MIMO Systems--Transfer Function to State-Space

Hemanshu Roy Pota

Abstruct-In this short note we present a very simple method, useful
for classroom teaching, to get a minimal state-space representation (with
the exception of systems where there is a pole-zero cancellation) from
a transfer function matrix. The method is direct and does not involve
the intermediate step of obtaining nonminimal realization-which further
requires system reduction routines-and hence is suitable as a compact
self-contained topic which has been hitherto neglected in undergraduate
linear control theory curriculum.

I. INTRODUCTION
The undergraduate linear control theory curriculum can be divided
into two parts. The introductory part of the curriculum deals with
classical frequency domain material and the advanced part is devoted
to state-space theory. Single-input single-output (SISO) transfer functions
are central to the teaching of the classical frequency domain
theory. Considerable part of the curriculum is devoted to deriving
state-space canonical forms from the SISO transfer functions [2],
[4], [5]. The idea of minimal state order and the associated notions
of controllability and observability are discussed as a prelude to
the state-space theory. With the state-space theory, the fact that the
system under study is SISO or multi-input multi-output (MIMO) is
less relevant. Hence, the knowledge of the state-space theory enables
the students to attack MIMO control problems, provided a state-space
representation is available; this is the case in some practical situations,
while in other situations transfer function matrices arise naturally.
Many books on linear systems theory [4], [5] discuss the derivation
of a state-space representation from a transfer function matrix.
The discussion normally starts with obtaining either block observer
or block controller state-space (nonminimal) realization, which is
followed by algorithms to obtain minimal realization (both controllable
and observable) from these nonminimal realizations. These
algorithms [5] are suitable only for a digital computer implementation
and are more of an exercise in linear algebra than in controller
design. The consequence is that this material has to be left out of
classroom teaching (even in standard text books such as [l] and
[2], this material is omitted) and the students get little confidence
Manuscript received December 31, 1992; revised June 9, 1993

The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, University

College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy,
Canberra ACT 2600, Australia.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9359(96)02136-X.
is attacking problems where transfer function matrices arise naturally
from the physics of the problem [6]. Most of the practical control
systems are multivariable systems, and the students should be taught
the connection between a transfer function matrix and its state-space
realization in a simple way. Students, when taught this connection
using methods given in [4] and [5], lose the physical feel behind
the definition of system state and presume that controllability and
observability are more important issues than the system representation
itself.
In this short note, a simple procedure is given that can be used to
get a minimal state-space realization (with the exception of systems
where there is a pole-zero cancellation) directly from a transfer
function matrix by hand calculation, without going through the
intermediate nonminimal realization stage. The theory behind this
realization is not new [3] and the main motivation for writing this
short note arises from the fact that the author could not find a
single book where such a simple method is given. This work aims
at providing material in a suitable form to enable the inclusion of
the realization of state-space from a transfer function matrix in an
undergraduate curriculum, giving students a tool to have a first go
at multivariable control design for problems such as those that arise
in [6].
11. TRANSFERF UNCTIONTO STATE-SPACE
Let a general multivariable system (1 inputs and p outputs) transfer

function matrix be given as follows:

Let us consider two examples before giving a general procedure to
derive a state-space representation of the above MIMO system (1).
A. Examples
The first example is of a multi-input single-output system and the
second example is of a two-input two-output system. In the general
method, to be presented later in this paper, every multivariable system
( I inputs and p outputs) is first reduced to p multi-input singleoutput
systems. Each of the inputs to these p multi-input single-output
systems is an output of a single-input single-output system. The
procedure to get a state-space representation for a multi-input singleoutput
system used in the first example can be used to get the final
state-space representation. The second example is chosen so that this
two-step procedure is made clear to the reader.
Example 1: The transfer function matrix for this example system
is
1

Y(s)=

(s
a)(.
b) (s
The first step in writing state-space equations for a MIS0 system is
to pull out all the common factors in the denominator polynomials.

Notice that the factor (s + a) is common to both the columns. Pulling

this term out, the above transfer function matrix can be written as
0018-9359/96$05.00 0 1996 IEEE
98 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 39, NO 1, FEBRUARY 1996

As a first step in getting the state-space equations, the system left after

taking the common factor (s

a) is considered. Since there is no
common term left between the two transfer functions, each of them
can be considered as a separate SISO system and the state variables
defined as follows:

Zll(S) A E( sL+ bM) Z,,(S) A

211

321

sz+ds+e)

+ bz11 = ul(t)

Lc1 = 211 2 2 =

21 =

-bzl

ai, 23 = 221

+ ul(t)

i21d

+ ezzl = u ~ ( t )

kz = -dxZ - ex3
53 = x2.

