150

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON A U T O M A ~ C c o m o ~VOL. , AC-23, NO.

2, APRIL 1978

Input-Output Stability of Interconnected Systems Using Decompositions: An Improved Formulation

FRANK M. CALLIER, MEMBER, IEEE, WAN S. CHAN, MEMBER, CHARLES A. DESOER, FELLOW, IEEE
IEEE, AND

Abstmc-We study the inpnt-output s t a b i i of an arbitnuy interconnection of mnlti-input, multi-output subsystems which may be either continww-time or d i s c r e t e l i m e . We consider, throughout, three types of dynamics: nonlinear time-varying, linear timeinvariant disbiiuted, and linear lime-iivariant lumped. First, we use the strongly conneded component decomposition to aggregate the subsystem into strongly-connected~ubsystetns (SCSS) and int~~~~~eeti~n-S~~LBYSteobsystems (ISS). SCSS and ISSare then aggregated into column-snbsystems (a s ) so that the overall system becomes a hiemchy of CSs. me basic structural result states that the overall systemis stable if and only if every CS is stable. We then use the minimum-essential-set decamposition on each SCS so that it can be viewed as afeedbackinterconnection of aggreKated subsystems where one of them is itself a hierarchy of subsysteors. Based on this decomposition, we present results which lead to sufficient conditio- for the Stability of an SCS. For linear hemvariant (transfer function) dynamics, we obtain acharacteristicfunction which gives the necessary and sufficient condition for the overall system We point oot the computational saving due to the decompositions in calculating this characteristic fmction. We believe that decomposition techniques,c o u p l e d with other techniques such as model reduction, aggregation, singular, and nominguhr perhubations, w l l iplay key roles in large scale system design.

Stability.

I. INTRODUCTION HIS PAPER considers the input-output stability of an T arbitrary interconnection of multi-input multi-output subsystems. This problem can be viewed as a generahzation of that dealing with the feedback interconnection of multi-input multi-output subsystems [1H6]. On the other hand,since an arbitrary interconnection can always,by suitable reformulation, be viewed as a single overall constant output feedback system (as is done in Fig. 2 below), the task of thispaperis to analyze the details of the interconnections using graph theoretic decomposition techniques andto bring them to bear on the stability study.
Manuscript received April 6, 1977; revised July 22, 1977. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant ENG74-06651-A01 and the Joint Senices Electronics Program under Contract F44620-71-C-0087. The work of F. M. Callier was supported in part by a grant from the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research, Brussels, Belgium. F. M. Callier is with the Department of Mathematics, Faculttk Universitaires de Namur, Namur, Belgium. W. S. Chan was with the Department o f Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, and the Electronics Research Laboratory, University o f California, Berkeley, CA 94720. He is nowwithBell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ 07733. C.A. Desoer is with the D e p e e n t of Electrical Engineer@g +d Computer Sciences and the Electromcs Research Laboratory, Umverslty of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.

Basically, there are two types of stability: Lyapunov stability and input-output stability. Forthe Lyapunov stability, the system dynamics are restricted to ordinary and functional-differential equations [7]. The input-outmuch more put stability studied in this paper, allows general types of dynamics [1H3]. For work on Lyapunov or input-output stability of an interconnection of stable subsystems, based on exploiting the relative weight of some terms in the system equations, see [8]-[17]. The crucial difference between this paper and [8H17] is that we use graph theoretic decomposition techniques, which have been used in [ 18H241, to exploit the structure of the interconnection. Furthermore, we need not assume that every subsystem is stable. In [18H22], the stability problem was not considered. In [23] Mayeda and Wax considered the exponential stability of systems of ordinary differential equations. In contrast to [8]-[13], [21H23], we use the general input-output description for our subsystems; thus, our theory covers both linear and nonlinear, time-invariant and time-varying, lumped and distributed subsystems, as well as the continuous-time and discretetimecases [lH3]. Acomparisonbetweenour previous paper [24] and the present paper is relegated to Section X: Conclusions, so that we can makespecific reference to results of the present paper. We study the stability using four levels of aggregation. At the lowest level, we have the multi-input multi-output subsystemswhich are arbitrarily interconnected through summing nodes to form the overall system. By using strongly-connected-component (SCC) decomposition, we aggregate the subsystems into strongly-connected-subsystems (scss) and intercomection-subsystems(Iss). These SCSs and Iss are then aggregated into column-subsysthe top tems (CSs) so that the overallsystemwhichis level aggregation, becomes a hierarchy of CSs. The contents of this paper are as follows: Section Introduction I: Section 11: Preliminaries Section 111: System Description and Assumptions
Someopen-loopunstablesystems occur in practice:rockets,electronic circuits with op amps, and chemical processes [25].

0018-9286/78/0400-0150$00.75

01978 IEEE

CALLER

et aL: INPWT-OUTP~~STABILITY OF INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS

15 1

Section IV: Section V: Section VI: Section VII: Section VIII: Section IX: Section X: Appendix:

y [ HI inf{y)3P ER+3VuECq, llHull Q p + y l l u l l } . The reader is urged to give particular attention to some (3) notational and linguistic conventions: (i) on map and stable in Section 11; (ii) on the dimension of subsystems The incremental gain of H denoted by ?[HI is defined as in Section 111; (iii) on the relabeling due to the SCC follows: decomposition inSection V; and (iv) on the relabeling due to the MES decomposition in Section VII. ?[HI ~ i n f { - i ; l V ~ , , ~ 2 E ~C ~Q H,u ~ - H u ~ ~ ~ G ? I I u , - u * ~

Overall System Stability Without Using Decomposition SCC Decomposition of the overall System Structural Result MES Decomposition of an SCS Sufficient Conditions for the C-Stability of an SCS Simplifying Characteristic Functions Using Decompositions Conclusions Proofs

IIH~Il7-GP + Y l l U l l r .

(1)

vu E eq

It is well known that when H is causal, then H is C-stable i f and only if there exists constants , 8 , y in R , such that IlHull G

P+YIIuII*

(2)

Throughout this paper, we consider only causal operators (seeAssumption1 in Section IIq. The smallest y for which (2) holds is called the gain of H, and is denoted by y[HI, i-e.,

(4)

11. PRELIMINARIES
In this paper we consider an interconnection of subsystems with three types of dynamics: nonlinear time-varying dynamics where systems are described by operators between function spaces, linear time-invariant distributed dynamics, and linear time-invariant lumped dynamics where systems are described by their transfer functions. Throughout this paper, we shalluse NTV and LTI to denote nonlinear time-varying operator dynamics, and linear time-invariant transfer function dynamics, respectively. For a NTV system, we adopt the following standard description [3, S e c . 111.11, namely, let 3 be the time set of observation (typically 5= R + for continuous-time case, Z + for discrete-timecase), Y bea normed space with norm I I (typically 1r= R or Cn),and 5 be the set of all the functions mapping S into V. The function space 3 is a linear space over R (or C)under pointwise addition and pointwise multiplication by scalars. Introducing a norm 11 * 11 on 5, we obtain a normed linear subspace of the linear space 9, given by

c A {f:S + Y I 11 f 11 <a}.
For any T E 5, we definef,(t)= f( t ) if t Q T, and zero for > T. We say that f , is obtained by truncating f at T. Associated with the normed space C is the extended space defined by
f

ee

We shall often write 11fI(= instead of Ilf,I . From now on we take Y = R . A NTV systemwith n, inputs and no outputs is described by an input-output operator H : Q 4 !22.An operator H is said to be causal iff for all inputs uE , : ! E for all T E E T , the corresponding output Hu satisfies (HUT) == (Hu).. An operator H is said to be e-stable iff there exists constants / 3 , y in R+ such that V u @ , VTES,

