Disturbance scaling in bidirectional vehicle platoons with different
asymmetry in position and velocity coupling
Ivo Herman a , Steffi Knorn b and Anders Ahlén b

arXiv:1604.00868v2 [] 11 Oct 2016

a

Department of Control Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
b

Signals and Systems, Uppsala University, Sweden

Abstract
This paper considers a string of vehicles where the local control law uses the states of the vehicle’s immediate predecessor and follower.
The coupling towards the preceding vehicle can be chosen different to the coupling towards the following vehicle, which is often referred
to as an asymmetric bidirectional string. Further, the asymmetry for the velocity coupling can be chosen differently to the asymmetry in
the position coupling. It is investigated how the effect of disturbance on the control errors in the string depends on the string length. It
is shown, that in case of symmetric position coupling and asymmetric velocity coupling, linear scaling can be achieved. For symmetric
interaction in both states, i.e., in symmetric bidirectional strings, the errors scale quadratically in the number of vehicles. When the
coupling in position is asymmetric, exponential scaling may occur or the system might even become unstable. The paper thus gives a
comprehensive overview of the achievable performance in linear, asymmetric, bidirectional platoons. The results reveal that symmetry
in the position coupling and asymmetry in velocity coupling qualitatively improves the performance of the string. Extensive numerical
results illustrate the theoretical findings.
Key words: Port-Hamiltonian Systems, Vehicular platoons, Multi-Vehicle Systems, Scaling, Asymmetry

1

Introduction

Vehicle platoons form an important part of future intelligent
transportation systems, because such systems are anticipated
to increase both the safety and capacity of highways. In
its simplest form, a platoon, consisting of N cooperativelyacting, automatically controlled vehicles travels in a longitudinal line with tight spacing between the vehicles.
An important safety and performance measure in this area
is how the response of the platoon to disturbances scales
with respect to the number of vehicles N. When the local
errors are bounded independently of N, the string is called
“string stable”. Generally speaking, a platoon is string stable
if disturbances, which are propagating through the string, do
not grow with the number of vehicles or the position within
the string. See [23] for various definitions of string stability.
The literature often distinguishes between “unidirectional”
strings, where each vehicle only considers information of
a group of direct predecessors, and “bidirectional”, where
information from following vehicles is also used. It is well
known, that a strict form of string stability in linear vehicle
Email addresses: ivo.herman@fel.cvut.cz (Ivo Herman),
steffi.knorn@signal.uu.se (Steffi Knorn),
anders.ahlen@signal.uu.se (Anders Ahlén).

Preprint submitted to Automatica

strings with double integrators in the open loop, local information only and tight spacing, can neither be achieved in
unidirectional nor in bidirectional strings [2,24]. This definition of string stability requires the L2 norm of the local error
vector to be bounded for any L2 bounded disturbance vector.
String stability according to this definition in unidirectional
strings can for instance be achieved using a time headway
spacing policy, [21] or by allowing inter-vehicle communication, [1]. However, the time-headway policy leads to undesirable large steady-state inter vehicle distances and wireless communication between the vehicles can potentially be
disturbed by an intruder.
Bidirectional strings seem to offer advantages since also
backward distance errors are used to control the vehicle’s
motion. A bidirectional system, where the control input due
to the forward distance error is weighed as high as the
backward distance error, is referred to as a “symmetric”
string. For example, a weaker form of string stability, can
be achieved [17], where the L∞ norm of the local error vector is guaranteed to be bounded for any disturbances in L2 .
The results were extended to analyse the effects of measurement errors in [18]. Further, using similar tools allowed the
analysis of a system with a more general graph topology for
the inter vehicle connections [16]. In contrast, by weighing
the forward error higher, that is, allowing asymmetric con-

February 20, 2018

troller gains, some important benefits can be obtained. A
uniform bound on the eigenvalues of the formation can be
achieved [9], which guarantees much faster transients than
what are achievable with symmetric control.

h∆
E: unstable (?)

However, the transients are not solely determined by the
eigenvalues. The price to pay for the better convergence rate
is that the H∞ norm of the transfer functions in the platoon
scales exponentially in N for asymmetric strings (compared
to linear scaling for symmetric strings [26]). This extremely
bad scaling was first shown for a double-integrator model
in [25] and later generalized to an arbitrary agent model
in [11] and to an arbitrary transfer function in [12].

PF
1
C: cN
B: N 2
1

Many works in the area assume that the degree of asymmetry in the position and velocity coupling is identical, see
for instance [3]. However, the performance of the string can
be improved by assuming symmetric position coupling and
asymmetric velocity coupling. Good stability margin properties were shown in [8]. A good scaling of system norms
with such an approach was numerically shown in [10] and
the properties of the platoon’s response to a step change in
leader’s velocity were derived in [6]. Using these properties,
the parameters of the controller as well as the coefficient
of asymmetry can be optimised to minimise the transient
time [13]. In both papers [6, 13] it was shown that symmetry in position is necessary for a good scaling. In addition, it
was proved in [20] that symmetry in position is a necessary
condition for “local” string stability. Note that, when different asymmetries in velocity and position coupling are used,
none of the convenient approaches presented in the literature for a distributed system analysis (e.g., [7]) and synthesis
(e.g., [19]) can be used since the Laplacians for position and
velocity coupling are not simultaneously diagonalisable.
1.1

hp

This paper investigates the disturbance scaling for such
asymmetric bidirectional platoons. Collecting all states of
the platoon in the vector χ(t) and all disturbances in the vector d(t), disturbance scaling refers to how the scaling factor
ξ in |χ(t)|∞ ≤ |χ(0)| + ξkd(·)k2 scales with the string length
N, where kd(·)k2 denotes the L2 norm of the disturbances.
Specifically, the paper focuses on how ξ scales with N for
different choices of the asymmetry parameters hp and h∆ .
1.2

Contributions

Figure 1 summarises how the scaling factor ξ scales with N
for different choices of hp and h∆ . The point hp = h∆ = 0
corresponds to the symmetric, bidirectional case while hp =
h∆ = 1 describes the unidirectional (“predecessor following”
= ‘PF’) case. The findings can be summarised as follows:
(1) It is shown that asymmetry in velocity with symmetric
position coupling, i.e., case A in Fig. 1, achieves linear
scaling, while a completely symmetric control scales
quadratically, i.e., case B in Fig. 1. See Section 3. 1

This paper considers a heterogeneous, asymmetric, bidirectional string of N vehicles with constant masses mi , positions
xi , velocities vi and momenta pi for all i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , N}. The
vehicles are modelled as double integrators such that

(2) It is shown that for asymmetric position coupling below
a certain bound, the errors scale exponentially, i.e., case
C in Fig. 1, see Section 4.1. We conjecture that it is
also true for h∆ ≥ 1, i.e., case D in Fig. 1.

