Preclassical Tools

for Postmodern Control

An optimal and robust control theory
for undergraduate education

R
ecently, considerable attention has been paid to innovations in under-
graduate control education. Several new textbooks have been published
[1][8]. The main effort seems to be in incorporating modern and post-
modern control theory into the syllabus of a beginners control course
that has been dominated by classical material for several decades. This
effort is not easy and is potentially controversial because of the myth that mod-
ern and postmodern control theory necessitates the use of advanced mathematical
knowledge that a typical engineering undergraduate student does not have.
This article presents, from our recent textbook [7], a systematic optimal and
robust control theory for single-input, single-output (SISO) systems in a language
Li Qiu and Kemin Zhou suitable for undergraduate teaching. The theory emphasizes analyticity, optimal-
ity, robustness, computer-aided design suitability, and rigor but uses preclassical
tools not much beyond the Routh stability criterion and polynomial Diophantine
equations. The theory covers many postmodern control topics, including the com-
putation of the energy (two-norm) of a signal or a system, the computation of the
resonance peak (3-norm) of a system, optimal transient stabilization (linear qua-
dratic Gaussian control), and optimal robust stabilization with respect to the Vin-
nicombe metric (H 3 -control). The analysis theory is based on a Routh-like table,
and the synthesis theory relies on solutions to polynomial Diophantine equations.

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MCS.2013.2258757

Date of publication: 12 July 2013

26 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE AUGUST 2013 1066-033X/13/$31.002013ieee

 Such a theory facilitates the teaching and application of
Table 1 The Routh table. This table, which is constructed
advanced optimal and robust control of SISO systems,
from the coefficients of a polynomial, determines the
described by transfer functions, using mostly polynomial stability of the polynomial. In this article, the Routh table
arithmetic understandable by students and engineers with is used to solve additional control problems.
minimal mathematical sophistication. This endeavor may
change the common perception that the classical theory is sn r00 = a 0 r01 = a 2 r02 = a 4 r03 = a 6 g
associated with trial-and-error designs and approximate n- 1
s r10 = a 1 r11 = a 3 r12 = a 5 r13 = a 7 g
reasoning, while at the same time demystifying postmod-
n- 2
ern control theory and the advanced mathematics associ- s r20 r21 r22 r23 g
ated with it. We believe that materials for undergraduate s n- 3
r30 r31 r32 r33 g
teaching should be better connected with the most recent h h h h h
developments in control theory and that one of the main
2
reasons for the widening gap between control theory and s r(n - 2) 0 r(n - 2) 1
control practice is the widening gap between theoretical s 1
r(n - 1) 0
developments and education. s 0
rn0
This article is targeted at instructors of undergraduate
control courses. Although the content is by-and-large not
new, the solution to the optimal robust stabilization prob-
lem, a special H 3 -control problem, using polynomial testing stability, or a little further at the determination of the
methods does have a certain technical novelty. Our main number of unstable roots of a polynomial. This section shows
purpose is to demonstrate the availability of simple sys- how the Routh table can be used to address a number of other
tematic solutions to some of the standard analysis and syn- basic issues in signals, systems, and control.
thesis problems in modern and postmodern control. By A polynomial
doing so, we wish to bring together postmodern control
theory and an undergraduate-level audience and make the
a (s) = a 0 s n + a 1 s n - 1 + g + a n, (1)
advanced theory accessible to undergraduate students and
practicing engineers. The motivation, interpretation, and
connection of these problems to practical control problems where a 0 > 0, is said to be stable if all of its roots have nega-
are not emphasized, although they are important parts of a tive real parts. Construct the Routh table of polynomial (1)
comprehensive control course. The theorems and design as in Table 1, where each row starting from the third row
algorithms are not proved here; rather the proofs are pro- is computed from its two preceding rows as
vided in other sources, and in particular in [7]. Most of the
proofs, we believe, can be done in elementary ways and can rij = - 1 r(i - 2) 0 r(i - 2)(j + 1)
be included in classroom instruction. r(i - 1) 0 r(i - 1) 0 r(i - 1)(j + 1)
As far as undergraduate control education is concerned, r(i - 1) 0 r(i - 2)(j + 1) - r(i - 2) 0 r(i - 1)(j + 1)
= .
there is hardly an agreement on the level of background r(i - 1) 0
mathematics assumed. This presentation assumes basic
calculus at the level of [9], linear algebra at the level of [10], Here i goes from 2 to n and j goes
and signals and systems at the level of [11]. from 0 to the largest integer not
exceeding (n - i) /2. When com-
Routh Table, Orthonormal Functions, puting the last entry of a row of the
and Energy of Signal and System Routh table, it may be that the pre-
ceding row is one entry short of what
Routh Stability Test is needed. In this case, augment the
The Routh stability test, which is based on the Routh table, is preceding row by a zero at the end and
often the first technical result a student encounters in control. proceed. Keep in mind that this augmented
The utility of the Routh table in most of the textbooks stops at zero is not considered as part of the Routh table.

AUGUST 2013 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE 27

Equivalently, whenever r(i - 1)( j + 1) is missing, set
rij = r(i - 2)( j + 1) . With the Routh table constructed, the Routh
stability criterion is stated as follows.
Theorem 1
The following statements are equivalent.
1) a(s) is stable.
2) All entries of the Routh table are positive.
3) All entries in the first column of the Routh table are
positive.
The proof of the Routh stability criterion is usually omit-
ted in introductory control textbooks since the early proofs,
such as the original proof given in Rouths treatise on sta-
bility, and the proofs presented in advanced textbooks, for
example [12], are all quite involved. There have been con-
tinual efforts to find simpler proofs. The proof given in [13]
uses the most elementary arguments and is the most easily
understandable. Interestingly, this proof was rediscovered
at least twice; see [14] and [15].
Routh Basis
Now the stage is set to use the Routh table beyond the sta-
bility test. The inner product of signals x(t) and y(t), t $ 0, is
defined as
G x (t), y (t) H = #0 3 x (t) y (t) dt.
The two-norm of x(t) is then defined as
and two-norm of its impulse response or transfer function,
respectively.
Signal and system energy is a common topic in under-
graduate courses, but the computation of the energy is
seldom, if ever, discussed in undergraduate textbooks, leav-
ing the impression that the computation is hard or that
numerical integration has to be used, based on the defini-
tion. This impression is certainly not accurate. Efforts to find
a simple method to compute the energy of a transfer func-
tion can be traced back to the late 1940s at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT). The initial effort by a group at
MIT resulted in formulas for transfer functions up to the sev-
enth order [16]. Another team effort was carried out in the
1950s by a different group at MIT [17]. This effort led to an
algorithm for arbitrarily high-order transfer functions based
on the solutions to a set of linear equations, as well as correc-
tions to two formulas in [16]. A different method using Hur-
witz determinants is reported in [18]. In the following, an
algorithm from [13] is presented that uses an augmented ver-
sion of the Routh table. This algorithm is shown to be an
immediate consequence of a set of orthonormal transfer
functions constructed from the Routh table. These orthonor-
mal transfer functions also find applications in other prob-
lems in signals, systems, and control [20].
Consider a stable polynomial a(s) of the form of (1) and a
set of signals or systems given in terms of their Laplace
transforms
x (s)
S a (s) = * a (s) 4.
: x (s) = x 1 s n - 1 + g + x n - 1 s

