Positive real synthesis using matrix inequalities for mechanical

networks: application to vehicle suspension

Christakis Papageorgiou and Malcolm C. Smith
AbstractThis paper presents a procedure for the synthesis
of positive real controllers based on matrix inequalities. The
H
2
and H

problems are considered and the resulting bilinear

matrix inequality problems are solved using local, iterative
algorithms. The procedure is applied to the synthesis of pas-
sive suspensions for the optimisation of certain performance
measures for a quarter-car model. The characterisation of
the positive real constraint using matrix inequalities and
the use of a new mechanical element called the inerter,
permits the optimisation over the entire class of positive real
admittances and the realisation of the resulting admittance
using passive elements. The optimisation results are compared
with previous results obtained using optimisation over xed-
structure admittances. The proposed method can reproduce
the previous results and achieve better results in certain cases.
I. INTRODUCTION
Positive real systems occur in many applications, for
example, mechanical structures with collocated sensors and
actuators, passive electrical networks (those with only re-
sistors, inductors and capacitors) and passive mechanical
networks (those with masses, dampers and springs). Positive
real systems have motivated the design of strictly positive
real compensators since the negative feedback interconnec-
tion of a positive real plant with a strictly positive real
compensator is asymptotically stable.
Recently a new mechanical network element termed the
inerter was introduced as an alternative to the mass
element for synthesis of mechanical networks [1]. In the
context of vehicle suspensions this was exploited in [2] by
optimising standard performance measures over low-order
xed-structure admittances. The present paper considers the
more general class of positive-real functions and seeks to
use matrix inequalities as a tool for optimisation.
Linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) [3] have emerged as
a powerful formulation and design technique for a variety
of linear control problems such as H
2
and H

synthesis.
Since solving LMIs is a convex optimisation problem, such
formulations can be solved efciently using interior-point
algorithms. Linear matrix inequalities have also been suc-
cessful in formulating and solving multi-objective control
problems in which various performance specications (both
in the frequency and the time domains) are used for various
input-output channels [4].
The fact that the positive real character of a system can
also be expressed as an LMI, allows for the formulation
This work was supported in part by EPSRC.
C. Papageorgiou and M. C. Smith are with the Control Group, Cam-
bridge University Engineering Department, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, England
cp206@eng.cam.ac.uk, mcs@eng.cam.ac.uk
of the positive real synthesis problem as a set of matrix
inequalities. Considerable research has been conducted to-
wards the synthesis of positive real controllers that achieve
a level of H
2
performance for the control of exible
structures. In [5] a sub-optimal version of this problem is
shown to be a convex optimisation problem and expressed
in the form of an LMI. In [6] an iterative LMI procedure is
proposed for the same problem. Both methods require that
the order of the controller is the same as the order of the
generalised plant.
In this paper we will use local optimisation algorithms
in order to solve the H
2
and H

positive real synthesis

problems which are formulated as bilinear matrix inequality
(BMI) problems. The proposed algorithms allow for any
order controller to be considered which is important when
searching for a simple network realisation of a given posi-
tive real function. It will be demonstrated using the quarter-
car model that the matrix inequality approach can reproduce
the results and give improvements over the previous opti-
misation method.
II. SYNTHESIS OF ONE-PORT MECHANICAL NETWORKS
A mechanical network of pure translational type consists
of mechanical elements (such as springs, masses, dampers
and levers) which are interconnected in a rigid manner. The
pair of end-points of the spring and damper are called nodes
or terminals. In a mechanical system, a port is a pair of
nodes to which an equal and opposite force F is applied
and which experience a relative velocity v. The force, which
is a through variable, involves a single measurement point
and requires the system to be severed at that point to make
the measurement. The velocity, which is an across variable,
can be measured without breaking into the system and the
relevant quantity is the difference of the variable between
the two points. The concept of through and across variables
is natural also for electrical networks and motivates the
force-current analogy (velocity-voltage), which is power
preserving.
The impedance Z(s) of a network is dened as the
ratio of the across variable to the through variable and
the admittance Y(s) is dened as the reciprocal of the
impedance. Thus mechanical admittance is the ratio of force
to velocity.
A. Positive real functions
A mechanical one-port network with force-velocity pair
(F, v) is dened to be passive if for all admissible v, F
43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
December 14-17, 2004
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
0-7803-8682-5/04/$20.00 2004 IEEE
FrC12.2
5455
which are square integrable on (, T]
_
T

