You are on page 1of 18

Automatica. Vol. 30. No. 5. pp.

847-864, 1994
Copyright ~) 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
Peqlamoa Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
(l(105-11)08/94 17.(10 + 0.(l(I

Proportional and Proportional-derivative


Canonical Forms for Descriptor Systems with
Outputs*
G. LEBRET't" and J. J. LOISEAU't

Canonical forms for generalized systems under the action of the generalized
Morse's transformations group and some proportional plus derivative
groups are described. Their invariants are geometrically characterized.
Relations with the Kronecker's theory o f matrix pencils are established.

Key Words---Canonical forms; classification; invariance; linear differential equations; linear systems;
multivariable systems; state feedback; state space; system theory,

recent one, more oriented towards the geometric


A b n r K t m W e construct a new canonical form for descriptor approach, see Lewis (1992)]. A central question
systems (E, A, B, C) under proportional state feedback,
proportional output injection and changes of bases in the in the accurate understanding of the structure of
input space, the output space, the state space (domain) and systems is the definition of canonical forms
the state equation space (codomain). Geometric charac- under some "control group", and their related
terizations of the invariants are given. Four pencils are
introduced in order to point out the relationships with invariants (which usually are integers and/or
Kronecker's theory of matrix pencils. This finally allows us to polynomials).
define canonical forms under proportional plus derivative In this context, Van Der Weiden and Bosgra
action.
(1980) gave a form deduced from Kronecker's
theory of matrix pencils (see Gantmacher, 1959).
1. INTRODUCTION They used a decomposition of the state space
into a dynamical part and a static one which
WE CONSIDER linear time-invariant (E, A, B, C)
allowed them to use directly the results of Morse
systems (usually called descriptor, implicit,
(1973) for strictly proper systems.
generalized systems) described by the equations:
More recently, a canonical form was intro-
E$c = Ax + Bu (1) duced (Loiseau et al., 1991) for descriptor
systems without output equation. The authors
y = Cx (2)
first show that proportional plus derivative
where u ~ / - R " , y~-R p, x ~ R n. ~ i s actions on a triple (E, A, B, 0) correspond to
the domain of E and A. Their codomain will be Kronecker's transformations, and give a canoni-
noted by _~ ( ~ R~). E can be noninvertible and cal form under proportional feedback only. The
even nonsquare. Without loss of generality B is beginnings of the generalization to descriptor
assumed to be monic and C epic. We note systems with outputs has been exposed (Loiseau
X = Ker C, ~ = I m B . and Lebret, 1990).
The study of descriptor systems has seen a lot In the present paper we go much more deeply
of contributions for some years. A first survey on into the study of the canonical form of
the topic was done by Lewis (1986) [for a more quadruples, under the action of the proportional
group 3:
*Received 28 March 1991; revised 4 January 1993; 3" = {(W, V, G, S, F, R) of appropriate
received in final form 12 July 1993. This paper was not dimensions/W, V, G, S are invertible}
presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was recom-
mended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor where
Vladimir Ku~era under the direction of Editor Huibert V is a change of the basis of the domain o~.
Kwakernaak. Corresponding author Dr J. J. Loiseau. Tel.
+33 40 37 16 49; Fax +33 40 37 25 22; E-mail W is a change of the basis of the codomain _~.
ioiseau@lan.ec-nantes, fr. G is a change of the basis of the input space
t Laboratoirc d'Automatique de Nantes, Unit6 de
Recherche Associ6e au CNRS (URA 823), Ecole Centrale
de Nantes, Universit6 de Nantes, 1 rue de la No~, 44072 S is a change of the basis of the output space
Nantes Codex 03, France.

847
848 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

F is a proportional state feedback: ~---~ o//. where ~(s) is a matrix pencil s [ , - M, with [,
R is a proportional output injection: ~---~ ~. and/14 real matrices.
In other words, each (W, V, G, S, F, R) e ~r
transforms (E, A, B, C) in: t~=C.
Step 2. Now, let us apply the dual result ot
(W-~EV, W-~(A + BF + RC)V, W - ' B G , SCV). Loiseau et al. (1991) to the triple (NE, NA, C).
In Section 2, we construct this proportional There exist a change of the basis of the domain
form. The invariants which describe the orbit of V, a change of the basis of the codomain W, a
the quadruple under the action of sr are then change of the basis of the output space S and an
geometrically characterized in the domain and in output injection R such that:
the codomain. This allows us to prove the
canonicity of the form. In Section 3, a link with
Kronecker's theory of pencils is established. We
{ s(NE)c - (NA)c = W-~[sNE - (NA + RC)]V
Cc = s c v
show that the knowledge of the proportional ((NE)o (NA)c, Cc) is described by six types of
form is equivalent to the knowledge of four blocks associated with the invariants noted:
matrix pencils. In Section 4, we derive from (s - Oli)k~J, ei, i, ~i, mi, qi. These blocks will be
these matrix pencils three canonical forms under called Lkij, L~,, L,, Le,, Le~,, Lo,. So, let us
proportional plus derivative actions. Section 5 is define:
devoted to the conclusion.

2. PROPORTIONAL CANONICAL FORM (if', I?,0, S, 0,/~) is an element ~-and it


2.1. Construction of the form transforms (E, ,4,/~, t~) in:
We shall first construct a "nice" particular
form under the action of the group if, in three [s(NE)~-(NA)~] ~=~= [?,,,]
steps. Crucial in step 2 is the use of the result of s/~-'4-- L ~p(s) J
Loiseau et al. (1991) who give a canonical form where ~(s) is a matrix pencil s L - M (L and M
for a triple ( E , A , B , 0 ) = (E, A, B). Let us are real matrices).
recall it:
~=Cc
a change of basis in

There exists,
the domain: P
a change of basis in
the eodomain: Q
a change of basis in /
/ (/~, fi~,/}, (~) has the particular form given in
Fig. 1.
Note that, for s(NE)c - (NA)c and C~, only one
general block of each type is represented in Fig.
the input space: G 1. Each square [ ] represents the other blocks
a proportional state
feedback: F 1
such that (P-~EQ, P - l ( A + BF)Q, P-~BG) =
of the same type.
Now, to obtain the final form, we must
normalize the submatrix sL - M of s/~ - fi,.
Step 3. To normalize sL - M we proceed in two
(Eo A~, B~) where (Eo Ac, B~) is the canonical steps which are detailed below. First we
form of (E, A, B) under the action of these four normalize the matrix L (note that this will
types of transformations. This is a 6-block change the matrix M). Second, we cancel the
diagonal form: six types of invariants, cor- transformed matrix M with a static state
responding to the dimensions of these blocks, feedback.
are necessary and sufficient to describe it. Normalization of the matrix L. Obviously, by
Let us now construct our form for row operations on the matrix/~ all the columns
(e, A, B, C) of L except the grey tinted ones (see Fig. 1) can
Step 1. Let N be a matrix representation of the be cancelled, without changing the upper top
canonical projection _~--~~ / ~ . part of s / ~ - A. We still have to normalize the
/~ be the left inverse of B (/~B = 0). remaining grey columns coming from blocks Lx,,
2i~ {e, r~, iT} of s E - , 4 . They are denoted tp~,,
As in Jaffe and Karcanias (1981), define I~' = ~,~, and tp0, (see Fig. 1). To carry out the
normalization, an algorithm and eight types of
[B]" I~ corresponds to a change of basis in the
elementary transformations are described in
codomain so (if', 0, 0, 0, 0, 0) is an element of Lebret and Loiseau (1991).
and it transforms (E, A, B, C) in: The aim of this algorithm simply consists in
describing the elementary transformations which
permit to normalize the matrix L for the
sP'-A=t 6(0 J ~= o following elementary problem. Note that our
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 849

kl I

' 'i I;bJ~,

A
Bffi

i
1

sL-M \,
t

FIG. 1. The intermediate system (E, A, B, C).

problem of normalization can be viewed as a


combination of such elementary problems. ~=c~
"s(NE)c (NA)c 1
- u
c~,
s~-A =
sL - M J
The problem is to find the element of 3-, for
L/ti ~= which the term a~ can be reduced to zero while
keeping unchanged the remaining part. The
following examples describe such elementary
~, ~;,j transformations.

