898 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 52, NO.

5, MAY 2007

Periodic Compensation of Continuous-Time Plants

Sarit K. Das and Jayati Dey

Abstract—This note presents a periodic compensator which achieves ro-

bust stability for single-input–single-output (SISO), linear time invariant
(LTI) plants having both right-half plane (RHP) poles and zeros, a job LTI
controllers fail to do. In addition, for strictly proper plants this controller
achieves model matching ensuring at the same time that the periodic os-
cillations present in the plant output are insignificant in magnitude. The
design steps are straightforward and linear algebraic in nature.

Index Terms—Continuous-time systems, model matching, periodic con-

troller, robust stability.

I. INTRODUCTION
Fig. 1. Periodic controller.
For a linear time invariant (LTI) system, a suitable measure of loop
robustness is the minimum distance of the nyquist plot of loop transfer
function P (s) from the (01; 0) point. It is well known that the in-
of the approximation increasing with the frequency of the periodic vi-
verse of the peak of the frequency response of the transfer function
brations. In this note, the controller parameters have been suitably de-
1=(1+ P (s)) equals this minimum distance. In literature, 1=(1+ P (s))
signed so as to achieve pole as well as zero-placement leading to a
is often referred to as sensitivity transfer function S (s) and therefore
the robustness measure becomes kS k0
robust averaged system that matches a given model. One then expects
11 [1], [2]. It may be noted that
kS k1  2 signifies simultaneous0 satisfaction of gain margin (GM) the original periodic system to be robust as well. (In fact, [10, Th. 5.1]
 2 and phase margin (PM)  30 [1]. claims via the averaging approach that arbitrary GM compensation can
be achieved using a periodic controller.) Simulation results justify this
For a single-input–single-output (SISO), LTI plant having RHP
expectation. The simulation also shows that the controller considered
poles pj ; j = 1; 2; . . . ; k , and zeros zi ; i = 1; 2; . . . ; l, closed-loop
results in insignificant output ripples.
LTI compensation can only achieve [1]
Section II of this note presents the controller and obtains the aver-
aged equivalent of the closed-loop system corresponding to it. Sec-
k
kS k1  max jz i + p j j : tion III presents the steps for controller design and Section IV some
i
j =1 jz i 0 p j j (1)
examples.

Clearly, if the plant has RHP poles and zeros in close vicinity, the loop
robustness will be poor.
Several attempts have been made in literature to improve matters II. THE AVERAGED SYSTEM
using periodic controllers. Some of these results pertain to discrete-
time systems [3]–[5]. Some use the generalized sampled-data hold ap- The following notations are used. For any function, [:]( ) =
[:]( + T ), [:] := T 01 0 [:]( )d . Further if [:] = 0, then
proach [6], [7]. These, however, have significant intersampling ripples T
and poor robustness properties [8], [9]. The high frequency (! ) contin- [:](0k) := 1 1 1 [:]( )(d )k with [:](0i) = 0 for i = 1; . . . ; k . Also,
uous-time periodic controllers in [10] and [11] are seen to yield robust define
designs even for plants having RHP poles and zeros. Unfortunately,
O(1) oscillations (of frequency ! ) crop up in the response significantly
to make these results unacceptable. A variation of these controllers as
( ) := e0k  (2)
considered in [12] is, however, seen to yield zero input responses cor-
where km and ( ) are as in Fig. 1. Note that  has the property  =
01 .
responding to a type of nonlinear systems with very small oscillations.
In this note, a controller based essentially on [12] has been considered.
The analysis and synthesis of the periodically compensated system has Consider a plant x_ = Ax + Bu, y = Cx + d, with
bn0r sn0r + 1 1 1 + b1 s + b0
been carried out using the averaging principle as in [10]–[12]. Ac-
cording to this principle, the stability and the response of a periodic C (sI 0 A)01 B = B0 (s) = n
system (satisfying certain constraints [11]) can be adequately approxi- A 0 (s ) s + an01 sn01 + 1 1 1 + a1 s + a0
(3)
mated by an equivalent averaged (time-invariant) system, the accuracy
where d is the output disturbance. Further let  be the measurement
noise. Now consider the two degree-of-freedom observer canonical
form controller of Fig. 1 which may be described as
Manuscript received September 14, 2005; revised March 17, 2006 and Jan-

z_ = F + !(!t)K [z + Gm+1 (y 0 ) + Qm+1 v]

uary 11, 2007. Recommended by Associate Editor U. Jonsson.
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Insti-
+ [G + ! r  (!t)L] (y 0  ) + Qv
tute of Technology, Kharagpur-721302, India (e-mail: skdas@ee.iitkgp.ernet.
in).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TAC.2007.895911 u = Hz + gm+1 (y 0 ) + qm+1 v z 2 Rm (4)

