Disturbance-to-State Stabilization and Quantized Control for
Linear Hyperbolic Systems

arXiv:1703.00302v2 [] 24 Jul 2017

Aneel Tanwani∗†

Christophe Prieur‡

Sophie Tarbouriech†

Abstract
We consider a system of linear hyperbolic PDEs where the state at one of the boundary points
is controlled using the measurements of another boundary point. Because of the disturbances in the
measurement, the problem of designing dynamic controllers is considered so that the closed-loop system
is robust with respect to measurement errors. Assuming that the disturbance is a locally essentially
bounded measurable function of time, we derive a disturbance-to-state estimate which provides an upper
bound on the maximum norm of the state (with respect to the spatial variable) at each time in terms of
L∞ -norm of the disturbance up to that time. The analysis is based on constructing a Lyapunov function
for the closed-loop system, which leads to controller synthesis and the conditions on system dynamics
required for stability. As an application of this stability notion, the problem of quantized control for
hyperbolic PDEs is considered where the measurements sent to the controller are communicated using
a quantizer of finite length. The presence of quantizer yields practical stability only, and the ultimate
bounds on the norm of the state trajectory are also derived.

1

Introduction

Partial differential equations (PDEs), or distributed parameter systems, have appeared as a tool for modeling
several complex physical phenomena, and there is now a considerable literature on analysis and simulation of
such systems. More recently, over the past decade, there has been a surge in control community for designing
control algorithms for PDEs so that their behavior can be steered towards some desired performance level.
This has led the researchers to generalize several control-theoretic questions from the finite-dimensional
systems in the context of infinite-dimensional systems. In that spirit, this article formulates a robust stability
notion when the measurements used for feedback control in hyperbolic PDEs are subjected to unknown
disturbances. In the literature on ordinary differential equations (ODEs), the property of input-to-state
stability (ISS) induces this desired robust behavior while regarding the disturbances as exogenous inputs
in the closed-loop system. The Lyapunov function based techniques available for verifying ISS are thus
generalized in the context of hyperbolic PDEs in this article.
Hyperbolic PDEs represent a class of such infinite dimensional systems, which have been used in modeling
physical system such as shallow water equations, and also to model time-delays in engineering systems.
Several results on analysis, Lyapunov stability, and feedback control design of hyperbolic systems have been
published in the recent past, see the book [1] for an overview of results.

1.1

System Class

We consider the feedback control for the class of linear hyperbolic PDEs described by the equation
∂X
∂X
(z, t) + Λ
(z, t) = 0
∂t
∂z
∗ Corresponding

(1a)

author’s email: aneel.tanwani@laas.fr
Université de Toulouse, CNRS, 7 Avenue du Colonel Roche, 31400 Toulouse, France.
‡ Gipsa Lab–CNRS, University of Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, 11 Rue des Mathématiques, BP 46, 38402 Saint Martin d’Hères,
France.
† LAAS–CNRS,

1

where z ∈ [0, 1] is the spatial variable, and t ∈ R+ := [0, ∞) is the time variable. The matrix Λ is assumed
to be diagonal and positive definite. We call X : [0, 1] × R+ → Rn the state trajectory. The initial condition
is defined as
X(z, 0) = X 0 (z), z ∈ (0, 1)
(1b)
for some function X 0 : (0, 1) → Rn . The value of the state X is controlled at the boundary z = 0 through
some input u : R+ → Rm so that
X(0, t) = HX(1, t) + Bu(t)
(2)
where H ∈ Rn×n and B ∈ Rn×m are constant matrices. The system (1)-(2) forms a class of 1-D boundary
controlled hyperbolic PDEs, for which several fundamental results can be found in [1].
We consider the case when only the measurement of the state X at the boundary point z = 1 is available
for each t ≥ 0, and this measurement is subjected to some bounded disturbance. We thus denote the output
of the system by
y(t) = X(1, t) + d(t)
(3)
where the disturbance d ∈ L∞ ([0, ∞), Rn ) may arise due to low resolution of the sensors, uncertain environmental factors, or errors in communication.
We are interested in designing a feedback control law u as a function of the output measurement y, that
is u = F(y) for some operator F, which stabilizes the system in some appropriate sense, and the behavior of
the closed-loop system is robust with respect to the measurement disturbances. Here, we allow the possibility
that u may be obtained via a dynamic compensator so that F is an operator with memory. In particular, it
is desired that the closed-loop trajectories satisfy the following disturbance-to-state stability (DSS) estimate:
max |X(z, t)| ≤ c e−at MX 0 + γ kd[0,t] k∞



(4)

z∈[0,1]

for some constants a, c, MX 0 > 0, and γ a class K∞ function. Here, kd[0,t] k∞ denotes the essential supremum
of |d(s)| for s contained in [0, t], and for given z and t, |X(z, t)| denotes the usual Euclidean norm of
X(z, t) ∈ Rn . The constant MX 0 is such that it depends on some norm associated with the function X 0
and possibly the initial state chosen for the dynamic compensator u. The DSS property ensures that in the
absence of disturbance, that is d ≡ 0, the maximum norm of X (with respect to spatial variable) decreases
exponentially in time with a uniform decay rate. In the presence of nonzero disturbances, that is d 6≡ 0, the
maximum value of X over [0, 1], at each time t ≥ 0, is bounded by the maximum norm of the disturbance
over the interval [0, t] and an exponentially decaying term due to the initial condition of the system. Due to
the semigroup property, the conditions we impose on the system to obtain estimate (4), also ensure that if
d(t) → 0, then maxz∈[0,1] |X(z, t)| also converges to zero with time, see Remark 3 and Section 4.7.
It turns out that the function (of initial state) MX 0 that we compute to establish (4) is such that, even
if X 0 ≡ 0, MX 0 is not necessarily equal to zero. However, using (4), we can obtain an alternate estimate of
the form
max |X(z, t)| ≤ c e−at max |X 0 (z, t)| + γ(kd[0,t] k∞ ) + Ce−at
(5)
z∈[0,1]

z∈[0,1]

for some C > 0. This estimate guarantees attractivity of the origin X = 0 in C 0 ([0, 1], Rn ), and only practical
stability.
Drawing comparisons from the literature on stability of finite-dimensional systems, it is observed that
the estimates of the form (4) and (5) have been studied under the notion of input-to-state stability (ISS),
pioneered in [23], and more generally input-to-state practical stability (ISpS) [11], respectively. One of
the most fundamental results in the ODEs literature, which makes the ISS property extremely useful for
design problems, is that the ISS estimates can be equivalently characterized in terms of Lyapunov dissipation
inequalities. In our approach, we also propose a controller design which allows us to construct a Lyapunov
function for the closed-loop such that the corresponding dissipation inequality is of the same form as in the
finite-dimensional case. This proves to be sufficient for arriving at the estimate (4).

2

1.2

Motivation

The motivation for studying the DSS property comes from the application in quantized control. When the
measurement X(1, t) can not be passed precisely to the controller, but has to be encoded using finitely many
symbols, one can see d in (3) as the error between the actual value and the quantized value of the signal
X(1, t). The quantizers are typically designed to operate over a compact set in the output space. Within
this operating region, the quantization error remains constant and hence one expects the state trajectory to
converge to a ball around the origin parameterized by the size of quantization error. Hence, to obtain this
practical stability, the controller must ensure that the state trajectory remains within the compact set for
which the quantizer is designed.
To implement this methodology in the context of PDEs under consideration, the problem is to find a
controller which ensures the DSS estimate (4) holds and that the output X(1, ·) remains within the range
of the quantizer. The DSS estimate also ensures practical stability in this setup since the X(z, ·) eventually
converges to a ball around the origin whose radius is parameterized by the sensitivity of the quantizer.

