Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE

Conference on Decision and Control

Maui, Hawaii USA, December 2003 FrA02-1

Sufficient Conditions for Dynamical Output Feedback Stabilization via the Circle Criterion

Anton Shiriaev1 Rolf Johansson 2 Anders Robertsson 2

1 The
Maersk Institute, University of Southern Denmark
Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark; E-mail anton@mip.sdu.dk
2 Department of Automatic Control, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University

P. O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden

E-mail Rolf.Johansson@control.lth.se, Anders.Robertsson@control.lth.se

Abstract— This paper suggests sufficient conditions for alence principle can be relaxed. Instead, a fixed structure of
asymptotically stable dynamical output feedback controller an output feedback controller can be imposed, search for its
design based on the circle criterion. It is shown that a dynamic parameters and asymptotic stability can be approached by
output feedback stabilization problem with impending problems
of finite escape time, previously attacked by observer-based means of the circle criterion for the closed-loop system. It
design, can be successfully solved using circle criterion design. happens that for the large class of the systems considered
Stability of the closed-loop system is global and robust to in [1], [2], this argument works. Thus, time-varying systems
parameter uncertainty. and systems with structural uncertainties can be approached
whereas both extensions seem infeasible using the certainty
I. I NTRODUCTION
equivalence principle [1], [2].
Stabilizing a nonlinear system by output feedback is often The paper is organized as follows: Section II suggests
a difficult problem. Equipped with a range of available an illustrative example considered in details. The problem
asymptotic (robust) stability criteria, one could try to design a statement, assumptions and main result are given in Sec. III,
dynamical output feedback controller so that the closed loop a brief discussion of results being added in Sec. IV.
system satisfies one of these stability criteria. This simple II. M OTIVATING E XAMPLE
idea sometimes leads to a problem that could be solved,
but quite often it results in a problem that is intractable. Consider the following dynamical system [1]





This paper is devoted to the discussion of dynamic output d x1 0 1 x1 0  
= + u − x52 (1)
feedback and the circle criterion, as a stability test for the dt x2 0 1 x2 1
closed loop system [6], [9]. One of standard initial ideas for y = x1 (2)
controlling dynamical system by output feedback is based
on the separation principle, that is, one needs to find a The relation between the relevant results of [1] and the
stabilizing full-state feedback controller and to determine an current development is discussed later. The problem is to
observer with asymptotically stable error dynamics; an output design a controller that renders the origin of the system (1)
controller is then chosen to coincide with the derived full- asymptotically stable. Let us consider a dynamical controller
state feedback controller where instead of the unmeasured of the form
true states of the dynamical system, the system states are d
z = λ3 x1 + λ4 z
substituted by observer states. This approach includes three dt
steps—design of a full-state controller, observer design, anal- u = λ1 x1 + λ2 z + (c1 x1 + c3 z)5 (3)
ysis of the closed loop system—where well-known stability
where λi , cj are real constants to be defined. With such a
criteria, like the circle criterion, could be applied to conclude
controller, the dynamics of the closed loop system are
stability. Indeed, one could use this test for checking stability       
of the system with a full-state feedback controller; or use it x 0 1 0 x1 0
d  1 
for checking that a particular structure of an observer results x2 =  λ1 1 λ2   x2  +  1  w
dt
in stable error dynamics; or use this test at the final point z λ3 0 λ4 z 0
to verify that the closed-loop system derived via certainty w = (c1 x1 + c3 z)5 − x52 (4)
equivalence principle is stable. These arguments have been
One can easily check that the nonlinearity w of Eq. (4) and
used for checking stability via the circle criterion of error
the linear virtual output of the closed loop system (4)
dynamics for an observer [1], [2].
The main contribution of this paper comes from the v = c1 x1 − x2 + c3 z
observation that for the large class of systems treated in [1],
satisfies a passivity relationship for any x 1 , x2 , z
[2], there is no need to introduce an explicit observer and
assumptions and arguments relevant for the certainty equiv- v · w = (c1 x1 − x2 + c3 z)[(c1 x1 + c3 z)5 − x52 ] ≥ 0 (5)

