FiniteSpectrumAssignmentProblem
for Systems with Delays
Abssnaeth this paper linear systems with delays in state and/or ling the location of an infinite number of eigenvalues is
control variables aremusidered. Tbe objeslive is to M ia feedback law not practicallyfeasible. By using a method of spectral
which yields a finite spectrum of the closedloop system, located at an decomposition one can follow a suggestion of Osipov [I21
a r b i i y preassigwd set of R points in the complex plane. It is shown
that in case of systems with delays in control only the problem is solvable and Pandolfi [I31 and shift an arbitrary but finite number
if andonly if some fuoetion space controllability criterion is met. Tbe of eigenvalues. This, however, presumes the exact knowl
solutian is tben easily o W e by standard spectrum assignment edge of these eigenvalues, which in turn requires extensive
methods, while the resulting feedback law involves integrals over the past numerical computations. A designaiming at a finite
COntroL In case of delays in state variables it is shown that a tedmiqoe
spectrum does not require a preliminary knowledge of the
based on the r i t e Laplace traudorm, related to a recent work a p function
~
space controllability, leads to a constructive design pmcedme. The result
openloop system
spectrum. It requires
only that n
ing feedback condsls of proportional and (finiteinterval) integral tern spectral points be assigned, while the others are automati
over present and past values of state variables. Some indications on how to callyeliminated. This considerablysimplifiesthedesign
combine these results in c ~ s eof systems Muding both state and wnlrol procedure. As a matter of fact, loworder examples can be
delays are given. Sensitivity of the design to parameter variatiomis briefly completely solved using paper and pencil only.
analyzed Spectrum assignment problem and feedback stabiliza
tion of delay systems have previously been considered in
I. INTRODUCTION [3],[SI,[15]. The idea of the finite spectrum assignment
can befoundin a paper by Kamen [3], although a
HIS PAPER is concerned with the problem of eigen
Tvalue assignment via feedback for linear systems with
systematic designprocedure is not attempted there. Purely
algebraic methods suggested by Morse[8] and Sontag [15]
time delay. The goal is the construction of a linear feed give simple solutions whenever some, usuallyquite restric
back such that the corresponding closedloop system hasa tive,"algebraic" controllability conditions are met. The
finite number of eigenvalues located atan arbitrarily methods presented in this paper are based on the Laplace
preassigned set of points in the complex plane. Whenever transforms techniques andare related to someearlier
such a design is possible the number of eigenvalues is works of each of the present authors on function space
actuallyequal to n, the dimension of the differential controllability [6], [?IJ1,[9], [lo]. As our examples show, we
equation describing the system. are able to construct solutions for systems which do not
Twoclasses of systems are considered: 1) linear satisfy the algebraic conditions required in [8], [ 151.
ordinary differential systems with delays in control vari
ables, and 2) linear retarded differential systemswith
commensuratedelays(in state variables only). In both 11. SYSTEMS DELAYS
WITH CONTROL
casestheresultingfeedback operators contain integrals
over the past values of control or state trajectory. Consider the following system:
The idea of designing a closedloop delay system witha i(f)=Ax(t)+Bou(t)+Blu(th), xER",u € R " .
finite spectrum can be motivated as follows. In general,
adding a linear feedback toa system of type 1) or 2) yields (2.1)
a closedloop system governed by a retarded functional In this section we prove that the following feedback,
differential equation with an infinite spectrum. Control
u ( t ) = F x ( t ) + F J O e  ( h + ~ ) A B , u ( t + ~ ) d 8 ,(2.2)
h
Manuscript received November 3, 1977; revisedNovember22,1978
and January 17, 1979. Paper recommended by J. Davis, Past Chairman where F is an m X n matrix,yields a finite spectrum of the
of the Stability, Nonlinear, and DistributedSystemsCommittee. This
work was supported in part by NRC Grant A9240, in part by the closedloop system. Under some controllability condition,
Quebec Ministry of Education UndFr Grant FCAC 1976/77, and m part the location of this spectrum can be completely controlled
by the Centre de Recherche Mathematiques. The work of A. W.Olbrot
was done while visiting the Centre de Recherches Mathimatiques, Uni by a choice of F. The same result is true for more general
versit; de Montrd. systems governed by
A. Z. Manitius is with the Centre deRecherche Mathkmatiques,
Universibi de Montrd, Montreal, P.Q., Canada.
