime.
If the disturbance e can be measured, it follows from It follows thatE and I:are O-stable if and only if F can be
(5.15) that I;=0 belongs to '3 if and only if I?is a left written as
A-divisor of C. This problem is discussed in Bengtsson
and Wonham [6] in the special case when the state vector YR F= 1) (5.2
can be measured.
for some &stable Y. Inserting (5.21) into (5.18) gives
C. Output Regulation c=&~+A,YR. (5.22)
If F=O does not belong to 9, then it is not possible to We will need the following lemma, which is a straight-
completely decouple the disturbance e from the output y. forward generalization from polynomials to &generalized
It may, however, be possible to find a controller, which polynomials of Lemma 2.2 in Part I.
prevents certain kinds of disturbances from being trans- Lemma 5.2: Suppose that RcO. Let I? be a left A-
mitted to y . This leads to the output regulation problem structure matrix and P be an O-generalizedpolynomial
which we will formulate as follows. matrix. If there is a h-generalized polynomial matrix R
Suppose that the disturbance e can be represented as such that
the impulse response of a dynamical system, i.e.,
h=P, (5.23)
e = T6
where 6 is an impulse and T a rational transfer function. then R is an !&generalized polynomial matrix.
Disturbances like steps, ramps, and sinusoids can be r e p It followsfrom(5.22) that if Y is Q-stable, then is
resented in this way. The configuration is shown in Fig. 6. O-stable. Consequently, the output regulation problem has
Let 52 be a subset of C , such that it is symmetric with a solution if and only if there are O-generalizedpoly-
respect to the real axis and A cQ.The output regulation nomial matrices X and Y satisfying (5.22). The result is
problem is to find an admissible controller R,, such that summarized in the following theorem.
the transfer functions from 6 toy and from e toy both are Theorem 5.2: Assume that the disturbance e is the im-
O-stable. pulse response of a systemwith transfer functip T =
Observe that Tis in general not h-stable, and therefore R-'M. Let A be partitioned as in (5.8) and let K be the
neither O-stable. The admissibility of R,, requires, how- left &structure matrix of (- B A 2 ) . Thenthe output
ever, the part of the system that is shown in Fig. 5 to be regulation problem hasa solution if and only if there exist
A-stable. The transfer functions from 6 toy and from e to SI-generalized polynomial matrices X and Y satisfying
y are then notonlyrequired to be h-stable,but also c=~x~+A,YR. (5.24)
O-stable.
The output regulation problem was solved in Bengtsson Note that (5.24) is linear andcan be analyzedusing
[8] for the case z=y. This solution was generalized in Kronecker products. This is done in Pernebo [l].
Cheng and Pearson [131 and Wolovich and Ferreira [151 For the problem to be meaningful we must assume that
to the case z = Gy for some rational matrix G. In [ 131 G T has all its poles in 9. However, the transfer function E
does not have to be physically realizable. The result of from 6 toy is required to be O-stable. This means that the

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
192 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. AC-26, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