1.3

Literature Overview

In case there are no perturbations, that is, d ≡ 0, one typically chooses u(t) = Ky(t) such that the closed-loop
boundary condition
X(0, t) = (H + BK)X(1, t)
(6)
satisfies a certain dissipative condition. This control law yields asymptotic stability of the system with
respect to H2 -norm [4], or C 1 -norm [3], depending on the dissipativity criterion imposed on H + BK. In the
presence of perturbations d 6≡ 0, one has to modify the stability criteria as the asymptotic stability of the
origin can no longer be established.
One finds the Lyapunov stability criteria with L2 -norm and dissipative boundary conditions in [2]. Lyapunov stability in H2 -norm for nonlinear systems is treated in [4]. Thus, the construction of Lyapunov
functions in H2 -norm for the hyperbolic PDEs with static control laws can be found in the literature. Because our controller adds dynamics to the closed-loop, the basic idea behind the construction of Lyapunov
function for the closed-loop system is to use the ISS property of the hyperbolic PDE and the controller
dynamics.
In the literature, one finds various instances where the ISS related tools are used for stability analysis of
interconnected systems. In the paper [10], an integral ISS Lyapunov function is computed for a networks
described by a finite-dimensional nonlinear function. Small gain theorem is crucial when interconnecting ISS
systems as exploited in [9, 7].
For infinite dimensional systems, the problem of ISS has attracted attention recently but most of the
existing works treat the problem with respect to uncertainties in the dynamics. See, for example [19], where a
class of linear and bilinear systems is studied. See also [6] where a linearization principle is applied for a class
of infinite-dimensional systems in a Banach space. When focusing on parabolic partial differential equations,
some works to compute ISS Lyapunov functions have also appeared, such as [18, 17]. For time-varying
hyperbolic PDEs, construction of ISS Lyapunov functions has also been addressed in [21].
For hyperbolic systems, when seeking robust stabilization with measurement errors, one could see that the
results in [8] provide robust stability of X(·, t) in L2 ((0, 1); Rn ) space by using static controllers and piecewise
continuous solutions. However, the DSS estimate (4) requires stability in C 0 ([0, 1]; Rn ) space equipped with
maximum norm.

1.4

Contribution

For PDEs in general, the results on stability with respect to measurement errors have not yet appeared
in the literature; The only exception being the recent work reported in [12, 13] which derives ISS bounds
for 1-D parabolic systems in the presence of boundary disturbances but without the use of Lyapunov-based
techniques. Such questions have remained unaddressed for hyperbolic PDEs, which is the topic of this paper.
Furthermore, the paper also includes a design element in the sense that the controller that achieves the DSS
3

property is also being synthesized. On the other hand, the problem of quantized control has mostly been
studied in finite-dimensional systems so far [15, 20, 22, 24], and this paper extends this problem setting to
the case of PDEs. While there exist some works on quantized control of finite-dimensional systems in the
presence of delays [16], the model of hyperbolic PDEs treated in this paper is much more general and as
such no direct comparison can be drawn between the earlier approaches and the techniques developed in this
paper.
To achieve the aforementioned objectives, we propose to use a dynamic controller instead of a static one,
as proposed in the conference version of this article [25]. The reason for emphasizing the use of dynamic
controllers is that we are looking for a way to bound |X(z, t)|, for each z ∈ [0, 1], which in our knowledge is
only possible if a bound on the H1 -norm of X(·, t) is obtained, see Section 2 for an explanation. Existence
of solutions X in the space H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) requires us to use inputs which are at least absolutely continuous.
If we allow perturbations d to be discontinuous, static controllers would not yield smooth enough solutions.
The dynamic controller is therefore added to smoothen the discontinuity effect of the perturbations.
The addition of dynamic controller introduces a coupling of ODEs and PDEs in the closed loop which
makes the analysis more challenging. Results on well-posedness of such coupled systems are proposed
resulting in certain regularity of the closed-loop solutions, which is important to obtain appropriate estimates.
We use Lyapunov function based analysis to synthesize the controller and guarantee DSS with respect to the
perturbation d. The results are then used to study the application of quantized control: We establish practical
stability of the system, and derive ultimate bounds on the state trajectory in terms of the quantization error.
Compared to the conference article [25], we provide rigorous mathematical proofs of the main results. The
stability notions treated in the paper are more general, and several discussions related to connections with
other stability notions are also included. Moreover, this article rigorously establishes the existence of solution
for the closed-loop system in Theorem 1, which was not addressed in [25].

2

Refined Problem Formulation

In this section, we recall some preliminaries associated with the solution space adopted for hyperbolic PDEs
in our framework. Connections between the DSS notion and the norm associated with the solution space of
the PDE are made explicit. Finally, the idea of dynamic controller is proposed to guarantee solutions with
appropriate regularity.

2.1

Preliminaries

For a function X : (0, 1) → Rn , we denote its gradient by ∂X or Xz , and for X : (0, 1) × R+ → Rn , we
denote the gradient with respect to first argument by ∂z X, or Xz , and the gradient with respect to second
argument by ∂t X, or Xt with the obvious interpretation that z and t denote the spatial and time variable,
respectively. The space W k,p ((0, 1); Rn ) comprises functions for which the k-th derivative, denoted ∂ k X,
exists and ∂ k X ∈ Lp ((0, 1); Rn ). We use the shorthand H1 for the space W 1,2 . The space H1 is naturally
equipped with the H1 -norm defined as:
kXkH1 ((0,1);Rn ) := (kXk2L2 ((0,1);Rn ) + k∂Xk2L2 ((0,1);Rn ) )1/2 .
In literature on stability analysis of hyperbolic PDEs, we find several notions of stability depending on the
norm with which the solution space is equipped. If we choose to control the L2 -norm of the state trajectory
only, the problem is that it doesn’t yield any bounds on maxz∈[0,1] |X(z, t)|, for a given t ≥ 0.

2.2

Obtaining DSS using H1 -norm

The motivation for introducing the H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) solution space can be seen in the following proposition:
Proposition 1. Given any function X : [0, 1] → Rn such that X ∈ C 0 ([0, 1]; Rn ) ∩ H1 ((0, 1); Rn ). It holds
that, for every z ∈ [0, 1],
max |X(z)|2 ≤ |X(0)|2 + kXk2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) .
(7)
z∈[0,1]

4

Proof. For each z ∈ [0, 1], it is observed that
z
d
(|X(s)|2 )ds
|X(z)| − |X(0)| =
0 ds
Z z
=2
(X(s))> ∂X(s)ds
0
Z z
Z z
2
|∂X(s)|2 ds
|X(s)| ds +
≤
2

Z

2

0

0

≤ kXk2L2 ((0,1);Rn ) + k∂Xk2L2 ((0,1);Rn )
= kXk2H1 ((0,1);Rn )
which gives the desired bound.
Remark 1. Proposition 1 basically allows to get the bounds on C 0 norm of the state X in terms of its H1
norm. Then, one can work with Lyapunov functions which basically quantify H1 norm of the state, and
work with its derivative. In the literature, we see that Agmon’s inequality [14, Lemma 2.4] is also used to
get a bound on L∞ norm in terms of H1 norm as remarked in [18, Remark 4]. The inequality (7) is however
different from the conventional Agmon’s inequality [14, Lemma 2.4].
In the light of Proposition 1, one can obtain the estimate (4) from the inequality (7), by ensuring that
the control input u is chosen such that for each t ≥ 0:
• The solution X(·, t) belongs to H1 ((0, 1); Rn );
• It holds that |X(0, t)| and kX(·, t)kH1 ((0,1);Rn ) are bounded by the size of the disturbance kd[0,t] k∞
plus some exponentially decreasing term in time.
To achieve these objectives, the use of static controllers of the form u(t) = Ky(t), will result in trajectories
X which are not differential with respect to spatial variable due to (possibly discontinuous) disturbances,
and hence the solutions are not contained in H1 ((0, 1); Rn ). To remedy this problem, we propose the use of
dynamic controllers for stabilization.

2.3

Using Dynamic Controller for H1 -regular Solutions

For system class (1), (2), (3), we are interested in designing control inputs u that are absolutely continuous
functions of time, so that their derivative is defined Lebesgue a.e. For such inputs, we seek a solution
X ∈ C 0 ([0, T ]; H1 ((0, 1); Rn )) where C 0 denotes the space of continuous functions equipped with supremum
norm.
®

∂t X(z, t) + Λ∂z X(z, t) = 0 X(1, t)

d(t)

X(0, t) = HX(1, t) + Bu(t)

ß

η̇(t) = Rη(t) + Sy(t)
u(t) = Kη(t)

y(t) = X(1, t) + d(t)

Figure 1: Control architecture used for stabilization of hyperbolic system in the presence of disturbances.