Example 1. e 1=1; e 2 = 2

, [o-a ]
=
[ 1 F-~
1
1
1
]ils l s

--s- ......
1
s 1
~-
o
0
0
1
ooo
1 0
1
-a

1
o old
=
[ls' s 1

Example 2. e = l; ~ = 2

1
1 1S ' lloIl
0 ''l -~1 -~l sl 1 01]
0
1 s 1 0
~ ~ ~[;~ ]:l' ooo o1~ s 1
850 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

Example 3. e = l ; ~ = 1
1
1
0
-t:t
: s olD ]
1
oo 01~ o011 ]
Example 4. ml = 2; m2 = 1

[ Ills l]II'
0

11 --s-tr~ 0 0
-o~

0
1
Vq
1ll1 'l o
= s

--s--
1 0
0
,
Example 5. ql = 2; q2 = 2

E~' ~',lr~-~~
~ ~]E~ o~

'11' 1
s,s, s as
1l , 1 =
s, s

l l 0'
0 1 0 00 0 0
,0001
00 0

Example 6. ~ = 1; ~ = 1

1 0 0
0 s-- 1

c I LIJLi o 1 I I-i-1.
Normalization of the matrix M. Note that the The blocks L,h, are split in two and give (Fig. 2)
initial M is changed through the previous

I1 1
normalization. Thanks to the special form of B,
a simple static state feedback makes its
cancellation obvious. Lm, = s
STOP (of the global construction).
Finally, in accordance with the result of Step s 1
3, a block Lx,, ill ~ {e, fit, ~}, will be either and
unchanged or enlarged by a line of the
normalized matrix of L and as a consequence,
associated with a element of B. This is precisely
described below. $ .
The blocks L~, are split in two and give (Fig. L,, I 1 B,, =
2)
[1)
The blocks L,~, are split in two and give (Fig. 2)

and

(iSll
Ly, = 1
s
Br' =
Lq

Ca,= [1 0
s
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 851

ki t

Scffi
SEc'Ac=

c~=

FIG. 2. The proportional canonical form of (E, A, B, C).

(;
and show that these indices are invariant through the

j
action of ft. We shall do it in a geometric way.
Let us introduce the following algorithms:
Lp.= 1 Bp,-- In the domain:
S ba~ = Ker E l
Cp [1 0 O] 5e~' = E-~(A(Ker C O 5e.-~) + Im B) ~--* (3)
We are now able to state our main result. 6e..__~ ~3r= 0
(fit' = E-t(A(Ker C n ~-,-t) + Im B)
Theorem 2.1. Any (E,A, B, C) quadruple (1)
and (2) can be given through the action of ~r the (4)
equivalent block-diagonal form shown in Fig. 2. T--~ }
Note the following important particular cases: ~ = K e r C A A _ ~ ( E T , _ I +ImB) ~ (5)
o i = l corresponds to a zero column in
sEc -Ac and Cc T.**_{ ~ = K e r C
i = 1 corresponds to a zero row in sEc- Ac ~d"" = Ker C n A-t(E~d/'.-I + Im B)
and B~ (6)
q ~ = l corresponds to a zero column in
sE~ -Ac but a nonzero column in C~ In the codomain:
n~ = 1 corresponds to a zero row in sE~- A~ y = O
but a nonzero row in Be. ~t,=m(KerCnE_l_6e~,_,)+imB}---~ (7)
2.2. Characterizationof the invariants
3e**._~-~ ' = I m B
The particular form introduced in the previous
section has nine different types of blocks which
- t~=A(KerCnE-t_ff,-i)+lmB
are characterized by several indices (namely the (8)
dimension of the block and the value of a~i, for
the first one). To prove the canonicity of this o / ~ = Im E 1
form under the action of the group ~-, we shall ~f~,=E(KerCnA_l(T._~,_i +imB) )~--* (9)
852 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

One can remark that if E = 1 (strictly proper


- t_~V+,=E(KerCnA-~(~_,-~+ImB)) case) these eight algorithms reduce to the two
well-known algorithms (Wonham, 1979) of the
(10) strictly proper case which give ~',~., the greatest
(A, B)-invariant subspace included in the kernel
(3), (7) and (9) were defined by Malabre (1987). of C, and 5e~, the least (C,A)-invariant
(4), (5) and (6) were introduced by Oz~aldiran subspace containing the image of B.
(1985). The fact that (3) and (4) have the same We shall now characterize the indices (size of
limit Ae* [resp. (5) and (6) the same limit each block) which appear in Theorem 2.1 in
o//.. . . . . ] is a consequence of the following terms of the dimensions of the steps of these
inclusions algorithms.

~ ) = 5a ) ~ ~ ,--... ,.~' ~ ~ " . . . , Proposition 2.1. { ( s - te~)k'q is the list of the


~ ) ~ ~r ~ ~) . . . = ~ , = ~"- .., invariant factors of (El/'*/E~ * IIm + BF +
RCll ~"*/~*), the map induced in the quotient
o~()CE ~)CE ~1 C E ' ' " ~/.t IEE~-/a , , , spaces ~ * / ~ * and E~*/E~t* where F and R are
such that (A + BF + RC)~* ~ E~* and ~* =
~'=_~)~ ~_ ' . . . ~_ " ~ y " . . . ~* n if*, and:

In the domain: In the codomain :


or* n 5e.-~ ~
card {o~ -> #} = dim o//..Nff~,_lj V#->I {y* n ~ - '
card {oi -> #} = dim _~, n ~ff-t~-2}
/
V# ->2

card {y~ -> #} = dim [ ~ , n ~ " - ' J vt~ -> 1 c a r d ( y i - > # } = d i m { ~_: n -n_fC._~j
ff"-I~ V#->I

card {~, >- #} = dim [ ~ + ~ j V/~ -> 2 card {~i -> # } = dim ~ ~,- i

card {~, - #} = dim [ i f ; + ~ q j V#-I card {~i -> #} = dim t ~ - , + - ~ - ] ) V#->I

~ger E n W/'~-- I'[ linE+- ~


card{m~=#}=dim[ ~er~- ~ j V#->I card{m~=#}=dim[imE +~._lJ V#->I

card {ni = #} = dim ~'lm B n '~'-' ],


card {n, = #) = dim [ Im B n w.-' J v# -> 1
~Ker E + E - ' ( I m B) n e~[/'~.--2~ V#->2
~Im E + ~ , - i
= dim [ i - ~ - ~ ~---ff-:i_
~} V # > I

Ker C + ~t.
card {p~ = #} = dim [ ~ e r ~+~-ff:-_~ j V# -> 1
~Im B n
card {Pi = #} = dim [ I ~ - ~-;
y"-'} V#_> 1

Ker E n ~t.-i } ~"E Ker C + Im E n ~ " - ' "1,


card {qi = # } = dim [ ~ ~ ~/.,_ ~ V# >- 1 card {qi = # } = dim t ~ Im E
V#>_2
~"Ker C + 5e~- ~
= dim t ~ e r C---+ ~ , - i j V#---1.

