FEEDBACK

On Internal Stability and Unstable Pole-Zero Cancellations

editorial states that this closed-loop reference signal, although the process
I EEE Control Systems Magazine
system is not stable. Is the closed-loop output y would be bounded:
warmly welcomes your letters on
system stable or not? In which book
any aspect of this magazine or con-
trol technology. Letters may be edited
may we find the correct answer? d - s + 1 nc 1 m
P (s) C (s) s +1 - s +1
in consultation with the author. Please =
1+d nc 1 m
Authors Response 1 + P (s) C (s) - s + 1
send all letters by post or e-mail to the s +1 - s +1
The closed-loop system for that exam-
editor-in-chief. 1
ple is not stable, which can be shown by
writing the state-space equations for the = s +1
1+ 1
process and controller and putting them s +1
TO THE EDITOR together to obtain the state-space equa- 1
= .
read the editorial in the February tions for the closed-loop system. (Many s+2

I 2012 issue of IEEE Control Systems

Magazine, The Efficiency of the Pow-
er of One (or Zero) [1]. (Editors note:
control publications refer to the stabil-
ity discussed here as internal stability; a
detailed discussion of the various defi-
More generally, the closed-loop
system cannot be stable if any closed-
This question from a graduate student nitions for stability is not given here, as loop transfer function has a pole in the
has been revised to improve clarity.) most of these definitions result in the closed right-half plane. For the closed-
You state that, for a process with trans- same conditions for linear time-invari- loop system in the figure, the closed-
fer function P(s) in negative feedback ant systems.) A much simpler approach loop transfer functions are
with a controller with transfer function is to analyze the closed-loop stability
)
C(s), the following statement is incor- using transfer functions [2], [3]. A sum- P (s) C (s) C (s)
, ,
rect: the interconnected system is stable mary of the analysis is given below. 1 + P (s) C (s) 1 + P (s) C (s)
provided that none of the roots of the A closed-loop system is stable
3.
P (s) 1
characteristic equation 1 + P(s)C(s) = 0 only if all signals in the system are ,
1 + P (s) C (s) 1 + P (s) C (s)
are in the closed right-half plane. bounded. This means, in particular,
I do not understand why the above that the manipulated variable must The transfer functions P (s) C (s)
statement is incorrect. Your example of be bounded. The closed-loop transfer ^ 1 + P (s) C (s) h and 1 ^1 + P (s) C (s) h
function between the reference r and sum to one and have the same poles,
P (s) = - s + 1 manipulated variable u in Figure 1 is so only the location of the poles of
s+1
the following three transfer functions
and 1 needs to be checked:
C (s) -s+1
=
1 + c - s + 1 mc 1 m
1 1 + P (s) C (s)
)
C (s) = C (s) P (s)
-s + 1 s+1 -s+1 , ,
1 + P (s) C (s) 1 + P (s) C (s)
1
3.
results in the characteristic equation 1
= - s +1
1 + P (s) C (s)
1 =0 1+ 1
1+ s +1
s+1
= s +1 c 1 m ,
with root s = 2, for which the char- s + 2 - s +1
r u
acteristic equation indicates that the C(s) P(s)
y
closed-loop system is stable. But your which has a right-half plane pole at s = 1.
This pole implies that, for this exam-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MCS.2012.2204801 ple, the manipulated variable would
Date of publication: 14 September 2012 grow without bound for a constant FIGURE 1 A closed-loop system.