F(t)v(t)dt 0. (1)
As shown in [7], [8] the network is passive if and only if the
following condition is satised: Z(s) is analytic in Re(s) >0
and Z(s) +Z(s)

0 for all s with Re(s) > 0. Any real-

rational function Z(s) satisfying the above is called positive
real. The same condition holds for admittances Y(s).
The following fundamental theorem is used in electrical
circuit synthesis of positive real functions.
Theorem 2.1 ([8], [9]): Consider any real-rational func-
tion Z(s), (Y(s)) which is positive real. There exists a
one-port electrical network whose impedance (admittance)
equals Z(s) (Y(s)) which consists of a nite interconnection
of inductors, resistors and capacitors.
B. The inerter
It was pointed out in [1] that Theorem 2.1 cannot be
applied directly to the synthesis of mechanical networks
because of the fact that the mass element is analogous to
a grounded capacitor. Thus the mechanical analogue of an
electrical network with ungrounded capacitors cannot be
realised with the use of springs, dampers and masses. This
imposes a restriction on the class of passive mechanical
impedances which can be physically realised. This restric-
tion is lifted by dening a new mechanical element, the in-
erter, which is the mechanical analogue of the ungrounded
capacitor.
Denition 2.1 (Inerter [1]): The (ideal) inerter is a me-
chanical two-terminal device with the property that the
equal and opposite force applied at the nodes is propor-
tional to the relative acceleration between the nodes, i.e.
F = b( v
2
v
1
) where v
1
, v
2
are the velocities of the two
terminals and b is a constant of proportionality called the
inertance which has units of kilograms.
Various different physical realisations have been de-
scribed in [1] and [10]. Such a realisation may be viewed
as approximating its mathematical ideal in the same way
that real springs, dampers, capacitors etc approximate their
mathematical ideals. The element correspondences in the
force-current analogy with the inerter replacing the mass
element are shown in Fig. 1.
C. The control synthesis paradigm
In [2] the inerter was used in the design of passive
suspensions for both quarter-car and full-car models. Var-
ious xed-structure admittances were considered whose
interconnection consisted of springs, one inerter and one
damper. The parameter values of the components were
tuned in order to optimise certain performance measures.
This method addresses only a small part of the class of
positive real admittances that can be physically realised.
In order to be able to synthesise admittances over the
whole class of positive real functions, we use a control
synthesis paradigm along with a state-space characterisation
Electrical Mechanical
spring
inerter
damper
inductor
capacitor
resistor
i
i
i i
i
i
v
1
v
1
v
1
v
1
v
1
v
1
v
2
v
2
v
2
v
2
v
2
v
2
F F
F F
F F
Y(s) =
k
s
dF
dt
= k(v
2
v
1
)
Y(s) = bs
F = b
d(v
2
v
1
)
dt
Y(s) = c
F = c(v
2
v
1
)
Y(s) =
1
Ls
di
dt
=
1
L
(v
2
v
1
)
Y(s) =Cs
i =C
d(v
2
v
1
)
dt
Y(s) =
1
R
i =
1
R
(v
2
v
1
)
Fig. 1. Circuit symbols and correspondences with dening equations and
admittance Y(s).
of positive realness. The search for positive real admittances
is formulated as a search for positive real controllers K(s)
as shown in Fig. 2. The characterisation of positive realness
z w
G(s)
K(s)
F v
2
v
1
Fig. 2. The control synthesis paradigm.
of the controller is achieved with the following result.
Lemma 2.2 (Positive-real lemma [3], [11]): Given that,
K(s) =
_
A
k
B
k
C
k
D
k
_
=C
k
(sI A
k
)
1
B
k
+D
k
, (2)
then K(s) is positive real if and only if there exists P
k
> 0
that satises the LMI,
_
A
T
k
P
k
+P
k
A
k
P
k
B
k
C
T
k
B
T
k
P
k
C
k
D
T
k
D
k
_
0. (3)
III. VEHICLE SUSPENSIONS
A. The quarter-car model
The quarter-car model presented in Fig. 3 is the simplest
model to consider for suspension design. It consists of the
sprung mass m
s
, the unsprung mass m
u
and a tyre with
spring stiffness k
t
. The suspension strut provides an equal
and opposite force on the sprung and unsprung masses and
is assumed to be a passive mechanical admittance Y(s) =
K(s) +
k
s
s
, where K(s) is positive real and has no pole at
s =0. In this paper we x the parameters of the quarter-car
models as: m
s
= 250 kg, m
u
= 35 kg, k
t
= 150 kN/m.
B. Performance measures
There are a number of practical design requirements for
a suspension system such as passenger comfort, handling,
tyre normal loads and limits on suspension travel. In the
5456
Fs
K(s)
zs
zu
zr
mu
kt
ms
ks
F
F
Fig. 3. Quarter-car vehicle model with pre-determined static stiffness.
quarter-car model these can be translated approximately into
specications on the transfer functions from the disturbance
signals F
s
and z
r
to the signals z
s
and z
u
[2].
For the ride comfort we use the r.m.s body vertical
acceleration parameter J
1
which is given by,
J
1
= 2(V)
1/2
||sT
z
r
z
s
||
2
, (4)
where V is the speed of the car, is a road roughness
parameter, T
z
r
z
s
denotes the transfer function from the road
disturbance z
r
to the displacement of the sprung mass z
s
and
|| ||
2
is the standard H
2
norm. For this study V = 25 m/s
and = 5 10
7
.
Another factor to be considered is the ability of the sus-
pension to withstand external loads on the sprung mass, e.g.
those loads induced by braking, accelerating and cornering.
The following measure is used for this purpose,
J
5
=
_
_
T