Note that the indices or,.= 1 and qi = 1 can only the polynomials { ( s - c~;)k'~) is due to Malabre
be characterized in the domain, and the indices (1987). The other relations can be obtained by
~i = 1 and ni = 1, in the codomain. counting vectors on our special form
(EoA,., Be, C,.) [see also Loiseau (1985) for
Proof of proposition 2.1. The characterization of ideas].
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 853

Let us decompose and _~ into nine parts, Im B = t~ {;[,J} t~) {;,.,}


nr
t~ {_Xp,}.
Pr

Yr nl Pr
according to the domain and codomain of each
block of (E~, Ac, B~, Cc) (see Fig. 2). By a simple recurrence, one can also obtain

kq o~ Yi

X e ~ i @ ~ m i @ ~ n i @ ~ p i @ ~ q i
~i mi ni Pr ql
x @ { ~ , ,X 1 .. .,x~7"}
~r>..

x @ {X ~r,
1 ..
.,X[:7"}
8~>~

X @ &, e _~m,@ ~_., @ _~,,,@ _~, X @ ~


~Xm i
u+l
.....
mi
Xmi}
~i rni ni Pi q~ mi>lz

where ~ stands for the direct sum of subspaces. X @


I'X/~ + 1
L ni ~
, xnr--l~
ni .I
Now, let us note respectively ni>/~+l

{X ,,,
1 x~...... xti}, {_xli, _x~,,
2 ..... ,~**i} x ~9 {x,,",+' . . . . . x~,~}
pi>lz
for
/'r~+ 1 . xqfl.
! 2 X @ I.~qr ~'"" ~ qiJ
qr>#
,1.ie {ki/, Yi, ~i, mi, Pi}, {Xz, , X,, ..... X~i),

1 2
{~r~,, x_~...... x_~?') for Z~ { ~ , q~}
kq or Yr
and
x @ {x[,..... x~-~}
! 2
{ X , , , X3. , . . . . . X~I-'},
X- 1 ~xr,
xr, 2 , -xx~}
~.r
x @ { % ..... x~i-~')}
for ,~ie{~i, ni} the "natural" bases of the
subspaces ~x, and -~x, in which each block of
(E~, A~, B~, C~) has the form given in Fig. 2 (the
X @ ~Xm,
~ #+! . . . . . xml}
mi>~
unions of all these bases are bases of and _~).
X ~) ,tX~+~ X nr-I~,
In these particular bases (E~, A~, B~, C~) has a nr>l.~+ 1
very simple form which makes easy the
computation of Ker E, Im E, Ker C, Im B and of X @ l~Pi ~ "" Pi)
Pi>~
the eight algorithms (3)-(10) since all these
subspaces are invariant under the action of x ~ ,-,,, ,...,Xq~i}
qi>/~+ 1
proportional state feedback or proportional
output injection
or>/~+ 1 OF'~/~+ 1
(Ker E = Ker E . . . . . . ~(E, A, B, C)
x ~ {x~7 "+', . . . , x~'~,, ~ ~r~,
= ~V(E~, a~, ~ , C 0 - - - ) .
So one can verify (look at Fig. 2) that in these x ~9 txm'-"
E mi 1. . . ~ xm:} ~ ~m,
mi>F+l mi~D+l
particular bases
oi mi
x @ .~,,-r-, X"'-'~ ~ ~.,
Ker E = ~ {xo,} ~ {Xmi } @ {xql} hi> p 4- i nr~P"t- I
oi rni qi
x ~ {x,~7 "+' . . . . . xg',} ~B ~,,,
pi>l~ P i ~ lz
ki/ . .
x ~ ~:'-"
L qi ~" " " ~ x~i} ~ ~,,
x @ 1-~,
x ~ ..... ~-~i-,}~ ~-~, q/>lu+ I qr~/~+l
~>-2
~'/J = @ f- ~./--P'+I , x~i} ~
x ,.,>-~ {X_~m,
. . . . . sml} .~ {~., ..... ~:~j} oi>~
lJvt ~
oF,=/~
~o,

x @ _~,,,@ _~,,, / yi--#+l


~,Xor " ~ Yi)
Pi qr ?t>#
X @ [l"mi--#+l
l ~ mr
.., xml} ~ ~rm,
mi>~ mi~p
ki/ " "

Ici-- 1 X @ [ynr--~t
, X~r } E~n i . ~ ni )
ni>~4-1 ni~tz+l

X l~pr
~mr ~ni ~nr p92 {X2pr ..... x P l } pi>#

X @ { X 2q . . . . . . Xqql}
X ~ [l'qr--la+l
k~qi
.,x~l} ~ ~,
qi>--2 qr>~ qi~
854 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOlSEAU

Naturally one deduces from these relations that = card { ~i > # } + card { ~i = # }
-: +" =e++,,e+o,e+,,,, = card { ~i > # } (Q.E.D.)

be* = 9-* = @ ~oi @ ~yi @ ~mi @ ~ n i @ ~pi @ ~qi


Characterization of the indices Pi: we have to
Oi Yi mi ni Pi qi ( Ker C + 9-`u '~
and verify that dim \ K e r C + be`u-l} = card {p~ =/~}

~ * = r* n be* = @ ~,,, @ ~,~,. Ker C + 9 TM

Due to the lack of space, only the algorithms


of the domain have been detailed here. Those of
the codomain give similar expressions.
x @ ( X +,,
! . . .,x~i-'}@~m,
+i_>2 rni
We have now all the needed information to
compute the relations, in the domain, of @ ~,, @ { x # , . . . , x~9
ni pi>,u
Proposition 2.1. In fact, we will not develop the
proof of each relation: the technique is always X @ ~pi @ ( X2 . . . . . . xql} @ ~qi
pi<~z,u qi>`u qi<--,u
the same, it amounts to counting vectors. So let
us illustrate it for the characterization, in the Ker C + be,u-1
domain, of the indices ~ and Pi.
Characterization of the indices ~i: we have to
be* + y,u-~ ~ @ (x~. . . . . . x~i-'} @ SCm,
verify that dim be, + o~V.,u_~]= card {~i -> #} ~i>--2 mi
be* + ~,u-i x @ ~., @ {x~,. . . . . x~i}
ni pi>,u - 1

x @ ,+,,, @ {xL ..., x,i~,, @ ~,.


pi<--,u-- 1 qi>,u qi~,u
x @ (xL . . . . . xfl -'u+'} @ o
gi>,u- 1 t.+:i--<,U- 1 Thus one can verify that
X @ { X ~1. . . ., . X~I -'u-t-l} @ 0
~>,U-- 1 ~i--<,u-- 1
{ KerC+9-'u ]
dim \Ker C + be,u-1]
mi ni Pi ql
= dim { p,. . . . . xPpl} 3gp,
be* + ~V',u-1

, - d i m ( ,, ~ _ , {Xp2. . . . . . xPl} p:`u@-, ~p,)

x @ {:i,
X 1 ,, .,x~i -'u+'} @ o
~>u-I

x @ { ~ ,X, 1 .. .,x~i - ' u } @ o


~i--<,U- 1 =dim t@
\pi>`u
{ p......x~i} @ ~p. @
Pi=`U ' pi<,u__l
~,, )
~;>,u ~Ji-<,u
- dim (, x2 ( p. . . . . . x~i}
mi ni Pi qi
Thus one can verify that @ {x~. . . . . . x;i} @
pi=`u pi <-`u--I
++)
be* + or,u-i ] = card {Pi = #} (Q.E.D.)
dim be, + oW,u-1/
The algorithms (3)-(10) are invariant under
I .... @ 0) proportional feedback, proportional output in-
= dim (e,~_~ {x~,, x~i-'u+l} ~:,u-'
jection and changes of basis in the different
spaces. This shows that the indices {oi}, {Yi},
-dim(@ \~i>,u '
...
'
x ,-,) e
~i-,u
o) /
{~/}, {~i}, {mi}, {ni}, {Pi}, {qi} and the
polynomials {(s - oci)k'j} constitute a complete set
of invariants for the quadruple (E, A, B, C)
dim (+,@>,u{x~ . . . . . x~:-'u+'}
under the transformation group 3 . In other
words, this proves the canonicity of the form
x @ (xL} @ o) described in Theorem 2.1: we shall therefore call
~=,U ~ <-,U-1 it the proportional canonical form (P-canonical
-dim (@ {x~,. . . . . x~i -'u} @ 0 +o)
~i~,u-- 1
form) of (E, A, B, C).
When E = I, our canonical form (naturally)
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 855

