1

Backstepping Boundary Control of Navier-Stokes

Channel Flow: A 3D Extension
Jennie Cochran, Rafael Vazquez and Miroslav Krstic
AbstractWe present an extension from 2D to 3D of a
boundary control law which stabilizes the parabolic prole of an
innite channel ow. In this 3D case, we include an additional
controller in the spanwise direction. This result guarantees
exponential stability in the L2 sense of the linearized Navier-
Stokes equations. We also present explicit controllers for the
control of the system with an averaged streamwise velocity and
a Taylor series expansion of the kernels for the controllers up to
third order.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this paper we present a boundary control law which
stabilizes a benchmark 3D linearized Navier-Stokes system.
This result extends a previous result [14] of a control law for
the 2D version of the system we examine here. By adding
a third dimension, we add an additional controller in the
spanwise direction and modify the derivation accordingly.
Studying this problem in 3D continues to be hard the
extention to 3D does not detract from the numerous complex
issues underlying the problem [9].
While we use a backstepping technique to stabilize the sys-
tem, other methods, such as optimal control methods [6], [11],
[10], model reduction techniques [4], separation control [3]
have been studied extensively. Currently, the most successful
technique [8] involves discretizing the Navier-Stokes equations
and employs high-dimensional algebraic Riccati equations
which has formidable computational complexity for large
Reynolds numbers. A simple and explicit design, using a
Lyapunov/passivity technique [1], [5], was also developed.
However, though this approach did not use discretization or
linearization, and though it was successful in simulations using
high Reynolds numbers, the theory behind this design was
restricted to low Reynolds numbers. The backstepping tech-
nique used here is based on the recently developed technique
for parabolic systems [13], which has been successfully used
in ow control problems [14], [2], [16]. It does not employ
Riccati equations, nor is the theory limited to low Reynolds
numbers.
We start the paper, in Section II, by reviewing the 3D
Navier-Stokes equations in the geometry we are considering
(an innite channel) and the Poiseuille equilibrium prole we
stabilize. Next, we linearize around the equilibrium prole
and transform the system to Fourier space. This allows us
to analyze each wave number pair separately, as all pairs are
uncoupled from each other. We split the wave numbers into
two sets, induce control on one set of wave numbers, and leave
the other set uncontrolled. After transforming the equations to
Fourier space, we solve for the pressure. Eliminating the pres-
sure from the velocity equations allows us to design a normal
velocity controller, V
c
, using a strict-feedback structure. This
also allows us to transform the streamwise and spanwise veloc-
ities from a cascade Volterra operator form to two stable heat
Scripps Institute of Oceanography and Department of Mechanical
and Aerospace Engineering, University of California at San Diego
(jcochran@ucsd.edu,krstic@ucsd.edu)
equation systems using boundary feedback. With this in mind,
we design streamwise and spanwise velocity controllers, U
c
and W
c
, using the backstepping technique. In Section III, we
prove the stability of the system with controlled wave numbers
and then the stability of the system with the uncontrolled wave
numbers. Using these results we prove stability of the entire
physical system with the designed controllers. After this proof,
Section IV examines the special case when the wavenumber
in the streamwise direction equals zero. This case corresponds
to studying the system with an averaged streamwise velocity.
In this case, we derive explicit solutions of the kernels used
in U
c
and W
c
. After examining the k
x
= 0 case, we study
the controllers around small wavenumbers in Section V. We
provide a Taylor series expansion of the kernels used in U
c
and W
c
up to third order. We nish the paper in Section VI
by discussing the results.
II. DERIVATION OF CONTROLLERS
In this section, we present the mathematical model of the
channel ow problem and then derive controllers to stabilize
the Poiseuille equilibrium prole. The geometry we consider
here is a semi-innite box (x, z, y) (, )(, )
[0, 1]. The governing equations for the dimensionless velocity
eld of the incompressible channel ow we consider are the
Navier-Stokes equations
U
t
=
1
Re
(U
xx
+U
zz
+U
yy
)
UU
x
V U
y
WU
z
P
x
, (1)
W
t
=
1
Re
(W
xx
+W
zz
+W
yy
)
UW
x
V W
y
WW
z
P
z
, (2)
V
t
=
1
Re
(V
xx
+V
zz
+V
yy
)
UV
x
V V
y
WV
z
P
y
, (3)
U
x
+W
z
+V
y
= 0 , (4)
U(t, x, z, 0) = W(t, x, z, 0) = V (t, x, z, 0) = 0 , (5)
U(t, x, z, 1) = W(t, x, z, 1) = V (t, x, z, 1) = 0 , (6)
where U is the streamwise velocity, W is the spanwise
velocity, V is the wall-normal velocity, P is the pressure and
Re is the Reynolds number. By combining (1)(4) we nd a
Poisson equation for P:
P
xx
+P
zz
+P
yy
=
2V
2
y
2U
x
W
z
2U
y
V
x
2U
z
W
x
2V
z
W
y
, (7)
P
y
(t, x, z, 0) =
V
yy
(t, x, z, 0)
Re
, (8)
P
y
(t, x, z, 1) =
V
yy
(t, x, z, 1)
Re
. (9)
The equilibrium solution to (1)(4) that we shall stabilize is
the parabolic Poiseuille prole
U
e
= 4y(1 y) , (10)
W
e
= V
e
= 0 , (11)
P
e
= P
0

8
Re
x, (12)
which is unstable for high Reynolds numbers.
Our new equations, after dening the uctuation variables
u = U U
e
, p = P P
e
, (13)
and linearizing around the equilibrium prole, are
u
t
=
1
Re
(u
xx
+u
zz
+u
yy
) + 4y(y 1)u
x
+4(2y 1)V p
x
, (14)
W
t
=
1
Re
(W
xx
+W
zz
+W
yy
) + 4y(y 1)W
x
p
z
, (15)
V
t
=
1
Re
(V
xx
+V
zz
+V
yy
) + 4y(y 1)V
x
p
y
, (16)
p
xx
+p
zz
+p
yy
= 8(2y 1)V
x
, (17)
u(t, x, z, 0) = W(t, x, z, 0) = V (t, x, z, 0) = 0 , (18)
u(t, x, z, 1) = U
c
(t, x, z) , (19)
W(t, x, z, 1) = W
c
(t, x, z) , (20)
V (t, x, z, 1) = V
c
(t, x, z) , (21)
p
y
(t, x, z, 0) =
V
yy
(t, x, z, 0)
Re
, (22)
p
y
(t, x, z, 1) =
V
yy
(t, x, z, 1)
Re
(V
c
)
t
(t, x, z)
+
(V
c
)
xx
(t, x, z) + (V
c
)
zz
(t, x, z)
Re
. (23)
We dene