5

More precisely, we consider the problem of designing a dynamic controller with ODEs, which has the
form
η̇(t) = Rη(t) + Sy(t)

(8a)

u(t) = Kη(t)

(8b)

where the matrices R ∈ Rn×n , S ∈ Rn×n , and K ∈ Rm×n , need to be chosen appropriately. Thus,
the resulting closed loop is depicted in Figure 1. Intuitively speaking, by using such a controller, the
discontinuities of the output y are integrated via equation (8a) which results in u being absolutely continuous.
The result on existence and uniqueness of solutions for the closed-loop system (1), (2), (3), (8), is formally
developed in Section 3. Afterwards, in Section 4, we design the parameters of the controller (8), and derive
conditions on the system and controller data which establish the DSS estimate (4).

3

Existence of Solutions

The objective of this section is to develop a result on existence and uniqueness of solutions for the closedloop system (1), (2), (3), (8), demonstrated in Figure 1. Before presenting our result, we remark that
the solutions of hyperbolic PDEs is a well-studied topic. For the intermediate results, we refer the reader
to [1, Appendix A] and [5, Chapter 3]. In [1], the authors first present results with H1 -regularity for the
autonomous with u = 0. The results for ODE coupled with hyperbolic PDE with d = 0 with L2 regularity are
also proven. However, in these works, with d ∈ L∞ , which introduces certain discontinuities, the solutions
with H1 -regularity are not discussed. On the other hand, the well-posedness results are presented for systems
with dynamics described by infinitesimal generators of continuous semigroups.
In this section, our contribution lies in presenting a result on well-posedness of the ODE-PDE coupled
system of Figure 1. We do so by building on the results described in [1, Appendix A] and [5, Chapter 3].
To do so, we start by constructing the operator A as follows:
(
dom(A) :=

(ϕ, η) ∈ H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn ;
Å
ã ï
òÅ
ã)
ϕ(0)
H BK ϕ(1)
=
,
η
0
I
η
Å ã
Å
ã
ϕ
−Λϕz
A
:=
.
η
Rη

(9a)

(9b)

Next, we introduce the perturbation operator B : H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn → H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn as follows:
Å ã Å
ã
ϕ
0
B
=
.
(10a)
η
Sϕ(1)
Using these operators A and B, and letting x = col(X, η), one can write the closed-loop system (1), (2),
(3) and (8) as follows:
ẋ = Ax + Bx + de
0

x(0) = x ∈ dom(A),
Å

(11a)
(11b)

ã
0
. We now prove a result on the well-posedness of system (11). Because d is possibly
Sd
discontinuous, the classical solutions (where ẋ is continuous) do not exist, and one must work with the
notion of a weak solution [5, Definition 3.1.6].
where de =

6

Definition 1 (Weak Solution). Let d ∈ L∞ ([0, T ]; Rn ). If (A + B) is an infinitesimal generator of a C 0 semigroup T , then we call x : [0, T ] → H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn a weak solution to (11) when the following two
conditions hold:
• x ∈ C 0 ([0, T ]; H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn ), and
• For each g ∈ C 0 ([0, T ]; H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn )
Z
Z T
Z T¨
∂
e
hx(s), g(s)i ds +
d(s),
h(s) ds +
0

RT

where h(t) := − t T (s − t)g(s) ds, T
respect to H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn .

∗

x0 , h(0) ds = 0

0

0
∗

T

is the adjoint of the operator T , and the inner product is with

The well-posedness of (11) is now obtained from the results given in [5, Chapter 3]. To invoke these
results, the operators A and B must satisfy certain conditions. The desired properties of these operators are
listed in the lemmas that follow, and their proofs are provided in the Appendix.
Lemma 1. The operator A is an infinitesimal generator of a C 0 -semigroup.
The recipe used for proving this result is inspired by the development given in [1, Appendix A, Proof
of Thm. A.I], that is, we show that the operators A and its adjoint A∗ are quasi-dissipative, and that A is
closed and densely defined. The difference in the calculations arises due to the presence of η-dynamics and
the domain of A depends on the η-dynamics. This changes the construction of the adjoint operator as well.
One then invokes a generalization of Lumer-Phillips theorem reported in [5, Corollary 2.2.3] to show that
the operators with such properties are infinitesimal generators of strongly continuous semigroups.
Lemma 2. The operator B is a bounded linear operator.
The linearity of the operator B is obvious from its definition. For showing boundedness, one should be
careful in using the right norms, because B embeds a finite dimensional vector in the space H1 ((0, 1); Rn )×Rn .
The properties of the operators given in Lemmas 1 and 2 lead to the following result:
Lemma 3. The operator A + B is an infinitesimal generator of a C 0 -semigroup.
The proof then follows by invoking [5, Theorem 3.2.1]. In fact, the resulting semigroup has a lower
triangular structure due to special form of A and B.
Coming back to the system description (11), we now invoke the properties of the operator A + B listed
in Lemma 3, and arrive at the following result using [5, Theorem 3.1.7].
Theorem 1. For a given T > 0, and d ∈ L∞ ([0, T ]; Rn ), there is a unique weak solution to system (11).
Equivalently, for each (X 0 , η 0 ) ∈ dom(A), the closed-loop system (1), (2), (3) and (8) has a unique weak
solution in the space C 0 ([0, T ]; H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn ).
Remark 2. The so-called compatibility conditions on the initial condition (X 0 , η 0 ), that are required for
H1 -regularity are imposed by requiring that (X 0 , η 0 ) belong to dom(A). Such a condition is essential and
hence the choice of η 0 depends upon X 0 . It is noted that in [4], the authors propose two compatibility
conditions for the initial state because they seek solution X ∈ H2 ((0, 1); Rn ). We only need solutions where
X is H1 -regular, so only one such condition appears in our analysis.
Remark 3. It follows from the Definition 1, that the mild solution to equation (11) is given by:
Z t
e ) dτ.
x(t) = T (t) x0 +
T (t − τ ) d(τ
0

Thus, for any t > s ≥ 0, we have
Z
x(t) = T (t − s) x(s) +

e ) dτ.
T (t − τ ) d(τ
s

7

t

4

Closed Loop and Stability Analysis

As a solution to the problem formulated in Section 2, we now provide more structure for the controller
dynamics, and study the stability of the closed-loop system. The conditions on the system parameters that
guarantee stability are then provided by constructing a Lyapunov-function.

4.1

Control Architecture and Closed Loop

The controller that we choose for our purposes is described by the following equations:
η̇(t) = −α(η(t) − y(t))
= −α η(t) + αX(1, t) + αd(t)
η(0) = η

0

(12a)
(12b)

u(t) = Kη(t),

(12c)

where η 0 ∈ Rn is the initial condition for the controller dynamics. This corresponds to choosing R = −α In×n ,
and S = −R in (8a). The conditions on the constant α > 0, and the matrix K ∈ Rm×n will be stated in the
statement of Theorem 2.
For the system in the closed loop, the dynamics of the state trajectory X are given by
Xt (z, t) + ΛXz (z, t) = 0,
0

(13a)

X(z, 0) = X (z), ∀z ∈ [0, 1],

(13b)

X(0, t) = HX(1, t) + BKη(t).

(13c)

For what follows, we are also interested in analyzing the dynamics of ∂z X =: Xz which are derived as
follows:
∂Xz
∂Xz
(z, t) + Λ
(z, t) = 0.
(14)
∂t
∂z
To obtain the boundary condition, from (13c), we have
Xt (0, t) = HXt (1, t) + BK η̇(t).
Substituting Xt (z, t) = −ΛXz (z, t) for each z ∈ [0, 1], we get
Xz (0, t) = Λ−1 HΛXz (1, t) − Λ−1 BK η̇(t).

(15)

Remark 4. Note that the equation (15) would be well defined for X(·, t) ∈ C 1 ((0, 1); Rn ) with the obvious
interpretation that Xz (0, t) := limε&0 Xz (ε, t), and Xz (1, t) := limε&0 Xz (1 − ε, t). The same interpretation
holds for (13c). In the sequel, when carrying out calculations in stability analysis, it will be assumed
that X(·, t) ∈ C 1 ((0, 1); Rn ), and by the density argument, the same conclusion would hold for X(·, t) ∈
H1 ((0, 1); Rn ), as done in [4].