= G x (t), x (t)H 1/2 = 8 # x 2 (t) dtB

1/2
x (t) 2
3
. + x n, x i ! R, i = 1, f, n
0

This set is an n-dimensional vector space with the inner

The square of the two-norm is referred to as the energy product (2).
of the signal. Now construct the Routh table of a(s). Since a(s) is stable,
Let X(s) and Y(s) denote the Laplace transforms of x(t) the Routh table can always be constructed to the end and
and y(t). The inner product of X(s) and Y(s) is defined as all ri0, i = 0, 1, f, n, are positive. For each row (except the
first one) of the Routh table, define a polynomial
G X (s), Y (s) H = 1 #- 33 X (- j~) Y ( j~) d~. (2)
2r r1 (s) = r10 s n - 1 + r11 s n - 3 + g,
The two-norm of X(s) is defined as r2 (s) = r20 s n - 2 + r21 s n - 4 + g,
h
= G X (s), X (s) H 1/2 = ; 1 #- 33 | X ( j~) |2 d~E
1/2
X (s) 2 . rn - 1 (s) = r(n - 1) 0 s,
2r
rn (s) = rn0 .
Again, the square of the two-norm is referred to as the
energy of the Laplace transform. For x(t), y(t) of finite energy, Also define
Parsevals identity indicates that
r(i - 1) 0
ai = , i = 1, 2, f, n.
ri0
G x (t), y (t)H = G X (s), Y (s)H

and Theorem 2
The functions
x (t) 2 = X (s) 2 .
ri (s)
R i (s) = 2a i , i = 1, 2, f, n,
a (s)
The energy and two-norm of a strictly proper stable
linear time-invariant system are defined to be the energy form an orthonormal basis of S a (s) .

28 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE AUGUST 2013

 The basis {R i (s): i = 1, 2, f, n} is called the
Table 2 The augmented Routh table. This table is formed by adding two
Routh basis of S a (s) . This basis appears to
blocks to the right of the Routh table and can be used to compute the two-
have been first discovered by [19] based on norm of a transfer function.
the technique in [13] for the computation of
signal and system energy, which is described sn r00 = a 0 r01 = a 2 g q 00 = b 1 q 01 = b 3 g
below. The textbook [7] contains a direct
sn - 1 r10 = a 1 r11 = a 3 g r10 r11 g q 10 = b 2 q 11 = b 4 g
proof of this orthonormal property.
At this point, recall that there is a stan- sn - 2 r20 r21 g q 20 q 21 g r20 r21 g
dard basis in S a (s), which is sn - 3 r30 r31 g r30 r31 g q 30 q 31 g

h h h h h h h
'
s n - 1 , s n - 2 , f, s , 1 1 .
a (s) a (s) a (s) a (s) s r(n - 1) 0

The standard basis is not orthonormal. It
can also be shown that the Routh basis
{R i (s): i = 1, 2, f, n} can be obtained by car-
rying out the Gram-Schmidt orthonormal-
ization (starting from the back) of the stan-
dard basis.
1 rn0
Table 3 An example augmented Routh table. This table is constructed
from the transfer function G(s) in Example 1. The energy or the two-norm
of G(s) can then be easily computed from the first columns of the three
blocks.

Computation of Signal s4 a0 = 1 a2 = 3 a4 = 1 b1 = 1 b3 = 5
and System Energy s3 a1 = 1 a2 = 2 1 2 b2 = 2 b4 = 6
Consider a signal or system with a strictly
2
proper stable transfer function, s 1 1 3 1 1
1
s 1 1 4
b (s) b1 sn - 1 + g + bn
G (s) = = , s0 1 1
a (s) a0 s + a1 sn - 1 + g + an
n

where a 0 > 0. Clearly, G (s) ! S a (s) . If b(s) is

expanded as from their preceding two rows in exactly the same way as
the rows of the Routh table,
b (s) = b 1 r1 (s) + b 2 r2 (s) + g + b n rn (s), (3)
q ij = - 1 q (i - 2) 0 q (i - 2)( j + 1) . (4)
then r(i - 1) 0 r(i - 1) 0 r(i - 1)( j + 1)
b1 b2
G (s) = R 1 (s) + R 2 (s) + g
2a 1 2a 2 The second added block, the right-hand block of the aug-
+
bn
R n (s) . mented Routh table, is constructed in the following way: the
2a n first row is irrelevant; the second row is directly from the
Consequently, coefficients b 2, b 4, b 6, f, of b(s); the third, fifth, seventh, ,
2 2 2 rows are copied from the corresponding rows of the Routh
2 b1 b2 bn
G (s) 2 = + + g+ . table; the fourth, sixth, eighth, , rows are obtained from
2a 1 2a 2 2a n
their preceding two rows in exactly the same way as the
It appears that finding all b i requires solving a set of rows of the Routh table using formula (4).
linear equations obtained by comparing the coefficients In summary, the following algorithm gives the energy or
of the two polynomials in both sides of (3). It turns out two-norm of a stable strictly proper transfer function G(s).
that these equations have special structures that lead to
a tabular solution in the form of the augmented Routh Algorithm 1
table as shown in Table 2. Step 1. Compute the augmented Routh table of G(s).
The augmented Routh table is formed by adding two
r(i - 1) 0 q (i - 1) 0
blocks to the right of the usual Routh table. The first added Step 2. Set a i = and b i = .
ri 0 ri 0
block, the middle block of the augmented Routh table, is 2 2 2
2 b1 b2 bn
constructed in the following way: the first row is directly Step 3. G (s) 2 = + + g+ .
2a 1 2a 2 2a n
from the coefficients b 1, b 3, b 5, f, of b (s); the second, fourth,
sixth, , rows are copied from the corresponding rows of This algorithm is demonstrated for a fourth-order
the Routh table; the third, fifth, seventh, , rows are obtained system below.

