International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 10, No.

12 (2000) 2815–2822
c World Scientific Publishing Company

CONTROLLING OSCILLATION AMPLITUDES

VIA FEEDBACK

DANIEL W. BERNS
Departamento de Electrónica,
Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan Bosco,
(9000) Comodoro Rivadavia, Argentina
JORGE L. MOIOLA
CONICET and Departamento de Ingenierı́a Eléctrica,
Universidad Nacional del Sur,
(8000) Bahı́a Blanca, Argentina
GUANRONG CHEN∗
Department of Electronic Engineering,
City University of Hong Kong,
Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China

Received January 7, 2000; Revised March 9, 2000

This paper studies feedback control of limit cycle amplitudes in nonlinear systems. A graph-
ical approach to bifurcation control is first briefly introduced, followed by the derivation of a
nonlinear control law. Then, a suitable implementation of the design is developed via an ap-
proximation of the time-derivative term in the nonlinear state feedback controller. A classical
model is finally simulated for illustration of the proposed control method.

1. Introduction control and bifurcation control becomes quite sub-

Bifurcation and chaos controls have recently
received considerable attention from systems and
control engineers, physicists, mathematicians, and
biologists alike. In particular, chaos control has
undergone continuous investigation with increasing
efforts, leading to significant progress in ordering
or suppressing chaos, retaining or enhancing chaos,
and utilizing chaos for nontraditional applications.
A plentiful literature on chaos control is now avail-
able [Chen & Dong, 1998; Chen, 1999]: It covers
theoretical, experimental and practical aspects of
the subject. In the meantime, bifurcation control
has also emerged and is rapidly developing. As is
well known, period-doubling is a common route to
chaos and, as such, the distinction between chaos
∗
Author for correspondence.
tle. As a matter of fact, the topic of bifurcation
control was studied earlier than chaos control. For
instance, earlier studies on local bifurcation control
were discussed in [Abed & Fu, 1986] on dynamic
(Hopf) bifurcations. Some applications of this sta-
bilization technique for limit cycles were developed
thereafter in [Mohamed & Emad, 1993; Nayfeh
et al., 1996; Yuen & Bau, 1996], for some mag-
netic and electrical systems as well as for a thermal
convection loop model. Recently, several strategies
for bifurcation control were developed in [Wang &
Abed, 1995] using a feedback synthesis technique as
well as by Wang and Murray [1998].
To date, the objectives of bifurcation con-
trol range from delaying the appearance of Hopf