Remark I : (i) Note that the bias ,8 in (1) and (2) which is restricted to be zero in the definition of gain in [l], [2], [14]-[17] is allowed to be nonzero in our definition as in [3]. This not onlyallowsus to consideramore general class of operators, but also simplifies the stability analysis of the overall system (e.g., see Proof of Theorem III) and sharpens theconclusions ( e g , see [ l , p. 2321). (ii) The C-stability of H not only requires that H takes an input in &space into an output in C-space, but also requires that y[H] be finite. (E) H is E-stable, or equivalently y [ HI < co, does not necessarily imply that ?[HI < 00 , . (iv) It is 3 such that HGE P o , easy to show that if there exist iiE i then y[H]< ?[HI. (v) If H i s linear, then y[H]=?[H]. It is well known that a very large class of linear time-invariant operators can be represented as convolution operators, and if the convolution kernels are Laplace transformable, the operators can be described by transfer functions [26]. In this paper, the LTI dynamics will be described by i l l be transfer functions. Only the continuous-time case w considered. All the results on LTI continuous-time case presented in this paper also hold for LTIdiscrete-time case by making corresponding changes as described in [3, Sec.IV.61. We shall be concerned with two classes of convolution kernels. First,-we define the algebra @ [3]: f : C++C is ~ ~ e f ,-is the ~ ~ said to be in @ iff f ( s )= f , ( ~ ) + ~ ~ =where E R for all i, Laplace transform of a function in L,(R+),f, ZzoljJ500,O=t,, O < t i for i > 1. H : C++C%q is said to be @ a n o X q iff all its elcments are in &. We note that: > (i) f 62 has an inverse in @ if andpnly if infsEc+lf(s)l 9, [27, p. 1501, [3, p. 2491, (ii) H E P X n has an inverse in @nxn i f and only if infsEc+ldetH(s)) > O [3], and (iii) & ( i P x n ) is a commutative (noncommutative, resp.) algebra over the field R [27], [3]. ALTI distributed system described by its trapsfer function H :C+-+Cnoxi is said to @--stableiff H E 69 q . It is well known that if a system is @--stable, then: (i) for a n y p E[ 1, co], it takes an h-input

into an ?,-output with a finite gain, i.e., it is E-stable for E = 4, and (ii) it takes continuous and bounded inputs (periodic inputs, almost periodic inputs, resp.) into outputs belonging to the same classes resp. [3], [28]. Let R (s) denote the field of rational functions with real R ( S ) % ~ denote + the ring of no X n, coefficients. Let matrices whose elements are in R ( s ) . By definition, a LTI lumped system is described by a transfer function in R ( s p x & . A LTI lumped system described by its transfer + said to be exponentially stable function H ( s ) E R ( S ) % ~is (abbreviated exp-stable) iff: (i) H ( s ) is proper (i.e., bounded at infinity) and (ii) H ( s ) has all its poles in the open left-half plane (i.e., H has no C+-pole). It is easy to see that R,(s), the class of a l l scalar exp-stable transfer functions is an algebra over R, in fact a subalgebra of &. In either the lumped or distributed case, if the transfer function H has a domain of convergence which includes some right-half plane and if, for large Re s, it is bounded by some polynomial in s, then it is causal. (The second requirement is indispensable: viz. e s ) [3, Th. B.3.41. Convention on Map and Stable

Fig. 1. A typical subsystem Gv of theoverallsystem.

discrete-time. The interconnections are realized through m summing nodes as indicated by Fig. 1. The subsystem from node j to node i is described by the map G,. Each summing node j is fed by an external input uj and by the outputs of the subsystems ql; .. ,%m. The output ej of the summing node j is the input to the subsystems GI,; . ,Gm,. In practice, a sigmficant portion of the subsystems Ggs are absent, and hence, are represented by zero maps.

Convention on Dimension of Subsystems

Throughoutthis paper, (i) by a m p H , we mean an operator H for the NTVdynamicscase, and a transfer function H for the LTI dynamics case, and (ii)whenwe say that a system described by the map H is stable, we mean the operator H is E-stable in NTV dynamics, the transfer function H is @-stable in LTI distributed dynamics, and the transfer function H is exp-stable in LTI lumped 0 Note that when a system is described by the map H , the specification of H prescribes the inputs and the outputs of m ei=ui+ Gvq the system? j= 1 Using (l), the definition of E-stability, one can easily prove that the composition and pddition of C-stable oper- In matrix notation, we have i ? , Re(s) are algebras, they ators are again E-stable. Since t ... are closedunder multiplication and addition. Thus we have Lemma 1 (NTV, LTI):4 Every series-parallel connection of stable subsystems is stable.

To alleviate burdensome notations which are peripheral to the main ideas of the paper, we treat each subsystem as if it were SISO (i.e., for NTV dynamics, G,: Ce+C,; for LTI dynamics, G , is a scalar transfer function); the results presented in this paper still hold for MIMO subsystems ; for LTI dynamics, (i.e., for NTV dynamics, G v :EP+E: Gv is a matrix transfer function) by modifying the dimension of the product spaces a~cordingly.~ 0 Assumption 1: Causality Throughout this paper, we assume that all the subsys0 tems Go are causal. The summing-node equations read

fori=l,---,m.

( 10)

- Gm,

...

111. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND ASSUMFTIONS In this paper we consider an overall system S consisting D fine of an arbitrary interconnection of subsystems. The subsystems are specified by an input-output map: they may be MIMO (multi-input multi-output) or SISO (single-input single-output), unstable or stable, nonlinear or linear, time-varying or time-invariant, and continuous-time or
2We do not distinguish a transfer function from an operator by the usual notation of because some of our results hold for all three types of dynamics with corresponding definitions of stability.
A

With these definitions, the system equations (lo), or equivalently (1 l), become

3As

w l ibe

it makesa lot of Mference whether H is taken to be

SThis simplifieddescription of thesubsystems does not affect the G<I-G)-. We use NTV, LTI following each lemma, theorem, and corollaries to validity of the formulas below. The simplified descnption avods the f aggregation of subsystems. messy bookkeeplng of four levels o indicate the type of dynamics for which the statement holds.

seen Flow in the definition of the overall system stability, d ( I - G ) - [ or

Let I be the mX m identity matrix and let f R m x d be given by

f & p ;... i I ] .
Let

(15)

( I - G ) e = u.

(12)

Assumption 2: Unique Sohability Throughout this paper, we assume that (a) for NTV dynamics, (I- G)-' :u w e is a map from , : ? I and is a causal map into (b) for LTI distributed dynamics, V sequences (si)?=' c C,, where Isil+.oo, l i m inf,,ldet(I- G)(s,)l>O (c)for LTI lumpeddynamics, det (I- G)(m)#O. 0 Conditions under which Assumption 2(a)issatisfied can be found in [2, Ch.21, [3, Sec.111.51. Definition o f the Overall System Stability

Note that from (14) and (15)

G=K6.
(17)

Then the overall system S can be viewed as a constant output feedback system as shown in Fig.2. Thus, the f and only if the map c ( I overall system S is stable i

k6)-'=6(I-G)-':ut+~7isstable,_
By Assumptions1 and 2, ( I - KG)-' :u is a welldefined causal map. For theoretical development, Fig. 2 is convenient. However, it does not take advantage of the particular structure of the interconnection, namely that a number of G;s are zeromaps. Our objectiveis to take the structure into consideration using graph theoretic decomposition techniques.