2
= 4
2
(k
2
x
+k
2
z
) , = 16k
x
i , (24)
and then transform equations (14)(23) to Fourier space. This
results in an innite number of 1D systems paramaterized by
the wave numbers k
x
and k
z
,
u
t
=
1
Re
(
2
u +u
yy
) +

2
y(y 1)u
+4(2y 1)V 2ik
x
p , (25)
W
t
=
1
Re
(
2
W +W
yy
) +

2
y(y 1)W
2ik
z
p , (26)
V
t
=
1
Re
(
2
V +V
yy
) +

2
y(y 1)V
p
y
, (27)

2
p +p
yy
= (2y 1)V , (28)
u(t, k
x
, k
z
, 0) = W(t, k
x
, k
z
, 0) = V (t, k
x
, k
z
, 0) = 0 , (29)
u(t, k
x
, k
z
, 1) = U
c
(t, k
x
, k
z
) , (30)
W(t, k
x
, k
z
, 1) = 0 , (31)
V (t, k
x
, k
z
, 1) = V
c
(t, k
x
, k
z
) , (32)
p
y
(t, k
x
, k
z
, 0) =
V
yy
(t, k
x
, k
z
, 0)
Re
, (33)
p
y
(t, k
x
, k
z
, 1) =
V
yy
(t, k
x
, k
z
, 1)
2
V
c
(t, k
x
, k
z
)
Re
(V
c
)
t
(t, k
x
, k
z
) . (34)
We divide the wave numbers into two sets. The rst set
contains the wave numbers |k
x
|, |k
z
| M, and is controlled
by V
c
, U
c
and W
c
to be designed. The other set, containing
all other wave numbers, is left uncontrolled. We separate these
sets mathematically using the following function
(k
x
, k
z
) =
_
1, |k
x
| < M and |k
x
| < M
0, else,
(35)
where
M =
1

_
Re
2
(36)
for the analysis in this paper. For implementation, M will be
chosen using the numerical results in [12]. In the next two
subsections we will design controllers for stabilization of the
new variables
Y = k
x
u +k
z
W (37)
= k
z
u k
x
W . (38)
The physical meaning of Y is related to V ,
Y = i
V
y
2
, (39)
whereas is the vorticity uctuation. By stabilizing (Y, ) we
stabilize the entire Navier-Stokes system because
u =
k
x
Y +k
z

k
2
x
+k
2
z
(40)
W =
k
z
Y k
x

k
2
x
+k
2
z
(41)
and
V (y) = 2i
_
y
0
Y ()d . (42)
A. Stabilization of Y
If we solve the system dened by equations (28), (33) and
(34), we can replace p and p
y
in equations (25)(27). Doing
this, we can now nd an evolution equation for Y (t, y) that
only depends on the pressure boundary conditions, (which in
turn depend on V ), and not on p:
Y
t
=
1
Re
(
2
Y +Y
yy
) +

2
y(y 1)Y
+4(2y 1)k
x
V

i
2
_

_
y
o
V (t, )(2 1) sinh((y ))d

cosh(y)
sinh()
_
1
0
V (t, )(2 1) cosh((1 ))d

cosh((1 y))
sinh()
p
y
(t, x, z, 0)
+
cosh(y)
sinh()
p
y
(t, x, z, 1)
_
, (43)
Y (t, 0) = 0 , Y (t, 1) = k
x
U
c
(t) +k
z
W
c
(t) . (44)
To continue with our derivations, we can use the continuity
equation and the denition of Y to transform (33) and (34)
into
p
y
(t, 0) =
2iY
y
(t, 0)
Re
, (45)
p
y
(t, 1) =
2iY
y
(t, 1) +
2
V
c
Re
(V
c
)
t
. (46)
Now, if we set V
c
as follows
(V
c
)
t
=
1
Re
(2i(Y
y
(t, 0) Y
y
(t, 1))
2
V
c
)

_
1
0
V (t, )(2 1) cosh((1 ))d , (47)
and plug (45), (46) and (47) into (43), our equation for Y
becomes
Y
t
=
1
Re
(
2
Y +Y
yy
) +

2
y(y 1)Y
+4(2y 1)k
x
V

i
2
_

_
y
o
V (t, )(2 1) sinh((y ))d
+2i
cosh((1 y)) cosh(y)
sinh()
Y
y
(t, 0)
Re
_
. (48)
We can use the continuity equation and the fact that V is
zero at the uncontrolled boundary to express everything in
terms of Y as in equation (42) and the evolution equation for
Y then becomes
Y
t
=
1
Re
(
2
Y +Y
yy
) +

2
y(y 1)Y
8i(2y 1)k
x
_
y
0
Y (t, )d

_
y
0
(2 1) sinh((y ))
_

0
Y (t, )dd
+

Re
cosh((1 y)) cosh(y)
sinh()
Y
y
(t, 0) . (49)
By using integration by parts, we see that we have a system
which can be stabilized using the backstepping technique. If
we set the following for notational convenience,
=
1
Re
, (50)
(y) = 8ik
x
y(y 1) , (51)
f(y, ) = 8i
_
k
x
(2y 1) 4
k
x

sinh((y ))
2k
x
(2 1) cosh((y ))
_
, (52)
g(y) =
cosh((1 y)) cosh(y)
sinh()
, (53)
(54)
the system we stabilize is
Y
t
= (
2
Y +Y
yy
) +(y)Y
+g(y)Y
y
(t, 0) +
_
y
0
f(y, )Y (t, )d . (55)
We want to link Y to a family of heat equations (which are
also parameterized by the wave numbers k
x
and k
z
)

t
= (
2
+
yy
) +(y), (56)
(t, 0) = (t, 1) = 0 , (57)
where
= Y
_
y
0
K(k
x
, k
z
, y, )Y (t, k
x
, k
z
, )d , (58)
Y = +
_
y
0
L(k
x
, k
z
, y, )(t, k
x
, k
z
, )d , (59)
are the direct and inverse transformations. To nd K(y, ) and
thus our control laws, we must nd the pde that K solves. To
do this, we differentiate (58) with respect to t and plug (55)
in for Y
t
. We then twice differentiate (58) with respect to y
and plug that, along with (58), into (56). We then set these
two equations equal to each other and nd the following PDE
and boundary conditions for K.
K
yy
(y, ) = K