(1)

where di is the disturbance acting on vehicle i. The linear
control force Fi has the form
Fi =(1 + hp )ri (vi−1 − vi ) − (1 − hp )ri+1 (vi − vi+1 )
+ (1 + h∆ )ai ∆i − (1 − h∆ )ai+1 ∆i+1 ,

A: N

Figure 1. Disturbance scaling with respect to string length N for
different selections of asymmetry. Area A: linear scaling in N,
Area B: quadratic in N, Area C and D: exponential in N. The
behaviour in regions marked (?) is conjectured.

Problem formulation

mi ẍi = Fi + di ,

D: cN (?)

(3) It is shown that for some cases of stronger asymmetry
in the position coupling compared to the velocity coupling, i.e., for a subset of h∆ > hp of case E in Fig. 1,
the system is unstable for a sufficiently high N, see
Section 4.2. We also conjecture that for all combinations captured in case E a finite critical string length,
which is the maximal stable string length, exists. A
discussion of the results is found in Section 6.

(2)

where ∆i := xi−1 − xi − δrefi−1,i is the local position error between vehicle i and its predecessor i − 1, aimed to be kept
at the fixed distance δrefi, j ; constants ri > 0 and ai > 0 are
the velocity and position coupling parameters and hp and h∆
are the asymmetry coefficients for the velocity and position
coupling, respectively. The index i = 0 refers to a virtual
reference vehicle with position x0 , velocity v0 and momentum p0 and the last vehicle only considers the forward error
as it has no follower.

(4) Extensive numerical results are presented to illustrate
the technical results, see Section 5.
1

To the best knowledge of the authors, this is the first paper which
analytically proves better scaling when symmetry in position and
asymmetry in velocity is used. The papers [6, 13] relied in their
proofs only on (reasonable, though) conjectures.

2

where p = col(p1 , . . . , pN ) ∈ RN is the momentum vector.
The vector of forces due to position errors can be written as

(5) A comprehensive overview of the effect of asymmetry
in velocity and position coupling is given. The system
description unifies several existing well studied platoon descriptions such as unidirectional strings in [24],
bidirectional symmetric strings as in [2, 17] and bidirectional asymmetric strings as in [3, 6].
√
Notation: The L2 vector norm is |x|q
xT x and the
2 =
R∞
L2 vector function norm kx(·)k2 =
|x(t)|22 dt. For a
0

F s = (B + B̃∆ )A∆,

where A = diag(a1 , . . . aN ) > 0 and B̃∆ = h∆ hBi. Hence,
the vector of control forces F = col(F1 , . . . , F N ) ∈ RN is
F = Fr + Fs.
We will analyse the following asymmetry combinations:

scalar function H(x) of a vector x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ]T its
i
h
∂H(x)
∂H(x) T
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
gradient is defined as ∇H(x) = ∂H(x)
∂x1
∂x2
∂xn

• h∆ = 0, hp = 0, which refers to symmetric position and
symmetric velocity coupling, abbreviated as SPSV.

∂H(x)
∂xi

The ith element of the gradient
is also denoted
∇ xi H(x). The column vector with N elements is denoted
x(t) = col(x1 (t), . . . , xN (t)). The column vector of ones of
length N is denoted by 1 and ~ei is the ith canonical vector of
length N. Denote the diagonal matrix A ∈ RN×N with diagonal entries a1 , . . . aN as A = diag(a1 , . . . aN ). The matrix hAi
is a matrix obtained from A by taking the absolute values
of the elements. A > 0 and A ≥ 0 denote that A is a positive
definite or positive semi-definite matrix, respectively. σi (A)
is the ith smallest singular value of A and λi (A) is the ith
smallest eigenvalue. σmin (A), σmax (A) (λmin (A), λmax (A)) are
the minimal and maximal singular values (eigenvalues) of
A, respectively.
2

(6)

• h∆ = 0, hp > 0, which refers to symmetric position and
asymmetric velocity coupling, abbreviated as SPAV.
• h∆ > 0, hp ≥ 0, which refers to asymmetric position and
asymmetric velocity coupling, abbreviated as APAV.
3

Symmetric position coupling

In this section we investigate the cases with symmetric
spring forces, i. e., h∆ = 0 (and thus B̃∆ = 0), such that the
platoon can be written in the port-Hamiltonian form
 


 
 ṗ(t)  −(B + B̃p )RBT B
 
 ∇H(p(t), ∆(t)) + d(t) , (7)
 = 


 
˙  
−BT
0
0
∆(t)

Mathematical preliminaries

Consider a string of N vehicles with dynamics (1) and (2).
It is assumed that the control parameters and vehicle masses
are constant and bounded from below and above:

with the Hamiltonian function

Assumption 1 There exist constants r > 0, r < ∞, m >
0, m < ∞, a > 0, a < ∞ such that r ≤ ri ≤ r, m ≤ mi ≤ m
and a ≤ ai ≤ a for all i ≤ N and for all N.

1
1
(p(t) − M1v0 )T M −1 (p(t) − M1v0 ) + ∆T (t)A∆(t)
2
2
(8)
and the equilibrium

By collecting the positions in x(t) = col(x1 , . . . , xN ), and introducing ∆(t) = col(∆1 , . . . , ∆N ), δref = col(δref0,1 , . . . , δref0,N )
the local position errors can be represented by

∆i = 0 and vi = v0 for all i ≤ N.