The overall system S is said to be stable iff V i , j = 1,. . ,m, the maps u w G J ( I - G ) - ' u I j are stable. Remark 2: (i) At first sight, one might want to choose as a definition of overall system stability: the map ( I - G ) - :u b e be stable. Note that without requiring G to be linear,

'

I+G(I-G)-'=(I-

G)(I-G)-,

+ G(I-

G)-'=(I-

G ) - ' . (13)

SYSTEM STABILITY WITHOUT USING IV. OVERALL DECOMPOSITION

In this section we consider the overall system stability without using decomposition. Theorem 1 gives a sufficient condition for the overall system stability; it is quite general since it holds for NTV dynamics with &stability, LTI distributed dynamics with &-stability, and LTI lumped dynamics with exp-stability. Theorem I (NW, LTI) Consider the overall system S described by (11) and satisfying Assumptions 1 and 2. If: (a) Gv is stable V i # j , i j = 1, ,my (b) for every unstable G,,, (I- Gc)-is stable, and (c) ( I - G ) - ' is stable, then the overall system S is stable. Remark 3: (i) By Theorem I, under its assumptions (a) and (b), the stability of ( I - G ) - is equivalent to the overall system stability. (ii) If every G,, i , j = 1,. , m is stable, then Assumptions (a) and (b) are satisfied. 0 For the remaining part of this section we study the &-stability (exp-stability, resp.) of the overall system S in LTI distributed (lumped, resp.) dynamics. Due to the symmetry between the distributed and lumped cases, the results are presented in pairs: we use D ( L , resp.) to denote distributed (lumped, resp.) case.

Hence, the map ( I - G ) - is stable if and only if the map G ( I - G ) - ' is stable, i.e., for i = l ; - . , m the maps u w X?! ,Guq are stable. By definition the overall system S is ,my u w G e q are stable. Hence, by stable iff V i j = 1, Lemma 1, if the overall system S is stable, then the map (I- G ) - ' is stable. (ii) The converse of the last statement is not true because two unstable terms, say Giler and Gjkek may cancel each other and give a stable sum 27- Geq. An example to illustrate the point: Let m = 2 and all subsystems be SISO LTI lumped. It is easy to check that if G,,(s) =(2s +3)/ (s + I), G,,(s) = 0 Vs, G2&) = - (s -4)/(2s - 1) and G&) =(s-4)/(2s-l), then a) ( I - G ) - ' and G ( I - G ) - ' are exponentially stable, and b) the maps u I ~ G 2 , eand , uI b G 2 , e 2 are both unstable (pole at s=0.5); but their sumis, of course, stable since it is the (2,l) element of G(IIn order to formulate the definition of overall system stability, let G,. denote thejth column of G. Let

'

- -

'

--

154

IEEE TRANSACTlONS ON AUTOMATIC CONlXOL, V O L AC-23, NO. 2, A P R E

1978

Let R[s] denote the commutative ring of polynomials serves both complete controllability and complete observwith real coefficients. Let H ( s ) E R(s)""", N,(s) E ability when the same state is used [30, p.3651. Since the r.1.c.f. in PMSD (polynomial matrix system description) is R [ s ] " . X " , D ( s ) E R [ s ] " X " , N , ( s ) E R [ sthen(N,,D,N,) ]"X~; is said to be a right left coprime factorization (r.1.c.f.) of H a counterpart of the minimal realization in SSSD [3 11, [32], iff: (i) H=N,D-'N,, (ii) there exist U,(s)R[s]R"%, U,(s) Lemma 2 L can be viewed as a counterpart in PMSD of the above well-known fact i n SSSD. E R [ s ] q X n ,V,(s),V,(s)ER[s]""" such that det[U,N,+ (ii)ApplyingLemma 2 0 ( L ) to the feedbacksystem V,.D](s)#O, V s E C and det[N,U,+DV,](s)#O, VsEC. Let H ( s ) R ( s ) a X q , N , ( s ) ~ R [ s ] " " " z , D,(s)ER[s]""q; considered in [5],[33], we can easily obtain all the charthen (N,,D,)is said to be a rightcoprime factorization acteristic functions (resp. polynomials) gven in these (r.c.f.) of H iff (N,, D,,I) is a r.1.c.f.of H . A left coprime papers. f K has (iii) Note >hat Lemma 2 0 ( L ) will still hold i factorization (l.c.f.) is similarly defined. elements in & (if K is a polynomial matrix, resp.). 0 Let H:c++cnoXq, D E&"", N , E & ~ ~ ; Under Assumptions 1 and 2, applying Lemma 2 D ( L ) then (Nr,D, N,) is said to be a pseudo right left coprime to the overall systep S shown in Fig. 2, and using the factorizatioc (p.r.1.c.f.) qf H iff: (i) HyiV,D -IN,, (ii) there particular form of K , we obtain a characteristic function det exist U,.E@'xn~,U,E@?"", V,,V,Q""" such that (polynomial, resp.) for the overall system S. [UrNr+ V,.D](s)#O, VsEC, and det[N,U,+DV,](s)#O, Theorem I I D(L) (LTZ) Vs E C,, (iii) V sequences (si)?=I c C + where lsilA+w, lim Consider the LTIoverallsystem S described by(1 1) infi,,ldetD(si)l>O.Let H:C++C"oXq, N,E@'oX", Dl E&oxno; then (N,, Dl) is said to be a pseudo left coprime and satisfying Assumptions 1 and 2. For j = 1, - ,m, let factorization (p.1.c.f.) of H iff ( I ,D,,N,) is a p.r.1.c.f. of H . G, denote the jth column of G, and let (N,,Dj) be a A pseudorightcoprime factorization (p.r.c.f.) is similarly p.r.c.f. (r.c.f., resp.) of G,. (For the lumped case, assume that G is proper.) Let defined. It is easy to see that the definitions of coprime factoriN.* 6 ~ d i a g ( D , ; - - , D , ) . (20) zations given above are equivalent to those defined in the N = [ N , l literature (e.g., [3], [5], [6], [24], [29]). The reason for Withthese definitions, the overallsystem S is @-stable introducing new definitions is to achieve Jymmetry be- (exp-stable, resp.) if and only if tween the distributed and the lumped cases. f (N,,D,N,) is r.1.c.f. of H and H It is well known that i C+-zero. (21) d e t ( 5 - N ) ( s ) has no is proper, then H is exp-stable i f and only if det D (s) has Remark 5: (i) Note that G = N 6 - but that N , 0" are no C+-zero [29].By similar reasoning as in [5], and using p.r.c. (resp. r.c.). (ii) Clearly, by using condition (iii) in the definition of p,r.l.c.f., it iseasy to not necessarily show that if (N,,D,N,)is a p.r.1.c.f.of H ; then H is a p.f.c.f. of G,'s, one can obtain a characteristic function for the overall system S. However, since the size6 of the @-stableif and only if det 0 (s) has no C+-zero. output of S is m2, such a characteristic function will be The followinglemma in spite of its simpleproof has the determinant of an m 2X m 2 matrix. The characteristic far-reaching consequences: it gives us a characteristic function given by Theorem I1 D ( L ) is the determinant of function mapping from C+ into C such that the overall X m matrix where m is the size of the input u of S an m system S is @-stable(exp-stable, resp.) if and only if that Fig. (see 2). characteristic function has no C+-zero. In Section IX below, we will discuss how the SCC and Lemma ZD(L) (LTI) MES decompositions to be described in Sections V and Consider the LTI distributed (lumped, resp.) constant VI1 simplify the necessary and sufficient stability test output feedback system shown in Fig. 3 where H is the given by (21). transfer function in the forward path and K is a constant of matrix. Let (N,, D,N,) be a p.r.1.c.f. (resp. r.1.c.f.) H . (For the lumped case, assume that H is proper.) Assume that V sequences c C+ where Jsil+co, lim V. SCC DECOMPOSITION OF THE OVERALL SYSTEM infi-,, ldet(1- KH)(si)l> O (det(I- KH)(cc)#O, resp.). Under these conditions, H ( I - KH)-' :F ~ isZ &-stable In this section, we apply the ideas presented in [24, Sec. (exp-stable, resp.) if and only if 1111 to the present formulation. Recall first the graph ( s ) has noC+-zero. (18) theoretic terminology defined in the first paragraph of [24, det ( D - N,KN, ) Sec. 1111.' Remark 4: (i)Lemma 2 0 ( L ) is proved by showing Consider the overall system S described above. The f (N,,D,N,) is a p.r.1.c.f. (resp. r.1.c.f.) of H , then interconnection that i digraph qint of S is defined as follows: (N,,D-N,KN,,N,) is a p.r.1.c.f. (resp. r.1.c.f.) of H ( Z each summing node i of S corresponds to a vertex vi of KH)-'. It is well known that if x is the state used in a qint, and Gilht has a directed edgefrom vi to vi iff the finite dimensional minimal SSSD (state space system description) of H , then the SSSD of the constant output 6Recall footnote 5. feedback system H ( I - KH)-', using the same state x , 'Note that our adjacency matrix is the transpose of the one used by will also be minimal, since constant output feedback pre- graph theorists [34], [35].
N , E @ O ~ ~ ,

