Pole-placement for SISO linear systems by

state-derivative feedback

T.H.S. Abdelaziz and M. Valášek

Abstract: A procedure for solving the pole-placement problem for a linear single-input/single-
output (SISO) systems by state-derivative feedback is described. This pole-placement problem is
always solvable for controllable systems if all eigenvalues of the original system are nonzero. Then
any arbitrary closed-loop poles can be placed to achieve the desired system performance. The
solution procedure results in a formula similar to the Ackermann one. Its derivation is based on
the transformation of a linear SISO system into Frobenius canonical form by co-ordinate
transformation, then solving the pole-placement problem by state-derivative feedback and
transforming the solution into the original co-ordinates. The solution is also extended to time-
varying systems.

1 Introduction of the mechanical systems that are velocities and displace-

Pole-placement is one of the most important tools for
designing control for linear systems. The problem of pole-
placement by state feedback has a long history with many
previous studies [1 –10]. However, this paper focuses on a
special feedback using only state derivatives instead of full
state feedback. Therefore this feedback is called state-
derivative feedback. The problem of arbitrary pole-place-
ment using full state-derivative feedback naturally arises.
To the best of our knowledge there has been no general
study solving this feedback for pole-placement based on
traditional approaches by state feedback. The problem of
state-derivative feedback has been investigated within the
treatment of a generalised class of singular linear dynamic
systems using a geometric approach [11, 12]. This treatment
of state-derivative feedback within singular systems has
been necessary because usage of arbitrary state-derivative
feedback gains could lead to singularity where the original
system is no longer a state variable system. This problem is
overcome in this paper by the approach of traditional state
feedback. The problem of pole-placement is solved by
extension of traditional approaches that enables both the
solution of singularity danger and the solution for time-
varying systems.
It is well known from classical control theory that
derivative feedback is sometimes essential for achieving
desired control objectives [11]. However, the motivation for
the state-derivative feedback in this paper comes from
controlled vibration suppression in mechanical systems.
The main sensors of vibration are accelerometers. From
accelerations it is possible to reconstruct velocities with
reasonable accuracy but not the displacements. Therefore
the available signals for feedback are accelerations and
velocities only and these are exactly the derivatives of states
ments. There have been many published papers e.g. [13 – 18]
describing acceleration feedback for controlled vibration
suppression. However, the pole-placement approach for
feedback gain determination has not been used at all or has
not been solved generally. The approach in [13 – 16] is based
on dynamic derivative output feedback. The feedback uses
acceleration only (velocity is not used therefore it is not full
state-derivative feedback, only output derivative feedback)
and the acceleration is processed by a dynamic filter
(dynamic feedback). The feedback gains are determined
using root-locus analysis [13 –17], optimisation of H2 norm
of the closed-loop transfer function [16], or just using
numerical parameter optimisation of performance indexes
[18]. Other papers dealing with acceleration feedback for
mechanical systems are [19, 20] but there the feedback uses
all states (positions, velocities) and accelerations. Recently
paper [21] has presented a nonlinear controller based on the
state-derivative feedback control for a magnetic bearing; the
state-derivative feedback is used for feedback linearisation
and not for pole-placement.
In this paper the problem of pole-placement by state-
derivative feedback for SISO linear systems both time
invariant and time varying is generally formulated and
solved. The solution is based on recent efficient techniques
for solving the pole-placement problem by state feedback
for SISO and MIMO linear time-invariant and time-varying
systems [8 – 10]. It uses the transformation of a linear system
into a Frobenius canonical form and results in different
versions of Ackermann’s formula. This methodology is also
utilised in this paper.
2 Pole-placement by state-derivative feedback for
linear time-invariant systems

Pole-placement by state-derivative feedback is solved in

this Section for linear time-invariant systems using the
q IEE, 2004 technique from [8 – 10].
IEE Proceedings online no. 20040660
doi: 10.1049/ip-cta:20040660
Paper received 16th March 2004
2.1 Pole-placement problem formulation
The authors are with the Department of Mechanics, Faculty of Mechanical Consider a controllable linear time-invariant SISO system
Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Karlovo nam. 13, 121
35 Praha 2, Czech Republic x_ ðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BuðtÞ; xðt0 Þ ¼ x0 ð1Þ
IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004 377
  