∆(t) = −B (x(t) − 1x0 (t) + δref ),
T

H(p, ∆) =

The Hamiltonian H(p, ∆) captures the kinetic “energy”
stored in the relative velocity to the leader and potential
“energy” stored in the position errors. Hence, it captures
both the spacing and velocity errors of all vehicles. In the
following we provide an upper bound on the Hamiltonian,
leading to a bound on the maximal error. The following
assumption is necessary to guarantee, that (8) is a suitable
Hamiltonian function for SPAV systems.

(3)

where B describes the coupling between the vehicles

1 −1 0 · · ·

 . . . . . . . . .
0
B =  .
..
 .
. 1
 .

0 ··· 0 0


0 


0 
 .

−1

1

Assumption 2 ri ≥ ri+1 for all i < N.

(4)

SPSV and SPAV systems have similar properties:
Theorem 3 (SPSV, SPAV) Consider the system (7) under
Assumption 1 with Hamiltonian (8). If hp > 0 (SPAV), the
following holds only under Assumption 2; if hp = 0 (SPSV),
it holds unconditionally:

Let R = diag(r1 , . . . , rN ) > 0 be the matrix of damping
coefficients and M = diag(m1 , . . . , mN ) > 0 be the inertia
matrix. Further, let the velocity asymmetry matrix be given
as B̃p = hp hBi. Then the vector of forces due to relative
velocities is described by
F r = −(B + B̃p )RBT (M −1 p − 1v0 ),

(9)

(i) for d(t) ≡ 0 the equilibrium (9) of the autonomous
system is asymptotically stable,
(ii) the system is passive with input vector d(t), output vector ∇ p H and storage function (8),

(5)

3

(iii) Extending (13) by completing the squares leads to

(iii) the following bound on the Hamiltonian at time t holds
H(p(t), ∆(t)) ≤ H(p(0), ∆(0))+

kd(·)k22

.



Ḣ ≤ −

2σmin (B + hp hBi)RBT
(10)

−
PROOF. The proof for the case hp = 0 is presented in [16].
Thus, only the proof for hp > 0 is presented here.

≤

(i) Take H in (8) as a Lyapunov function and set d(t) = 0.
The time derivative of H is

 

− B + B̃p RBT B
 ∇H.
Ḣ = ∇ H 

−BT
0
T




σmin B + B̃p RBT
2



σmin B + B̃p RBT
2

|y|22 +

2

y−

3.1




σmin B + B̃p RBT

|d(t)|22



.
2σmin B + B̃p RBT

2

(14)



Scaling of singular values

Suppose that the norm of the disturbance signal is fixed
for any N, i. e., kd(·)k2 = const. Then in Theorem 3, the
effect of the disturbance depends on the minimal singular
value of the damping matrix (B + hp hBi)RBT . The smaller
σmin (B + hp hBi)RBT is, the larger will be the effect of
the disturbance d(t) on the total energy of the system, and
therefore, on the deviations from the equilibrium. The worstcase convergence rate (13) also depends on this singular
value.
Next, we will investigate how the smallest singular value
scales with N. First, we consider the lower bound on the
smallest singular value. For the proof see Appendix A.
Lemma 4 Let γ = min{1, 1/hp }. Then,
r


σmin (B + hp hBi)RB


B + B̃p RBT ∇ p H



= − r1 (1 + hp ) + r2 (1 − hp ) ṽ21 + r2 (1 − hp )ṽ1 ṽ2


+ r2 (1 + hp )ṽ2 ṽ1 − r2 (1 + hp ) + r3 (1 − hp ) ṽ22 + . . .

T



≥r

1 1
1
+ h2p γ 2 .
4
16 N
N

(15)

The final scaling result, proven in Appendix B, is as follows.

− rN (1 + hp )ṽ2N

Lemma 5 With some positive constants c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 and for
N sufficiently large,

≤ − r1 ṽ21 − r2 (ṽ1 − ṽ2 )2 − r3 (ṽ2 − ṽ3 )2 − . . .
− rN−1 (ṽN−1 − ṽN )2 − rN hp ṽ2N < 0,




c1 r
≤ σmin B + hp hBi RBT ≤
N



c3 r
T
≤
σ
B
+
h
hBi
RB
≤
min
p
N2

where in the first inequality we used Assumption 2. Hence,
the system is Lyapunov stable. Asymptotic stability follows
using the invariance principle, see [15]. The set when Ḣ = 0
is ∇∆ H = BA∆. Since A and B are nonsingular it follows
that the only positively invariant set is ∆ = 0.

c2 r
N
c4 r
N2

for hp > 0, (16)
for hp = 0. (17)

From Lemma 5 note that, the upper and lower bounds on
σmin are of the same order and approach zero as the number
of vehicles grows both for SPAV and SPSV. The rate of
approach is quadratic for SPSV, while it slower – linear –
for SPAV. This means that when asymmetric coupling in
velocity is used, the effect of the disturbance is qualitatively
smaller than in SPSV systems.

(ii) Considering d(t),
of the Lyapunov function
 the derivative

(8) is Ḣ = −∇Tp H B + B̃p RBT ∇ p H + ∇Tp Hd(t). Taking y =
∇ p H as an output yields



Ḣ ≤ −σmin B + B̃p RBT |y|22 + yT d.

d(t)

(11)




(1 +hp )r1 +(1−hp )r2 −(1−hp )r2
0




..
..

.
.
−(1 + hp )r2

 ,


.
.

..
..
−(1−h
)r
p N




0
−(1+hp )rN (1+hp )rN
(12)
it follows that
−



2σmin B + B̃p RBT

Integrating with respect to t yields (10).



This yields Ḣ = −∇Tp H B + B̃p RBT ∇ p H. In order to show


that −∇Tp H B + B̃p RBT ∇ p H < 0, let ṽi be the ith element


of ∇ p H. Then, since B + B̃p RBT has the tridiagonal structure (it is a graph Laplacian of the path graph)

∇Tp H

|d(t)|22


(13)

Remark 6 Consider that hp is very small such that γ = 1.
 h2p N12 such that the
Then, for sufficiently small N, 1/16
N4

The increase in the energy of the system H is less than the
“power” yT d applied to the system. The system is passive.