0-7803-7924-1/03/$17.00 ©2003 IEEE 4682

 −4.5
Introducing the matrices and the state space vector
0 1 0 0 0 0 −5

A0 = 0 1 0 , A1 = 1 0 0 ,
0 0 0 0 0 0 −5.5

0 0 0 0 0 0

1
−6

λ
A2 = 0 0 1 , A3 = 0 0 0 ,
0 0 0 1 0 0
−6.5

0 0 0 0 x1
A4 = 0 0 0 , B= 1 ,X= x2 , −7

0 0 1 0 z
−7.5
one can rewrite the closed loop system (4) as follows 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
C3
1.2 1.3 1.4

d 4
X = (A0 + λi Ai )X + Bw Fig. 1. The red area corresponds to λ1 and c3 that satisfy the constraints
dt i=1 (6) (10)–(13) while the other parameters (9) have the nominal value (14).
v = CX = c1 x1 − x2 + c3 z
Whereas the explicit form of the nonlinearity w—in this
case given as (4)—is not important, it is important that the then (7) is equivalent to the inequalities
passivity relation (5) be valid. By the circle criterion, the
γ < 0, α<0 (11)
system (6) is asymptotically stable provided that
1) the frequency condition b) Otherwise, (7) is equivalent to the inequalities
4
4αγ − β 2 > 0, α<0 (12)
Re {C(jωI3 − (A0 + λi Ai ))−1 B} < 0 (7)
i=1 4
2) The condition for the matrix (A 0 + λi Ai ) to be
holds for any ω ∈ IR + , the negative real notation i=1
convention being used in the inequality (7); strictly Hurwitz is equivalent to the inequalities
4
2) the matrix (A0 + λi Ai ) is strictly Hurwitz. λ4 < −1, λ1 < λ4 , λ1 λ4 > λ2 λ3 (13)
i=1
As known, these conditions are equivalent to the fact that The set of parameters (9) satisfying the constraints (10)–(13)
there exists the 3 × 3 matrix P = P T > 0, so that is not empty. It can be checked that the vector
4 4
(A0 + λi Ai )T P + P (A0 + λi Ai ) < 0 (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , λ4 , c1 , c3 ) = (−5, −2, −7, −3, 2, 1) (14)
i=1 i=1 (8)
P B = −C T belongs to this set. This means that for this choice of
Thus, development of a dynamical stabilizing controller (3) the controller parameters (9), the corresponding BMI (8)
based on the circle criterion and the choice of quadratic becomes a Linear Matrix Inequality (LMI), and it has a
constraints (5) require determination of parameters solution. In fact, these values (14) have been found in [1]
via an appropriate observer design and checking the validity
λ1 , λ2 , λ3 , λ4 , c1 , c3 (9) of certainty equivalence principle. Below it will be shown,
so that all points 1)–2) are valid, or equivalently, the Bilinear what, in addition, to the asymptotic stability of the closed
Matrix Inequality (BMI) of (8) is solvable. The routine loop system found in [1], could be gained from the fact that
computations made for this example result in equivalent the BMI (8) is solvable.
statements written in terms of parameters λ i , cj : Firstly, the inequalities (10)–(13) have quite a rich set of
solutions. To show that the inequalities (10)–(13) suggest
1) Introduce the quantities
the controllers that cannot be obtained by the certainty
α = 1 − c1 equivalence principle elaborated in [1], let us check possible
β = c2 λ3 − λ2 λ3 + c2 λ3 λ4 − c1 λ24 − c1 λ1 + λ24 values for the parameter c 3 that is postulated in [1] to
be equal to 1. Figure 1 shows approximation for a set of
γ = (λ1 λ4 − λ2 λ3 )(c2 λ3 − c1 λ4 ) parameters λ1 and c3 that correspond to stabilizing controller
The validity of the frequency condition leads to the two provided that the rest of (9) have the nominal value (14). To
cases illustrate an advantage of the solution based on solvability of
a) if the parameters (9) are so that BMI (8) vs. the design via certainty equivalence principle,
let us include parametric uncertainty in the system. Consider
β < 0, (10) the system (1) with uncertainty factor ε in front of the

