Proceedings of the 8th
World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation
July 6-9 2010, Jinan, China
Bifurcation Control of Rotating Stall in Axial Flow
Compressors via Dynamic Output Feedback∗
Pengnian Chen
Department of Mathematics
China Jiliang University
Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China
pnchen@mail.hz.zj.cn
Abstract— This paper deals with the problem of bifurcation
control of rotating stall in axial flow compressors via output
feedback. The pressure rise of the compressor is the only
measurable output. For some classes of the compressor
cubic characteristic curves, the problem of output feedback
control of rotating stall had been solved. Based on the
theory of center manifolds, we present a method of designing
dynamic compensators for the compressors with a general
cubic characteristic curve. The dynamic compensators can
guarantee that the closed loop systems have bifurcation stability.
Index Terms— Bifurcation control, Dynamic output feedback,
Axial Flow Compressors
I. I NTRODUCTION
Bifurcation control of rotating stall in axial flow compres-
sors has attracted great attention in the past two decades (
see, for instance, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and the references
therein ). The mathematical model of axial flow compressors
given by Moore and Greitzer ( see, for instance, [2], [7], [1]
) is
Ȧ = σA(1 − Φ2 − A2 )
Φ̇ = −Ψ + ψc (Φ)√+ 6c3 ΦA2
(1)
Ψ̇ = β1 (Φ + 1 − Ψ(γ + u))
y = Ψ − Ψe ,
where Ψ is the pressure rise, Φ is the mass flow, and A = R2
is the stall cell squared amplitude; γ is the throttle position,
and β > 0 and σ0 > 0 are parameters; u is the control
variable and y is the output variable; Ψe is a constant.
In most studies of control of rotating stall in axial flow
compressors, the compressor characteristic curve ψc (Φ) is
assumed to be a cubic polynomial:
ψc (Φ) = c0 + c1 Φ + c3 Φ3 , (2)
where c0 , c1 and c3 are parameters.
Let c0 + c1 + c3 > 0. It is easy to see that
2
γ = γc = √ (3)
c0 + c1 + c3
∗ This
work is partially supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under grant 60674023 to P. Chen and under grant
60874018 to H. Qin
2919
978-1-4244-6712-9/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
Huashu Qin
Institute of Systems Science
The Chinese Academy of Sciences
Beijing, China
qin@mail.iss.ac.cn
is a critical value of (1) (see, for instance, [2], [8], [1]). Let
(Ae , Φe , Ψe )T denote the equilibrium point of (1). In a small
neighborhood of γ = γc , system (1) has two equilibrium
points for each value of γ 6= γc : one with Ae = 0 and the
other with Ae 6= 0. It is clear that rotating stall occurs at
Ae 6= 0. Therefore, to control rotating stall is to stabilize the
equilibrium points with Ae 6= 0.
As said in [2], a challenging problem in the studies of
rotating stall control is the design of a nonlinear feedback
control system where pressure rise is used as output measure-
ment and throttle position as an actuating signal. In recent
years, the problem has been partly solved. For some classes
of the compressor cubic characteristic curves, the papers [2]
and [1] used classical bifurcation theory to propose some
control laws of static output feedback for (1) which guarantee
the closed systems are bifurcation stable. In the results of
[1], it is required that β|c1 + 3c3 | < 1, c1 − 9c3 > 0 and
β 2 (c1 + 3c3 )(c1 − 9c3 ) < 1. However, for a general class of
the compressor cubic characteristic curves, system (1) can not
be bifurcation stabilized by static output feedback. In fact, it
can be proved that the bifurcation solution with Ae 6= 0 of (1)
is not stabilizable by static output feedback if c1 + 3c3 > 0
and (c1 + 3c3 )2 > β1 .
In this paper , based on the theory of center manifolds, we
present a method of designing a dynamic compensator for
(1) with a general cubic characteristic curve. The dynamic
compensator can guarantee that the closed loop system has
bifurcation stability. In the method, the limitations in [1] are
removed.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
contains some preliminaries. In section 3, the method of
designing a dynamic compensator for system (1) is presented.
In section 4, the bifurcation stability of the closed loop system
is proven. Section 5 is some concluding remarks.
II. P RELIMINARIES
In this section, we will present two lemmas, which play an
important role in construction of the dynamic compensator
for (1).
 In this paper, all systems for which the bifurcation stability From (9) and the third equation of (4), we have
is considered always contain the equation Ȧ = σA(−2φ −
z = y − δ1 √
φ2 −A2 ). Therefore, in what follows, the bifurcation solution
= y − c(φ
 − y√+ ψ0 µ)
of a system means the bifurcation equilibrium point with
Ae 6= 0 of the system, that is, the A-component of the = y − c β ẏ + y + ψ0 √2ψ (12)
0
equilibrium point is not zero. √ 
−2 + y + ψ0 u
In order to simplify expressions in the sequel, we perform def
a transformation for (1). Let φ = Φ − 1, Ψe = c0 + c1 + c3 , = ψ(y, ẏ, u).
ξ1 = Ψ−Ψe , and µ = γ −γc . Then system (1) is transformed This completes the proof of (ii).
into Now consider the system consisting of the first two equa-
Ȧ = σA(−2φ − φ2 − A2 ) tions of (4), in which ξ1 is replaced with α(z, φ, µ),
φ̇ = −ξ1 + (c1 + 3c3 )φ + 3c3 φ2
Ȧ = σA(−2φ − φ2 − A2 )
+c3 φ3 + 6c3 φA2 + 6c3 A2 (4)
˙ξ1 = 1 (φ + 2 − √ξ1 + ψ0 ( √2 + µ + u)) φ̇ = −α(z, φ, µ) + (c1 + 3c3 )φ + 3c3 φ2 (13)
β ψ0 +c3 φ3 + 6c3 φA2 + 6c3 A2 ,
y = ξ1 .
where α(z, φ, µ) is defined in (6).
where ψ0 = c0 + c1 + c3 . Lemma 2: If c − c1 − 3c3 > 0, | c−c12c 3
| < 1 and z =
1 −3c3
Let 2 3
O(µ ) + O(k(A, µ)k ), then the bifurcation solution of (13)
is asymptotically stable.
p
z = y − c(φ − y + ψ0 µ), (5)
Proof: By a simply calculation, we obtain
where c > 0 is a constant. √ α(z, φ, µ)
√
Lemma 1: Let δ(y, φ, µ) = y − c(φ − y + ψ0 µ). Then
= cφ − cµ ψ0 − 2√1ψ cµ(z + φ)
(i) z = δ(y, φ, µ) has a local inverse function y = 2
0