2815
2816 D. W. Berns et al.
bifurcations and/or changing the stabilities of some
bifurcating periodic solutions, to managing the re-
location and/or suppression of chaos. In particular,
some nontraditional control objectives have been
formulated in, e.g. [Abed, 1995; Chen & Moiola,
1994], by taking into account the consequences of
the system dynamics near regular and degenerate
Hopf bifurcations. These studies have motivated
several recent investigations concerning amplitude
control of oscillations in nonlinear systems [Moiola
et al., 1997; Chen et al., 1998; Wang & Krstić,
1998].
To create an appropriate scenario for design-
ing a nonlinear feedback controller, this work is a
continuation of our earlier pursuit in bifurcation
control. The proposed method is an engineering
feedback approach formulated in the frequency do-
main [Moiola & Chen, 1996], which takes advan-
tage of local predictions obtained by applying differ-
ent higher-order harmonic balance approximations
(HBAs). The proposed control method is based on
detecting the Hopf bifurcation within the system
parameter space, and then using a convenient feed-
back law to modify the value of the curvature co-
µ), with g: Rm → Rr in terms of the system states
which can be viewed as the system input, u ∈ Rr ,
and k, n, m, q, and r are integers.
Taking Laplace transforms on both sides of
Eq. (1) gives
(Lx)(s) = [sI − A]−1 BL{g[Cx(t); µ, γ]} , (2)
or equivalently,
(Le)(s) = −G(s; µ, γ)(Lu)(s) , (3)
where e(t) = −y(t) = −Cx(t) and
G(s; µ, γ) = C[sI − A]−1 B ,
u(t) = g[Cx(t); µ, γ] := f [e(t); µ, γ] .
The equilibrium solution, ê, can be obtained by
solving the following equation in the frequency
domain representation [Moiola & Chen, 1996]:
G(0; µ, γ)f (ê; µ, γ) = −ê . (4)
In terms of the Jacobian
efficient, so as to control the size of the emerging 
oscillations. ∂f 
J= , (5)
To present the new control algorithm, the rest ∂e e=ê
of the paper is organized as follows. First, in Sec. 2,
a brief review of the higher-order HBAs for nonlin- the characteristic equation of the linearized system
ear feedback systems is provided. In Sec. 3, a new has the form
feedfack law used in the limit cycle amplitude con-
trol is derived. Then, in Sec. 4, one classical dy- det[λI − G(s; µ, γ)J] = λp + ap−1 (s; µ, γ)λp−1
namical system with rich dynamics is investigated + · · · + a0 (s; µ, γ) = 0 ,
as an illustrative example. Finally, Sec. 5 briefly (6)
concludes the paper.
where the integer p = min(m, r). Letting s = iω,
using the bifurcation condition λ = −1 (a single
2. Higher-Order Harmonic root), and separating the above equation into real
Balance Approximations (<) and imaginary (=) parts, we obtain
Consider the following parametrized nonlinear
system: X
p−1
F1 (ω, µ, γ) = (−1)p + (−1)k <[ak (iω; µ, γ)]
k=0
ẋ(t) = A(µ, γ)x(t) + B(µ, γ)g[C(µ, γ)x(t); µ, γ] ,
= 0, (7)
y(t) = C(µ, γ)x(t) , (1)
X
p−1
where A, B, and C are n × n, n × r and m × n ma- F2 (ω, µ, γ) = (−1)k =[ak (iω; µ, γ)] = 0 , (8)
trices, respectively, µ ∈ R is the main bifurcation k=0
control parameter, γ ∈ Rk is the auxiliary vector of √
bifurcation parameters, x ∈ Rn is the state vector, where i = −1. Then, by solving Eqs. (7) and (8),
y ∈ Rm is the system output, g is a smooth nonlin- we can recover the Hopf bifurcation points from the
ear function (belonging to C 2q+1 , q ≥ 1, in x and solution (ω0 , µ0 , γ0 ), provided that ω0 6= 0.

A regular Hopf bifurcation point, denoted H00
for simplicity, is defined as a solution pair (ω0 , µ0 )
of Eqs. (7) and (8), that satisfies
 
∂F1 ∂F2
 ∂µ ∂µ 
 
det   6= 0 ,
 ∂F ∂F2 
1
∂ω ∂ω (ω0 ,µ0 )
where ∂F1 /∂ω 6= 0, ∂F2 /∂ω 6= 0 at (ω0 , µ0 ) and
 
<{ξ1 (ω)} ={ξ1 (ω)}
 ( ) ( )
det 
 dλ̂ dλ̂

 = σ1 (µ0 , ω0 ) 6= 0.
< =
dω dω
(ω0 ,µ0 )
Here, ξ1 is a complex number depending on the
second- and third-order partial derivatives of the
function f [e(t)], evaluated at ê; λ̂ is the eigenvalue
closest to the critical point (−1+i0) in Eq. (6), when
s = iω is sweeping onto the Nyquist contour; and σ1
is the curvature coefficient (also called the stability
index ), ξ1 and σ1 are related through the following
0 k=1
equation: σ1 = <{ξ1 /w> G Jv }, where w> , v are
the (normalized) left and right eigenvectors of GJ
0
corresponding to λ̂, and G = (dG/ds)|s=iω̂ where
ω̂ is the approximating frequency of oscillations (in
particular, at criticality ω = ω̂ = ω0 ).
If either expression (9) or (10) vanishes, a condi-
tion in the classical Hopf theorem fails. In this case,
we have a degenerate Hopf bifurcation. The vanish-
ing of Eq. (9) is called the failure of the transversal-
ity condition, while the other is called the failure of
the curvature coefficient. In the vicinity of the for-
mer singularity, two oscillatory branches interact; in
the unfoldings of the latter, up to two nested limit
cycles can be found (see [Moiola et al., 1999]).
Now, consider a periodic solution of
Eq. (1), e(t) = −Cx(t), given by its 2qth-order
approximation
 