1,

',

(sj)zl

~~

~~

~~

155

Fig. 3. Constant output feedback system: u b z .

subsystem Gg is not the zero map. Since each connected component of 6Dht can be analyzedseparately,without loss of generality, we msume that 91bt is a connected digraph. Notethatdue todifferentproblem formulations the qint defined above is different from the 91ht defined i n [24, Sec. 1111. Wenow perform the SCC decomposition on the connected digraph qint using Steps 1 - 4 described i n [24, Sec. (m,'.mi)-vector (G,q),, vi,j E vj (29) 111, p. 7161. Let a = 1,s. ,p be the SCC's of qint, jib the identified by using, for example, Tarjan's algorithm [36], [compare (23, (28), (29) with (14), (15), (16)]. Note that and reordered by Steps 2-4 i n [24, Sec. 111, p. 7161. A little thought revealsthat the adjacency matrixAht of qint after Step 4 will be intheblocklower triangular form :

ea,

mf

mi

* - *

mi

where:(i) m , ' is the number of vertices in (ii) each and ( i i i ) diagonal block A& is the adjacency matrix of each off diagonal block A&, OL > j3 is theadjacency matrix From (32) we can write of eaPwhich is defined to be the bipartite digraph [34, p. 1681 consisting of: (a) all the vertices of and and (b) alledges of CDht directed from a vertex in to a n vertex i Using (30) and (31) we have

ea, ea,

ea

ea.

e,

e,,

Notational Conventipn From now on, without loss ofgenerality, we assume that we start out with the overall systemS which has been relabeled after the SCC decomposition. 0 For a > p= 1,. - .,y,we define V:
u:

A the set of vertices i n SCC ea A the m;-vector (uJiE vz A the mi-vector (eJiE v,.
A the n r :X mp' matrix [
the (m,'.m;)
Xm ;
vz,,E

(23) (24)
(25)

e ;

G P :

vi

(26)

matrix: diag (columns of G& )

(27)

izi,

the m,'

X (rni.mp')

matrix: [ I

i - .- i I ]

(28)

Observe that due to block-lower-triangular form of G after relabeling, ei,j& do not depend on u ; for j > j 3 . For a = 1,. ,p, we denote by S l the strongly-connected-subsystem (SCS) associatedwiththe SCC of qint: it is obtained from the overall system S by removing all the summing nodes and subsystems which do not Hence, its input is u,',its outp2t i%fia, and appear in it is described by the map G:a(I - K:aG:a)-l = 6 t a ( I - G,'J-'. In other words, S i can be viewed as the constant output feedback system shown & Fig. 2 with the r? by Kla, u by u:, e by followingreplacements: 6 by e , : 7 by yia. Consequently, the stability definition below follows previous pattern. said to be stable iff the map The SCS S,' is 6 i a ( I - Gta)-' is stable.

--

ea

e,.

156

IEEE TRAPTSACTIONSON AUTOMATIC CONTROL,VOL AC-23, NO. 2, APRIL 1978

By Assumption 2 in Section 111 and block-lower-triangular structure in (32), ( I - G;J- is a well-defined causal map.Hence,everySCSis described by a well-defined causal map. For a > /3 = 1,. ,p - 1, we denote by S:, the interconnection-subsystem (IS)associatedwith of $ht: it is obtained from the overallsystembyremoving all the summing nodes and subsystems which do not appear in Hence, its input is u;, its output is i:,, and itis described by the map G&. The IS S,, is said to be stable iff the map G:b is stable. In view of (27)-(3), a little thought will reveal that the overall system S :(u,);= I-,(y&)t,p=can be viewed as a series-parallel connection of SCSs, ISs, and constant gain as shown in Fig. 4 for the case p = 3. subsystems k&s For p = 1, . ,y, we denote by S, the column-subsystem (CS) described bythe maps G&(Z- Gjb)-, a = & /3+ 1,. . . , n e s e maps are the contribution of # ; to In (y:b)E=, whileneglecting the effectof all other inputs

VI. STRUCTURAL. RESULT

Theorem I11 below gives a necessary and sufficient condition for the overallsystem stability. This result is structural in the sense that it is based on the block-lowertriangular structure obtained by SCC decomposition. It holds for NTV dynamics with -stability, LTI distributed dynamics with @-stabilityand LTI lumped dynamics with exp-stability. Theorem ZII (NTK LTI) Consider the Overall system s described by (32) and and 2- The Overall is satisfying stable if and only if V/3 = 1, * . ,I, CS S, are stable. 0

ea,

ern,.

VII. MES DECOMPOSITION OF AN SCS this section, we apply the ideas presented in 124, Set. In order to avoid v] the develop present the concept of minimum essential set. we to shall and VIII, we study the stabilThroughout Sections ity of a single map, namely, ( I - G:J-. For convenience and to alleviate the already burdensome notation, we will drop the subscript a throughout Sections VI1 and VIII. we write e= ( I - G )-u.

(U;)g;.

is said to be stable iff the maps ~ : , ( I - G i , ) - ~ , a = p , B + l ; . . , ~ are stable. A ~ by ~ (2+(33), , ~ h e overall system s can be viewed as a hierarchy of_CSs interconnected through constant gain subsystems K&s as shown in Fig. 4. Note that each CS is an aggregation of one SCS and several Iss. Prior to establishing in Theorem I11 below that the overall system is stable if and only if every CS is stable, we note Some relationships between the stabilities of each CS and the corresponding SCS and ISSwhich are &rect consequences of the definitions and of the structural decomposition. Fact 1 (NTK LTI) CS If S, is stable, then SCS S i is stable. Since SCs s; is stable implies that the map ( I - Gib)- is stable, we have Fact 2 ( N W , LTZ) If SCS Sp is stable and V a > p, IS S:, are stable, then CS S, is stable. 0 Note that the stability of a CS does not imply -thatof the corresponding ISs. However, in view of G& = G&(IGib)-(Z- Gib),we have Fact 3 ( N W , LTI) If Gib is stable and CS S, is stable, then V a >@, IS S& 0 are stable. Suppose cs s b is stable and for Some a > ,& 1 s s.$.is not stable. In LTI dynamics, thisimplies that there exlStS some pole-zero cancellation between G& and ( I - Gib)-. Clearly, under independent parameter perturbations of (%p and G,&, such Pole-zero cancellation will not be preserved. Thus for the stability of CS S, to be robust, it is reasonable to assume that every IS S$ is stable. Under this assumption, from Facts 1 and 2, we have Fact 4 (NTV, LTI) If every IS S&,a > /3 is stable, then the stability of CS Sbequivalent is to the stability of SCS Si. 0 This fact emphasizes the importance of the stability study of the SCSs (see Section VI11 below).