α(z, φ, µ), where +z + O(µ√ ) + O(k(z, φ, µ)k3 ) (14)

1
= cφ − cµ ψ0 − 2√ψ cφµ
0
α(z, φ, µ) +O(µ2 ) + O(k(A, φ, µ)k3 ).
1 p 2 (6)
= −cµ + c2 µ2 + 4(z + ψ0 + cφ) − ψ0 Substituting (14) into (13) yields
4
with α(0, 0, 0) = 0; Ȧ = σA(−2φ − φ2 − A2 )
√
(ii) z = δ(y, φ, µ) can be expressed as φ̇ = −(c − c1 − 3c3 − 2√1ψ cµ)φ + c ψ0 µ
0 (15)
z = ψ(y, ẏ, u), (7) +3c3 φ2 + c3 φ3 + 6c3 φA2 + 6c3 A2
+O(µ2 ) + O(k(A, φ, µ)k3 ).
where
Since c−c1 −3c3 > 0, system (15) has an invariant manifold
ψ(y, ẏ, u) √ √ √
c ψ0
(8) φ = 6c3 2
= y − c(β ẏ + y + ψ0 √2ψ − 2 + y + ψ0 u). c−c1 −3c3 µ + c−c1 −3c3 A
0 (16)
Proof: Let y = z + δ1 . Then (5) becomes +O(µ2 ) + O(k(A, µ)k3 )
p
c(φ − δ1 + z + ψ0 µ) = δ1 . (9) and the reduction equation of (15) is
 √
2c ψ0
By a simply calculation, we obtain Ȧ = σA − c−c 1 −3c3
µ − (1 + c−c12c 3
1 −3c3
)A2
2  (17)
1 p
+O(µ2 ) + O(k(A, µ)k3 ) .
δ1 = −cµ + c2 µ2 + 4(z + ψ0 + cφ)
4 (10)
−z − ψ0 . Since 1 + (c−c12c 3
> 0, the bifurcation solution of
1 −3c3 )

It follows that the inverse function is (17) is asymptotically stable [9]. By the theory of center
manifolds, this implies that the bifurcation solution of (13)
y = z + δ1 is asymptotically stable [10]. This completes the proof of
1 p 2
= −cµ + c2 µ2 + 4(z + ψ0 + cφ) Lemma 2.
4 (11)
−ψ0
def
III. D ESIGN OF CONTROLLER
= α(z, φ, µ).
In this section, we construct a dynamic compensator for
It is easy to see that α(0, 0, 0, 0) = 0. This complete the (4). The construction composed of the following five steps.
proof of (i). Step 1. Augmentation of (4) by a dynamic system.