reduces to Morse's famous canonical form of Kronecker's forms of some matrix pencils (see
strictly proper system (Morse, 1973). In this Gantmacher, 1959, for an exposition o[
case, feedback and output injection have been Kronecker's theory). We show that our form is
used to derive a maximally unobservable and much more than a simple generalization of what
uncontrollable system. A dynamical inter- occurs for a strictly proper system. It is well
pretation has been given to the invariants known (Morse, 1973) that in this case, the
(Morse, 1973): they correspond to controllability Morse's canonical form corresponds to the
and observability indices of some subsystems of Kronecker's normal form of the system matrix
(A, B, C). (Thorp, 1973). More information is needed here
Such interpretation cannot be generalized to to establish the connection.
our more general situation. On the one hand, it For descriptor systems, four pencils derived
appears that controllability and observability are from the quadruple (E, A, B, C) are introduced.
not sufficient to distinguish the different The available geometric characterization (Lo-
subsystems of the proportional canonical form. iseau, 1985; Malabre, 1987) of the Kronecker's
Notions like existence or uniqueness of solutions invariants of a given pencil s E - 0-O is then used
may also play some role. On the other hand, for each of these four pencils. This allows us to
there is no unanimity among the various show the equivalence between the union of the
contributors about the definition of control- invariants of the four pencils and those of the
lability and observability of singular systems. A P-canonical form.
synthesis was proposed by Cobb (1984) for Finally, we show that from three of the four
regular systems (det (sE - A) ~ 0). Oz~aldiran pencils, we can deduce a proportional plus
(1985) defined reachability for regularizable derivative canonical form and two other
systems by state feedback. Frankowska (1990) semiproportional plus derivative canonical
extended these works to general descriptor forms, each having a particular dynamic interest.
systems (even if E and A are not square).
Indeed, the following example illustrates the 3.1. System matrix, restrictedmatrixpencil, input
complexity of the situation. restrictedmatrixpencil and output restricted
matrixpencil
Example 7 In the strictly proper case, the Morse's
Xl = 0 canonical form of an (A, B, C) system cor-
fC 1 = - - X 2 responds to the Kronecker's normal form of the
y=xl system matrix [SlScA oB] (Morse, 1973;
which corresponds to the system Thorp, 1973). The knowledge of these forms is
also equivalent to the knowledge of the
sE - A = ~ Kronecker normal form of the restricted pencil
n(sl-A)K and that of d i m ( I m B ) [or
c = Fi~ . d i m ( I m C ) or d i m ~ ] (see Karcanias and
Kouvaritakis, 1979; Karcanias and MacBean,
According to Frankowska the only solution
1981; Loiseau, 1985).
with y = 0 is x -- 0, and therefore the system is
For descriptor systems, this is no longer the
observable. (Note that the system obtained by
case. Look at this simple example.
transposition is not reachable.)
According to the characterization of Cobb,
Ker E tq Ker C ~: 0 and therefore the system is
Example 8.
not observable. sEl-ml=[; 0 01 ~] [; ~]
As was pointed out by Loiseau and Lebret S sE2 - A2 =

(1990), our form is actually a new canonical form


which, for instance, is different from that of Van 10 o, c2= 0
der Weiden and Bosgra (1980). We shall now
give more insight into this new canonical form These two systems have the same system matrix
within the context of Kroneeker's theory of which Kronecker's invariants are a column
singular pencils. minimal index el = 2 and an infinite elementary
divisor of order vt = 2. But they do not have the
same P-canonical form: the invariants of the first
3. RELATION TO KRONECKER'S THEORY
system are at = 2 and q~ = 2, and, the invariants
The aim of this section is to look into the of the second system are y~ = 2 and p~ = 2.
links between the P-canonical form and normal We shall show that the Kronecker's normal
AUTO 30:5-H
856 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

forms of the four following pencils are necessary For the row minimal indices:
and sufficient to obtain the P-canonical form.
Let us introduce card {~-> g} = dim N~,+ N~+t V~O.

For the infinite elementary divisors:

P~m(S) is the system matrix pencil (Rosenbrock, card { v; -> ~ + l } = dim ~]nM~q Vg~O.
1970).
P~(s) = N(sE - A ) K For the set of finite elementary divisors,
P~(s) is the so-called restricted pencil [or the {(s- o~i)~q} of s~:- H are the finite elementary
system matrix pencil of the system restricted to divisor of _DOwhere _H is defined through the
Ker C and _~/Im B (Kracanias and Kouvaritakis, following commutative diagram.
1979)].
) = [ N (SeC m ) ]
"1 t-
Pi~(s) is the input restricted pencil (or the system U ,
matrix pencil of the system restricted to
~ / I m B).
where and qJ are canonical projections.
Po~(S) = [(sE - A ) K - B]
Let us now apply these characterizations to
Por(S) is the output restricted pencil (or the the four pencils P,m(S), Pr(S), Pir(S) and Po,(s).
system matrix pencil of the system restricted to The corresponding Kroneeker's invariant will be
Ker C). denoted {elm}, {r/i~m} and so on.
The geometry associated with a general pencil
s[~- H and the geometric characterizations of For the system matrix pencil Psm(S).
the invariants of its Kronecker's normal form are Proposition 3.1 (Malabre, 1989). For Psm(S)=
well-known (Loiseau, 1985; Malabre, 1988). We
shall apply them to our four pencils. We then [ S E_c A o B ] , the system matrix Pencil-
shall see how the geometry and the invariants of
each pencil are related to the geometry and the ff# = P x ~ +1 V~ ~ 0 o~/~= p x , , ~ V~ ~---0
invariants of the P-canonical form. Let us first
recall the general result for a pencil s E - H ~ ' = I1;1.~t +1 Vp -> 0 _b"'= 071.~ V~ -> 0
where E and H are defined from some space OF
where
to some other one W'.
Geometry associated with sE - H. ~", Y", b"", Y" are defined in Section 2.2
(3)-(10).
In the domain OF Px : ~ if) ad ~ ~ denotes the natural projection

{ o=o

M~ +~ = IE-~HM~ Vp --- 0
on ~ along R.
Dx: _~---~~ ~ ~ is the insertion map of ~ into
~ .
oF For any map F such that (A + BF + RC)OF* ~-
,d~'+~ = H-~EM~ Vp->O. EOF*, the finite elementary divisors of P~m(S) are
In the codomain those of the map (EOF*/E~t* I [ A + B F +
RCH OF*/~*) which is the map induced by
w EOF* [A + BF + RC[ OF* in the isomorphic sub-
spaces OF*/~* and EOF*/E~t*

