You are on page 1of 7

# PAPER NO.

W8-1
EXACT MODEL MATCHING BY STATE FEEDBACK AND DYNAMIC COMPENSATION
B. C. Mooreand L. M. Si l ver mans
Department of Electrical Engineering -
Systems
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California 90007

## Abstract problem in [l] while Curran and Franklin  con-

A new approach to the exact model match- sider a modified version.
A precise formulation and complete solution
ing problem is given based on an algorithm for
of the problem is given here. An outline of the
characterizing the input-output structural proper-
ties of a linear system. In contrast to previous paper follows.
methods, the state feedback matching problem In \$ 2 the state feedback equivalence problem
is
is defined and a preliminary non-recursive solu-
solved without recourse to initial coordinate
tion is given. This solution i s s i mi l ar to that of
transformations.Moreover,thealgorithmgiven
Wang and Desoer, but does not require a prelim-
h e r e extends directly to the dynamic model match-
inary coordinate transformation. The structure
ing problem and yields a set of necessary and suf-
algorithm is reviewed in \$ 3 and several of its
ficient conditions for one system to be t r a n s f e r
properties are discussed. A s e t of neces sary con-
function equivalent via dynamic state feedback to ditions, based on feedback invariants of the struc-
a specified model system. t ur e al gor i t hm, i s given for the general state
feedback problem. It is shown in 84 that when the
1. Introduction necessary conditions are satisfied, a reduced set
In this paper we consider the problem of of linear algebraic equations can be given, the so-
compensating a linear dynamical system with lution of which (when such exists) yields all solu-
either static or dynamic state feedback s o a s to tions to the state feedback equivalence problem.
achieve a specified transfer function matrix, When the system is left invertible, this set of
A precise formulation of a version of the equations can be solved recursively and yields a
state feedback problem was first given by Wolo- unique solution (when one exists).
vich [ 13 who termed it "exact model matching". In \$ 5 we define the dynamic matching prob-
His solution to the problem employs a set of feed- lem and offer a complete solution. It is shown
back invariants and a transformation of coordin- that the necessary conditions generated by the
ates derived from the system controllability ma- structure algorithm for the state feedback prob-
t r i x and involves determining if a certain set of lem are also sufficient for the existence of a dy-
polynomial matrix equations is solvable. A some namic compensator to achieve exact model match-
what more algebraic solution was subsequently ing. An algorithm to design such a compensator
given byWang and Desoer . Their methsd based on the pseudo-inverse system representa-
utilizes essentially the same feedback invariants tion developed in  i s a l s o given.
and coordinate transformation, but reduces the An interpretation of our results for the single
proglem to one of solving a s e t of linear algebraic input single-output case is given in \$6 together
equations. with an example.
A considerably different approach to the
problem is offered here based on the structure 2. Definition and Preliminary Solution of
algorithm developed in  and . This approach the State Feedback Problem
avoids the need for coordinate transformation and
is completely recursive in the sense tliat nonexis- A precise definition of the state feedback
tance of a solution is tested sequentially in the al- model matching problem will be given first. Con-
gorithm. The feedback invariants utilized by sider two linear, time invariant systems;
Wolovich and Wang and Desoer do not enter into
our formulation of the problem. Rather,a set of G(t) = Ax(t) t Bu(t)
(2. 1)
invariants generated by the structure algorithm y(t) = Cx(t) t Du(t)
a r e utilized. In the single-input single-output and
case, these invariants reduce simply to the "rel- ;(t) = Qz(t) t Rv(t)
ative order" of the s y s t e m- the difference be-
wit) = @z(t)t &(t)
tween the number of poles and zeros of the t r a n s -
f e r function. The computational advantages of our -
solution to the state feedback problem a r e i l l u s - wher e x( t ) E R'; z(t) E R"; u(t) E Rr, v(t) 6 R'; and
trated by an example which was also considered y(t), w(t) E R". System (2. 1 ) will be denoted a s
by Wolovich [ 11. (A, B, C, D),, and its transfer function matrix
The problem of exact model matching via H(A, B, C, DLS with similar notation for (2. 2).
dynamic compensation has not been studied in any H(Q,B,C,B), cav be thought Qf a s the desired
great detail previously. Wolovich mentions the model characteristics which one would like to
"match" by compensating an existing system
*This research was supported by the U. S. Army
(A, B, C, Dl,.
R e s e a r c h Office -Durham under Grant DA-ARO-
D-31-124-71-637.