2920
 1
The dynamic system is η̇4 = −c(c − − c1 − 3c3 )(c1 + 3c3 − c)2
βψ0
u = λ1 1
λ̇1 = λ2 −c(c − − c1 − 3c3 )(c1 + 3c1 − c)η2
(18) βψ0
λ̇2 = λ3 1 1
λ̇3 = σ1 λ2 + σ2 λ3 + ũ, −c(c − − c1 − 3c3 )η3 + (c − )η4
βψ0 βψ0
where σ1 = (c1 + 3c3 )(c − c1 − 3c3 ), σ2 = 2c1 + 6c3 − c. +(c1 + 3c3 − c)2 D1 B1 (φ, µ, A2 )T
Step 2. Two transformations for the composite system of (4) 1p
and (18). − y + ψ0 λ4 + O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 , λ4 )k2 )
β
In this step, we perform two transformations for the
composite system of (4) and (18). One transformation is used +O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 , λ4 , A)k3 ), (23)
to construct a stabilizing controller of the composite system √
1 c
(4) and (18); the other transformation is used to construct an with D1 = (c(c − βψ 0
− c1 − 3c3 ), − ψ0 (c2 − βψ0 +
1
observer for ẏ. β ), −6cc3 ) and
First we perform the following transformation  √ 
c1 + 3c3 − c c ψ0 6c3
p
η1 = y − c(φ − y + ψ0 µ) B1 =  0 0 0 .
0 0 0
η2 = η̇1
η3 = η̇2 From (20), (21), (22) and (23), we can obtain
η4 = η̇3 , (19) (c1 + 3c3 − c)2 D1 B1 (φ, µ, A2 )T
= σ1 D1 (φ, µ, A2 )T
where the derivatives are all with respect to the closed loop
+σ2 (c1 + 3c3 − c)D1 B1 (φ,√ µ, A2 )T
system consisting of (4) and (18). Then by direct calculations, 1
= σ1 (η3 − a21 η1 − a22 η2 + β y + ψ0 λ2 ) (24)
we have
+σ2√η4 − a31 η
1 − a32 η2 − a33 η3
1 + β1 y + ψ0 λ3 + O(k(η1 , η2 , η3 , φ, µ)k2 )
η̇1 = (c − )η1 + D1 (φ, µ, A2 )T
βψ0 +O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , η3 , λ3 , A)k3 ),
1p Substituting (24) into (23) yields
− y + ψ0 λ1 + O(k(η1 , φ, µ, λ1 )k2 )
β
+ O(k(η1 , φ, µ, λ1 , A)k3 ), (20) η̇4 = (a41 − σ1 a21 − σ2 a31 )η1
+(a42 − σ1 a22 − σ2 a32 )η2
+ (a43 + σ1 − σ2 a√ 33 )η3
(25)
1 1 +(a44 − σ2 )η4 − β1 y + ψ0 ũ
η̇2 = −c(c − − c1 − 3c3 )η1 + (c − )η2
βψ0 βψ0 + O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , λ4 )k2 )
+O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 , λ4 , A)k3 )
1p
+D1 B1 (φ, µ, A2 )T − y + ψ0 λ2
β where
2
+ O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , λ2 )k ) a21 = a32 = a43 = −c(c − β1 ψ0 − c1 − 3c3 )
a22 = a33 = a44 = (c − β1 ψ0 )
+O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , λ2 , A)k3 ), (21) (26)
a31 = a42 = −c(c − β1 ψ0 − c1 − 3c3 )(c1 + 3c3 − c)
a41 = −c(c − β1 ψ0 − c1 − 3c3 )(c1 + 3c3 − c)2 .
1
η̇3 = −c(c − − c1 − 3c3 )(c1 + 3c1 − c)η1 Now we perform the other transformation:
βψ0
1 1 ξ1 = y
−c(c − − c1 − 3c3 )η2 + (c − )η3
βψ0 βψ0 ξ2 = ξ˙1
+(c1 + 3c3 − c)D1 B1 (φ, µ, A2 )T ξ3 = ξ˙2
1p ξ4 = ξ˙3 , (27)
− y + ψ0 λ3 + O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , η3 , λ3 )k2 )
β
where the derivatives are all with respect to the closed loop
+O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , η3 , λ2 , A)k3 ), (22) system consisting of (4) and (18). By direct calculations, we