4.2

Stability Result

The second main contribution of the paper is to present conditions on the controller dynamics (12) which
results in stability of system (1) and robustness with respect to the measurement disturbances d. To state
n
the result, we introduce some notation. Let D+
denote the set of diagonal positive definite matrices. For
−µ
2
n
scalars µ > 0 and 0 < ν < 1, let ρ := e − ν ; let F := BK, and Q := F > D2 F for D ∈ D+
; and finally, let
> 2
G := H D F . We denote by Ω the symmetric matrix


ρβ1 D2
−β1 (G + Q)
0
 ∗

2αβ3 − (β1 + α2 β2 )Q
β3 I + αβ2 G
2
>
∗
∗
(ρD + Q + G + G )β2
in which α, β1 , β2 , β3 are some positive constants, and ∗ denotes the transposed matrix block. In the following
statement, we denote the induced-Euclidean norm of a matrix M by kM k2 .
8

n
Theorem 2. Assume that there exist scalars µ, ν > 0, a matrix D ∈ D+
, the gain matrix K, and the positive
constants α, β1 , β2 , β3 in the definition of Ω such that

kD(H + BK)D−1 k2 ≤ ν < 1,

(16a)

Ω > ζI

(16b)

for some scalar ζ > 0. Then, the closed-loop system satisfies the DSS estimate (4) with
MX 0 := kX 0 k2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η 0 − X(1, 0)|2 .

(17)

Remark 5 (DSS implies ISpS). For MX 0 given in (17), we obtain
MX 0 ≤ kX 0 k2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |X 0 (1)|2 + |η 0 |2
≤ max |X 0 (z)|2 + kX 0 k2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η 0 |2
z∈[0,1]

where we used the obvious relation that |X 0 (1)| ≤ maxz∈[0,1] |X 0 (z)|. Substituting this bound on MX 0 in
(4), our DSS estimate leads to
max |X(z)| ≤ c e−at max |X 0 (z)|2 + γ(kd[0,t] k∞ )

z∈[0,1]

z∈[0,1]

Ä
ä
+ c e−at kX 0 k2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η 0 |2 . (18)
This is a more conventional input-to-state practical stability notion in C 0 ([0, 1]; Rn ) with respect to disturbance d ∈ L∞ ([0, ∞); Rn ). In particular, with d ≡ 0, we have practical stability of X = 0 in C 0 ([0, 1]; Rn ) in
the following sense: For every ε > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that the following implication holds
max |X 0 (z)|2 ≤ δ ⇒ max |X(z, t)| ≤ ε + C
z∈[0,1]

z∈[0,1]

Ä
ä
where C := kX 0 k2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η 0 |2 .
Remark 6. It must be noted that, if the initial condition of the closed-loop system X 0 , η 0 is chosen such
that kX 0 kH1 ((0,1);Rn ) = 0 and η 0 = 0, then MX 0 = 0. Indeed, since X 0 ∈ H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) implies that X 0
is continuous, and kX 0 k2L2 ((0,1);Rn ) = 0 implies that X 0 = 0 almost everywhere on [0, 1], we must have
X(1, 0) = 0.
Remark 7. In the statement of Theorem 2, condition (16a) requires inf D∈D+n kD(H + BK)D−1 k2 < 1 which
also appears in the more general context of nonlinear systems [4] when analyzing stability with respect to
H2 -norm. However, the condition (16b) is introduced in our work to compensate for the lack of proportional
gain in the feedback law. It definitely restricts the class of systems that can be treated with our approach
and relaxing this condition or obtaining different criteria is a topic of further investigation.
Remark 8. At this moment, we do not have a precise characterization of the parameters of system (1) for
which (16) admits a solution. As a particular instance, assume that (16a) holds with K = 0. In that case,
the matrix Ω simplifies greatly as Q = G = 0. Using the Schur complement, one can immediately find the
constants α, β1 , β2 , β3 that result in Ω being positive definite, and hence satisfying (16b). By applying the
continuity argument for solutions of matrix inequalities with respect to parameter variations, the solution
to (16b) will also hold for K 6= 0, but sufficiently small.
The remainder of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 2 and is divided into several steps for
the ease of reading. In Section 4.3, we construct a function V : H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn → R+ . By computing the
derivative of this function in Section 4.4, an upper bound on V̇ along the solutions of (12)-(13) is obtained
under condition (16) which yields
V̇ (X(t), η(t)) ≤ −σV (X(t), η(t)) + χ|d(t)|2

(19)

for some constant σ, χ > 0. We then combine this bound with Proposition 1 in Section 4.5 to obtain the
DSS estimate (4).
9

4.3

Construction of the Lyapunov Function

The primary idea is to introduce a Lyapunov function and analyze its derivative with respect to time. As a
candidate, we choose V : H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn → R+ given by
V := V1 + V2 + V3

(20)

where V1 : H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) → R+ is defined as,
Z
V1 (X) :=

1

X(z)> P1 X(z)e−µz dz,

0

where P1 is a diagonal positive definite matrix that will be specified later. Similarly, V2 : H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) → R+
is given by
Z
1

∂X(z)> P2 ∂X(z)e−µz dz,

V2 (X) :=
0

where P2 is a diagonal positive definite matrix that will be specified later, and finally V3 : H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) ×
Rn → R+ is given by
V3 (X, η) = (η − X(1))> P3 (η − X(1)),
where P3 is a symmetric positive definite matrix that will be specified later.
It is evident that there exist constants cP := mini=1,2,3 {λmin (Pi )}, cP := maxi=1,2,3 {λmax (Pi )} such that,
for all X ∈ H1 ((0, 1); Rn ), and η ∈ Rn ,
cP (kXk2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η − X(1)|2 ) ≤ V (X, η) ≤ cP (kXk2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η − X(1)|2 ).

4.4

(21)

Lyapunov Dissipation Inequality

We now derive the bound on V̇ that was used in Section 4.3 to obtain the desired ISS estimate. This is done
by analyzing the time derivative of each of the three functions in the definition of the Lyapunov function.
Analyzing V1 : Using an integration by parts and recalling that P1 is a diagonal positive definite matrix,
the time derivative of V1 yields
Z 1
V̇1 =
(∂t X > P1 X + X > P1 ∂t X)e−µz dz
0

Z
=−

1

(∂z X > ΛP1 X + X > P1 Λ∂z X)e−µz dz

0

= −[X > ΛP1 Xe−µz ]10 − µ

Z

1

X(z, t)> P1 ΛX(z, t)e−µz dz

0

≤ −e−µ X(1, t)> P1 ΛX(1, t) + X(0, t)> P1 ΛX(0, t) − σ1 V1 ,
where σ1 = µλmin (Λ) in which λmin (Λ) denotes the minimal eigenvalue of Λ.
We now impose the boundary conditions by substituting the value of control u given in (13c) to get
X(0, t) = (H + BK)X(1, t) + BK(η − X(1, t))
which results in
V̇1 ≤ −σ1 V1 − e−µ X(1, t)> ΛP1 X(1, t) + X(1, t)> (H + BK)> ΛP1 (H + BK)X(1, t)
+ 2X(1, t)> (H + BK)> ΛP1 BK(η − X(1, t)) + (η − X(1, t))> K > B > ΛP1 BK(η − X(1, t)).
Pick a diagonal positive definite matrix D such that (16a) holds. We check that
(H + BK)> D2 (H + BK) ≤ ν 2 D2 .
10

(22)