controller R f b must be such that the modes of T are made system in Fig. 5 is required to be A-stable because R f b is
unobservable from y . In Bengtsson [8] it was shown that required to be admissible. The transfer function from e to
the only way this can be achieved, when z=y, is that R,, y is then required to be not only A-stable, but !&stable.
or S wntains aninternal model of the disturbance genera- It follows from Theorem 5.1 that the pole placement
tor T. When z # y output regulation canbe obtained problem has a solution if and only if there is a A-stable X
without an internal model [18]. See Example 5.2. and an !&stable F such that
Example 5.1: Consider the discrete-time system
c=&?+A,F. (5.28)
Lemma 5.2 implies that X mustbe S1-stable if F is.
Therefore, the problem has a solution if and only if there
where a ischosen equal to 0 in (3.2). This means that are Q-stable R and F satisfying
A =q - *,the backward shift operator.
c=&+A,F (5.29)
Assume that the closed-loopsystemis required to be
asymptotically stable. We must then choose A equal to the
such that R can be written
closed unit disk. Furthermore, assume that the effect of
step disturbances e on the output y is required to go to R=XC (5.30)
zero exponentially. This implies that also D must be cho-
sen equal to the closed unit disk. for some !&stable X.
Observe that the systemis unstable and has anon- Lemma 5.3: Let L be the gcld of k and A , . Then L is
minimum phase behavior in the transmission from e to z. square and nonsingular anddet L has no zerosin A.
A step disturbance can be described as e= (1 -A) -'a Furthermore, there are Q-stable R and F satisfying (5.29)
where 6 is a discrete-time unit pulse.Equation (5.24) if and only if det L has no zeros in Q.
becomes Suppose that ( R , F ) is an P-stable solution to (5.29).
All solutions to (5.29) can then be obtained using Theo-
( (1-2Ay
1 )=( -x -1 x,
1+2A )(X1)(1-2A)Z rem2.6of Part I. Let ( PT QT)Tbe a prime polynomial
basis for the
- null
- space of ( k A , ) . Thenany a-stable
solution ( R , F ) can be written
R=R+PN (5.31a)
whichhasthesolution(X,,X,,Y)=(l-2A,l-A,1+4A2) F= F+ QN (5.31b)
and D is given byD = X , e = ( l - 2X)3. A feedback realiza-
for some Q-stableN . It is required by (5.30) that Rcan be
tion of D is given by
written R = X f for some !&stable X. Insert this into (5.31a)
1-2A
-
@= 1. (5.27) x~=R+PN.+R= - P N + x ~ . (5.32)
l-A
Observe that the disturbance decoupling problem is not
solvable for the system (5.25). This follows from the fact
e
Here R , P, and are given and (5.32) should be solved
for Qstable N and X .
that (5.26) has no A-stable solution X if Y is required to It follows from Theorem 2.5 that an Q-stable solution
be 0 ( N , X ) to (5.32) exists if and only if the two &generalized
Example 5.2: Consider the system polynomial matrices

(5.33)

are O-equivalent.
Theorem 5.3: Let A be partitioned as in (5.8) and let k
with the feedback u=z. Step disturbances will be annihi- be the left A-structure _matrix of (- B A , ) . Furthermore,
lated even though neither S nor R f b contains an integra- let L bethegcld of K and A , and let ( P T e')_'
be a
tor. Hence, no internal model is needed in this case. 0 primepolynomialbasisfor the null space of (K A I ) .
Then there is an Q-stable F E S i f and only if the following
D. Pole Placement two conditions are satisfied.