ne cs s

(34)

In addition to the graph theoretic terms defined i n the first paragraph of 124, Set. 1 1 1 1 7 we need the following terms. By definition, u C v is called an essential Set Of a digraph 9 ( V , E ) iff the section graph ( V - U ) is acyclic. Given a digraph, an essential set with minimum number of vertices is called a minimum essential ser (MES) of the digraph. It should be noted that OUT definitions allow an acyclic digraph to have self-loops; this follows from our requirement that a circuit be of length > 1. Consider the strongly connected subsystem S and its interconnection digraph (? ( V,E) which by construction is strongly connected. Wenow perfom the M E decomposition on e. Step I : Find an essential set V 2 of (? and define V 1 2 V- V 2 . By construction, the section graph (?(V) is acyclic. Step 2: Relabel the vertices of (? so that every vertex in V 1is numbered lower than all the vertices in v2. Step 3: Relabelthevertices of e(v1) SO h a t its adjacency matrix A 11 is a lower triangular matfix.8 A little thought reveals that the adjacency matrix A of (? after Step 3 will be in the bordered lower triangular form:

m m 2
(35)

Recall footnote 7.

Fig. 5. Flow graph associated with (41), (42).

Substitute (45) into ( 4 4 ) ; we have

el=(I-G11)-'G12(I-6:")-1U2.

(46)

where: (i) for i = 1,2,mi is the number of vertices in Vi and (ii) A is a lower triangular matrix. To exploit the structure of C ? as much as possible, it is obvious that one should use a minimum essential set in the decomposition. The problem of finding a minimum essentialset has been studied bymanyresearchers [39]-[46]. Theoretically speaking, the problem can be considered solved since it requires a finite amount of work. However the amount of work required can become potentially excessive for some large digraphs since it is an NP-comwe must first plete problem [47]. To perform Step 1, compensate for the fact that we allowself-loops, so we first remove all the self-loops in then apply the algorithm given in [44]to find a minimum essential set and then put back the self-loops. Step 2 of the decomposition can be done easily. Step 3 is carried out by using topological sort described in 134, p. 4021, [37, p. 2581.

e,

6 : aealy,byallowing A in (35) to be in Note that (47) generalizes for the nonlinearcase the stanblock-lower-triangdar [481~ we Can further reduce dard expression relating closed-loop gain and the openthe size of The tradeoffin computational efficiency loop gain in the linear case. between this "generalized" MES and the MES decompositions remains still an open question.
Convention Notational

mII.

SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS FOR THE

E-STABILITY OF AN scs From now on, without loss of generality, we assume that we startout with the SCC which has been reIn this section we present two sufficient conditions for labeled after the MES decomposition. the C-stability of an SCS based on the MES decomposiFor i,j = 1,2, we define tion. a i n Theorem [3] at the Using (41), (42), and the Small G V 2 the MES of (2 (36) MES decomposition level, we have Theorem IV (NW) VI A V'- T / 2 (37) Consider the map (I- G')-I described by (41)-(42) (38) and satisfying Assumptions 1 and 2. Suppose that y [ GI2], u i A the m'-vector (uk)kE vi y [ ( I - GI1)-'], y [ ( I - G22)-1], y[G21(I-- G")-'] are e A the m '-vector (ek)kE vi (39) finite. Under these conditions, if

Equation (34) can now be written as two equations: (I-G1')e'-G'2e2=u' (41) (42)

- G2'e'+(I-GZ2)e2=u2.
We define
622

2 G22+

(321

(1- G11)-1G12

(43)

The matrix signal flowgraph [49] associated with the nonlinear equations (41), (42) is given in Fig. 5. : (i) When u' = 8, from (41) Remark 7

then the map ( I - GC)-' is E-stable. Remark 8: (i) Theorem I V still holds if the superscripts 1 and 2 are interchanged throughout. ( i i ) Note that y[G2'], y [ ( I - G")-'] are finite implies that y[G2'(I- GI1)-'] is finite. (iii) We shall now check that under the assumptions of Theorem IVYthe necessary conditions for the E-stability of ( I - G ') - given in Remark 7 (i), namely, the C-stabilities of ( I and of ( I - Gl1)-'GI2(Z- G22)-1, are satisfied. Since y[G2'(I- G")-1G'2(I- G=)-']< y[G21(I
Cy's.

( 4 4 )

Wote that this calculation does not requirelinearity i n any of the

158

IEEE TRANSAC~ONS ON AUTOMATIC

CONTROL VOL. AC-23, NO.

2,APRIL 1978

- G 1 1 ) - ' ] . y [ G ' 2 ] - y [ ( I - G 2 ' ) - 'by ] , the assumption (48) Ix. SIMF'LIFYING CHARACTERISTIC FUNCTIONS USING DECOMPOSITIONS of Theorem IV and the Small Gain Theorem, [ I - G2'(IG")-'G12(I-G22)-1]-1 is E-stable. In view of (47), this Weshallnow consider the savings in computing the together with G-stability of ( I - G 2 2 ) - implies that characteristic function of the overall system S , given by asis e-stable. Since ( I - G " ) - ' , G ' 2 are Theorem I1 D ( L ) in Section IV,due to the two graph sumed to be &table, so is ( I - G " ) - 1 G ' 2 ( I - 6=)-'. theoretic decompositions. After the SCC decomposition, G is in block-lower-trianFrom Theorems I and IV, we have gular form. Let j V:. Then G,, the jth column of G , Corollary IV.1 (NTV) has all zero entries in the first 2;l:tni rows. Let (N,.,D,) Consider the SCS S' after MES decomposition and be a p.r.c.f. (r.c.f., resp.) of G,. Then N , also has all satisfyingAssumptions 1 and 2. If: (a) V i Z j , iJ E V', in first y[G,] is finite; (b) V i V', y [ ( I - G , ) - ' ] is finite; (c) zero entries the Z>;:rn; rows. Thus, V i V 2 ,y [ G i i ] is finite or y [ ( I - GJ-'1 is finite; (d) N 2 [ N , l . * N,m ] isin the same block-lower-triany [ ( I - G U ) - ' ] is finite; and (e) y [ G 2 ' ( I - G " ) - ' ] . y [ G 1 2 ] gular form as G . Since d = diag ( D l , .. . ,Dm) is diagonal, . y [ ( I - G = ) - l ] < 1, then the SCS S' is &-stable. 0 (6- N ) is also in the same block-lower-triangularform as Theorem V (NTV) G. Let N,',, 6: denote the ath diagonal block of N , 6 , Consider the map (I- G')-' described by (41)-(42) respectively, i.e., and satisfying Assumptions 1 and 2. If y [ G 1 2 ] , y [ ( I - G I 1 ) - ' ] , y [ ( I - 6=)-'],Y [ G 2 ' ( I - G " ) - ' ] are N,6, = [ Nik];,kEv : 3 6,'=diag((Dj)i,v;). finite, then the map ( I - GC)-' is C-stable. 0 Remark 9: (i) Theorem V still holds if the superscripts Hence, 1 and 2 are interchanged throughout. By the MES decomP det(j---N)= det(5,'- (49) N&). position: (a) ( I - G 11) has a lower-triangular structure and a= I thus is easy to invert; (b) ( I - (?"), which has no particular structure, has a size equal to I V21 and usually I V2(<< Note that in (49), V a = 1,. . ,p, det (6;- N;J E 8, so it I V'I. Ifwe interchange the superscripts 1 and 2, we would is bounded in C,( V G= 1,. ,p, det (E; - N;J(s) E R [s], consider (1-6") and ( I - G 2 2 ) where 2 G " + G L 2 so it has no pole in C,, resp.). Hence, det(6- N ) ( s ) has I - G 22)-1G21; however, none of these maps has any no C+-zero if and only if \la= 1,. ,p,det (6:- N&)(s) particular structure. Hence, there is a definite advantage has no C+-zero. in using 6 22 instead of 6 l . Remark 11: It can be shown that det(6:- N:J is a (ii) Notethat the third assumption of Theorem V is characteristic function o f CS Sa. By Theorem I1 D(L) also necessary. The first three assumptions of Theorem d e t ( 5 - N ) is a characteristic function of the overall V together imply the e-stability of ( I - G ")-'G system. Hence, (49) proves again Theorem I11 for the LTI which is a necessary condition for the distributed and 0 dynamics. lumped C-stability of ( I - , ' ) - I . After the MES decomposition, (iii) The assumption Y [ G 2 l ( I - G " ) - ' ] < c a allows us to write G21(1-G1')-1(G12e2+u1)=G2' ( I - GI1)-'GI2e2+ U' where IIU'II f Y [ G 2 ' ( I - G 1 ' ) - ' ] . I I ~ ' I Iand U' can be viewed as an input equivalent to u1 but applied at node 2 in Fig. 5. is in bordered lower-triangular form. By reasoning as From Theorems I and V, we have above, Corollary K I ( N W ) Consider the SCS S' after MES decomposition and satisfying Assumptions 1 and 2. If: (a) V i > J , i E Y c , j E VI, -j;[G,] is finite and there exists <,E such that G , ! , E ~ ; (b) V i V ' , ?[(I-G,,)-'] is finite and there is also in bordered lower-triangular form. Now emts Zii E E such that GiiZii E E; (c) V i E V 2 , y[G,,] is finite or y [ ( I - G,)-'] is finite; (d) V i Z j , i E Y ' , j V2, y[G,] is finite; and (e) y [ ( I - (?">]-I is finite, then the C-stable. SCS S' is 17 (50) -det(6;- N,':) Remark 10: (i) The assumption that there exists E such that G,Z,E E is very mild. It is satisfied when G, is where due to lower-triangular form" of 6; - N;:, unbiased, i.e., G,B= 8, which is the class of operators considered in [ I ] , [2], [14H17]. (ii) Suppose that G, does det (6;- N;;) = det (Di - Nii). (51) not satisfy this assumption. Then for any inputin its iE v , ' output is in Ee- E. However, the overall system stability requires the input e j as well as the output of every l o R d that we write the G,'s as if they were SISO, Le., as if (Di - Nii) o be i n E when the external inputs u,'s are are subsystem G, t scatar functions. We write here det(Di- Nii) instead of (Q - Nii) so in E. Hence, the overall system is not C-stable. E i that the result applies for the MIMO G,'s.