(y, ) f(y, )
+(() (y))K(y, )
+
_
y

K(y, )f(, )d , (60)

K(y, 0) =
_
y
0
K(y, )g()d g(y) , (61)
dK(y, y)
dy
= 0 . (62)
We can nd an integral equation for K which can be solved
using the method of successive approximations. We rst
employ a change of variables
K(y, ) = G(, ) (63)
= y + = y (64)
and nd the following pde
4G

(, ) = f
_
+
2
,

2
_
+
_

_

2
_

_
+
2
_
_
G(, )
+
_ +
2
)
2
G
_
+
2
+,
+
2

_
f
_
,

2
_
d (65)
G(, ) =
_

0
G( +, )g()d g() (66)
dG(, 0)
d
= 0 . (67)
We then integrate (65) with respect to from 0 to and use
(67) to nd
G

(, ) =
1
4
_

_

0
f
_
+
2
,

2
_
d
+
_

0
_

_

2
_

_
+
2
_
_
G(, )d
+
_

0
_ +
2

2
G
_
+
2
+,
+
2

_
f
_
,

2
_
dd
_
. (68)
Next we integrate with respect to from to and use (66)
to obtain
G(, ) =
1
4
_

_

0
f
_
s +
2
,
s
2
_
dds
+
_

_

0
_

_
s
2
_

_
s +
2
_
_
G(s, )dds
+
_

_

0
_ s+
2
s
2
G
_
s +
2
+,
s +
2

_
f
_
,
s
2
_
ddds
_
+
1

_

0
G( +, )g()d
1

g() (69)
After changing the variables , back to y, we obtain our
successive approximation representation
K
0
(y, ) =
1
4
_
y+
y
_
y
0
f
_
s +
2
,
s
2
_
dds

g(y ) (70)
=
cosh(y ) cosh((y 1))
sinh()
+
2ik
x

2

_
4 sinh((y ))( 1)
+12(cosh((y )) 1)
_

2ik
x

(3y 2)(y ) (71)

K
n
=
1
4
_
_
y+
y
_
y
0
_ s+
2
s
2
K
n1
_
s +
2
,
_
f
_
,
s
2
_
ddds
+
_
y+
y
_
y
0
_

_
s
2
_

_
s +
2
_
_
K
n1
_
s +
2
,
s
2
_
dds
_
+
1

_
y
0
K
n1
(y , )g()d
+K
n1
(72)
and
K = lim
n
K
n
(73)
We can also derive a similar PDE and boundary conditions
for L. Using those PDEs and boundary conditions, we can
derive an integral equation for L using the same method
of successive approximations. Both K and L are smooth
convergent functions [13], [14].
B. Stabilization of
The variable satises the system:

t
= (
2
+
yy
)
+(y) +h(y)
_
y
0
Y ()d (74)
(t, 0) = 0 , (t, 1) = k
z
u(t, 1) k
x
W(t, 1) (75)
where
h(y) = 8k
z
i(2y 1) . (76)
Note that we have again used equation (42). To fully dene
our controllers, we use a double backstepping transformation
to stabilize :
=
_
y
0
(k
x
, k
z
, y, )Y (t, k
x
, k
z
, )d, (77)
= +
_
y
0
(k
x
, k
z
, y, )(t, k
x
, k
z
, )d. (78)
where Y and are dened above in equations (58) and (59),
and satises the following heat equation:

t
= (
2
+
yy
) +(y) (79)
(t, 0) = (t, 1) = 0, (80)
similar to . Note that, using equations (78), (77) and (59)
we can deduce from and L:
= +
_
y

(y, )L(, )d . (81)

We nd the PDE that satises, following the same steps we
took to nd the PDE that K solved.

yy
=

h(y) + (() (y))

+
_
y

(y, )f(, )d (82)

(y, y) = 0, (y, 0) =
_
y
0
(y, )g()d (83)
Again, using these equations we can derive an integral repre-
sentation of using the method of successive approximations.
Following the same steps we took to nd (71), (72) we nd

0
(y, ) =
1
4
_
y+
y
_
y
0
h
_
s +
2
_
dds (84)
=
2ik
z

(3y 2)(y ) (85)

n
(y, ) =
1
4
_
_
y+
y
_
y
0
_ s+
2
s
2

n1
_
s +
2
,
_
f
_
,
s
2
_
ddds
+
_
y+
y
_
y
0
_

_
s
2
_

_
s +
2
_
_

n1
_
s +
2
,
s
2
_
dds
_
+
1

_
y
0

n1
(y , )g()d
+
n1
(86)
and = lim
n

n
. Both and are smooth convergent
functions.
C. Control design summary and stability guarantees
With the transformations Y to and to , we can now
state the equations for the controllers U
c
and W
c
in wavespace:
U
c
=
4
2

2
_
k
x
Y (t, 1) +k
z
(t, 1)
_
(87)
= 4
2
_
1
0
k
x
K(1, ) +k
z
(1, )

2
Y (t, )d (88)
W
c
=
4
2

2
_
k
z
Y (t, 1) k
x
(t, 1)
_
(89)
= 4
2
_
1
0
k
z
K(1, ) k
x
(1, )

2
Y (t, )d. (90)
Given the previous derivations, we can now state the con-
trollers in physical space:
Vc =
Z
t
0
Z

Z
M
M
Z
M
M
2i
Re

kx

uy(, x, z, 0) uy(, x, z, 1)

+kz

Wy(, x, z, 0) Wy(, x, z, 1)

2
Re
(t)
e
2i

kx(x x)+kz(z z)

dkxdkzd xd zd

Z
t
0
Z
1
0
Z

Z
M
M
Z
M
M
V (, x, z, )(2 1)
16kxi cosh((1 ))e

2
Re
(t)
e
2i

kx(x x)+kz(z z)

dkxdkzd xd zdd , (91)

