MECH 522

Foundations in
Control Engineering
Presentation Part 5
Clarence W. de Silva, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
The University of British Columbia
e-mail: desilva@mech.ubc.ca
http:// www.mech.ubc.ca/~ial
C.W.

de Silva

Part 5
Controllability And
Observability

PLAN
Definitions of Controllability and observability (for
linear, time-invariant systems)
Criteria of checking controllability and observability:
1. Modal representation (distinct eigenvalue case)
2. General criterion
3. Pole-zero cancellation
Examples
Companion Form and Controllability
Stabizability and Detectability
Output Controllability

Definitions

Controllability and Observability

Controller: State feedback (constant-gain)
Questions:
Can the state (vector) be changed from an arbitrary value to
any specified value in finite time? (Controllability)
If not all the states in the system are available for
measurement (observation), can the full state vector be
determined from the outputs (or, measurable states) over a
finite duration? (Observability)
Note: Specified (future) state can be made the origin of state
space (no loss of generality).

Definition of
Controllability and Observability
Definition 1: A linear system is controllable at time t0 if
there is an input u that transfers any arbitrary state x (t0 )
to the origin (x = 0) in finite time t1. If this is true for any t0
then the system is said to be completely controllable.
Definition 2: A linear system is observable at time t0 if we
can completely determine the state vector x (t0 ) from the
output measurements y over the duration [t0, t1] for finite
t1. If this is true for any t0 then the system is said to be
completely observable.

Criteria of Checking
Controllability and Observability

Criteria for Checking

Controllability and Observability
Time-invariant (i.e., constant-parameter) linear system:

x = Ax + Bu
y = Cx + Du
Criteria for Checking Controllability/Observability:
Criterion 1: Use of Modal RepresentationDistinct Eigenvalues
Criterion 2: General, Uses Matrices A, B, and C
Criterion 3: Pole-Zero Cancellation (Uses Transfer Function
Representation)

Criterion 1:
Use of Modal Representation
Valid for the Case of Distinct Eigenvalues
Consider: Time-invariant (i.e., constant-parameter) linear system:
x = Ax + Bu ; y = Cx + Du
Apply the modal transformation: x = Mq
M = modal matrix (matrix of independent eigenvectors)
1
q = Jq + M Bu
* Controllable iff M-1B has all non-zero rows.
Justification: Then, all modes are influenced (controlled) by u
y = CMq + Du
* Observable iff C M has all non-zero columns.
Justification: Then, all modal responses are present in measured y
Note: Iff means If and Only If

Criterion 2:
Use of Matrices A, B, and C
Generally Valid
Controllable iff
Rank [ B | A B||An-1B] = n
(i.e., Rank of Controllability Matrix = n)
Observable iff
Rank [C T | AT C T | ... | An 1C T ] = n
(i.e., Rank of Observability Matrix = n)
Proof for Controllability (Only If Part):
From Definition
1, for controllability (witht t0 = 0 and t = t1),
t
A
0 = e At x (0 ) + e A(t ) Bu( )d x (0) = e Bu( )d
1

t1

2
n 1
[

)
...

)
]Bu( )d
I
+
A
+
A
+
+
A
n
0
1
2
1

(from finite series

expansion of the matrix exponential)
n 1

t1

n 1

= A B j ( )u( )d
j

j =0

= A j Bv j
j 0

RHS should be able to form any arbitrary x(0)

Tterms AjB together should span n-dimensional state space

Criterion 2 (Contd):
Use of Matrices A, B, and C
Proof for Observability (Only If Part):
Without loss of generality, take t0 = 0.
y (t ) = Cx (t ) + Du(t )

= C [e x (0 ) + e A(t ) Bu( )d ] + Du
At

Ce x(0) = y(t ) C e Bu( )d Du C[ (t ) I + (t ) A + ... + (t ) A ] x (0) = y(t ) f (u)

For observability, x(0) must be completely solvable for finite (but
arbitrary t)
Its coefficient matrix [ 0 (t )C + 1 (t )CA + ... + n1 (t )CAn1 ] should be
convertible to an invertible (i.e., non-singular) nth order matrix,
using arbitrary choices of finite t
Note: Coefficient matrix = linear combination of C , CA,.., CAn1
We need
Rank[C T | AT C T | ... | An 1C T ] = n
Note: If X is a real matrix, X and XT have the same rank.
Note: If part can be proved by starting from other end
At

A ( t )

n 1

n 1

Criterion 3:
Pole-Zero Cancellation
y Cx + Du
System:
x = Ax + Bu ; =
Use Laplace domain.
(a) Controllability (x(0) arbitrary, not relevant):
X (=
s ) (sI A) 1 BU ( s )
(sI A)1 B should not have any pole-zero cancellation
Rationale: The cancelled pole (mode) cannot be controlled by U(s)
(b) Observability (u arbitrary, not relevant):
Y=
( s ) C (sI A)1[ x (0) + BU ( s)]
C (sI A)1 should not have any pole-zero cancellation
Rationale: The cancelled pole (mode) cannot contribute to Y(s);
hence Y(s) cannot reconstruct x, which depends on that mode too.

