2-DOF BLOCK POLE PLACEMENT CONTROL
APPLICATION TO: HAVE-DASH-II BTT MISSILE
BEKHITI Belkacem1 DAHIMENE Abdelhakim1 NAIL Bachir2 and HARICHE Kamel1
1

Electronics and Electrotechnics Institute, University of Boumerdes, 35000 Algeria.
Belkacem1988@hotmail.co.uk
2

Technology and sciences Institute, University of Djelfa, Algeria
nail_bachir@yahoo.fr

ABSTRACT
In a multivariable servomechanism design, it is required that the output vector tracks a certain reference
vector while satisfying some desired transient specifications, for this purpose a 2DOF control law
consisting of state feedback gain and feedforward scaling gain is proposed. The control law is designed
using block pole placement technique by assigning a set of desired Block poles in different canonical forms.
The resulting control is simulated for linearized model of the HAVE DASH II BTT missile; numerical
results are analyzed and compared in terms of transient response, gain magnitude, performance
robustness, stability robustness and tracking. The suitable structure for this case study is then selected.

KEYWORDS
MIMO, Block Controller Form, State Feedback Controller, Block Pole Placement Technique, Left and/or
Right Block Poles, Feedforward scaling gain, Matrix polynomials, HAVE DASH II BTT missile.

1. INTRODUCTION
Unlike other engineering specialties whose subject of study is a specific engineering system such
as an engine system or an airborne system, control systems theory studies only a general
mathematical model of engineering systems. The reason that systems control theory has
concentrated mainly on linear time-invariant systems is that only the mathematical models of this
kind of systems can have general and explicit solutions. Furthermore, only the general and
explicit understanding of the system can be used to guide generally, systematically, and
effectively the complicated control system design [1]. The purpose and requirement of control
systems is generally the control of plant system output (or response) Y(s) so that it can quickly
reach and stabilize to its desired state, such as the desired vehicle and engine speed, the desired
radar and airborne system angle, the desired robot arm position, the desired container pressure
and temperature, etc. The desired system output state is usually specified by the reference signal
R(s). Hence how well the system output reaches its desired state determines the performance of
the system; see [1, 4 and 17]. The control problems associated with these systems might be the
production of some chemical product as efficiently as possible, automatic landing of aircraft,
rendezvous with an artificial satellite, regulation of body functions such as heartbeat or blood
pressure, and the ever-present problem of economic inflation [18]. State space control theory
provides distinctly general, accurate, and clear analysis on linear time-invariant systems,
especially their performance and sensitivity properties. Only this kind of analysis and