If neither the disturbance decoupling problem nor the a) The polynomial det L has no zeros in Q.
output regulation problem has a solution, then one may b) Any Q-stable solution ( R , F ) to C = k R + A , F is
try to solvethefollowing problem. Let P be as in the such that the two matrices in (5.33) are Q-equivalent.
previous section and find necessary and sufficient wndi- Remark 1: Observe that condition a) implies, by
tions for the existence of an Q-stable F i n '3. This is called Lemma 5.3, that an Q-stable solution ( R , F ) in condition
the pole placement problem. Observe that the closed-loop b) exists.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
PERNEBO: DESIGN OF CONTROLLERS FOR MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS-11
Remark 2: Observe that if the condition b) is satisfied
for one solution ( R , F ) , then it is satisfied for all solu-
tions.
E. Shortest Correlation Controllersfor
Discrete-Time Systems
The so-called minimum variance controller for discrete
time, single-input single-output systems was introduced by
Astrom [ll]. Thecontroller has the fonowingproperty.
Let the disturbance e be a sequence of independent ran-
dom variables and let the outputs z and y be equal. Then
the controller gives an output, which in steady state has
shortest possible autocorrelation function. This result will
be generalized to multivariable systems in this section.We
will only give themainresultshere. A morecomplete
presentation is found in Pernebo [l].
Choose a=O in (3.2). Then the operator X becomes the
backward shift operator q -’.
We will require the closed-
loop system to be asymptotically stable. Furthermore, we
will require the output y to be a finite moving average of
the disturbance e , i.e.,wewill require F to be a poly-
nomialmatrix. This means that we havetolook for
solutions to the pole placement problem with A equal to
theclosedunitdisk and D equal to thewholecomplex
plane.
The measured output vector z is supposed to be equal
to the controlled output vectory. Therefore, the system S
can be described by the fractional representation
Ay=Bu+Ce.
The disturbance e is supposed to be a sequence of uncor-
related stochastic variables withzero mean value. Further-
more, C is supposed to be square and nonsingular and
det C has no zeros inside the closed unit disk.
Theorem 5.4: Let I? be the left A-structure matrix of B
and let (PT QT)‘ be a prime polynomial basis for the
nullspace of (I? A). Then thereexists a polynomial
matrix FET if and only if B^ and A are relativelyleft
prime.Let I$ €9be polynomial. Then any polynomial
matrix F E ‘% can be written as
F= Fo +QN
for some polynomial matrix N .
The expression (5.35) can be used to compute a poly-
nomial F E 9 with desired properties. The column degree
for each column of F can, for instance, be minimized. The
output y will then be a moving average of shortest length
in each component of e.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this two-part paper the control configuration in Fig.
1 has been studied.
The linearmultivariablesystem S is assumed to be
given, and any linear controller R with propertransfer
function,whichstabilizes the system(w.r.t. the region
At), is considered admissible.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
I93
In Part I a suitable system description was introduced
and algebraic conditions for the controller R to be admis-
sible were derived. Two structure matrices for the system
S were defined. The left A-structure matrix contains all
information about how well y can be controlled from u,.
AnalogouslytherightA-structurematrix contains all
information about how well e can be estimated from z.
The class X of all transfer functions that can be ob-
tained from u, t o y with admissible controllers was char-
acterized. It was shown how this leads to simple solutions
to problems of “servotype”like,e.g.,modelmatching,
decoupling, and invertibility.
In Part I1 the class F of all transfer functions that can
be obtained from e t o y with admissible controllers was
characterized. The characterization was obtained via
feedback realizable transfer functions. In Section IV neu
essary and sufficient conditions for a transfer function to
be feedback realizable were derived. This result was, in
Section V, used to obtain a linear generalized polynomial
matrix equation that completely describes 9. Some prob-
lems of “regulator type” like, e.g., disturbance decoupling,
output regulation and pole placement wereformulated for
the control configuration inFig. 1. It wasshownhow
necessary and sufficient conditions for these problems to
have solutions can be obtained from the equation describ-
ing 9. Also, in Section V, a generalization to the multi-
variable case of the minimum variance controller, intro-
duced by k t r o m [ 111, was presented.
Finally, it has been shown that the classes X and Tare
(5.34) independent in the following sense. Suppose there exists
an admissible controllerR , , which gives a desired transfer
function H from u, toy, and anotheradmissible controller
R,, which gives a desired transfer function F from e toy.
Then there is an admissible controller R , giving H as the
transfer function from u, toy and F from e toy.
REFERENCES
[l] L. Pernebo,“Algebraiccontrol theory forlinearmultivariable
systems,” Dep. Automat. Contr., Lund Inst.Technol., Lund,
Sweden, CODEN: LUTFD2/(TFRT-1016) 1-307,1978.
d
[2] -, “Numerical algorithms for polynomi matrix systems,” Dep.
Automat. Conu., Lund Insf Technol., Lund, Sweden, CODEN:
LUTFD2/(TFXT-7205)/1-048,1980.
(5.35) 131. H. H. Rosenbrock, State-Space and Muitivariable 7Reory.
.
London: Nelson, 1970.
[4] C. C. MacDuffee, The b y of Mam’ces. New York:Chelsea,
1946.
[5] G. D. Forney,“Minimalbasis of rationalvectorspaces, with
applications to multivariable systems,” SZAM J . Contr, voL 13, pp.
493-520, 1975.
[6] G.Bengtsson and W. M. Wonham, “On causal and stablesolu-
tions to rationalmatrix equations with applications to control
theory,” Dep. Automat. Contr., Lund Inst.Technol, Lund, Sweden,
TFRT-7107, 1976.
[A G. Bengtsson,“Feedbackrealizations in linear multivariable sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-22,pp.576-585,
1977.
[8] -, “Output regulation and internalmodel-A frequency do-
main approach,” Automatica, vol. 13, pp. 333-345, 1977.
[9] W. M. Wonham, Linear Muitioariable ControI. Berlin:Springer,
1975.
[IO] W. M. Wonham and A. S. Morse,“Decouplingand pole assign-
ment in linear multivariablesystems:Ageometricapproach,”
SIAM J . Contr., VOL 8. DD. 1- 18, 1970.
[l I] K. J. h a m , -Zntrodu;tjon to Stochastic Control Theov. New
York: Academic, 1970.
[12] W. E. Roth,“The equations A X - Y B = C and A X - X B = C in
matrices,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 3, pp. 392-396, 1952.
194 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOt. AC-26, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1981