+ u~(t)

A.A

Note that sZ,,(s) = iz,(t) (lower case is used for the variable
representation in the time-domm and the upper case for the Laplace
domain). With the above definition of state variables and the intermediate
output variables Zl l ( s ) and Z ~ l ( s )th, e system equations
can be rewritten as follows:
The above system (8) can be seen as two separate two-input oneoutput
systems with the following state-space representation:
$1

+ by1 = +
211

Z21

2 3 = Yl

23 = -b23
$2

+ +
21

+ cy2 = +

24 =

Zll

22
Z21

yz

54 = - C Z ~

+ +
~1

22

Again collecting all the differential equations involving the state

variables, a compact matrix representation can be written as follows:
The state-space representation of the above system can be written by
using the standard observer canonical form of the SISO systems [5]
(note from above that zl1 = x1 and 221 = x3)

+ +

ay = xi
xz
cz3 .
Let 24 6 y ( t ) , then we can write
y

+ +

54 = 21
22
ex3 - ax4 .
Putting all the above equations together in a compact matrix notation,
we have
-b00
0 -d -e
010
1lc

Example 2: The transfer function matrix for the second example

system is given below.
To get a state-space representation of (7), we first consider one input
at a time, i.e., one column of the transfer function matrix Here, let
us consider both the columns side by side and define
a

UZ(S)

+ dZZld = uz(t)

Zll(S) 5%

u1(t)

a511 =

ui(t)

51 = --a21
,211

(s+a)

221(s) = (s+d)

iz = -ax2 + W( t ).

21 = Zll 2 2 = zz1
AA

There is an order in how the various intermediate variables, Z,,( s ) ,

are defined. First, all of the common factors in the denominators of
column 1 are pulled out and 211 (s) is defined as the intermediate
output due to that common denominator; 221 ( s ) is similarly defined.
With the above definitions of Z ~ i ( s a)n d 221(s), we can write the
system transfer function matrix (7) as
The state order four, which is as minimal as can be verified from
the result in [3].
B. General Procedure
In this section a procedure to derive a state-space representation

#,

of a general MIMO system (1) is given. Each term of the matrix,

is a ratio of rational polynomials such that the order of
d,,(s) is greater than or equal to the order of n
that a transfer function matrix is available with all its constituent
polynomials given in pole-zero form. The procedure to get a minimal
state-space realization of system (l), directly fro
function matrix, can be stated as:
1) Set i = 1.
2) Select the ish column of the transfer function matrix.
3) Find the largest common factor in the denominator polynomials
of the ith column vector. Let this common factor be Dzl(s),
then define Z,, (s) A

m.

4) Pull out the common factor Dzl(s) from the ith column and
then find a factor that is common to most of the remaining
denominator polynomials, call it DZ2( s ) ,a nd then define
5) Pull out D12 (s) from the column vector in Step 4) and then
repeat Step 4) until there is no common factor between any of

the two denominator polynomials of the column vector.

6) If i < I, set i = i
1 and go to Step 2).
7) After all the common terms of each column have been duly
considered, we can rewrite system (1) as

z22(s4) z,lo
D,z(a).

where
a) Wz3( s )(i nput variables for the modified system) IS
equal to the last Z,, (s) that was pulled o
element of the transfer function matrix
In Example 2, W~ l ( s )= Zll(s).
hZ3( sa)r e the terms of the denominator of the (i,g)th
element of the transfer function matrix that remain after
b)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EDUCATION, VOL. 39, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1996 99

having pulled out all the common terms in Steps 3)-5).

In Example 2, hll(s) = (3
b).
representation can be written by hand calculation-an ideal situation
for classroom teaching.
8) Now the above system (11) can be seen as p independent
single-input multi-output systems (i = 1,. . . , p )
Note that the order of this multi-input single-output system [3]
is the least common denominator of all the terms in (12)
above. The obvious, mechanical procedure to wnte the statespace
representation of the system (12) is to write the right-hand
side of (12) over its lowest common denominator and then write
an observer canonical [5] form of state-space representation.
Although considerable savings in efforts to write the equations
can be achieved if common factors in ht3(s) are first spotted
and pulled out as was done in Example 1.
The procedure given above will result in a minimal realization
provided there is no system pole-zero [7] cancellation; it should
be noted that it is important to consider the cases where there
is a pole-zero cancellation, but for a majority of cases [6] one
can proceed without considering it and adequate check can be
performed in due course. This method can be easily implemented on
a computer, and in most cases where the denominator polynomials of
the transfer function matrix has large common factors, a state-space
111. CONCLUSION
A direct method to write down state-space equations
(of minimal order) for a given transfer function matrix is presented
in this paper. The method is simple enough for hand implementation
and does not divert the attention from the simple physical meaning of
the system state to issues relating to controllability and observability.
This method is ideal for classroom teaching and is just as useful in
analyzing many practical systems [6].
REFERENCES
[I] G. F. Franklin, J. D. Powell, and A. Emami-Naeini, Feedback Control
of Dynamic Systems.
[2] J. J. DAzzo and C. H. Houpis, Linear Control Systems Analysis and
Design.
[3] H. H. Rosenbrock, Efficient computation of the least order for a given
transfer function matrix, Electron. Lett., vol. 3, pp. 413-414, 1967.
[4] M. R. Chidambara and S. Ganapathy, An Znfroduction to Control of
Dynamic Systems. Faridabad, India: Sehgal Educational Consultants,
1979.
[5] T. Kailath, Linear Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980.
[6] H. R. Pota and T. E. Alberts, Multivariable transfer functions for
a slewing piezoelectric laminate beam, ASME J. Dynamic Systems,
Measurement, and Control, vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 352-359, Sept. 1995.
[7] P. K. Sinha, Multivariable Control. New York Marcel Dekker, 1984