AUGUST 2013 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE 29

 is to read the supremum from the Bode magnitude plot.
w1 u1 Another method is to use the standard procedure for opti-
P(s) mizing a univariate function, that is, taking the derivative,
y2 finding the critical points where the derivative is zero, and
y1 comparing the values of the function at the critical points.
C(s) The importance of the resonance peak of a system lies in
u2 w2 the fact that it gives the largest ratio of the output energy to
the input energy, as formally stated in Theorem 3.
Figure 1 A feedback system for stabilization. Here P(s) is the plant
and C(s) is the controller. This configuration can be used as the basic Theorem 3
framework for the study of internal stability, stabilization, robust sta- Let G(s) be a proper stable system. Let u(t) and y(t) be its
bility, robust stabilization, and so on. This closed-loop system is said
input and output in the time domain and U(s) and Y(s) be its
to be internally stable if all members of the four closed-loop transfer
functions, 1/(1+P(s)C(s)), P(s)/(1+P(s)C(s)), C(s)/(1+P(s)C(s)), P(s) input and output in the Laplace domain. Then
C(s)/(1+P(s)C(s)), are stable. The first and the last members of the
four transfer functions are called the sensitivity function S(s) and the Y (s) 2
y (s) 2
complementary sensitivity function T(s), respectively, and satisfy G (s) = sup = sup .
3
U (s) 2 u (s) 2
S(s)+T(s) = 1.

The above suprema are taken over all nonzero inputs

Example 1 with finite energy. The second equality above follows from
Consider Parsevals identity.

G (s) =
b (s) 3 2
= 4 s +3 2s +2 5s + 6 .
Pole Placement
a (s) s + s + 3s + 2s + 1 This section starts to address synthesis issues. The first
problem is the design of a stabilizing controller, that is,
The augmented Routh table of G(s) is shown in Table 3. given a plant P(s), design a controller C(s) such that the feed-
Since back system shown in Figure 1 is internally stable. First, the
pole-placement problem is considered. The subsequent sec-
a 1 = a 2 = a 3 = a 4 = 1,
tions look into a typical two-norm optimal control problem
and and a typical 3-norm optimal control problem, completing
the journey from classical to postmodern control. It is seen
b 1 = 1,
that the solution to the optimal design problems can be
b 2 = 2, obtained via pole placement.
b 3 = 3, The idea of pole placement is to design the controller so
b 4 = 4, that the poles of the closed-loop system, that is, the roots of
the closed-loop characteristic polynomial, are placed in pre-
it follows that specified desirable locations. The plant is assumed to be
proper and the controller either proper or strictly proper. The
2 2 2 2 content of this section follows partially from [21, Section 4.5].
G (s) 2
2 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 15.
2 2 2 2 Consider the plant

The Resonance Peak P (s) =

b (s) b sn + b1 sn - 1 + g + bn
= 0 n
Having discussed the energy and the two-norm of a signal a (s) a0 s + a1 sn - 1 + g + an
or a system, this section considers an old concept that has
profound implications in the postmodern control theory. where a(s) and b(s) are coprime and a 0 > 0. First consider
The resonance peak or 3-norm of a proper system proper controllers of the form

b (s) b sn + b1 sn - 1 + g + bn q (s) q0 sm + q1 sm - 1 + g + qm
G (s) = = 0 n
a (s) a0 s + a1 sn - 1 + g + an C (s) = =
p (s) p0 sm + p1 sm - 1 + g + pm
is defined as
where p(s) and q(s) are coprime and p 0 ! 0. Then the closed-
b (j~) loop characteristic polynomial is
G (s) 3 = sup .
~!R
a (j~)

Several methods are available for computing the reso- d (s): = d 0 s n + m + d 1 s n + m - 1 + g + d n + m


nance peak of a system. The most straightforward method = a (s) p (s) + b (s) q (s) . (5)

30 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE AUGUST 2013

 We believe that materials for undergraduate teaching should be better
connected with the most recent developments in control theory.

The closed-loop system is internally stable if and only if Example 3

d 0 ! 0 and d(s) is a stable polynomial. Therefore, if we can Given P (s) = 1/s 2, consider the design of a strictly proper
arbitrarily specify an (n + m) th order stable polynomial d(s) controller C(s) so that the closed-loop poles are ^ 2 /2 h
and then choose polynomials p(s) and q(s) so that (5) is satis- (- 1 ! j) and ^ 2 /2 h (- 1 ! j) . Denote
fied, then the closed-loop system is stabilized by the con-
troller C (s) = q (s) /p (s) .
q1 s + q2
For given coprime a(s) and b(s), as well as an arbitrarily C (s) = .
p0 s2 + p1 s + p2
chosen d(s), the design of p(s) and q(s) amounts to solving
the linear polynomial equation (5). This equation is called a
Diophantine equation, which can be solved by comparing the Then the Diophantine equation is
coefficients of both sides of (5). This linear equation has a
solution for arbitrary d(s) if and only if m $ n - 1. The solu- s 2 (p 0 s 2 + p 1 s + p 2) + q 1 s + q 2 = (s 2 + 2 s + 1) 2,
tion is unique if and only if m = n - 1.
which gives
Example 2 p 0 = 1,
Given P (s) = 1/s 2, consider the design of a proper control- p1 = 2 2 ,
ler C(s) so that the closed-loop poles are -1 and
p 2 = 4,
^ 2 /2 h (- 1 ! j) . Denote
q1 = 2 2 ,
q0 s + q1 q 2 = 1.
C (s) = .
p0 s + p1
Hence the pole-placement controller is
Then the Diophantine equation is
C (s) = 2 2s+ 1 .
s 2 (p 0 s + p 1) + q 0 s + q 1 = (s + 1) (s 2 + 2 s + 1), s2 + 2 2 s + 4

which gives A critical issue in the pole-placement problem is the

choice of good closed-loop poles. In the following sections,
p 0 = 1,
it is seen that the best closed-loop poles are determined
p1 = 1 + 2 , by the performance specifications.
q0 = 1 + 2 ,
Optimal Transient Stabilization
q 1 = 1.
For the feedback system shown in Figure 1, consider the
Hence, the pole-placement controller is performance measure