F
s
z
s
_
_

, (5)
where || ||

represents the H

-norm. We will attempt

to minimise each performance measure on its own over
positive real admittances Y(s) of xed degree and compare
the results with those obtained in [2].
C. The quarter-car model as an LFT
It is proposed to formulate the suspension design problem
as a standard H
2
or H

controller synthesis problem and

formulate the quarter-car model (Fig. 3) as an LFT (Linear
Fractional Transformation) with respect to the unknown,
positive real admittance K(s). We require that the static
stiffness of the suspension is determined a-priori and is
given by k
s
. The equations of motion are given by,
z
s
=
F
s
m
s

F
m
s

k
s
m
s
z
s
+
k
s
m
s
z
u
, (6)
z
u
=
F
m
u
+
k
s
m
u
z
s

k
s
m
u
z
u
+
k
t
m
u
z
r

k
t
m
u
z
u
, (7)

F = K(s)(s z
s
s z
u
). (8)
The external input of the generalised plant is w = [F
s
, z
r
]
T
,
while the performance output is given by z = [ z
s
, z
s
]
T
.
Writing the above equations in state-space form with the
state vector given by x = [ z
s
, z
s
, z
u
, z
u
]
T
results in the quarter-
car, generalised plant:
x = Ax +B
_
w
F
_
,
_
z
z
s
z
u
_
=Cx, (9)
where,
A =
_

_
0
k
s
m
s
0
k
s
m
s
1 0 0 0
0
k
s
m
u
0
k
s
+k
t
m
u
0 0 1 0
_

_
, B =
_

_
1
m
s
0
1
m
s
0 0 0
0
k
t
m
u
1
m
u
0 0 0
_

_
,
C =
_
_
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
1 0 1 0
_
_
.
Let B
1
, B
2
, B
3
be the respective columns of B and let C
1
, C
2
,
C
3
be the respective rows of C. Since the static stiffness of
the suspension is determined a priori, the admittance K(s)
must have zero static stiffness, hence it may not contain an
integrator. This is in fact ensured by the structure of the
generalised plant. The transfer function from F to z
s
z
u
is
given by,
T

