Bilateral Boundary Control of One-Dimensional First- and
Second-Order PDEs using Infinite-Dimensional Backstepping

arXiv:1603.04913v1 [math.OC] 15 Mar 2016

Rafael Vazquez and Miroslav Krstic
Abstract— This paper develops an extension of infinitedimensional backstepping method for parabolic and hyperbolic
systems in one spatial dimension with two actuators. Typically,
PDE backstepping is applied in 1-D domains with an actuator at
one end. Here, we consider the use of two actuators, one at each
end of the domain, which we refer to as bilateral control (as
opposed to unilateral control). Bilateral control laws are derived
for linear reaction-diffusion, wave and 2 × 2 hyperbolic 1-D
systems (with same speed of transport in both directions). The
extension is nontrivial but straightforward if the backstepping
transformation is adequately posed. The resulting bilateral
controllers are compared with their unilateral counterparts in
the reaction-diffusion case for constant coefficients, by making
use of explicit solutions, showing a reduction in control effort as
a tradeoff for the presence of two actuators when the system
coefficients are large. These results open the door for more
sophisticated designs such as bilateral sensor/actuator output
feedback and fault-tolerant designs.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The backstepping method has proved itself to be an
ubiquitous method for PDE control. First developed to design
feedback control laws and observers for one-dimensional
reaction-diffusion PDEs [9], it has since been applied to
many other systems including, among others, flow control [15], [20], thermal loops [17], nonlinear PDEs [16],
hyperbolic 1-D systems [3], [6], [11], multi-agent deployment [12], wave equations [13], and delays [10]. Some of the
more striking features of backstepping include the possibility
of finding explicit control laws in some cases (see e.g. [18])
or even designing adaptive controllers [14].
Backstepping has been typically applied to PDEs formulated in 1-D domains, with actuation at one end of
the domain. This paper develops backstepping for the case
when two actuators are available, one at each end of the
domain. We refer to this situation as bilateral control—as
opposed to the single actuator case, denoted as unilateral
control. The bilateral case is a nontrivial extension of the
method that needs a specific formulation of the backstepping
transformation to be able to solve the stabilization problem.
More concretely, whereas the backstepping transformation
in the unilateral case is formulated as an integral starting
at the non-actuated end, in the bilateral case the integral
starts at the middle of the domain. Based in this simple
idea it is straightforward to extend the unilateral results
and even obtain explicit results for the constant coefficient
case. Explicit solutions allow to easily compare the resulting
bilateral controllers. We compare unilateral and bilateral
R. Vazquez is with the Department of Aerospace Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, Camino de los Descubrimiento s.n., 41092 Sevilla, Spain.
M. Krstic is with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0411, USA.

controllers for the reaction-diffusion equation, and show that,
when the system coefficients are large, there is a considerable
reduction in control effort as a tradeoff for the presence of
two actuators.
The focus of this paper is on design, stabilization, and
finding explicit controllers when available. Closed-loop wellposedness is assumed, in the most basic Sobolev space
appropriate for each type of PDE. Due to the linearity of the
equations and the good properties of backstepping a detailed
well-posedness analysis would be rather straightforward but
lengthy and dependent on the type of the equation. We only
study the well-posedness of the kernel equations which is
critical towards finding the control laws.
The results of this paper were originally inspired by [19],
where the problem of stabilization of reaction-diffusion equations in balls of arbitrary dimension is addressed. Since a ball
in dimension 1 is actually an interval, and the boundaries are
the two ends; then, applying the formulas of [19] one obtains
the results that will be shown in Section V. In this paper the
authors explore similar results for other types of equations.
This paper presents bilateral control laws for linear
reaction-diffusion, wave and 2 × 2 hyperbolic 1-D systems.
For 2×2 hyperbolic 1-D systems, only the case of both states
having the same speed of transport is considered. The reason
to only consider this particular case is that the analysis of
the resulting kernel equations is straightforward. It is also
the case used in the paper to build the control design for the
wave equation. Finally, it allows to derive explicit solutions
in the constant-coefficient case. The case of different speeds
of transport can also be addressed, however while writing
this paper the authors learnt of a new paper [1] that already
solves this more general and challenging problem.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we
solve the bilateral control problem for a reaction-diffusion
equation. In Section III we continue with a bilateral design
for 2 × 2 hyperbolic 1-D systems with the same speed of
transport. This design is then adapted for wave equations in
Section IV. Explicit controllers for all cases are presented in
Section V. We then compare bilateral and unilateral results in
Section VI. We finish in Section VII with some concluding
remarks.