'

--

e (

'

e, e

jj,

CALLER

et al.: INPUT-OUTP~~ STABILITY

OF

INERCQN'NE(;TED SYSTEMS

159

Thus, we have Corollay II.1 D(L) (LTI) Consider a LTI overallsystem S described by(32), which satisfies Assumptions 1 and 2, and has the factorizations described above. (For the lumped caseassume that G is proper.) The overallsystem S is @-stable (exp-stable,resp.) if and only if V a = 1; * * ,p

X.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has treated in a very general setting the input-output stability of an arbitrary interconnection of subsystem. Four classes or results are presented: (i) for both NTV and LTI dynamics, a sufficient condition for the overall system stability without using any decomposition (Theorem I); (ii) for both NTV and LTI dynamics, the structural Theorem I11 stating the equivalencebetween the overall system stability and those of the Cs's; (iii) for NTV dynamics, sufficient conditions for the Cstability of ( I - G&)-' and of SCS S,C using the MES decomposition meorems N and V and their corollaries); and (iv) for LTI dynamics, both lumped and distributed, a characteristic function for the overall system stability [Theorem I1 D (L), Corollary 11.1 D (L)]. This paper uses the same graph theoretic decompositions as [24], but it drops the artificial distinction between of[24]. This leads to more the subsystems G s : and transparent theorem formulations. This paper uses a more refined definition of the overallsystem stability made necessary by the multiple-loop nature of the problem. A more systematic use is made of the closure properties of stable maps, of the block-lower-triangular structure resulting from the SCC decomposition, and of the special features of the definition of stability. As a result, the important concept of column subsystem emerges and and sufficient condition for stability leads to necessary (TheoremIII), and, in the LTI case, the overallsystem characteristic function reduces to the product of the colu m n subsystem characteristic functions. One important feature of the graph theoretic decomposition technique is thatit is independent of the dynamics of the subsystem; hence, it leads to results for NTV and LTI dynamics. By using the same reasoning as in [SO], sufficient conditions under which the exp-stability of the overall system is robust can easily be obtained. Due to space limitation, we h i s paper. do not present them in t n decentralized control of large The mainchallenge i scale systems is due to informational constraints: the controller at subsystem i has no knowledge of the information at subsystem j (e.g., the output observed, the

control applied, etc.), and viceversa.However, in the preliminaryanalysis of a large system one should first concentrate on the qualitative system properties (e.g., stability, controllability, observability,etc.), as opposed to the control of the large scale system; at that stage information contraints do not come into the picture. For such preliminary study graph theoretic decompositions techniques, not necessarily restricted to SCC and MES decompositions, should be used to analyze the structure of the large scale system. It is clear that the structure emerging from such an analysis will play a crucial role in the control problem. The stabilization of the overall system is decentralized into the stabilization of each CS and a CS will be stabilized as soon as the corresponding SCS andIs'sare stabilized. Even though this paper considered mostly interconnection of nonlinear subsystems, a key feature of its analysis was that the interconnection occurred through summing nodes which are Zinear elements. (This type of additive nonlinear interaction is also found in most works based on the Lyapunov function technique [13].) It is not clear at this time what will be the most successful model for truly nonlinear interaction among subsystems. Some work has already been reported for the feedback case [38], [51].
APPENDIX

Proof o f Theorem I

Let U A {(i,j)j)(i=jand Gjj is unstable}. By assumption, ( I - G)- :u b e = (q)y=, is stable. Since V(i,j) U, Gg is stable, the map

'

c ; s

u t+Gijq is stable V ( i , j ) U

(A4

Now consider some (i, i ) E U. Substituting e, by (lo), we have

m

Gjjej=Gjj(I-Gji)-'
j#i

By (A. 1) and Lemma 1, the map

By (13) the assumed stability of ( I - GiJ- is equivalent to the map Gij( I - Gji) - * is stable. (A41

'

In view of (A.2), (A.3) and (A.4) together imply that

u b G j j e i is stable.

(A.5)

(A.l)and (A.5) establish the overallsystem stability. Q.E.D.

160

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON A U T O M A T I C

CONTROL,VOL. AC-23, NO. 2, APRIL

1978

Proof o f Lemma 2D(L)

(si)?=lc C, where Isil+c0, l i m idi-,, Idet(I- ke)(si)l > 0. Now we apply Lemma 2 0 to the overall system S (Fig. with K+i, N r + ~ , D+j, N,+I and with We first prove the lemma for the distributed case. 2) Recall the well-established identity for matrices M , N , N = kE; Theorem IID follows. M(I-NM)-'=(I-MN)-'M. (A4 For the lumped case, the proof follows similarly. Q.E.D.