where xðtÞ ðn  1Þ is the state vector, u(t) is the scalar R¼ B AB A2 B An1 B ð11Þ
control variable, and A ðn  nÞ and B ðn  1Þ are system T
matrix and control gain vector, respectively. The charac- where en ¼ ½0 0 . . . 0 1 is a unit vector, then the
teristic polynomial of matrix A is given by transformed system is transformed into the Frobenius
canonical form
det½sI  A ¼ sn þ an1 sn1 þ þ a 1 s þ a0 ¼ 0 ð2Þ 0 1
0 1 0 0
where a ¼ ½a0 ; a1 ; . . . ; an1  are the coefficients of the B 0 0 1 0 C
B C
characteristic polynomial and I is the ðn  nÞ identity B . . . . .. C
B
z_ ¼ AF z þ BF u ¼ B . . . . . . C
matrix. It is known that a0 ¼ detðAÞ ¼ ð1Þn detðAÞ and . . . Cz
B C
an1 ¼ traceðAÞ: The objective is to place the desired @ 0 0 0 1 A
poles for the closed-loop system using the constant state- a0 a1 a2 an1
derivative feedback control 0 1
0
u ¼ K x_ ð3Þ B0C
B C
B C
that enforces a desired characteristic behaviour for the states þB 0C
B Cu ð12Þ
and thus stabilises the system. Using feedback (3) the B .. C
closed-loop system becomes @.A
1
x_ ¼ Ax  BK x_
The Frobenius canonical form substantially simplifies pole-
ðI þ BKÞ_x ¼ Ax ð4Þ placement by state-derivative feedback.
In what follows it is assumed that ðI þ BKÞ has a full rank
so that the closed-loop system is well defined otherwise the 2.3 Solution of pole-placement problem for
resulting system is not a state variable dynamic system. time-invariant systems
Then it can be written as The state-derivative feedback for the canonical form (12) is

x_ ¼ ðI þ BKÞ1 Ax ð5Þ u ¼ F_z ð13Þ

The closed-loop characteristic polynomial is given by where the constant feedback gain matrix is
F ¼ ½ F1 F2 F3 Fn  ð14Þ
det½sI  ðI þ BKÞ1 A ¼ 0 ð6Þ
Then rewriting the control law (13)
The design problem is to find the feedback gain matrix K
such that the closed-loop poles fl1 ; l2 ; . . . ; ln g of the u ¼ F1 z_ 1  F2 z_2   Fn1 z_n1  Fn z_n ð15Þ
system (5) are assigned at the desired values. A solution of
this problem using the procedures of state feedback is and using the Frobenius canonical form (12)
difficult and a direct approach usually leads to iterative z_ 1 ¼ z2
optimisation. The solution to this problem is further z_ 2 ¼ z3
accomplished by utilising a transformation of this system ..
to the Frobenius canonical form and placing the poles. .
z_ n1 ¼ zn
z_ n ¼ a0 z1  a1 z2   an1 zn þ u ð16Þ
2.2 Transformation into Frobenius canonical
form for time-invariant systems it is derived for the last state equation
Using the well-known technique [8 –10] the original system
z_ n ¼ a0 z1  ða1 þ F1 Þz2   ðan1 þ Fn1 Þzn  Fn z_ n
(1) is manipulated by the state transformation
ð17Þ
zðtÞ ¼ Q1 xðtÞ; xðtÞ ¼ QzðtÞ ð7Þ
This equation is easily modified into the standard state
where zðtÞ ðn  1Þ is the new (transformed) state variable equation if Fn 6¼ 1
vector and Q1 ðn  nÞ is the transformation matrix. The
a0 a þ F1 an1 þ Fn1
original system is transformed into a system with the z_ n ¼  z1  1 z   zn
transformed system matrix AF ðn  nÞ and the transformed 1 þ Fn 1 þ Fn 2 1 þ Fn
control gain vector BF ðn  1Þ that are given by ð18Þ
AF ¼ Q1 AQ; BF ¼ Q1 B ð8Þ This means that the resulting Frobenius canonical form of
the closed-loop system is
If the transformation matrix is chosen as 0 1
0 1 0 1 0 0
q1 B 0 0 1 0 C
B q1 A C B . .. .. .. .. C
B C B . C
Q1 ¼ B . C ð9Þ z_ ¼ B . . . . . Cz ¼ A z z
@ .. A B C
@ 0 0 0 1 A
a0 a1 F1 a2 F2 an1 Fn1
q1 An1 1þFn 1þFn 1þFn 1þFn

where the row vector q1 ð1  nÞ is computed as ð19Þ

q1 ¼ eTn R1 ð10Þ where the resulting Frobenius closed-loop system matrix Az
using the closed-loop system (5) and the transformation (7)
from the controllability matrix R of system (1) can be written as
378 IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004
 Az ¼ Q1 ðI þ BKÞ1 AQ ð20Þ xeq ¼ A1 Bu ð27Þ
Using the relationship between the coefficient of this Similarly d0 6¼ 0 is equivalent to the condition
canonical form and the coefficient of the characteristic
polynomial the obtained characteristic polynomial of the Y
n