understanding can be used to guide generally and effectively the design of complex control
systems. This is the reason that linear time-invariant system control results form the basis of the
study of other systems such as nonlinear, distributive, and time-varying systems, even though
most practical systems belong to the latter category. This is also the reason that the development
of state space control theory has always been significant and useful. [17]. A large-scale MIMO
system, described by state equations, is often decomposed into small subsystems, from which the
analysis and design of the MIMO system can be easily performed. Similarity block
transformations are developed to transform a class of linear time-invariant MIMO state equations,
for which the systems described by these equations have the number of inputs dividing exactly
the order of the state, into block companion forms so that the classical lines of thought for SISO
systems can be extended to MIMO systems [19]. Such systems can be studied via the
eigenstructure, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, of the state matrix A. The eigenvalues and
eigenvectors can determine system performance and robustness far more directly and explicitly
than other indicators. Hence their assignment should improve feedback system performance and
robustness distinctly and effectively [1]. Eigenstructure assignment (EA) is the process of
applying negative feedback to a linear, time-invariant system with the objective of forcing the
latent-values and latent-vectors to become as close as possible to a desired eigenstructure. EA, in
common with other multivariable design methodologies, is inclined to use all of the available
design freedom to generate a control solution. It is a natural choice for the design of any control
system whose desired performance is readily represented in terms of an ideal eigenstructure.
Many research works has been done on EA [20, 21, 22, 23 and 24] and more specifically on flight
control systems [25, 26, and 27].
The critical importance of system poles (eigenvalues of system dynamic matrix) on system
performance are determined and examined by the location of those roots, however in a
complementary the sensitivity of eigenvalues is determined by their corresponding eigenvectors
which is a basic result of numerical linear algebra. Unfortunately numerical linear algebra, has
not been commonly used in the existing textbooks on control systems, is a branch of study which
concentrates on the sensitivity of linear algebraic computation with respect to the initial data
variation and computational round-off errors [Fox, 1964]. Because linear algebra is the basic
mathematical tool in linear control systems theory, the results of numerical linear algebra can be
used directly in analyzing linear system sensitivities. When the controlled system is multi-input
multi-output then an infinite number of gain matrices K may be found which will provide the
required stability characteristics. Consequently, an alternative and very powerful method for
designing feedback gains for auto-stabilization systems is the right and/or left block pole
placement method. The method is based on the manipulation of the equations of motion in block
state space form and makes full use of the appropriate computational tools in the analytical
process. The design of state feedback control in MIMO systems leads to the so-called matrix
polynomials assignment [2]. The use of block poles constructed from a desired set of closed-loop
poles offers the advantage of assigning a characteristic matrix polynomial rather than a scalar one
[3]. The desired characteristic matrix polynomial is first constructed from a set of block poles
selected among a class of similar matrices, and then the state feedback is synthesized by solving
matrix equations. The forms of the block poles used in our work are the diagonal, the controller
and the observer forms. Robustness is assessed, in each case, using the infinity norm, the singular
value of the closed loop transfer matrix and the condition number of the closed-loop transfer
matrix. Time response is assessed by plotting the step response and comparing the time response
characteristics [1]. A comparison study is conducted to determine, in light of the above criteria,
the best choice of the form of the block poles.

In the present paper, firstly we have started the work by introducing some theoretical
preliminaries on matrix polynomials, after that a theoretical background on robustness and
sensitivity analysis in term of responses is illustrated and briefly discussed, it is then followed by
an application to BTT missiles by doing a comparison study in term of block roots form. As a
fifth section a discussion of the obtained results is performed, and finally the paper is finished by
a comparison study and a conclusion.

2. PRELIMINARIES
2.1. Definition of a polynomial matrix
+ the following matrix
Definition: given a set of
complex matrices *
valued function of the complex variable is called matrix polynomial of degree (index)
and order : ( ( ): is called also -matrix.)
( )

( )

Consider the system described by the following dynamic equation:
{

̇( )

( )
( )

( )

( )

( )

Assuming that the system can be transformed to a block controller form, this means:
i. The number
is an integer.
*
+ is of full rank n.
ii. The matrix
Then we use the following transformation matrix:

,
[

-,

-

( )

]

The new system becomes:
{

̇( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

With

,
[

]

[

]

-

2.2. Matrix transfer function
The matrix transfer function of this open-loop system is given by:
( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

Where:



( )
( )

,
,

-

This transfer function is called the Right Matrix Fraction Description (RMFD); we need
to use it in the block controller form. It should be noted that the behavior of the system
depends on the characteristic matrix polynomial ( ).
2.3. Concept of solvents (block roots)
A root for a polynomial matrix is not well defined. If it is defined as a complex number it
may not exist at all. Then we may consider a root as a matrix called block root.
2.3.1. Right solvent

Given the matrix polynomial of order
( )

and index

defined by:

∑

A right solvent, denoted by , is a

( )

matrix satisfying:

( )

( )

2.3.2. Left solvent

A left solvent of the matrix polynomial ( ) defined above, denoted by , is
( )
matrix satisfying:

( )

A right solvent, if exist, is considered as a right block root. A left solvent, if exist, is
considered as a left block root.
2.3.3. Latent root and latent vector




A complex number satisfying
( ( ))
is called a latent root of ( ).
Any vector associated with the latent root satisfying ( )
is a right
latent vector of ( ).