II. R EACTION -D IFFUSION PDE S
Consider the reaction-diffusion equation
ut

= uxx + λ(x)u,

(1)

for t > 0, in the domain1 x ∈ [−L/2, L/2], with  > 0,
λ(x) a differentiable function, and with boundary conditions
u(t, L)
u(t, −L)

= U1 (t),
= U2 (t),

(2)
(3)

where U1 and U2 are actuator variables. For sufficiently large
λ(x) > 0, (1)–(3) is open-loop unstable.
To design feedback control laws for U1 and U2 , consider
a transformation defined as
Z x
K(x, ξ)u(t, ξ)dξ,
(4)
w(t, x) = u(t, x) −
−x

with w(t, x) (the target variable) verifying the following
system (target system):
wt =
w(t, L) =

wxx ,
w(t, −L) = 0.

(5)
(6)

Working out the kernel equations as in the unilateral case
(see e.g. [9]), one finds
Kxx (x, ξ) − Kξξ (x, ξ)

=

K(x, x)

=

K(x, −x)

=

λ(ξ)K(x, ξ),
Z x
λ(ξ)
−
dξ,
2
0
0

(7)
(8)
(9)

in the hourglass-shaped domain T = {(x, ξ) : x ∈
[−L, L], ξ ∈ [−|x|, |x|}, represented in Fig. 1. It is possible
to separate the domain into two: T = T1 ∪ T2 , where
T1 = {(x, ξ) : x ∈ [0, L], −x ≤ ξ ≤ x} and T2 = {(x, ξ) :
x ∈ [−L, 0], x ≤ ξ ≤ −x}, as shown in Fig. 1. It is clear
that the interior of these domains is disjoint and it follows
that the kernel equations can be solved separately in each
of the domains. In addition, it is easy to see that if the
equations are well-posed in the domain T1 they must be in T2
by a symmetry argument (switching variables from (x, ξ) to
ˆ = (−x, ξ) maps the domain T2 into T1 and leaves the
(x̂, ξ)
structure of the equations unchanged, except for some sign
switch). Once the kernel equations are solved, the control

laws are given by the values of the kernel at both ends of
the domain T as follows
Z L
U1 =
K(L, ξ)u(ξ)dξ,
(10)
−L

U2

−

=

(11)

A. An equivalent problem
The problem of stabilization of systems of reactiondiffusion equations with the same diffusion coefficients was
addressed in [2]. Now we show the relationship between that
result and the bilateral control problem for reaction-diffusion
equations. The first step is to “fold” the state u into a 2 × 2
system (u1 , u2 ), defining

u1 (t, x),
x ≥ 0,
u(t, x) =
,
(15)
u2 (t, −x), x ≤ 0,


so that

1 In PDE backstepping the domain is typically written as x ∈ [0, L].
However for the bilateral formulation it is somewhat convenient to fix the
origin at the middle point of the domain.

K(−L, ξ)u(ξ)dξ.
−L

in the domain T1 which is now expressed as T1 =
{(α, β) : α > 0, β > 0, α + β ≤ 2L}.
The problem in this form is known as Goursat’s problem [4], which interestingly appears in the theory of nonlinear wave propagation [8]. It is known that if λ is at least
differentiable then there is a unique C 1 (T1 ) solution [7]. This
can also be shown directly by transforming (12)-(14) into an
integral equation and then applying the method of successive
approximations, as in [9].

λ(x) =

The domain T and subdomains T1 , T2 .

L

Then, and assuming the backstepping transformation is invertible, the state u(t, x) “inherits” the stability properties
of the target state w(t, x), whose origin, in view of its
defining PDE (5)–(6), is clearly exponentially stable. Now,
since inverting the backstepping transformation amounts to
solving a Volterra integral equation of the second kind, then
inversion is always possible under very mild conditions [5]
(for instance if the kernel is at least bounded, which it is in
our case).
Thus, the problem of designing an stabilizing control
law is reduced to solving (7)–(9) so that (10)–(11) can be
implemented and showing it is at least bounded. We first
address the question of existence and uniqueness in the
domain T1 . Consider the new variables α = x + ξ and
β = x − ξ and the kernel K = G(α, β) a function of the
new variables. Written in terms of (α, β), (7)–(9) become


λ α−β
2
Gαβ (α, β) =
G(α, β),
(12)
4
Z α2
λ(ξ)
G(α, 0) = −
dξ,
(13)
2
0
G(0, β) = 0
(14)

and

Fig. 1.