0018-9286/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 52, NO. 5, MAY 2007 899

with Now, to remove the O(! ) terms set

_ i + !ki (!t) + !i km (!t) = 0; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 1

T
F =
0 m0 2 I m0 2 m0
_ m + !m km (!t) = 0
( 1) 1 ( 1) ( 1)
FT
_ i + !(!t)qm+1 [ki + km i ] = 0; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 1
K = 0m2(m01) K H = 012(m01) 1 _ m + !qm+1 (!t)km m = 0 (8)
G = [ g 1 1 1 1 g m ]T L = [ l1 1 1 1 lm ]T _i(1) + ! (!t)li + !ki (!t)gm+1 + !i lm  (!t)
F = [ f 1 1 1 1 f m ]T K = [ k 1 1 1 1 k m ]T +!km (!t)i gm+1 = 0; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 1
Q = [q1 1 1 1 qm ]T Gm+1 = 012(m01) gm+1 T _m(1) + !(!t)km gm+1 m + ! (!t)lm m = 0
Qm+1 = 012(m01) qm+1 T : which yields
Then, the overall system equation becomes (5), as shown at the bottom i = 0 [(ki =km ) + ci ] ; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 1 m = cm 
of the page. i = 0ci qm+1 [ + ci ] m = qm+1 [m + cm ]
Note that some of the elements in (5) are of O(!r ), some of O(! ) i(1) = 0li  (01) + ci(1) 0 ci gm+1 + (ki lm =km ) (01)
and the rest of O(1). For averaging to be applicable, it is first necessary
[10] to transform all the coefficients to O(1). First assume r = 1. To +ci lm d; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 1
normalize the O(! ) terms present in the expression for z_ , set m(1) = gm+1 m 0 cm lm d + cm(1)
(9)
where  is as given by (2) and ci , ci , cm , ci(1) , cm are constants of
(1) = 8z + 2(1) x + 9v + 30(1) (d 0 )
integration. Choose  = cos(!t). Then, i and i , i = 1; . . . ; m, are
(6)

where bounded. Further, to ensure that i(1) be also bounded, it is necessary

to have  = 0 (else the integration will produce a t term). Therefore
8 = I m0 21m1 10 01 1m1 0 2m
T
( 1) ( 1) ( 1) 1
 must be cos(!t) for r = 1. Without any loss of generality, one may
1
set ci = 0, i = 1; . . . ; m 01, and cm = 0. Also set cm = 1 to have the
9 = [ 1 1 1 m ]T 1 convenient property that m = m 01 . For r = 1 then, this procedure
3 = 
0(1) 1 1 1 m T 1(1) (1)
reduces the system (5) to the amplitude normalized form shown in (10)
2 = 3 C:
(1) 0(1)
at the bottom of the page.
For r = 2, however, even after the transformation (6) is carried out,
Then the following O(! ) terms will remain in the system equation:

_ (1) = 8_ z + 8z_ + 2_ (1) x + 2(1) x_ + 9_ v + 9_v

+ 3_ 0(1)(d 0 ) + 30(1)(d_ 0 _ ) i(1) = ! 0li  (01) 0 li ci(1) + (ki lm =km ) (01)
:
= 8_ z + 8 [G + ! (!t)L + gm+1 (F + !(!t)K )] i =1; . . . ; m 0 1; m(1) = gm+1  0 !lm d + cm(1)
2 fCx + (d 0 )g + 8 F + !(!t)K z Since for further normalization of such O(! ) terms they need to
(11)

+ 8 [Q + qm+1 fF + !(!t)K g] v + 2_ (1) x be integrated as well, they must be of zero-mean. To ensure this set
+ 2(1) [Ax + gm+1 B [Cx + (d 0 )] ci(1) = 0, i = 1; . . . ; m 01, and lm = 0. Now, use the transformation
+BHz + qm+1 Bv] + 9_ v + 9_v
+ 30(1)(d 0 ) + 30(1)(d_ 0 _ ):
_ (7) (2) = (1) + 2(2) x + 30(2) (d 0 ) + 31(2) (d_ 0 _ ) (12)

x_
z_
= [G + !r  (!t)L]AC++ggmm BC BH +1 x
[F + !(!t)K ] C F + !(!t)K z
+1

+ Q + qm q[mF +B!(!t)K ] v + G + !r  (!t)L +gmgm B [F + !(!t)K ] (d 0 )

+1
+1 +1

+1

x
y = [C 0] +d (5)
z

x_ gm BC 0 BH 80 2 BH 80
= 8GC 0 8F 80 2 0 2A +BH
1 1
+1 (1)
_ (1) 8 2 + gm 8F C + gm 2 BC + 2 A 2 BH 80 + 8F 80
0 1
(1) (1)
1
(1) +1 +1 (1) (1) (1)
1 1