A. W. Olbrot is withtheInstytutAutomatyki,Politechnika Wars i ( t ) = A x ( t ) + J 0 dp(e)u(t+O). (2.3)
zawska, warsaw,P o h d . h
00189286/79/08000541$00.75 01979IEEE
542 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL,VOL. AC24, NO. 4, AUGUST 1979
Here /3( is an n X m matrix function of bounded varia unique absolutely continuous solution (x(t),u(t)),t > O to
e)
tion which is a sum of an absolutely continuous function (2.3), (2.5), which, moreover, is exponentially bounded. A
and a finite number of jump discontinuities, that is such necessary and sufficient condition for asymptotic stability
that (2.3) can also be written as of (2.3), (2.5) is that all the roots of the characteristic
N
equation
a(t)=Ax(t)+ 2 Biu(thi)+JO j(e)u(t+e)de
i=O h
(2.4)
where O = h, < h , 
< hN = h, and B + j ( 8 ) is in
L"((  h, 0),R "). The Stieltjes integral notation of (2.3)
w i be used for brevity. The feedback for (2.3) has the
l
form have negative real parts.
u ( t ) =dFpx( T
( t))u+(Ft +J (o? ) d 8 . (2.5) A Result on Spectrum Assignment
h T
[
l i ( t ) = F Ax(t)+A Joh~oe(Te'ldp(T)u(t+ 8)dB
we have that ( I A  A)MF= B(A)F NF. Substituting this
into (2.10) gives the characteristic equation
+ JotTA
 d p ( ~ ) u ( t ) ] t > 0. (2.7)
det [ IA  A  B ( A ) F ]= 0. (2.1 1)
Equations (2.3),(2.7) are now in a standard form of a
system of retarded functional differential equations [l]. Theconclusion of the theoremnowfollowsfrom the
Any solution to (2.3),(2.7) with u(0) satisfying (2.5) for classical results on spectrum assignmentand stabilizability
t =0, is a solution to (2.3),(2.5) and vice versa. The of ordinary linear systems.
answer to the stability problem is, therefore, provided by Remark 2.1: Controllability of the pair (A,B(A)) is
the characteristic equation obtained via taking the equivalent to function space controllability of (2.3); see
Laplace transforms of(2.3) and (2.5).We thus have the [9]. The stabilizability of the pair ( A ,B ( A ) ) and its con
following. sequences are discussed in a recent paper by Olbrot [lo],
Proposition 2.1: Under the assumptions on p( given e ) where it is also pointed out that the controllability of this
by (2.3), (2.4), for any initial conditions x(0)E R",u(8)= pair isnecessary for solvability of the general spectrum
+(e) 8 € (  h , O ) , + (  ) E L ' ( (h,O), R"), there exists a assignment problem.
MANITRTS AND OJBROT: FlNlTE SPECTRUbl ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM 543
Remark 2.2: The strength of the result given by Theo The finite limits of integration imply that the righthand
rem 2.2lies in the fact that the spectrum of the closed side is an entire function, hence it has no singularities (in
loop system (2.3), (2.5) is always finite and can be arbi particular poles) except at  m. The dummy pole A = a is
trarily placed whenever the pair ( A , B ( A ) )is controllable. cancelled by a zero of e* ehh. Essentially, relation
The choice of F can be entirely based on the standard (2.14) defined a “static” mapping from the function space
design methods for ordinary linear systems. +
of segments U, (u,(B)= u(t e), B E ( h, 0)) to the space
Example 2.1: Consider the following (unstable) sys R.
tem: Applyingthe Laplace transform to (2.12),(2.13),we
have the characteristic equation of the closedloop system
il(t)=u(th)
i2( +
t ) = X I ( t ) x2( t). (Aa)x(A)e%(A)=O
i(t)=az(t)+e%(t)u(th) (2.18)

544 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC C O ~ O L VOL.