{ o=o
~+~ = HE-I~ ~>0.
card {eism->0} = dim (F* n KerE}

card {eism->/~} = dim [OF, n ~ , - 1 j V/u - 1


Characterization of the Kronecker's invariants
o/ s~= - ~.
For the column minimal indices: card {~i~m>- O} = d i m _5,,,+ I m E
{_.~*+T t'-l}
card{e~_>/z)=dim t -M--~--n~-~-J Vg---0. card {them-> g} = dim 9~* + OF" Vp -> 1
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 857

card{vi,m_>l}=dim~ K e r E }
For the restricted matrix pencil P,(s).
t Ker E ~ OF*
Proposition 3.3. For Pr(s)=N(sE-A)K: the
f Im B
matrix restricted pencil to Ker C and ~ / I m B.
+ & m ~ I m B n _~, ~
Ker C n = KM~ V# >-0
card {Vi~m--- # + 1}
~ff'~'= KM~ V# > 0
fKerENOF~'~ . fImBAOF~'-I1
= d i m / K e r E ~ OF,~ + &m / ~I B"~ _~" + Im B = N - ~ V#_>0
_~" = N - I ~ V # -> 0
V#-I.
where
Note that the algorithms (~t0, (~t2), ( ~ ) and
~-~, W ~', ff~', _~' are defined in Section 2.2.
(~2) give only four of the algorithms introduced
K:Ker C--~ is the insertion map of Ker C
in Section 2.2. This explains that the system
into ~.
matrix alone will not give all the information
N:_~--*_~/Im B is the canonical projection
about the invariants of the P-canonical form:
from _~ on to _~/Im B.
the two other algorithms of the domain (or of
For any map F such that (A + BF + RC)g/*c
the codomain) are necessary to find all the
E/"*, the finite elementary divisors of Pr(s) are
remaining information. From the geometric
those of the map (EW*/E~ * I I A + B F +
characterizations we then obtain the following
RCII ~*/9~*) which is the map induced by
relations.
E ~ * IA + BF + RCI W* in the isomorphic sub-
spaces /4r*/~* and E~f*/E~t*
Proposition 3.2.
* n
{eism} = {Gi -- 1} U {y~} {~ism)=
{Vi~m}= {mi} O {ni} O {Pi + 1} O {qi}
{~i -- 1} U {~i) card{ci~>#}=dim
{7 -~,~-~j V#~0

the finite elementary divisors of P~m(S) are those card {T/i~> #} = dim [_3., + _~,+lj V# > 0
of the map (EOF*/E~* IIA + BF + RCII OF*/~*)
defined in Proposition 2.1. card (Vir -> # + 1}
= dim ~ Ker E n ~f'~'} ~Im B n _~'+l~
Proof. Obvious for the finite divisors. tKerEn~-; +dimt i-m-Bn~-; J
{ OF*ns V# ->0.
c a r d {Eism ->/g} = d i m oF * n g"-'J

The proof is omitted here, since it is quite


= dim OF*n similar to that of Proposition 3.1 (Malabre,
1989).
[ OF* n o .
+ dim t ~-; ~ ~T--~-_I}
Proposition 3.4.
= card {o~ ~ # + 1) +card {y~ ~ # ) {ei,} = { a , - 1} U {y, - 1}
= card {o~ - 1 -> #} + card {y~ -> #}
which is equivalent to {Calm}= {a,- - 1} U {y~}. (v,,} = {m,} u ( n , - 1) u {p,.- 1} U {qi- 1}
The same type of proof gives {them} and {V~m).
Note that the finite elementary divisors of P r ( s ) a r e those
of the map (EOF*/E~* [JA + BF + RC[[ OF*/~*)
card {Vism= # + 1} defined in Proposition 2.1.
[ KerEAOF~' ~ fImBnEOF~'-~
= dim [ K-~rE N ~--~x J + &m ~ i - m - B ~ For the proof, one can use the same type of
and that _~' = E/4/'~'-~. arguments as for Proposition 3.2.
However, even after this extra information
The system matrix does not give all the brought by Pr(s), we do not yet have the four
information needed to construct the P-canonical additional algorithms missing from the system
form. We cannot recognize the o~s from the y~s matrix. In fact, we can show that the relations of
among the e~mS (and we cannot recognize the Propositions 3.2 and 3.4, together, are not
~s and the ~s among the thins, and the mis, and sufficient enough to separate the lists {mi}, {ni},
nis, the p~s and the q~s among the v~ms). To do {Pi} and {qi} from the lists {Vista} and {vir}.
so, we need other relations. Indeed, consider the following Example 9.
858 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

Example 9. Proposition 3.6.

sEI-AI=[~ ;] BI =[~] {ei(io} = {air} = {oi - 1} U {Yi - 1}


(Tli(ir)} = {?~isrn} = {Ci -- I } tJ {~i}

sE2-A2=[; ~3 B2 = [ ? ] . {rio0} = {m,} U {hi}U{pi} U {q,- I}


the finite elementary divisors of P~Js) are those
Cl=[1 O] C2=[0 1]. of the map ( E ~ * / E ~ * IIA + BF + RCII ~ * / ~ * )
These two systems have the same defined in Proposition 2.1.

Pr(s) = N [ s E - A i r = 1 Once again the informations given by the


and their three pencils P~m(s), Pr(S), Pit(S) are not
sufficient to recover our P-canonical form. We
shall see in Theorem 3.1 that the knowledge of
Pot(S) is also necessary to find all the desired
have the same Kronecker normal form information of the P-canonical form (especially
to obtain the lists {mi}, {ni}, {Pi} and {q~}).
[ 1s
01 ! 1 .
For the output restricted matrix pencil Po,(S).
0 0 Proposition 3.7. For Por(S)= [(sE - A ) K - B]:
But the invariants of the P-canonical form of the the matrix pencil restricted to Ker C.
first system are q x = 2 and n ~ = l , and the
ker C fq 6eu = Kpk~t~ +t V# -- 0
invariants of the second system are q~ = 1 and
n1=2. Ig"= KPkM~ V#>-0
For the input restricted matrix pencil Pi,(s).
where
Proposition 3.5. For Pir(S)=[N(sE-~A)]: the K : K e r C - - - ~ is the insertion map of K e r C
L -- L . . J
into ~.
matrix pencil restricted to ~ / I m B.
Pk : Ker C ff~ ~d~ Ker C denotes the natural
~"=~ V#_>O ~"=.d~ V#->O projection on Ker C along ~d.
~" +im B = N-q-~ '+~ V # > O For any map F such that (A + BF + R C ) ~ r* c
E~'*, the finite elementary divisors of Pot(s) are
_if" = N - q - ~ V# --- 0 those of the map (E#r*/E~ * I I A + B F +
where RCII W*/~*) which is the map induced by
: ~ / I m B ~ ~ / I m B ~ ~ is the insertion map E~Ir* IA + BF + RCI ~* in the isomorphic sub-
of _~/Im B into ~ / I m B ~ ~. spaces ~e'*/~* and E~e'*/E~*
N:~--->_~/ImB is the canonical projection
from _~ on to _~/Im B. card {ei(or)> 0} -- dim { ~t'* N Ker E}
For any map F such that (A + BF + RC)~*
E~*, the finite elementary divisors of P~r(S) are card {eioo--- #} = dim ~., N 6e"-IJ V# -> 1
those of the map (ET'*/E~* IIA + B F +
RCII ~'*/~*) which is the map induced by
EV* IA + BF + RCI ~* in the isomorphic sub- card O7ioo>- #} = d i m _~, + o/~,+1 V#---0
spaces ~ * / ~ * and E ~ * / E ~ *
card {V~(oo ~ # + 1}
card{ei(ir)>#}=dim I ~.~)-~--ff j V/'t-->O . f K e r E tq /"I { I m B N ~f'"}
= d,m +dim t I m B n _ff-Z

card {~7~oo~0} = dim _~* + Im E V# ->0.