2 x + 8Q 0 8F 80 9 + qqmm 8BF00BH 80 9 0 1

2 BH 80 9 + qm 2 B v + 9 v_
+1
1 1
(1) +1 (1) +1 (1)

+ 8G 0 8F 80 3 +ggmm B80F BH 80 3 0 _

1

0 2 BH 80 3 + gm 2 B (d 0 ) + 3 (d 0 _ )
+1 0(1)
1 1
0(1) +1 (1) 0(1) +1 (1) 0(1)
x
y = [C 0] +d (10)
(1)
900 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 52, NO. 5, MAY 2007

and equate the O(!) terms in the expression for _ (2) to zero to obtain 3 =  111  0
0(1) 1(1) 0 111 0 g 
(m r +1)(1) m+1
T

3 0 0 = (01) 0 0 j !(k 0011)!

(k 1 j )(k)
( k k 
0 j )! F
1 j j

2 = F  111  0 0 C 2  111  0 0 111 0

T
(2)  0 1(2) (m 2)(2) (m 1)(2) 1(k) (m r +1)(k)
T

0  111  0 0 CA 1(2) (m 1)(2)

T k = 2 ; . . . ; r 0 1; j = 0 ; . . . ; k 0 1
+ [k k 1 1 1 k 0 0]  0 l k 0 C
1 2 m 1
T ( 2) m 1
(13) 3 0 0 = (01) 0 0 j !(r(r0011)!
(r 1 j )(r )
0 j )! F
r  1 j j

3 = F  111  0 0 2  111  0 0 111 0

T T
0(2)  0 1(2) (m 2)(2) (m 1)(2) 1(r ) (m r +1)(r )

l j = 0; . . . ; r 0 2
+ [k k 1 1 1 k 0 0]  0 k 0 T ( 2) m 1

3 =  0 l 0 [k 1 1 1 k 0 0] =k
1 2 m 1 (14) ( r) T
m
0(r ) m r +1 1 m 1 m

3 =0  111  0 0 T

+ F 0  1 1 1  0  0
(15)
1(2) 1(2) (m 1)(2)
0 111 0
T
r 1
1(r ) (m r )(r ) (m r +1)(r )

(19)
where where
( = 0 ! 0  0 l k = 1; . . . ; r 0 1
r k ( k)

0 li  02) + ci(2) ; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 1
i k)
 (2) =
i
(
i
(
i r) = 0 l  0 + c ; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 r + 1
i
( r)
i(r )

( 01)(2) =
m 0 lm01  (01) d + cm(2) : and

( 0 = 0l 0  (0 r +1)
d + c( 0 :
Note that for (m01)(2) to be bounded,  (for r = 2) must be chosen
m r +1)(r ) m r +1 m r +2)(r )

as sin(!t). These substitutions finally transform (5) to the following amplitude

One may generalize the above to normalize the system (5) having normalized form:
O(!r ) terms using the sequence of transformations (1) as given by
x_
(6) and (k) , k = 2; 3; . . . ; r , given by
_ ( )
= A x + B v + B v_ + C (d 0 )
T T ;0 T ;1 T ;0
r (r )

01 + C (d_ 0 _ ) + 1 1 1 + C dtd (d 0 )
r

( = 0 +2 x+
k

3 00 d 010 (d 0 )
k j
T ;1 T ;r
r

dt 010
k) (k 1) (k) (k 1 j )(k) (16)
k j
x
j =0
y = [C 0] + d: (20)
( ) r

and to ensure that these substitutions be well-posed, it is required that (Explicit forms of AT , BT ;i and CT ;i are presented in [13].) Note that
all the O(! r0k+1 ) elements of 2(k01) and 3i(k01) be of zero mean the coefficient matrices AT , BT ;i and CT ;i are bounded and smooth.
and (m0r+1)(r) be bounded, for which set lm0k+2 = 0 and ci(k01) = Now, let v be a step function. Since v_ (t)jt=0 tends to 1, for well-
0, k = 2; 3; . . . ; r, and i = 1; . . . ; m 0 k +1, and to have  (0r+1)  = posedness, one must have BT ;1 = 0 which, it can be verified, requires
0 choose  and  as qm+1 = 0. Further, for the moment, assume d =  = 0. Then, (20)
may be averaged to yield

(!t) = cos(!t)  (!t) =

sin(!t); if r is even
cos(!t); if r is odd
(17)
x_
_
= A x + B v y = [C 0] x
T T ;0 (21)
(r ) (r ) (r )
Then, one obtains
which, following [11, Th. 4.4], is globally  -equivalent to (5) in the
2 =  111  0 0 111 0 g  C sense that, if AT has all its eigenvalues in the LHP, then for any  > 0,
T
(1) 1(1) (m r +1)(1) m+1