Z

u1t =
u2t =
u1 (t, L) =
u1 (t, 0) =

λ1 (x),
λ2 (−x),

x ≥ 0,
,
x ≤ 0,

u1xx + λ1 (x)u1
u2xx + λ2 (x)u2 ,
U1 (t), u2 (t, L) = U2 (t),
u2 (t, 0), u2x (t, 0) = −u1x (t, 0),

(16)

(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)

and the transformation as
Z

w1 (x)

w2 (x)

=

=

x

u1 (x) −
K11 (x, ξ)u1 (ξ)dξ
0
Z x
−
K12 (x, ξ)u2 (ξ)dξ,
0
Z x
u2 (x) −
K21 (x, ξ)u1 (ξ)dξ
0
Z x
−
K22 (x, ξ)u2 (ξ)dξ.

(21)

(22)

0

The resulting kernels would be the four “pieces” of the kernel
K in the transformation (4):

K11 (x, ξ),
x ≥ 0, 0 ≤ ξ ≤ x,



K12 (x, −ξ),
x ≥ 0, 0 ≥ ξ ≥ −x,
K(x, ξ) =
(23)
K21 (−x, ξ),
x ≤ 0, 0 ≤ ξ ≤ −x,



K22 (−x, −ξ), x ≤ 0, 0 ≥ ξ ≥ x.
Therefore the methods of [2]—with some modifications to
account for boundary conditions (20)—can potentially be
applied to solve reaction-diffusion bilateral control problems.
III. O NE - DIMENSIONAL 2 × 2 HYPERBOLIC LINEAR
PDE S WITH SAME TRANSPORT SPEEDS
Consider the following system
ut
vt

= −ux + c1 (x)u + c2 (x)v,
= vx + c3 (x)u + c4 (x)v,

(24)
(25)

evolving in x ∈ [−L, L], and assume that  > 0 and the
coefficients ci (x) are differentiable. The boundary conditions
are:
u(t, −L)

= U1 (t),

v(t, L) = U2 (t),

(26)

and we need to find U1 (t) and U2 (t) to stabilize the system.
As in Section II the approach to design U1 (t) and U2 (t)
is to seek a mapping that transforms (24)–(25) into a target
system with adequate properties, in this case
αt
βt

= −αx + c1 (x)α,
= βx + c4 (x)β,

(27)
(28)

Introducing (30)–(31) into (27)–(28), one obtains the equations that the kernels must satisfy. Defining
 uu

K (x, ξ) K uv (x, ξ)
K(x, ξ) =
, Σ = I, (32)
K vu (x, ξ) K vv (x, ξ)


c1 (x) c2 (x)
C(x) =
(33)
c3 (x) c4 (x)


c1 (x)
0
D(x) =
(34)
0
c4 (x)




u(t, x)
α(t, x)
w(t, x) =
, γ(t, x) =
. (35)
v(t, x)
β(t, x)
Then the original plant, target system and transformation can
be written compactly as
wt

=

w(t, −L)

=

γt =
γ(t, −L) =
γ(t, x)

= β(t, L) = 0,

−x

0 = ΣKx + Kξ Σ − KC(ξ) + D(x)K,
(41)
0 = C(x) − D(x) + ΣK(x, x) − K(x, x)Σ, (42)
0 = ΣK(x, −x) − K(x, −x)Σ.
(43)
Expanding these terms we get two uncoupled 2 × 2 systems
of hyperbolic 1-D equations.
First, for K uu and K uv :
c1 (ξ) − c1 (x) uu c3 (ξ) uv
K +
K , (44)


c4 (ξ) − c1 (x) uv c2 (ξ) uu
K +
K , (45)
Kxuv − Kξuv =


with boundary conditions
Kxuu + Kξuu

(29)

