I am looking at the Kalman decomposition of a linear system into 'controllable' and 'uncontrollble' subspaces. The references I am using are these lecture notes and section 3.3 of 'Robust and Optimal Control' by Zhou and Doyle.

If we have a linear system governed by:

$\dot{x} = Ax + Bu$

Where $x$ is the system variable vector, $u$ is an input vector and $A,B$ are matrices of appropriate dimension, then we can perform a Kalman decomposition, changing the variables to $x' = Tx$, which gives an equation of the form:

$ \frac{dx'}{dt} = \begin{bmatrix} A_{11} & A_{12} \\ 0 & A_{22} \\ \end{bmatrix} x' + \begin{bmatrix} B_1 \\ 0 \\ \end{bmatrix} u$

We can now write $x' = \begin{bmatrix} x'_1 \\ x'_2 \\ \end{bmatrix} $ so:

$ \frac{d}{dt} \begin{bmatrix} x'_1 \\ x'_2 \\ \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} A_{11} & A_{12} \\ 0 & A_{22} \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} x'_1 \\ x'_2 \\ \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix} B_1 \\ 0 \\ \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} u_1 \\ u_2 \\ \end{bmatrix}$

The texts I am using now go on to say that the vector $x_1'$ is controllable and $x_2'$ is not.

It is not clear to me that $x_1'$ is controllable, since its evolution involves the uncontrollable variable $x_2'$ (multiplying out the first matrix gives $A_{11} x_1' + A_{12}x_2' + ...$) . The texts I am using go on to show that the pair ($A_{11}, B_1$) is controllable, whilst ignoring the $A_{12}$ term.

My question is this: why can we say that the variable $x_1'$ is controllable, given that the expression for its evolution involves $x_2'$, which is uncontrollable?


Suppose $A_{11}\in\mathbb R^{m\times m}$, $A_{12}\in\mathbb R^{m\times n}$, $A_{22}\in\mathbb R^{n\times n}$, and $B_1\in \mathbb R^{m\times p}$.

Let $A = \begin{bmatrix} A_{11} & A_{12} \\ 0 & A_{22} \\ \end{bmatrix} $ and $B = \begin{bmatrix} B_1 \\ 0 \\ \end{bmatrix}.$

To show that $x_1'$ is controllable, we need to prove that for every $x_0\in \mathbb R^{m+n}$ and $y\in \mathbb R^m$ and $t>0$, there exists a $u:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb R^p\ $ such that $x_i(t)=y_i$ when $1\leq i\leq m$ where $x$ solves the IVP

$x(0)=x_0$ and $ \frac{dx}{dt} = A x + B u.$

Assume $(A_{11}, B_1)$ is controllable.

Let $x_H$ be the solution to the IVP

$x_H(0)= x_0$ and $ \frac{dx_H}{dt} = A x_H.$

Let $z = x_H(t)$.

The fact $(A_{11}, B_1)$ is controllable implies there exists a $u^*:[0,t]\rightarrow \mathbb R^m$ such that the solution to the IVP $w:[0,t]\rightarrow \mathbb R^m$, $w(0)=0$, and $w\hskip{1pt}'= A_{11} w + B_1 u^*$ satisfies $w_i(t) = y_i-z_i$ when $1\leq i \leq m$.

Let $$x=x_H + \begin{bmatrix} w \\ 0 \\ \end{bmatrix}. $$

A bit of algebra shows that $x'=A x + B u^*$, $x(0)= x_0$, and $x_i(t)=y_i$ when $1\leq i\leq m$, thus $x_1'$ is controllable.

I guess that you can summarize the above reasoning by saying that the fact that $(A_{11}, B_1)$ is controllable implies that you can find a $u^*$ that can control the first $m$ coordinates of $x$. You can use that control to nullify the influence of the remaining $n$ coordinates and simultaneously steer the first $m$ coordinates to any chosen values.


Because the $A_{12}$ term is irrelevant for controllability of the $x_1'$ states. To see this write the equation for $x_1'$ $$ \begin{align} \dot{x}_1'(t) &= A_{11} x_1'(t) + A_{12} x_2'(t) + B_1 u_1(t) \tag{1} \\ &= A_{11} x_1'(t) + A_{12} e^{A_{22} t} x_2'(0) + B_1 u_1(t) \end{align}$$ If $x_2'(0) = 0$ then it is obvious. But we can also solve this equation as follows: $$ x_1'(t) = e^{A_{11} t} x_1'(0) + \int_0^t e^{A_{11} (t - \tau)} A_{12} e^{A_{22} \tau} x_2'(0) d\tau + \int_0^t e^{A_{11} (t - \tau)} B_1 u_1(\tau) d\tau $$ Now, to reach an arbitrary final state $x_f$ at time $t_f$, we can select $u_1$ as $$ u_1(t) = B_1^T e^{A_{11}^T (t_f - t)} W_c^{-1} (t_f) \left( x_f - e^{A_{11} t_f} x_1'(0) - \int_0^{t_f} e^{A_{11} (t_f - \tau)} A_{12} e^{A_{22} \tau} x_2'(0) d\tau \right)$$ where $$ W_c (t) = \int_0^t e^{A_{11} (t - \tau)} B_1 B_1^T e^{A_{11}^T (t - \tau)} d\tau $$ is the controllability gramian.

So the system $(1)$ is controllable if and only if $(A_{11}, B_1)$ is controllable. Basically we can cancel out the parts that comes from the initial conditions. This means we can select $x(0) = 0$ without losing generality to obtain the results.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.