, AC24,NO. 4, AUGUST 1979
1
eAh
if the matrices Dl, D,, F satisfy the equation
ra ,
D 
Aaf(eaheah) ra FD, = D,F. (2.22)
Moreover, if the pair ( A , B ( A ) ) is controllable, then n
eigenvalues of the closedloop system can be assigned in
f an arbitrary selfconjugate configuration by a proper
choice of the matrix F. The remaining m eigenvalues can
Fig. 1. A misleading representation of the closedloop system of Exam also be assigned arbitrarily in the form of two selfcon
ple 2.2, which tends to suggest an inexisting cancellation of a plant jugate subsets containing r and m  r eigenvalues, respec
pole by a (dummy) zero of the controller.
tively, by a proper choice of matrices Dl and D , where
r = rank F. If the pair ( A ,B(A)) is stabihzable, the unsta
1
Ah ble eigenvalues of A as well as the eigenvalues of D l may
1wli) D L
1a be shifted anywhere, in two respective groups as above.
 Proof: Perform the first algebraic manipulation of
the determinant (2.20) identically as in the proof of Theo
 f
rem 2.2. We obtain
[ :]
tion of an unstable pole in the controller by an unstable Since, by (2.22), F(D, I A = ( I X  D,)F, by multiplying
zero. By differentiating (2.1) we have added to the system (2.23) from the right by det we obtain (2.20). The
onemore s m e vuriuble z ( t ) which is governedby an
unstable equation. Hence, the realization givenby(2.18) remaining part of thetheoremis obvious except the
might be unsafe. However, if the transfer function w(X) is assignment of eigenvalues of D,.Suppose F has been
realizeddirectlyby the relationship (2.14) ( e g , by a chosen to assign the first n eigenvalues (or unstable eigen
numerical computation of the integral of ut on a control values of A). In the nontrivial case F#O we can introduce
computer at successive time instants), then the right half a nonsingular transformation of bases in R" and R" such
plane poles and zeros are not introduced. that F is of the form
An alternative way to stabilize system (2.3) is given by where I is an r X r identity matrix. Substituting this into
the following dynamic feedback: (2.22) shows that the general solution for D l , D, is
Li(t)=F(AD2)x(t)+(FB(A)+Dl)u(t)
+ F(A  D,)JO h JOe(.e)Adp(+)U(f+e)dB
7
(2.19)
where D,, D, are m X m and n X n matrices, respectively. where all the blocks have arbitrary elements and the
System (2.3), (2.19) isa well defined functionaldifferential common block 0,' is r X r. This completes the proof.
system of retarded type and its stability properties are The simplest choice for D l , D, satisfying (2.22) is D l =
defined by the following characteristic determinant: SI,, D,= SI,, where 6 is an arbitrary (negative for stabili
zation problem) real number.