The relationship between latent roots, latent vectors, and the solvents can be stated as
follows:
Theorem: If ( ) has
linearly independent right latent vectors
latent vectors
) corresponding to latent roots
, then
(
) is a right (left) solvent. Where:
,
(
,
(
) . Proof: see [16]
and

(left
- )

Theorem: If ( ) has
latent roots
and the corresponding right latent
vectors
has as well as the left latent vectors
are both linearly
independent, then the associated right solvent
and left solvent
are related by:
,
(
,
- ) and
, Where
and
“T “stands for transpose. (Proof: see [16] )
2.3.4. Complete set of solvents

+ constructed from the eigenvalues
Definition : Consider the set of solvents *
(
) of a matrix , *
+ is a complete set of solvents if and only if:
( )
(
( )
( )

,

(

(

)
( )
))

Where:
denotes the spectrum of the matrix.
is the block Vandermonde matrix corresponding to *
(

+ given as:

)

(
[

)

]

The conditions for the existence and uniqueness of the complete set of solvents have been
investigated by P. Lancaster [15] and Malika Yaici [3].
Remark: We can define a set of left solvents in the same way as in the previous theorem.
2.4. Constructing a matrix polynomial from a complete set of solvents
We want to construct the matrix polynomial defined by ( ) from a set of solvents or a
set of desired poles which will determine the behavior of the system that we want.
Suppose we have a desired complete set of solvents. The problem is to find the desired
polynomial matrix or the characteristic equation of the block controller form defined by:
( )
We want to find the coefficients

for

a. Constructing from a complete set of right solvents:
Consider a complete set of right solvents *
is a right solvent of ( ) so:
Replacing

we get the following:
[

Where

+ for the matrix polynomial ( ), If

(

)

]

[

is the right block Vandermonde matrix

]

(

)

b. Constructing from a complete set of left solvents:
Consider a complete set of left solvents *
is a left solvent of ( ) so:
Replacing

+ for the matrix polynomial ( ) If

we get the following:
(

[

)

(
]

[

]

[

)

]

2.5. State feedback design
Consider the general linear time-invariant dynamic system described by the previous
( )to this system,
state space equation (2). Now applying the state feedback
where:
is a
gain matrix. After using the block controller form
( )
transformation for the system, we get:
Where:
[
]
and
(
)
the resulting closed loop system is shown below:
{

̇

(

)

(

. Then

)
[ (

)

(

)]

The characteristic matrix polynomial of this closed loop system is:
( )

(

)

(

)

(

)

From a set of desired eigenvalues, we construct the solvents then we construct the desired
characteristic matrix polynomial in the form:
( )
By putting

( )

( ) we get the coefficients

(

)

(

)

as follows:

After that we find the gain matrix by the following formula

.

2.6. Feedforward gain design
In this subsection the feedforward gain will be determined in order to provide steady state
tracking. Consider the MIMO system of equation (2), the control law is then given by
( )
( )
( ) Where:
is the feedback gain matrix obtained one of
the techniques discussed in the previous section,
is the feedforward gain in question
(
)
and
is a constant vector. The steady state is defined by the next conditions:
( )

( )

̇( )

( )

The feedforward
gain must be chosen so that the reference lies within the null
, (
)(
)
- A trivial solution is to
space of:
choose
so that every vector satisfies the condition.
,(

)(

(

-

)

)

Remark: The notation ( ) denotes the pseudo-inverse; and this method does not
- is
)(
)
guarantee the existence of solution in the case where: ,(
not full rank. Strictly speaking, its existence is governed by the following theorem.

Theorem: The feedforward gain that provides steady state decoupling and tracking exist
if and only if:
.0
(Proof: see [30] )
1/
Remark: The feedforward gain depends on system matrices and the feedback gain
hence it is influenced by perturbation, modeling error and the feedback gain
.