4683
 20
is important to realize that this uncertainty cannot be treated
15
in the certainty equivalence design arguments elaborated in
10
[1]: for each new value of parameter ε, one need to change
5
the observer! Therefore, the value of ε should be known
0
precisely. Furthermore, the interval of an allowed uncertainty
x1, x2, z

−5 for the constant parameter ε derived in Statement 1, could

−10 be approximated for any stabilizing controllers determined
−15 by relations (10)–(13), where one could be interested in
−20 enlarging the allowed uncertainty range (Fig. 4). Another
−25
advantage of solution based on solvability of BMI (8) vs.
−30
the design via certainty equivalence principle comes from the
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec) observation that the analysis based on separation principle
does not allow to tackle system with time-dependent right-
Fig. 2. The solution of the closed loop system (15), (3) with ε = 0.243
for the initial conditions x1 = 1, x2 = −3, z = 10. hand side. Indeed, it is partly based on the analysis of ω-limit
sets and the Barbashin-Krasovski (LaSalle) stability theorem.
At the same time, the design based on solvability of the BMI
nonlinearity in (1), i.e. (8) allows time dependence. To clarify this point, consider




 the modified system (1), (2)
d x1 0 1 x1 0  





= + u − εx52 (15)
dt x2 0 1 x2 1 d x1 0 1 x1 0
= + (u − sin2 (t)·x52 )
dt x2 0 1 x2 1
y = x1 (16) y = x1
Suppose that the nominal value ε 0 for ε is chosen as
where the nonlinearity now contains the time-varying factor
ε0 = 1 and the dynamical stabilizing controller (3) with the
sin2 (t). The arguments used for (1), (2) with the controller
parameters (14) has been designed as discussed above. Then,
(3), (9) could be directly applied for this modified system
the closed-loop system is
       and the modified dynamical controller
x 0 1 0 x1 0
d  1  d
x2 =  −5 1 −2   x2  +  1  w z = λ3 x1 + λ4 z
dt dt
z −7 0 −3 z 0
u = λ1 x1 + λ2 z + sin2 (t) · (c1 x1 + c3 z)5
w = (2x1 + z) − ε ·
5
x52 (17)
Indeed, this property is due to the fact that the key passivity
The key passivity relation between the nonlinearity w in (17) relation (5) between the input
and the linear output v = 2x 1 − x2 + z does not hold unless 
ε has its nominal value. But for this case one can introduce w = sin2 (t) · (c1 x1 + c3 z)5 − x52
a new linear output of the system (17) such as
√ and the linear output v = c 1 x1 − x2 + c3 z remains valid.
vnew = 2x1 − 5 ε · x2 + z. Recently, Arcak et al. showed that controller design for
Then, the passivity relation between w and v new holds the system (1), (2) including full-state observer feedback
might lead to finite-time escape [1]. To guarantee stability,
vnew · w ≥ 0, ∀ x1 , x2 , z the parameters λ1 and c1 of the controller of Eq. (3) should
be non-zero. To get an additional insight into this observation,
Checking the circle criterion for this quadratic constraint
let us consider a dynamical output controller of the form
reveals some allowed bounds for ε.
Statement 1: Consider the nonlinear system (15) with the d
z = Λ3 x1 + Λ4 z
dynamical controller (3) with the parameters λ i , cj as in (14), dt
that designed to stabilize the system (15) with nominal value u = λ1 x1 + Λ2 z + (c1 x1 + C3 z)5 (19)
ε = 1. If the constant parameter ε is within the interval
where z ∈ IRm is a vector of internal states of the controller;
ε ∈ [0.243, 7.26], (18) λ1 and c1 are constants; and Λ 2 –Λ4 , C3 are matrices of
then the closed loop system (15), (3) remains globally appropriate dimensions. The controller (19) differs from (3)
asymptotically stable. In other words, the controller (3) with by number of internal states, and they coincide when m = 1.
the parameters λi , cj as in (14) robustly stabilizes (15). Again, the closed-loop system (1), (2), (19) could be analyzed
via the circle criterion with the quadratic constraint (5) where
Figures 2 and 3 show the response of the system (15), (3)
for ε = 0.243 and ε = 1 with the same initial conditions. It w = (c1 x1 + C3 z)5 − x52 , v = c1 x1 + C3 z − x2