Uc =
Z
1
0
Z

Z
M
M
Z
M
M
4
2
k
2
x
+ k
2
z

kxK(kx, kz, 1, ) + kz(kx, kz, 1, )

kxu(t, x, z, ) + kzW(t, x, z, )

e
2i

kx(x x)+kz(z z)

dkxdkzd xd zd , (92)
Wc =
Z
1
0
Z

Z
M
M
Z
M
M
4
2
k
2
x
+ k
2
z

kzK(kx, kz, 1, ) kx(kx, kz, 1, )

kxu(t, x, z, ) + kzW(t, x, z, )

e
2i

kx(x x)+kz(z z)

dkxdkzd xd zd , (93)
where K and are dened by the systems (60)(62) and (82)
(83) respectively. These controllers guarentee the following
result.
Theorem 1: The equilibrium u(t, x, z, y) V (t, x, z, y)
W(t, x, z, y) 0 of the system (14)(23),(91),(92),(93) is
exponentially stable in the L
2
sense:
_
1
0
_

_
|V |
2
(t, x, z, y)
+|u|
2
(t, x, z, y) +|W|
2
(t, x, z, y)
_
dxdzdy
Ce

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_

_
|V |
2
(0, x, z, y)
+|u|
2
(0, x, z, y) +|W|
2
(0, x, z, y)
_
dxdzdy , (94)
where
C = max
m<|kx|,|kz|<M
n
(1 +
2
+
2

)(1 +L)
2
(1 +K +)
2
o
(95)
III. STABILITY PROOF
This section proves Theorem 1. First, we prove the stability
of the set of controlled wave numbers in Fourier space.
We then prove the stability of the set of uncontrolled wave
numbers, also in Fourier space. Finally, we use these results
to prove stability in physical space.
A. Controlled wave numbers
To prove that the controlled wavenumbered system is stable
around the equilibrium, we start with V , u, and W in Fourier
space and transform them into and . Next we nd an
exponential bound on these transformed variables. We then
transform these back to the original variables.
To begin, we use equations (40) and (41) to transform u,
W into Y , and then the following
V = 2i
_
y
0
_
1 +
_
y

L(, )d
_
(t, )d (96)
to transform V into ,
_
1
0
_
|V |
2
(t, y) +|u|
2
(t, y) +|W|
2
(t, y)
_
dy
=
_
1
0
_

2i
_
y
0
_
1 +
_
y

L(, )d
_
(t, )d

2
+

4
2
k
x
Y +k
z

2
+

4
2
k
z
Y k
x

2
_
dy (97)

_
1
0
_
4
2
(1 +L

)
2
||
2
(t, y)
+
4
2

2
_
|Y |
2
(t, y) +||
2
(t, y)
_
_
dy . (98)
We now use (59) and (78) to transform Y , into , ,
_
1
0
_
|V |
2
(t, y) +|u|
2
(t, y) +|W|
2
(t, y)
_
dy

_
1
0
_
4
2
(1 +L

)
2
||
2
(t, y)
+
4
2

(t, y) +
_
y
0
L(y, )(t, )d

2
+
4
2

(t, y) +
_
y
0
(y, )()d

2
_
dy

4
2

2
_
1
0
_
(1 +
2
)(1 +L

)
2
||
2
(t, y)
+||
2
(t, y) +
2

||
2
(t, y)
_
dy (99)

4
2

2
_
1
0
_
(1 +
2
+
2

)(1 +L

)
2

_
||
2
(t, y) +||
2
(t, y)
_
_
dy . (100)
We use the following L
2
estimates
_
1
0
||
2
(t, y)dy e

1
Re
t
_
1
0
||
2
(0, y)dy (101)
_
1
0
||
2
(t, y)dy e

1
Re
t
_
1
0
||
2
(0, y)dy (102)
that were derived from (56)(57) and (79)(80). Note that
the (y)(t, y) and (y)(t, y) terms do not affect the L
2
estimates as (y) is purely imaginary. Using (101) and (102)
and equations (58), (77) to transform , back into Y , we
continue as
_
1
0
_
|V |
2
(t, y) +|u|
2
(t, y) +|W|
2
(t, y)
_
dy

4
2

2
e

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_
(1 +
2
+
2

)(1 +L

)
2

_
||
2
(0, y) +||
2
(0, y)
_
_
dy (103)

4
2

2
e

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_
(1 +
2
+
2

)(1 +L

)
2

Y (0, y)
_
y
0
K(y, )Y (0, )d

2
+

(0, y)
_
y
0
(y, )Y (0, )d)

2
_
_
dy (104)

4
2

2
Ce

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_
|Y |
2
(0, y) +||
2
(0, y)
_
dy (105)
where C is dened in equation (95) above. We now use
equations (37) and (38) to transform Y , back into u, W.
_
1
0
_
|V |
2
(t, y) +|u|
2
(t, y) +|W|
2
(t, y)
_
dy

4
2

2
Ce

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_

k
x
u(0, y) +k
z
W(0, y)

2
+

k
z
u(0, y) k
x
W(0, y)

2
_
dy (106)
Ce

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_
|V |
2
(0, y) +|u|
2
(0, y) +|W|
2
(0, y)
_
dy .(107)
This shows an exponential stability bound for the system
containing controlled wavenumbers,
_
1
0
_

(k
x
, k
z
)

_
|V |
2
(t, y) +|u|
2
(t, y) +|W|
2
(t, y)
_
dk
x
dk
z
dy
Ce

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_

(k
x
, k
z
)