4

where
1
H∆ (p, ∆) = (p(t) − M1v0 )T EM −1 (p(t) − M1v0 )
2
(20)
1 T
+ ∆ (t)(1 + h∆ )EA∆(t).
2

 1−h 2
 1−h N−1 
1−h∆
∆
∆
with E = diag 1, 1+h
,
,
.
.
.
,
being the
1+h∆
1+h∆
∆
scaling matrix. Then, in Appendix C we prove the following
properties.




Figure 2. Scaling of σmin B + hp hBi RBT for R = I as a function
of N with hp = 0 (SPSV) and various hp > 0 (SPAV). The dotted
line is 1/N 2 and the dashed line is 1/N.

Theorem 8 (APAV) Consider system (19) under Assumptions 1 and 2 with Hamiltonian (20). Then,

singular value scales quadratically. However, if
N ≥ 1/(4hp ).

(i) the equilibrium (9) of the autonomous system is asymptotically stable for hp ≥ h∆ and h∆ < 1, and

(18)

the second term in the square root in (15) becomes greater
than the first term and the scaling improves to linear.

(ii) the effect of disturbances is bounded as

These results are also verified numerically. The scaling of
the
 smallest singular value of the velocity coupling matrix
B + hp hBi RBT is shown in Fig. 2. It is clear that asymmetric coupling achieves scaling with rate 1/N, while symmetric coupling approaches zero faster, i. e., as 1/N 2 . Note
that the larger the asymmetry (greater hp ), the larger also
the smallest singular value. 2 Also note that for very small
asymmetry hp = 0.001, the scaling was quadratic for low N,
while it improved to linear for N > 250 as expected, (18).

H∆ (t) ≤ H∆ (0) +

Theorem 8 means that the upper bound on the effect of the
disturbance scales exponentially in the number of vehicles,
which is qualitatively much worse than the scaling for symmetry in position coupling. So breaking up the symmetry in
position significantly deteriorates the performance.
Remark 9 Theorem 8 above yields an upper bound. Although this does not mean that the system does not scale
better, the results in the literature confirm that at least for a
particular cases where hp = h∆ the H∞ norm of any transfer function in the formation scales exponentially with the
graph distance [12]. Similar results appeared in [11,24,25].
Remark 10 For the transition between APAV and SPAV (or
SPSV) consider h∆ to be very small and the number of vehicles sufficiently low. Then the scaling matrix E ≈ I, hence
also its smallest singular value is very close to one. Then
kd(·)k2
2
H∆ ≈ H, 2σ (E(B+
≈ 2σ (kd(·)k
and (21) beT
B̃p )RBT )
min
min (B+B̃p )RB )
comes (10). Thus, the scaling is similar to the scaling of
SPAV or SPSV, depending on the parameter hp . But for N
large enough, the scaling becomes exponential.

Asymmetric position coupling

In this section we allow that also the coupling in position is
asymmetric, hence h∆ ≥ 0. The discussion here is divided
in two parts based on the ratio of hp and h∆ .
4.1

Asymmetry in position less than in velocity, h∆ ≤ hp

4.2

In case h∆ < 1, the overall platoon can be modelled in the
port-Hamiltonian form

  

 ṗ(t)  − B+ B̃p RBT E −1
 = 

˙  
−BT E −1
∆(t)

Asymmetry in position greater than in velocity, h∆ > hp

It will be shown that even short strings of length N = 2
become unstable for particular combinations of hp and h∆ .
For simplicity, set R = A = M = I and δref = 0. Then, the
dynamics of vehicle i for i < N are given by



 
d(t)
 ∇H∆ +  .
0
(19)

1
−1 

1+h∆ (B+ B̃∆ )E 


0

(21)


 

and σmin E B + B̃p RBT for N sufficiently large approaches zero with rate 1/cN , with c > 1.

Remark 7 Lemma 4 together with Fig. 2 suggest that
σmin (B + B̃p )RBT increases with hp , leading to smaller
deviation bounds and faster convergence rates. Although
this is mathematically true, a practical implementation with
hp > 1 might be fragile as the coupling of the vehicle i with
vehicle i+1 gets a positive sign, causing a positive feedback.
While stability of the formation is guaranteed by the strong
coupling with vehicle i − 1, stability might be lost in case
of erroneous relative velocity measurements. In addition,
hp  1 also leads to high gains and potentially to actuator
saturation. Hence, setting hp ≤ 1 is a better solution.
4

kd(·)k22
 

,
2σmin E B + B̃p RBT

ẍi =(1 + hp )(vi−1 − vi ) + (1 − hp )(vi+1 − vi )
+ (1 + h∆ )(xi−1 − xi ) + (1 − h∆ )(xi+1 − xi ),

(22)

2

Time-domain plots and scaling of other important quantities are
illustrated in the Sec. 5. It confirms that in any of the quantities
SPAV achieves better results.

whereas the last vehicle is described by ẍN = (1 + hp )(vN−1 −
vN ) + (1 + h∆ )(xN−1 − xN ). Applying the Laplace transform to

5

X0

G1

X1

...

XN−2

G N−1

XN−1

GN

XN

Figure 3. String model using the transfer function description
Xi (s) = Gi (s)Xi−1 (s) with (23)-(24).

both equations above and denoting Xi (s) = L{xi (t)}, or just
Xi , leads to the following transfer function relations
(1+hp )s+(1+h∆ )
(1−hp )s+(1−h∆ )
Xi =
Xi−1 +
Xi+1 (23)
2
2
2s + 2 }
2s + 2 }
| s +{z
| s +{z
:=G−

XN =

(1 + hp )s + (1 + h∆ )
XN−1
s2 + (1 + hp )s + 1 + h∆
|
{z
}

Figure 4. Maximal stable string length N̄stab as a function of hp
and h∆ : N̄stab = 1 in red, N̄stab = 2 in orange, . . . , N̄stab = 10 in
purple, N̄stab > 10 in black

:=G+

(24)

:=G N

Then, by writing Xi (s) = Gi (s)Xi−1 (s), the transfer functions
Gi for i < N can be derived recursively using the relation
Gi = (1 − G+Gi+1 )−1G− such that the dynamics of the entire
string can be described as illustrated in Fig. 3. Then, it can
be shown that for specific choices of hp and h∆ , strings of
length N = 2 are unstable 3 :
Lemma 11 Strings of N ≥ 2 vehicles are unstable if h∆ ≥
2h4p +12h3p +25h2p +30hp +11
3h2p +6hp +7

or h∆ ≥

h3p +5h2p +8hp +10
hp −1

(a) SPSV

for hp > 1.