114
Definition 2. 1: Let 5, be the c l a s s of a l l r e a l m a - B??BG= CB- CBG. By expanding the left-hand side
t r i x p a i r s ( F , G). Then (A, B, C, D), i s s a i d to be of (2. 5) for a general k and substituting @aJBfor
feedback equivalent (3,-e uivalent) to (a, R, @, B ) (C+DF)(AtBF)JBG forall j < k, one can see that
i f and only if there e x i s t s k i , such that DG= B and

## H(AtBF, BG, C t D F , DG), = H(Q,R,C,B), (2.3) = wkn-

BFA~BG CA~BG -
When ( 2 . 3 ) holds, it will be denoted a s

## H(A,B, C, D)I H(c~,R,@,B), (2.4) characterizes Z,-equivalence. Since (F, G) E B,*

det G f 0, the theorem follows,
The problem of exact model matching by
It i s cl ear f r om Theor em 2 . 1 that the class
state feedback is that of determining when (A, B,
of all p a i r s (F, G) E 5, such that H(A, B, C, D),
C, D)I is Y1-equivalent to (Q,R,@, B)n. Although H(Q,R,C, B ) , is completely characterized by
necessary conditions for Z,-equivalence will be the class of all solutions ( F , P), with P nonsing-
given in 63 and 6 4 , complete necessary and suf- u l a r , of the following s e t of linear equations
ficient conditions are given only for the existence
of a solution ( F, G) such that G is square and non- D = bP
singular. For the class of systems for which
r = r and rank [E
B l = r , the problem is complete-
lysolved,sinceunderthoserestrictions,
5, -
equivalence * G nonsingular. For this restricted
class of systems, we make the following defini-
tion.
Definition 2 . 2 : Let 5, be the class of a l l r e a l ma- Observe that (2.6) can be rewritten in the form
t r i x p a i r s (F, G) with G square and nonsingular.
Then- (A, B, C, D), is said to be strictly feedback
equivalent (5,-equivalent) to (a,
E,@, B ) , i f and
only i f there exists (F, G) E 5, such that ( 2 . 3 )
holds. where Y, is a r a x 1 vector representing the ele-
ments of P and Ya is_a s r X 1 vector represent-
Remark: Neither 5, nor 5, equivalence i s a true ing the elements of F.
equivalence relationship since the arrow in ( 2 . 4 ) This form of the solution to the state feed-
is not necessarily reversable. back problem is similar to the final solution of
It will be shown i n Th e o re m 2. 1 that the Wang and Desoer in that the problem is redhced
problem of determining when (A, B, C, D)I is 5,- to that of finding a solution to a set of linear al-
equivalent to (a,R,@,B),, can be converted to one gebraic equations together with a nonsingularity
of determining when a set of linear algebraic constraint.(Itshould benoted,however,that
equations has a solution satisfying a certain con- no coordinate transformations have been used
straint.Thischaracterizationfollowsquitesim- h e r e . ) AsWang and Desoer suggest, the tools
ply from a comparison of the Markov moments
of linear algebra can be used to determine the
 of the two systems, due to the following well c l a s s of such solutions. Except for systems
known criterion for zero state equivalence , with very few inputs, however, the computations
a r e not feasible unless the linear equations have
Lemma 2. 1: Let 6,, 60 and 5, ,To be the control- a unique solution,in which case, as will be
l a b i l i b and_o&ervability indices cf (A, B, C, D), shown below, (A,B, C, D)# is left invertible. It
=ndJ A, B, C, D ) 5 , and let y = max&,LbL- 1, will be shown that when (A, B, C, D), is left inver-
6 c t 6 0 - 1 ) . Then-H(A,B, CID) = H (A , B , C , D )i i f tible, the structure algorithm, introduced in
and only if D = D and CA B = CA B for i = Silverman [ 3 ] , provides a method which com-
0,1,. I y.
4 .
pletely and efficiently solves the matching prob-
lem. This method also applies to the general
Theorem 2. 1: Let (F, G) E 5,, H(A, B,C, D)I A F, G problem and offers several advantages in com-
H(a,B,@,,B), i f and only if D 8 G -l a n d fo r parison with the methods of Wolovich and Wang
k,kf0
-
BTAk B = Wk6G-l CALB-.z &-jBFAj-lB
J = 1
and Desoer.

