Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

AbstractMemristive System is a class on non-linear systems

with very interesting properties. It is considered to be the


fourth basic circuit element like Resistors, Capacitors and
Inductors. Till date most of the works on memristive systems
concentrated on its applications in the field of designing super
dense non volatile memory, crossbar latches, neural networks,
modeling of neural synapses, nonlinear oscillators and filters.
Much less work has been done in its use in the field of control
theory. This paper presents a groundwork in the field of using
Memristive Systems for control purposes.
I. INTRODUCTION
The existence of memristor was proposed by Leon Chua
[1] around four decades back. His argument was build on the
fact that since there are four very fundamental variables of
electromagnetism v, i, q and there should be six relations
relating one variable to another but only five of them were
known. Among the five relationships two of them followed
directly while the other three was given by the three circuit
elements Resistors (R), Capacitors (C) and Inductors (L). He
argued that there should be a fourth basic circuit element.

Figure 1. Relations between the four fundamental variables of
electromagnetism: Flux , Voltage v, Charge q and Current i. Among them
five of the relationship were well known but the relationship between Flux
and Charge q was missing. Based on symmetry he argued the existence
of memristor (M) which relates these two variables.
He theoretically studied the properties of this element
and concluded that this element will basically be a resistor
with memory and hence he named it memristor.
Not much importance was given to his work until 2008
when a group of four researchers from HP Labs headed by
Stanley Williams [3] physically realized memristor. From
then a lot of research has taken in the field of modeling and


application of memristor [4, 5]. The application was mainly
concentrated in the field of non volatile memory, crossbar
latches, neural networks and filters. Except [6,7] almost no
work has been done in the field of using memristors in the
field of control engineering. In this paper we lay the
groundwork of using memristors or in more general
memristive systems as a controller.
II. MEMRISTIVE SYSTEMS
According to Chua the flux and the charge q should be
related by a function f such that,

) (q f =
(1)
Differentiating (1) on both the sides we get,

dt
dq
q f
dq
d
dt
d
* ) ( =

(2)
Using Lenzs Law we get,
i q M V * ) ( = (3)
where,

=
t
idt q
0

and,
) ( ) ( q f
dq
d
q M =

So ) (q M will have unit of resistance but its resistance
will vary with the amount of charge that passes through it.
The work of Chua has been extended by Kang [2] to
memristive systems. Memristive systems are set of nonlinear
systems which are guided by the following generalized
differential equation,
u u X F X * ) , (
.
= (4)
u X G y * ) ( = (5)
where u and y is the input and the output of the system
and X are the internal states of the system.
Theory of Memristive Controllers: Design and Stability Analysis for
Linear Plants
Gourav Saha
Department of Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering
Madras Institute of Technology
Chennai-600044, Tamil Nadu, India
Email: sahahotmail@hotmail.com
Tathva ID: TAT2986
BluePrint Team ID: BPT1013
TOPIC: CONTROL SYSTEMS



One peculiar characteristic of memristive systems as
compared to other nonlinear systems is that when the input
u to the system is zero its output y is also zero.
A memristor is a particular case where internal state X is
the charge q , input u is the current i and the output y is the
voltage V .
The memristance ) (q M of the memristor synthesized by
the HP Labs is given by [3],
q R q M
o
* ) ( = (6)
where,

Q
R R
R R
q
Q
R R
R R
q
q q Q
Q
R R
ON OFF
OFF o
MIN
ON OFF
ON o
MAX
MIN MAX
ON OFF

=
=

=
)
(
) (
) (
) (
) (
) (

(7)
In practice
ON OFF
R R >> . We can change
o
w to set
the initial resistance of the memristor. It is to be noted that
Equation (6) is valid only in the range
MAX
q q 0 . So the
Equation (6) should be rewritten as,

=
,
, *
,
) (
ON
o
OFF
R
q R
R
q M

MAX
MAX MIN
MIN
q q
q q q
q q

< <

(8)
The symbol of a memristor is shown in Figure. 3. Its is a
general convention that when the current enters the
memristor from the terminal which is marked in bold
(terminal A) the resistance of the memristor decreases while
if the current enters from the other terminal (terminal B) its
resistance increases.