det[ IA A
 F(A  02)
N
I h  D l  F B ( A )  F(A  D J M *
1 Example 2.3: Consider the same system as in Example
2.1. Choose the matrix F as previously and let the addi
tional eigenvalue (the one introduced by the dynamic
(2.20)
feedback) be 2. Take Dl = 2, D,=diag{ 2, 2}, so
We have the following. that (2.22) holds. Then the feedback law becomes
Theorem 2.3: The spectrum of the closedloopsystem
a(?)=@ 12eh)x1(t)12ehx,(t)5u(t)
(2.3), (2.19) coincides with the roots of the equation
det[IAD,]det[IXAB(A)F]=O (2.21)
bUNITIUS AND OLBROT: PINITE SPECTRUM ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM 545
111. SYSTEMS
WITH STATE
DELAYS Take
n
These systems are more complicated than the systems
'(A)= 2 [q + ~ i ( e  ~ ) ] k n  i ( A ) (3.9)
with delays in control, from both controllability and i= 1
spectrum assignment point ofview. In order to preserve
simplicity, our considerations are limited to the class of and consider the following identity [3]:
systems described by kT(A)adjA(A)b=detA,(A)detA(A). (3.10)
a?(?)= x N
i=O
A,x(tih)+bu(t) (3.1) We have, combining (3.8), (3.7), (3.6), and (3.5)
i= I
n
E pi(eu)hni+An
i= 1
where g( ) is an n X 1 vector valued function of bounded
variation, and H 2 h >0. In particular (3.1), (3.2) may take  xn
i=l
pi(eu)Xni
the form
= $(A)desired.
as (3.1 1)
a(t)=A~(t)+A,x(th)+bu(t) (33)
The main question is whether the system of equations
u(t)= xM
i=O
t ih)
d i ~ X ( + Jo
 Mh
T(qx(t + 0) de (3.4)
(3.8) has a solution within a given class of $(A) and how
this solution can be obtained. Weshowbelow that this
question can be answered by using a constructive proce
where [() E L2([  Mh, O],R") and M is an integer. The dure based on growth properties of k(A). We begin with a
case of(3.3),(3.4) w li be considered first, and later few simple observations.
appropriate extensions will be indicated. Remark 3.1: A necessary condition for solvability of
The method described in this section is similar to the (3.8) is that the system be spectrally controllable (see [7]).
one developed in [7] in the study of M,approximate Indeed, if(3.8) has a solution for j =0, then we have
controllability of retarded equations and is based on prop k,@) adj A(A)b E 1 with k,(A) entire. This gives at once that
erties of finite Laplace transforms. adj A@)b#O VA E C , which is equivalent [7]to the spectral
Define controllability condition rank [A(A), 61 = n tlh E C, [ 131.
Remark 3.2: Let wi(A) denote the components of the
AA=A,+A,eu; k ( h ) = J 0 &(e)e". (3.5) vector adj A@)b.If adj A(A)b#O t/hE C, then the entire
H

functions wi(A) i = 1, ,n have no common zeros, and a
The function A+k(A) is a finite Laplace (Stieltjes) trans knownresult [14,p.3091 says that thereexist entire
form of the kernel g (  ) representing the feedback law. functions ri(A) i = 1, * ,n such that r,(A)w,(A)
Define further +  + rn(A)wn(A)= 1. However, nothing guarantees that
ri(A) will be of the desired class given byk(A) in (3.5). This
A(A)=IAA,;
Ac(A)=IAA,bk(A). (3.6)
suggests that in order to solve (3.8) even in case j = 0 one
has to examine more closely the specific structure of
The following idea, described earlier in a paper by
adj A(A)b.
Kamen [3], is our starting point. Choose anarbitraw
selfconjugate set of n points A, in the complex plane, and As it iswell known [7],adjA(A)b has the following
construct the polynomial representations:
n n adj A(A)b = P(A)u(e')
q ( ~ ) =fl (AA,.)=A"+ E (3.7)
= M(e')u(A) (3.12)
i= 1 i= 1
Assume that there exist n functions kj(A),j =0, 1, ,n  1, Proposition 3.1: Let
 a(
p ) = A , A p . For each p +
of the class (3.5) satisfying the equations rank [ b,J( p)b; p ) b ]= n  ,an'(
kjT(A)adjA(A)b=Aj j=O,l;.,nl. (3.8) if and only if rank M ( p ) = n .
546 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. AC24,NO. 4, AUGUST 1979
We have (3.22)
At this point the calculations can be verified, since $0)
must satisfy the identity
det [ b,a( p ) b , a 2 (p ) b ] =det
[ ko(A),kl(A),&(A)] M(e')u(X)D(h).