F(s z
s
s z
u
)
=
s
_
(m
u
+m
s
)s
2
+k
t
_
m
u
m
s
s
4
+s
2
(m
u
k
s
+k
s
m
s
+k
t
m
s
) +k
t
k
s
.
Therefore a stabilising controller K(s) cannot have an in-
tegrator because it will cause a RHP pole-zero cancellation.
IV. OPTIMISATION OF J
1
The generalised plant for the J
1
optimisation is formed
by considering z
r
as the external disturbance and z
s
as the
performance output. The objective is to nd a positive real
K(s) so that ||T
z
r
s z
s
||
2
is minimised. From (9) the observ-
able and controllable representation of the J
1
generalised
plant is given by,
x = Ax +B
2
z
r
+B
3
F, (10)
z
s
= C
1
x, z
s
z
u
=C
3
x. (11)
Given a controller K(s) of order n
k
, with state-space rep-
resentation as in (2), let the state-space representation of
the closed-loop system resulting from the interconnection
of the generalised plant and the controller be denoted by,
_
_
x
x
k
z
s
_
_
=
_
A
cl
B
cl
C
cl
0
_
_
_
x
x
k
z
r
_
_
. (12)
Theorem 4.1: There exists a positive real controller K(s)
of order n
k
such that ||T
z
r
s z
s
||
2
< and A
cl
is stable, if and
only if the following problem is feasible for some X
cl
> 0,
X
k
>0, Q (symmetric),
2
and A
k
, B
k
, C
k
, D
k
of compatible
dimensions:
_
A
T
cl
X
cl
+X
cl
A
cl
X
cl
B
cl
B
T
cl
X
cl
I
_
< 0,
_
X
cl
C
T
cl
C
cl
Q
_
> 0, tr(Q) <
2
,
_
A
T
k
X
k
+X
k
A
k
X
k
B
k
C
T
k
B
T
k
X
k
C
k
D
T
k
D
k
_
< 0.
5457
The rst three LMIs are necessary and sufcient con-
ditions for the existence of a stabilising controller that
achieves an upper bound of on the H
2
-norm [12]. The
fourth LMI further restricts the controller to be positive
real. Without the positive real constraint the H
2
-synthesis
problem can be formulated as an LMI problem as shown in
[12]. With the positive real constraint it is not obvious how
to do so, hence an iterative optimisation method is employed
to solve the BMI problem locally. The method, which is
described in [13], is to linearise the BMI using a rst-order
perturbation approximation, and then iteratively compute a
perturbation that slightly improves the controller perfor-
mance by solving an LMI problem. The proposed scheme is
already implemented in YALMIP [14], which is a MATLAB
toolbox for rapid prototyping of optimization problems. A
feasible starting point must be given to the algorithm.
A. J
1
optimisation results
There are two issues to be investigated regarding the
proposed synthesis method. The rst is the reproduction of
the results of the xed-structure optimisation and the second
the further improvement in performance.
An example is presented that demonstrates the success
in reproducing the xed-structure optimisation results. The
quarter-car model is considered with static stiffness k
s
=
610
4
N/m. The xed-structure admittance proposed in [2]
is a damper in series with an inerter, i.e. K(s) =cbs/(c+bs),
which achieves a value of J
1
= 1.5851 for c = 3224 Ns/m
and b = 334 kg. Optimising over rst-order admittances
K(s), the use of the YALMIP procedure gave,
K(s) =
3276s +52
s +10
= 5.2 +(1/3271 +1/327.1s)
1
(13)
and the value J
1
= 1.5855. A comparison of the two
admittances is shown in Fig. 4.
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
0
10
2
10
4
L
o
g

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
Frequency (radians/sec)
LMI optimisation
fixedstructure
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
P
h
a
s
e