Figure 2. Memristor Symbol
The work further presented in the paper relies on a
circuit-theoretic approach to design and analyse the
controller but it should be noted that the parameters of the
memristors used may not have any resemblance to ones
physically synthesized (by HP Labs). But the work still
carries meaning because we are merely presenting a control
algorithm which at any time can be implemented using
digital computers.
III. PROBLEM DEFINATION
The work in hand consists of making a memristive
controller for a linear plant. Consider a time-invariant linear
plant given by the state equation:

) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
.
t t y
t u t t
Cx
B Ax x
=
+ = (9)
We consider a
th
n order, SISO system. Hence,
1 * * 1 *
, , ) (
n n n n
t R B R A R x and
n * 1
R C . ) (t u
and ) (t y are scalars since we are dealing with a SISO
system.
The idea is to design a memristive controller to control
the output ) (t y of the system. The organization of the paper
from here on is as follows. In Section IV we summarize the
controller architecture and derive the controller input output
equation. Section V deals with stability analysis while
section VI gives a qualitative overview of the time domain
performance aspects of the memristive controller. Section
VII provide simulation studies.
IV. MEMRISTIVE CONTROLLER
Feedback control scheme has been chosen to control the
linear plant for its widespread popularity. A feedback control
loop with a memristive controller is shown in Figure. 4.

Figure 3. Linear Plant with a memristive controller in a feedback loop. r(t)
is the setpoint, y(t) is the plants output or the process variable, e(t) is the
error signal or the difference between plant output and the desired setpoint,
u(t) is the input to the plant or the manipulated variable and x(t) are the
internal states of the plant.
Classical Proportional-Integral-Derivative controllers
(PID) have been the favourite choice for controlling any
process in a feedback loop. We propose two different
architectures of the memristive controller which is merely a
simple modification of the existing classical PID controllers.
A. Architecture-I (Memristor as the feedback resistor)

Figure 4. Memristive Controller Architecture-1
The relation between ) (t e and ) (t v for the above
architecture is given by,


|
|

\
|
=

), (
), ( ) (
), (
) (
0
2
t e
R
R
t e d e
R R
R
t e
R
R
t v
i
ON
t
i i
o
i
OFF


MAX
t
i
MAX
t
i
MIN
MIN
t
i
q d
R
e
q d
R
e
q
q d
R
e

< <

0
0
0
) (
) (
) (
(10)
B. Architecture-II (Memristor as input resistor)

Figure 5. Memristive Controller Architecture-2

Due to page limitation we state without proof that in this
configuration the current ) (t i through the memristor entering
from terminal A (the bold one) is given by,

=
t
o
d e R
t e
t i
0
2
) ( 2
) (
) (

(11)
and )) ( ( t q M as a function of time is,

=
t
o
d e R M
0
2
) ( 2
(12)
The relation between e(t) and v(t) in this architecture is
given by,

=
), (
), (
), (
) (
t e
R
R
t e
M
R
t e
R
R
t v
ON
i
i
OFF
i

MAX
t
MAX
t
MIN
N MI
t
q d i
q d i q
q d i

< <

0
0
0
) (
) (
) (



(13)
For both the above architecture the input-output
relationship of the classical PID is given by,

dt
dv
K d v K t v t u
D
t
I
+ + =

0
) ( ) ( ) (
(14)
where
I
K and
D
K are integral and derivative constant
respectively.In this paper we will be concerned with
architecture-1 only.
V. STABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Describing Function analysis for Limit Cycle prediction
Limit Cycles is one of the most undesirable phenomenon
of any non-linear system and hence its prediction is of vital
importance. Describing function has been the most wildly
used tool for understanding the existence of limit cycle in a
feedback loop.
An attempt to study the phenomenon was made by A.
Delgado [6]. The controller he tried to analyze is similar to
the architecture-II presented before (but without the classical
PID). In his work we came up with the describing function of
the memristor. To simplify his analysis he approximated the
nonlinearity of the memristor as a static nonlinearity. Hence
the describing function ) (a N was a function of the
amplitude a of the input signal only. Though the work is
appreciable but approximation of the input-output relation as
a static non linearity produce large deviation from reality as
the input-output curve or the V-I curve (pinched hysteresis
loop) of the memristor vary significantly with frequency. The
following pinched-hysteresis loop adapted from [4] validates
our conclusion.