Consequently, neither the method proposed by Morse This is true for $(A) given by (3.22). The remaining part
[8] nor the one proposed by Sontag [15] can be applied to of the construction procedure is straightforward. Suppose
this example. However, the system is stabilizable with an we want the spectrum to be A, =  1, X,= 2, X , =  3.
arbitrary finite spectrum. We compute From (3.7, $(A)=A3+6A2+ llX+6. Further, p1 = 1, p2=
euh, p3=0. From (3.9)
adj A(A)b = A 1
A(A 1) euh
detA(A)=A[A(A1)euh]=A3A2Aeuh
1 k(A)=[24eh+7eM+eheuh,18+24+(X)
where
+euh(l++(A)),7]
1  eheM
1
A(A1)
1
0
0 1
:] (detM( p) = pzconst).
+(A)= A 1 = Johe"8eed0.
1 + 14,e  e ~ , ( t  2 h + O ) d B + 7 ~ 3 ( t ) .
Therefore, from (3.17), if the solution of the finite We now discuss the role of various simplifying assump
spectrum assignment problem exists within the class tions.
(3.14), /$(A) must be equal to Remark 3.4: There is no loss of generality by assuming
kj(A) of the form (3.14) rather than
kjT(A)= [ A j + p l ( A ) e  M ,  p l ( A ) + p o e  Mpo]P'(A)
,
$(A)= c + 5
d.e"i+ Jo;(B)eAedO
i= 1
(3.23)

where O < T ~<r,, = h, i = 1,. ,Y  1. Indeed, kj@) given
Let pl(A)= ao+ a,A. since the terms containing pure A, 'X above has the same order of growth as the one given by
etc. are not admissible in $(A), we have to choose un (3.14), i.e., o(elxlh) for large 1x1. Consequently, all the
known constants a,, a , , to~ cancel
~ positive powers of X. considerations between (3.15) and (3.17) remain un
From the first component we have that al = O V j . From changed. But (3.17) postmultiplied by P '(A) clearly indi
the second component we have po=O for j = O , 1, and cates that the only nonzero terms in (3.23) can be those
po= 1 forj=2. Hence, containing eo and e  M [as in (3.18)], so that 4 =0, i=

1,. . ,v 1.
Remark 3.5: Extending the class (3.14) to a larger class
described by
548 IBBB TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL AC24,NO. 4, AUGUST 1979
k(~)=c+d,e”h+d~e~+
0 S~~(o)e”de i= 1
+i(A)=c8,i++Xh+ [(e(il)h)P(de).
=+(A) + e“x(A) JOh
Then
where
then
where pi,qi are some scalar polynomials of degree at most
adj A(A)b = P(A)u(e’)
i. It is easy to check that the matrix &A) is invertible, so
where now that the calculations can be done as in the previous
M A N l T I u S AND OLBROT: FINITE SPECTRUM ASSIGNbBNT PROBLJiM 549
and one can proceed to solve (3.17) by taking an invert w e  € ' ) and Ix(t)l = w e  " ) as t+ca for some smalle > O is
ible submatrix of P(A), as indicated in the example below. that
Example 3.3: Consider the system
A,=
[o
0
O
1
O
0
0
01
0
1 A,= 1
1 [
0
O
0
We have adjA(A)b=[l,A,,h2ehh]T. Assumption (Hl)
0
O b= O
01 I:[ *
1 0
(4.4)
Equation (3.8)is easily solved in case j = O , 1, by taking Now,system(4.1),(4.3)with the new control w(t) is
k~(A)=[l,O,O],k:(A)=[O, 1,0]. To determine k2(A) we use without control delays. It iseasy to check that now
(3.17), which is valid regardless of (€32): feedbackstabilizabilityis equivalent to condition (4.2)
[lo]. Clearly, the weakest possible condition for solvability
0 0 of theglobal spectrum assignmentproblemis that the
rank condition (4.2) be valid for all complex A. For finite
1 0 spectrum assignment we can now consider the extended
system(4.1),(4.3)which does not havedelays in the
+ [Pl(MYPoYO]ehh [OYPl(NYPO]. control w(t).