_
|V |
2
(0, y) +|u|
2
(0, y) +|W|
2
(0, y)
_
dk
x
dk
z
dy .(108)
B. Uncontrolled wave numbers
To prove the stability of the uncontrolled system, we dene
a new Lyapunov functional

ucw
(t) =
1
2
_
1
0
_
|u|
2
+|V |
2
+|W|
2
_
dy (109)

ucw
= 2
2

ucw

_
1
0
_
|u
y
|
2
+|V
y
|
2
+|W
y
|
2
_
dy
+
_
1
0
4(2y 1)
_
V u +

V u
_
2
dy . (110)
By using the Poincare inequality

_
1
0
_
|u
y
|
2
+|V
y
|
2
+|W
y
|
2
_
dy
ucw
, (111)
we nd

ucw
2
2

ucw

ucw
+
_
1
0
2
_
V u +

V u
_
dy . (112)
By noting that
_
1
0
2|V ||u|dy
_
1
0
_
|V |
2
+|u|
2
_
dy

_
1
0
_
|V |
2
+|u|
2
+|W|
2
_
dy (113)
we see that

ucw
2
2

ucw

ucw
+ 4
ucw
, (114)
and if
2
2/, (which is equivalent to (k
2
x
+ k
2
z
)
Re
2
2
),
then

ucw

ucw
. (115)
We obtain an exponential stability bound for the uncontrolled
system:
_
1
0
_

(1 (k
x
, k
z
))

_
|V |
2
(t, y) +|u|
2
(t, y) +|W|
2
(t, y)
_
dk
x
dk
z
dy
e

1
Re
t
_
1
0
_

(1 (k
x
, k
z
))

_
|V |
2
(0, y) +|u|
2
(0, y) +|W|
2
(0, y)
_
dk
x
dk
z
dy(116)
Adding together (108) and (116) and applying Parsevals
identity to both sides of the inequality, we get (94).
IV. THE CASE k
x
= 0
We examine the special case of k
x
= 0 in this section.
This case if often considered theultimate problem in control
of channel ow turbulence because it is the case where the
transient growth is the largest [9], [7], [12]. Setting k
x
=
0 allows us to explicity solve for K and , which gives us
explicit formulae U
c
and W
c
. We derive these solutions and
then discuss their properties.
In the case of k
x
= 0, the variables Y and turn into:
Y = k
z
W , = k
z
u. (117)
Denoting
=

kx=0
= 2k
z
, (118)
the plant is now
u
t
=
_

2
u +u
yy
+

h(y)
_
y
0
W()d
_
(119)
W
t
=
_

2
W +W
yy
+ g(y)W
y
(0)
_
(120)
V
t
=
_

2
V +V
yy
_
p
y
(121)
u(0) = W(0) = V (0) = 0 (122)
u(1) = U
c
W(1) = W
c
V (1) = V
c
(123)
where
g(y) =
cosh((1 y)) cosh(y)
sinh()
, (124)

h(y) =
4

i(2y 1), (125)

and the controllers become
U
c
=
_
1
0
(0, k
z
, 1, )W(t, 0, k
z
, )d (126)
W
c
=
_
1
0
K(0, k
z
, 1, )W(t, 0, k
z
, )d (127)

V
c
(t, 0, k
z
) =
_
V
c
(t, 0, k
z
)
+i (W
y
(t, 0, k
z
, 0) W
y
(t, 0, k
z
, 1))
_
. (128)
The transformations (77), (58) reduce to
u = u
_
y
0
(0, k
z
, y, )W(t, 0, k
z
, )d, (129)

W = W
_
y
0
K(0, k
z
, y, )W(t, 0, k
z
, )d, (130)
where u and

W are the target variables for k
x
= 0 with the
following systems
u
t
=
_

2
u + u
yy
_
(131)

W
t
=
_

2

W +

W
yy
_
(132)
u(0) = u(1) =

W(0) =

W(1) = 0 . (133)
Taking a look at the gain kernel PDE (60)(61) for k
x
= 0
we get
K
yy
= K

(134)
K(y, y) = g(0) (135)
K(y, 0) =
_
g(y)
_
y
0
K(y, ) g()d
_
. (136)
Proposition 4.1: The solution K(y, ) to equations (134)
(136) is
K(y, ) =
_

2
g(0)
g(0)
_
e
g(0)(y)

2
g(0)
, (137)
where
g(0) =
cosh() 1
sinh()
(138)
Proof: This explicit solution is found by postulating
K(y, ) = F(y ), which yields a Volterra equation
F(s) = g(s) +
_
s
0
g(s )F()d . (139)
The equation for F(s) can be reduced to a second order ODE
by using the fact that g

=
2
g,
F

(s) = g

(s) + g(0)F(s) +
_
s
0
g

(s )F()d (140)
F

(s) = g

(s) + g(0)F

(s) + g

(0)F(s) +
_
s
0
g

(s )F()d (141)
F

(s) = g

(s) + g(0)F

(s) + g

(0)F(s) +
2
_
s
0
g(s )F()d (142)
F

(s) = g

(s) + g(0)F

(s) + g

(0)F(s) +
2
{F(s) + g(s)} (143)
F

(s) g(0)F

(s) = 0 (144)
F

g(0)F

= 0 , (145)
F(0) = g(0) , (146)
F

(0) = g

(0)+F(0) g(0) (147)

=
2
g
2
(0) (148)
We now see
F(s) = A
1
e
g(0)s
+A
2
(149)
(150)
and therefore
A
1
+A
2
= g(0) (151)
g(0)A
1
=
2
g
2
(0) . (152)
Solving these gives K(y, ) dened above.
By taking a Taylor series expansion of K(y, ) around =
0, it is not hard to see that the rst term is quadratic in k
z
.
Note that K vanishes for k
z
= 0. Thus the gain K(0, k
z
, 1, )
is independent of , grows quadratically in k
z
for k
z
small,
and exponentially when k
z
is large.
Next we turn out attention to the gain kernel PDE (82)(83)
for with k
x
= 0:

yy
=

h(y) (153)
(y, y) = 0 (154)
(y, 0) =
_
y
0
(y, ) g()d . (155)
Proposition 4.2: The solution (y, ) to equations (155)
(157) is:
=
1

_
i(y )(3y 2)

2
i
sinh()
_
B
1
+B
2
(y ) +B
3
(y )
2
+B
4
e
(y)
+B
5
e
(y)
+B
6
(y )e
(y)
+B
7
(y )e
(y)
+B
8
e
1(y)
+B
9
e
2(y)
_
_
(156)
where
B1 =
1
4
6
n
(cosh() 1)(6
6
2
2
g(0) + 3 g(0))
+8sinh()(
2
g(0)
o
(157)
B2 =
1
2
4
n
8 sinh() + (2
2
3 g(0))(cosh() 1)
o
(158)
B3 =
3
2
2
(cosh() 1) (159)
B4 = 2
e