X2q
e(t) ≈ ê + < E k eikωt
 
k=0
where E k is a complex number in the kth harmonic
of the expansion. These {E k } are obtained after
equating the output of the linear part, −G(ikω)F k ,
with the input signal to the nonlinear feedback
function, f (·), that has Fourier coefficients {F k }.
Then, we have the harmonic balance equations, in
Controlling Oscillation Amplitudes via Feedback 2817
the form
E k = −G(ikω, µ, γ)F k (E k , E k−1 , . . . , E 0 , µ, γ) ,
k = 0, 1, . . . , 2q . (12)
These equations are solved in terms of E 1 = vθ,
(9) where θ is a measure of the amplitude of the peri-
odic solution. The final result is obtained by com-
puting several complex numbers, ξq (v, ω) [Moiola
& Chen, 1996], which are used to graphically esti-
mate the amplitude and frequency of the periodic
solution. This requires to solve the following equa-
tion in a way reminiscent to the describing function
method:
X
q
λ̂(iω; µ, γ) = −1 + ξk (v, ω)θ 2k . (13)
(10) k=1
A solution pair, (ω̂, θ̂), is then placed in Eq. (11), so
as to obtain the predicted oscillatory solution. For
simplicity, we use Lj to represent the right-hand
side of Eq. (13), namely,
X
j
Lj = −1 + ξk (v, ω)θ 2k , j = 1, 2, . . . , q . (14)
In the following, we refer to Lj as the ampli-
tude locus, in contrast to the characteristic lo-
cus, λ̂(iω; µ, γ). Also, for simplicity, we refer to
the solution pair, (ω̂j , θ̂j ) of Eq. (13), as the Lj -
approximation solution.
3. Controlling the Amplitudes
of Limit Cycles
3.1. The algorithm
Although the system can be n-dimensional, the
general problem to study is restricted to the
two-dimensional stable manifold after the Hopf
bifurcation, which is best described by the following
formulation [Guckenheimer & Holmes, 1983]:
ẋ = (dµ + a(x2 + y 2 ))x − (ω + cµ + b(x2 + y 2 ))y ,