(1 + 2 ) s + 1
C (s) = . J t, n = ( y 1 (t) 2
+ t 2 y 2 (t) 22)
s+ 1+ 2 2 w 1 (t) = nd (t), w 2 (t) = 0
2
+ ( y 1 (t) 2
+ t 2 y 2 (t) 22) w 1 (t) = 0, w 2 (t) = d (t)
Next consider pole placement using strictly proper con-
trollers, which are more advantageous in some applica-
tions. In this case, a controller has the form where d (t) is the unit impulse signal, t is a positive number
used to give a relative weight to outputs y1(t) and y2(t), and n
q (s) q1 sm - 1 + g + qm is a positive number used to give a relative weight to inputs
C (s) = = ,
p (s) p0 s + p1 sm - 1 + g + pm
m
w1(t) and w2(t). When n = t = 1, J t, n will be denoted by J.
Another expression for J t, n is
where p(s) and q(s) are coprime and p 0 ! 0. The closed-loop
P^ s hC^ s hn tP ^ s h n
characteristic polynomial is still (5). For given coprime a(s) and 2 2
J t, n =
1 + P^ s hC^ s h 1 + P^ s hC^ s h
b(s), as well as an arbitrarily chosen d(s), the design of p(s) and +
2 2
q(s) amounts to solving a Diophantine equation of the form (5).
C^ s h - tP ^ s h C ^ s h
2 2
This linear equation has solution for arbitrary d(s) if and only .
1 + P^ s hC^ s h + P^ s hC^ s h 2
+ +
if m $ n. The solution is unique if and only if m = n. 2
1

AUGUST 2013 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE 31

 Now the problem is to design a stabilizing controller so Step 4. (Energy computation) The optimal performance
that J t, n is minimized for a given plant index is given by

b (s) b1 sn - 1 + g + bn
P (s) = = , d t (s) - a (s)
2
b (s)
2
a (s) a0 s + a1 sn - 1 + g + an
n
J *t, n = n 2 + t2 n2
d t (s) 2
d t (s) 2
where a(s) and b(s) are coprime and a 0 > 0. Here the plant is 2 2
d n (s) - p (s) q (s)
assumed to be strictly proper because J t, n would be infinity + n2 + .
d n (s) d n (s)
otherwise. This problem is the SISO version of the linear 2 2

quadratic Gaussian optimal control problem stated in a

deterministic way and a special H 2 -optimal control prob-
lem. A polynomial approach is presented for solving such
optimal control problems, as advocated by [21] and [22].
In solving this and later optimal control problems, a tech-
nical tool called spectral factorization is needed. For the poly-
nomials a(s) and b(s) given above, consider the polynomial
p (s) = a (- s) a (s) + b (- s) b (s) .
Since p(s) satisfies the special property that p (s) = p (- s),
if z is a root of p(s), then so is -z. Hence the roots of p(s) are
symmetric to the imaginary axis. The polynomial p(s)
cannot have any roots on the imaginary axis since if
p ( j~) = a (- j~) a ( j~) + b (- j~) b ( j~)
= a ^ j~h 2 + b ^ j~h 2 = 0,
Example 4
Let P (s) = 1/s 2 . The objective is to design the controller
C(s) by applying Algorithm 2 to minimize J t, n .
Step 1. (Spectral factorization) The spectral factor d p (s)
of
a (- s) a (s) + t 2 b (- s) b (s) = s 4 + t 2
is given by d t (s) = s 2 + 2t s + t.
Step 2. (Spectral factorization) The spectral factor d n (s) of
a (- s) a (s) + n 2 b (- s) b (s) = s 4 + n 2
is given by d n (s) = s 2 + 2n s + n.
Step 3. (Pole placement) Let
C (s) =
q1 s + q2
.
p0 s2 + p1 s + p2

then a (j~) = b (j~) = 0, which implies that a(s) and b(s) have  hen the coefficients of the polynomials in C(s) must
T
a common root at j~. Therefore, there must exist a stable satisfy
polynomial
s 2 (p 0 s 2 + p 1 s + p 2) + q 1 s + q 2 = d t (s) d n (s),
n n- 1
d (s) = d 0 s + d 1 s + g + dn
which gives that
with d 0 > 0 such that
p 0 = 1,

a (- s) a (s) + b (- s) b (s) = d (- s) d (s) . p 1 = 2 ( t + n ),

p 2 = ( t + n ) 2,
The polynomial d(s) is called the spectral factor of p(s), and q 1 = 2tn ( t + n ),
the process of finding d(s) is called spectral factorization.
q 2 = tn.
The design procedure for the optimal controller is given
by the following algorithm. Therefore the optimal controller is

Algorithm 2 2tn ( t + n ) s + tn
C (s) = .
Step 1. (Spectral factorization) Find the spectral factor s + 2 ( t + n)s + ( t + n)2
2

dp(s) of
a (- s) a (s) + t 2 b (- s) b (s) . Step 4. (Energy computation) The optimal value of the
performance index is
Step 2. (Spectral factorization) Find the spectral factor
2
d n (s) of 2t s + t 1 2
J *t, n = n 2 + t2 n2
a (- s) a (s) + n 2 b (- s) b (s) . s 2 + 2t s + t 2
2
s + 2t s + t 2

Step 3. (Pole placement) The optimal controller C ^ s h =

2t s + t + 2 tn
2
+ n2
q (s) /p (s) is the unique nth-order strictly proper pole- s 2 + 2n s + n 2
2
placement controller such that 2tn ( t + n ) s + tn
+ .
a (s) p (s) + b (s) q (s) = d t (s) d n (s) . s 2 + 2n s + n 2

32 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE AUGUST 2013

 This expression can be simplified to

J *t, n = 2 [n 2 t + t 2 n + 2tn ( n + t )] .