closed-loop system is d0 ¼ ð1Þn li 6¼ 0 ð28Þ

i¼1
an1 þ Fn1 n1 a1 þ F1
det½sI  Az  ¼ sn þ s þ þ s which means that the desired system also has an equilibrium
1 þ Fn 1 þ Fn for any input u. This means that the state-derivative
a0 feedback cannot change the character of the system in that
þ ¼0 ð21Þ
1 þ Fn it has or has not equilibrium. But this is in good agreement
The desired pole-placement is given either by a desired with experience with derivative feedback.
coefficients of the characteristic polynomial or by the Taking the time derivative of (7) and substituting in (13)
desired eigenvalues (roots) of this polynomial. The desired leads to
characteristic equation is
u ¼ FQ1 x_ ð29Þ
DðsÞ ¼ ðs  l1 Þðs  l2 Þ:::ðs  ln Þ and comparing (29) with (3) the state-derivative constant-
feedback-gain matrix for the original system is obtained
¼ sn þ dn1 sn1 þ þ d 1 s þ d0 ð22Þ
K ¼ FQ1 ð30Þ
where d ¼ ½d0 ; d1 ; . . . ; dn1  are the coefficients of the
desired characteristic polynomial and li are the desired Under the assumption that the system matrix A of the
poles (eigenvalues) of this polynomial. Equating the original system (1) is nonsingular from (30) and (24) it
coefficients of (22) and (21) the following system of linear follows
algebraic equations for such feedback gains F results in the
desired characteristic equations being satisfied: K ¼ FQ1
2 32 3 2 3        
1 0 . . . 0 d1 F1 a1  d1 a0 a0
¼ d1  a1 q1 þ d2  a2 q1 A þ
6 1 0 . . . d2 7 6 7 6 7 d d0
6 76 F2 7 6 a2  d2 7  0      
6 .. .. 76 .. 7 6 .. 7 a0 a0
6 . . 76 7¼6 7 n2
 1 q1 An1
6 76 . 7 6 . 7 þ dn1  an1 q1 A þ
4 1 dn1 54 Fn1 5 4 an1  dn1 5 d0 d0
 
d0 Fn a0  d0 1 a0
¼ q1 A ðd1 A þ d2 A2 þ þ dn1 An1 þ An Þ
ð23Þ d0

2 n1 n
There are two cases. First a0 6¼ 0; there exists the solution of  ða1 A þ a2 A þ þ an1 A þA Þ
(23) for any desired coefficients d ¼ ½d0 ; d1 ; . . . ; dn1  such  
that d0 6¼ 0 a0
¼ q1 A1 ðd1 A þ d2 A2 þ þ dn1 An1 þ An Þ
h a   
a
d0

F ¼ d1 0  a 1 d2 0  a2 . . .
d0 d0  ða0 IÞ
    i
a a0  
dn1 0  an1 1 ð24Þ a0
d0 d0 ¼ q A1 ½An þ dn1 An1 þ þ d1 A þ d0 I
d0 1
Secondly a0 ¼ 0; there exists the solution of (23) for any    
a0 a0 T
desired coefficients d ¼ ½d0 ; d1 ; . . . ; dn1  such that d0 ¼ 0 ¼ q1 A1 DðAÞ ¼ e ½AR1 DðAÞ
d0 d0 n
F ¼ ½ d1  a1 d2  a2 ... dn1  an1 0 ð25Þ ð31Þ
If a0 ¼ 0 the last equation for Fn from (23) is ð1 þ Fn Þd0 ¼ where D(A) denotes the evaluation of the desired charac-
0: It has a solution only if d0 ¼ 0: If d0 ¼ 0 the solution for teristic polynomial (22) with the system matrix A. The
Fn can be any value with the exception Fn ¼ 1 because of resulting formula for the constant state-derivative feedback-
(18), but both limits a0 ; d0 ! 0 leads to Fn ¼ 0: Summar- gain matrix
ising, a0 ; d0 must be simultaneously both nonzero or both
 
zero. a0 T
Using knowledge about the coefficients of the character- K¼ e ½AR1 DðAÞ ð32Þ
d0 n
istic polynomial the condition a0 6¼ 0 is equivalent to the
condition that is the direct analogy of Ackermann’s formula for traditional
Y
n state feedback. The original Ackermann’s formula has been
a0 ¼ ð1Þn lOi 6¼ 0 ð26Þ modified in [8 – 10] into equivalent efficient numerical
i¼1 algorithms for computing the feedback gain matrix K. The
same can be done for the state-derivative feedback. The
where lOi ; ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ are the original poles of the resulting equivalent efficient formula based on desired
system (1). This means that all the original poles must be coefficients of the characteristic polynomial is the following
nonzero. It is equivalent, according to [22, Section 1.1.7], to recursive procedure:
the condition that the system matrix A of the original system !
(1) is nonsingular. This means that the original system has   X
n1
a0 0 0
an equilibrium for any input u as for the equilibrium xeq ; K¼ qnþ ðdi q i Þ ð33Þ
d0
where x_ eq ¼ 0 in (1) it follows that i¼0

IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004 379
where q00 ¼ q1 A1 ¼ eTn ½AR1 ; q0i ¼ q0i1 A; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n: feedback (3) using the constant-feedback-gain matrix K
If the pole-placement is based on the desired values of the computed by one of (36) – (39).
poles li ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; nÞ instead of the coefficients di of the
It is clear that this solution is general; it requires no
characteristic equation, then the constant-feedback-gain
iteration and can be easily directly computed. This solves
matrix K is according to [8 –10]
the pole-placement problem for linear time-invariant system
a0 Yn by state-derivative feedback.
K ¼ Qn q1 A1 ðA  li IÞ Another interesting feature is that in many cases the state-
i¼1 li i¼1 derivative feedback gains (31) – (34) are in absolute terms
Yn smaller than the traditional state feedback gains [8 – 10] if
detðAÞ T
¼ Qn en ½AR1 ðA  li IÞ ð34Þ the inverse of system matrix A reduces the gains in (32) –
i¼1 li i¼1 (35). On the other hand, the control effort u is the same for
both state feedback as well as for state-derivative feedback.
And again utilising the modification of (33) into an This can be derived from (13), (15), (24) and the fact that the
equivalent efficient formula as in [8 – 10] the resulting system has after the application of the feedback (13) the
recursive procedure for state-derivative constant-feedback- desired dynamic properties
gain matrix based on the desired values of poles is
n1   
X     !
detðAÞ 0 a0 a0
K ¼ Qn qn ð35Þ u ¼  F_z ¼  di  ai z_i þ  1 z_n
d0 d0
i¼1 li i¼1
!
n1   
X    X
n1
where q00 ¼ q1 A1 ¼ eTn ½AR1 ; q0i ¼ q0i1 ðA  li IÞ; i ¼ 1; ¼ di
a0
 ai ziþ1 
a0
1 di ziþ1
. . . ; n: i¼1
d0 d0 i¼0
If the system matrix A of the original system (1) is    !
singular then the feedback-gain matrix K is obtained from X
n1
a0
¼  ðdi  ai Þziþ1   1 d0 z 1
(30) and (25) into equations analogous to (32) and (33) d0
i¼1

K ¼ ðd1  a1 Þq1 þ ðd2  a2 Þq1 A þ þ ðdn1  an1 Þq1 An2 X

n1
¼ ðai  di Þziþ1
¼ ðd1  a1 ÞeTn R1 þ ðd2  a2 ÞeTn R1 A þ i¼0

þ ðdn1  an1 ÞeTn R1 An2 ð36Þ ð40Þ

The last expression in (40) is exactly the traditional state
X
n1
feedback for the change from the original poles described by
K¼ ðdi  ai Þq0i ; q01 ¼ q1 ¼ eTn R1 ; the characteristic polynomial coefficients a to the desired
i¼1
ones described by d.
q0i ¼ q0i1 A; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n  1 ð37Þ The state-derivative feedback is derivative feedback.
It can modify the system dynamics, but it cannot modify the
The same can be derived for the case with given desired steady-state errors. The steady-state error is finite
poles li ; ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n  1Þ into equations analogous to (or infinite) for the original system as the system matrix A
(34) and (35). It has taken just n  1 poles because the nth is is nonsingular (or singular) and it remains unchanged by the
zero due to the singularity of the system matrix A state-derivative feedback.
!
Y
n1 Y
n1
K ¼ q1 ðA  li IÞ  ðA  lOi IÞ 3 Pole-placement by state-derivative feedback for
i¼1 i¼1 linear time-varying systems
!
Y
n1 Y
n1
The methodology can be extended for the general SISO
¼ eTn R1 ðA  li IÞ  ðA  lOi IÞ ð38Þ
i¼1 i¼1
controllable linear time-varying systems
x_ ðtÞ ¼ AðtÞxðtÞ þ BðtÞuðtÞ; xðt0 Þ ¼ x0 ð41Þ
K ¼ q0n1  q0On1 ; q01 ¼ q0O1 ¼ q1 ¼ eTn R1 ;
where xðtÞ ðn  1Þ is the state vector and the scalar control
q0i ¼ q0i1 ðA  li IÞ; q0Oi ¼ q0O;i1 ðA  lOi IÞ input u(t), and AðtÞ ðn  nÞ and BðtÞ ðn  1Þ are the system
i ¼ 1; . . . ; n  1 ð39Þ matrix and control gain vectors, respectively, being
continuous and differentiable the required number times in
From the derivation of the state-derivative feedback pole- the time interval of interest t 2 ½t0 ; 1. In this case the
placement the necessary and sufficient conditions for objective is to find a time-dependent linear state-derivative
arbitrary pole-placement can be described in the following feedback
theorem.
uðtÞ ¼ KðtÞ_xðtÞ ð42Þ
Theorem 1: If the system (1) is completely controllable and that places the poles in the sense of [8 – 10] and thus stabilise
the system matrix A is nonsingular, the poles of system (1) the system. Because the poles for time-varying systems do
can be arbitrarily placed in the desired places with the not have the meaning for stability as in the time invariant
exception of zero by the state-derivative feedback (3) using case, pole-placement for a time-varying linear system
the constant-feedback-gain matrix K computed by one of means [8 – 10] that the feedback (42) modifies the original
(32) – (35). system in such a way that the modified system is by
If the system (1) is completely controllable and the Lyapunov transformation equivalent to a linear time-
system matrix A is singular, the poles of the system (1) can invariant system with desired constant poles. As the
be arbitrarily placed in the desired places with the condition Lyapunov transformation preserves stability, the time-
that at least one desired pole is zero by the state-derivative varying system after modification has the stability of the
380 IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004
    
prescribed linear time-invariant system. Using the feedback d1 d2
FðtÞ ¼ a0 ðtÞ  a1 ðtÞ a ðtÞ  a2 ðtÞ
(42) the closed-loop system becomes d0 d0 0
    