0 there exists an !0 such that for all !  !0 , jy (t) 0 y (t)j <  , 8t  0,

2 = (01) 0 0 j !(k(k0011)!
1

k

where y (t) is the moving average (Definition 3.3, [11]) of the output
0 j )! F
k 1 j j
(k)
j =0 y(t) of (20) and hence (5). Note that since the output matrix in (20)
2  111  0 0 1 1 1 0 CA 0 0 T k 1 j is time-invariant, here y (t) = y (t), which signifies that the ripples
1(k) (m r +1)(k)
present in the periodically compensated system output will also tend to
k = 2; . . . ; r 0 1 zero for sufficiently large ! . The same conclusion can be obtained from
a physical point of view as well. Since a signal sin !t passing through
and an integrator gets attenuated by a factor ! , it follows from Fig. 1 that
for the choices of li = 0, i = m 0 r + 2; . . . ; m, r  2, as made ear-
0 lier, the controller output contains oscillations of O(1) amplitude only.
2 = (01) 0 0 j !(r(r0011)!
2

r

0 j )! F
r 1 j j
(r ) Obviously then the plant output would contain the periodic oscillations
j =0 of O(1=! r ) only.
2  111  0 0 1 1 1 0 CA 0 0
1(r ) (m r +1)(r )
T r 1 j
Referring again to (21), in order to obtain an averaged character-

+ F 0  1 1 1  0  0
istic equation linear in the controller parameters, it is further neces-
01110 C
T

sary to set lm0r+1 = 0 and ci(r) = 0, i = 1; . . . ; m 0 r . Now, let

r 1
1(r ) (m r )(r ) (m r +1)(r )

v be a continuous but slowly varying (compared to ! ) periodic func-

+  0 l k0 [k 1 1 1 k 0 0] C
( r) m r +1

m
1 m 1
T
(18) tion so that BT ;0 v  B T ;0 v and BT ;1 v_  B T ;1 v_ . Also, let d and 
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 52, NO. 5, MAY 2007 901

to be present but slowly varying continuous periodic functions so that where

( )( ) (
CT ;i di =dti d 0   C T ;i di =dti d 0  , i )(
; ; r . Then, ) = 1 ... F (s ) = 0 f 1 0 f  s0 111
2 2
2
following [11, Rem. 4.7], the averaged equivalent of (20) as given by
(22) at the bottom of the page, where 0f 0  s 0 0f s 0 +s
m 1
2 m 2
m
m 1 m

Q ( s ) =  [q + q s + 1 1 1 + q s 0 + q s ]
2 m 1 m
1 2 m m+1

8 = I 00K=k 2 0 0 0 21 G (s ) = 0 g  1 1 1 0 g 0  s 0 (26)
T
(m 1) (m 1) (m 1) 2 2 m 2
1 m 1

0 g +l 0  0  s 0 0g s
m

K = [k 1 1 1 k 0 0]
( r) m 1 m
m m r m+1
1 m 1

9= 0 2 0 q 
1 (m 1) m+1
T
L(s) = (01)  0 [l + l s + 1 1 1 + l 0 s 0 0 ]
r ( r)
1 2 m r
m r 1

and

is also globally  -equivalent to (5) for all t  . 0

The output corresponding to the averaged system (22) is shown in K (s) = k1 + k2 s + 1 1 1 + km01 sm02
(23) at the bottom of the page, where the characteristic polynomial is
given by with

ki = (
2
0 1) fm ki
+ k kk i m 01 0 kk0 i 1
; i = 1; . . . ; m 0 1
 s) := A (s) F (s) + K (s) + Z(s)
1( 0 (24) km 2
m m

It is now seen that the ki terms do not contribute independently

in forming the closed loop characteristic equation. Without any
with the effective loop zero polynomial being loss of generality, then, one may remove them by setting ki , =0
i = 1 ... 1
; ; m 0 . However, in order to ensure that  (0r)  6 , km =0
Z(s) = B0 (s)G(s) must be nonzero. (However, the value of km is arbitrary.) Then, s  )
1(
+ (1 0 2 )[sB0 (s) 0 bn01 A0 (s)] gm+1 sm01 becomes