, (11) ẏ = (ω + cµ + b(x2 + y 2 ))x + (dµ + a(x2 + y 2 ))y ,
or, in polar coordinates,
ṙ = (dµ + ar 2 )r ,
ϑ̇ = ω + cµ + br 2 ,
where d = (d/dµ)(<λt (µ)) 6= 0, λt and λ̄t are the
bifurcating eigenvalues given in the time domain
2818 D. W. Berns et al.
setting, and a (≈ σ1 ) is the curvature coefficient
(which can be expressed by either the time domain
or the frequency domain formula).
To obtain small amplitude limit cycles for
generic Hopf bifurcations (i.e. d 6= 0 and a 6= 0)
we need to decrease the amplitude
p of the nontriv-
ial “nonzero” solution, r = −µd/a. One way to
achieve this is to increase the absolute value of the
curvature coefficient (“a”), which can be done by
appropriate nonlinear feedback control, as exploited
in [Nayfeh et al., 1996]. Analogous expressions can
be obtained using the formulas derived in the fre-
quency domain. With a second-order HBA (q = 1
in Eq. (13)), it follows that
λ̂ + 1 = ξ1 θ 2 .
Then, dividing the last equation by η = w> G Jv,
we have
(λ̂ + 1) θ 2 ξ1
= .
η η
Taking the real part of this equation yields
( )  
(λ̂ + 1) ξ1
< = θ2<
η η
or equivalently,
v ( )
u and n × 1 matrices, respectively, x ∈ Rn are the
u
u < (λ̂ + 1)
u
t η
θ=
σ1
To this end, by increasing the absolute value of
σ1 we obtain a small amplitude of the first har-
monic oscillation, and after that, this result can
be confirmed by using higher-order HBAs or Lj -
approximations.
The following algorithm is developed based on
the above reasoning:
Step 1. Locate a Hopf bifurcation point in the pa-
rameter space, (µ, γ), and calculate the first curva-
ture coefficient at the criticality. If the first curva-
ture coefficient is positive and if there are no other
eigenvalues crossing the critical point (−1+i0), then
the Hopf bifurcation is subcritical. Then, a feed-
back law can be applied to alter the stability of the
existing periodic solutions, so as to obtain a super-
critical Hopf bifurcation.
Step 2. Fix the value of the auxiliary parameters
γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γk , so as to obtain a larger module of
σ1 and, by virtue of expression (15), to guarantee
a small amplitude limit cycle emerging from Hopf
bifurcation.
Step 3. Compute HBAs for q = 1, 2, and 3 in
order to approximate the emerging limit cycle with
a greater accuracy.
This computational algorithm is accurate, not
only for regular Hopf bifurcations but also for some
Hopf bifurcation degeneracies in which they have
some subtleties [Moiola et al., 1997; Berns et al.,
1998; Moiola et al., 1999]. If the degeneracies do not
exist in the original system, they can be created by
designing an appropriate feedback, or by varying
several system parameters in an appropriate way.
By either means, we are controlling the system bi-
0 furcations, thereby achieving control of amplitudes
of the system limit cycles.
3.2. The control law
Consider the following nonlinear dynamical system:
ẋ = fa (x; µ, γ)
= θ 2 σ1 ,
= A(µ, γ)x + B1 (µ, γ)g1 (x) + B2 u , (16)
where A(µ, γ), B1 (µ, γ) and B2 are n × n, n × r
state variables, fa is a smooth nonlinear vector field,
g1 : Rn → C 2q+1 (Rr ) is the nonlinear function,
. (15)
u ∈ R is the input, and n, r and q are positive
integers. Two important constraints are imposed
on the feedback law: It maintains the equilibrium
points as well as the occurrence of the Hopf bifurca-
tion points. Feedback laws of the type u = g2 (x−x̂)
(where x̂ is the equilibrium point at which the Hopf
bifurcation takes place and g2 : Rn → C 2q+1 (R)
with g2 (0) = 0) are not very useful since it is gener-
ally not possible to know exactly the value of x̂ in
a real application. To overcome this difficulty, two
different approaches have been proposed:
1. through the use of “washout-filters” [Tesi et al.,
1996] in order to delay the appearance of the
period-doubling bifurcation;
2. through the use of delayed feedback,
u = g2 (x(t) − x(t − τ )) , (17)
such that g2 (0) = 0, following the proposal orig-
inally made by Pyragas [1992] for controlling a
chaotic system.