2921
have Substituting (32) into (31) yields
1 1 1p ξ˙1 = ξ2
ξ˙1 = − ξ1 + φ − ψ0 µ
βψ0 β β ξ˙2 = ξ3
ξ˙3 = ξ4
1p
− y + ψ0 λ1 + O(k(η1 , φ, µ)k2 ) ξ˙4 = (b41 − σ1 b21 − σ2 b31 )ξ1
β (33)
+(b42 − σ1 b22 − σ2 b32 )ξ2
1 1p
= − ξ1 + D2 (φ, µ, A2 )T − y + ψ0 λ1 + (b43 + σ1 − σ2 b√ 33 )ξ3
βψ0 β
+(b44 − σ2 )ξ4 − β1 y + ψ0 ũ
+O(k(η1 , φ, µ)k2 ), (28) + O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , λ4 )k2 )
+O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 , λ4 , A)k3 ),

1 1 where
ξ˙2 = − ξ1 − ξ2 + D2 B2 (φ, µ, A2 )T b21 = b32 = b43 = − β1
β βψ0
1
b22 = b33 = b44 = − βψ
1p 1
0
(34)
− y + ψ0 λ2 + O(k(η1 , η2 , φ, µ)k2 ) b31 = b42 = − β (c1 + 3c3 )
β
b41 = − β1 (c1 + 3c3 )2 .
+O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , λ2 , A)k3 ), (29)
Step 3. Construction of a controller of state feedback for the
composite system of (4) and (18).
1 1 1 By (25) and (19), the composite system of (4) and (18)
ξ˙3 = − (c1 + 3c3 )ξ1 − ξ2 − ξ3
β β βψ0 becomes
1p Ȧ = σA(−2φ − φ2 − A2 )
+(c1 + 3c3 )D2 B2 (φ, µ, A2 )T − y + ψ0 λ3
β φ̇ = −α(η1 , φ, µ) + (c1 + 3c3 )φ + 3c3 φ2
+ O(k(η1 , η2 , η3 , φ, µ)k2 ) +c3 φ3 + 6c3 φA2 + 6c3 A2
η̇1 = η2
+O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , η3 , λ3 , A)k3 ), (30) η̇2 = η3
η̇3 = η4
(35)
η̇4 = (a41 − σ1 a21 − σ2 a31 )η1
1 1 +(a42 − σ1 a22 − σ2 a32 )η2
ξ˙4 = − (c1 + 3c3 )2 ξ1 − (c1 + 3c3 )ξ2
β β + (a43 + σ1 − σ2 a√ 33 )η3
1 1 +(a44 − σ2 )η4 − β1 y + ψ0 ũ
− ξ3 − ξ4 + (c1 + 3c3 )2 D2 B2 (φ, µ, A2 )T + O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , λ4 )k2 )
β βψ0
1p +O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 , λ4 , A)k3 ),
− y + ψ0 λ4 + O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , λ4 )k2 )
β where
+O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 , λ4 , A)k3 ), (31) α(η1 , φ, µ)
1 p 2 (36)
√ = −cµ + c2 µ2 + 4(η1 + ψ0 + cφ) − ψ0 .
with D2 = ( β1 , − β1 ψ0 , 0) and 4
In order to stabilize the bifurcation solution, we only need
to stabilize the η-subsystem in (35), because by taking c >
 
c1 + 3c3 0 6c3
B2 =  0 0 0 , o suitably large, we can guarantee that c − c1 − 3c3 > 0,
0 0 0 | c−c12c 3
1 −3c3
| < 1 and z = O(µ2 ) + O(k(A, µ)k3 ) in the whole
closed loop system and by Lemma 2, the bifurcation solution
where λ4 = σ1 λ2 + σ2 λ3 + ũ. of the whole closed loop system is asymptotically stable.
From (28), (29), (30) and (31), we have The linear part of the η-subsystem in (25) is
1p
(c1 + 3c3 )2 D2 B2 (φ, µ, A2 )T η̇ = A1 η − ψ0 bũ, (37)
β
= σ1 D2 (φ, µ, A2 )T
+σ2 (c1 + 3c3 )D2 B2 (φ, µ, √ A2 )T where η = (η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 )T , and
1
= σ1 (ξ3 − b21 ξ1 − b22 ξ2 + β y + ψ0 λ2 )
   