,

3. ROBUSTNESS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
One of the major concerns in control design is system’s immunity to modeling errors and
different types of disturbances that may affect it, this is known as robustness. This issue
will be addressed in this section.
3.1. Basic definitions of matrix norms
Definition: A matrix norm is a function from the set of all complex matrices (of all finite
orders) into that satisfies the following properties [1], [28]:
‖ ‖
‖ ‖
‖
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖‖ ‖

‖

‖

‖ ‖

Definition: The most commonly used norms are the following
1. The matrix 1-Norm is defined as the largest absolute column sum, given by
‖ ‖

∑|

|

(

)

(

)

(

)

2. The matrix 2-Norm is defined as the maximum singular value of , given by
‖ ‖

3. The matrix

(

)

(

(

) )

-Norm is defined as the largest absolute row sum, given by
‖ ‖

∑|

|

4. The Forbenius Norm is also called Shure norm, it is defined as a square root of

the trace

given by
‖ ‖

(

)

(∑|

| )

(

)

3.2. The sensitivity of eigenvalues (robust performance)
Robust performance is defined as the low sensitivity of system performance with respect
to system model uncertainty and terminal disturbance. It is well known that the
eigenvalues of the dynamic matrix determine the performance of the system then from
that the sensitivities of these eigenvalues determine the robustness of the system (2).
Theorem: Let
be the eigenvalues of the matrices
respectively,
and let be the right eigenvectors matrix of , then Wilkinson has derived the variation
(
)
( )‖ ‖
in eigenvalues as follows:
( ( ))
( )
‖ ‖ Stands for the matrix norm and ( ) Is the condition number. (Proof: see [1])
Theorem: Let
be the
eigenvalue, right and left eigenvectors of a matrix
(
),
respectively
let
be the
eigenvalue of the matrix
,
‖ ‖‖ ‖‖ ‖
( )‖ ‖
then for small enough ‖ ‖
( )
Such that: ( ) ‖ ‖‖ ‖ (Proof: see [1].)
This theorem shows that the sensitivity of an eigenvalue is determined by its
corresponding left and right eigenvectors and it is valid for small perturbations in the
matrix .
3.3. Relative change
Let
be the eigenvalues of the matrices
relative change of the eigenvalue is defined as follows:
|

|
| |

respectively. The

| |
| |

(

)

3.4. Robust stability
The stability of a system is the most wanted property. So its sensitivity to uncertainties is
very important when analyzing and designing the system. Stability is affected by the
system eigenvalues of the dynamic matrix so the sensitivity of these eigenvalues directly
affects the robust stability of the system (2). There are three robust stability measures
using the sensitivity of this system eigenvalues defined as follows:
+ be the set of eigenvalues of an
Definition: Let *
matrix denoted by
* +
and assuming that all the eigenvalues are stable (
) and all the
eigenvalues are already arbitrary assigned for guaranteed performance, the three robust
stability measures are defined by:

1.
2.

{ (

)}

denotes the smallest singular value.

( ( )) | * +| such that: |
diagonal matrix of .
3.
2( ( )) | * +|3

*

+|

|

* +| and

is the

3.5. Tracking robustness
Consider the MIMO system with reference vector and output which is controlled by
the control law under study, beside that the modeling errors and disturbances can be
modeled by a perturbation matrix , the tracking error induced by this perturbation in
the S-domain is:
( )

( )

( )

( )

( ) ( )

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

Or in more compact form
( )

,

,

(

)-

- ( )

To find the steady state error vector the final value theorem is used:
( )

( )

,

(

)

-

For perturbation small enough we have [28]:
(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(

)

(
)
Equation (26) become then: ( ) ,
for simplicity
, hence replacing by its value gives:
( )

,

(

)

-

-

Assume
(

)

(

)

Applying the 2-norm on this equation yields:
‖ ( )‖
‖ ‖

‖

‖ ‖ ‖ ‖(

) ‖ ‖

‖

Discussion: from this equation it can be seen clearly that the relative tracking error due to
the perturbation depends on the closed loop matrix, hence we expect it to be different for
various state feedback schemes.