Proposition 3.8.
card {r/mo -> #} = dim [ ~.+-~--~ j V# > 1 {e,(oO} = {eim~}= {oi - 1} U {Yi}
{hi(or)} = {nir} = {Ci -- 1} U {~, - 1}
card {v,-(io-> # + 1) (Vi(or)} = {mi} U {ni}U{Pi}U {q,- 1}
= dim ~ Ker E N ~u } ~ Im B '1 r ~'
the finite elementary divisors of Pojs) are those
t K e r E ~ ~--~ + dim t i m B Cl ~* J
of the map ( E ~ * / E ~ * IIA + BF + RCll ~ * / ~ * )
V# ~0. defined in Proposition 2.1.
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 859

TABLE1. GEOMETRYOFTHEPENCILS Conversely i.e. obtaining our P-canonical


form from knowledge of the invariants of the
Algorithms of Algorithmsof
Pencils the domain the codomain four pencils, needs more development. This is
covered in the next section.
[,e A -0B] ('r) (F)
N(sE- A)K C~ N ~), (110 (_St),(~_ + ~) 3.2. Relation with Kronecker' s theory

Theorem 3.1. There exists a bijection between


[(sE-A)K-B! ) the set of the invariants of the P-canonical form:
o} (o,} (r,} (C,}
We have described the geometry of the four {mi} {ni} {Pi} {q,}
matrix pencils Pro(s), P~(s), P~r(S), Por(S), the
geometric characterization of their invariants and the set of the Kronecker's invariants of the
and their finks with those of the P-canonical four pencils Psm(S), Pr(s), Pir(S) and Pot(S):
form. Let us now summarize the results (Table ({(s -- Ol~LPsm~,
- ,,,o, {eism), {~ism}, {Vista},
1).
Geometry of the pencils (expressed in and ((s - Otri
- Jr], {Eir}, { ~ i r ) , {Vir),
4). Notice that the four pencils (Table 1) are ((s - (e,0.). (n,(.o}. {v,0o}.
necessary to obtain exactly the geometry of the kV
P-canonical form introduced in Section 2.2.
(($- (~'/)or}, {ei(or)},{l~i(or),{Vi(or)}}.
This explains that the information of the This relation can also be expressed in terms of
P-canonical form is equivalent to that of these equivalence under the action of the associated
four pencils together. transformation groups.
Relations between the invariants of the P-
canonical form and the Kronecker's invariants of Corollary 3.1. Two quadruples (E, A, B, C) and
the four pencils. Table 2 summarizes how one (E', A', B', C') are equivalent under the pro-
obtains the Kronecker's invariants of the four portional group 3- if and only if their associated
pencils Psm(s), Pr(S), Pir(S) and Po~(S) from the system matrix pencil, restricted matrix pencil,
invariants of the P-canonical form. The finite input restricted matrix pencil and output
elementary divisors (FED) are deduced from the restricted matrix pencil are, respectively,
invariants factors. The columns minimal indices equivalent in the Kronecker sense.
(CMI) are deduced from the lists {o,.} and {y~}.
The row minimal indices (RMI) are deduced Proof (of Theorem 3.1). We already noticed
from the lists {~} and {~}. The infinite that it is easy to obtain the Kronecker's
elementary divisors (IED) are deduced from the invariants of the pencils P,m(S), Pr($), Pit(S) and
lists {mi}, {n, {pi} and {qi}. Por(S) from the P-canonical form. Let us now
Note that the Kronecker's normal form of look at the converse:
each pencil can be deduced from the P-canonical (1) obvious for {(s - ai)kO}:
form, in a somewhat trivial way. Indeed, to ((s -- = ~,Jsm~ {(S -- ff/)f/J}
obtain Psm(S) one has only to mix the rows of Cc
and those of s e t - Ac, and the columns of Bc . {(s. . . ((s cri)orjr
and those of s E , - Ac, in the P-canonical form. (2) for {cri} and {y~}:
For the input restricted pencil Pir(S), one just
has to delete the rows of (sE~ - A c ) correspond- {eism} = {o~ - 1} U {Yi} card {et~m> ju}
ing to ImB~ and to get rid of Be. A similar = card {oi->/~ + 1} + card {yi -> ~} V/z>0
treatment can be done for Por(S) (deleting the
{eir} = {oi - 1} U {y; - 1} card {eir-/z}
columns corresponding to ~XKerCc) and for
P~(s) (doing both). =card {o~->/~ + 1} +card {yi->/z + 1} V/t>-0

TABLE 2. RELATIONSBETWEENTHE INVARIANTS

Pencils FED CMI RMI lED

o'] .,-:', {~.=} = {a, - I} U (y,} (n..,*} = (C, -- I} U (~,} {v~,m) = ( m A u (n~) u (p~ + 1) u {q~)
N(sE - A)K ((s - ~,)k~j} {e~,} = ( o , - I) U (r,-- I} (~,} = (C, - I} U {~, - I} {vi,} = {rni} u {n i - 1} u {Pi- 1} u { q l - 1}
[N(Se_CA)
] { ( s - ~,) ' } {e,(~O} = (a, - l} U {r, -- I ) (V/Or)) = {nil} U {Pli -- l } U {Pi} U {qi}
[(sE-A)K-B] {(s-a~) k} {e,(,,o} = (o, - I} u (y,} (~,(,,,)} = (~, - I} U {~, -- I } {Vi(or)} = (fni} U {hi} [.~{Pi} U {qi -- l}
860 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

SO From
card { ~,i = # ) {Vir} = {mi} U {ni - 1} U { P i - 1} U { q , - 1}
= card { ~'i ~/z } - card {)'i > # + 1 } we have:
= card { ei~m -> # } - card { ei~ -> # } V# >-0
and card {mi -> #} + card {ni >- # + 1}
= card {vir - #} - (card {Pi >- # + 1}
card (oi = # + 1)
+ card {qi >- I~ + 1}) V# -> 1.
= card {o~ > # + 1} - card {o~ > # + 2}
= card {eir ~> It/} - - card {eism ~># + 1) V# ~ 0. As {Pi} and {qi} are now known, it is very easy
to calculate card {n~ = #} and card {mi = #}.
This means that from {ei~m) and ( e ~ ) w e can This means that the knowledge of
deduce {oi} and {Yi}. {Vism)(Vir}{Vi(ir)} and {Vi(or)} is sufficient to
separate the lists {mi}, {ni}, {Pi} and {q;}.
Remarks. (1) Since o~ = 0 has no sense, the list
{ o ~ - 1} is a well defined list of non-negative
In the proper case, the knowledge of Morse's
integers. canonical form of an (A, B, C) system is
(2) The same result can be obtained with
equivalent to the knowledge of any of these
{e,(i,)}{e,(o,)}. forms:
(3) For {~i} and {~i}: by duality we obtain:
the Kronecker normal form of Psm(s)
card {~i = # } the Kronecker normal form of Pr(s) and the
= card {Ths. - #} - card {~h~- #} V# -> 0 knowledge of dim (Im B) and dim (Ker C)
the Kronecker normal form of P~r(S) and the
card { ~,- = # + 1 } knowledge of dim (Im B)
= card {rhr ~ #} - card {t/~m ----# + 1} V#>0. the Kronecker normal form of Por(S) and the
knowledge of dim (Ker C).
This means that from {Them} and {r/i~} we can So, this important Corollary 3.1 is nothing else
deduce {/} and {~i}. than the generalization of the relation between
(4) For {mi}, {ni}, {Pi} and {qi}: Kronecker's theory of matrix pencils and
{Vir} = {mi} U { n i - 1} U {Pi- 1} U {qi- 1} Morse's canonical form for strictly proper
systems. In the case of singular systems, four
and informations are necessary and sufficient to
(V/Or) } -----" {mi} U { n , - 1} U {p,} U {qi} characterize the P-canonical form.
SO: The restricted matrix pencil Pr(s) was intro-
card {Pi =/~} + card {qi ~ !.t } duced by Karcanias and Kouvaritakis (1979) in
the strictly proper case. The equivalence
= card {vitir) >/~ } - card {Vir -----/.4} V#-->I between the first two forms was shown by
(11) Loiseau (1985). The other two pencils do not
give more information in this particular case. In
{Vism} = {mi} U {ni} D {Pi + 1} U {qi} the general case of singular systems, Pir(S) and
and Por(S) bring greater precision.
{Vi(or)} = (mi} U {ni} U {Pi} U { q i - 1} As a final remark, let us consider a
consequence of Corollary 3.1 for a triple
so:
(E, A, B).
card {p~ = # - 1} + card {q,- = #}
= card {'Via m ~ # } -- card {Vitor) > #} V~ ~ 1 . Corollary 3.2. Two triples (E1,A~,B1) and
(E2, A2, B2) are equivalent under the propor-
(12)
tional group (changes of bases in the domain,
the codomain and the input space, and static
Now, card {pi=O} = 0 . Thus (12) with # = 1
state feedback) if and only if their associated
gives card {qi = 1}. Then (11) with # = 1 gives
system matrix pencil [sEi-AiBi] and their
card {Pi = 1}; (12) with # = 2 gives card {qi = 2}.
restricted matrix pencil N ( s E i - A~) are respec-
Finally, from (11) and (12) we obtain card {pi =
# - 1 } and c a r d { q i = # } V#-I. Now, from tively equivalent in the Kronecker sense.
{vista} = {mi} U {hi} O {Pi + 1} O {qi} we have:
We wish to emphasize that this result for the
triple (E, A, B) is of great interest. In particular
card {mi >- # ) + card {ni >- #} it gives additional interpretations of the different
= card {Vi$ m ~ ~,~} -- (card {Pi ~ # - 1) invariants of the canonical form introduced by
+ card (qi - # } ) V# - 1 . Loiseau et al. (1991).
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 861