4684
 15
For asymptotic stabilization of the origin of the system (20)
10 by output feedback, try a dynamical controller of the form
5 u = Rz z + Ry y + R (Cy y + Cz z, t) (23)
d
0
z = Λz z + Λy y + Λu u + Λ (Cy y + Cz z, t) (24)
x1, x2, z

dt
where z ∈ IRk is the internal state of the controller; Λ z ,
−5

−10 Λy , Λu , Λ , Rz , Ry , Rφ , R are constant matrices of

appropriate dimensions. The closed-loop system is then
−15

d x A + Ry N1 B1 Rz x
−20 = + (25)
0 5 10
time (sec)
15 20 25
dt z (Λy + Λu Ry ) N1 (Λz + Λu Rz ) z
Fig. 3. The solution of the closed loop system (15), (3) with the nominal B1 R B2
value ε = 1 for the initial conditions x1 = 1, x2 = −3, z = 10. + (Cy y + Cz z, t) + (d, t)
Λu R + Λ 0
Assumption 2: There exists a linear transformation
Necessary conditions for BMI solvability (8) suggest intro-
duction of a reduced order observer [1]. Tx Txz xn x
T = , =T (26)
Statement 2: Consider the nonlinear system (1), (2), (19). 0 Tz zn z
The frequency condition (7) takes the form
with det T = 0, and there exist matrices R  , Λu , Λ of
q(λ) 2 such that Tx B1 R + Tzx (Λu R + Λ ) = −Tx B2 .
Re {ṽ∗ w̃} = |w̃| < 0
p(λ) Assumption 3: The scalar nonlinearity (d, t) is such that
where ṽ = G(jω)w̃, λ = ω , 2 there exist a 2 × 2 matrix
Π11 Π12
q(λ) = (1 − c1 )λ(m+1) + qm λm + · · · + q1 λ + q0 Π= (27)
Π12 0
p(λ) = λ(m+2)
+ pm+1 λ (m+1)
+ · · · + p1 λ + p0
and there exists M ∈ IR1×k so that for any function d(t) ∈
and G(s) is the transfer function of linear part of the closed Lk2e : ∃ {tn }+∞
n=1 , tn → +∞ as n → +∞, such that ∀ n
loop system (1), (2), (19). Then, the frequency condition
tn T
holds at ω → +∞ only if the inequality 1 − c 1 < 0 holds. M d(τ ) M d(τ )
Π dτ ≥ 0 (28)
(d(τ ), τ ) (d(τ ), τ )
III. M AIN R ESULTS 0