Figure 6. The pinched-hysteresis loop exhibited by a typical memristor for
various frequencies of the input sinosodial signal.
In this section we will derive the describing function of a
memristive controller whose input-output relationship is
given by equation (10). We will first derive the describing
function ) , ( w a N of the memristive controller without the
classical PID and then merge it with the magnitude and
phase relation of the classical PID to get the final result
) , ( w a .
Consider,
) ( * ) ( wt Sin a t e =

Then,

)) ( 1 (
) (
) (
0
wt Cos
wR
a
d
R
e
t q
i
t
i
= =

(15)
So ]
2
, 0 [ ) (
i
wR
a
t q .
There are two cases possible:
Case-I (
MAX
i
q
wR
a

2
)
In this case the memristor never goes in the saturation
zone and the output ) (t v is given by:



) ( * ) ( 1 ( * ) (
2
wt Sin a wt Cos
w
a
R R
R
t v
i i
o
(

=

(16)

) 2 (
2
) ( *
2
2
2
wt Sin
wR
a
wt Sin a
wR
a
R
R
i i i
o

+
|
|

\
|
=
(17)
Fourier transform of ) (t v yields,

2
) , (
i i
o
wR
a
R
R
w a N

=
(18)
Case-II (
MAX
i
q
wR
a
>
2
2
)
In such cases the memristor will reach saturation at a
time
o
t and come back to non-saturation zone at a time
given by
o
t
w

2
, where
o
t is given by,

)) ( 1 (
o
i
MAX
wt Cos
wR
a
q =
(19)
Substituting
MAX
q from equation (7) we get,

(

=

) ( 1
1
1
ON o
i
o
R R
a
wR
Cos
w
t

(20)
The output ) (t v is given by,


=
), ( * )) ( ) ( (
), ( *
), ( * )) ( 1 (
) (
2
2
wt Sin a wt Cos wt Cos
wR
a
R
R
wt Sin a
R
R
wt Sin a wt Cos
wR
a
R
R
t v
o
i i
o
i
ON
i i
o

w
t t
w
t
w
t t
t t
o
o o
o

2 2
2
0
< <

< <
(21)
By substituting
o
t from equation (20) into equation (21)
and solving it yields,

+
|
|

\
|

+
|
|

\
|

=
), 2 (
2
) ( *
), ( *
), 2 (
2
) ( *
) (
2
2
2
2
2
2
wt Sin
wR
a
wt Sin a
wR
a
R
R
wt Sin a
R
R
wt Sin
wR
a
wt Sin a
wR
a
R
R
t v
i i i
o
i
ON
i i i
o


w
t t
w
t
w
t t
t t
o
o o
o

2 2
2
0
< <

< <
(22)
The describing function for such a general nonlinearity is
given by the following formula,

dt e t v
a
jw
w a N
jwt
w
) ( ) , (
2
0

(23)
Substituting ) (t v from equation (22) and integrating
using Mathematica 4.1 yields,
) ( * *
3
2
) , (
3
2 o
i
i
ON
wt Sin
wR
a
R
R
w a N

+ =


(


(
(

+
|
|

\
|
+
o
o
i i
o ON
wt
wt Sin
wR
a
R
R R
2
) 2 ( 1
2

24)

Hence equation (18) and (24) are the describing
functions of the memristive controller for two different
conditions. But this result is without the classical PID. The
transfer function ) (s G of the PID described by equation
(14) is given by,

D
I
sK
s
K
s v
s u
s G + + = = 1
) (
) (
) (
(25)
Substituting jw s = yields,

) ( ) ( ) ( jw G jw G jw G =
(26)
where,

|

\
|
=
|
|

\
|
+ =

w
K
wK Tan jw G
w
K
wK jw G
I
D
I
D
1
2
) (
1 ) ( (27)
The describing function ) , ( w a of the memristive
controller with the classical PID is given by,
) ( * ) , ( ) , ( jw G w a N w a = (28)
The limit cycles and hence the stability conditions for the
closed loop can be derived from the characteristic equation
of the closed loop system,
0 ) ( ) , ( 1 = + s G w a
p
(29)
B. Stability around an Equilibrium Point
It should be noted that the memristive controller
proposed is basically a nonlinear PID. A lot of work has
been done in the past three decades to study stability of
nonlinear PIDs around an equilibrium point mostly using
Lyapunov stability analysis. Some notable ones are by
Arimoto [8], Kelly[9].
Throughout the rest of the paper we use the notation
) ( A
m
and ) ( A
M
to indicate smallest and largest
eigenvalues of a matrix A. The norm of a matrix A is