+ bn0r A0 (s)L(s) 0 B0 (s) (0r)lm0r

2 (k1 + 1 1 1 + km01 sm02 )=km (25)  s) := A (s)F (s) + Z (s)
1( 0 (27)

x_ BH 8
_ (1)
= 8GC 0 8F 80 2 + Ag 8F C + G 1
(1) m+1 m+1 CA bn01 Gm+1 H + bn01 (01) LH + 8F 801
x
(1)
+ 8Q 0 8F 8009 + q 8F v + Q0 1
m+1 m+1
v_ +
0
8G 0 8F80 3 + g 1
0(1) m+1 8 F (d 0  )
+ 0 (d_ 0 _ ) for r = 1
Gm+1
x_ BH 8
_ (r)
= 8GC 0 8F 80 2 0 8F80 GA C + g 8F C + G
1
(r )
1
m+1 m+1 m+1 CA 0(01) b 0  0 r
n r
(r)
LH + 8F 801
2 x + 8Q 0 8F 8009 + q 8F v + Q0 v_ 1
m+1 m+1
(r )

+ 8G 0 8F80 3 0 8F0 80 G + g 8F (d 0 ) +
1
0(r )
1
m+1 m+1 Gm+1
0 (d_ 0 _ ) for r  2
x
y = [C 0] + d; r  1 (22)
 (r )

B0 (s)Q(s) A0 (s) F (s) + bn0r L(s) 0 (1 0  )bn01 gm+1 sm01

2

Y (s ) =
1 (s) V (s) +  s)
1( D (s )

B0 (s) G(s) + (1 0  )gm+1 sm A0 (s)K (s)

2

+ 1 (s) N (s ) +
1 (s) D(s)
B0 (s) (0r)  l k (k + 1 1 1 + k 01 sm02 )
0 N (s )
1 m

1 (s) (23)
902 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 52, NO. 5, MAY 2007

with the corresponding loop zero polynomial being

Z (s) = B0 (s)G(s) + [sB0 (s) 0 bn01 A0 (s)]

2(1 0 2 )gm+1 sm01 + bn0r A0 (s)L(s): (28)

Consequently, from (23) one obtains the input–output transfer function

as

Y (s ) (s)Q(s) :
= B01(
V (s )  s) (29)

Further, (29) alongwith (27) and (28) yields the averaged equivalent
error response transfer function of the closed-loop system, where the
error E s( )= ( ) ( )
V s 0 Y s , as
A0 (s) F (s) 0 b 01 (1 0 2 )g +1 s 01 m Fig. 2. (a) Unit step response. (b) Its deviations from the averaged value for
E (s ) = ( )
n m
Example 1.
V s
1 (s)
B0 (s) G(s) + (1 0 2 )g +1 s 0 Q(s) m

+ V (s ) which shows that B (s) must contain the RHP zeros of B0 (s) and
m

1 (s) degjB (s)j  n 0 r .

0 (s)L(s) Next, it is evident from (30) that for e [=
+ b 0 A1(
n
 s ) V (s ):
r
(30) lim sE (s)] to be robustly zero, one must have
ss

!0
!0 s 2 [ each of the three terms in RHS of (30)] = 0. For a step
lim s

s
Next, from (23) the averaged disturbance-to-output and the noise-to- input and for a desired transfer function having unity dc gain, for
output transfer functions are, respectively, obtained as example, it follows from (27), (28), (26), and (34) that these terms
2 m01
Y (s) = A0 (s) F (s)+ bn0rL(s) 0 (1 0 )bn01 gm+1 s
will be zero: i) for a type-1 plant automatically and ii) for a type-0
plant when F (0) = = 0
f1 and L (0) = = 0
l1
1 (s)
.
D (s ) The above observations may now be concretized in the form of an al-
(31) gorithm. First, however, it would be convenient to define the following:
2
Y (s) = B0 (s) G(s) + (1 0  )gm+1 s : F (s) := sm + fm sm01 + 1 1 1 + f1
m

N (s ) 1 (s) (32)
Q(s) := qm+1 sm + 1 1 1 + q2 s + q1
G(s) := gm+1 sm + 1 1 1 + g2 s + g1 (35)
III. CONTROLLER DESIGN
L(s) := lm0r sm0r01 + 1 1 1 + l2 s + l1
The basic mechanism how a periodic controller does what LTI con-
Z (s) := zm+n0r sm+n0r + 1 1 1 + z1 s + z0
A0 (s)F (s) := sm+n + m+n01 sm+n01 + 1 1 1 + 1 s + 0
trollers can not is as follows. Compensating (3) using a LTI compen-
() ()
sator having a transfer function G0 s =F0 s , one obtains a closed- :
loop characteristic equation 1(s)1(s) := sm+n + m+n01 sm+n01 + 1 1 1 + 1 s + 0
(36)

1 (s) := 1(s)1(s) = A0 (s)F0(s) + B0 (s)G0(s) (33)