A. Problem Formulation and Preliminary Comments Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 enable us to rewrite the closed loop
Consider a nonlinear control system of the form system (20), (23), (24) in the input-output form

d d xn xn
x = Ax + B1 u + B2 (d, t) (20) =A + B1 w1 + B2 w2 (29)
dt dt zn zn
y = N1 x, d = N2 x (21)
with
where x ∈ IR is the state vector; y ∈ IR is the measurable
n m  
v1 = M d = M N2 Tx−1 xn − Txz Tz−1 zn (30)
output; d ∈ IRk is the vector of variables that serves as
input to the scalar nonlinear block ; A, B 1 , B2 , N1 , N2 v2 = Π (Cy y + Cz z − d) =
T
Π Cz Tz−1 zn
+ (31)T

are matrices of appropriate dimensions. As in [2], [1], the  

nonlinear block  could be seen as a nonlinear operator + ΠT {Cy N1 − N2 } Tx−1 xn − Txz Tz−1 zn
satisfying particular properties. A + Ry N1 B1 Rz
Assumption 1: The scalar nonlinearity (d, t) is such that A = T T −1 (32)
,
(Λy + Λu Ry ) N1 (Λz + Λu Rz )
there exists a k × 1 matrix Π so that for any functions


d1 (t), d2 (t) ∈ Lk2e : ∃ {tn }+∞
n=1 , tn → +∞ as n → +∞,
0 Tx B2
such that ∀ n B1 = B2 = (33)
Tz (Λu R + Λ ) 0
tn
while w1 , w2 are the scalar nonlinearities written in the
(d1 (τ ) − d2 (τ ))T Π
(
(d1 (τ ), τ ) −
(d2 (τ ), τ )) dτ ≥ 0 (22)
original coordinates x, z
0
w1 = (Cy y + Cz z, t), w2 = (d, t) − (Cy y + Cz z, t)

4685
 35
and v1 , v2 are scalar passive outputs (in integral sense) of
the closed loop system (29), i.e., ∃ {t ni } with tni → +∞ 30

as ni → +∞, i = 1, 2, so that
25

tn1 T tn2
v1 (τ ) v1 (τ )
dτ ≥ 0, v2 (τ )w2 (τ )dτ ≥ 0
20
Π
w1 (τ ) w1 (τ )

ε
0 0 15

Denote
  10

C1 = M N2 Tx−1 In , −Txz Tz−1 5


C2 = ΠT {Cy N1 − N2 } Tx−1 , 0

 −2.2 −2.1 −2 −1.9 −1.8

λ
2
−1.7 −1.6 −1.5 −1.4

ΠT Cz Tz−1 − {Cy N1 − N2 } Tx−1 Txz Tz−1

Fig. 4. The red area corresponds to values of ε as a function of the
By the circle criterion, the system (29) is asymptotically parameter λ2 for which the asymptotic stability of the closed system
stable provided that preserved. The other parameters (9) have the nominal value (14). The
largest uncertainty interval for ε is attained for λ2 = −1.71, and looks
1) there exist τ1 ≥ 0, τ2 ≥ 0, τ1 + τ2 > 0 such that ∀ ξ1 , as ε ∈ [0.132, 31.97].
∀ ξ2 ∈ CI 1 the frequency condition
 
τ2 Re ξ2∗ C2 A−1jω (B1 ξ1 + B2 ξ2 ) + (34)
2) the matrix (A+B 1 (K1 N1 +K2 N2 )) is strictly Hurwitz.
∗
C1 A−1
jω (B1 ξ1 + B2 ξ2 ) C1 A−1
jω (B1 ξ1 + B2 ξ2 ) For the further development it will be convenient to make
+τ1 Π <0
ξ1 ξ1 linear transformation of the system (20), choosing a matrix
−1 N0 such that the n × n matrix
holds ∀ ω ∈ IR+ 1 . Here A−1jω = (jωIn+l − A) ;  
2) the matrix A is strictly Hurwitz. N0
As known, these conditions are equivalent to the fact that N =  N1 
there exists the (n + l) × (n + l) matrix P = P T > 0 so that N2
AT P + P A + τ1 C1T Π11 C1 < 0, has full rank, i.e., det N = 0, where the matrices N 1 and N2
τ2 (35) are from (21) and (21). In new coordinates
P B1 = −τ1 Π12 C1T , P B2 = − C2T  
2  
r N0
Thus, a circle-criterion development of a dynamical stabiliz-  
ing controller requires determination of matrices  y  = N x =  N1  x (38)
d N 2
Λz , Λy , Λu , Λ , Rz , Ry , R , Cz , Cy (36)
the system (20) takes an equivalent form
so that all points 1)–3) are valid, or equivalently, that the
BMI (35) have a solution. ṙ = A11 r + A12 y + A13 d + B11 u + B12 (d, t) (39)
B. Sufficient Conditions for BMI Solvability (35) ẏ = A21 r + A22 y + A23 d + B21 u + B22 (d, t) (40)
To formulate the main result, we need to postulate some d˙ = A31 r + A32 y + A33 d + B31 u + B32 (d, t) (41)
additional properties of the system (20).
Assumption 4: A feedback controller Assumption 5: B12 , B22 are zero matrices.