defined as ) ( || || A A A
T
M
= and that of a vector x is
given by x x x
T
= || || . The notation ) Re( y means the real
part of a variable y .
To simplify the work further presented in the paper we
make certain assumptions:
1) Assumption 1:
The linear plant described by equation (4) and (5) is
asymptotically stable. Mathematically speaking, the real part
of the eignvalues of matrix A are negative. The differential
equation notation of the
th
n order linear plant as described
by equation (4) and (5) is :
u y a
dt
dy
a
dt
y d
a
dt
y d
a
dt
y d
a
n
n
n n
n
n
= + + + + +

0 1 2
2
2 1
1
1
.....
(30)
2) Assumption 2:
We assume that for the memristive controller
OFF o
R R = in equation (6).
3) Assumption 3:
The ) (q M of the memristor given by equation (8) can
be approximated by a single function given by,
)] ( * [ * ) ( D q C Tanh B A q M + = (31)
where,
x x
x x
e e
e e
x Tanh

= ) (
and D C B A , , , are positive
constants. A Least Square Fit of equation (31) with equation
(8) yields,

2
4375 . 2
2
) (
2
) (
Q
D
Q
C
R R
B
R R
A
ON OFF
ON OFF

=
+
=
(32)
This approximation is necessary to avoid analysis of a
switched nonlinear system.
To find the region of attraction of the closed loop system
we proceed in the following way. First we derive the output
of the memristive controller with the classical PID. Then we
try representing the closed loop system using differential
equation and state space notation. It is followed by deriving
conditions for local stabilization of the closed loop system
and then the region of attraction for a given set of controller
parameters.
a) Output of memristive PID controller
From hereon a variable x which is a function of time, i.e.
) (t x will just be represented as x . If otherwise the
independent variable will be explicitly mentioned in
parenthesis. The notation
.
x represents the first derivative
of x .
For architecture-I

=
t
i
d
R
e
q
0
) (

. For further analysis we


replace variable q by z and function ) (q M by ) (z f . Also
we introduce a new variable
i
R
e
= . Hence

=
t
d z
0
) ( .
The input ) (t v to the classical PID is given by,


|
|

\
|
=

t
d f t v
0
) ( ) (
(33)
Hence the final output u of the controller is,
|
|

\
|
+
|
|

\
|
=
t
I
t
d d f K d f u
0 0 0
) ( ) ( ) ) (



(
(

|
|

\
|
+


t
D
d f
dt
d
K
0
) (
(34)
Solving equation (34) we get,

2
.
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( z g K z f K z h K z f u
D D I
+ + + = (35)
b) Closed Loop Dynamics
Substituting equation (35) in equation (30) we get the
differential equation governing the closed loop dynamics,

2
.
0
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( z g K z f K z h K z f
dt
y d
a
D D I
n
j
j
j
j
+ + + =

=
(36)
We consider the set-point tracking problem with desired
position
d
y y = . Hence, y y e
d
= or y y R
d i
= .
Hence equation (36) can be re-written as,

.
0
0
) ( ) ( ) (

z f K z h K z f y a
dt
d
a R
D I d
n
j
j
j
j i
+ + = +

=


2
) ( z g K
D
+ (37)
At equilibrium,
) (
0 d I d
z h K y a = (38)
We define a new variable
d
z z = and substitute it in
equation (37),
) ( ) (
0
0
d I d d
n
j
j
j
j i
z h K z f y a
dt
d
a R + + + = +

=



2
.
) ( ) (
d D d D
z g K z f K + + + +
(39)



Define a state vector
1 * ) 1 ( +

n
X R such that
(

= =

+ 1
1
2
2
1 4 3 2 1
...., , , , ] ...., , , , [
n
n
n
T
dt
d
dt
d
dt
d
x x x x x X


.
The state equation of the closed loop system is,
,
1
.
+
=
i i
x x

n i 1
(40)
) ( ) ( [
1 1
1 2 1 0 2
1
0
1
.
d I d d
n i
j
n
j
j
n
n z x h K x z x f y a
a R
x a
a
x + + + +