dn1 a0 ðtÞ
x_ ¼ AðtÞx  BðtÞKðtÞ_xðtÞ a0 ðtÞ  an1 ðtÞ 1
d0 d0
ðI þ BðtÞKðtÞÞ_x ¼ AðtÞx
ð50Þ
x_ ¼ ðI þ BðtÞKðtÞÞ1 AðtÞx ð43Þ
if both a0 ðtÞ 6¼ 0; d0 6¼ 0 for the time interval of interest
where it is assumed that ðI þ BðtÞKðtÞÞ has a full rank so t 2 ½t0 ; 1: The other solvable case is if a0 ðtÞ ¼ d0 ¼ 0 for
that the closed-loop system is well defined otherwise the the whole time interval of interest t 2 ½t0 ; 1: Then the
resulting system is not a state-variable dynamic system. feedback gain matrix is similar to the results obtained for
In this treatment the Lyapunov transformation is utilised the time-invariant case
as an intermediate step to simplify the pole-placement
FðtÞ ¼ ½ d1  a1 ðtÞ d2  a2 ðtÞ dn1  an1 ðtÞ 0
problem. Now take the state transformation
ð51Þ
1
zðtÞ ¼ Q ðtÞxðtÞ; xðtÞ ¼ QðtÞzðtÞ ð44Þ The derivation of feedback gain matrix for original system
starts from the state-derivative feedback in the Frobenius
then the system is transformed to the Frobenius canonical canonical form after the substitution of time derivative
form and the system matrices can be computed as of (44)
 
AF ðtÞ ¼ Q1 ðAQ  Q
_ Þ; BF ¼ Q1 B ð45Þ d
uðtÞ ¼ FðtÞ_z ¼ FðtÞ Q1 ðtÞ_x þ ðQ1 ðtÞÞx ð52Þ
dt
where AF ðtÞ ðn  nÞ and BF ðn  1Þ are the transformed
system matrix and control gain vector, respectively. The Substituting (52) into (41) it is derived
transformed system is the same as (12), however with  
1 d 1
aðtÞ ¼ ½a0 ðtÞ; a1 ðtÞ; . . . ; an1 ðtÞ being the time-varying x_ ¼ AðtÞx  BðtÞFðtÞ Q ðtÞ_x þ ðQ ðtÞÞx ð53Þ
coefficients. Note that the eigenvalues of the time-varying dt
dynamic system do not have any meaning regarding its Further, this equation can be rearranged as
behaviour or stability.  
The state transformation matrix Q1 ðtÞ can be calculated d
ðI þ BðtÞFðtÞQ1 ðtÞÞ_x ¼ AðtÞ  BðtÞFðtÞ ðQ1 ðtÞÞ x
as follows dt
0 1 ð54Þ
q1 ðtÞ
B C 1
Q1 ðtÞ ¼ @ ... A ð46Þ Hence if AðtÞ  BðtÞFðtÞðd=dtÞðQ ðtÞÞ is nonsingular for
the whole time interval of interest t 2 ½t0 ; 1
qn ðtÞ  1
d 1
where qi ðtÞ is computed by using the recursive compu- AðtÞ  BðtÞFðtÞ ðQ ðtÞÞ ðI þ BðtÞFðtÞQ1 Þ_x ¼ x
dt
tations of the rows as follows:
ð55Þ
q1 ðtÞ ¼ eTn R1 ðtÞ; qiþ1 ðtÞ ¼ qi ðtÞAðtÞ þ q_ i ðtÞ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n  1 and substituting (55) into (52) for x the state-derivative
ð47Þ feedback gain matrix K from (42) is finally
 
1 d 1
_ ðtÞ are continuous and bounded matrices
If Q(t), Q1 ðtÞ; Q KðtÞ ¼ FðtÞ Q ðtÞ þ ðQ ðtÞÞ AðtÞ
1
and Q ðtÞ is full rank at the time interval of interest t 2 dt
1 
½t0 ; 1 then this transformation is a Lyapunov transform- d 1 1
ation that preserves stability. The controllability matrix for BðtÞFðtÞ ðQ ðtÞÞ ðI þ BðtÞFðtÞQ ðtÞÞ
dt
the time-varying system is
ð56Þ
RðtÞ ¼ ð r1 ðtÞ r2 ðtÞ rn ðtÞ Þ ð48Þ Now the necessary and sufficient conditions for the
existence of pole assignment problem via state-derivative
where ri ðtÞ is computed as feedback can be formulated into the following theorem.

