Article

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

Proportional and Proportional-Derivative Canonical Forms for Descriptor Systems With Outputs

Article

© All Rights Reserved

- Pub_Hazra
- CompAidBook.pdf
- Eee v Modern Control Theory [10ee55] Notes
- rr320201-analysis-of-linear-systems
- Engineering Models 2 Homework 1
- Linear System CH1_CH2
- State-Space Formulation for Structural Dynamics by Jose Luis Mendoza Zabala
- Student So Lns 3
- Assignment Matlab
- State Space Model
- Antenna Servo Analysis
- sylabus_EE301_Almassalkhi
- sliding mode control
- Cuckoo Search Optimization Algorithm based Load Frequency Control of Interconnected Power Systems with GDB nonlinearity and SMES units
- Code No: 35051
- Matlab Tut
- [EE550] First Progress Report
- GMAT Quant Topic 1 (General Arithmetic) Solutions
- lcs 2016-lecture plan - first
- Harder 1982

You are on page 1of 18

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

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,

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.

2.1. 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

A

Bffi

i

1

sL-M \,

t

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~=

(;

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

- 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.

~ ) ~ ~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:

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

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

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

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~>~

~Xm i

u+l

.....

mi

Xmi}

~i rni ni Pi q~ mi>lz

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,

~,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.)

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~ =/~}

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

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

x @ {:i,

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

~>u-I

~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 =

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.

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}

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

= 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

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

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

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

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

[(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

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

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

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.

- Pub_HazraUploaded byMd Shimul
- CompAidBook.pdfUploaded byp09el860
- Eee v Modern Control Theory [10ee55] NotesUploaded byBelayneh Tadesse
- rr320201-analysis-of-linear-systemsUploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- Engineering Models 2 Homework 1Uploaded byBill Williams
- Linear System CH1_CH2Uploaded byFiriceNguyen
- State-Space Formulation for Structural Dynamics by Jose Luis Mendoza ZabalaUploaded byC V CHANDRASHEKARA
- Student So Lns 3Uploaded byAnonymous sSUTGiq
- Assignment MatlabUploaded bySovannarith Sao
- State Space ModelUploaded byBogdan Manea
- Antenna Servo AnalysisUploaded bytulip77
- sylabus_EE301_AlmassalkhiUploaded byAnonymous gUjimJK
- sliding mode controlUploaded bysujata_agrwal
- Cuckoo Search Optimization Algorithm based Load Frequency Control of Interconnected Power Systems with GDB nonlinearity and SMES unitsUploaded byInternational Journal of Engineering Inventions (IJEI)
- Code No: 35051Uploaded bySRINIVASA RAO GANTA
- Matlab TutUploaded byGuruxyz
- [EE550] First Progress ReportUploaded byHamood Riasat Khan
- GMAT Quant Topic 1 (General Arithmetic) SolutionsUploaded bymeashish25
- lcs 2016-lecture plan - firstUploaded byapi-306909084
- Harder 1982Uploaded bydaxel123
- MPR213_SemTest2_2013memoUploaded byNtate Moloi
- 10.1.1.38.9220Uploaded byMohammad Reza Madadi
- Rc NotesUploaded byPeter Malatin
- Mathematics II May2004 or 210156Uploaded byNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- State SpaceUploaded byAnirban Ghose
- F8Uploaded bydemos2011
- CEP11-8-961-969Uploaded bymmm4b9a6
- Chapter 2Uploaded bySourav Sharma
- ElastisiteUploaded byradmard
- Uses of Matrices in Daily LifeUploaded byjinil shah

- Gröbner Fan and Universal Characteristic Sets of Prime Differential IdealsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- A Characterization of GCU Rings With the FC2 PropertyUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Secure State Reconstruction in Differentially Flat SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- On the Zeros and Poles of a Transfer Function (Conte 1989)Uploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Power Series Solutions of Singular Linear SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- On Rosenbrock Models Over a Commutative Ring (Lomadze 2002)Uploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Behaviors and Symbols of Rational Matrices (Lomadze 2012)Uploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Quinlan_Introduction to Rings and Fields.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Remarks on a Lie Theorem on the Integrability of Differential Equations in Closed FormUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Flatness of Nonlinear Control Systems- A Cartan-Kahler ApproachUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Differential Invariant Algebras of Lie Pseudo–GroupsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Clark Noncommutative AlgebraUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Gröbner Bases Tutorial I_slides.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Matrix GroupsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Algebras and DerivationsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- The General Linear GroupUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Groebner Bases- A TutorialUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- On Feedback Linearization of Mobile RobotsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Ordered Differential FieldsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Measuring Volterra kernels I.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Gröbner Bases, Gaussian Elimination and Resolution of Systems of Algebraic EquationsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- An Extension of Buchberger's AlgorithmUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- A Controllability Criterion for a Class of Linear SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Feedback Equivalence of Constant Linear SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- On Defining Ideals and Differential Algebras of Nichols AlgebrasUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Variational Symmetries of LagrangiansUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- The High School Course in LatinUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Latin in the Commercial High SchoolUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Rosenbrock Schemes With Complex Coefficients for Stiff and Differential Algebraic SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Symbolic Verification of Hybrid Systems- An Algebraic ApproachUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741

- Chapter 1_ Introduction to Cross Flow Turbine TheoryUploaded byMohd Nasim
- Philosophy of LinguisticsUploaded byHemang Desai
- PPR 3 Q1Uploaded byILlani IBrahim
- C++ Pointer PracticeUploaded bymartin napanga
- Error Parsing Near PDFUploaded byJohnathan
- Uncertainty'2014Uploaded byzilangamba_s4535
- Sarah Torrent Module 2 MAT0028Uploaded bySarah Torrent
- Zonisamide uv article.pdfUploaded byshraddha5j
- Skoge Book 2nd Edition MatlabUploaded byarviandy
- 02_Introduction to the NI LabVIEW Control Design and Simulation ModuleUploaded bykiara_072
- Sentiment Analysis With KNIMEUploaded byReshma Hemant Patel
- Diagramas de flujo, arreglos y demásUploaded byJosé Ramirez
- PowerSystemsStateEstimation_Final (1).pdfUploaded byThabeti Aditya
- Big Data for Marketing Resource ReallocationUploaded byBarun
- Dimension IngUploaded bysurendra parla
- cap 632Uploaded bySubhash Singh
- Manual-Guide-Milling-and-Turning-Manual.pdfUploaded bykalede2
- Modeling Extreme Wave Sequences for the Hydrodynamic Analysis of Ships and Offshore StructuresUploaded bysm8575
- Deterministic Time Varying VolatilityUploaded byJensc
- Portfolio Performance Evaluation.pptUploaded byrajin_rammstein
- hw2Uploaded bymildeithbida
- IDC SimonUploaded byfati_boumahdi75
- Gitman IM Ch04Uploaded byClaudia Patricia Cachi Zapana
- CHAPTER 3 -Non - Uniform Flow in Open Channel (Part 1)Uploaded byLuqma Illieana
- Simple Queuing Models PDFUploaded bySanthosh Kumar
- (2.1) Harriet Fell, Javed Aslam, Rajmohan Rajaraman, Eric Ropiak, Chris Burrows, Ravi Sundaram-Discrete Structures (2009)Uploaded byRahul Menon
- Nodal Analysis- Based Design for Improving Gas Lift Wells ProductionUploaded bySeth Cheatham
- 129355176-BM2-ch-11-12-pdf (1).pdfUploaded bySam Anjar Hero S
- BA01032G08EN17.14Uploaded byAnonymous ucglWH67R6
- OOP1Uploaded byPriyanka Prakasan