1
( + g(0))
2

3
((4 ) + g(0)(2 )) (160)
B5 = 2
1 e

( g(0))
2

3
((4 + ) + g(0)(2 + )) (161)
B6 = 4
e

2
( + g(0))
B7 = 4
1 e

2
( g(0))
(162)
B8 =
AABB
8
6
(
2
g
2
(0))
2
B9 =
AA + BB
8
6
(
2
g
2
(0))
2
(163)
and
AA =
4
6
(cosh() + 1)
3
n
6sinh() + 10sinh() cosh() (164)
49 cosh
2
() 48 cosh
3
()
o
(165)
BB =
4
7
(cosh() 1)
4
sinh
7
()
p
g
2
(0) + 8
2
n
14sinh()+18sinh() cosh()
170 cosh() 317 cosh
2
() 144 cosh
3
() 9
o
(166)
and
1,2
are as in (??).
Proof: We start with a change of variables:
= y + (167)
= y (168)
(y, ) =
_
+
2
,

2
_
= (, ) . (169)
This turns the PDE (155)(157) into the following PDE:

=
1
4

h
_
+
2
_
(170)
(, 0) = 0 (171)
(, ) =
_

0
( +, ) g()d . (172)
Integrating (172) with respect to from 0 to , we see

(, ) =
_

0
1
4

h
_
+
2
_
d +

(, 0) (173)
=
_

0
1
4

h
_
+
2
_
d . (174)
We now integrate (176) with respect to from to
=
_

_

0

1
4

h
_
s +
2
_
dds + (, ) (175)
=
i
2
( )(2 + 2)
+
_

0
( +, ) g()d . (176)
Postulating
(, ) =
i
2
( )(2 + 2) +
1

() (177)
we are left with an equation for that depends only on
1

=
_

0
_

( )(3 2)+
1

(z )
_
g()d
=
1

_
()
_

0
() g( )d
_
(178)
where = i
_

0
( )(3 2) g()d. We can turn
equation (180) into an ODE by again recalling that g

=
2
g

g(0)

2
(179)
(0) = (0) = 0 (180)

(0) =

(0) (0) g(0) = 0 . (181)

Note that the homogeneous part of (181) has the same coef-
cients as equation (147). Therefore we know already that the
solution to (181) will contain terms of the form e
1
and e
2
,
where
1,2
were dened in (??). To nd the solution to we
use the Laplace Transform and nd
s
2
(s)(0)

(0)+ g(0)
_
s(s)(0)
_
2
2
(s)
= s
2
(s) (0)

(0)
2
(s) (182)
(s) =
s
2

2
s
2
+ g(0)s 2
2
(s) (183)
where (s) = L
_
()
_
. To nd (s) we take a look at ()
and rearrange it,
() = i
_

0
( )(3 2) g()d
= i
_
_

0
_
3( )
2
+ 2( )( 1)
_
g()d
_
= i
_
3
2

_
g()
_
+2
_
( 1) g()
_
_
(184)
then use the convolution property of the Laplace transform
(s) = i
_
6
s
3
L
_
g()
_
+
2
s
2
L
_
( 1) g()
_
_
(185)
where g(s) = L
_
g()
_
. After utilizing the differentiation
property we nd
(s) = i
_

6
s
3
g

(s) +
2
s
2
_
g

(s) + g

(s)
_
_
. (186)
Therefore
() =

2
i
sinh()
_
B
1
+B
2
+B
3

2
+B
4
e

+B
5
e

+B
6
e

+B
7
e

+B
8
e
1
+B
9
e
2
_
(187)
where B
1
through B
9
are dened in (159)(165). Substituting
(189) into (179) and then into (171) we get (158).
As equation (158) shows, is linearly dependent on 1/,
the Reynolds number. Similar to the solution for K, grows
linearly in k
z
for k
z
small, and exponentially when k
z
is large.
Finally, we point out that the peak-to-peak gain of
the dynamic controller in (128) from the skin friction sen-
sor W
y
(t, 0, k
z
, 0) W
y
(t, 0, k
z
, 1) to the actuated variable
V
c
(t, 0, k
z
) is
V
c
(, 0, k
z
)

W
y
(, 0, k
z
, 0) W
y
(, 0, k
z
, 1)

1
2k
z
, (188)
which means that it is independent of the Reynolds number
1/ and that this controller is nearly inactive for large k
z
,
whereas its effort is signicant for small k
z
.
Theorem 2: The closed loop system (119)(123), (126)
(128), (137)(140), (158)(168) is exponentially stable for any
nite k
z
.
Proof: As in Section III-A, however in this case the
dependence of C on k
z
comes only from the norms of K, L,
, and .
V. SMALL k
x
, k
z
ANALYSIS
In this section we go through the small wavenumber analysis
of the controllers.
Theorem 3: For small wavenumbers k
x
and k
z
, the kernels
K and are dened as
K(y, ) = k
x
a
2
(y, ) +k
2
x
a
4
(y, ) +k
2
z
a
6
(y, )
+k
3
x
a
7
(y, ) +k
x
k
2
z
a
9
(y, ) +O(k
4
x
, k
4
z
) (189)
(y, ) = k
z
b
3
(y, ) +k
x
k
z
b
5
(y, ) +k
2
x
k
z
b
8
(y, )
+k
3
z
b
10
(y, ) +O(k
4
x
, k
4
z
) (190)
where
a2 =
2i

(y )(3y 2) (191)
a4 =

2
30
2
n
60
2

2y 2 1

+(y )
3

51 y
3
102 y
2
+ 57 y
2
126 y
+33 y
2
+ 50 y 12
2
+ 70 21
3
o
(192)
a6 = 2
2
(2y 2 1) (193)
a7 =
i
3
12600
3
(y )
2
n
840
2

20 y + 100 + 24 y
3
14
3
45 y
2
5
2
22 y
2
+ 12 y
2
70 y

+(y )
3

1939 y
5
889
5
6660 y
4
+ 930
4
+7635 y
3
+ 4245
3
+ 35 y
4
+ 3290 y
2

3
+17065 y
2
18990 y
2

2
+ 21455 y
2
7410 y
3
18270 y
3
+ 5215 y
4
+ 7210 y
3

2
5440
2
8440 y 2920 y
2
o
(194)
a9 =
i
3
15
n
20 y + 100 + 24 y
3
14
3
45 y
2
5
2
22 y
2
+ 12 y
2
70 y
o
(195)
and
b3 =
2i