where F = G-IF.
..
for k =<,1 , . , y ( y defined as in Lemma 2. 1) 3. Summ ar y and Pr oper t i es
of the Structure Algorithm

Proof: By Lemma 2. 1, (A, B, C, D), is Tz-equiv- The structure algorithm sequentially yields
alent to (Q,R,@, R ) , if and only i f there exists a set of quantities which are invariant under
(F,G)E 5, such that DG = B, and (F,G) transformations (G nonsingular). Unlike
the invariants utilized in [ l ] and , operations
(C+DF)(AtBF)kBC= W B .
k = 0, 1 , . , y. (2. 5 ) on the controllability matrix (an s X s r matrix)
are not required. Rather, operations on ma-
For k = 0, this implies that DFBG=@n- CBG, or t r i c e s of decr eas i ng s i ze, s t ar t i ng with D (an
mX r m at r i x) , ar e per f or med. A s um mar y of

115
this algorithm together with several of its prop- p a c e of 3,. with this choice for F,G note that
e r t i e s is given below. C1 % 0 and Dl 4[Iq, 01 f o r all \$ Let A:,
Let qo = rank D and let E, b e the submatrix -
A BDf C, then it follows that R, C,Ao= [O CL,]!
formed from the first qo independent rows ofD. Hence
Then So nonsingular exists such that i f

y o ( t ) = S,,y(t) = C, x ( t ) t Dou(t)
then D, = So D = [ 5
conformably with De a s C, = [
'.
: 0 ] Co = S %is partitioned
Ci ] z!
Continu- . (3.1)
ing recursively, suppose after kt1 steps we have
It is c l e a r the? that the nonzero rows of C",Ai
y,(t) = C,x(t) t Dku(t) a r e given by C, since R is a pe_rmutation matrix
with C, = [z; e:]' =[E: -E, 1
for each i. Let L1+, = C i * C,' ]'and let B be
and D,
and BLhave 9, rows aqd rank D = q,
[ C: ( C,A)'] , Jwl= [ 4' (C,B)'!',
Ol'where
Let E, + =
and let q,+,=
. , be the first integer such that rank LB= rank L
Then L can be viewed as the observability m f
1.
t r i x of &e pair (4, C,) with observability index
rank Jwl. Let S&, be theunique permutation
matrix such that the first qnl rows of SZ+,J,, B.
Let y (t) be partitioned conformably with D,
contains the first ab,, independent rows of J,,, a s y,(t) = t y k ( t ) f,(t)]'. An important structural
with the relative oyder maintained and its list' Lnvairant under 5,-feedback i s the dependence of
m-q,, rows contain the remaining rows of J
yi (t) on 7,(t) for all i. This is made evident by
also with the relative order maintained. S&,,Xks the following theorem:
the form
Theorem 3.1: Let Be= BB: and let A, be defined
above. Then, for x(t,) = x, in (2. 1) and for all u