In the following, we propose a new control law
for the dynamical system given by (16), which sat-
isfies the imposed constraints.
1. Assume a feedback law, with real parameters
η = [η1 η2 η3 η4 η5 ], in the following form:
u = f1 (ẋi ; η) = η1 ẋi + η2 ẋ2i + η3 ẋ3i ,
where xi is the ith state variable and B2 is
a vector such that one of its components is
equal to 1 but not the one at the ith place.
Then, by following a criterion to be defined later,
assign appropriate values to parameters η1 , η2
and η3 .
2. If the signal ẋi is not accessible, then replace the
control law f1 (ẋi ; η) by
u = f2 (x, χ1 , χ2 ; η)
= χ2 (η1 χ̇1 + η2 χ̇21 + η3 χ̇31 ) ,
χ̇1 = η4 (xi − χ1 ) ,
χ̇2 = η5 (1 − χ2 ) ,
where χ̇j , j = 1, 2 are new variables of the
augmented system.
3. Finally, the graphical Hopf bifurcation method is
applied for the implemented system in order to
compute the predicted periodic solutions. Then,
the periodic branch under variations of the main
bifurcation parameter is computed.
It can be immediately verified that the pro-
posed control law (enlarged system),
ẋ = fa (x; µ, γ)
= A(µ, γ)x + B1 (µ, γ)g1 (x) + B2 u ,
u = f1 (ẋi ; η) = η1 ẋi + η2 ẋ2i + η3 ẋ3i ,
does not affect the equilibrium points of the orig-
inal system, since if ẋ = 0, then ẋi = 0 and u =
f1 (0; η) = 0.
Moreover, by considering an alternative control
system,
ẋ = fa (x; µ, γ)
= A(µ, γ)x + B1 (µ, γ)g1 (x) + B2 u,
u = f2 (x, χ1 , χ2 ; η) = χ2 (η1 χ̇1 + η2 χ̇21 + η3 χ̇31 ) ,
χ̇1 = η4 (xi − χ1 ) ,
χ̇2 = η5 (1 − χ2 ) ,
Controlling Oscillation Amplitudes via Feedback 2819
it is easily verified that ẋ = 0, χ̇1 = 0 and χ̇2 = 0
together result in u = f1(0; η) = 0, and the equi-
librium points are identical to that of the original
system.
On the other hand, the proposed feedback law
can modify the appearance of the Hopf bifurcation
(18) points through a convenient variation of η1 6= 0.
This feedback law is based on an estimate of the
time derivative of one of the state variables, and it
is closely related to designing an observer with a
high gain in a robust way (see [Esfandiari & Khalil,
1992; Atassi & Khalil, 1999]).
Consider the following first-order ODE:
χ̇1 (t) + aχ1 (t) = ax(t) ,
(21)
χ1 (0) = 0 ,
where a ∈ R, a > 0, and x(t) is a real function. If
x(t) = cos(kωt), the solution can be easily obtained
as
χ1 (t) = e−at c1 + α cos(kωt − β) ,
where
a
α= √ ,
a + k2 ω 2
2
 
kω
β = arctan ,
a
c1 = −α cos(−β) = −α cos(β) .
On the other hand, if x(t) = sin(kωt), it follows
that
χ1 (t) = e−at c2 + α sin(kωt − β) ,
(19)
where c2 = −α sin(−β) = α sin(β). For x(t) = 1, it
results in
χ1 (t) = −e−at + 1 .
In other words, for a > 0, the output χ1 (t) tends
asymptotically to the input x(t) as a → ∞. This
means that, for sufficiently large a, χ1 (t) differs very
little from x(t) and χ̇1 (t) differs very little from
ẋ(t). However, the transient state of the estimator
of the derivative can be taken into account by, for
example, closing the loop after the transitory state
is vanished. Another possibility was suggested by
Esfandiari and Khalil [1992] through the use of the
(20) sign function.
2820 D. W. Berns et al.