whose origin is exponentially stable (in fact it converges to
zero in finite time), and then U1 (t), U2 (t) will be chosen to
realize the transformation.
A. Backstepping transformation and kernel equations
To transform the original system (24)–(25) into the target
system (27)–(28), we look for a mapping defined as follows:
Z x
α(t, x) = u(t, x) −
K uu (x, ξ)u(t, ξ)dξ
−x
Z x
−
K uv (x, ξ)v(t, ξ)dξ,
(30)
−x
Z x
β(t, x) = v(t, x) −
K vu (x, ξ)u(t, ξ)dξ
−x
Z x
−
K vv (x, ξ)v(t, ξ)dξ.
(31)
−x

=

Introducing the transformation into the target system we find
a set of three matrix equations:

with boundary conditions
α(t, −L)

Σwx + C(x)w,
(36)




U1 (t)
0
,(37)
, w(t, L) =
0
U2 (t)
Σγx + D(x)γ,
(38)
γ(t, L) = 0
(39)
Z x
w(t, x) −
K(x, ξ)w(t, ξ)dξ.
(40)

=

K uu (x, −x)

=

0,

(46)

K uv (x, x)

=

c2 (x)
−
.
2

(47)

Second, for K vu and K vv :
c4 (x) − c4 (ξ) vu c2 (ξ) vu
K −
K , (48)


c4 (x) − c1 (ξ) vv c3 (ξ) vv
Kxvu − Kξvu =
K −
K , (49)


with boundary conditions
Kxvv + Kξvv

=

K vv (x, −x)

=

0,
(50)
c
(x)
3
K vu (x, x) =
,
(51)
2
Both systems of equations evolve separately in the domain
T , shown in Figure 1. Since they are structurally equivalent,
it suffices to analyze one of them, for instance (44)–(47), and
as in Section II it is enough to consider just the subdomain
T1 . It is easy to see that the problem has a solution because
the boundaries are characteristic (see fig. 2).

with F0uu = 0,

K uv (x, x)

⇠
x

F0uv

=

Fiuu

=

Fiuv

=

c2 (2y)
−
,
(59)
2


Z y
c1 s−z
− c1 s+z
uu
2
2
Fi−1
(s, z)ds
2
0

Z y
c3 s−z
uv
2
+
Fi−1
(s, z)ds,
(60)
2
0


Z z
c4 y−s
− c1 y+s
uv
2
2
Fi−1
(y, s)ds
2
0

Z z
c2 y−s
uu
2
Fi−1
+
(y, s)ds.
(61)
2
0

1
Calling λ =
maxx∈[−L,L] {c1 (x), c2 (x), c3 (x), c4 (x)},
2
let us show that the very simple bounds

K uu (x, x)

Fig. 2. Characteristic lines for the kernel equations. Red: characteristic
lines for K uv . Green: characteristic lines for K uu .

Define y = x + ξ ≥ 0 and z = x − ξ ≥ 0, and K(x, ξ) =
G(y, z). Then the kernel equations become


− c1 y+z
c1 y−z
uu
2
2
Guu
Gy
=
2

c3 y−z
2
+
Guv
(52)
2 

y−z
y+z
c4 2 − c1 2
Guv
=
Guv
z
2

c2 y−z
2
+
Guu ,
(53)
2

|Fiuu (y, z)|, |Fiuv (y, z)| ≤ 4i λi+1

and similarly for Fiuv , thus proving the bound. Therefore,
|Guv (y, z)|

≤
≤

uv

G (y, 0)

=

0

(54)

=

c2 (2y)
−
.
2

(55)

The equations are easily converted into integral equations,
namely


Z y
c1 s−z
− c1 s+z
uu
2
2
G
=
Guu (s, z)ds
2
0

Z y
c3 s−z
2
+
Guv (s, z)ds,
(56)
2
0


Z z
c4 y−s
− c1 y+s
2
2
Guv =
Guv (y, s)ds
2
0

Z z
c2 y−s
c2 (2y)
2
−
+
Guu (y, s)ds. (57)
2
2
0
uu

Using a successive approximation series to compute G
Guv , we get
uv

G (y, z) =

∞
X
0

Fiuv (y, z),

uu

G (y, z) =

∞
X
0

and

(62)

works. Obviously it does for i = 0. Now assuming it is
correct for i − 1, we obtain, for instance for Fiuu ,
Z y

uu
uu
uv
|Fi (y, z)| ≤ 2λ
|Fi−1
(s, z)| + |Fi−1
(s, z)| ds
0
Z y
4i λi+1
(s + z)ds
≤
(i − 1)! 0
(y + z)i
,
(63)
≤ 4i λi+1
i!

with boundary conditions
Guu (0, z)

(y + z)i
i!