## where E,+,has q,+,-% rows and &+,_has

m - q k + , row,s. SettingD,+,=LB;(Rr+ICtB)']'
and K#+ ,=-R, CkBD\$, w h e re D\$+l 1s a rlght in-
-
Proof: Since 7. (t) = C, x(t) t 5,u(t), any solution
versefor D,. Define for u(t) can be expr es s ed as
r 1 1

then

## Since_ L, B is in the row space of E, for all i 

and C, Ad is in the row space of L for all j, i t
follows g a t v(t) does not affect ntt). Hence,
(A ,Bo,C, ) determine 7; f r o m 7. uniquely and is
the result of operating on y(t) with the nonsingu- inJependent of the s y s t e m input.
k Let PiLs) denote the transfer function matrix
ular derivative operator Nk = g S, M, -1 -, -, of (A Bo, C, ) then it i s c l e a r f r o m the theorem
(M-1 = 1).
that 8;
(s) i s not affected by state feedback, Hence
If a is t h e f i r s t integer-such that q.=q,, the transfer function of the system resulting from
then it can be-shown  that Dl remains fixed Tl-feedback applied to (A, B, C, D), is completely
for i e a and C,+, has the form determined byLhe-result of the feedbzck law ap-
plied to (A, BC ,D
,, ), since H(A, B, C, ,O), =
.
Pa(s)H(A, B,C, ,D, ), In other uo r d s if-
(A,B,C,_D), + (CI,B,C,B), and (A,B,C,,D,), +
Many properties of the structure algorithm (d,B , & , B, ), ynder Z1-feedback then
are invariant under 3, -feed_back . In particu-
l a r , the operatorLN,and C, are invariant,The
m a t r i c e s D, and C,, while-not invLriaZt, trans-
f o r ma s Dl 'A D,G and C, C,tD, F.
Of p a r t i c u l a r i l t e r e s t i s the feedback pair
The invariance of the operator in braces provides
a necessary condition for T,-equivalence. In the
following section a more directly computable set
where the columns of K fo rm a b a s i s f or the null of necessary conditions will be given, together
with a new characterization of Z,-equivalence.

116
4. Application of the Structure Algorithm
@ O Q t B o for 0 Sk S y - 1 and the lemma follows.
Let S, and N, be the quantities defined by
the structure algorithm applied toJA, B, C, D), The main result follows directly by Lemmas
and define@,= [@kc:]'= S & , [ T l B i ] ' = S O B 4.1 and 4.2. Let CY=a-1 .if rank q a = m((A, B, C, D),
where the "barred" quantities are the top qa rows right invertible), and let o= y a s defined m Lem-
of SC, a_nd ,S,B. Now define r-ecursively, for kg 0 ma 4. 2 i f q, < m.
8 L j @" : (@kg)'], = [b; B)'_l, -
[@k+l: @r+l I 1 = - 5 k + 1 8 k + 1 L 4 4 - 1 =[TLl : B:+l 15'=' - Theorem 4. 1: Let (F, G)E 5, then (A, B, C, D),
S,+,\$, where 4+1
and b a r e the f i r s t q k + l PA-+ (ff,B,@,S ) Uif and only if
rows of S,+18,+1 and S,+; jkcl respectively.
It is clear that If (A, B, C, D), i s y1 ecpiv-
d e n t to (Q,B,C, B ) , then it must be true that& = 0
f or all is 0 since the output equation f, (t)=,C,x(t)
isinvariantunderfeejback.Moreover, if =0
for 0 S i S a and rank B, = q, then
Theorem 4.1 provides a considerably more
N,w(t) = [w:(t) ~ G ( t ) ] ' = C , z ( t ) t B , v ( t ) efficient test for aa-equivalence than that given
in \$ 2 (and consequently those given in [ l ] and [ 2 ] ) .
Furth_ermo_re, for any nonsingular matrix G such A set of readily computed necessary conditigns
that D, G= B,, we canlas in Theorem 3.1 azd a r e provided by (4.1) and the fact that rank Ba
Equatjon ( 3 . 2 ) define B z = G-I D\$,Q0=a-~b\$@, , must be qa by (4. 2). If these conditions are sat-
Bf+\$ and write isfied, we then must determine i f a pair (F, G) E
8, satisfying (4.2) exists. However, this is in
general a simpler problem than that originally
posed sinceadditional constraints on G have been
specified (D,G=Ba, rather than DG= b). In par-
ticular, i f q a = r (in which case (A, B, C,D), i s
Q, (8) is-the transfer function of the system
(ffo,Bo,@a,O)* -
l ef t j nver t i bl e [ 4] ) G iuniquely
s specified a s G =
Drl& leaving an unconstrained set of l i near equ a
tions in F. This important case is detailed below,
Lemma 4.1: Let (F,G) Es,. T h p H(A, B, C, D)
With G = E i l & a n d F = G'IF, it follows f r om
A
' H(G B,@, b ) i f and only-if,-B, = 0 for OSiLa, Theorem (2. 11) that (4. 2) holds i f and only if for
H(A,B, C,, D, 1 Le, H(Q,B,C, ,Sa ) and Q, ( a ) =
Pa ( 8 ) . - .
k = 0, 1, , , , y Jy def i l ed l or the r educeds ys t ems)
FAkBG=B'l[@,dCB-C,ABG-EJ,,C\$+JBFAJ-lBG]
Let 6 = BG then this can be r ewr i t t en as
Proof: Sufficiency i s c l e a r fro m t h e above dis-
cussion. The fact that the first and second con- i?[\$I A\$': *!
0 .