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
Frequency (radians/sec)
Fig. 4. Comparison of rst-order admittances K(s) for the quarter-car
model for k
s
= 610
4
N/m
It is also investigated whether J
1
can be reduced further
by optimising over higher order admittances. The highest
order admittance considered in [2] was of order 2. The
best results obtained so far with third-order admittances are
presented in Fig. 5 as a function of the static stiffness of
the suspension, along with previous results related to xed-
structure admittances. The best xed-structure admittance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
x 10
4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
static stiffness in N/m
J
1
layout S1 (damper)
layout S6 (2nd order fixedstructure)
3rd order (BMI optimisation)
Fig. 5. Improvement in J
1
when using higher-order admittances
found in [2] was given the name layout S6, which is an
inerter-damper series arrangement with unequal centring
springs. The percentage improvement is calculated with
respect to the values of J
1
achieved by the S6 xed-
structure admittance. The results are shown in Fig. 6. The
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x 10
4
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
static stiffness in N/m
%

c
h
a
n
g
e
Fig. 6. Percentage improvement in J
1
when K(s) is third order
optimisation algorithm was run for values of static stiffness
in the range 1 10
4
N/m to 12 10
4
N/m at a spacing of
0.5 10
4
N/m.
V. OPTIMISATION OF J
5
The generalised plant for the J
5
optimisation is formed
by considering F
s
as the external disturbance and z
s
as the
performance output. The objective is to nd a positive real
K(s) so that J
5
= ||T

F
s
z
s
||

is minimised. The controller

K(s) is allowed to be either proper or non-proper to allow
5458
for non-proper admittances. The proper admittance is given
by (2) and the non-proper one is given by,
K(s) =C
k
(sI A
k
)
1
B
k
+D
k
+sE
k
, (14)
with E
k
> 0 in order to satisfy positive realness along with
the LMI condition (3). The term sE
k
represents an inerter
with inertance E
k
in parallel with the proper admittance.
A. Optimisation over proper controllers
From (9) the observable and controllable representation
of the J
5
generalised plant is:
x = Ax +B
1
F
s
+B
3
F, (15)
z
s
= C
2
x, z
s
z
u
=C
3
x. (16)
Given a controller K(s) of order n
k
, with state-space rep-
resentation as in (2), let the state-space representation of
the closed-loop system resulting from the interconnection
of the generalised plant and the controller be denoted by,
_
_
x
x
k
z
s
_
_
=
_
A
cl
B
cl
C
cl
0
_
_
_
x
x
k
F
s
_
_
. (17)
Theorem 5.1: There exists a positive real controller K(s)
of order n
k
such that J
5
=
_
_
T

F
s
z
s
_
_

< and A
cl
is stable,
if and only if the following problem is feasible for some
X
cl
> 0, X
k
> 0, > 0 and A
k
, B
k
, C
k
, D
k
of compatible
dimensions:
M < 0,
_
A
T
k
X
k
+X
k
A
k
X
k
B
k
C
T
k
B
T
k
X
k
C
k
D
T
k
D
k
_
< 0, (18)
where X
cl
:=
_
X
11
X
12
X
T
12
X
22
_
and M is a symmetric matrix with,
M
11
= X
11
A+()
T
+X
11
B
3
D
k
C
3
+()
T
+X
12
B
k
C
3
+()
T
,
M
12
= X
11
B
3
C
k
+X
12
A
k
+A
T
X
12
+C
T
3
D
T
k
B
T
3
X
12
+C
T
3
B
T
k
X
22
,
M
13
= X
11
B
1
, M
14
=C
T
2
, M
23
= X
T
12
B
1
,
M
22
= X
22
A
k
+()
T
+X
T
12
B
3
C
k
+()
T
,
M
24
= 0
n
k
1
, M
34
= 0, M
33
= M
44
=I,
where ()
T
denotes the transpose of the preceding matrix.
The matrix inequality M < 0 results by applying the
Bounded Real Lemma [3] on the closed-loop system of
(17), which is a necessary and sufcient condition for the
existence of a stabilising controller that achieves an upper
bound on the H