In order to apply the graphical Hopf bifurcation For this particular example, we specify the value of
theorem, we avoid the use of discontinous functions. the desired curvature coefficient for the controlled
Instead, we make the transient evolution smooth, system as the curvature coefficient for the system
which is through the connection χ2 (t) defined as without control multiplied by a positive constant.
In that way, we can generate a small amplitude
χ̇2 (t) = b(1 − χ2 (t)) ,
(22) oscillation according to Eq. (15).
χ2 (0) = 0 ,
where b is small enough to ensure that the solution 4.1. The first control law
χ2 (t) increases from the initial condition slowly un-
til it reaches the value 1. From Eq. (20) observe To evaluate the effect of the first proposed control
that, χ2 (t) appears as a multiplying factor in the law (with the exact time derivatives), consider the
feedback law, which ensures that the feedback sig- enlarged system:
nal does not have a significant impact during the
transitory state on estimation of the time deriva-     
ẋ1 0 1 0 x1
tive of the state variable.     
 2 
ẋ = 0 0 1   x2 
ẋ3 −1 − α −γ1 − α µ x3
4. An Application Example  
0
Consider the following system proposed by Tesi  
+  0  (g1 (y) + u) ,
et al. [1996]:
1
ẋ = Ax + Bg(y; µ, γ) , (23)  
" # " # x1
y = Cx , (24) y1 1 0 0  
y= =  x2  ,
y2 0 1 0
where x = [x1 x2 x3 ]T is the state vector, γ = x2
[γ1 γ2 ]T is the vector of auxiliary parameters, A,
B and C are matrices given by g1 (y, γ) = γ2 y12 + α(y1 + y2 ),
 
0 1 0 f1 (y, η) = η2 ẏ12 = η2 y22 ,
 
A=
 0 0 1
, u = f1 (y, η) .
−1 −γ1 µ
  (25)
0 The curvature coefficient is given by
 
B= 
0 , C = [1 0 0],
1 σ1,1 (η2 )

and the feedback nonlinear function is
g(y; µ, γ) = γ2 y 2 = γ2 x21 .
The bifurcation parameter µ varies in the interval
[−(1/γ1 ); 0). As reported in [Tesi et al., 1996],
a period-doubling bifurcation appears when µ '
−48/100, γ1 = 6/5 and γ2 = 1. Using the change of
variables x = −e, we actually deal with the follow-
ing nonlinear function:
f (e; µ, γ) := g(Cx; µ, γ) = γ2 e21 .
For the system defined by Eqs. (25) and (26), the
curvature coefficient σ1 is given by
−γ12 γ22 (1 + 8γ13 )
σ1 = . (27)
4(1 + γ1 )(1 − γ1 + γ12 )(1 + 4γ13 )
−γ12 [(1 + 8γ13 )γ22 + (γ1 + 8γ14 )γ2 η2 + 2γ12 η22 ]
= .
4(1 + γ1 )2 (1 − γ1 + γ12 )(1 + 4γ13 )
(26)
Notice that when η2 = 0 (the control law
vanishes), we obtain
−γ12 γ22 (1 + 8γ13 )
σ1,1 (0) = ,
4(1 + γ1 )2 (1 − γ1 + γ12 )(1 + 4γ13 )
which differs from (27) by a positive constant 1/(1+
γ1 ) (since for the Hopf bifurcation, it can be easily
√
verified that ωH = γ1 , and γ1 > 0).
Let us adopt as a design objective that the re-
lationship between the curvature coefficients with
 Controlling Oscillation Amplitudes via Feedback 2821

and without control is scaled up by a constant k1 and

in the following way:  
32γ16 γ2 (γ2 + η2 η42 ) + 8γ15 γ2 η42 (9γ2 + 5η2 η42 )
σ1,1 (η2 ) = k1 σ1,1 (0) . (28)  
 + 4γ14 η43 [12γ22 η4 − η22 η42 + γ2 η2 (−1 + 2η43 )] 
 
 
Then, k1 can be obtained as N1 =  3 2 4 2 6 2
 + 4γ1 [−η2 η4 + γ2 (1 + 2η4 )] + γ1 (9γ2 η4
2 2 .