Figure 5. Plot of maximal value of H(t) for SPSV (a) and SPAV (b)
in logarithmic coordinates when the input is applied for different
times (T f ∈ [200, 10000]) and N = 25, . . . , 200. Dashed line is the
bound (10).

PROOF. The results in (23) and (24) and tedious calculations reveal that the denominator of G N−1 is given by
denN−1 = s4 + (3 + hp )s3 + (3 + h∆ + (1 + hp )2 )s2 + 2(1 +
hp )(1+h∆ )s+(1+h∆ )2 . Using the Hurwitz stability criterion,
it is evident that all roots of denN−1 have negative real parts
if and only if h∆ > −1, hp > −3, h∆ ≤

(b) SPAV

5

Examples and simulations

First, illustrative simulations confirming the quadratic and
linear growth are discussed. The simulation setup is the
√
following. The input signal is di (t) = pi (t)/ kpk2 T f for
t < T f and di (t) = 0 for t > T f . That is, the disturbance vector
is parallel to the momentum vector, which by (13) achieves
the fastest growth of the energy. The time T f is some given
duration of the signal. The L2 norm kd(·)k2 is then 1 for all
N. All the simulations were started with zero initial conditions, hence H(0) = 0 in (8). As follows from our theorems,
we are interested in the maximal value of the Hamiltonian
functions Hmax = maxt H(p(t), ∆(t)).

2h4p +12h3p +25h2p +30hp +11
3h2p +6hp +7

h3 +5h2 +8hp +10

and h∆ ≤ p hpp −1
in case hp > 1. Hence, if one or more
of those bounds are violated, then the second last transfer
function in the string is unstable, leading to an overall unstable string. Since only nonnegative hp and h∆ are considered
here, the bounds yield the result.

Similar bounds on h∆ can also be found for the stability of
the third last vehicle in the string using the same method as
in the proof of Lemma 11. Fig. 4 illustrates the maximal,
stable string length N̄stab for combinations of hp and h∆ . It
can be seen that longer strings remain stable for smaller
ratios h∆ /hp . Also, from Theorem 8 it follows that strings
of arbitrary lengths are stable if h∆ ≤ hp and h∆ < 1 (where
the border of this region is marked with a red, solid line).
Based on those observations, we formulate the following
conjecture.

First consider SPSV. Different durations of the input signal
in the range T f ∈ [200, 10000] were used. The plot of Hmax
is shown in Fig. 5a for SPSV. The solid lines correspond to
different T f . Note that, the longer the duration T f is chosen,
the lower the value for low N and the higher the maximal
value of H become. On the curve for each T f , consider the
point which is the closest to the bound. From the plot in
Fig. 5a it is apparent that this point scales quadratically with
N. It means that the quadratic growth was achieved. The
case with SPAV behaves similarly. The growth of the point,
where each curve gets closest to the bound, is linear. This is
illustrated in Fig. 5b. Thus, the results of Theorem 13 were
verified. Also note that, for a given N, maxt H(t) is much
smaller for case SPAV, than for SPSV. Although the bounds
are conservative, they capture the scaling qualitatively.

Conjecture 12 For every h∆ > hp there exists a maximal
string length N̄stab for which the system is stable and all
strings of length N > N̄stab are unstable.
3
Note that Gi = (1 − G+ Gi+1 )−1 G− is equivalent to a positive
feedback loop of BIBO stable subsystems, which is known to
potentially lead to closed-loop unstable systems.

6

(a) Momentum SPSV, SPAV

(b) Pos. error SPSV, SPAV

(a) Max. overshoot

(b) Max. cont. eff.

(c) Momentum APAV

(d) Pos. error APAV

(c) Conv. time

(d) Total error

Figure 6. Response of the platoon with N = 150 to the leader’s
step change in velocity. Black is SPSV, red is SPAV, blue is APAV.

5.1

Figure 7. Scaling of several quantities of interest as a response
to the unit step in leader’s velocity. Note that a) and b) are in
semilogarithmic coordinates, c) and d) in logarithmic coordinates.
In c) the dashed lines are 2N 2 (black), 5N (red) and 1.5N (blue).
In d) the dashed lines are 0.1N 3 (black), 0.2N 2 (red) and e0.17N
(blue).

Characteristics of the transient

As the test conditions, assume that all the initial states are
zero. At time zero, the leader starts to move with unit velocity, so x0 = t. This corresponds to an acceleration manoeuvre of the platoon. Further, it is assumed ri = 1, ai =
1, mi = 1, δref i−1,i = 0 ∀i, in SPAV hp = 0.5 ∀i and in APAV
hp = 0.5, h∆ = 0.2, ∀i.

Apparently, SPAV achieves the best scaling, that is,
quadratic, SPSV scales cubically and APAV scales
again exponentially with N.
We conclude that SPAV performs the best in all cases. The
only exception is the convergence time. It is true that APAV
achieved about 4 times faster transient, but at the price of
exponential scaling of any other quantity. We can see that
SPAV has similar convergence time as APAV while keeping
bounded control effort as SPSV.

When one looks at the time-domain plots in Fig. 6, it is apparent that SPAV has shorter convergence time and lower
overshoots than SPSV. When asymmetry in position is introduced (APAV), extremely high peaks occur. Despite the fact
that the leader moves with unit velocity, during the transient
the states of some vehicles reached up to the order of 106 .

6

Scaling of other quantities, such as maximal overshoot,
maximal control effort, convergence time and total error, is
shown in Fig 7, from which the following can be observed:

Summary and discussion

The results are summarised in the following theorem.
Theorem 13 The qualitative effect of the disturbance on the
energy in the system scales with the number of vehicles N as

• Maximal overshoot maxi,t ∆i (N, t) (Fig. 7a): Both SPSV
and SPAV are bounded for all N, while SPAV achieves
a lower bound. APAV scales exponentially.

• (SPSV): H(t) ≤ H(0) + kd(·)k22 c11 N 2 with (8).
• (SPAV): H(t) ≤ H(0) + kd(·)k22 c12 N with (8).