Let P1 = β1 D2 Λ−1 for some β1 > 0. With (22), we thus get
V̇1 ≤ −σ1 V1 − β1 (e−µ − ν 2 )X(1, t)> D2 X(1, t)
+ 2β1 X(1, t)> (H + BK)> D2 BK(η − X(1, t))
+ β1 (η − X(1, t))> K > B > D2 BK(η − X(1, t)). (23)
We will see in the sequel that the dynamic controller is chosen so that the last term vanishes in the analysis
of V3 .
Analyzing V2 : Repeating the same calculations as in the case of V̇1 , we get
V̇2 ≤ −e−µ Xz (1, t)> P2 ΛXz (1, t) + Xz (0, t)> P2 ΛXz (0, t) − σ2 V2 ,
where σ2 = σ1 . Using (13a) and (15), the boundary condition for Xz is rewritten as
Xz (0, t) = Λ−1 (H + BK)ΛXz (1, t) − Λ−1 BK [η̇ − Xt (1, t)] .
‹ := DΛ, then using (16a) again
Let D
‹ −1 (H + BK)ΛD
‹−1 k2 ≤ ν,
kDΛ
‹2 Λ−1 to obtain
and we choose P2 = β2 D
‹2 Xz (1, t)
V̇2 ≤ −σ2 V2 − β2 (e−µ − ν 2 )Xz (1, t)> D
‹2 Λ−1 BK(η̇ − Xt (1, t))
− 2β2 Xz (1, t)> Λ(H + BK)> Λ−1 D
‹2 Λ−1 BK(η̇ − Xt (1, t)).
+ β2 (η̇ − Xt (1, t))> K > B > Λ−1 D
‹2 Λ−1 = D2 because Λ and D
‹ = DΛ are diagonal matrices, so that
It is observed that Λ−1 D
V̇2 ≤ −σ2 V2 − β2 (e−µ − ν 2 )Xt (1, t)> D2 Xt (1, t)
+ 2β2 Xt (1, t)> (H + BK)> D2 BK(η̇ − Xt (1, t))
+ β2 (η̇ − Xt (1, t))> K > B > D2 BK(η̇ − Xt (1, t)),
where we also used (13a) to write Xz (1, t) = −Λ−1 Xt (1, t). Substitute η-dynamics from (12a) and let
F := BK, to get
β2−1 V̇2 ≤ −β2−1 σ2 V2 − (e−µ − ν 2 )Xt (1, t)> D2 Xt (1, t) − 2αXt (1, t)> (H + F )> D2 F (η − X(1, t))
+ 2αXt (1, t)> (H + F )> D2 F d(t) − 2Xt (1, t)> (H + F )> D2 F Xt (1, t)
+ α2 (η − X(1, t))> F > D2 F (η − X(1, t)) + 2α(η − X(1, t))> F > D2 F Xt (1, t)
+ Xt (1, t)> F > D2 F Xt (1, t) + α2 d(t)> F > D2 F d(t)
− 2α2 (η − X(1, t))> F > D2 F d(t) − 2αXt (1, t)> F > D2 F d(t).
The terms involving d appear in V̇2 because the η-dynamics are driven by the output which includes disturbances. Cancelation of certain terms yields
β2−1 V̇2 ≤ −β2−1 σ2 V2 − (e−µ − ν 2 )Xt (1, t)> D2 Xt (1, t) − 2αXt (1, t)> H > D2 F (η − X(1, t))
+ 2αXt (1, t)> H > D2 F d(t) − 2Xt (1, t)> H > D2 F Xt (1, t)
+ α2 (η − X(1, t))> F > D2 F (η − X(1, t)) − Xt (1, t)> F > D2 F Xt (1, t)
+ α2 d(t)> F > D2 F d(t) − 2α2 (η − X(1, t))> F > D2 F d(t).
11

One can use the Young’s inequality for the last two terms to decouple the disturbance from Xt and (η −
X(1, t)), that is, for every ζ > 0, we have
2α2 β2 (η − X(1, t))> F > D2 F d(t) ≤ ζ|η − X(1, t)|2 + α4 β22
2αβ2 Xt (1, t)> H > D2 F d(t) ≤ ζ|Xt (1, t)|2 + (αβ)2

kF > D2 F k22
|d(t)|2
ζ

kH > D2 F k22
|d(t)|2 .
ζ

Analyzing V3 : Choose P3 = β3 I, and substitute the dynamics of η from (12a) in the expression of V̇3 to
obtain
V̇3 = 2 β3 (η(t) − X(1, t))> (η̇(t) − Xt (1, t))
= −2αβ3 |(η(t) − X(1, t))|2 − 2β3 (η(t) − X(1, t))> Xt (1, t) + 2αβ3 (η(t) − X(1, t))> d(t).
Once again, Young’s inequality is used to obtain, ∀ ζ > 0
2αβ3 (η(t) − X(1, t))> d(t) ≤

ζ
2(αβ3 )2
|η(t) − X(1, t)|2 +
|d(t)|2 ,
2
ζ

which further yields
Ç

ζ
V̇3 ≤ − 2αβ3 +
2

å

2

|(η(t) − X(1, t))| − 2β3 (η(t) − X(1, t))> Xt (1, t)
+ ζ|(η(t) − X(1, t))|2 +

2(αβ3 )2
|d(t)|2 .
ζ

Combining V̇1 , V̇2 , V̇3 : By introducing the vector w as
w(t) := (X(1, t)> , (η(t) − X(1, t))> , Xt> (1, t))> ,
one can massage the terms in the expressions for V̇i , i = 1, 2, 3 to get
ζ
V̇ ≤ −σ1 V1 − σ2 V2 − V3 − w> Ωw + ζw> w + χ|d(t)|2
2
where the constant χ is given by
χ := α4 β22

kF > D2 F k22
kH > D2 F k22
2(αβ3 )2
+ (αβ)2
+ α2 kF > D2 F k +
.
ζ
ζ
ζ

(24)

By choosing ζ = ζ, where ζ satisfies (16b), we obtain
V̇ (X(t), η(t)) ≤ −σV (X(t), η(t)) + χ|d(t)|2

(25)

¶
©
with σ := min σ1 , σ2 , ζ2 .

4.5

Obtaining the DSS Estimate

For the D ∈ Dn+ satisfying (16a), we apply the result of Proposition 1 to the function DX(·, t) to obtain the
following estimate, for each t ≥ 0:
max |DX(z, t)|2 ≤ |DX(0, t)|2 + kDX(·, t)kH1 ((0,1);Rn ) .

z∈[0,1]

12

(26)

n
The boundary condition (13c), with D ∈ D+
, can be written as

DX(0, t) = D(H + BK)D−1 DX(1, t) + DBK(η − X(1, t))
which using Young’s inequality and letting F = BK yields
|DX(0, t)|2 ≤ ν 2 |DX(1, t)|2 + kDF k22 (η − X(1, t))2
≤ ν 2 max |DX(z, t)|2 + kDF k22 (η − X(1, t))2 .
z∈[0,1]

Substituting the last equation in (26), we get

1 
2
2
2
kDX(·,
t)k
.
max |DX(z, t)|2 ≤
1 ((0,1);Rn ) + kDF k2 (η − X(1, t))
H
1 − ν2
z∈[0,1]
Let us introduce the constant cD as
cD :=

max{kDk22 , kDF k22 }
λmin (D)2 (1 − ν 2 )

then, for each t ≥ 0:
Ä
ä
max |X(z, t)|2 ≤ cD kX(·, t)k2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η − X(1, t)|2

z∈[0,1]

≤

cD
V (X(·, t), η(t))
cP

(27)

where we recall that cP := mini=1,2,3 {λmin (Pi )}.
Next, by integrating (25), we get
χ
(kd[0,t] k2∞ ).
σ
To obtain the desired DSS estimate, we substitute the bound (28) in (27) to get
 c χ
cD cP −σ t  0 2
D
e
kd[0,t] k2∞
max |X(z, t)|2 ≤
kX kH1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η 0 − X(1, 0)|2 +
cP
cP σ
z∈[0,1]
V (X(t), η(t)) ≤ e−σt V (X(0), η(0)) +

(28)

which is the desired DSS estimate (4) with MX 0 given in (17). This concludes the proof of Theorem 2.

4.6

ISS Estimate for the Closed Loop

The DSS estimate (4) differs from the classical ISS estimate in the sense that we obtain a bound on the norm
of X(·, t) in terms of the initial condition that depends on the state of the dynamical controller η 0 . However,
if we consider the combined state of the closed-loop system (X, η), then we can obtain a more conventional
ISS estimate with this augmented state. To see this, we observe that
|η(t)|2 ≤ 2|η(t) − X(1, t)|2 + 2 max |X(z, t)|2
z∈[0,1]

and hence, from (27), we have
|η(t)|2 + max |X(z, t)|2 ≤
z∈[0,1]

2 + cD
V (X(·, t), η(t)).
cP

Once again, using the bound (28), we get
k(X(·, t), η(t))k2C 0 ([0,1];Rn )×Rn ≤ C1 kd[0,t] k2∞
Ä
ä
+ C2 e−σt 2k(X 0 , η 0 )k2C 0 ([0,1];Rn )×Rn + kX 0 k2H1 ((0,1);Rn )

(29)

D )χ
where C1 := (2+c
and C2 := (2+ccD )cP . This is indeed a conventional ISS estimate for the closed-loop
cP σ
P
system with the state (X, η), and d viewed as an external disturbance.