 
(1 + 8γ13 )γ22 + (γ1 + 8γ14 )γ2 η2 + 2γ12 η22  + 7γ2 η2 η44 + 2η22 η46 ) + γ1 η43 [6γ22 η4 
k1 = .  
(1 + 8γ13 )γ22 + 2η22 η42 + γ2 η2 (2 + η43 )] + γ22 η46

4.2. The alternative control law Setting η2 = 0 and η4 = 0 yields

To evaluate the effect of the second control law
(with the approximate time derivative), consider −γ12 γ22 (1 + 8γ13 )
σ1,2 (0, 0) = .
the enlarged system 4(1 + γ1 )(1 − γ1 + γ12 )(1 + 4γ13 )
   
ẋ1 x1 As for the first control law, a relationship be-
   
 ẋ2   x2  " # tween coefficients σ1,2 (η2 , η4 ) and σ1,2 (0, 0) can be
    g1 (y, γ) + u
    obtained in terms of k2 as
 ẋ3  = At  x3  + Bt ,
    v1 (y, η)
 χ̇  χ 
 1  1 σ1,2 (η2 , η4 ) = k2 σ1,2 (0, 0) .
χ̇2 χ2
Solving for k2 ≥ 0 yields
where
 
0 1 0 0 0 k2 = Γ2 N1 , (29)
 
 0 0 1 0 0 
 
At = 
 −1 − α −γ1 µ −α −α  , where
 
 η4 0 0 −η4 0 
4(1 + γ13 )(1 + 4γ13 )
0 0 0 0 −α − η5 Γ2 = .
∆1 γ22 (1 + 8γ13 )
 
0 0

0 0
 
Bt = 
1 0, x2
 
0 0
0.6
0 1 a

[y1 y2 y3 y4 y5 ] = [x1 x2 x3 χ1 χ2 ] , 0.4

" # " #
g1 (y, γ) γ2 y12 + α(y1 + y4 + y5 ) 0.2
= ,
v1 (y, η) η5 + αy5
0.0
b c
f2 (y, γ) = η2 (η4 (y1 − y4 ))2 y 5,