Hte,

Substituting for H and using (A.6) we have Proof

o f Theorem 1 1 1 By definition, Vp = 1,
only if

H(I-KH)-'=N,D-~N,(I-KN,D-'N,)-'
=N,D-~(I-N,KN,D-~)-'N,
=N,(D-N,KN,)-'N,. (A.7)

--

,p, CS S, are stable i f and

V~ll> p= 1,- ,p,

- - ,e ; -

(I- G ,;

)-' are stable. (A.21)

By definition, the overall system is stable if and only if l ibe established Hence, the equivalence of the lemma w once we show that the three matrices in (A.7) form a V a > /3 = 1, . ,p, (u:),!= are stable. (A.22) p.r.1.c.f.of H ( I - K H ) - ' . By asyxnption (N,, D,N,) is a p.r.1.c.f. of H ; hence there exist &-matrices U,,U,, V,, V, Recall such that
det [ U,N,+ V,D](s) =det[(U,+ V,N,K)N,+ V,(D-N,KN,)](s)#O vsEC , ( ~ - 8 ) and det[N,U,+DV,](s)

~;,=G;,(I-G;,

)-I
; = 1

We prove (A.21)+(A.22) by induction on (A.21) holds. From (33), V a > 1,

p. Suppose

y:l

6;'

( I - Gtl )-luf, that

=det[N,(U,+KN,K)+(D-N,KN,)V,](s)#O (A.22) holds V a > p = 1. Vs E C,. (A.9) Suppose (A.22) holdsV a 2 /3 = 1, N,, V/ From (33), VCll > y, we have Since K is a constant matrix, and U,,V,, N,, U,, are &-matrices, byclosureproJerty of algebra &, (U,+ VrN/K),( U, + KN,. VI)are also @-matrices. Now (A.lO)

i.e., 6 t l ( I - Gf1)-' :ut wyZl. Thus, (A.21)implies

*

- ,y - 1. (A.23)

y&=Gy

(I-G;)-

det(D-N,KN,)=detD-det(I- N,KN,D-') Note that by (A.21) 6' ( I - G&)-' is stable V a 2 y, and wc Y by (A.23) the map (ui )i= I + ( ~ ~ ) ; : is ~ stable. Thus, =detD.det(I- K H ) . (A'1 (A.22)holds V a 2 j3= 1 ; ,y. Hence, by induction, By definition of p.r.l.c.f., V sequences (si)?= C c, where (A.22) holds V a 2 /3 = 1, * ,p. We prove (A.22)+(A.2 1) by contradiction. Suppose Isil+0o, lim inf,,,ldetD(si)l>O and by assumption lim id,,, ldet(I- KH)(si)l > 0. Hence by (A.1 I), for all such (A.22) suppose^ for Of contradiction' that for some a,P with a > p, e&(I- GiP)-' is not stable. sequences, For LTI dynamics, consider the input (8,* . . , lim inf Idet(D- N,KNr)(si)l >O. O,u,&O,. ,@.-By (33) and linearity, the corresponding i+m output is =detD.det(I-KN,D-'N,)

')

--

--

This togetherwith (A.7)-(A.10) imply that (N,,D N,KN,,N,) is a p.r.1.c.f. of H ( I - KH)-'.

j:,=

( I - Gib )- 1u ; .

Proof o f Theorem 1 1D(L)

Thus, C=%E and since (Nj,D,)js_a p.r.c.f. G,, of f o r j = 1; ,m, it is easy to see that (N,D) is a p.r.c.f. of 6, or equivalently, (E,fi,I) is a p.r.1.c.f. of From (13, G = kg. n u s ,Assumption 2 is equivalent to v sequences

Let E

A diag(N,,;

- - ,N,m).

; = 1

e.

162

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL,VOL AC-23, NO.

2, APRIL 1978

Hence, ( I - G)- :( u I , u 2 ) b ( e , e 2is ) E-stable. Q.E.D.

ity of interconnected systems, presented at the 6th IFAC World Congr., Boston, MA, Aug. 1975, paper 44.4. M. Araki and B. Kondo, Stability and transient behavior of composite nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., V O ~ .AC-17, pp. 537-541, Aug. 1972. Proof of Corollav V.l R. D. Rasmussen and A. N. Michel, Stability of interconnected d y n d c a l systemsdescribed on Banachspaces, IEEE Trans. It follows from Assumption 2 that (I- Gii)- is a wellAutomat. Contr., vol. AC-21, pp. 464-471, Aug. 1976.. D.W. Porter and A. N. Michel, Input-output stabdity o f timedefined map; by Assumption @) of the corollary, V i V I , varying nonlinear multiloop feedback systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-19, pp. 422-427, Aug. 1974. there exists .Zi,EC such that GiiCiiEC; hence, Uii 2 E. L. Lasley and A. N.Michel, Input-output stability of large ( I - G,,);,, E C and, consequently, ( I - G,)- Uii E Thus, scale systems, in Proc. 8th Asilomar Conf., 1974, pp. 476-482. , Input-output stability of interconnected systems, IEEE by Remark l(iv), Assumptions(a) and (b) respectively Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-21, pp. 84-89, Feb. 1976. imply that M. Araki, Input-output stabdity of composite feedback systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-21, pp. 254-259, Apr. 1976. F. Harary, A graph theoretic approach to matrixinversionby V i > j , i~ V,jE V I , y [ G,] is finite,(A.31) partitioning, Numerische Mathematik, vol. 4, pp. 128-135, 1962. A. K. Kevorkian and J.Snoek,Decomposition in largescale V i V I , y [ (I- G i i ) - ] is finite. (A.32) systems: Theory and applications of structural analysis in partitioning, disjointing and constructing hierarchical systems, i n DeM. Himmelblau, Ed. composition of Large Scale Problems, D. Assumption (a) implies that Amsterdam. The Netherlands: North Holland/American Elsevier, 1973. ?[ G(A.33) finite. ] is [20] A. K. Kevorkian, ,A decomposjtional algorithm for the solution of large systems of h e a r algebrruc equations, in Proc. I975 IEEE ISCAS, Boston, MA, Apr. 1975. of Assumptions(a), (b) and thelower-triangularform [21] , Structural aspects of large dynamical systems, presented at ( I - G ) together imply that the 6th IFAC World Congr., Boston, MA, Aug. 1975. f [22] U. Ozgiiner and W. R Perkins, On the multilevel structure o IEEE Trans. Circuits @st., vol. largescalecompositesystems, f ( I - G ) - l ] finite. is (A.34) CAS-22, pp. 618-622, July 1975. [U] W. May& and N. Wax, System structure and stability, in Proc 10th Ann Asilomar Con5 on Circuits, *st. and Comput., Nov. 1976. Similarly, (A.31), (A.32) and the lower-triangular form of [24] F. M. Callier, W. S . Chan, and C. A. Desoer, Input-output (I- G I ) together imply that stability theory of interconnected systems using decomposition techniques, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-23, pp. 714-729, Dec.1976. y [ ( I - G ) - l ] is finite. (A.35) [25] N. Munro, Applications of the inverse Nyquist array design method, i n Proc. I976 IEEE Con$ on Decisionand Control, pp. 348-353. Assumption (d) implies that [26] L . S c h w w Theorie des Distributions. Paris, France: Hermann, 1966. y [ G 1 2 ] is finite. (A.36) [27] E. Hille and R S . Phillips, Functional Anabsysb and Semi-Groups, vol. XXXI. Providence, RI: h e r . Math. Soc. Coll. Iubl.,1957. [28]C. Corduneanu and S. I. Grossman, On the Wiener-Hopf q u a By Theorem V, (A.33)-(A.36) and Assumption (e) tion, Rev. Roum. Math. Pures et Appl. (Bucarest), vol. XVIII, no. together imply that 10, pp. 1547-1554,1973. [29] C. A. Desoer and J. D. Schulman, Cancellations in multivariable continuous-time and discrete-the feedbacksystems treated by ( I - G)- C-stable. is (A.37) greatest common divisor extraction, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-18, pp. 4 0 1 4 2 , Aug. 1973. By Theorem I, (A.31), (A.33, Assumptions(c) and (d) [30] C. T. Chen, Introduction to Linear System %ory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Q.E.D. together imply that the S C S S is C-stable. [31] H. H. Rosenbrock, State-Space and Multimkzble Theory. New York: Wiley, 1970. [32] F. M. Callier and C. D. Nahum,Necessary and sufficient conditions for the com lete controllability and observability of systems REFERENCES i n series using $ e coprime f a c t o h t i o n of a rational m a w IEEE Trans. Circuits @st., vol. CAS-22, pp. 90-95, Feb. 1975. [ 11 G. Z a m e s , On the input-output stability of time-v.arying nonlinear [33] C. A. Desoer q d W. S. Chan, The feedback interconnection of lumped l i n e a r tune-invariant systems, J . Franklin Inst., vol. 300, feedback systems-Part I: Conchons derived usrng the concepts of loop gain, conicity, and positivity, IEEETram.Automat. pp. 335-351, Nov.-Dw. 1975. Contr., vol. AC-11, pp. 228-238, Apr. 1966. [34] N. Deo, Grqh Theoy with Applications to Engineering and Compurer Science. Englewocd Cliffs NJ: Frentice-Hall,1974. [2] J. C. Willem, The Analysis o f Feedback System. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1971. [35] F. Harary, G r q h Theory. Reading,M A : Addison-Wesley, 1969. i n e a r graph algorithms, SIAM [3] C.A. Desoer and M. Vidyasagar, Feedback Systems, Input-Oulput [36] R. Tarjan, Depth-first search and l Properties. New York:Academic, 1975. J . Comput., vol. 1, pp. 146-160, June 1972. [4] F. M. Callier and C. A. Desoer,LP-stability (1 < p < co) of [37] D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 1, Fundamental Algorithms. Reading,M A : Addison-Wesley,1973. multivariable nonlinear time-varyingfeedbacksystems that are open-lfFp unstable, Int. J. Contr., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 65-72, 1974. [38]J.C.Willems,Mechanismsforthe stability and instability in feedback systems, Proc. IEEE, vol. 6 4 , pp. 24-35, Jan. 1976. [5] , en-loop unstable convolution feedback systems wth dynamica feedbacks, Automatica, vol. 12, pp. 507-518, Sept. [39] A. Lempel and I. Cederbaum, Minimum feedback arc and vertex sets of a directed graph, IEEE Tram. Cirnrit Theory, vol. CT-13, 1976. [6]C. A.Desoer and W. S. Chan, The feedback interconnection of pp. 399-403, Dm. 1966. multivariablesystems:Simplifyingtheoremsforstability, Proc. [40] L. Divieti and A. Grasselli, On the determination of minimum IEEE, V O ~ .6 4 , pp. 139-144, Jan. 1976. feedback arc and vertex sets, IEEE Trans. Cirnut Theory, vol. CT-15, pp. 86-88, Mar. 1968. [q J. Hale, Fwrctional Differential Equations. New York,Springer[41] G. Guardabassi, A note on minimal essential sets, IEEE Trans. Verlag, 197 1. Circuit Theory, vol. ff-18, pp. 557-560, Sept. 1971. [8] A. N. Michel, Stabihty analysis o f interconnected systems, [42]M. Diaz, J. P. Richard, and M. Courvoisier, A note on minimal SIAM J . Conrr., vol. 12, pp. 554-579, Aug. 1974. and quasi-minimal essential sets in complex directed graphs, [9] , Stability and trajectorybehavior of composite systems, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory, vol.(3-19, pp. 512-513, Sept. 1972. IEEE Trans. Cirmts Syst., vol. CAS-22, pp. 305-312, Apr. 1975. [IO] D. D. Siljak, Stability of large scale systems, in Proc. 5th IFAC [43] Decomposition in large scale A. K. Kevorkian and J. Snoek, systems: Theory and applications in solving large sets of nonlinear Congr., Paris, France, 1972, C-32, pp. 1-1.1. simultaneousequations,in Decomposition o f Large Scale Prob[ 1 I] H.Tokumaru, N. Adachi, and T. Amemya, Macroscopic stabil-