Design Step 1: Following Section II, in order that the system be
where 1(s) may be assumed to consist of the n desired closed-loop ( )
well posed and linear (in the controller parameters), set  !t
poles and 1(s) the remaining ones. Now, if one chooses 1(s), then ( )
and  !t as in (17) and k_i=0, i = 1 ...
; ; m 0 , li 1 =0 ,
G0 (s) and F0 (s) get fixed up automatically. However, (27) shows that =
i m0r + 1 ...
; ; m, and for step input qm+1 =0. Also
for the periodically compensated system the loop transfer function is choose km to be an arbitrary number >0 (say 1). Further, in order
P (s) = Z (s)=A0 (s)F (s) where Z (s), as given by (28), does not, to decide about the controller order note from (28) and (35) that
unlike the LTI case, generically contain the plant zeros. (This, in fact, 2 +1
m 0 r number of the controller parameters, gi and li , assign
amounts to loop zero-placement.) Now, the advantage of using a peri- ( + )
the coefficients of m n 0 r th order loop zero polynomial Z s . ()
odic controller arises from the fact that here one may choose both s 1( ) Then one must have m 0 r2 +1 + +1
 m n 0 r ) m  n.
()
and F s a priori (arbitrarily for r =1
, but subject to some constraints For type-1 or higher plants, choose m = n. However, as noted
1 ()
for r > ) so that the resulting Z s leads to a loop transfer function above, for type-0 plants one must preset l1 =0 which requires
()
P s having satisfactory robustness margin. The controller parameters = +1
m n .
()
gi and li corresponding to such a Z s can be evaluated solving (28) ( ) 1( )
Design Step 2: Choose the polynomials F s and s satisfying
and (26). the following conditions.
Now suppose a plant (3) with RHP poles and zeros is to be com- i)
pensated such that in addition to the loop becoming robustly stable:
( ) 1( )
i) the input-output transfer function becomes B s = s , and ii) ro- m+n0i = m+n0i ; i = 1; . . . ; (r 0 1); for r >1 (37)
bust zero-error tracking is effected. To achieve i), note from (29) that
[which follows from (36), (35), and (27)].
B (s ) = B0 (s)Q(s) ) B0 (s)Q(s) = B(s)1(s) ii) 1( ) ()
s contains the LHP zeros of B0 s if they are not
1(s) 1(s)1(s)
(34)
()
present in B s .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 52, NO. 5, MAY 2007 903

()
iii) For a type-0 plant F s contains one root at origin (to Stage 2: Next following (26) evaluate gi , li as
ensure robust zero-error tracking), such that the corre-
()
sponding Z s as obtained following (27) leads to an
acceptable loop characteristics. Root locus and/or loop gk = 0 gk 1  k  m 0 1
2
shaping considerations should prove to be useful while 
l =
lk = (01)r k 1k m0r
making these choices which, expectedly, are not unique.
It may be emphasized in this context that here the search  (0r)  : (41)
space made available to the designer is much larger
(compared to LTI designs) so that satisfactory designs gm = 0 m
(g =) +  (0r)lm0r
are much more likely to be obtained. Examples presented 
in Section IV illustrate one way to make these choices. gm+1 = 0 gm+1
Design Step 3: Now find the controller parameters as follows.
i) Following (26) evaluate the fi ’s as
IV. EXAMPLES
fi = 0 fi = ; i = 1 ; 2; . . . ; m 0 1 ( + 1)( s 0 =s s2) ( + 3)( 1)
s 0 , is to be
2
Example 1: A plant, s
fm = 0 fm : (38) compensated such that it: i) resembles 0 s 0 = s2( 2) ( + 2)( + 1 s 6
)
j , ii) robustly tracks a step input, and iii) has good loop robustness
ii) Obtain the qi ’s, i ; ; ;m = 1 2 ...
, by matching the +1 properties. Consider a periodic controller of the form shown in Fig. 1
coefficients of the like powers of s in (34) after carrying with order m = =3
n . The first step is to make suitable choices for
out the due cancellations. Then, following (26), evaluate ( ) 1( )
the polynomials F s and s . In order to do so in a tractable fashion,
the qi ’s as one may try to reduce the number of design variables by engineering as
much LHP pole-zero cancellations as possible. The remaining design
variable may then be chosen using trial and error. Here the choices have
qi = qi = ; i = 1 ; 2; . . . ; m + 1 :
2 been made as follows.
(39)
1( ) ( +1)
i) Design Step 2) requires that s has a factor s . This may
iii) The remaining controller parameters gi , li can be valu-
() ()
be ensured by letting both F s and Z s have the same factor.
2 () ()
ii) As one of the desired poles is at 0 , let both F s and Z s have
ated using a two-stage linear procedure in which first the
values of some intermediate variables gi , li are obtained,
( + 2)
the factor s .
in terms of which, next, gi , li are evaluated.
() (+)
iii) Let the remaining factor of F s be s p , p a design parameter.
Stage 1: Equating the coefficients of sk in the expressions for Z s () 1( ) ()
Also let s and Z s have the same factor. Note that although
given by (28) and (35), k = 0 ...
; ; m n 0 r , one obtains the + ()
the choice of p does not affect the S s expression for the nom-
inal plant, it must be sufficiently far in the LHP so as to ensure
matrix equation
reduced sensitivity to plant pole-zero variations.
iv) The remaining factor of 1( ) ( + )
s may be chosen at s p1 , p1
G a design parameter, such that (a) the two plant poles at 0 and 1
[B
..
. Ab ] 111 = Z (40) 1
arrive at 0 6 j , (b) the pole at 03 becomes 0p1 , and (c) the
L remaining two loop zeros occur in the LHP.
The choice of p = 15 and p1 = 10 is found to lead to an acceptable
where result. For p1 = 10 ( )
, Z s , following (27), becomes