[I31 L. Cheng andJ. B. Pearson, “Frequency domain synthesis of [16] W. A. Wolovich, Linear MuIricafubZe &menu. New York:
multivariable hear regulators,” IEEE Truns.Auromar. Conrr., voL Springer-Verlag,
1974.
AC-23, p ~1978.
3-. 15, [If] G. D. Forney,
“Convolutional codes I: Algebraic
structure,” IEEE
[14] P. J. Antsaklis and J. B. Pearson, “Stabilization and regulation in Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-16, pp. 728-738, 1970.
linear multivariablesystems,” IEEE Trans. Auromr. Conrr., vol.[18] J. B. Pearson, private communication.
AG23, pp. 928-930, 1978.
[I51 W. A. Wolovich and P. Ferreira, in “Output regulation and track-
ing in linear multivariablesystems,” in Proc. 1978 IEEE Con$
Decision Conrr., San Diego, CA, 1979, pp.801-808. Lars Pemebo, for photograph
a and biography, see this issue, p. 182.

Synthesis of Linear Multivariable Regulators

11. THEMODEL

We will restrict our attention to systems described as

follows:

where y ( s ) is the Laplace transform of the measured

I. INTRODUCTION variable, z ( s ) is the transform of the regulated variable,
and u ( s ) and e(s) represent transforms of the control
N a recent paper [l] the authors solved a general h e a r input and the exogenous input, respectively. The Gij terms
Iresults
regulator problem. The constructive proofs of the main
of [l] relied on forms of polynomial matrices
Smith
represent proper rational functions.’ In general, y ( s ) , z(s),
u(s), and e(s) are vectors and the Gij(s) are transfer
and certain special types of order relations to prove the function matrices. An alternate way of describing our
existence of proper controllers that solve the regulator systems will be
problem. That approach does not appear to lead to effi-
cient computational methods to construct controllers. In
this paper we present different proofs to a more general
problem using some of Pernebo’s recently developed the-
ory of A-generalized polynomials [2]. Our new approach
does not rely on special forms and techniques, and it where u , e, y , and z are the same as before and .$is some
demonstrates the general types of computational problems internal variable. We assume that P ( s ) is square and
that must be solved in order to compute controllers in an nonsingular, andthat the greatest common left divisor
efficientway. In addition, we discussseveralnewalgo- (gcld) of F ( s ) and V:(s) and the greatest common right
rithms and show how they are applied to the solution of divisor(gcrd)of P ( s ) and VT(s) have no zeros in the
the regulator problem. closed right half-plane.
Following [2], we use the transformation
Manuscript received February 26, 1980; revised October 6, 1980. This
research was supported by theNationalScienceFoundationunder 1
Grant ENG 77-041 19. x= -
s-a
L. Cheng is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University
of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124.
J. B. Pearson, Jr. is withtheDepartment of Electrical Engineering,
Rice University, Houston, TX 77001. ‘A proper rational function has no poles at infinity.

00 18-9286/8 1/0200-0 194$00.75 c,1981 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Leicester. Downloaded on September 3, 2009 at 10:22 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.