AY\$] = [ Q o : Q, : * * *
ditions a r e n e c e s s a r y follows fro m the (F, G) in-
variants discussed in \$ 3 . The third condition is where
necessary-since G nonsingular implies that Qk
-
= b~'(&a'B-ZaAkB*-ZFlfl-Jm~,1)
k
H(O,B,@,,Sa) mu8 t haKe iEdependent rows and j-
thus that Pa ( 8 ) H(Q,B,C, ,Sa = Qa (s)H(Q,B,& ,>, 1 Notice that the Q, ' s a r e computed sequentially s o
i f and only i f Pa (4= Q, ( a ) . that nonexistence of F can be checked after each
Let 6 and 8 be the respective controllabil- computation,
itiee indices of (Ao,Bp) and (Qo,B,). Let p be a s

## that rank [ E l : 6:; * * * : c-l]=

defined in \$ 3 p d let p>e the first inteper k such
*'3.
rank[(fi:(f{r***r4
The condition that Pa( 8 ) = Q, ( 8 ) can be replaced
Remark: The structure algorithm can be directly
applied to H(Q,B,C,B), i f the mod 1 is specified
in this form. Let @ ( a ) = s p t al s p - f t t a be
by, the test given in the following the minimal polynomial of 0. Then by applrcation
of the Cayley Hamilton Theorem one has H(G&GB),
i s e m m a 4. Z: L e t y = m a x { & p , & ~ ) . If rank& =
q, and \$=, 0 for 0 S k 5 y then Pa( a ) = Q, (e). = &J (HosptH1sp-lt * t Hp) where Ho=B and
proof: rank 3,'9. and 4
= 0 f o r 0 5-k a implies Hi =@-la+ - a m . , .tat8 i = l , ,, ., (4.3)
that Equation (3.1) is also true for and COG
(0 L k B a). Thus it will s2ffice to show thzt the
transfer functions (A,,Bo, Co), an&(Qo,L90,Co), Let N, be defined by the structure algorithm
are identical. Let G be such that D, G = 5,. Note applied to (A, B, C, D), a s i n \$ 3 . Then N ( e ) = No,
khat ZLG=Bk for all k, and &+,= 0 implies that and N, ( a ) , k > 0, i s found by replacing dSdt by s
&
f
f = C,BG since inSection 3. Then N, (s)H(Q,P,C, &I,, canbe

\"-'")E]
computed and expanded a s i n (4. 3).