1 N
In the case when t = 1 and n = 1, the optimal con-
0.8
troller is
0.6
0.4
C (s) = 2 2s+1  0.2 z(c2)
s2 + 2 2 s + 4 0
1 z(c1)
0.5 c2
and the optimal cost is J * = 6 2 . 1
0 0.5
Imaginary Axis - 0.5 c1 0
Uncertain Systems - 0.5 Real Axis
-1 -1
Whereas the developments in the previous sections are
more or less well known or closely related to standard text-
Figure 2 The Riemann sphere S and stereographic projections.
book materials, the developments in the next few sections The Riemann sphere is an alternative way to represent the set of
are adopted from more recent research results. Neverthe- complex numbers. In certain cases, it is more advantageous than
less, the developments are beautiful and can be explained the usual complex plane.
using easily understandable mathematics.

Riemann Sphere and Chordal Distance
Consider a sphere with unit diameter placed at the origin of
the complex plane, as in Figure 2. This sphere is called the
Riemann sphere and is denoted by S. The origin of the com-
plex plane is its south pole S and the pole at the top is its
north pole N. The equator of the Riemann sphere is obvi-
ously the horizontal circle at the same level as its center. For
a point c in the complex plane, connect it and the north pole
by a straight line. This straight line then intersects the Rie-
mann sphere at one and only one point. This point is called
the stereographic projection of c on the Riemann sphere and is
denoted by z (c) . Simple geometry shows that
2
z (c) = e
Re c , Im c , |c| o . (6)
1 + |c|2 1 + |c|2 1 + |c|2
It is reasonable to define the stereographic projection of 3
to be the north pole N. It is easy to see that the projection of
the unit circle in the complex plane is the equator of the Rie-
mann sphere. Notice that different complex numbers have
different projections, which shows that the stereographic
projection defines a one-to-one correspondence between
C , " 3 , and the Riemann sphere S. The chordal distance
between c1 and c2, denoted by d (c 1, c 2), is defined as the
Euclidean length of the chord connecting z (c 1) and z (c 2) . A
nontrivial but straightforward derivation from (6) yields
|c 1 - c 2 |
d (c 1, c 2) = .
1 +|c 1|2 1 +| c 2|2
Distance functions satisfy the triangle inequality, that is,
for c 1, c 2, c 3 ! C , {3},
d (c 1, c 3) # d (c 1, c 2) + d (c 2, c 3)
holds. However, a little further investigation using elemen-
tary geometry and trigonometry shows that the chordal
distance satisfies a tighter inequality,
arcsin d (c 1, c 3) # arcsin d (c 1, c 2) + arcsin d (c 2, c 3) .
Distance Between Systems
The study of robust stability requires the description of an
uncertain system, which can be done easily using a distance
function between systems. The rest of this section assumes
that all transfer functions are proper.
This presentation uses the concept of a Riemann plot.
For the frequency response
b (j~)
G (j~) = ,
a (j~)
where the Riemann plot is the stereographic projection of
the Nyquist plot of G (j~) onto the Riemann sphere. The
Riemann plot is given by the curve
G (j~) 2
e o
Re G (j~) Im G (j~)
2, 2,
1 + G (j~) 1 + G (j~) 1 + G (j~) 2
b (j~) 2
=e o
Re a (- j~) b (j~) Im a (- j~) b (j~)
2 2, 2 2,
a (j~) + b (j~) a (j~) + b (j~) a (j~) 2 + b (j~) 2
on the Riemann sphere as ~ goes from - 3 to 3. Anyone
with experience with Nyquist plots knows that handling
the part of the Nyquist plot at infinity is an unpleasant
experience. The Riemann plot circumvents this difficulty.
This advantage of the Riemann plot comes with a price,
namely, a three-dimensional plot is needed instead of a
two-dimensional plot.

AUGUST 2013 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE 33

 It should be easy to see that if G 1 (s) = G 2 (s), then
Riemann Plot
G 1 (s) + G 2 (s) . Since the roots of a 2 (- s) a 1 (s) + b 2 (- s) b 1 (s)
are the mirror images of those of a 1 (- s) a 2 (s) + b 1 (- s) b 2 (s),
it follows that the condition o [a 2 (- s) a 1 (s) + b 2 (- s) b 1 (s)] =
{n 1, 0, n 2} is equivalent to o [a 1 (- s) a 2 (s) + b 1 (- s) b 2 (s)] =
1 {n 2, 0, n 1}, that is, G 1 (s) + G 2 (s), if then G 2 (s) + G 1 (s) . Hence
the relation + is reflexive and symmetric.
0.8
Example 6
0.6
It is easy to check that 0 + 1/ (s + 0.5), 0 + Y 1/ (s - 0.5),
0.4 1/ (s + 0.5) + 1/ (s - 0.5) .
The example shows that even if G 1 (s) + G 2 (s) and
0.2
G 2 (s) + G 3 (s), it may not be the case that G 1 (s) + G 3 (s),
0 which implies that the relation + is not transitive.
0.5
Definition 2
0.5 The chordal distance between two systems G 1 (s) and G 2 (s) is
0 defined as
Imaginary Axis
0
maxd 6G 1 (j~), G 2 (j~)@ if G 1 (s) + G 2 (s)
) ~dR
Real Axis
d [G 1 (s), G 2 (s)] =
- 0.5- 0.5 1 otherwise.

Figure 3 A Riemann plot. Such a plot gives an alternative way to The chordal distance is also called the Vinnicombe metric
represent the frequency response of a system graphically, in addi- in honor of its inventor [23], who reformed earlier distance
tion to the usual Nyquist plot, Bode diagram, and Nichols chart.
functions such as the gap metric [24] and a distance function
based on the Riemann sphere [25]. Roughly speaking, G 1 (s)
Example 5 and G 2 (s) are considered to be close if their Riemann plots
Figure 3 gives the Riemann plot of the transfer function are close on the Riemann sphere, as long as the transfer func-
tions are comparable. The physical and geometric interpreta-
G (s) = s + 1.5 . tions of the comparability condition are hard to explain
s 2 + 1.5s + 2 using elementary language. The chordal distance can also be
Roughly speaking, the distance between the Riemann related to the resonance peak and 3-norm. When G 1 (s) and
plots of two transfer functions can be defined as the dis- G 2 (s) are comparable,
tance between the two systems. A little care needs to be
- 2 - 1/2
d [G 1 (s), G 2 (s)] = ) 1 + 3
taken since some systems are not comparable. G 1 (s) - G 2 (s)
.
For a polynomial p(s), define its inertia to be the three 1 + G 1 (s) G 2 (- s) 3
numbers
Example 7
o [p (s)] = {o - [p (s)], o 0 [p (s)], o + [p (s)]}, As illustrative examples, the chordal distances between
several pairs of systems are
which are equal to the numbers of its roots with negative,
dc m
zero, and positive real parts, respectively. 1 ,1 = f
.
s+ f s 1 + f2
For i = 1, 2, consider the transfer functions
4f 2
m= *f + 4
if f 2 < 2,
dc 2
1 , 1 4
b i (s) s + ~ 20 s 2 + ~ 20 + f 2
G i (s) = , 1 otherwise.
a i (s)
d ` 0, j = 1.
f