13

4.7

Effect of Vanishing Disturbance

We now want to study the asymptotic behavior of the state (X, η) when the disturbance d is bounded and
d(t) → 0 as t → ∞. For finite-dimensional systems, ISS estimates and the semigroup property of the solution
set ensure that the corresponding state trajectories converge to zero asymptotically as d converges to zero.
We observe the same qualitative behavior with our DSS estimates.
From Remark 3, where x = (X, η), we recall that the solutions to the closed-loop system possess the
semigroup property. If the estimate (4) holds, then for every t > s ≥ 0, we have

max |X(z, t)| ≤ c e−a(t−s) MX s + γ kd[s,t] k∞
(30)
z∈[0,1]

where MX s := kX(s)k2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) + |η(s) − X(1, s)|2 . From (21) and (28), it holds that MX s is bounded
by cP MX 0 + cPσχ kd[0,s] k2∞ . Thus, in (30), if d(t) → 0 as t → ∞, then by taking s = t/2, we see that
maxz∈[0,1] |X(z, t)| → 0 as t → ∞.

5

Quantized Control

We are next interested in applying our results to study the stabilization of (1), where the measurement
X(1, t) ∈ Rn is quantized, and cannot be transmitted to the control precisely. In particular, Rn -valued
measurement X(1, ·) is quantized using a finite set of alphabets, and hence the disturbances fed to the
controller result from quantization error. By working with uniform quantizer, we provide upper bounds on
the number of symbols which result in the DSS estimate (4) with respect to a bounded quantization error.

5.1

Description of the Quantizer

To define a quantizer, we first specify a set of finite alphabets Q := {q0 , q1 , q2 , . . . , qN }, with N chosen as an
odd positive integer. A quantizer with sensitivity ∆q > 0, and range Mq > 0, is then a function q : Rn → Q
having the property that
|q(x) − x|∞ ≤ ∆q if |x|∞ ≤ Mq
(31)
and the overflow condition holds:
|q(x)|∞ ≥ Mq − ∆q

if

|x|∞ > Mq ,

(32)

where for x := col(x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Rn , we used the notation |x|∞ := max1≤i≤n |xi |. Such a function q defines
what is called a finite-rate uniform quantizer. In other words, within the space Rn , where the measurements of
X(1, ·) take values, we take a cube with each side having length 2Mq , and partition it uniformly in N regions.
Each of these regions is identified with a symbol qi from the set Q, i ∈ {1, . . . , N }. If |X(1, t)|∞ ≤ Mq ,
the controller receives a valid symbol q1 , . . . , qN , and knows the variable X(1, t), modulo the error due to
sensitivity of the quantizer ∆q . When the measurements are out of the range of the quantizer, that is,
|x|∞ > Mq , then the quantizer just sends an out of bounds flag q0 and no upper bound on the error between
X(1, t) and its quantized value can be obtained in that case.
The cardinality of the set Q, or the number of regions, are determined by the ratio between the range and
the sensitivity of the quantizer Mq /∆q . This ration defines the rate at which the information is communicated
by the quantizer on average. The basic idea of the quantized control in finite-dimensional systems is to show
that the state of the system converges to a certain ball around the origin if this rate is sufficiently large (to
dominate the most unstable mode) [20]. In the same spirit, we derive a lower bound on the ratio Mq /∆q
which is required to achieve practical stability in the presence of quantization errors.
Remark 9. Because the parameters ∆q and Mq remain constant in the definition of q, we are limiting
ourselves to the case of static quantizers in this paper, that is, which results in a bounded measurement error
determined by the sensitivity of the quantizer, if it can be ensured that |X(1, t)|∞ ≤ Mq . This is in contrast
to the dynamic quantizers proposed in [15] where the parameters ∆q and Mq are also updated while keeping
their ratio constant, so that asymptotic stability of the origin could be achieved.
14

5.2

Stability Result with Quantized Control

With quantized measurements, the controller (12) takes the form
η̇(t) = −α η(t) + α q(X(1, t))

(33a)

u(t) = Kη(t).

(33b)

By writing q(X(1, t)) = X(1, t) + q(X(1, t)) − X(1, t), and letting dq (t) := q(X(1, t)) − X(1, t), we are indeed
in the same setup as earlier with y(t) = q(X(1, t)). Here, dq is such that
√
√
|dq | ≤ n |dq |∞ ≤ n ∆q , if |X(1, t)|∞ ≤ Mq .
Theorem 3. Consider the closed-loop system (1) and (33), and assume that the conditions (16a) and (16b)
hold. Also, suppose that the initial conditions X 0 and η 0 satisfy
V (X 0 , η 0 ) ≤

cP 2
M
cD q

(34)

where V (X, η) is defined in (20). With the constants σ, χ appearing in (25), if the quantizer is designed such
that
Mq2
ncD χ
>
.
(35)
∆2q
cP σ
Then the following items hold:
• The output X(1, t) remains within the range of the quantizer for all t ≥ 0, that is,
|X(1, t)|∞ ≤ Mq ,

∀ t ≥ 0.

(36)

• The state of the system remains ultimately bounded in C 0 -norm, that is, there exists T such that for
all t ≥ T
max |X(z, t)|2 ≤ γε (∆q )
(37)
z∈[0,1]

where γε is a class K∞ function
γε (s) :=

nχcD 2
s (1 + ε),
σcP

and ε > 0 can be arbitrarily small.
Proof of Theorem 3. In the light of condition (35), fix ε > 0 such that
cP Mq2
nχ 2
∆q (1 + ε) <
.
σ
cD

(38)

To proceed with the proof, we introduce two regions in the space H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn :
™
ß
c
SM := (X, η) | V (X, η) ≤ P Mq2
cD
n
o
nχ 2
S∆ := (X, η) | V (X, η) ≤
∆q (1 + ε) .
σ
Because of (38), S∆ is strictly contained inside SM . We claim that the following two statements hold:
Claim 1: If, for some t0 ≥ 0, (X(t0 ), η(t0 )) ∈ SM \ S∆ , then there exists a time Tε ≥ t0 , such that
(X(Tε ), η(Tε )) ∈ S∆ .
Claim 2: The set SM and S∆ are forward invariant.
15

Dynamics of the controller

50

40

30

20

η

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

t

(a) Evolution of X1

(b) Evolution of X2

(c) Black: η1 , Red: η2

Figure 2: Evolution of closed-loop trajectories with ` = 0.1.
It is seen that the result of Theorem 3 holds because of these two claims. Since SM is invariant, and the initial
condition (X 0 , η 0 ) ∈ SM due to (34), it follows that (X(t), η(t)) ∈ SM . We now invoke the inequality (27)
to observe that
cD
V (X(·, t), η(t))
(39)
|X(1, t)|2∞ ≤ |X(1, t)|2 ≤
cP
for all t ≥ 0, which (36) since (X(t), η(t)) ∈ SM . To see that (37) holds, it follows from Claim 1 and Claim 2
that for t ≥ Tε , (X(t), η(t)) ∈ S∆ , and hence we have the desired bound on maxz∈[0,1] |X(z, t)|2 by making
use of (27).
Proof of Claim 1: For (X, η) ∈ SM \ S∆ , we compute V̇ (X, η) along the closed-loop trajectories. Because
the measurement disturbance in X(1, t) results from quantization error dq , the derivative of the Lyapunov
function in (25) satisfies
V̇ (X, η) ≤ −σV (X, η) + χ d>
q dq .
For the region SM \ S∆ , and for the chosen ε > 0,
nχ 2
c
∆ (1 + ε) ≤ V (X, η) ≤ P Mq2 .
σ q
cD
Also, if (X, η) ∈ SM , then using (39), |X(1)|∞ ≤ |X(1)| ≤ Mq implying that |dq (t)|2 ≤ n∆2q , and hence
nχ
(40)
V̇ (X, η) ≤ −ε ∆2q .
σ
Thus, V decreases strictly in the region SM \ S∆ . Hence, if for some t0 , (X(t0 ), η(t0 )) ∈ SM \ S∆ , there
exists a finite time Tε ≥ t0 , such that (X(Tε ), η(Tε )) ∈ S∆ .
Proof of Claim 2: Since S∆ ⊂ SM , and every trajectory starting in SM \ S∆ reaches S∆ due to Claim 1,
it suffices to prove the forward invariance of S∆ to establish the claim. Assume, for the sake of contradiction,
that S∆ is not forward invariant. Let t1 be the first time instant such that
nχ 2
V (X(t1 ), η(t1 )) >
∆ (1 + ε)
σ q
Therefore, (X(t), η(t)) ∈ SM \ S∆ for each t in a sufficiently small neighborhood of t1 . Hence, the inequality
(40) holds for (X(t), η(t)), for each t near t1 . Thus, the absolutely continuous function V (X(·), η(·)) is
negative definite in a neighborhood of t1 . Thus, V (X(t), η(t)) > V (X(t1 ), η(t1 )) for some t < t1 . This
contradicts the minimality of t1 , and hence the claim holds.