e.

op

IEEE TRANSACTIONS

ON AUTOMATIC

CONTROL, VOL. AC-23,NO. 2,163 APRIL 1978

Zem, D. M.

Himmelblau, Ed. New York: North Holland/ American Elsevier, 1973. L. K. Cheung and E. S. Kuh, The bordered triangular matrix and minimum essential sets of a digraph, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., V O ~ .CAS-21, pp. 633-689, S v t . 1974. G. W. Smith, Jr. and R B. Walford, The identification of a minimal feedback vertex set of a directed graph, IEEE Trans. Cirnrits Syst., vol. CAS-22, pp. 9-14, Jan. 1975. F. Harary, On minimal feedback vertex sets of a digraph, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-22, pp. 839-840, Oct. 1975. R. M. Karp, On the computational complexity of combinatorial problems, Networks, vol. 5, pp. 45-68, 1975. G. Guardabassi and A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, A two levels algorithm for tearing, IEEE Trans. Circuits @st, vol.CAS-23, pp. 783-791, Dw. 1976. D.E. Riegle and P. M. Lin, Matrix signal flow graphs and an optimumtopological method for evaluatingtheir gain, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theoy, vol. CT-19, pp. 427-434, Sept. 1972. C. A. Desoer, F. M. M e r , and W. S . Chan, Robustness of stability conditions for linear time-invariantfeedbacksystems, IEEE Tram. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-23, pp. 586-590, Aug. 1977. D. Carluci and F. Donati, Control of norm uncertain systems, IEEE Trans. Automat.Contr., vol. AC-24 pp. 792-795, Dec. 1975. born on November 27, 1942 in Antwerp, Belgium. He received the electrical engineers degree from the University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium, in 1966, a Engineering from the certificate in Nuclear Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Ziirich, Switzerland, in 1967, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering and computer sciences from the University o f California, Berkeley, CA in 1970 and 1972, respectively. From September 1969 to July 1973, he was

w i t h the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences,

University of California, at Berkeley, where he was an acting Assistant Professor during the academic year 1972-1973. From July 1973 to August 1974, he was with the Laboratory for Automatic Control, University of Ghent, as a qualified Researcherof the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research, Brussels, Belgium.In September 1974, he joined the Department of Mathematics, Facultis Universitaires de Namur, i s main Namur, Belgium, where he is currently an Associate Professor.H theory with researchinterest is in the area of control and system emphasis on multivariable and distributed system stability. He also has interests in optimization.

Frank M. Callier (S70-M72) was

Charles A. Desoer (S50-A53-SM57-F64), for a photograph and biography see page 2 of the February 1978 issue of this TRANSACTIONS.

TheStabilization of Digraphs of Variable ParameterSystems

PETER E. CAINES, MEMBER,
IEEE, AND

ROBERT S . PRINTIS, MEMBER, IEEE

Such graphs possess a natural and unique layering of their n o d e s . Each node is taken to be associated with a dynamical system in such a way that each parameter o f a given system is some nonlinear function of the states of system connected to it and lying in higher layers of the network. Such an arrangement we call a digraph of variableparameter s y s t e m s . It is shown that digmphs of a large class of variable parameter systems may be stabilized by associating a compensator (of observer-linear feedback t y p e ) with each variable parameter system. Each compensator need only observe

Abstruct-Directed acyclic graphs of dynamical systems are cousidered.

the output and input of the variableparameter system with which it is

assodated; however, an argument is presented to show that the performance of the eontrolled digraph is enhaneed if the compensators signal to

eacb other in a manner consistent with the flow of the parametric dis~~~thene~o~Inthissense,itisshownthatan~~ variable parameter systems is efficientlystabilized by amultilevel, or h d i c a , l control system.

I. INTRODUCTION

0018-9286/78/0400-0163$00.75 0 1978 IEEE