• Maximal control effort maxi,t Fi (t) (Fig. 7b): Both
SPAV and SPSV have the same value equal to one,
while APAV scales exponentially. The control effort
of SPSV and SPAV does not grow with N.

• (APAV): H∆ (t) ≤ H∆ (0) + kd(·)k22 c13 cN with (20).
This holds for hp ≥ h∆ and h∆ < 1.
where c1 > 0, c2 > 0, c3 > 0 and c > 1 are some constants
independent of N. For h∆ > hp we conjecture instability for
a sufficiently large string length N.

• Convergence time (Fig. 7c): It is apparent that SPAV
and APAV scale linearly, while SPSV scales quadratically with N. Thus, linear scaling of SPAV and
quadratic scaling of SPSV appears also in the convergence time.
PN R ∞ 2
• Total error E = i=1
∆i + (vi − v0 )2 dt. (Fig. 7d):
0

PROOF. The scaling of the SPSV and SPAV follows by the
use of (17) and (16), respectively, in (10). Scaling of APAV
directly follows from Theorem 8. The conjecture about in-

7

stability (Conjecture 12) is based on our results in Lemma
11 and numerical simulations.


6.3

We conjecture that claims similar to Theorem 13 can be
made for more realistic vehicle models and maybe also for
more general graph topologies.Also the scaling of the standard system norms, H2 and H∞ , is worth investigating.

Note that the bounds on H(t) and H∆ (t) above yield bounds
on the state vector at a given time t since the Hamiltonians
are positive definite functions. Hence, results on how H(t)
and H∆ (t) scale as the string length N grows, directly implies
how the norm of the state vectors scales with N.
6.1

A

Proof of Lemma 4



First, consider the symmetric case such that B + B̃p RBT =
BRBT . Let D = R1/2 . Then BRBT = (BD)(BD)T and
√
σmin (BD) ≥ rσmin (B) [4, Prop. 9.6.4]. Then the minimal
singular value (= minimal eigenvalue) can be bounded by

Discussion of Theorem 13

The results of Theorem 13 are illustrated in Fig. 1. The region denoted as A corresponds to the case with symmetric
coupling in position and asymmetric in velocity (SPAV). For
this, it was shown that the scaling is linear in N. When the
coupling becomes symmetric also in velocity (SPSV), i.e.,
point B, the scaling deteriorates to N 2 . In region C, where the
asymmetry in position is less than the asymmetry in velocity
(APAV), the scaling is exponential in the worst case (Theorem 8). We conjecture, based on numerical simulations, that
the same exponential scaling occurs also in the region D.
In the region E, there exist combinations of h∆ and hp for
which even trivial strings of length N = 2 are unstable. We
conjecture that for all h∆ > hp there exists a critical stable
string length beyond which the string becomes unstable.





λmin BRBT ≥ rλmin BBT ,

(A.1)

with BBT being a pinned Laplacian for an undirected path
graph. Its eigenvalues are given as [22, Prop. 3.3]
!
(2i − 1)π
(2i − 1)π
= 4 sin2
, i = 1, . . . , N.
2N + 1
4N + 2
(A.2)
The smallest eigenvalue λ1 is bounded using sin x ≥ 2x/π as
λi = 2 1 − cos

Scaling in some of the regions were known previously. For
instance, the case hp = h∆ = 1 corresponds to the predecessor following (PF) case, for which Seiler et al. in [24]
proved that the H∞ norm grows exponentially. Later, this
was generalised in [11, 25] to 0 ≤ hp = h∆ ≤ 1. However,
these popular choices are clearly outperformed by case A,
that is, choosing hp > 0 and h∆ = 0. This effect is also illustrated by several numerical simulations discussed above.
Therefore, we believe that the results presented in this paper
should lead to a new “standard”, that is, choosing hp > 0
and h∆ = 0.
6.2

Future directions

λ1 (BBT ) = 4 sin2

1
π
≥4
4N + 2
2N + 1

!2
≥

1 1
.
4 N2

(A.3)

Then we get the quadratic bound
λmin BRBT ≥ r

1 1
.
4 N2

(A.4)

To determine the decay of the smallest singular value for the
case hp > 0, denote L p = (B + hp hBi)RBT . Then

Difference between velocity and position coupling





σ2min (B + hp hBi)RBT = λmin L p T L p

Symmetric velocity coupling can be interpreted as virtual
dampers, whereas symmetric position couping can be seen
as virtual springs. The dampers are instances of generalised
resistances [14]. Hence, they only extract (“burn”) energy
from the system. When introducing asymmetric dampers,
only how the energy is extracted is changed. Allowing asymmetric position coupling has a different effect: Assuming
ideal springs, a force acting on one side of the spring is exactly the opposite of a force at the other side of the spring by
Newton’s third law (‘actio = reactio’). This fundamental law
is violated when introducing asymmetric position coupling:
Consider A = I, ∆i > 0 and h∆ > 0. Then, the force, which
is pulling the preceding vehicle backwards, is (1 − h∆ )∆i ,
while the force, which is pulling the following vehicle forward, is (1+h∆ )∆i . Combining them yields 2h∆ ∆i > 0. Thus,
asymmetric position coupling introduces additional forces,
and hence adds energy to the system.

(A.5)

The smallest eigenvalue of the matrix can be rewritten as


h
T 

λmin L p T L p =λmin BRBT BRBT + h2p BRhBiT hBiRBT
 

i
+ hp BR hBiT B + BT hBi RBT


≥r2 λmin Γ1 + hp Γ2 + h2p Γ3 .
(A.6)
 
 
with Γ1 = (BBT )T (BBT ), Γ2 = B hBiT B + BT hBi BT =
diag(2, 0, .., 0) and Γ3 = BhBiT hBiBT . Restructuring yields




λmin L p T L p ≥ r2 λmin Γ1 + h2p Ψ1 + h2p Ψ2 ,

8

(A.7)

where in the second step the submultiplicativity of the induced norm 
[4, eq. 9.3.4]
  was used. Hence, it suffices to
analyse σmin B + B̃p BT , which has the form

where

1 + 2
hp


0


 −1


Ψ1 =  0

 ..
 .