u = f2 (y, γ) . -0.2

The curvature coefficient of the controlled -0.4

system yields
-0.6
x1
−γ12 N1 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
σ1,2 (η2 , η4 ) = ,
∆1
Fig. 1. (a) Limit cycle (LC) in the original system;
where (b) LC for the first control law; (c) LC for the second control
law. The parameter setting is µ = −1/2, γ1 = 12/10, γ2 = 1,
∆1 = 4(1 + 5γ13 + 4γ16 )(4γ13 + 13γ12 η4 + 11γ1 η44 + 2η46 ) η1 = 0, η2 = 2, η3 = 0, η4 = 5 and η5 = 1/10.
2822 D. W. Berns et al.
In order to compare the two feedback laws, the
following setting of the original parameters γ1 =
12/10, and γ2 = 1, and the feedback law parame-
ters η1 = 0, η2 = 2, η3 = 0, η4 = 5, η5 = 1/10, are
simulated. In the computer simulation, we obtained
the limit cycles denoted by a (without control), b
(implementing the exact time derivative), and
c (implementing the alternative control law), as
shown in Fig. 1. Observe that the alternative con-
trol law has a degraded behavior as compared to the
exact law, but still the performance is quite good
in producing a small amplitude limit cycle.
5. Conclusions
An algorithm for predicting and controlling small
amplitude limit cycles of nonlinear feedback sys-
tems has been developed in this paper. The ap-
proach is to use a type of control law involving time
derivatives or their approximations. The size of the
amplitude of an emerging periodic solution is con-
trolled by the size of the curvature coefficient in the
Hopf bifurcation normal form. Computer simula-
tion results reveal that the proposed control method
is effective.
Acknowledgments
D. W. Berns appreciates the financial support of
UNPSJB; J. L. Moida acknowledges the support
of CONICET (the National Council of Scientific
Research of Argentina) and a grant from SGCyT
of the UNS; G. Chen is grateful to the support of
the Hong Kong RGC Grant CERG 9040565.
References
Abed, E. H. & Fu, J. H. [1986] “Local feedback stabi-
lization and bifurcation control, I. Hopf bifurcation,”
Syst. Contr. Lett. 7, 11–17.
Abed, E. H. [1995] “Bifurcation-theoretic issues in the
control of voltage collapse,” Proc. IMA Workshop
on Systems and Control Theory for Power Systems,
eds. Chow, J. H., Kokotovic, P. V. & Thomas, R. J.
(Springer-Verlag, NY), pp. 1–21.
Atassi, A. N. & Khalil, H. K. [1999] “A separation prin-
ciple for the stabilization of a class of nonlinear sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Auto. Contr. 44(9), 1672–1687.
Berns, D. W., Moiola, J. L. & Chen, G. [1998] “Feedback
control of limit cycle amplitudes from a frequency do-
main approach,” Automatica 34(12), 1567–1573.
Chen, G. & Moiola, J. L. [1994] “An overview on
bifurcation, chaos and nonlinear dynamics in control
systems,” J. Franklin Institute 331B, 819–858.
Chen, G. & Dong, X. [1998] From Chaos to Order.
Methodologies, Perspectives and Applications, World
Scientific Series on Nonlinear Science, Series A, Vol. 24
(World Scientific, Singapore).
Chen, D., Wang, H. O., Howle, L. E., Gustafson,
M. R. & Meressi, T. [1998] “Amplitude control of bi-
furcations and application to Rayleigh–Bénard con-
vection,” Proc. 37th IEEE Conf. Dec. and Control,
Tampa, Florida, pp. 1951–1956.
Chen, G. (ed.) [1999] Controlling Chaos and Bifur-
cations in Engineering Systems (CRC Press, Boca
Raton, USA).
Esfandiari, F. & Khalil, H. K. [1992] “Output feed-
back stabilization of fully linearizable systems,” Int.
J. Contr. 56, 1007–1037.
Guckenheimer, J. & Holmes, P. [1983] Nonlinear Oscilla-
tions, Dynamical Systems, and Bifurcations of Vector
Fields, Applied Mathematical Sciences 42 (Springer-
Verlag); fourth printing 1993.
Mohamed, A. M. & Emad, F. P. [1993] “Nonlinear os-
cillations in magnetic bearing systems,” IEEE Trans.
Auto. Contr. 38, 1242–1245.
Moiola, J. L. & Chen, G. [1996] Hopf Bifurcation Anal-
ysis — A Frequency Domain Approach, World Sci-
entific Series on Nonlinear Science, Series A, Vol. 21
(World Scientific, Singapore).
Moiola, J. L., Berns, D. W. & Chen, G. [1997] “Feed-
back control of limit cycle amplitudes,” Proc. 36th
IEEE Conf. Dec. and Control, San Diego, California,
pp. 1479–1485.
Moiola, J. L., Berns, D. W. & Chen, G. [1999] “Control-
ling degenerate Hopf bifurcations,” Latin Am. Appl.
Res. 29(3/4), 213–220.
Nayfeh, A. H., Harb, A. M. & Chin, C. M. [1996] “Bifur-
cations in a power system model,” Int. J. Bifurcation
and Chaos 6, 497–512.
Pyragas, K. [1992] “Continuous control of chaos by self-
controlling feedback,” Phys. Lett. A170, 421–428.
Tesi, A., Abed, E. H., Genesio, R. & Wang, H. O. [1996]
“Harmonic analysis of period-doubling bifurcations
with implications for control of nonlinear dynamics,”
Automatica 32, 1255–1271.
Wang, H. O. & Abed, E. H. [1995] “Bifurcation control
of a chaotic system,” Automatica 31, 1213–1226.
Wang, H.-H. & Krstić, M. [1998] “Extremum seeking for
limit cycle minimization,” Proc. 37th IEEE Conf. Dec.
and Control, Tampa, Florida, pp. 2438–2442.
Wang, Y. & Murray, R. M. [1998] “Feedback stabi-
lization of steady-state and Hopf bifurcations,” Proc.
37th IEEE Conf. Dec. and Control, Tampa, Florida,
pp. 2431–2437.
Yuen, P. K. & Bau, H. H. [1996] “Rendering a subcritical
Hopf bifurcation supercritical,” J. Fluid Mech. 317,
91–109.