b0 0 111 0 0
b1 b0111 0 0 Z (s) = (s + 1)(s + 2)(s + 15)(10s2 + 25s + 20) (42)
.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . The corresponding S s ( ) = ( 1)( + 3) ( + 1 )( + 10)
s s0 s =s 6j s and
111 bn01 a0 (1 0  ) its frequency response shows that kS k1  .1
2
bm01 bm02 b0
B=
111 b0  + bn01 a1 (1 0 ) =1
2 2
bm bm01 b1 The corresponding controller parameters for km may now be
..
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
obtained as follows. Since F s( ) = ( +2)( +1)( +15)
s s s , (38) yields

0 0 111 bn01 bn02 

2
+ bn0 an0 (1 0 )
1 1
2

0 0 111 0 bn01 f1 = 018:7158 f2 = 029:3214 and f3 = 018

2R (m+n 0r+1)2(m+1)
a0 0 0 111 0 From (34) one obtains, Q s ( ) = 02(s + 15)(s + 10) which in turn,
a1 a0 0 111 0 following (39), yields

Ab = bn0r a2 a1 a0 1 1 1 0 2 R m n0r 2 m0r ( + +1) ( )

q1 = 0187:1581; q2 = 031:1930; q3 = 01:2477 and q4 = 0:
.. .. .. .. .
. ..
. .
0 0 0 111 0
.
()
For the Z s given by (42), (40) becomes

G = [ g1 1 1 1 gm ] T 2 R m 2 ( +1) 1 02 0 0 0 0 0 g1 600
+1
01 02 0 0 03 0 g2 1690
L = [ l1 1 1 1 lm0r ]T 2 R m0r 2 1 01 02 0 2 03 = 1835
( ) 1
g3
Z = [ z0 1 1 1 zm n0r ]T 2 R m n0r
+
( + +1) 21 0 1 01 01:3971 1 2 g4 940 :
0 0 1 02:8088 0 1 l1 205
Now, evaluate the gi , li solving (40). 0 0 0 1 0 0 l2 10
904 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 52, NO. 5, MAY 2007

( 5 2)( +5 2) 2 4 ( +5 5)(
Example 2: Consider the plant s0 : s : = : s2 s : s0
5 5)
: which pertains to a cart-pendulum system [2]. It is to be robustly
2 5385(
compensated such that the transfer function becomes 0 : s0
5 2) ( + 0 5)( + 1 )( + 5 5)
: =s : s 6 j s : . (Here, a LTI compensator can
35 6667
only obtain kS k1  : .) Consider a periodic controller of order
m n= =4 =2
, and choose, satisfying the condition (37) for r ,
( ) = ( +5 2)( + )( + ) 1( ) = ( +5 2)( + )( +
F s s : s p s p0 2 , s s : s p s p0 0
4 ) 4 = 15
6 jp1 with p0 > and p1 arbitrary. For p0 = 20and p1 one
( ) = ( + )( + 5 5)( + 5 2)(519 +
obtains, following (4), Z s s p s : s : s3
2607 + 1585 + 521)
s2 s ( ) = ( 5 5)( +
and consequently S s s2 s 0 : s
15) ( + 0 5)( + 11 20)( + 1 )
2
=s : s = 1 555
6 j s 6 j for which kS k1 : .
=1
The corresponding controller parameters for p =1 and km have
= 20000
been obtained and response found satisfactory for ! .

V. CONCLUSION
Fig. 3. Control input to the plant for Example 1. (a) Averaged system. (b) Ac-
tual system. Examples presented show that the proposed high frequency ! peri- ( )
odic controller achieves model matching (with robust tracking) as well
as satisfactory robust compensation for plants having both RHP poles
and zeros. The control input has small oscillations of O (1)
only and,
consequently, the oscillations present in the plant output are insignifi-
(1 )
cant, being of O =!r , where r is the relative order of the plant. The
improvement in the robustness, however, does not entail improvement
in the disturbance/noise rejection characteristics.