=
+

=
+


] ) ( ) (
2
2 1 3 1
x z x g K x z x f K
d D d D
+ + + +

It is trivial to note that the equilibrium point of the above
system is
) 1 ( * 1
0
+
=
n T
X R .
c) Local Stabilization
To study local stability we linearize system,

) (
.
X X F =
(41)
around its equilibrium point such that,
BX X =
.
(42)
where
) 1 ( * ) 1 ( + +

n n
R B is the Jacobian Matrix given by,

0 =

=
X
X
B
F
(43)
As given in Khalil[10], a system described by equation
(42) is asymptotically stable if and only if,
all eignvalues
i
of Bsatisfy 0 ) Re( <
i
.
OR
There are positive definite matrix P and
Qsuch that the lyapunov equation
Q PB P B = +
T
is satisfied.
We can use any of the above two conditions to prove
local stability of the system since correctness of one of the
above condition verifies the correctness of the other. Here
we prove the first condition.
For the system described by state equation (40), Bis
given by the following matrix,
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(



n
n
n n i
D
n n i n n i
I
a
a
a
a
a R
C K
a
a
a R
C
a
a
a R
C K
1 2 1 0
. . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
0 . . . 0 0 0 0
0 . . . 1 0 0 0
0 . . . 0 1 0 0
0 . . . 0 0 1 0

where, ) (
d
z f C = .
Due to limitation of space, we state without proof that
ON d
R z f = ) ( for most cases. Local stability can be
ensured if
i ON D I
R R K K , , , are chosen such that eignvalues of
Bare negative.
d) Region of Attraction
According to Khalil[10], if 0 = X is an asymptotically
stable equilibrium point for ) (
.
X X F = , then its region of
attraction
A
R is an open, connected, invariant set whose
boundary are formed by trajectories.
In this paper we find an approximate region of attraction.
The method used is similar to the one used in Khalil[10].
Let the lyapunov candidate be, PX X X
T
V = ) ( where
Pthe matrix as encountered in the discussion of local
stability is. Since the closed loop system was proven to be
locally stable it follows that there will definitely be a positive
definite matrix Pand Qto satisfy the lyapunov equation.
We assume I Q = and solve the lyapunov equation to
get P. If,

) ( ) (
.
X AX X X G F + = =
(44)
Then,

) ( 2 ) (
.
X P X QX X X G V
T T
+ =
(45)
As adopted by Khalil[10] an estimate of
A
R is the largest
domain
C
defined by C V < ) (X such that
.
) (X V is
negative definite.
We know that there is a ball
r
B = r || || X such that
0 ) (
.
< X V in
r
B . Let
C
be contained in
r
B by choosing
) ( min
|| ||
X
X
V C
r =
= .
Now,

2 2
|| || ) ( ) ( || || ) ( X X X P V P
m M
(46)
Hence choose,
2
) ( r P C
m
= .

2
.
2
|| || ) ( ) ( || || ) ( X X X Q V Q
m M
(47)
If ) (X G is locally lipschitz than for any 0 > there
will exist an 0 > r such that,
||, || || ) ( || X X < G
r < || || X
(48)
Now using inequality (46), (47) and (48) we can arrive at
the following conservative form of equation (45),




, || || )] ( 2 ) ( [ ) (
2
.
X P Q X
M m
V

r < || || X
(49)
Now 0 ) (
.
< X V when,

) ( * 2
) (
P
Q
M
m

<
(50)
Since I Q = , 1 ) ( = Q
m
.
Now, known as the lipschitz constant is a function of
r given by ). (r = To find the largest ball
r
B over
which 0 ) (
.
< X V we need to equate,

) ( * 2
1
) (
P
M
r

=
(51)
Then the region of attraction according [10] is given by,

2
) ( r P
m
T
< PX X (52)
The next work is to determine ) (r . Now ) (r is
determined by ) (X G where ] ...., , , [ ) (
1 3 2 1 +
=
n
T
y y y y G X
Now,
, 0 =
i
y n i 1 (53)
2
2 1 1 1 0 1
) ( ) ( ) ( [
1
x z x g K x z f K z x h K y a
a R
y
d D d I d I d
n i
n
+ + + =
+