 0


0

0 −1 0
2
0
..
.
..
.

0 −1
2 0
.. ..
. .
−1 0

. . . 0 −1
... 0

0


0 . . . 0 

0 . . . 0 

. 
.
−1 . . .. 


.. ..
. . 0 


2 0 −1

0 1 0 

−1 0 1




 2
−(1−h
)
0
.
.
.
0
p




2
−(1−hp )
...
0 
−(1+hp )


..
..
..
..
..
 . (B.2)

.
.
.
.
.




 0
...
−(1+hp )
2
−(1−hp )


0
...
0
−(1+hp ) 1+hp

(A.8)

As its leading principal submatrix of size N −1, it has a finite
Toeplitz matrix, denoted as MN . The matrix MN has as its
symbol a(t) = −(1 − hp )t−1 + 2 − (1 + hp )t1 with t ∈ C, |t| = 1.
The symbol is not Fredholm, because it has a zero at t = 1.
The order α of the zero at t = 1 is either 1 for hp > 0 or
2 for hp = 0. The result [5, Thm. 9.8] specifies scaling of
singular values for Toeplitz matrices as



 1 −1
 in the bottom-right
and Ψ2 is a matrix of zeros with 

−1 1
corner. Using [4, Fact 5.12.2], λmin can be bounded by




λmin L p T L p ≥ r2 λmin Γ1 + h2p λmin (Ψ1 ) + h2p λmin (Ψ2 ) .
(A.9)
By (A.3), λmin (Γ1 ) = λmin (BBT )2 ≥ 1/(16N 4 ). The matrix
Ψ2 is positive semi-definite matrix, hence λmin (Ψ2 ) = 0.
It remains to investigate λmin (Ψ1 ). Note that Ψ1 is a
reducible matrix. Using the permutation matrix P =
[~e1 , ~e3 , . . . ~eN−1 , ~e2 , ~e4 , . . . ~eN ], leads to
λmin (Ψ1 ) = λmin






L1 0 
 ,
P Ψ1 P = λmin 
0 L2
−1

σi (MN ) = O (1/N α )

for any fixed i with σi ≤ σi+1 . That is, the singular values
go to zero with a rate at least given by the order ofthe zero
of the symbol. Since MN is a submartix of B + B̃p BT , use
the result [5, Thm. 9.7] on interlacing of the singular values
for submatrices. It follows that

 
σmin B + B̃p BT ≤ σ3 (MN ).
(B.4)

(A.10)

which is a block diagonal matrix with matrices defined
as L1 = B̄DB̄T ∈ RN/2×N/2 and L2 = B̄B̄T ∈ RN/2×N/2
with D = diag(1/hp , 1, . . . , 1) and B̄ has the same structure as B but half the size. It follows that λmin (Ψ1 ) =
min {λmin (L1 ), λmin (L2 )}. Let γ = min{1/hp , 1}. The eigenvalT
ues of individual matrices
are given as λmin (L1 ) ≥ γλmin
 B̄B̄

T
T
and λmin (L2 ) = λmin B̄B̄ . Hence, λmin (Ψ1 ) ≥ γλmin B̄B̄ .
Since B̄ has the size N/2 × N/2, from (A.3) we get
λmin (Ψ1 ) ≥ γ N 2 . Using this, (A.3), (A.9) and λmin (Ψ2 ) = 0
yields the final result (15).
B

α
From (B.3) follows that σ3 (MN ) = O (1/N
 hence
 ),
α
σ3 (MN ) ≤ c/N . Thus, by (B.4) σmin B + B̃p BT ≤ c2 /N

 

if hp > 0 and σmin B + B̃p BT ≤ c4 /N 2 if hp = 0.

C

Proof of Theorem 8

First note that the system model (19) is a skew-symmetric
1
form, since −(−BT E −1 )T = E −1 B is equal to 1+h
(B +
∆
−1
B̃∆ )E . Hence, it is a proper
port-Hamiltonian
form.
To


h∆
1
−1
.
It
can
see this, rewrite the latter as 1+h
B
+
hBi
E
1+h∆
∆

h∆
1−h∆
1
be easily verified that 1+h
B
+
hBi
= I − 1+h
Du ,
1+h∆
∆
∆
where Du has ones only at the first
upper-diagonal.
Also,


1−h∆
h∆
1
−1
= E −1 Du . This yields 1+h
B
+
hBi
E −1 =
1+h∆ Du E
1+h
∆
∆
1−h∆
−1
−1
−1
−1
(I − 1+h∆ Du )E = E − E Du = E B.

Proof of Lemma 5

The lower bound on the smallest singular value is given
by (15). For hp = 0, quadratic scaling is shown in (A.4).
When hp > 0, the approach with rate 1/N 4 is much faster
than the approach of h2p γ/N 2 , hence for N sufficiently large
√ 
σmin ((B + B̃p )RB) ≥ rhp γ N. To obtain the upper bound,
first note that






σmin B + B̃p RBT = min B + B̃p RBT x kxk2
x
2




T
kRk2 B + B̃p B x
B + B̃p BT x
2
≤ min
= σmax (R) min
x
x
kxk2
kxk2

 
T
= rσmin B + B̃p B ,
(B.1)

(B.3)

2

9

(i) Use H∆ in (20) as a Lyapunov function and set
d(t) = 0. With ṽ := M −1 (p − M1v0 ) such
 that ∇ p H∆ = E ṽ,
T
the time derivative is Ḣ∆ = −ṽ E B + B̃p RBT ṽ. This
quadratic form
to the quadratic form
−ṽT S ṽ
 is
 equivalent


with S = 12 E B + B̃p RBT + BR(B + B̃p )T E , S = S T .


Thus, −ṽT E B + B̃p RBT ṽ < 0 for all ṽ if and only
if S > 0. The sum si of the ith row of S is si =
(hp − h∆ ) ri (1 + h∆ ) − ri+1 (1 − h∆ ) (1 − h∆ )i−2 /(1 + h∆ )i


 

and the sums s1 = (1+h∆ +hp +h∆ hp )r1 −r2 (hp −h∆ ) / 1+h∆
and sN = rN ((hp − h∆ )(1 − h∆ )N−2 )/(1 + h∆ )N−1 . Recall that
by Assumption 2 ri ≥ ri+1 . Then if hp > h∆ and h∆ < 1,
all sums si are positive, so S > 0. Then, Ḣ∆ ≤ 0 and the
invariance principle completes the proof. For hp = h∆ < 1
see [25, Thm 2.3].