Obviously po = 0. Denote k:(h) by [+1,+2,+3]. Partitioning Secondly, we want to remark that for a certain class of
Pa),we have systems with state delays the finite spectrum assignment
problem has an explicit solution. In fact, for the system
Solving this for +27 +3 we have with rank B = m = dimu(t), one can always change the
+3 =P ,(A) basis in R" so that (4.5) becomes
+~+A+~+X~+~=X~+P](A)~~.
The first of these equations yields +3 =pl(A)= c =const.
From the second
+1 +X+,+A2d=h2+ cexh
so that c = 1, +2=0, (PI=ePhh. Hence, k~(A)=[ehh,O,l],
and the finite spectrumassignmentproblemissolvable f0h [
da,( e ) ]x2(t 0) u( t )
+
(4.7) + +
(this example can also be solved by the algebraic methods
where x(t)=(x,(t),x,(t)). Assume that the first subsystem
of PI, [W).
has no delays in x l , that is,
IV. GENERALIZATIONS
For simplicity of considerations we have not examined
the general systems with delays governed by Introducing the feedback
n(t)=JO [ h ( e ) l x ( t + e ) + J O [ d ~ ( e ) ] u ( t + o )
h h
(4.1)
with matrix kernels a( .) and /3( of bounded variation.
e)
We want to show, however, that this case can be handled we obtain a system
in a way similar to that of Section 111.
First, recall that, by a result of Olbrot [lo], the neces
s a r y condition for the existence (for any initial conditions)
of a locally integrable control u(t) such that lu(t)l=
550 ~BBBT R A N S A ~ O N SON AUTOMA~C CONTROL, VOL. AC24,NO. 4, AUGUST 1979
where
TABLE I TABLE II
T m INTERVAL OF STABILITY
FOR k IN EXAMPLE
5.1 ; VALES OF ZERosoFTHEFUN(;TION~)=h+l+eXee(*+C)”INTHE
kdk,, ARE SHOWN RECTANGLE  10 6 Reh 6 2 , o < Iinh < 30 FOR VARIOUS VALUES
OF €
A
L = 0.1 1 = 0.81
l;:;~LqpE~x~Ml
X2 = 2.08 + 3.2243.
X3 = 2.205 + 9.0613.
X 4 = 2.274 + 14.9943.
0.82 0.72 0.68 0.65 X5 = 2.367 + 20.9463.
where h #d, e.g., h = d + E , E >0. The characteristic equa where all the sums are finite, maxi hi Q h, and we assume
tion of the closedloop system is that A ( ),B( E L’, F( G( .) E W ; . By a reasoning simi
e ) e),
A)b+j(e’eeM)=O, ho=l+j(l+eh). lar to that preceding Proposition 2.1 one easily obtains the
existence and uniqueness of solutions of this system. Fur
If E #O, there are infinitely many eigenvalues. For the sake thermore, the necessary and sufficient condition for
of example we show the effect of E on the location of roots asymptotic stability of solutions is that all the roots of the
of the equation characteristic equation
+
A , SA,, B, + alli, + + and then one has an q, >0 which depends on a (see, e.g.,
& 84, A ( . ) S A ( . ) etc., such that
S A (  ) , S B (  ) € L , , S F ( * ) , 8 G ( W:.