'k+l ["']G=
ekB L 0 z Sk+l['ZrB ]
t
. -
since F,=G-'a;' , a_nd the s o n z e r o LOWS of
Co& a n d &,e
a r e Ck and , then G & B o =

117
the dynamic case. It will now be shown that a
finite subset of these constraints is also sufficient
f o r the existence of a dynamic compensator. We

## The necessary conditions at each step are easily

checked since HE = R,. Suppose the n e ces s ar y
a criterion for determining i f a general recom-
ensator (not necessarily
k ( A , B , C , D ) , to (G',S,C,B),.
dynamic)+
f i r s t pr ove t he following theorem which provides

whlc exists

## Let (A*,B*, C*, D*),+, denote the system rep-

conditionshold. Then for 0 d j < p, the Markov
-
moments 0 , Q J 9 can be computed directly from
resentation
H(B, 13,C,, Ba)n using (4. 3). FEr j 3 p, the Cayley A 0 B O
Hamilton Theorem g e e s that C,a* a=
- a l & & i - l B-* * * -a P W R . Inthiscase,thecon-
trollability and observability indices associated
with the model system are not known, but a r e y = [ C C ] z t [D & ] v
each bounded by p, the degree of the minimal
polynomial of U. Also, let y denote the first integer for which
q q = rank D*= r ankDt + ,, wher e DP r es u lts from
5. DynamicCompensation the i-th iteyation of the structure algorithm ap-
plied to (A*, B*, C*, D*),+,.
In this section we shall investigate the
possibility of using dynamic compensation when Theorem 5, 1: There exists a rational matrix
matching cannot be achieved by feedback of the G ( s ) such that
type Sa. Dynamics can be introduced into the
s y s t e m a s done by Wonham and Morse [ 9 ] in the H(A,B,
C,D),G(s) = H(a,S,&b),
(5.1)
dynamic decoupling problem, A s e t of ii i nt egr r -
tors, where ii i s a n unknown p a ra m e t er , is ad- i f and only if q. = qq.
joined to system (2. 1) to give the following aug-
mented system -
Proof: Existence of a C(s)satisfying (5.1)is
equivalent to H(CI,B,C, b ) , being the column range
of H(A, B, C, D), (as a rational matrix), which in
t ur n is equivalent to the condition

## rankH(A, B, C, D),= rank[H(A,B, C, D), I

(5.2)
HG', b,C, 81, 1
(as a rational matrix), It is clear that the trans-
fer function on the right hand side of (5. 2) is the
Let (A,;, e,6),+~ denote this system represen- travsferfunction of (A*, B*, C*, D*), The re-
tation, then we have sult then follows by Theorem 4.3 of [4i which
shows that q. and q t a r e the ranks of the c o r r e s -
Definition 5. 1: (A, B, C, D), is said to be dynam- ponding transfer function matrices,
ically equivalent to (d,B,C, B), i f and only if there We shall also need the following result which
exists n" and (F, G) E !Fl such that is a special case of Theorem 4 . 2 in .

## H ( A t GF,SG,e t dF,~ G ) , + sH(a,R,C.

= B), Theorem 5.2: Let w be a function in the range
of (A, B, C, D), on [t,,, = ) for x(t,)= 0, and let u be
In the remainder of this section, it is the output of the system
shown that the structure algorithm applied to
(A, B, C, D), and ( a , B,C, B ) , simultaneously as in '(t) = (A-BD,
-t- C,)e(t)+Bb:R,w(t)
94 yields necessary and sufficient conditions for (5.3)
dynamic equivalence. Qunatities defined in 93
and 94 a r e u s e d below without further comment.
with z(t,,)= 0. Then w is the zero state response
Lemma 5.1: (A, B, C, D), is dynamically equiva- (A,B, C , D), to u on [tb. Q ) .
lent to (U, @,a,
B ) , only if B, = 0 for k = 0, 1, .. . Let Hl(s) denote H(A, B, C, D) and H tl ( s ) de-
note the transfer function of (5. 3). N o t e that
Proof:Theproof is obvious, since the structure Hf(s) can be expressed as Hf(s) = P(s)N, ( a )
algorithm is clearly invariant under augmentation where P(s) i s the transfer function of a dynamic
of the above type and system (i. e. P(s)is a proper rational matrix).
The pseudo-inverse notation is justified by the
following obvious corollary of Theorem 5. 2 .
Corollary 5.1: Let Ha(s) be in the column range
of Hl(s) (as a rational matrix). Then
Hl ( s ) Hl ( s ) H,t s ) = Ha(S).
This lemma shows that the necessary We can now state and prove the main result.
conditions for state feedback matching extend to