u = K1 y + K2 d + K (d, t) (37) Assumption 6: There exists a matrix Φ such that A 31 =

ΦA21 and such that the system
with some matrices K1 , K2 , and K renders the closed-
loop system (20), (37) asymptotically stable. Furthermore d
this asymptotic stability can be verified from the circle e = (A33 − ΦA23)e + B32 ((d, t) − (d − e, t)) (42)
dt
criterion applied to the quadratic constraint in Assumption 3
for matrices K1 , K2 , K such that is asymptotically stable for any function d ∈ L 2e , its stability
1) The frequency condition holds ∀ ω ∈ IR + , i.e., being verified by the circle criterion applied to the constraint

−1
∗
−1
 in Assumption 1. Namely
M N2 Ajω (B1 K
+ B2 ) M N2 Ajω (B1 K
+ B2 )
Π <0 1) The next frequency condition holds ∀ ω ∈ IR +
1 1
A−1
jω = (jωIn − {A + B1 (K1 N1 + K2 N2 )})
−1 Re {Π (jωIk − (A33 − ΦA23 ))−1 B32 } < 0 (43)
1 When the inequality degenerates at ω = +∞, the strict inequality should 2) The matrix (A 33 − ΦA23 ) is strictly Hurwitz.
hold in a limit if the matrix is multiplied by a factor ω2 .