∞
X
0
∞
X

|Fiuv (y, z)|
4i λi+1

0

(y + z)i
i!

= λe4λ(y+z) ,

(64)

and similarly for Guu . Therefore, extending the proof to T2 ,
|K uv (x, ξ)| ≤ λe8λ|x| ,

(65)

and the same bound for K uu , K vv , and K vu applies.
The resulting feedback laws are:
Z L
U1 (t) =
K uu (−L, ξ)u(t, ξ)dξ
−L

Z

L

K uv (−L, ξ)v(t, ξ)dξ,

+
Z
U2 (t)

(66)

−L
L

K vu (L, ξ)u(t, ξ)dξ

=
−L

Z

L

+

K vv (L, ξ)v(t, ξ)dξ,

(67)

−L

IV. WAVE EQUATION
Fiuu (y, z),
(58)

Consider the following hyperbolic PDE
utt − uxx = 2λ(x)ut + α(x)ux + β(x)u,

(68)

in the domain x ∈ [−L, L], which represents a wave equation
with (potentially) in-domain anti-damping [13], with boundary conditions
u(t, −L) = U1 (t),

u(t, L) = U2 (t).

(69)

The idea pursued in this paper to stabilize the wave
equation is to identify this equation with a hyperbolic 2 × 2
system. We consider the case2 in which β(x) = 0.
Define w = ux + ut and v = ux − ut . Notice that v + w =
2ux and w − v = 2ut . Then
α(x)
wt − wx = λ(x)(w − v) +
(w + v), (70)
2
α(x)
vt + vx = λ(x)(v − w) −
(w + v). (71)
2
To find the boundary conditions, we notice
w(−1) = ux (t, −1) + U̇1 = V1 ,
v(1) = ux (t, 1) − U̇2 = V2 ,

(72)
(73)

where V1 and V2 have been artificially introduced. Since
(70)–(73), with the coefficients ci (x) found as combinations
of α and λ, one can find the values of V1 and V2 by applying
the design of Section III. Then, the values of U1 and U2 are
found from solving the differential equation
U̇1
U̇2

=
=

V1 − ux (t, −1)
−V2 + ux (t, 1)

(74)
(75)

with initial conditions for U1 and U2 consistent with, respectively, u(t, −1) and u(t, 1).
V. E XPLICIT CONTROL LAWS
In this section we provide explicit formulae for the control
problems posed in this paper, in the constant coefficient
case. These expressions are subsequently used to compare
unilateral and bilateral control laws.
A. Reaction-Diffusion Equation
In the case of constant λ, the kernel equations (7)–(9) are
λ
K(x, ξ),
(76)
Kxx (x, ξ) − Kξξ (x, ξ) =

λ
K(x, x) = − x,
(77)
2
K(x, −x) = 0.
(78)
Using the techniques of [19] we find a explicit solution as
"r
#s
r
1 λ
λ 2
x+ξ
K(x, ξ) = −sgn(x)
I1
(x − ξ 2 )
.
2 

x−ξ
(79)
Thus, the following control laws stabilize the system:
"r
#
r Z s
1 λ L L+ξ
λ 2
2
U1 = −
I1
(L − ξ ) u(t, ξ)dξ, (80)
2  −L L − ξ

#
"r
r Z s
1 λ L L−ξ
λ 2
U2 = −
I1
(L − ξ 2 ) u(t, ξ)dξ. (81)
2  −L L + ξ

2 If β(x) 6= 0 then, depending on the values of α, β, λ a scaling
transformation [13] may exist that transforms the system into another with
β(x) = 0. If not, then using an alternate definition for the states w and v
the problem can still be solved. We leave the details outfor lack of space.