118
Theorem 5.3: (A, B, C , D ), i s dy33amically equiv- form. ) If this i s the case, F is chosen so that n
alent to (a,B,@, B ) , i f and only i f Bk = 0 for k = of the poles of (6. 1 ) a r e moved to equal the poles
0,1,. *.
,n s s . of (6.2), and the remaining (s-n) ar_e used to can-
cel excess numerator zeros. That B k = p P - l B =0
Proof: Necessity follows directly from Lemma for 0 S k S a- 1 i s a sufficient condition for dynamic
6.1. equivalence is clear since this implies s - a l s;
The sufficiency proof is as follows, First n-4, o r s t t S 5 n t i , , which means that
i t is shownthat there exists a r o e r r a t i o n a l = H-'(A, B, C, D)H(c7,9,@,B ) does not have more
matrix &(s) such that H(A, B, C*s)H(O,B,@,B),,, zeros than poles.
Let the structure algorithm be ap lied to Now let us consider two examples, the first
(A*, B*, C*, D*),+n . Then, since jk=
0 for OSkP of which was considered by Wolovich [ l ] .
*-s, the f i r s t nts steps are exactly the same as
those of the algorithm applied to (A, B, C, D),
Hence q 6 = 9". Letting Hl(s) = H(A, B, C, D ) m , a n d
. Example 1: Consider the system representation
(A, B, C, Dl3 where
H,(s) = H(c~,%,C,B),, we see from Theorem 6.1
and Corollary 6.1 that H, (.s)Hf(s)H,(.s) = H,(s).
H ~ ( s ) H , ( s )i s a proEer rational matrix since it
can be written P ( s ) N & ( s ) w h e r e P ( s ) j s % p r o p e r
rational matrix, and N,H,(s) = H(Q,B,C,, &),,
Let (Al, B,, C,, D l ) & be a realization for
H\$(s)H,(s). One can easily verify that z=k and

## We wish to determine i f there exists (F, G ) E 5,

such that H(A, B, C, Dl3 U+H(s), where ,

yields ~ ~ F , ~ G ) = H , ( s )t H , ( s ) H , ( s ) =
H(LtB*F,gG,
H(C7, B, @, B )
6.InterpretationsandExamples
To answer the question, we apply the structure
F o r the case in which ( z . 1 ) and ( 2 . 2 ) a r e s i n - algorithm to (A, B, C, D), and H(s).
gle input-single output systems, the necessary
and sufficient conditions of \$4 and \$ 5 have clear Step 1: Apply the f i r s t s t e p of the structure algor-
interpretations. Let ithm:

b o s a l t b l s a 1 -1 t * * * t b
B, H(A, C, Dl, = (6. 1)
s~+a,s~-lt***ta,

~os%pls~l-lt..*t
H(a, 6,C, B ) , =
pa a (6.2)
snt cylsn-lt *tan
where we assume, for the sake of illustration, The first necessary condition, Beb = 0, is satisfied
that s > 4 and n > A,. Applyingthe s t ru c t u re a l -
gorithm gives No= l , N,= d k / d t r , a n d a = s - a , is Step 2 : Second step of the Structure Algorithm:
-
the first integer i for which CAI -1B #_O.Also,_
D,= CAa-1B,B6=W6-1B,andCr= CAk,& = C?@,,B,=
@-1B for 1 S k e a . Since 3, is a s c a l a r , the_
necessary conditiols for Z,-equivalence that a,= 0
f o r 0 d k I a- 1 and B6 # 0 simply imply that s - a , ,
the relative order  of H(A, B, C, D), , equals
n - a,, the r e l a t i v e o rd e r of H(Q,R,C, B ) , . This is
an understandable condition since relative order
is invariant under feedback.
Assume that the necessary conditions hold. The structure algorithm terminates at this step
Then G, a s c a l a r , is given by5;,s6 = since (A, B, C, D)3 is clearly invertable. 7, has
full row rank and
ca -lB -
- Moreover, sincestate
feedback
CA6-1B bo '
does not change the numerator of (6.1) and can
be used to arbitrarily place the poles, there ex-
G=6i1Bl = [-: :]
i s t s a solution (F, G) if and only i f the zeros of
( 6 . 2 ) a r e contained in the zeros of ( 6 . 1). (Equa-
tion (4.3)will have a solution i f and only i f this is
t r u e , a s can be seen when (A, B) is in companion

119
details of this generalization are presently being
considered.