)€ Example 5. l), such that if e E (0,Eg), the system S, has no
Theorem 5.1: Let X,, . . ,X, be the set of eigenvalues of eigenvalues in the right halfplane {AIReX>a},other than
system contained in the halfplane {XIReX>a}.Let S those which are arbitrarily close (if is sufficiently small)
and 5, satisfy the assumptions above. Then for any p >0 to appropriate eigenvalues of system S .
there is an E > O such that for any system S, satisfying the
conditions CONCLUSIONS
m a II8A;ll < E , m q llSB,ll < E , mqll6<.;:1< E
i 1 I 1) For linear systems with delays in control only, the
finite spectrum assignment problemis solvable if and only
if the pair ( A , B ( A ) ) is controllable. This condition is
equivalent to absolute controllability studied in [9].
there are exactly I eigenvalues of S , contained in the
2) For linear systemswithcommensurate delays in
halfplane {XIReh > a } , A:, . . ,X:; 
theseeigenvalues
state (only),the finite spectrumassignmentproblem is
satisfy
solvable if a certain system of polynomial equations has a
1+AJ<p i= 1;.  ,z. solution. It is not clear what the relation is between this
condition and the known function space controllability
Pro08 Let a:@), i = 1,. ‘ ,n, denote the coefficients conditions.
of the characteristic equation of system S,. By Lemma 3) Systems having delays in both state and control can
5.1, S , has a finite number of eigenvalues in eachright be (for the purpose of designing a s t a b b g feedback)
halfplane.From the definition of the determinant it converted into systems with delays in state only (Section
follows that a,(X) a:(X)=finite sum of finite products of Iv).
entire functions, each term of the sum containing at least 4) The feedback designed via the methods presented in
one factor of order E . Hence, for each i = 1, * ,n there is +
this paper does not involve unstable polezero cancella
continuous function g,: CR such that laj(A) a:(X)l <
+
tion. The stabdity of the closedloop system is preserved
cgi(X) %E ! C . Let 3 be a bounded region contained in the undersmall perturbations of parameters. The resulting
halfplane {XlRe X > a}, containing the eigenvalues perturbed spectrummight no longer befinite, butfor
X,;  ,X, of S . Let ast be the boundary of W. Let +(X), small perturbations of parameters the infinite part of the
spectrum remains located far in the left halfplane.
+‘(X) denote the lefthand side of the characteristic equa
tion of S , S,,respectively. Let go(X)= min,g,(X) a; go is 5 ) As shown on examples, the methods described in the
continuous, go: C  R , . It follows that +*(X) =+(X)+ paper can handle systems which cannot be stabilized via
g(X, E ) where I g(A, E)I <Ego(X) VA E C. Let purely algebraic methods based on polynomial rings.
fact that g,(A) essentially contains terms like for someC A T , “Controllability, observability and stabilizability of retarded
systems,” in Proc. 1976 IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, pp.
T E [ O , h ] and terms resulting from integration of eM over 752758.
[  h,O]; moduli of suchterms decrease whenRehco A. Manitius and R Triggiani, “Function space controllability of
linear retarded systems: A derivation from abstract operator con
and remain bounded when Irnh2 co).Hence, also go@) ditions,” SIAM J . Contr. Optimiz., vol. 16, pp. 599643, 1978.
is
uniformly bounded in {hlRe X > a} and for 3 A. S. Morse, “Ring models for delaydifferential systems,” Auto
matica, vol. 12, pp. 529531, 1976.
sufficiently large R can be replaced by an upper bound y A. W. Olbrot, “On controllability of linearsystemswithtime
of go@) over {hlReh>a}. As a result we have by delays in the control,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC16,
pp.664666.1972.
RouchC’s theorem that if E < r / y, then @‘(X) and +(X) have , “Stabilizability, detectability and spectrum assignment for
the same number of zeros in the right halfplane {XIReh> linearsystemswithgeneraltimedelays,” IEEE T r m . Automat.
Contr., vol. AC23, pp. 887890, 1978.
a } . The last statement of the theorem follows by applying A. Manitius and A. W. Olbrot,“Controllability conditions for
the same procedure to disks centered at 4. i = 1, . . ,i. linear systems with delayedstates and control,” Archiwum Autom. i
Telem., vol. 17,pp.119131,1972.
As a corollary of t h s theorem it follows that when S Yu. S. Osipov,“Stabilization of controlledsystemswithdelays,”
has a finite spectrum, CY can be chosen arbitrarily negative Differentsial’$e Uravneea, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 605618, 1965.