s- 1
where a i (s), b i (s) are polynomials. Assume that the orders
d ` 0, j=
of G i (s) are n i , that is, deg a i (s) = n i . f f
.
s+1 1 + f2
Definition 1
Two systems G 1 (s) and G 2 (s) are comparable, denoted by Note that in the first two examples, the usual differences
G 1 (s) + G 2 (s), if between the frequency responses of the systems involved,
measured by the distances in the Nyquist plots, are equal to
o [a 2 (- s) a 1 (s) + b 2 (- s) b 1 (s)] = {n 1, 0, n 2} . infinity. Consequently, the usual distance function is not

34 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE AUGUST 2013

an appropriate measure of the difference between fre-
quency responses of possibly unstable systems.
Similar properties for constant complex numbers
implies that
arcsin d [G 1 (s), G 3 (s)] # arcsin d [G 1 (s), G 2 (s)]
+ arcsin d [G 2 (s), G 3 (s)] .
With the distance function d defined between systems,
an uncertain system can be described as a ball-like set of
systems with a center G (s) and radius r as
u (s): d [Gu (s), G (s)] # r} .
B [G (s), r] = {G
The center G (s) is called the nominal system, and the
radius r is called the radius of uncertainty.
Robust Stability
Consider the uncertain feedback system shown in Figure 4,
where P u (s) and Cu (s) are not exactly known and the only
known information is that they belong to uncertain plant
B [P (s), rP] and uncertain controller B [C (s), rC], respec-
tively. If the nominal feedback system shown in Figure 1 is
known to be stable, how much uncertainty, measured by rP
and rC, can the feedback system tolerate before possible
instability can occur? This section addresses that question.
Introduce a quantity determined by the nominal plant
and controller
b P, C = min d [- C -1 (j~), P (j~)] .
~dR
In other words, b P, C is the smallest chordal distance
between P (j~) and - C - 1 (j~) . Let
S (s) = 1
1 + P (s) C (s)
and
P (s) C (s)
T (s) = .
1 + P (s) C (s)
Then an alternative expression for b P, C is shown at the
bottom of the page.
Notice that the four closed-loop transfer functions, S(s),
P(s)S(s), C(s)S(s), and T(s), show up equally in b P, C . Yet
another expression for b P, C is
- 1/2
b P, C = ) 1 + 3
2
P (- s) - C (s)
, version of the plant and C
1 + P (s) C (s) 3 ler. The robust stability problem is to find a condition on the allow-
which connects b P, C with the 3-norm of a transfer function.
b P, C = ' sup |S (j~)|2 + |T (j~)|2 + |P (j~) S (j~)|2 + |C (j~) S (j~)|2 1 .
~dR
Theorem 4
Suppose that P(s) and C(s) are given so that the feedback
system in Figure 1 is internally stable.
1) The perturbed feedback system in Figure 4 is stable
u (s) ! B [P (s), rP] and Cu (s) ! B [C (s), rC] if and
for all P
only if
arcsin rP + arcsin rC <arcsin b P, C . (7)
2) If (7) holds, then
min buP,uC = sin (arcsin b P, C - arcsin rp - arcsin rC) .
uP ! B(P,r ), uC ! B(C,r )
P C
Theorem 4 is due to [23], with an earlier related result in
[26]. This theorem shows that b P, C is a measure of the
robustness of the feedback system. The larger b P, C is, the
more robust the feedback system. Hence b P, C is called the
stability margin of the feedback system with plant controller
pair P(s) and C(s). One natural design problem is given P(s),
design C(s) so that b P, C is maximized. This problem is called
the optimal robust stabilization problem, whose solution is
given in the next section.
Suboptimal and Optimal Robust Stabilization
Since b P, C is a measure of the closed-loop robustness, the
optimal robust stabilization problem is to design a con-
troller C(s), for a given P(s), such that b P, C is maximized.
Formally, given P(s), compute the optimal closed-loop
robustness measure
b * (P) = sup b P, C,
C (s)
and design the associated optimal controller C(s) such that
b P, C = b * (P) .
This problem is called the optimal robust stabilization
problem and is analytically solvable using the tools
w1 u1
u
P(s)
y2
y1
u
C(s)
u2 w2
Figure 4 An uncertain feedback system. Here Pu ^s h is a perturbed
u ^s h is a perturbed version of the control-
able amount of perturbations on both the plant and the controller to
guarantee the internal stability of the feedback system.
-1
AUGUST 2013 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE 35
 This article presents a systematic optimal and robust control theory for single-
input, single-output systems in a language suitable for undergraduate teaching.