OCTOBER 2012 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE 15


A closed-loop system is stable
only if all signals in the system are bounded.
If the process P(s) is stable, that is,
has all of its poles in the open left-
half plane, then it can be shown that
the poles of only one of these transfer
functions needs to be checked:
C (s)
, function C(s) = 0 cancels that unstable
1 + P (s) C (s)
which is equal to the Youla parameter
Q(s). In this case, the closed-loop sys-
tem is stable if and only if the Youla
parameter Q(s) is stable. These con-
cepts including more detailed discus-
sions and proofs are provided in many
books [2][4].
Also discussed in these books is
that the stability of the closed-loop sys-
tem in Figure 1 can be analyzed using
its characteristic equation 1 + P(s)
C(s) = 0, provided there are no unsta-
ble pole-zero cancellations between the
process and the controller. Any unsta-
ble pole-zero cancellation between the
process and the controller results in
an unstable closed-loop system. The
above example had a controller that
attempted to cancel the unstable pro-
cess zero at s = 1, which immediately
implied that the closed-loop system
was not stable.
Lets consider another example [1],
in which the process is unstable and
the controller is zero. In this case the
four closed-loop transfer functions are
P (s) C (s)
=0
1 + P (s) C (s)
C (s)
=0
1 + P (s) C (s)
P (s)
= P (s)
1 + P (s) C (s)
1 = 1.
1 + P (s) C (s)
As the third transfer function has
the same poles as the process and the
process is unstable, the closed-loop
system is unstable. Now lets consider
the analysis of the closed-loop stability
16 IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE OCTOBER 2012
using the characteristic equation. The
first step is to check whether there is
an unstable pole-zero cancellation bet-
ween the process and the controller.
Multiplication of the process transfer
function P(s) by the controller transfer
pole of the process, since the unstable
pole of the process does not appear in
the product P(s)C(s). Due to the unsta-
ble pole-zero cancellation, checking
the locations of the roots of the charac-
teristic equation 1 + P(s)C(s) = 0 is not a
valid test for closed-loop stability.
See [2][4] for more details.
References
[1] R. D. Braatz, The efficiency of the power of
one (or zero), IEEE Control Syst., vol. 32, no. 1,
pp. 67, Feb. 2012.
[2] J. C. Doyle, B. A. Francis, and A. R. Tannen-
baum, Feedback Control Theory. New York: Mac-
millan, 1992.
[3] M. Morari and E. Zafiriou, Robust Process Con-
trol. Piscataway, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999.
[4] S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite, Multivari-
able Feedback Control: Analysis and Design. New
York: Wiley, 1996.
Richard D. Braatz
TO THE EDITOR
n the From the Editor column of
I the June 2012 issue of IEEE Control
Systems Magazine [1], Richard Braatz
referred to the Presidents Message,
column So What Is Control Engineer-
ing Anyway? that was in the October
2009 issue by Tariq Samad who pos-
ited this answer: Control is the intel-
ligence behind how things work [2].
Though this proposed answer brings
a broad perspective, it is not a very sat-
isfying definition. In Braatzs editorial
he notes that Some people indicated
that control should be defined exclu-
sively in terms of feedback control
systems . . . and comments further
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MCS.2012.2213547
Date of publication: 14 September 2012
on the ironic fact that we often also
spend considerable time and effort,
even more than on feedback design,
on modeling, signal processing, opti-
mization, estimation, etc. This obser-
vation brings to mind a talk by the late
Charles Desoer where he presented an
image of control engineers as country
doctors carrying that iconic old worn
black medical bag containing all these
various instruments, with the selec-
tion of the instrument determined by
the condition of the patient.
Putting that consideration aside,
why is it so hard to clearly and suc-
cinctly define control engineering?
Two reasons were suggested at the
beginning of Samads article: our
product is intangible and pervasive at
the same time. I do not have a satisfac-
tory definition of control engineering
either. However, to get to an answer
we need to further explore these two
points. First consider the question: Is
feedback intangible? In a talk by Karl
strm, Control Engineering: The
Hidden Technology, one slide reads:
A Soul but No Body. Now that is
intangible! To consider the point con-
cerning the pervasiveness of control,
Google the expression Feedback is
ubiquitous. I do not know who first
made this statement but Google indi-
cates that both the expression and
feedback appear in almost every nook
and cranny of our technologies, is fun-
damental to biology, and is intrinsic in
philosophies and religions.
Based on this information gather-
ing, control engineering is intangible,
ubiquitous, fundamental, hidden, and
body-less. No wonder we cannot de-
scribe it! When Confucius was asked
what would be the first thing he would
do to administer government, he said:
What is necessary is to rectify
names. If language is not cor-
rect, then what is said is not
what is meant; if what is said
is not what is meant, then what
must be done remains undone;
if this remains undone, mor-
als and art will deteriorate; if
justice goes astray, the people
will stand about in helpless
1066-033X/12/$31.002012IEEE