(y )(3y 2) (196)
b5 =

2
30
2
(y )
3
n
51 y
3
33 y
2
57 y
2
+ 21
3
+102 y
2
+ 12
2
+ 126 y 50 y 70
o
(197)
b8 =
i
3
12600
3
(y )
3
(
840
2

20 48 y + 24 (y
2
+
2
)
45 (y )

+(y )
3

35 y
4
+ 3290 y
2

3
7410 y
3
+1939 y
5
889
5
6660 y
4
+ 930
4
+ 7635 y
3
+4245
3
+ 17065 y
2
18270 y
3
+ 5215 y
4

+21455 y
2
2920 y
2
8440 y 5440
2
18990 y
2

2
+ 7210
2
y
3

)
(198)
b10 =
i
3
15
(y )
3
n
20 48 y + 24 (y
2
+
2
)
45 (y )
o
(199)
Proof: We start by examining the original equations for
K, equations (60)(62) and , equations (82)(83). If we take
a Taylor series expansion of f(y, ) and g(y) around k
x
=
k
z
= 0 we see:
f(y, ) = 8i
n
kx(2y 1) 4
kx

sinh((y ))
2kx(2 1) cosh((y ))
o
= 8i
n
kx(2y 1)
4
kx

(y ) +

3
6
(y )
3
+ O(
5
)

2kx(2 1)

1 +

2
2
(y )
2
+ O(
4
)
o
= 8i
n
kx(1 2y)

4
2
3
kx(k
2
x
+ k
2
z
)(2y + 4 3)(y )
2
+O(kx
4
)
o
(200)
g(y) =
cosh((1 y)) cosh(y)
sinh()
.
=
1 +

2
2
(1 y)
2
1

2
2
y
2
+ O(
4
)
+

3
6
+ O(
5
)
=

2
2
(k
2
x
+ k
2
z
)(1 2y) + O(
4
)

(201)
We now assume K and are of the form
K = a1(y, ) + kxa2(y, ) + kza3(y, ) + k
2
x
a4(y, )
+kxkza5(y, ) + k
2
z
a6(y, ) + k
3
x
a7(y, ) + k
2
x
kza8(y, )
+kxk
2
z
a9(y, ) + k
3
z
a10(y, ) + O(k
4
x
, k
4
z
) (202)
= b1(y, ) + kxb2(y, ) + kzb3(y, ) + k
2
x
b4(y, )
+kxkzb5(y, ) + k
2
z
b6(y, ) + k
3
x
b7(y, ) + k
2
x
kzb8(y, )
+kxk
2
z
b9(y, ) + k
3
z
b10(y, ) + O(k
4
x
, k
4
z
) (203)
and substitute (202), (203) and (204), (205) into (60)(62)
and (82)(83). After matching the like powers of k
x
and k
z
we arrive at
a
1
= a
3
= a
5
= a
8
= a
10
= 0 (204)
b
1
= b
2
= b
4
= b
6
= b
7
= b
9
= 0 (205)
and the PDEs
(a2)yy = (a2) 8i(1 2y) (206)
a2(y, 0) = 0 (207)
da2(y, y)
dy
= 0 (208)
(a4)yy = (a4) + 8i(( 1) y(y 1)a2(y, )
+
Z
y

8ia2(y, )(1 2)d (209)

a4(y, 0) = 2
2
(1 2y) (210)
da4(y, y)
dy
= 0 (211)
(a6)yy = (a6) (212)
a6(y, 0) = 2
2
(1 2y) (213)
da6(y, y)
dy
= 0 (214)
(a7)yy = (a7) +
32i
3
3
(2y + 4 3)(y )
2
+8i(( 1) y(y 1))a4(y, )
+
Z
y

8ia4(y, )(1 2)d (215)

a7(y, 0) =
Z
y
0
a2(y, )2
2
(1 2)d (216)
da7(y, y)
dy
= 0 (217)
(a9)yy = (a9) +
32i
3
3
(2y + 4 3)(y )
2
+8i(( 1) y(y 1))a6(y, )
+
Z
y

8ia6(y, )(1 2)d (218)

a9(y, 0) =
Z
y
0
a2(y, )2
2
(1 2)d (219)
da9(y, y)
dy
= 0 (220)
(b3)yy = (b3) 8i(2y 1) (221)
b3(y, 0) = 0 (222)
b3(y, y) = 0 (223)
(b5)yy = (b5) + 8i(( 1) y(y 1))b3(y, )
+
Z
y

b3(y, )8i(1 2)d (224)

b5(y, 0) = 0 (225)
b5(y, y) = 0 (226)
(b8)yy = (b8) + 8i(( 1) y(y 1))b5(y, )
+
Z
y

b5(y, )8i(1 2)d (227)

b8(y, 0) =
Z
y
0
b3(y, )2
2
(1 2)d (228)
b8(y, y) = 0 (229)
(b10)yy = (b10) (230)
b10(y, 0) =
Z
y
0
b3(y, )2
2
(1 2)d (231)
b10(y, y) = 0 (232)
We note that the systems a
2
, a
6
, and b
3
are autonomous,
whereas the dependencies of the other equations are as
follows: a
4
(a
2
), a
7
(a
2
, a
4
), a
9
(a
2
, a
6
), b
5
(b
3
), b
8
(b
3
, b
5
),
b
10
(b
3
), which describes the order in which the PDEs are
solved to obtain (191)(201). We use (64) to tranform each
system, and then integrate up similarly to how we found
(71), (72) and (85), (86).
Note that if we take a Taylor series expansion of (71) and (85)
we nd
K0(y, ) =
1 +

2
(y)
2
2
1

2
(y1)
2
2
+ O(
4
)
1 +

2
6
+ O(
4
)
+
2ikx

(y ) +

2
6
(y )
3
+O(
4
)

( 1)
+12(1 +

2
2
(y )
2
+ O(
4
) 1)
!