r1 ðtÞ ¼ BðtÞ; riþ1 ðtÞ ¼ AðtÞri ðtÞ  r_i ðtÞ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; n  1
ð49Þ
Assuming that the transformation (44) to Frobenius
canonical form is of the Lyapunov kind then the pole-
placement technique from the time-invariant case can be
extended for the time-varying case. If the transformation
_ ðtÞ
matrix Q1 ðtÞ is of full rank, the matrices Q(t), Q1 ðtÞ; Q
are continuous and bounded, then the transformation (44) is
of the Lyapunov kind.
Similar to the results obtained for the time-invariant case
and the results in [8 –10], the feedback gain matrix in the
Frobenius canonical form is
IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004
Theorem 2: If the system (41) is completely controllable, the
matrices Q(t), Q1 ðtÞ; Q _ ðtÞ are continuous and bounded
1
matrices and Q ðtÞ is full rank (i.e. it is a Lyapunov
transformation), the system matrix A(t) is nonsingular and
the matrix AðtÞ  BðtÞFðtÞd=dtQ1 is also nonsingular at
the time interval of interest t 2 ½t0 ; 1; then the poles of the
system (41) can be arbitrarily placed in the desired places
with the exception being zero by the state-derivative
feedback (42) using the time-varying feedback gain matrix
K(t) computed by (50) and (56).
If the system (41) is completely controllable, the matrices
Q(t), Q1 ðtÞ; Q_ ðtÞ are continuous and bounded matrices and
Q1 ðtÞ is full rank (i.e. it is a Lyapunov transformation), the
381
 0 1
system matrix A(t) is singular and the matrix AðtÞ  0:02778 0:00278 0 0
BðtÞFðtÞd=dtQ1 is nonsingular at the time interval of B 0:019444 0 0:02778 0:00278 C
interest t 2 ½t0 ; 1; then the poles of the system (41) can be Q1 ¼B
@ 100
C
A
0 0 0
arbitrarily placed in the desired places with the condition 0 0 100 0
that at least one desired pole is zero (i.e. d0 ¼ 0) by the
state-derivative feedback (42) using the time-varying feed- while the equivalent Frobenius canonical form has a state
back gain matrix K(t) computed by (51) and (56). description as
0 1
It is clear that this solution is general; it requires no 0 1 0 0
iteration and can be relatively easily directly computed. This B 0 0 1 0 C
solves pole-placement for linear time-varying system by z_ðtÞ ¼ B
@
CzðtÞ
0 0 0 1 A
state-derivative feedback. 1:296  107 20520 7563:50 6:20
0 1
0
4 Examples B0C
þB C
@ 0 AuðtÞ
Simulation results demonstrate the feasibility and effective-
ness of the proposed pole-placement algorithms via state- 1
derivative feedback.
with the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial a ¼
½1:296  107 ; 20520; 7563:50; 6:20: For this system the
4.1 Example 1 open-loop poles are 2:1835  70:1294i and 0:9165 
The configuration of the mechanical system and its 51:3006i: The desired closed-loop poles are selected as
parameters are shown in Fig. 1. It is a simple model of 5  65i and 10  55i:
controlled vibration absorber m2 for controlled vibration We apply the control synthesis procedure of pole-
suppression of the primary mass m1 : The dynamic equation placement from the previous Sections to this system. The
of this system can be described in state-space form as computed state-derivative feedback gain matrix is
0 1 0 1 K ¼ ½269:9331; 258:1059; 2:8532; 0:5272
0 0 1 0 0
B 0 0 0 1 C B 0C To verify the design a simulation was performed. The initial
B C
x_ ðtÞ ¼ B k1 k2 k2 b1 b2 b2 CxðtÞ þ B @ 1 C
AuðtÞ conditions of the states are taken as xðt0 Þ ¼ ½0:05; 0:05;
@ m1 m1 m1 m1 A m 1
k2 k2 b2 b2 1 0:2; 0:2T : The transient responses of states and control
m2 m2 m2 m2 m2
input are displayed in Fig. 2. For comparison, the
where m1 and m2 are the first and second mass, k1 and k2 are Ackermann gain matrix for the same desired system poles is
the spring constants, b1 and b2 are the damper constants, K s ¼ ½9:6338  103 ; 892:3611; 277:4315; 265:7432
x1 and x2 are the first and second mass vertical displacement,
the state vector xðtÞ ¼ ½x1 x2 x_ 1 x_ 2 T ; and u is the The stabilised results for the same initial conditions are
control input. The model parameters are taken as m1 ¼ plotted in Fig. 3. They are the same as with state-derivative
100 kg; m2 ¼ 10 kg; k1 ¼ 360 kN=m; k2 ¼ 36 kN=m; b1 ¼ feedback in both transient response and control input. The
70 Ns=m; and b2 ¼ 50 Ns=m: The transformation matrix is state-derivative feedback gains are smaller than the state
feedback gains because the state-derivative vector is high
compared with the state vector.

4.2 Example 2
Consider the well-known ball and beam system. Figure 4
presents the configuration of this system and its parameters.

Fig. 2 Transient response and control input of system controlled

Fig. 1 Mechanical system by state-derivative feedback
382 IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004
Fig. 3 Transient response and control input of system controlled
by Ackermann formula

Fig. 5 Transient response and control input of system controlled

by state-derivative feedback

Ackermann formula the gain matrix for the same desired

system poles is

K s ¼ ½150:300; 44:9900; 4:1057  103 ; 8:6013  103 

Similar to the results of the previous example, the

performance of the two cases are the same in transient
response and control input.