5.3

Example

To illustrate the controller proposed in the previous section, the simulations for the case of a 2 × 2 hyperbolic
system are now shown. The system we simulate is of the form (1) with
ï
ò
1 0
Λ :=
0 2
16

Dynamics of the controller

6

4

η

2

0

-2

-4

-6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

18

20

t

(a) Evolution of X1

(b) Evolution of X2

(c) Black: η1 , Red: η2

Figure 3: Evolution of closed-loop trajectories with ` = 1.
Dynamics of the controller

3

2

η

1

0

-1

-2

-3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

t

(a) Evolution of X1

(b) Evolution of X2

(c) Black: η1 , Red: η2

Figure 4: Evolution of closed-loop trajectories with ` = 10.
and the boundary condition is described by
ï
0.25
H=
0

ò
−1
,
1.25

B=

ï
1
0

ò
0
.
1

ï

ò
0
0.5
Selecting the matrix K =
, it could be checked that the boundary damping condition (16) are
−0.25 −0.5
satisfied, and thus the DSS estimate holds for (1)-(2) with the closed-loop boundary condition (6). Select the
following initial condition, which satisfies the first-roder compatibility condition for the existence of solutions
in H1 ((0, 1); Rn ):
X1 (z, 0) = cos(4πz) − 1 , X2 (z, 0) = cos(2πz) − 1,
for z ∈ [0, 1].
Now to illustrate Theorem 3, let us consider the quantizer given by q(x) = b`xc/` with the parameter `.
The error due to quantization in this case is ζq = 1/`, and for the sake of simplicity we take the range to be
sufficiently large.
The time-evolution of the solutions for the first and second component of X, as well as the state of the
dynamic controller η are plotted in Figure 2 for ` = 0.1, and same entities are plotted in Figure 3 and
Figure 4 for ` = 1 and ` = 10, respectively. It could be seen that the solution to (2) and (33) converges to a
neighborhood of the origin as the time increases. The size of this neighborhood is seen to be decreasing as we
increase the value of `, that is, the steady state values of (X, η) are farther from the origin in Figure 2 with
` = 0.1, compared to the steady state values of (X, η) in Figure 4 with ` = 10. This is because, the upper
bound on the error due to quantization of decreases as ` increases. These simulations are thus in agreement
with the result reported in Theorem 3.

17

6

Conclusions

We considered the problem of stabilization of boundary controlled linear hyperbolic PDEs in the presence of
measurement errors in the output. A notion of stability to describe robustness with respect to disturbances is
introduced and a class of dynamic controllers is proposed under certain conditions which allow us to achieve
this robust stability property. We make connections of our proposed DSS notion with the conventional ISS
and ISpS notions. The results are used for an application when the output measurements are quantized over
a finite alphabet set before being passed to the controller. If the initial condition of the system is within the
range of the quantizer, the resulting state trajectory is shown to converge to a ball parameterized by the
quantization error. Lower bounds on the cardinality of the alphabet set for the quantizer to achieve stability
are also given.
Several interesting questions have come up in studying the problem. Firstly, we are interested in relaxing
the stability condition that were presented in the statement of Theorem 2. One can also ask if adding
nonlinear dynamics to the controller would lead to better results.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Eduardo Cerpa for useful discussions related to the proof of well-posedness
result, and anonymous reviewers for their numerous constructive remarks on an earlier version of this paper.

A

Proof of Lemma 1

Consider the space J = L2 ((0, 1); Rn ) × Rn . For some µ > 0, this space is equipped with the inner product
≠Å ã Å ã∑
n Z 1
X
ϕ
ψ
.=
ϕi ψi eµ(z−1) dz + θ> η
,
η
θ µ
0
i=1

The proof of this lemma builds on several intermediate steps.
Step 1: The operator A is quasi-dissipative, that is, there exists a constant Cµ > 0 such that
Å ã
≠ Å ã Å ã∑
≠Å ã Å ã∑
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
≤ Cµ
, ∀
∈ dom(A).
A
,
,
η
η
η µ
η
η µ
To see this, it is observed that
≠ Å ã Å ã∑
n Z 1
X
ϕ
ϕ
A
,
=
−λi (ϕi )z ϕi eµ(z−1) dz + η > Rη
η
η µ
0
i=1
n Z
n
X
µX 1
λi ϕ2i eµ(z−1) dz +
λi (ϕ2i (0)e−µ − ϕ2i (1)) + kRkη > η.
≤
2 i=1 0
i=1
Substituting the boundary condition ϕ(0) = Hϕ(1) + BKη, and using Young’s inequality, we get
n
X
i=1

ϕ2i (0)λi e−µ ≤ c1

n
X

ϕ2i (1)λi e−µ + c2

i=1

n
X

ηi2 λi e−µ

i=1

where c1 = kH > Hk and c2 = kK > B > BKk. Choose µ > 0 large enough such that
λi c1 e−µ ≤ 1,

∀ i ∈ {1, . . . , n}.

Assuming that µ satisfies this condition, we thus obtain (41) with

Cµ = max 1, kRk + c2 λmax (Λ)e−µ ,
18

(41)

where λmax (Λ) is the largest eigenvalue of the matrix Λ.
Step 2: The adjoint A∗ is quasi-dissipative.
By definition, A∗ is an operator that satisfies
Å ã∑
≠ Å ã Å ã∑
≠Å ã
ϕ
ψ
ϕ
∗ ψ
.
A
,
=
,A
θ µ
η
θ µ
η

(42)

To compute A∗ , we introduce the matrix D ∈ Rn×n
D(z) := diag{eµ(z−1) , . . . , eµ(z−1) },

∀ z ∈ [0, 1],

and it is observed that
Z 1
≠ Å ã Å ã∑
ϕ
ψ
>
−ϕ>
A
,
=
z ΛDψ dz + θ F η
η
θ µ
0
Z 1
 >
1
ϕ> Λ(Dz ψ + Dψz ) dz + η > F > θ
= − ϕ ΛDψ 0 +
0

= ϕ(0)> ΛD(0)ψ(0) − ϕ(1)> Λψ(1) +

Z

1

ϕ> ΛD(µψ + ψz )dz + η > F > θ

0

= ϕ(1)> H > ΛD(0)ψ(0) − ϕ(1)> Λψ(1) + η > F > θ
Z 1
+
ϕ> DΛ(µψ + ψz )dz + η > K > B > ΛD(0)ψ(0).
0
∗

Let A be such that

dom(A∗ ) := ψ ∈ H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) such that ψ(1) = Λ−1 H > ΛD(0)ψ(0)
A∗

Å ã
Å
ã
Λ(µψ + ψz )
ψ
:=
.
> >
>
θ
K B ΛD(0)ψ(0) + F θ

Clearly, with this definition of the adjoint operator, equation (42) holds. To show that A∗ is quasi-dissipative,
we observe that
≠

A∗

Å ã Å ã∑
ψ
ψ
,
θ
θ µ

Z
=

1

(ψz

µψ)> ΛDψ dz

+

+

θ> (K > B > ΛD(0)ψ(0)

+

F > θ). (43)

0

Analyzing the first term on the right-hand side, we have
Z 1
ψz> ΛDψ dz

(44)

0

1 µ
1 >
=
ψ ΛDψ 0 +
2
2

Z

1

ψ > ΛDψ dz

0

Z
 µ 1 >
1
>
>
=
ψ(1) Λψ(1) − ψ(0) ΛD(0)ψ(0) +
ψ ΛDψ dz
2
2 0
Z
1
µ 1 >
= ψ(0)> (MD MH MD − MD ) ψ(0) +
ψ ΛDψ dz
2
2 0

(45)

where MD = ΛD(0) is a diagonal matrix, and MH = HΛ−1 H > .
Next we observe that
1
2
θ> K > B > ΛD(0)ψ(0) ≤ c3 θ> θ + ψ(0)> MD
ψ(0)
2
19

(46)

where c3 = 12 kBKk2 . Next, choose µ > 0 such that,
e−µ λmax (Λ) λmax (MH + I) ≤ 1.