2ikx

(3y 2)(y )
= kx
2i

(3 y 2) (y )
!
+

2
2
(2y 2 1)
+kx

2
2i

2
3
(y )
3
( 1)
!
+O(
4
) (233)
0(y, ) =
2ikz

(3y 2)(y ) . (234)

The expansions of K
0
and
0
capture the linear terms in k
x
,
k
z
a
2
and b
3
but do not capture the second or third order
terms in their entirety. For instance, the second order part of
(235), 2
2
(2y 2 1) can be seen in a
4
and a
6
, though it
does not complete a
4
. It is very hard to see the third order
part of (235),
8i
3

2
3
(y)
3
(1) in a
7
and a
9
. Also, (236)
only contains a rst order part, and not higher orders that are
seen in b
5
through b
10
. We note that computing K
n
and
n
and afterwards taking a Taylor series expansion would indeed
provide accurate (n 1)
th
order expressions for K and .
Plugging (191)(201) into (88) and (90), we nd third order
approximations to the controllers U
c
and W
c
U
c
=
_
1
0
_
(k
2
x
k
2
z
)
2i

( 1)
+k
x
(k
2
x
+k
2
z
)2
2
(1 2)
+k
x
(k
2
x
k
2
z
)

2
30
2

_
21
2
1
_
( 1)
4
k
4
x
4i
3
3
( 1)
4
k
4
z
i
3
15
( 1)
3
(24
2
3 1)
k
2
x
k
2
z
i
3
12600
3
( 1)
4
_
8400
2

_
889
4
76
3
201
2
46 6
_
( 1)
2
_
_

k
x
u(t, ) +k
z
W(t, )
k
2
x
+k
2
z
d (235)
W
c
=
_
1
0
_
k
x
k
z
4i

( 1)
2
+k
2
x
k
z

2
15
2
_
30
2
(1 2) +
_
21
2
1
_
( 1)
4
_
+k
3
z
2
2
(1 2)
+k
3
x
k
z
i
3
12600
3
( 1)
3
_
16800
3
(1 )
+840
2
(24
2
3 1)

_
889
4
76
3
201
2
46 6
_
( 1)
3
_
+k
x
k
3
z
2i
3
15
( 1)
2
(19
3
17
2
3 + 1)
_

k
x
u(t, ) +k
z
W(t, )
k
2
x
+k
2
z
d (236)
VI. DISCUSSION
We have shown the derivation for controllers which stabilize
the 3D Navier-Stokes equations linearized around a Poiseuille
prole equilibrium. We have also shown that the controllers
induce stability around the equilibrium solution in the L
2
sense. These results can easily be extended to a periodic
channel ow by substituting the Fourier transform by a Fourier
series.
We also looked at the special case of k
x
= 0. The
system (119), (120) displays the cascade connection com-
monly regarded as the cause for non-orthogonality that leads
to transient growth [9], [7], [12]. With our transformations
(129), (130) and boundary feedback (126)(128) we cut the
coupling and reduce the system to two heat equations (131)
(133). The controllers in this case depend, at most, linearly
on the Reynolds number. However, the gain kernals have an
exponential dependence on k
z
for large k
z
.
We provided a small wavenumber expansion of the kernels
K and showing the cubic approximation of the controllers
U
c
and W
c
around k
x
= k
z
= 0. This result involves an
exact solution of a series of PDE problems. Taking a Taylor
expansion of the original PDE system is more coherent than a
Taylor expansion of K
n
and
n
as the rst method provides
an exact Taylor series approximation for each order, whereas
the second provides exact solutions up to order (n 1) and
then a partial selection of higher order terms.
In the future, we plan to extend the obsevers developed in
[15] to 3D, and use these along with the results from this
paper to perform DNS simulations showing the performance
of an output feedback compensator using measurments and
actuation only along the walls.
REFERENCES
[1] O.M. Aamo and M. Krstic, Flow Control by Feedback: Stabilization and
Mixing, Springer, 2002.
[2] O. M. Aamo, A. Smyshlyaev and M. Krstic, Boundary control of the
linearized Ginzburg-Landau model of vortex shedding, SIAM Journal
of Control and Optimization, vol. 43, pp. 19531971, 2005.
[3] M.-R. Alam, W.-J. Liu and G. Haller, Closed-loop separation control:
an analytic approach, submitted to Phys. Fluids, 2005.
[4] J. Baker, A. Armaou and P.D. Christodes, Nonlinear control of
incompressible uid ow: application to Burgers equation and 2D
channel ow, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol.
252, pp. 230255, 2000.
[5] A. Balogh, W.-J. Liu, and M. Krstic, Stability enhancement by bound-
ary control in 2D channel ow, IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol.
46, pp. 1696-1711, 2001.
[6] V. Barbu, Feedback stabilization of Navier-Stokes equations, ESAIM:
Control, Optim. Cal. Var., vol. 9, pp. 197205, 2003.
[7] T.R., Bewley, Flow control: new challenges for a new Renaissance,
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 37, pp. 21-58, 2001.
[8] M. Hogberg, T.R. Bewley and D.S. Henningson,Linear feedback con-
trol and estimation of transition in plane channel ow, Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, vol 481, pp. 149-175, 2003.
[9] M. Jovanovic and B. Bamieh, Componentwise energy amplication in
channel ows, to appear in Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2005.
[10] B. Protas and A. Styczek, Optimal control of the cylinder wake in the
laminar regime, Physics of Fluids, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 20732087, 2002.
[11] J.-P. Raymond, Feedback boundary stabilization of the two dimensional
Navier-Stokes equations, preprint, 2005.
[12] P.J. Schmid and D.S. Henningson, Stability and Transition in Shear
Flows, Springer, 2001.
[13] A. Smyshlyaev and M. Krstic, Closed-form boundary state feedback
for a class of 1-D partial integro-differential equations, IEEE Trans.
Automatic Control, vol. 49, pp.2185-2202, December 2004.
[14] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, A closed-form feedback controller for
stabilization of linearized navier-stokes equations: The 2D Poisseuille
ow, 2005 IEEE Conf. Design and Control.
[15] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, A closed-form observer for the channel
ow Navier-Stokes system, 2005 Conference on Decision and Control,
Sevilla.
[16] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, Explicit integral operator feedback for
local stabilization of nonlinear thermal convection loop PDEs, accepted,
Systems and Control Letters, 2005.