4686
 Theorem 1: Consider the system (39)–(41). Suppose As-
sumptions 1–6 hold. Take an output feedback controller as
 t),
u = K1 y + K2 d + K (d, (44)
where matrices K1 , K2 , K satisfy Assumption 4; the
variable d is defined as d = z + Φy with the matrix Φ from
Assumption 6 and z defined as a solution to
dz
= [(A32 − ΦA22 ) + (A33 − ΦA23 )Φ]y
dt
+ (A33 − ΦA23 )z
+ (B31 − ΦB21 )u + B32 (z + Φy, t) (45)
Then, the closed-loop system (20)–(21), (44)–(45) is globally
asymptotically stable.
Theorem 2: Consider the system (29)–(31). Suppose As-
sumptions 1–6 hold, then the BMIs (35) are solvable, one
solution being
Λz = A33 − ΦA23 , Cz = Ik ,
Λu = B31 − ΦB21 , Λ = B32 ,
Rz = K2 , Ry = K1 + K2 Φ, (46)
R = K , Cy = Φ,
Λy = (A32 −ΦA22 )+(A33 −ΦA23 )Φ
IV. D ISCUSSION
1. In Sec. III is shown that stabilization of nonlinear systems
by dynamical output feedback via the Circle Criterion could
be reformulated as a problem of solvability of Bilinear Ma-
trix Inequalities (BMI) of particular type. In general, finding
even one solution for BMI could be a difficult problem, while
for low dimensional system, all solutions could be found,
and the result is written in the form of finite number of
inequalities for the parameters of the controller.
2. This approach allows not only to find a set of all solutions
(dynamical stabilizing controllers of particular structure for
low dimensional systems), but also to analyze and quantify
a robustness of the closed-loop system in case of uncertainty
and parameter variation.
3. To compare the results with related ones in [1], one
should realize that methods in [1] are devoted to stabilization
of more general time-invariant dynamical systems, than the
equations (20)–(21) represent. This generality reduces the
ability to find a variety of stabilizing controllers, and only a
few controllers was found in [1].
4. If Assumption 5 is omitted, then Theorem 1 is still
true, that is, the closed loop system (20)–(21), (44)–(45)
is globally asymptotically stable. In fact, this is the result
of [1, Theorem 1, p.677] whereas the main result—i.e.,
solvability of the particular BMI stated in Theorem 2—
is not. The reason is that convergence of any closed loop
system solution to the origin can be proven in this case by
a particular choice of a Lyapunov-type function, designed
4687
only for this particular solution, while for different solutions
these Lyapunov functions are different. In turn, the solvability
of the BMI implies existence of only one positive definite
quadratic form that provides exponential convergence of any
closed-loop solution to the origin.
5. The 2 × 2 quadratic form Π in Assumption 3 has a par-
ticularly simple structure for use in the example. In general,
one might consider any integral quadratic constraint, [7],
[8], that leads to a design of stabilizing controller when all
state variables are available. In turn, the nonlinearity (d, t)
should not be scalar, but it seems that such generality would
obscure the main contribution of the paper.
6. The computational algorithms for solving nonconvex prob-
lems (35) are still at a developing stage [5].
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, it was shown that a dynamic output feedback
stabilization problem with impending problems of finite es-
cape time, previously attacked by observer-based design, can
be successfully solved using circle criterion design. Stability
of the closed-loop system is global and robust to parameter
uncertainty.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] Arcak M. A Global Separation Theorem for a New Class
of Nonlinear Observers, Proc. 41st IEEE Conf. Decision &
Control, Las Vegas, NV, pp. 676–681, 2002
[2] Arcak M. and P. Kokotović. Nonlinear Observers: A Cir-
cle Criterion Design and Robustness Analysis, Automatica,
37:1923–1930, 2001.
[3] Johansson R. and A. Robertsson. Observer-based Strict Posi-
tive Real (SPR) Feedback Control System Design, Automatica,
38:1557-1564, 2002.
[4] Shiriaev A. S. Some Remarks on System Analysis via Inte-
gral Quadratic Constraints, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control,
45(8):1527–1532, 2000.
[5] Tuan H. D. and P. Apkarian. Low Nonconvexity-rank Bilinear
Matrix Inequalities: Algorithms and Applications in Robust
Controller and Structure Design, IEEE Trans. Automatic Con-
trol, 45(11): 2111–2117, 2000.
[6] Yakubovich V. A.. Frequency Conditions of Absolute Stability
of Control Systems Having Hysteresis Nonlinearities, Dokl.
Acad. Nauk SSSR, 149(2), 1963.
[7] Yakubovich V. A. Frequency Conditions for Absolute Stability
of Control Systems with Several Nonlinear or Linear Non-
stationary Blocks, Automatica i Telemekhanica, 6:5–29, 1967.
(English transl. in Automation and Remote Control, pp. 857–
880, 1968)
[8] Yakubovich V. A. Necessity in Quadratic Criterion for Abso-
lute Stability, Int. J. Robust & Nonlinear Control, 10:899–907,
2000.
[9] Zames G. On the Input-Output Stability of Time-varying
Nonlinear Systems—Part II: Conditions Involving Circles in
the Frequency Plane and Sector Nonlinearities, IEEE Trans.
Automatic Control, 11(3):465–476, 1966.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work has been supported by the Danish Technical
Research Council, Grant 26-01-0164. R. Johansson and A.
Robertsson are grateful for financial support from the EC
project NACO2 and the Vinnova project LUCAS.