-norm. In the absence of the positive

real constraint, the search for a stabilising controller of
order n
k
= n that minimises the closed-loop H

norm was
formulated as a convex optimisation problem in [15]. With
the additional positive real constraint it is not obvious how
to formulate the problem as a convex problem.
The problem of Theorem 5.1 is a BMI and an iterative
algorithm is proposed to solve the problem locally about
a feasible starting point. The idea is to x a subset of the
decision variables so that the matrix inequality is linear with
respect to the remaining decision variables and thus can
be solved efciently. The stopping criterion is how close
the achieved is to a theoretical minimum of J
5
given by
J
5min
= k
1
s
+k
1
t
which is equal to T

F
s
z
s
(0).
B. Optimisation over non-proper controllers
The non-proper admittance (14) can be represented in
ordinary state-space form by the device of introducing a
second measurement equal to the acceleration signal ( z
s

z
u
) as follows:
x
k
= A
k
x
k
+
_
B
k
0
n
k
1

_
z
s
z
u
z
s
z
u
_
, x
k
R
n
k
, (19)
F =C
k
x
k
+
_
D
k
E
k

_
z
s
z
u
z
s
z
u
_
. (20)
The J
5
generalised plant equations are augmented by the
acceleration measurement to give the following equation,
_
z
s
z
u
z
s
z
u
_
=
_
C
3
C
4
_
x +
_
0
D
1
_
F
s
+
_
0
D
2
_
F, (21)
with C
4
=
_
0
k
s
m
s

k
s
m
u
0
k
s
m
s
+
k
s
+k
t
m
u
_
, D
1
=
1
m
s
and
D
2
=
1
m
s

1
m
u
. With the change of variable
Z
k
= (1 E
k
D
2
)
1
E
k
= (1 Z
1
k
)D
1
2
(22)
the closed-loop equations are given by:
_
x
x
k
_
=
_
A+B
3
Z
k
D
k
C
3
+B
3
(Z
k
1)D
1
2
C
4
B
3
Z
k
C
k
B
k
C
3
A
k
__
x
x
k
_
+
+
_
B
1
+B
3
(Z
k
1)D
1
2
D
1
0
n
k
1
_
F
s
,
z
s
=
_
C
2
0
1n
k