4.3 Example 3
The free-moving particle under the action of a controllable
Fig. 4 Ball and beam system force is described as the time invariant dynamic system
x€ ¼ u: This system has two poles at zero. The state-
The dynamic equation of the linearised state space model derivative feedback modifies the system
for small motions about y ¼ 0:0 and r ¼ r0 is
0 1 0 1 u ¼ k1 x_  k2 x€
0 1 0 0 0
B 0 x€ ¼ k1 x_  k2 x€
B
b mg
mr02 þI mr02 þI
0CC
B 1 C
B 2 C
B
x_ ¼ B Cx þ B mr0 þI Cu ð1 þ k2 Þ€x þ k1 x_ ¼ 0
C B C
@ 0 0 0 1A @ 0 A
mgr 2 Then the characteristic equation and its solution are
mr2 þI
0 0 0 0
b
ð1 þ k2 Þl2 þ k1 l ¼ 0
where m, Ib ; and r are the mass, moment of inertia and
radius of the ball, respectively, I is the beam moment of k
l1 ¼ 0; l2 ¼  1
inertia, g is gravitational acceleration, b is the coefficient of 1 þ k2
viscous friction opposing the beam rotation, y is the angle
that the beam makes with the horizontal, r is the distance It is clear that one pole must always remain zero and the
between the centre of the ball and centre of rotation of second can be arbitrarily placed if k2 6¼ 1: For the same
the beam, the state vector x ¼ ½y y_ r r_ T ; and u is the system described as a state space system
control torque input. In this treatment we assume that the    
0 1 0
ball is frictionless rolling along the beam. The control x_ ¼ xþ u
0 0 1
objective is to balance the ball at a distance r0 from the
central pivot point by tilting the beam back and forth using the solution (25) and (36) gives
the motor. The values of various parameters of the model
are m ¼ 1 kg; r ¼ 0:05 m; r0 ¼ 0:1 m; g ¼ 9:81 m=s2 ; b ¼ F ¼ ½ d1 0
0:1 Ns=m; Ib ¼ 5 kgm2 ; and I ¼ 1 kgm2 : The characteristic u ¼ d1 x_
polynomial coefficients are a ¼ ½0:0479; 0:0; 0:0; 0:020:
The original poles are þ0:4629; 0:4729 and 0:005  x€ þ d1 x_ ¼ 0
0:4678i: Obviously the open-loop system is unstable. The the same solution as previously with k2 ¼ 0 as the simplest
desired closed-loop poles are 3  i; 2 and 1: The state- variant.
derivative feedback-gain matrix is computed as
K ¼ ½0:2080; 5:0220; 20:6010; 14:7150 4.4 Example 4
Taking the initial states xðt0 Þ ¼ ½0:1; 0:1; 0:01; 0:01T the Consider the dynamic equation of the single-input time-
simulation results are shown in Fig. 5. Compared with the varying system
IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004 383
 0 1 0 1 0 1
et 2 0 0 0 1 0
x_ ðtÞ ¼ @ 0 2 et AxðtÞ þ @ 1 AuðtÞ 1 _ B C
AF ðtÞ ¼ Q ðAQ  QÞ ¼ @ 0 0 1 A;
1 0 1 0
5et 4et  2 et þ 3
0 1
This system is unstable and the zero-input transient response 0
of an open-loop system are shown in Fig. 6. To stabilise the 1 B C
BF ¼ Q B ¼ @ 0 A
system the pole-placement technique is used. First the
controllability matrix and its inverse are computed as 1
0 1
0 2 2et þ 4 with the time-varying coefficients
B C
RðtÞ ¼ @ 1 2 4 A
0 0 2 aðtÞ ¼ ð 5et ; 4et þ 2; et  3 Þ

and The feedback gain matrix F(t) is

0 1     
5d1 5d2 5et
1 1 et FðtÞ¼ 4 et 2; þ1 et þ3; 1
R1 ðtÞ ¼ @ 0:5 0 0:5et  1 A d0 d0 d0
0 0 0:5
Our selection of the desired closed-loop poles are 8; 5
It is clear that the controllability matrix is full rank in the and 7: The desired vector d ¼ ½280; 131; 20: Applying
time interval of interest t 2 ½t0 ; 1: This means the system the pole-placement technique to this system the initial
is completely state controllable. Now, the transformation condition of the states is selected as xðt0 Þ ¼ ½0:3; 0:2;
matrix, inverse, and derivative are 0:1T : The transient response and control input are shown in
Fig. 7. In addition, the elements of the gain matrix K(t) are
0 1 displayed in Fig. 8.
0 0 0:5
As a comparison with the state feedback the state
Q ðtÞ ¼ @
1
0:5 0 0:5 A;
feedback gain matrix for this system can be computed as
0:5et þ 0:5 1 0:5 [8, 9]

0 1
2 2 0
QðtÞ ¼ @ et et  1 1A
2 0 0

0 1
0 0 0
d 1 B C
ðQ ðtÞÞ ¼ @ 0 0 0 Aand
dt
0:5et 0 0

0 1
0 0 0
_ ðtÞ ¼ B
Q @ t
e et 0A
C

0 0 0

These matrices are continuous and bounded and the

transformation matrix has full rank at the time interval of
interest t 2 ½t0 ; 1: Then this transformation is a Lyapunov
transformation and the proposed pole-placement technique
Fig. 7 Transient response and control input of time-varying
can be applied. The transformed system matrix AF ðtÞ and system controlled by state-derivative feedback
the control gain vector BF are

Fig. 8 Gain elements of time-varying system controlled by state-

Fig. 6 Zero-input transient response of open-loop system derivative feedback
384 IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004