4. PROPORTIONAL PLUS DERIVATIVE theorem established for (E, A, B) triples (Lo-


CANONICAL FORMS iseau et al., 1991).
We have shown that knowledge of the Proof.
P-canonical form is equivalent to knowledge of (2) (1)
the Kronecker's normal form of four pencils There exists t~ such that B ' = P B O ~
associated with (E, A, B, C). Now, from an Im B' = Im PB =/5 Im B ~ Ker N' =/5 Ker N
inverse point of view, we can ask the following :>Ker(N'/5)=KerN. As N'/5 and N are
question: "To what transformations on the canonical projections, they are epic.
system do the Krnoecker's transformations on Moreover, since B'=/SBt~ with /5 and t~
Pr(s), Pir(s) and Po~(s) correspond?" isomorphisms, the maps B', B and also N'/5
We shall see that Kronecker's equivalence for and N have the same dimensions. So there
P~(s), Pi~(s) and Por(S) respectively corresponds exists an isomorphism P such that N ' P = PN
to (three) different equivalences for the system
matrix pencil Psm(S). With these three equiv- There exists S such that C' = SBQ-1
alences are associated three canonical forms: a c'-'(o) =
proportional plus derivative (PD) canonical form
, c'-'(o) = O_c'-'(o)
and two semiproportional plus derivative canon-
ical forms. This will finally allow us to give a :~Ker C' = Q Ker C :~Im K' = Q Im K
corollary of Theorem 3.1, in terms of these new ~ Im K' = Im QK.
canonical forms. As K' and QK are insertion maps, they are
The aim of this section is to show that the monic. Moreover C' = SBQ-~ implies that the
action of the proportional group 3- on the system maps C', C and also K' and Q K have the
is also equivalent to the action of four groups on same sizes. So there exists an isomorphism Q
the system matrix. such that K' Q -~ = QK. Thus
Theorem 4.1. Given two quadruples N'(sE' - A ' ) K ' = N'/5(s(E + B#o + RoC)
(E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B', C'), the following - (a + B~ +/~pC))0-tK '
assertions are equivalent:
= P N ( s ( E + BPo + oC)
(1) The pencils N ( s E - A ) K and N ' ( s E ' -
A ' ) K ' are equivalent in the Kronecker's - (A + B g + RpC))KQ
sense and dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'), = P[N(sE - A)K]Q.
dim (Im C) = dim (Im C').
Where N (resp. N') is the canonical Finally we have dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'),
projection from from _~ (resp. _~') on to dim (Im C) = dim (Im C') and N'(sE' - A ' ) K ' =
_~/Im B (resp. _~'/Im B') K (resp. K') is the P[N(sE - A)KIQ.
insertion map of Ker C (resp. Ker C') into ga
(1)=>(2)
(resp. ~').
First, note that dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'),
(2) The quadruples (E, A, B, C) and
dim (Im C) = dim (Im C'), and the existence
(E', A', B', C') are equivalent in the follo- of isomorphisms (P, Q) such that P [ N ( s E -
wing (PD) sense:
A)K]Q = N'(sE' - A ' ) K ' imply that dim =
There exist isomorphisms (/5, {~, t~, S) and
dim ~ ' and dim _~ = dim _~'. So P N and N'
morphisms (#p, FD, Rp, RD) such that:
are epic maps of the same sizes. There then
E' =/5(E + 8PD + f oC)O_-' exists an isomorphism/5 such that PN = N'/5.
This also implies that an isomorphism t~
A' =/5(m + B ~ + R p C ) O - ' exists such that B'=/SB(~. As KQ and K'
B' = #Bt~ are monic maps of the same sizes, there
C t = SCO- 1.
also exists an isomorphism Q such that
K Q = Q - I K '. This also implies that an
Remarks. (1) The first assertion is equivalent to isomorphism S exists such that C ' = SCQ -~.
the existence of two isomorphisms P and Q such Thus, P[N(sE - A)K]Q = N'(sE' - A ' ) K '
that N(sE - A )K = N/5-'(sE' - A')O. K
~ N[(sE - A) - / 5 - 1 ( s E ' - A'){~]K = 0.
P(N(sE - A ) K ) Q = N'(sE' - A ' ) K '
and Finally, as (E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B', C') are
quadruples of same dimensions, this implies that
dim (Im B) = dim (Im B') there exist morphisms (#l,,Fo, Re, Ro) such
and that:
dim (Im C) = dim (Im C'). sE' - A' = P[s(E + BFo + RoC)
(2) This theorem is an extension of the - (a + B ~ +/~pC)]0 -1.
862 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

This clearly shows that the Kronecker's normal (1) The pencils [(sE-A)K B] and [(sE'-
form of the restricted matrix pencil N(sE -A)K A')K' B'] are equivalent in the Kronecker
and the knowledge of d i m ( I m B ) and sense and dim (Im C) = dim (Im C').
dim (Im C) are equivalent to the canonical form (2) The quadruples (E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B',
of the system matrix under the action of the C') are equivalent in the following LEFT-
group of transformations used in (2). This is PD sense: There exists isomorphisms
nothing else but the "proportional plus deriva- (/5, Q, ~) and morphisms (/~p,/~o) such
tive canonical form" (PD) of (E, A, B, C). that:
Let us now show that the pencils P~r(s) and
Po~(S) also lead to canonical forms under some
proportional plus derivative actions. []
sE' - A '
Theorem 4.2. Given two quadruples
(E, A, B, C) and (E', A', B', C'), the following
assertions are equivalent. Clearly, Theorems 4.2 and 4.3 define two new
(1) The pencils equivalences on the set of system matrix pencils
[N(sE CA)] and
[N'(sE-'A
L -C' ')]
Psm(S). These two equivalences are associated
with two groups of transformations which allow
the action of proportional plus derivative state
are equivalent in the Kronecker sense and feedback in the first case or the action of a
dim (Im B) = dim (Im B'). proportional plus derivative output injection in
(2) The quadruples (E, A, B, C) and the second case:
(E', A', B', C') are equivalent in the follow- --The Kronecker's form of P~r(s) corresponds to
ing RIGHT-PD sense: there exists iso- a Proportional Plus Derivative State feedback
morphisms (/5, Q, (~) and morphisms (PDSF) canonical form of Psm(S).
(Fe, Fo) such that: --The Kronecker's form of Pot(S)corresponds to
a Proportional Plus Derivative Output
/5[SEcA -0B][(~ 0 injection (PDOI) canonical form of Psm(s).
Now, as a direct consequence of Theorems
= [sE' - A' 4.1-4.3, let us express Theorem 3.1 in terms of
oq the PD, PDSF and PDOI canonical forms.