IEEE T R A N S A ~ O N SON AUTOMATIC
VOLCONTROL, AC24,NO. 4, AUGUST
553 1979
[13]L. Pandolfi, “On feedback stabilization of functional differential Dr. Manitius is a member of the Society for Industrial and Applied
equations,” Bollerino U.M.Z., vol. 4, no. 11, supplement0al Mathematics, American Mathematical Society, and the IEEE Control
fascicolo 3, Giugno 1975, sene IV, vol. XI, pp. 626635. Systems Society, and is an Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS
[ 141W. Rudin, Real and Complex Ana/ysis. New York: McGrawHdl, ON AUTOMATICCONTROL
1966.
[I51 E. Sontag,“Linearsystemsovercommutativerings:Asurvey,’’
Ricerche di Automatica, vol. 7, pp. 134, 1976.
Short Papers
Estimation of Traffic Platoon Structure from I. INTRODUCTION
Headway Statistics In a companion paper [ 141 we noted that there is considerable current
interest in the development of computerbased systemsfor the control of
J. S. BARAS, MEMBER, IEEE,A. J. DORSEY, AND W. S. LEVINE, urban traffic. In addition, we explained that these systems generally do
MEMBER, IEEE
not make much use of data acquired in real time because of difficulties
in estimatingrelevant traffic parameters from such data. Finally, we
AbsbaetThis paper deals fm with the modeling of urban lraffic presented t h r e e procedures for estimating queue length at a signal from
headway statistics. It is shown that a composite distnition bafed on the detector data.
convex combination of a lognormal and a shifted exponential distn’batton This paper presents a procedure for estimating the time at which a
gives a good fit to observed traffic data. This statistical model is then osed “platoon” of traffic passes adetector as well as the number of vehicles in
to generate a model for the formation and passage of ”platoon9 of the “platoon.” Roughly, a “platoon” is a group of vehicles that move
vehicles. It is shown that the problem of estimating the time at which a with similar
velocities and comparatively s m a l l spacing.Although
“platoon” passes a detector, as well as the number of vebicles in the platoons of vehicles are observed in freeway trafficas well, this phenom
“platoon,” corresponds to the point process disorder problem. An optimal enon is a rather fundamental characteristic of traffic in an urban
estimator for the platoon size and passage time., based on detector data, is network and is greatlyinfluenced by thetrafficsignals. Indeed the
then derived via known resub for the point p &der problem. It is periodic variation of traffic lights tends to group vehicles into platoons.
shown that the wmputations requid by this estimator can be performed Traffic engineers have long exploited this behavior by using the maxi
in a microprocessor. Forthemre, the estimator is tested against the mum throughband synchronization scheme. The technique consists of
UTCSl traffic simulator and performs verywell. Parameter sensitivity offsetting the green phase of successive traffic lights, with respectto each
analysis of the estimator is presented. Finany, the use of these result0 to other, to regulategroups ofmoving vehcles at somedesiredspeed
improve the filter/predictor described in a companion paper, and vice without stopping. Thus, it is believed that estimates of platoon size and
versa, is explained. passage time may be an especially relevant traffic parameter for control
purposes.
Furthermore, it was explained in the companion paper that it is very
ManuscriptreceivedApril 28, 1978; revisedMarch 12, 1979. Paperrecommendedby
H. J. Payne,PastChairman of the Transportation Systems Committee. This workwas desirable to have adaptive queue estimators. Such adaptive estimators
supported in partby the U.S. Department of Transportation under Contract DOTOS need information about estimation errors that is largely independent of
60134 and in part by the University of Maryland Computation Center.
The authors are with theDepartment of Electrical Engineering, University of Mary the estimator itself. To clarify this point and for future references we
land, College Park, MD 20742. considerinFig. 1 two successivesignalizedtrafficintersections.Loop
~189286/79/08W553%00.7501979 IEEE