}] )}( ( ) ( {
3 2 1
x K x z x f z f
D d d
+ + +

To find the lipschitz constant we take help of the
following theorem as mentioned in Khalil[10],
If
m
D b a f R ] [ : be continuous for some
domain .
n
D R Suppose
x
f

exists and is continuous on


D b a ] [ . If, for a convex subset D W , there is a
constant 0 L such that,

L x t
x
f

) , (

on W b a ] [ , then
y x L y t f x t f || ) , ( ) , ( ||
for all ], , [ b a t , W x and W y .
It can be shown that,

2 2 2
1
) , ( c b a
a R
t
G
n i
+ + =

X
X
(54)
where,
) )( ( )} ( ) ( { [
3 2 1 1
1
1
x K x z x g z x f z f K
x
y
a
D d d d I
n
+ + + =

=
+


] ) (
2
2 1
'
x z x g K
d D
+

] ) ( 2 )} ( ) ( [{
2 1 1
2
1
x z x g K z x f z f
x
y
b
d D d d
n
+ + =

=
+
)}] ( ) ( { [
1
3
1
d d D
n
z x f z f K
x
y
c + =

=
+
and,
x
g
x g

= ) (
,

Suppose we are interested in calculating lipschitz
constant over the convex set,
| {
1 +
=
n
W R X , | | r x
i
< )} 1 ( 1 + n i
For ) (x f as defined by equation (31) and (32) and
assuming
ON d
R z f ) ( it can be shown that,

3 3
4
) (
3 3
4
0 ) (
0 )} ( ) ( { 2
2
1
,
2
1
1
BC
z x g
BC
z x g BC
z x f z f B
d
d
d d
+

+
+
(55)
Consider that the largest value of
) , ( X
X
t
G

and hence
the lipschitz constant L is given by,

2 2 2 1
M M M
n i
c b a
a R
L + + =
(56)
An analytical argument (whose explanation we skip)
shows that,

=
)); ( , max(
)); ( , max(
;
; 0
) (
2 1
2 1
1
d
z L L
r L L
L
r L
d
d d
d
d
z r
z r Q z
Q z r
Q z r

< <
=
<
) (
) (
) (
(57)
where,
1
L and
2
L is be obtained by substituting the
following values of
M
a ,
M
b ,
M
c in equation (71):
For
1
L substitute,
0
) ( 2
) (
3 3
4
) )( 1 (
2
2
=
=
(

+ + =
M
d D M
d
D
d D M
c
Q z BC K b
Q z
K BC
Q z K BC a
(58)
For
2
L substitute,
[ ]
[ ]
)] ( ) ( [
2 ) ( ) (
) 1 ( )) ( ) ( (
d d D M
D d d M
D d d I M
z r f z f K c
BCr K z r f z f b
r K BC z r f z f K a
+ =
+ + =
+ + + =
(59)
It is easy to observe that if a function is lipschitz over the
convex set W with lipschitz constant L it will be lipschitz
over the convex set
r
B with lipschitz constant L.
Hence,



L r = = ) ( (60)
To solve for the value of R which satisfies equation (65)
we plot the curve ) (r and the straight horizontal line
representing the RHS of equation (65) on the same graph.
The value of r where the two graphs intersect is the required
value of R .
The author would like to stress the fact that the stability
analysis around the equilibrium point presented here is a
conservative one. The violation of the result presented
doesnt guarantee non-stability of the system.
VI. TIME DOMAIN PERFORMANCE
The superiority in performance of memristive PID
controller over a conventional PID controller can be argued
in the similar way as any other nonlinear PID controllers.
Consider a set point tracking problem. A step input is given
at time 0 = t . Initially ) (q M is high and hence the
controller and hence the input ) (t v to the classical PID is
large. So a large ) (t u is produced driving the output quickly
to the set point. But as time passes ) (q M decreases, and
hence ) (t u decreases too. This prevents excessive
overshoot.
It is to be noted that ) (
ON OFF
R R and Q decides
both the stability and performance of the controller and
hence a tradeoff has to occur between performance and
stability. To do the required tradeoff a cost function J has
to be determined. This function will be a weighted sum of
parameters determining both stability and performance. The
aim will be to adjust the controller parameters to maximize
the cost function. The design of the required cost function is
not considered in this paper.
The following steps describe briefly the design procedure
of a memristive controller:
1) Decide the required region of attraction. This will
mainly be decided by the amount of disturbance present in
the surroundings. More the disturbance higher the region of
attraction required to ensure stability.
2) Calculate the acceptable range of controller
parameters.
3) Adjust the controller parameters within the acceptable
range to get the optimum time domain performance.
4) Calculate the limit cycle of the system using
describing function analysis.
VII. SIMULATION STUDIES
We consider the following linear plant for simulation
studies,