B. One-dimensional 2×2 hyperbolic linear PDEs with same
transport speeds
In the case of constant
 coefficients, andscaling the kernels
(c4 − c1 )(x − ξ)
by the function exp
, it is possible to
2
reduce (44)–(51) to (76)–(78), with λ = c2 c3 . We leave the
details out for lack of space. The reached solution is


(c4 − c1 )(x − ξ)
uu
K
F (x, ξ),
(82)
= exp
2


(c4 − c1 )(x − ξ)
K vv = exp
F (x, ξ),
(83)
2


c2
(c4 − c1 )(x − ξ)
K uv =
exp
H(x, ξ), (84)
2
2


c3
(c4 − c1 )(x − ξ)
vu
K
= − exp
H(x, ξ), (85)
2
2
where
√

c2 c3
F = −sgn(x)
2
"p
H = −sgn(x)I0

s

x+ξ
I1
x−ξ

"p

#
c2 c3 (x2 − ξ 2 )
, (86)

#

c2 c3 (x2 − ξ 2 )
.


(87)

The control laws are then
#
"p
Z L(
c2 c3 (L2 − ξ 2 )
c2
U1 =
I0
v(t, ξ)
2

−L
s
"p
#
)
√
c2 c3 L − ξ
c2 c3 (L2 − ξ 2 )
I1
u(t, ξ)
+
2
L+ξ



(c4 − c1 )(L − ξ)
× exp
dξ,
(88)
2
"
#
(
p
Z L
c2 c3 (L2 − ξ 2 )
c3
I0
u(t, ξ)
U2 =
2

−L
s
"p
#
)
√
c2 c3 L + ξ
c2 c3 (L2 − ξ 2 )
−
I1
v(t, ξ)
2
L−ξ



(c4 − c1 )(L − ξ)
× exp
dξ.
(89)
2
VI. C OMPARISON BETWEEN UNILATERAL AND
BILATERAL FEEDBACK LAWS

Unilateral and bilateral feedback laws can be compared by
setting one of the controllers to zero (for instance U1 = 0)
and using the single-sided control design. We concentrate
on constant-coefficient cases because the explicit laws are
available and simplify the comparison and only consider
reaction-diffusion equations. The results are similar for the
other equations and they will be more thoroughly studied in
a future journal publication.
For reaction-diffusion equations, the control law is [9]
"r
#
λ
2
2
(4L − (ξ + L) )
Z L r I1

λ
p
U2 =
−
ξ
u(t, ξ)dξ.

4L2 − (ξ + L)2
−L
(90)

where it has been taken into account that the lenght of the
domain is 2L. To compare (90) and (80)–(81), one can use
the L1 norm of the kernels. Call J1 and J2 the L1 norm of
the unilateral and bilateral kernels, respectively. Notice that
the L1 norm of the kernel in (80), changing ξ to L − ξ, is
the same as the kernel in (81). Then, one has
"r
#
λ
(4L2 − (ξ + L)2 )
r Z L I1

λ
p
J1 =
ξ
dξ, (91)
 −L
4L2 − (ξ + L)2
"r
#
r Z Ls
λ
L+ξ
λ 2
2
J2 =
I1
(L − ξ ) dξ, (92)
 −L L − ξ

q
which, writing δ = L λ , can be expressed as
h p
i
Z 1 I1 δ 4 − (ξ + 1)2
J1 = δ
ξ p
dξ,
(93)
4 − (ξ + 1)2
−1
Z 1s
i
1+ξ h p
J2 = δ
I1 δ 1 − ξ 2 dξ,
(94)
1−ξ
−1
which is exclusively a function of δ. In Fig. 3 J1 and J2
are represented for different values of δ. It can be seen that
for smaller values of δ (in concrete, δ < 2), the unilateral
kernel is smaller, however for larger values of δ (δ > 2), the
bilateral kernel grows more slowly.
106