Fig. 9 Gain elements of time-varying system controlled by state
feedback
 linear time-variant SISO systems’, IEE Proc., Control Theory Appl.,
K s ðtÞ ¼ 0:5ðe2t þ d2 et þ d2 þ d1 þ 1Þ;
 general linear MIMO systems’, Automatica, 1995, 31, (11),
et þ d2 þ 3; et þ 0:5ðd2 þ d1 þ d0 þ 1Þ
Taking the desired eigenvalues and the same initial
conditions of the state-derivative feedback, the simulation
results indicate the same transient performance and control
input with lower gains. The elements of the gain matrix are
displayed in Fig. 9.
Based on the simulation analysis we note the great
reduction in the state-derivative feedback gain matrix
compared to the well-known state feedback approach,
with the same performance for time-invariant and time-
varying systems.
5 Conclusions
This paper has generally formulated and proposed a new
concept and technique for solving the pole-placement
problem by full state-derivative feedback for linear time-
invariant and time-varying SISO systems. Necessary and
sufficient conditions have been formulated for solving such
pole-placement. The resulting formula for the time-
invariant case is the generalisation of Ackermann’s formula
for traditional state feedback. The algorithm described
avoids previous iterative approaches and provides a fast and
computationally efficient solution. An interesting feature of
the state-derivative feedback is that in many cases it gives
feedback gains with smaller absolute values than traditional
state feedback gains.
IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 151, No. 4, July 2004
6 References
1 Tuel, W.G.: ‘On the transformation to (phase-variable) canonical form’,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1966, 11, p. 607
2 Wonham, W.M.: ‘On pole assignment in multi-input controllable linear
systems’, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1967, 12, pp. 660– 665
3 Luenberger, D.G.: ‘Canonical forms for linear multivariable systems’,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1967, 12, pp. 290 –292
4 Ackermann, J.: ‘Der Entwurf linearer Regelungsysteme im Zustan-
draum’, Regeltech. Proz.-Datenverarb., 1972, 7, pp. 297 –300
5 Wolowich, W.A.: ‘Linear multivariable systems’ (Springer Verlag,
New York, 1974)
6 Kautsky, J., Nichols, N.K., and van Dooren, P.: ‘Robust pole
assignment in linear state feedback’, Int. J. Control, 1985, 41,
pp. 1129–1155
7 Lewis, F.L.: ‘Applied optimal control and estimation, digital design and
implementation’ (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992)
8 Valášek, M., and Olgac, N.: ‘An efficient pole-placement technique for
1995, 142, (5), pp. 451 –458
9 Valášek, M., and Olgac, N.: ‘Efficient eigenvalue assignments for
pp. 1605–1617
10 Valášek, M., and Olgac, N.: ‘Pole-placement for linear time-varying
nonlexicographically fixed MIMO systems’, Automatica, 1999, 35,
(11), pp. 101 –108
11 Lewis, F.L., and Syrmos, V.L.: ‘A geometric theory for derivative
feedback’, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 1991, 36, (9), pp. 1111–1116
12 Kucera, V., and Loiseau, M.: ‘Dynamics assignment by PD state
feedback in linear reachable systems’, Kybernetika, 1994, 30, (2),
pp. 153–158
13 Preumont, A., Loix, N., Malaise, D., and Lecrenier, O.: ‘Active
damping of optical test benches with acceleration feedback’, Mach.
Vib., 1993, 2, pp. 119 –124
14 Preumont, A.: ‘Vibration control of active structures’ (Kluwer, 1998)
15 Bayon de Noyer, M.P., and Hanagud, S.V.: ‘Single actuator and
multimode acceleration feedback control’. Proc. Conf. on Adaptive
Structures and Material Systems (ASME), Dallas, TX, 16 – 21
November 1997, pp. 227– 235
16 Bayon de Noyer, M.P., and Hanagud, S.V.: ‘A comparison of H2
optimized design and cross-over point design for acceleration feedback
control’. Proc. of 39th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Conf. on Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials, Long Beach, CA, 20–23 April
1998, vol. 4, pp. 3250–3258
17 Olgac, N., Elmali, H., Hosek, M., and Renzulli, M.: ‘Active vibration
control of distributed systems using delayed resonator with acceleration
feedback’, Trans. ASME J. Dyn. Syst., Meas. Control, 1997, 119, p. 380
18 Kejval, J., Sika Z., and Valašek, M.: ‘Active vibration suppression of a
machine’. Proc. Conf. on Interaction and Feedback, UT AV Praha, CR,
28– 29 November 2000, pp. 75–80
19 Deur, J., and Peric, N.: ‘A comparative study of servosystems with
acceleration feedback’. Proc. 35th IEEE Conf. on Industry Appli-
cations, Roma, Italy, 9–12 October 2000, vol. 2, pp. 1533–1540
20 Ellis, G.: ‘Cures for mechanical resonance in industrial servo systems’.
Proc. Power Conversion and Intelligent Motion Conf., Nuremberg,
19– 21 June 2001
21 Necsulescu, D.S., and Ceru, M.: ‘Nonlinear control of magnetic
bearing’, J. Electr. Eng., 2002, 2, pp. 66–71
22 Horn, R.A., and Johnson, C.R.: ‘Matrix analysis’ (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1986)
385