[8] H. Hao and P. Barooah. Control of large 1D networks of double
integrator agents: Role of heterogeneity and asymmetry on stability
margin. IEEE CDC, pages 7395–7400, 2010.
[9] H. Hao and P. Barooah. Stability and robustness of large platoons
of vehicles with double-integrator models and nearest neighbor
interaction. Intern. Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control,
23(8):2097–2122, 2012.

(ii) Consider d(t) , 0. The derivative of H∆ is Ḣ∆ =
T
T
−ṽT E(B + B̃p )RB
 ṽ + ṽ Ed. It can be bounded since
Ḣ∆ ≤ −σmin E B + B̃p RBT |ṽ|2 + ṽT Ed. Completing the
squares then leads to a similar form as in (14) such that
Ḣ∆ ≤

[10] H. Hao, H. Yin, and Z. Kan. On the robustness of large 1-D network
of double integrator agents. In ACC, pages 6059–6064, 2012.
[11] I. Herman, D. Martinec, Z. Hurák, and M. Sebek. Nonzero Bound on
Fiedler Eigenvalue Causes Exponential Growth of H-Infinity Norm
of Vehicular Platoon. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 60(8):2248–2253,
2015.

|Ed|2
|d|2
  2 
≤
  2

.
2σmin E B + B̃p RBT
2σmin E B + B̃p RBT
(C.1)

[12] I. Herman, D. Martinec, Z. Hurák, and M. Sebek. Scaling in
bidirectional platoons with dynamic controllers and proportional
asymmetry. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, pages 1–7, 2016.

In the last step we used the fact that σmax (E) = 1. The result
(21) follows from integrating both sides with respect to time.


The smallest singular value of E B + B̃p RBT can be upper
bounded as [4, Prop. 9.6.6]




 

σmin E B+ B̃p RBT ≤ σmin (E)σmax B+ B̃p RBT .
(C.2)




[13] I. Herman, D. Martinec, and J.J.P. Veerman. Transients of platoons
with asymmetric and different Laplacians. Systems & Control Letters,
91:28–35, 2016.
[14] D. Jeltsema and J. Scherpen. Multidomain modeling of nonlinear
networks and systems. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 29(4):28–
59, 2009.
[15] H.K. Khalil. Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall, third edition, 2001.
[16] S. Knorn and A. Ahlén. Deviation bounds in multi agent systems
described by undirected graphs. Automatica, 67:205–210, 2016.



By Gershgorin Theorem, σmax B + B̃p RBT ≤ r̄σmax ((B+
N−1

∆
. Then,
B̃p )BT ) ≤ 4r̄. Also, σmin (E) = 1−h
1+h∆
!N−1
 


1
1 − h∆
4r̄ ∝ N .
σmin E B + B̃p RBT ≤
1 + h∆
c

[17] S. Knorn, A. Donaire, J.C. Agüero, and R.H. Middleton. Passivitybased control for multi-vehicle systems subject to string constraints.
Automatica, 50(12):3224–3230, 2014.

(C.3)

[18] S. Knorn, A. Donaire, J.C. Agüero, and R.H. Middleton. Scalability
of bidirectional vehicle strings with static and dynamic measurement
errors. Automatica, 62:208–212, 2015.

 


> 1. Thus, σmin E B + B̃p RBT goes to

[19] Z. Li, Z. Duan, and G. Chen. On Hinf and H2 performance regions
of multi-agent systems. Automatica, 47(4):797–803, 2011.



[20] D. Martinec, I. Herman, and M. Sebek. On the necessity of symmetric
positional coupling for string stability. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
pages 1–10, 2016.

[1] A. Alam, J. Mårtensson, and K.H. Johansson. Experimental
evaluation of decentralized cooperative cruise control for heavy-duty
vehicle platooning. Control Engineering Practice, 38:11–25, 2015.

[21] R.H. Middleton and J.H. Braslavsky.
String Instability in
Classes of Linear Time Invariant Formation Control With Limited
Communication Range. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 55(7):1519–
1530, 2010.

with c =

1+h∆
1−h∆

zero exponentially fast.
References

[2] P. Barooah and J.P. Hespanha. Error Amplification and Disturbance
Propagation in Vehicle Strings with Decentralized Linear Control.
In 44th IEEE CDC, pages 4964–4969, 2005.

[22] G. Parlangeli and G. Notarstefano. On the Reachability and
Observability of Path and Cycle Graphs. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
57(3):743–748, 2012.

[3] P. Barooah, P.G. Mehta, and J.P. Hespanha. Mistuning-Based Control
Design to Improve Closed-Loop Stability Margin of Vehicular
Platoons. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 54(9):2100–2113, 2009.

[23] J. Ploeg, N. van de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer. Lp String Stability
of Cascaded Systems: Application to Vehicle Platooning. IEEE
Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 22(2):786–793, 2014.

[4] D.S. Bernstein. Matrix Mathematics. Princeton University Press,
2009.

[24] P. Seiler, A. Pant, and K. Hedrick. Disturbance propagation in vehicle
strings. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 49(10):1835–1841, 2004.

[5] A. Böttcher and S.M. Grudsky. Spectral Properties of Banded Toeplitz
Matrices. SIAM, 2005.

[25] F.M. Tangerman, J.J.P. Veerman, and B.D. Stosic. Asymmetric
decentralized flocks. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 57(11):2844–2853,
2012.

[6] C.E. Cantos and J.J.P. Veerman. Transients in the Synchronization
of Oscillator Arrays. Arxiv preprint, arXiv:1308:1–11, 2014.

[26] J.J.P. Veerman, B.D. Stosic, and A. Olvera. Spatial instabilities
and size limitations of flocks. Networks and Heterogeneous Media,
2(4):2007, 2007.

[7] J.A. Fax and R.M. Murray. Information Flow and Cooperative
Control of Vehicle Formations. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control,
49(9):1465–1476, 2004.

10