Pro Take [A]; which Corollary 4.1. Two quadruples (E, A, B, C) and
(E',A', B', C'), have the same proportional
give canonical form, that is, there exist isomorphisms
(P, Q, t~, ~) and morphisms (Fp, Fo, Rp, Ro)
such that

SO [Po PRp][sE-A -B 0
S JL - C
a 0 sE' - A '
o
and
if and only if:
--Their system matrices have the same
Kronecker's normal form:
there exist two isomorphisms (Pt, Q1) such
Now apply Proposition 2.1 (Loiseau et al., 1991)
that:
on that triple 0:, &, B): this directly gives the
result. []
rsE-A oB]Q1 [sE'-A'-B'].
P'[ -C =L -C'
By duality we directly obtain

Theorem 4.3. Given two quadruples (E, A, B, --They have the same proportional plus
C) and (E', A', B', C'), the following assertions derivative canonical form:
are equivalent. there exist isomorphisms (P2, Q2, G2, $2) and
Canonical forms for descriptor systems 863

morphisms (F~, FD2,Rp2, RD2)such that: If E = I , this algebraic P-canonical form


reduces to the Morse's canonical form for strictly
proper systems. It can be viewed as its
& generalization. However, the notions of observ-
ability and reachability are not as simple for
X (Fm+sFm)Q2 G2 general descriptor systems; therefore no dynam-
ical sense has been given to the subsystems
which appear in the P-canonical form. The
L -C' dynamical interpretation of these nine types of
subsystem is an important subject for future
--They have the same (PDSF) canonical form:
there exist isomorphisms (/3, Q3, G3) and study.
To go deeper into the description of this form,
morphisms (F~, Fo3) such that:
the relation with Kronecker's theory of pencils
has been established. The knowledge of this
p3[sE'-c A -0B][(F~ 4-Q3sFD3)Q3 O31 proportional form is equivalent to the knowledge
of the Kronecker's canonical forms of four
I _c 0"1 pencils derived from (E, A, B, C): the system
matrix pencil, the matrix pencil restricted to
- - T h e y have the same (PDOI) canonical form: Ker C and ~ / I m B, the matrix pencil restricted
there exist isomorphisms (/4, Q4, $4) and to Ker C and the matrix pencil restricted to
morphisms (Re4, Rm) such that: ~ / I m B. This generalizes the link between the
Morse's canonical form and the Kronecker's
form of the system matrix pencil of a strictly
$4 J - proper system.
=[sE'-A'L
-C' oB']"
In an inverse point of view, we show that the
Kronecker's canonical form of the matrix pencil
restricted to Ker C and ~ / I m B corresponds to
Proof. Immediate from Theorems 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 the proportional plus derivative canonical form
and 3.4 because P~m(S) and Pr(s) together give of (E,A, B, C). In the same way, the
dim (Im B) and dim (Im C). [] Kronecker's canonical forms of the two other
restricted matrix pencils correspond to canonical
In other words, the equivalence of quadruples forms of (E, A, B, C) under a combination of
under the proportional group cannot be reduced proportional derivative and Kronecker's actions.
to the Kronecker's equivalence of their system Then we finally derive a correspondence
matrices: more information, given by the three between the proportional canonical form of
types of proportional plus derivative equiv- (E, A, B, C) and the four canonical forms of the
alences is necessary to characterize the action of system under different combinations of propor-
the group 3.. tional, derivative and Kronecker's transfor-
mations.
5. CONCLUSION
Acknowledgements---G. Lebret is sponsored by C.N.R.S.
A new canonical form for descriptor systems and the R~gion des Pays de Loire. The authors gratefully
E:~ = Ax + Bu with an output equation y = Cx acknowledge M. Malabre for helpful conservations.
has been introduced. The transformation group
corresponds to the action of proportional state REFERENCES
feedback, proportional output injection and Cobb, D. (1984). Controllability, observability and duality in
changes of bases in the domain, the codomain, singular systems. IEEE Trar~. Aut. Control, AC-29,
the input and the output spaces. The systems 1076-1082.
Frankowska, H. (1990). On controllability and observability
have been considered in a general form. They of implicit systems. Syst. Control Left., 14, 219-225.
are not necessarily square, and we do not make Gantmacher, F. R. (1959). The Theory of Matrices, Vol. 2.
any restrictive assumption such as regularity, Chelsea, New York.
Jaffe, S. and N. Karcanias (1981). Matrix pencil charac-
regularizability or controllability. In other terization of almost (A, B)-invariant subspaces: A
words, we have characterized through nine classification of geometric concepts. Int. J. Control, 33,
independent lists of invariants the orbit of any 51-93.
Karcanias, N. and B. Kouvaritakis (1979). The output
(E, A, B, C) quadruple, under the action of the zeroing problem and its relationship to the invariant zero
proportional group 3 . These invariants have structure. Int. J. Control, 30, 395-415.
been geometrically characterized with the help Karcanias, N. and P. MacBean (1981). Structural invariants
and canonical forms of linear multivariable systems. In
of four algorithms of the domain or, equiv- Marshall (Ed.), 3rd IMA Conference on Control Theory.
alently, with four algorithms of the codomain. Academic Press, New York, pp. 257-282.
864 G. LEBRET and J. J. LOISEAU

Lewis, F. (1986). A survey of linear singular systems. Malabre, M. (1988). Geometric algorithms and structural
Circuits, Syst. Signal Processing, 5, 3-36. invariants for linear singular systems. In R. Vichneretsky,
Lewis, F. (1992). A tutorial on the geometric analysis of P. Borne and J. Vignes (Eds), Proc. 12th IMCAS World
linear time invariant implicit systems. Automatica, 28, Congress. Imprimerie GERFIDN, Paris.
119-137. Malabre, M. (1989). Generalized linear systems: geometric
Lebret, G. and J. J. Loiseau (1991). Proportional and and structural approaches. Linear Algebra and its
proportional-derivative canonical forms for singular Applicatiot~v, 122,-124, 591-621.
systems with outputs. Internal Report no. 91-25, Morse, A. S. (1973). Structural invariants of linear
Laboratoire d'Automatique de Nantes. multivariable systems. SLAM. J. Control, 11, 446-465.
Loiseau, J. J. (1985). Some geometric considerations about C)zealdiran, K. (1985). Control of descriptor systems. Ph.D.
the Kronecker normal form. Int. J. Control, 42, thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
1411-1431. Rosenbrock, H. (1970). State-space and Multivariable
Loiseau, J. J. and G. Lebret (1990). A new canonical form Theory. Wiley, New York.
for descriptor system with outputs. In A. Bensoussan and Thorp, S. (1973). The singular pencil of linear dynamical
J. L. Lions (Eds), Analysis and Optimization of Systems, systems. Int. J. Control, 18, 577-596.
Vol. 144: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Springer, New York. Van Der Weiden, A. J. J. and O. H. Bosgra (1980). The
Loiseau, J. J., K. Ozc~aldiran, M. Malabre and N. Karcanias determination of structural properties of a linear
(1991). Feedback canonical forms of singular systems. multivariable system by operation of system similarity. Int.
Kyberentika, 27, 189-305. J. Control, 32, 489-537.
Malabre, M. (1987). A structural approach for linear singular Wonham, W. M. (1979). Linear Multivariable Control: A
systems. In F. Lewis (Ed), Proc. Int. Syrup. on Singular Geometric Approach, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin.
Systems. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.