presented so far. However, sometimes optimizing the Step 2. (Bezout equation) Find the unique x (s) with
robustness b P, C is not needed or even desirable. Instead, deg x (s) <n - 1 and y(s) with deg y (s) < n such that
only a requirement on the robustness b P, C may be needed, a (s) x (s) + b (s) y (s) = 1.
such as
Step 3. (Matrix computation) Let
b P, C > b (8) R d1 V
S -d 1 g 0W
for some prespecified b. The problem of finding a con- S 0
W
S h h j hW
troller C(s) such that (8) is satisfied is called a suboptimal A = S- d n - 1 0 g 1W ,
robust stabilization problem. Clearly, if b $ b * (P), there is no S d0 W
S dn W
solution to this problem. If b < b * (P), then one solution is S - 0 g 0W
T d 0
X
given by the optimal controller, and there are many other
solutions in general. The freedom to select from many R(- 1) n - 1 V
possible robust controllers can be used to improve other S n-2
W
S (- 1) W
performance objectives of the feedback system. Hence
J=S j W ,
several questions can be asked. First, does a reasonable S W
S -1 W
controller C(s) exist for a given P(s) and b > 0 so that the S W
1
requirement (8) is satisfied? Second, can the set of all con- T X
trollers C(s) be characterized that satisfy (8) for a given and
P(s) and b > 0? Third, can a controller C(s) be selected, H = 6b (A) x (- A) - a (A) y (- A)@ J.
subject to the constraint (8), to optimize some other per-
formance objectives, for example, the transient perfor- Compute the spectral radius t (H) . Then b * (P) = [1 +
2 - 1/2
mance cost J defined earlier? We give the answer to the t (H) ] . If b $ b * (P), there is no solution and exit.
first question. The answer to the second question can be Otherwise proceed.
found in the literature (e.g., [7]). The third question does Step 4. (Pole placement) Define
not have a complete answer yet and is still an area of Rd 1V
active research. S W
e (s) = d (s) + 2 6s n - 1 s n - 2 g1@ H 2 [(b - 2 - 1) I - H 2] - 1 S W .
The robust stabilization problem considered here, S0W
d3
which is a particular instance of H 3 -control, has connec- S W
tions with a number of concepts in postmodern control ThX
theory. In particular, the problem is the foundation of the A suboptimal robust stabilizing controller is the unique
so-called loop-shaping design methodology; see [27] and [28]. nth-order strictly proper pole-placement controller
Furthermore, this problem has a much simpler solution C (S) = q (s) /p (s) such that
than the general H 3 -control problem, as shown in [29]
and [30]. a (s) p (s) + b (s) q (s) = d (s) e (s) .
An elementary procedure to design a controller C(s),
called the central controller, so that (8) is satisfied is given The obtained controller C(s) depends on the value of b.
next. It is assumed that P(s) is strictly proper in the form Hence the resulting closed-loop stability robustness b P, C
also depends on the value of b. In general, the value of
b (s) n- 1 n- 2
b P, C is neither the optimal possible value b * (P) nor the
P (s) = = b 1 s n + b 2 ns- 1 + g + b n ,
a (s) a0 s + a1 s + g + an boundary value b. As b approaches b * (P), the suboptimal
controller converges to the optimal controller. This idea
where a(s) and b(s) are coprime and a 0 > 0. provides a way to solve the optimal robust stabilization
problem, as shown in Example 8.
Algorithm 3 When b = 0, which means that there is no robustness
Step 1. (Spectral factorization) Find the spectral factor requirement, then e(s) = d(s). Algorithm 3 in this case gives
d(s) of exactly the same controller as the optimal controller
minimizing the transient performance index J. This out-
a (- s) a (s) + b (- s) b (s) . come suggests the possibility that, for other values of b ,

36 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE AUGUST 2013

 The Routh stability test, which is based on the Routh table,
is often the first technical result a student encounters in control.

the controller given by Algorithm 3 also yields a good J, in The Diophantine equation becomes
addition to satisfying the robustness requirement (8). This
speculation turns out to be true, and it can be shown that s 2 p (s) + q (s) =
the obtained controller minimizes an upper bound on J. - 2 2 b2 + 2
However, it can also be shown that, in general, the control- (s 2 + 2s + 1) e s 2 + s+ 1 o
8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1 8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1
ler produced by Algorithm 3 is not the one with the best J = d (s) s 2
^ - 2b + 1 h 2 s 3 + (- 4b 2 + 3) s 2 + (- 2b 2 + 2) 2 s + 1
among all controllers satisfying (8). 2
+ ,
8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1
Example 8
Consider the double-integrator plant P (s) = 1/s 2 . The
whose solution is
objective is to design a controller C(s) that gives a closed-
loop stability robustness b P, C $ b.
(- 2b 2 + 1) 2 s - 4b 2 + 3
Step 1. (Spectral factorization) p (s) = d (s) + ,
8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1
s 4 + 1 = d (- s) d (s) & d (s) = s 2 + 2 s + 1. (- 2b 2 + 2) 2 s + 1
q (s) = .
8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1
Step 2. (Bezout equation)
Therefore, a guaranteed robust controller is given by
s 2 x (s) + y (s) = 1 & x (s) = 0, y (s) = 1.

(- 2b 2 + 2) 2 s + 1
Step 3. (Matrix computation) The matrices are C (s) = .
(8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1) d (s) + (- 2b 2 + 1) 2 s + (- 4b 2 + 3)
A== G
- 2 1
-1 0
For b = (4 + 2 2 ) - 1/2, that is, when b is equal to the
and optimal value, the controller becomes

H = - (A) 2 ; E= = G.
-1 0 1 2 (1 + 2 ) s + 1
0 1 2 1 C (s) = ,
s+ 1+ 2

T he spectral radius of H is t (H) = 1 + 2 . Hence, which is the optimal robust stabilizing controller. When
the optimal robustness achievable is b * (P)=[1 + (1 + b = 0, that is, when there is no robust requirement, the con-
2 ) 2] -1/2 = (4 + 2 2 ) - 1/2 . The suboptimal robust troller becomes
stabilization problem is solvable for b < (4
+ 2 2 ) -1/2 . C (s) = 2 2s+ 1 ,
Step 4. (Pole placement) The next steps are s2 + 2 2 s + 4
which is the controller minimizing the transient cost func-

2H [(b - 1) I - H )] = G
2 -2 2 2 -1 tion J obtained earlier. For the intermediate value of
0 b = 1/ 10 , the controller is

= G,
- b2 8 2 b2 - 6 2
= 2.5456s + 1
4 2
8b - 8b + 1 8b 2 - 8 C (s) = .
0.28s 2 + 1.5274s + 2.88

which gives
Conclusions
This article provides a tutorial on the development of a
2
e (s) = d (s) -
b
[(8 2 b 2 - 6 2 ) s + 8b 2 - 8] complete and systematic optimal and robust control
8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1 theory for SISO systems using only preclassical tools
- 2 2 b2 + 2
= s2 + s+ 4 1 2 . growing out of the Routh stability test and the polynomial
8b 4 - 8b 2 + 1 8b - 8b + 1 Diophantine equation. The presented analysis problems