(47)

This condition ensures that MD (MH + I) ≤ I, and hence
2
MD M H MD + MD
− MD = MD (MH + I)MD − MD

≤ MD − MD = 0.
Substituting the expressions (45), (46) in (43), and using (47), we get
≠ Å ã Å ã∑
≠Å ã Å ã∑
ψ
ψ
ψ
ψ
≤
C
A∗
,
,
µ
θ
θ µ
θ
θ µ

where Cµ = max 23 µ, c3 + kRk , and µ satisfies (47).
Step 3: The operator A is closed and dom(A) is dense in L2 ((0, 1); Rn ).
To see that A is closed, consider a sequence (ϕk , η k ) such that
Å kã
Å ã
Å kã Å
ã
Å ã
ϕ
ϕ
ϕ
−Λϕkz
ψ
→
and
A
=
→
η
θ
Rη k
ηk
ηk
Since ϕ, ψ ∈ L2 ((0, 1); Rn ), it follows that
ϕk → ϕ in H1 ((0, 1); Rn )
and hence ψ = −Λϕx . The matrix R defines a finite-dimensional linear operator, which yields θ = Rη. Also,
H1 ((0, 1); Rn ) is continuously embedded in C 0 ([0, L]; Rn ), and by picking ϕk ∈ dom(A), we get
Å
ã ï
òÅ
ã
ϕ(0)
H BK ϕ(1)
=
∈ dom(A).
η
0
I
η

B

Proof of Lemma 2

The linearity of the operator B is obvious. To show that B is bounded, we find a constant CB such that
Å ã
Å ã
ϕ
ϕ
B
= kSϕ(1)kRn ≤ CB
.
(48)
η H1 ((0,1);Rn )×Rn
η H1 ((0,1);Rn )×Rn
To obtain such an inequality, we first observe that
å2

1

Ç Z

2

|ϕ(1)| =

sϕz (s) + ϕ(s)ds
0

ÇZ

1

≤

|sϕz (s)|ds +
0

ÇZ

|ϕ(s)|ds|

0
å2

1

≤2

å2

1

Z

|sϕz (s)|ds

ÇZ

ÇZ

0
1

≤2
=

|ϕ(s)|ds

+2

0

å2

1

2

|ϕz (s)| ds
0
2kϕk2H1 ((0,1);Rn ) .

from where the inequality in (48) is obtained.
20

Z

1

å
2

|ϕ(s)| ds

+
0

(49)

References
[1] G. Bastin and J.-M. Coron. Stability and Boundary Stabilization of 1-D Hyperbolic Systems. Subseries
in Control: Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications. Birkhauser, 2016.
[2] G. Bastin, J.-M. Coron, and B. d’Andréa-Novel. Using hyperbolic systems of balance laws for modeling,
control and stability analysis of physical networks. In Lecture notes for the Pre-Congress Workshop on
Complex Embedded and Networked Control Systems, Seoul, Korea, 2008. 17th IFAC World Congress.
[3] J.-M. Coron and G. Bastin. Dissipative boundary conditions for one-dimensional quasi-linear hyperbolic
systems: Lyapunov stability for the C 1 -norm. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 53(3):1464–
1483, 2015.
[4] J.-M. Coron, G. Bastin, and B. d’Andréa Novel. Dissipative boundary conditions for one-dimensional
nonlinear hyperbolic systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 47(3):1460–1498, 2008.
[5] R.F. Curtain and H. Zwart. An Introduction to Infinite-Dimensional Linear Systems Theory, volume 21
of Texts in Applied Mathematics. 1995.
[6] S. Dashkovskiy and A. Mironchenko. Input-to-state stability of infinite-dimensional control systems.
Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 25(1):1–35, 2013.
[7] S. Dashkovskiy, B. Rüffer, and F. Wirth. An ISS small gain theorem for general networks. Mathematics
of Control, Signals, and Systems, 19(2):93–122, 2007.
[8] N. Espitia, A. Girard, N. Marchand, and C. Prieur. Event-based control of linear hyperbolic systems
of conservation laws. Automatica, 70:275–287, 2016.
[9] R. Geiselhart and F. Wirth. Numerical construction of LISS Lyapunov functions under a small-gain
condition. Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 24(1-2):3–32, 2012.
[10] H. Ito, S. Dashkovskiy, and F. Wirth. Capability and limitation of max-and sum-type construction of
Lyapunov functions for networks of iISS systems. Automatica, 48(6):1197–1204, 2012.
[11] Z.-P. Jiang, A.R. Teel, and L. Praly. Small-gain theorem for ISS systems and applications. Math.
Control Signals Systems, 7(2):95–120, 1994.
[12] I. Karafyllis and M. Krstic. ISS with respect to boundary disturbances for 1-D parabolic PDEs. IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control, 61(12):3712–3724, 2016.
[13] I. Karafyllis and M. Krstic. ISS in different norms for 1-D parabolic PDEs with boundary disturbances.
2017. To appear.
[14] M. Krstic and A. Smyshlyaev. Boundary Control of PDEs: A Course on Backstepping Designs. Advances in design and control. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2008.
[15] D. Liberzon. Hybrid feedback stabilization of of systems with quantized signals. Automatica, 39(9):1543–
1554, 2003.
[16] D. Liberzon. Quantization, time delays, and nonlinear stabilization. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
51(7):1190–1195, 2006.
[17] F. Mazenc and C. Prieur. Strict Lyapunov functions for semilinear parabolic partial differential equations. Mathematical Control and Related Fields, 1(2):231–250, 2011.
[18] A. Mironchenko and H. Ito. Construction of Lyapunov functions for interconnected parabolic systems:
An iISS approach. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 53(6):3364–3382, 2015.

21

[19] A. Mironchenko and F. Wirth. A note on input-to-state stability of linear and bilinear infinitedimensional systems. In 54th Conference on Decision and Control, pages 495–500, 2015.
[20] G. Nair, F. Fagnani, S. Zampieri, and R.J. Evans. Feedback control under data rate constraints: An
overview. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(1):108 – 137, 2007.
[21] C. Prieur and F. Mazenc. ISS-Lyapunov functions for time-varying hyperbolic systems of balance laws.
Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, 24(1):111–134, 2012.
[22] C. Prieur and A. Tanwani. Asymptotic stabilization of some finite and infinite dimensional systems by
means of dynamic event-triggered output feedbacks. Chapter 8 in Feedback Stabilization of Controlled
Dynamical Systems. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, Volume 473, pages 201 – 230,
2017.
[23] E. D. Sontag. Smooth stabilization implies coprime factorization.
34(4):435 – 443, 1989.

IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,

[24] A. Tanwani, C. Prieur, and M. Fiacchini. Observer-based feedback stabilization of linear systems with
event-triggered sampling and dynamic quantization. Systems & Control Letters, 94:46 – 56, 2016.
[25] A. Tanwani, C. Prieur, and S. Tarbouriech. Input-to-state stabilization in H1 -norm for boundary
controlled linear hyperbolic PDEs with application to quantized control. In Proc. 55th IEEE Conf.
Decision & Control, pages 3112–3117, 2016.

22