∞.¥1

103
100
10-3
10-6
0

2

4

6

8

10

d
Unilateral Kernel

Bilateral Kernel

1
Fig. 3. Plot of unilateral and
q bilateral L norm of reaction-diffusion control
kernels for varying δ = L λ .

Besides a comparison in terms of magnitude, it is clear that
a bilateral design can be made fault-tolerant, in the sense that
it can withstand the loss of one of the actuators. Once the
failure is detected, it is sufficient to switch to a unilateral
control law with the remaining controller. Detecting the
failure would require the use of an additional observer, which
would require at least one measurement sensor. Fault-tolerant
designs will be explored in future works.
VII. C ONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper presents bilateral control laws for linear
reaction-diffusion, wave and 2 × 2 hyperbolic 1-D systems.
For 2 × 2 hyperbolic 1-D systems, only the case of both
states having the same speed of transport is considered. The

control design for the wave equation is built upon the design
for hyperbolic systems. The unilateral and bilateral control
laws are compared for reaction-diffusion equations, showing
that the bilateral control law requires less total effort (despite
using two actuators) when the system coefficients are large.
These results open the door for more sophisticated designs
such as bilateral sensor/actuator output feedback and faulttolerant designs that will be explored in future publications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Rafael Vazquez acknowledges financial support of the
Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad under
grant MTM2015-65608-P.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Auriol and F. Di Meglio, “Two sided boundary stabilization of two linear hyperbolic PDEs in minimum time,” Preprint,
2016. Available online at https://hal-mines-paristech.
archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01286860.
[2] A. Baccoli, A. Pisano, Y. Orlov, “Boundary control of coupled
reaction-diffusion processes with constant parameters,” Automatica,
vol. 54, pp. 80–90, 2015.
[3] J.-M. Coron, R. Vazquez, M. Krstic, and G. Bastin, “Local Exponential
H 2 Stabilization of a 2 × 2 Quasilinear Hyperbolic System using
Backstepping,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 51, pp. 2005–2035, 2013.
[4] J.T. Day, “A Runge-Kutta method for the numerical solution of the
Goursat problem in hyperbolic partial differential equations,” The
Computer Journal, vol. 9(1), pp. 81–83, 1966.
[5] G.C. Evans, “Volterra’s integral equation of the second kind, with
discontinuous kernel,” Transactions of the American Mathematical
Society, vol. 12, pp. 429–472, 1911.
[6] F. Di Meglio, R. Vazquez, and M. Krstic, “Stabilization of a system of
n+1 coupled first-order hyperbolic linear PDEs with a single boundary
input,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, PP, 2013.
[7] R.P. Holten, “Generalized Goursat problem,” Pacific Journal of Mathematics, vol. 12, pp. 207–224, 1962.
[8] A. Jeffrey and T. Taniuti, Nonlinear Wave Propagation, Academic
Press, New York, 1964.
[9] M. Krstic and A. Smyshlyaev, Boundary Control of PDEs, SIAM,
2008
[10] M. Krstic, Delay Compensation for nonlinear, Adaptive, and PDE
Systems, Birkhauser, 2009.
[11] M. Krstic and A. Smyshlyaev, “Backstepping boundary control for
first order hyperbolic PDEs and application to systems with actuator
and sensor delays,” Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 57, pp. 750–758, 2008.
[12] J. Qi, R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, “Multi-Agent Deployment in 3-D
via PDE Control,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, in Press,
2015.
[13] A. Smyshlyaev, E. Cerpa, and M. Krstic, “Boundary stabilization of
a 1-D wave equation with in-domain antidamping,” SIAM J. Control
Optim., vol. 48, pp. 4014–4031, 2010.
[14] A. Smyshlyaev and M. Krstic, Adaptive Control of Parabolic PDEs,
Princeton University Press, 2010.
[15] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, Control of Turbulent and Magnetohydrodynamic Channel Flow. Birkhauser, 2008.
[16] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, “Control of 1-D parabolic PDEs with
Volterra nonlinearities — Part I: Design,” Automatica, vol. 44, pp.
2778–2790, 2008.
[17] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, “Boundary observer for output-feedback
stabilization of thermal convection loop,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol.18, pp. 789–797, 2010.
[18] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic. Marcum Q-functions and explicit kernels
for stabilization of linear hyperbolic systems with constant coefficients.
Systems & Control Letters , 68:33–42, 2014
[19] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic, “Boundary Control of Reaction-Diffusion
PDEs on Balls in Spaces of Arbitrary Dimensions,” Preprint, 2015.
Available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.06641.
[20] R. Vazquez, E. Trelat and J.-M. Coron, “Control for fast and stable laminar-to-high-Reynolds-numbers transfer in a 2D navier-Stokes
channel flow,” Disc. Cont. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B, vol. 10, pp. 925–956,
2008.