Examples

Example
1
,
State space model:

x1 = 2 x1 + u
2 0
1

A=
B=
x 2 = x1 x 2 + u

1 1
1
y = x2

C = [ 0 1]

Criterion 2:
1 2
Controllability matrix
=
P [=
B, AB ]
1 2

Det P = 0 Rank P < 2 (Rank P = 1) uncontrollable.

0 1
=
Q [C
=
,A C ]
Observability matrix

1 1
T

Det Q 0 Rank Q = 2 observable.

Example 1 (Contd)
Criterion 1:
+ 2
Eigenvalues: I A =
1

0
I A = ( + 2)( + 1) = 0

+ 1

1 = 1, 2 = 2
Eigenvectors:
1 0 a 0
0
1:
=
1 =
For 1 =

1
1
0
b
0

For 2 =2 : 0 0 a = 0 a b =0 2 =1
1 1 b 0
1
0 1
Modal matrix M =

1
1

Example 1
(Contd)
,
Controllability Check:
1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1
1
=
M B=
=
M =

(1) 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 1
1

uncontrollable
Note: Specifically, mode with eigenvalue -1 is uncontrollable
(but the system is stabilizable because the uncontrolled
mode is stable. See later).
Observability Check:
0 1
0 1]
=
CM [=

1
1

[1 1]

observable

Example 1 (Contd)
Criterion 3:
Controllability Check:
Straightforward linear algebra gives
0
s + 1
(sI A) = 1

( s + 1)( s + 2) 1

s + 2

(=
sI A) 1 B

0
s + 2
sI A =
1
s + 1

s + 1
1
1
( s + 1)
=
( s + 1)( s + 2) s + 1 ( s + 1)( s + 2) 1

pole-zero cancellation system is uncontrollable.

Note: Specifically, mode with eigenvalue 1= -1 is
uncontrollable (but, stabilizable; confirms the previous
result).
Observability Check:
A) 1
Straightforward linear algebra: C ( sI=
no cancellation observable.

1
[ 1 ( s + 2)]
( s + 1)( s + 2)

Example
2
,
What do you think of system:

1
1

2 1 2
3
2
1 3 2
x + u
0
0 2 0

2 7 6
1

2 3 4
1
y=
x

4 3 2 1

Third state equation: x3 = 2 x3

This is uncoupled and does not contain an input term.
Note: In fact, this state is a mode (with eigenvalue +2) which
is unstable.
State x3 is uncontrollable.
The system is uncontrollable and also unstabilizable (see
later)

Example
3
,

What do you think of system:

1 2 3 4
1
0 1 0 0
2
;
x + u=
y [ 0 1 0 3] x
x
4 3 2 1
3

0 0 0 3
4
From output equation: Only the states x2 and x4 are present in
the output variables.
From state equations: These two states are uncoupled from the
rest, and they in fact correspond to two modes (of eigenvalues +1
and -3). They will not carry complete information about the other
two states ( x1 and x3 ), which depend on the other two modes too.
States x1 and x3 are unobservable System is unobservable
Note: To check whether the system is detectable we find the
other two eigenvalues using MATLAB -2, +5 undetectable
(because an unobservable modeeigenvalue +5is unstable).

Companion Form and

Controllability

Companion Form and

Controllability
,
Input-output differential equation
dny
d n 1 y
+ an 1 n 1 + ... + a0 y =
u
n
dt
dt
x1 y=
xn d n 1 y / dt n 1.
, x2 y ,...,=
State variables:=

Companion form:

1
0 . . .
0
0
0

0
1
.
.
.
0

0
0
0 . . .
0

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
=

, B
.
.
.
. . .
.

0
0 . . .
1
0
a a a . . . a
1
2
n 1
0

0
0



0
1

Companion Form and

Controllability
,
Controllability matrix:
0
0
0
0

P =

1
0
1 an 1

0
.
1
an 1
an 2 + an 12

Note: Det is unchanged if we add a multiple of a column to

another column
Det P = Det I =1 Rank P = n system is controllable.
Conclusion: If a system can be expressed in the companion
form, then it is controllable.
Note: Other names companion form: Control canonical form,
controllable canonical form, and phase-variable canonical form

Other Considerations:
Stabilizability; Detectability;
Output Controllability

Stabilizability and
Detectability
,
Stabilizability:
If all the unstable modes are controllable, the system is stabilizable.
Note 1: If a mode is controllable but unstable, that mode can be
stabilized through feedback control
Note 2: A unstable system can be uncontrollable yet stabilizable (if
all the unstable modes are controllable)
Detectability:
If all the unstable modes are observable, the system is detectable.
Note 1: If a mode is observable but unstable, that mode is present in
the output and hence it can be estimated.
Note 2: An unstable system can be unobservable yet detectable.

Output Controllability
,
Note: What we presented before was the condition for Complete
State Controllability
Often we are primarily interested in controlling the output. Then
Complete Output Controllability is applicable.
Essentially, this concerns the controllability of Cx+Du
Then, without having to give a complete proof, the condition for
output controllability may be expressed as:
Output Controllable iff Rank [ CB | CA B||CAn-1B | D ] = m
Where, m = order of y