(32) 0 1 0 0 0
+σ2√ (ξ4 − b31 ξ1 − b32 ξ2 − b33 ξ3  0 0 1 0  0
+ β1 y + ψ0 λ3 ) + O(k(η1 , η2 , η3 , φ, µ)k2 ) A1 =  0
, b=
0 ,
 (38)
0 0 1 
+O(k(η1 , φ, µ, η2 , η3 , λ3 , A)k3 ). ā41 ā42 ā43 ā44 1

2922
with ā41 = a41 − σ1 a21 − σ2 a31 , ā42 = a42 − σ1 a22 − σ2 a32 , IV. S TABILITY OF THE CLOSED LOOP SYSTEM
ā43 = a43 + σ1 − σ2 a33 , ā44 = a44 − σ2 .
In order to study the stability of the closed loop system,
We construct a stabilizer for (37) as follows:
√ we first perform some coordinate transformations. Let e =
ẇ = A1 w + L(l)(η1 − w1 ) − β1 ψ0 bK(l)w (e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 )T with ei = θi − ξi , i = 1, 2, 3, 4. Then it is
(39)
ũ = K(l)w, easy to see that

where w = (w1 , w2 , w3 , w4 )T , L(l) = (4l, 3l2 , 2l3 , l4 )T , and ė = (A2− L(l)C)e

K(l) = (l4 , 2l3 , 3l2 , 4l) with l > 0. It is easy to see that when +b O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 )k2 ) (44)
l > 0 is suitably large, the bifurcation solution of the closed 3

loop system consisting of (37) and (39) is asymptotically +O(k(φ, µ, η1 , η2 , η3 , η4 , η4 , A)k ) ,
stable.
where C = (1 0 0 0).
However, the variable η1 in (39) is not directly measurable.
We want to replace it with a measurable variable. On the other hand, the system consisting of (25) and (42)
Step 4. Construction of an observer for ξ2 . can be rewritten as
√
We construct an observer for ξ2 as follows: η̇ = A1 η − β1 ψ0 bK(l)w
√ 
θ̇ = A2 θ + L(l)(y − w1 ) − β1 ψ0 bK(l)w, (40) +b O(k(φ, µ, η, w)k2 )

where θ = (θ1 , θ2 , θ3 , θ4 )T , and +O(k(φ, µ, η, A)k3 ) (45)

ẇ = A1 w + L(l)(η1 − w1 )
 
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 √
A2 =  , (41) − β1 ψ0 bK(l)w + L(l)e2 .
0 0 0 1
b̄41 b̄42 b̄43 b̄44 Then, in the system of coordinates A,φ, η, w and e, the closed
loop system consisting of (4) and (43) can be expressed as
with b̄41 = b41 − σ1 b21 − σ2 b31 , b̄42 = b42 − σ1 b22 − σ2 b32 ,
b̄43 = b43 + σ1 − σ2 b33 , b̄44 = b44 − σ2 . Ȧ = σA(−2φ − φ2 − A2 )
Step 5. Construction of the whole dynamic compensator p
φ̇ = −η1 − (c − c1 − 3c3 )φ + c ψ0 µ
for (4). √
Write ψ(y, ẏ, λ1 ) = y − c(β ẏ + y + ψ0 √2ψ − 2 + +6c3 A2 + O(k(φ, η1 , µ)k2 )
√ 0
y + ψ0 λ1 ). Then by the definition of η1 (see (19)) and +O(k(φ, η1 , µ, A)k3 )
Lemma 1, η1 = ψ(y, ẏ, λ1 ) (see (12)). Clearly, ψ(y, θ2 , λ1 )
ẋ = Bx + f (A, φ, x, µ) (46)
is available. Substituting ψ(y, θ2 , λ1 ) for η1 yields
ẇ = A1 w√+ L(l)(ψ(y, θ2 , λ1 ) − w1 ) where x = (η, w, e)T ,
− β1 ψ0 bK(l)w (42) √
− β1 ψ0 bK(l)
 
A1 0
ũ = K(l)w. √
B = L(l)C A1 − L(l)C − β1 ψ0 bK(l) L(l)D 
We have constructed the whole dynamic compensator for 0 0 A2 − L(l)C
system (4), which consists of (18), (40) and (42), which is
written in the following and
f (A, φ, x, µ)
u = λ1

b( O(k(φ, µ, η, w)k2 ) + O(k(φ, µ, η, A)k3 ) )

λ̇1 = λ2
=  0
.