REFERENCES
[1] W. A. Wolovich, Automatic Control Systems. Rochester, NY: Saun-
ders College Publishing, 1994.
[2] J. C. Doyle, B. A. Francis, and A. R. Tannenbaum, Feedback Control
Theory. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
[3] P. P. Khargonekar, K. Polla, and A. Tannenbaum, “Robust control of
linear time-invariant plants using periodic compensation,” IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 1088–1096, Nov. 1985.
[4] S. K. Das and P. K. Rajagopalan, “Techniques of analysis and robust
Fig. 4. (a) Disturbance rejection. (b) Noise attenuation for Example 1. control via zero placement of periodically compensated discrete time
plants,” in Control and Dynamic Systems, Advances in Theory and Ap-
plications. New York: Academic, 1996, vol. 74.

= 187 1581
[5] S. K. Das and P. K. Rajagopalan, “Periodic discrete-time systems: Sta-
Solving this and using (41), one obtains g1 : , bility analysis and robust control using zero placement,” IEEE Trans.
g2 = 1 1448 10 = 795 4037
: 2 3 , g33 : = 10 = 1 0622 10
, g 4 0 , l1 : 2 3, Autom. Control, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 374–378, Mar. 1992.
and l2 = 1 0538 10
: 2 . [6] P. T. Kabamba, “Control of linear systems using generalized sampled-
data hold functions,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. AC-32, no. 9,
A simulation carried out using MATLAB-SIMULINK shows that pp. 772–783, Sep. 1987.
the unit step response of the compensated system, shown in Fig. 2(a) [7] W.-Y. Yan, B. D. O. Anderson, and R. R. Bitmead, “On the gain margin
for ! = 10000 , is as desired, the deviation as well as the ripples being improvement using dynamic compensation based on generalized sam-
of the order of 04
10 (= 1 ) =! as shown in Fig. 2(b). The corresponding pled-data hold functions,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 39, no. 11,
pp. 2347–2354, Nov. 1994.
averaged and actual plant inputs are presented in Fig. 3(a) and (b), re- [8] J. S. Frudenberg, R. H. Middleton, and J. H. Braslavsky, “Robustness
spectively. of zero shifting via generalized sampled-data hold functions,” IEEE
It would be interesting to compare this design with the LTI com- Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 1681–1692, Dec. 1997.
pensation for the same plant presented in [1]. Although the response [9] A. Feuer and G. C. Goodwin, “Generalized sample hold functions-fre-
obtained is identical, kS k1 for the latter is 6.9 (the achievable limit quency domain analysis of robustness, sensitivity, and intersample dif-
ficulties,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1042–1047,
as per (1) being 3), and simulations show that it has a GM of 1.5
( = 1 2 0 8) GM 
May 1994.
Kmax =Kmin : = : only while the present design has a [10] S. Lee, S. M. Meerkov, and T. Runolfson, “Vibrational feedback con-
375 ( 60 0 16)
Kmax =Kmin  = : for ! = 10000 . Further, the robust- trol: Zeros placement capabilities,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol.
ness with respect to location of the plant zero at 2 has been examined. AC-32, no. 7, pp. 604–611, Jul. 1987.
[11] K. Shujaee and B. Lehman, “Vibrational feedback control of time delay
It is seen that the present design maintains stability till the zero is made systems,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 1529–1545,
1.6 (for which the LTI design is unstable), but fails when it is 1.5. It has
been verified that kS k1 01 for the perturbed plant corresponding to the Nov. 1997.
[12] S. Lee and S. M. Meerkov, “Vibrational feedback control in the
zero being 1.6 is 0.146. If the zero is at 1.5, the nyquist plot crosses the problem of absolute stability,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 36,
(01,0) point. no. 4, pp. 482–485, Apr. 1991.
[13] J. Dey, “Periodic comepnsation of continuous-time plants,” Ph.D. dis-
Further, Fig. 4(a) and (b) shows the frequency responses of the dis- sertation, Indian Inst. Technol., Kharagpur, India, 2006.
turbance-to-output and noise-to-output transfer functions as obtained [14] J. S. Shamma and M. A. Dahleh, “Time-varying versus time-invariant
following (31) and (32), respectively. It is seen that unlike the robust- compensation for rejection of persistent bounded disturbances and ro-
ness properties the periodic controller does not seem to improve the bust stabilization,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 36, no. 7, pp.
838–847, Jul. 1991.
disturbance/noise rejection properties. In fact, it has been shown in [15] H. Chapellat and M. A. Dahleh, “Analysis of time-varying control
[14] and [15] that so far as disturbance rejection is concerned, LTI con- strategies for optimal disturbance rejection and robustness,” IEEE
trollers can always achieve what a periodic controller can. Trans. Autom. Control, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 1734–1745, Nov. 1992.