3
) 1 (
1
) (
s
s G
P
+
=
(61)
Rather than a PID controller we just consider a PI
controller here and provide comparative studies between
time domain response of a conventional PI controller and a
memristive PI controller.
By simulation we find that a conventional PI controller
with 3 . 0 = =
I P
K K yields the best time domain
performance. We compare this result with a memristive PI
controller with 1 = =
I P
K K and
8 =
OFF
R
, 2 . 0 =
ON
R and
. 100 = The following is the simulation result as obtained
from MATLAB,

Figure 7. The unit step reponse of a the linear plant controlled by
memristive PI controller and conventional PI controller.
The graph in blue and magenta demonstrate the time
response of the process with a conventional PI controller and
memristive PI controller respectively to a step change in
input. As it can be seen with memristive PI controller the
closed loop process has a stepper slope initially compared to
the conventional PI controller. This drives the process to the
set point value faster. As the process approaches set point the
slope of the response curve decreases and this prevents the
large overshoot.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper we have laid groundwork on the use of
memristive systems in control engineering. Basically two
controller architectures have been proposed but the stability
analysis and performance aspects of only one of the
architecture has been studied.
Future work in this field may include analysis of the
second controller architecture proposed in this paper and
presenting a more analytical work to understand the
performance of the memristive controller. Work in the field
of memristive systems in not restricted to memristors alone
but has extended to the theoretical understanding of devices
like memcapacitors and meminductors. It is another issue
that they have not been synthesized yet. In years to come the
author would also like to extend his work to understand the
control aspects of these devices.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is grateful to his senior Mr. Rajendra Mohan
for introducing him to the concept of memristor. He would



also like to thank Prof. J.Prakash for providing invaluable
help to carry out nonlinear analysis. The author also wishes
to acknowledge Stephen Wolfram and the whole of Wolfram
Research Team for making software packages like
Mathematica without which the derivation of the describing
function and the least square approximation presented in the
paper would have been very difficult.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Chua, Memristor The Missing Circuit Element, IEEE Trans.
on Circuit Theory, Vol. 18, No. 5, pp. 507 - 519, September 1971.
[2] L. Chua and S.M. Kang, Memristive Devices and Systems, Proc.
IEEE, Vol. 64 , No. 2. pp. 209-223, February 1976.
[3] D.B. Sturkov, G.S. Snider, D.R. Stewart and S.R. Williams, The
missing memristor found, Nature, Vol. 453, No. 7191, pp. 80-83,
2008.
[4] Y.N. Joglekar and S.J. Wolf, The elusive memristor: properties of
basic electrical circuits, European Journal of Physics, Vol. 30, No. 4,
pp. 661-675, May 2009
[5] Makoto Itoh and L. Chua, Memristor Oscillators, Int. Journal on
Bifurcation and Chaos, Vol. 18, No. 11, pp. 3183-3206, September
2008
[6] A. Delgado, The memristor as controller, IEEE Nanotechnology
Materials and Devices Conference 2010, pp. 376-379, October 2010.
[7] Jin Hu and Jun Wang, Global Uniform Asymptotic Stability of
Memristor-based Recurrent Neural Networks with Time Delays,Int.
Joint Conference on Neural Networks 2010, pp. 1-8, July 2010.
[8] S. Arimoto, Control Theory of Non-Linear Mechanical Systems: A
Passivity-Based and Circuit-Theoretic Approach, Oxford, UK:
Clarendron Press, 1996.
[9] R. Kelly, Global positioning of robot manipulators via PD control
plus a class of nonlinear integral actions, IEEE Trans. Automatic
Control, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 934-937, July 1998.
[10] H.K. Khalil, Non-Linear Systems, Prentice Hall, 2002.