2 3
λ̇2 = λ3 b O(k(φ, µ, η, w)k ) + O(k(φ, µ, η, A)k )
λ̇3 = σ1 λ2 + σ2 λ3 + K(l)w (43) Clearly, for any given c ∈ R, there exists l∗ > 0, such that
1
√ when l > l∗ , B is a Hurwitz matrix.
θ̇ = A2 θ + L(l)(y − w1 ) − β ψ0 bK(l)w
From the above construction, we can obtain the following
ẇ = A1 w + L(l)(ψ(y, θ2 , λ1 ) − w1 ) theorem.
√ Theorem 1: Take c > 0 and l > 0, such that c−c1 −3c3 >
− β1 ψ0 bK(l)w.
0, 1 + c−c12c 3
1 −3c3
> 0, and B is a Hurwitz matrix. Then the
It is easy to see that (43) is a dynamic output feedback bifurcation solution of the closed loop system consisting of
controller. (4) and (43) is asymptotically stable.

2923
Proof. It is sufficient to prove that the bifurcation solution of V. C ONCLUSION
system (46) is asymptotically stable. Under the conditions of In this paper, we propose a method for designing a
Theorem 1, system (46) has an invariant manifold dynamic compensator that stabilizing the bifurcation solution
√
c ψ0 6c3 of the three-state Moore-Greitzer model with a general cubic
φ = µ+ A2 compressor characteristics. One possible future work is to
c − c1 − 3c3 c − c1 − 3c3
find ways for optimal parameter selection of the compen-
+O(µ2 ) + O(k(µ, A)k3 ) sators such that the closed-loop system is not only stable,
but achieves better and desired transient performance.
η = O(µ2 ) + O(k(µ, A)k3 )
R EFERENCES
w = O(µ2 ) + O(k(µ, A)k3 )
[1] X. Chen, et al, “Rotating stall control via bifurcation control,” Auto-
matica, vol.34, 437–443, 1998.
e = O(µ2 ) + O(k(µ, A)k3 ). (47) [2] G. Gu, A. G. Sparks, and S. S. Banda, “Bifurcation based nonlinear
feedback control for rotating stall in axial flow compressors,” Int. J.
Then the reduction equation is Contr., vol.6, 1241–1257, 1997.
 √ [3] M. A. Nayfeh, and E. H. Abed, “ High-gain feedback control of
2c ψ0 12c3 2
Ȧ = σA − c−c 1 −3c3
− (1 + c−c1 −3c3 )A
rotating stall in axial flow compressors,” Automatica, vol.38, no.6,
 (48) pp.995–1001, 2002.
+O(µ2 ) + O(k(µ, A)k3 ) . [4] W. Kang, “ Bifurcation and normal form of nonlinear control systems–
part 1,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol.36, no.2, pp.193–212, 1998.
[5] W. Kang, “Bifurcation and normal form of nonlinear control systems–
It is clear that under the conditions of this theorem, the part 2,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol.36, no.2, pp.213–232, 1998.
bifurcation solution of (48) is asymptotically stable. By the [6] W. Kang, “ Bifurcation control via state feedback for systems with
theory of center manifolds,this implies that the bifurcation a single uncontrollable mode,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol.38, no.5,
pp.1428–1452, 2000.
solution of (46) is asymptotically stable. This completes the [7] F. K. Moore, and E. M. Greitzer, “ A theory of post-stall transients in
proof. axial compression systems-part I: Development of equations,” ASME
Remark 1: Since we can always take c > 0, l > 0, such J. Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, vol.108, no.1, pp.68–76,
1986.
that c − c1 − 3c3 > 0, 1 + c−c12c 3
1 −3c3
> 0, and B is a Hurwitz [8] G. Gu, et al, “ Bifurcation stabilization with local output feedback,”
matrix, Theorem 1 implies that for any cubic characteristic SIAM J.Control Optim., vol.37, no.3, pp.934-956, 1999.
curve (2) with c0 + c1 + c3 > 0, system (1) is bifurcation [9] G. Iooss and D. D. Joseph, Elementary Stability and Bifurcation
Theory, Spring-Verlag, New York, 1980.
stabilizable by dynamic output feedback. [10] J. Carr, Application of Centre Manifold Theory, New York: Springer,
1981.

2924