_
x
x
k
_
.
The formulation of the synthesis problem follows a
similar reasoning to that of Theorem 5.1 and results in a
BMI which is also solved locally using a similar iterative
algorithm.
C. J
5
optimisation results
The proposed algorithms for J
5
optimisation will be
assessed by comparing the obtained admittances with the
xed-structure admittances suggested in [2]. Fig. 7 presents
the optimum J
5
versus static stiffness and shows the extent
to which it is achieved by two xed-structure admittances.
The rst is a damper, which achieves the optimum up to
k
s
= 6.8 10
4
N/m and the other is a damper in parallel
with an inerter and achieves the optimum up to 10.210
4
N/m.
The algorithm for proper admittances was tested at k
s
=
510
4
N/m. For this value of k
s
the optimum is 2.6666
10
5
. The algorithm produced a rst-order admittance given
by,
K(s) = 6130 +
_
(762/s)
1
+12591
1
_
1
, (23)
that guarantees an upper bound of J
5
<2.666710
5
. The
obtained admittance is more complicated than the damper
proposed in [2] with optimal setting in the range 6030 Ns/m
5459
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
x 10
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
x 10
5
Static stiffness N/m
J
5
damper, inerter in parallel
damper
theoretical minimum of J
5
Fig. 7. Optimisation results for J
5
over xed-structure admittances.
c
opt
19940 Ns/m. An interesting observation is that
if we replace the stiffness of the spring in (23) with the
extreme values 0 or we recover approximately the optimal
damper range.
The algorithm for the non-proper admittances was tested
for k
s
= 10 10
4
N/m. For this value of k
s
the optimum
is 1.6666 10
5
. The algorithm produced a rst-order
admittance given by,
K(s) = 24010
0.004
s +0.004
+12008 +292s, (24)
that guarantees an upper bound of J
5
<1.666710
5
. The
rst-order lag is relatively small so it can be neglected
without causing a signicant degradation in J
5
. Thus the
suspension consists of a parallel connection of a spring
k
s
=1010
4
N/m, a damper c =12008 Ns/m and an inerter
b = 292 kg (Fig. 8). The optimal suspension proposed in
c b k
s
Fig. 8. Quarter-car suspension as a parallel connection of a spring, a
damper and an inerter.
[2] for this value of k
s
is in fact a damper in parallel with
an inerter with optimal values in the ranges,
11380 Ns/m c
opt
12287 Ns/m, 269 kg b
opt
337 kg.
The suspension obtained by the LMI optimisation is within
the above range. Moreover the LMI algorithm managed to
nd a second-order suspension that achieves the theoretical
minimum at the top range of k
s
(= 12 10
4
) N/m, which
could not be achieved with the xed-order admittances
considered in [2]. The resulting admittance was given by
K(s) = 51450
s
2
+14.11s +1302
s
2
+67.66s +4468
+423s (25)
which gave a rather complicated network when using the
Bott-Dufn realisation method [16].
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The problem of synthesis of positive real controllers is
formulated using matrix inequalities. Two local optimisa-
tion methods are proposed to solve the bilinear matrix
inequality problem in the context of suspension design
for a quarter-car model. The algorithms are successful in
obtaining previously found solutions when optimising over
xed-structure admittances. In the case of the performance
measure J
1
, which characterises the response of the sprung
mass due to road disturbances, the proposed algorithm
found alternative admittances that improve the performance
measure considerably.
REFERENCES
[1] M. C. Smith. Synthesis of mechanical networks: The inerter. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(10):16481662, 2002.
[2] M. C. Smith and F-C. Wang. Performance benets in passive vehicle
suspensions employing inerters. In 42nd Conference on Decision and
Control, pages 22582263, Hawaii, 2003. IEEE.
[3] S. Boyd, L. El Ghaoui, E. Feron, and B. Balakrishnan. Linear Matrix
Inequalities in System and Control Theory. SIAM, 1994.
[4] J. Wang and D. A. Wilson. Mixed GL
2
/H
2
/GH
2
control with pole
placement and its application to vehicle active suspension systems.
International Journal of Control, 74(13):13531369, 2001.
[5] J. C. Geromel and P. B. Gapski. Synthesis of positive real H
2
controllers. In Proceedings of the Conference on Decision and
Control, pages 28642869, Kobe, Japan, December 1996.
[6] T. Shimomura, Y. Yamasaki, and T. Fujii. LMI-based iterative
synthesis of strictly positive real H
2
controllers. In Proceedings
of American Control Conference, pages 332336, Chicago, Illinois,
USA, 2001.
[7] R. W. Newcomb. Linear Multiport Synthesis. New York:McGraw-
Hill, 1966.
[8] O. Brune. Synthesis of a nite two-terminal network whose driving-
point impedance is a prescribed function of frequency. J. Math. Phys.,
10:191236, 1931.
[9] R. Bott and R. J. Dufn. Impedance synthesis without use of
transformers. J. Appl. Phys., 20:816, 1949.
[10] M.C. Smith. Force-controlling mechanical device. patent pending,
Intl. App. No. PCT/GB02/03056, priority date: 4 July 2001.
[11] B.D.O. Anderson and S. Vongpanitlerd. Network Analysis and
Synthesis. Prentice-Hall, 1973.
[12] C. Scherer, P. Gahinet, and M. Chilali. Multi-objective output-
feedback control via LMI optimisation. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 42(7):896911, 1997.
[13] A. Hassibi, J. How, and S. Boyd. A path-following method for
solving BMI problems in control. In Proceedings of American
Control Conference, pages 13851389, San Diego, California, USA,
1999.
[14] J L ofberg. YALMIP 3, http://control.ee.ethz.ch/ joloef/yalmip.msql,
2004.
[15] P. Gahinet and P. Apkarian. A linear matrix inequality approach to
H

control. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control,

4:421448, 1994.
[16] E. A. Guillemin. Synthesis of Passive Networks. New York:Wiley,
1957.
5460