8. References

[ l ] W. A. Wolovich,"TheApplication of State
Feedback Invariants to Exact Model Match-
ing, '' Fifth Annual Princeton Conference on
Information Science and Systems, Princeton,
New J er s ey, M ar ch 1971.
A solution clearly exists.
[Z] S. H. Wang and C. A. Desoer,"TheExact
Step 4: Find AEj,B,,QB, CIA?, Q, and check for a Model Matching of Linear Multivariable
solution to 3~3:AS ] = [Q, : Q, 1. If a solution Systems, ' I submitted for publication.
exists,compute F.
 L. M. Silverman,"Inversion of Multivari-
able Linear Systems, ' I IEEE Trans. Auto-
maticControl, vol. AC-14, pp. 270-276,
1969.
 L. M. Silvermanand R ,J. Payne,"Input-
Output Structure of Linear Svstems with
Application to t h e Decoupling Problem,
At this point a unique solution exists: and FA' =Qi SIAM J. onControl, vol. 9, pp. 199-233,
..
for i = O , 1,. , y. 1971.
7. Conclusion 51 R. T. Curran and G. F. Franklin, "An
Exact Solution to the Linear Multivariable
An algorithm has been given which solves the Model-FollowingProblem,submittedfor
problem of exact model matching by state feed- publication.
back for a class of linear systems, and which
completely solves the problem of model match- 61 B. L. Ho and R. E. Kalman,"Effective Con-
ing by dynamic feedback. This algorithm is seen struction of Linear State-Variable Models
to be considerably more efficient and complete fromInput/OutputFunctions,Proc.3-rd
than the solutions offered in [ l ] and  for sev- Allerton C o n f . , pp. 449-459.
eral reasons. First, no initial coordinate trans-
formation is required. Secondly, each step of  L. M. Silverman,"Realization of Linear
the algorithm tests a s e t of conditions which a r e Dynamical Systems, 'I to appear IEEE Trans.
n e c e s s a r y f o r the existance of a solution (dynam- Automatic Control, 197 1,
ic or state feedback) so that nonexistance may be
detected at any step. If a state feedback solution  R. W. Brockett,"Poles,ZerosandFeed-
_ .
does not exist, the algorithm can be continued to
t e s t f o r a dynamic solution. The algorithm canbe back: State Space Interpretation, (I IEEE
Trans.AutomaticControl, vol. AC-10,
applied directly to (T, B,C, &., o r H(0, n,C, P),,
whichever is available. pp. 129-135, 1965.
There are several questions which are still
 A. S. Morseand W. M. Wonham,"Decoup-
open for consideration. A s mentioned earlier,
ling and Pole Assignment bv Dvnamic Com-
our solution gives complete necessary conditions
only for the existence of a solution (F, G) with G
pensation, SIAM J'.
Contrdl, 401. 8, pp.
317-337,August 1970.
nonsingular. The general problem of model
matching by state feedback remains unsolved,
F u r t h e r m o re no solution has been given to the
problem of obtaining a dynamic compensator of
minimal order. Another question which has not
yet been resolved is that of designing a stable
compensator. For the case in which H(s) =
H(A, B, C, D) is square and nonsingular it is
c l e a r f r o m the f o r m of the precompensator design
that a sufficient condition for stability is that all
of the zeros of the numerator of detH(s) which
a r e not also poles (of the same degree) of H,(s)
H ( d , B , C , b), lie strictly in the left half plane, In
general, however H t ( s ) i s not unique and the
problem is non-trivial. Some preliminary re-
sults have been obtained by the authors and will
be reported elsewhere.
The approach taken here can be generalized to
a broad class of time-variable systems (the class
of "regular systems" as defined in ). The

120