AUGUST 2013 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE 37

are the computations of signal and system energy (two-
norm) and system resonance peak (-norm). The pre-
sented synthesis problems are optimal transient stabiliza-
tion (linear quadratic Gaussian control) and suboptimal
and optimal robust stabilization ( H 3 -control). Our expe-
rience indicates that these materials are well suited for
undergraduate teaching.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part by the Hong Kong RGC
(HKUST6163/04E) and in part by NASA (NCC5-573),
LEQSF (NASA/LEQSF(2001-2004)-01), the NNSFC Young
Investigator Award for Overseas Collaborative Research
(60328304).
Author Information
Li Qiu (eeqiu@ust.hk) received the B.Eng. degree in elec-
trical engineering from Hunan University, Changsha,
China, in 1981 and M.A.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electri-
cal engineering from the University of Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, in 1987 and 1990, respectively. Since 1993, he has
been with the Department of Electronic and Computer
Engineering, Hong Kong University of Science and Tech-
nology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, China. His research
interests include control theory, application, and educa-
tion. Currently, his research focuses on networked con-
trol systems, integrating control, communication, and
networks. He coauthored the textbook Introduction to
Feedback Control (Prentice Hall, 2009). He was an asso-
ciate editor of IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
Automatica, and Journal of Control Theory and Applications.
He is now a member of the editorial board of the Inter-
national Journal of Control. He also served as a Distin-
guished Lecturer of the IEEE Control Systems Society.
He is a Fellow of IEEE and the International Federation
of Automatic Control. He can be reached at the Depart-
ment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, Hong
Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water
Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Kemin Zhou received the B.S. degree from the Bei-
jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1982
and the M.S.E.E. and Ph.D. degrees from the University
of Minnesota in 1986 and 1988, respectively. Since 1990,
he has been with Louisiana State University, where he is
the Roy Paul Daniels Distinguished Professor and Mark
and Carolyn C. Guidry Professor in Electrical and Com-
puter Engineering. He is the lead author of two books on
control engineering: Robust and Optimal Control (Prentice
Hall, 1995) and Essentials of Robust Control (Prentice Hall,
1997). He is also a coauthor of Introduction to Feedback Con-
trol (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009). He is or was an asso-
ciate editor of Automatica, IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, Systems
and Control Letters, Journal of System Sciences and Complex-
ity, and Journal of Control Theory and Applications. He is
38 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE AUGUST 2013
a Fellow of IEEE and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
References
[1] J. C. Doyle, B. A. Francis, and A. R. Tannenbaum, Feedback Control Theory.
New York: Macmillan, 1992.
[2] W. A. Wolovich, Automatic Control Systems: Basic Analysis and Design.
Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1994.
[3] H. zbay, Introduction to Feedback Control Theory. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press, 1999.
[4] P. Dorato, Analytical Feedback System Design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/
Cole, 1999.
[5] G. C. Goodwin, S. F. Graebe, and M. E. Salgado, Control System Design.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001.
[6] K. J. strm and R. M. Murray, Feedback Systems: An Introduction for Sci-
entists and Engineers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 2008.
[7] L. Qiu and K. Zhou, Introduction to Feedback Control. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2009.
[8] P. Albertos and I. Mareels, Feedback and Control for Everyone. Berlin, Ger-
many: Springer-Verlag, 2010.
[9] G. Strang, Calculus. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley-Cambridge Press, 1991.
[10] G. Strang, Linear Algebra and Its Applications. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, 1988.
[11] A. V. Oppenheim, A. S. Willsky, and S. H. Nawab, Signals and Systems,
2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
[12] F. R. Gantmacher, The Theory of Matrices. New York: Chelsea, 1960.
[13] K. J. strm, Introduction to Stochastic Control Theory. New York: Aca-
demic, 1970.
[14] G. Meinsma, Elementary proof of the Routh-Hurwitz test, Syst. Con-
trol Lett., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 237242, 1995.
[15] A. Ferrante, A. Lepschy, and U. Viaro, A simple proof of the Routh
test, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 13061309, 1999.
[16] H. M. James, N. B. Nichols, and R. S. Philips, Theory of Servomechanisms.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947.
[17] G. C. Newton, L. A. Gould, and J. F. Kaiser, Analytical Design of Linear
Feedback Control. New York: Wiley, 1957.
[18] E. I. Jury and A. G. Dewey, A general formulation of the total square
integrals for continuous systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 10, no.
1, pp. 119120, 1965.
[19] C. P. Therapos, Balanced minimal realization of SISO systems, Elec-
tron. Lett., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 424426, 1983.
[20] P. S. C. Heuberger, P. M. J. Van den Hof, and O. H. Bosgra, A general-
ized orthonormal basis for linear dynamical systems, IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 451465, 1995.
[21] T. Kailath, Linear Systems. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
[22] M. J. Grimble and V. Kucera, Eds., Polynomial Methods for Control Systems
Design. London: Springer-Verlag, 1996.
[23] G. Vinnicombe, Frequency domain uncertainty and the graph topol-
ogy, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 13711383, 1993.
[24] G. Zames and A. K. El-Sakkary, Unstable systems and feedback: The
gap metric, in Proc. 16th Allerton Conf., 1980, pp. 380385.
[25] A. K. El-Sakkary, Estimating robustness on the Riemannn sphere,
Int. J. Control, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 561567, 1989.
[26] L. Qiu and E. J. Davison, Feedback stability under simultaneous gap
metric uncertainties in plant and controller, Syst. Control Lett., vol. 18, no.
1, pp. 922, 1992.
[27] D. C. McFarlane and K. Glover, Robust Controller Design Using Normal-
ized Co-prime Factor Plant Descriptions. Berlin. Germany: Springer-Verlag,
1990.
[28] G. Vinnicombe, Uncertainty and Feedback: H Loop-Shaping and the v-Gap
Metric. London: Imperial College Press, 2001.
[29] K. Glover and D. C. McFarlane, Robust stabilization of normalized
coprime factor plant descriptions with H bounded uncertainties, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 821830, 1989.
[30] T. T. Georgiou and M. Smith, Optimal robustness in the gap metric,
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 673687, 1990.
[31] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle, and K. Glover, Robust and Optimal Control. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.