4. DYNAMIC MODELING AND CONTROL OF BTT MISSILE
A missile is defined as a space-traversing unmanned vehicle the means for controlling its
movements and estimating its flight path. Missiles can be classified according to their
area of launching and the target’s area into the following four categories: ground to
ground, ground to air, air to air and air to ground, in this work the air to ground bank-toturn (BTT) missiles will be considered. For the purpose of this study, only the control
function is considered. In the following sections the 6DOF dynamic model of the missile
is derived which is then linearized about the steady state conditions in order to obtain a
linear state space model of the missile suitable for study. Afterward the controller
objectives are stated and the output equations are derived with design requirement and
specifications.

4.1. Missile Dynamics
Define the following reference frames and fundamental missile movements:
 Missile body fixed reference frame (
) with its origin at the center of gravity of
the missile and axis point to the missiles nose (Figure 1).
 The space fixed (nonrotating) reference frame ( ̅ ̅ ̅ ) with its origin at the center of
) corresponding to
gravity of the missile, which by performing Euler rotation (
the roll, pitch and yaw respectively come to coincide with the (
) reference
frame see (Figure 1).
 Translation along the direction (velocity) denoted
(
)
 Rotation about the longitudinal axis (roll) denoted
 Rotation about the lateral horizontal axis (pitch) denoted
 Rotation about the vertical axis (yaw) denoted and
(
) be the angular
̅
̅
̅
) fixe reference frame.
velocity of missile with respect to (

Figure: 1 Missile configuration and Euler angles.
Assumptions: The missile dynamic equation derived under the following assumptions:
 The missile is a rigid body.
 The mass
and inertia of the missile remain constant over the period of time
autopilot operation.
 The missile presents both mass and geometry symmetry with respect to
and
planes, which means that the coupling inertia terms
for
are
zeros.

The nonlinear dynamic model of the BTT missile is described by the next set of coupled
differential equations [29]:
̇

(

̇

(

)[
(

)[

)
(

( )]
( )]

)
̇

̇
̇
{

̇

(

)

(

)[

(

4

5

4

5[

(

(

)

(

)[

)]
)]

(

)]

Where: is the atmospheric density,
and
are constant determined by the vehicle
geometry.
are the missile’s aerodynamic coefficients given in
below:

*

+

[
(

]
)

*

*

+

*

(

)

(

)+

[

( )

(

( )

)

+

*

]

*

( )

+

+
( )

With:
( )
( )
( )
( )
⁄
Note: this approximation is valid only for
which are satisfied in our case. (
altitude of
.The flight conditions are
attack

and
). The values of are given for an
steady state angle of

In the derivation of these equations it is assumed that the thrust forces
components
are negligible [29]. These equations will be taken as the state space representation of the
missile autopilot, on which the control goals are specified. In the following section these
(
)) in order to
equations will be linearized about an equilibrium point (
get a LTI model. The linear dynamic model of BTT missile motion is given by the next
state space equations:
̇
̇
̇
̇

[

̇

̇
[ ]

[

Where the

]

[ ]

[

]

]

terms are constant coefficients called the flight derivatives given by:
|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

{

Numerical values for missile’s model [29] are given next in the following table:
Table: 1 Model parameters for the HAVE DASH II BTT missile.
The parameter
The gravity
Missile’s mass
Geometry coefficients
Sound velocity
Atmospheric density
The thrust force
The inertia matrix entries

Notation

Numerical value

(

)

Numerical evaluation of the tabulated values in the parametric model yield:
̇
̇
̇
̇

[

̇

][ ]

[

̇
[ ]

[

]

]

Where:

4.2. Block Pole Placement Comparison Study
In this paper, the proposed control scheme consisting of state feedback gain and
feedforward gain is applied to the HAVE DASH II BTT missile using different state
feedback methods discussed before; the results are assessed and compared in order to
choose the suitable method for the design case. The characteristics upon which the
comparison is based are:
 Controller gain magnitude.
 Transient response characteristics.
 Robustness in term of stability, performance and tracking.
The dimension of the matrix
is
and the number of inputs is . The rank of the
,
- is , and then the system is block controllable of index . Therefore
matrix
we can convert the system into block controller form by the following transformation
matrix :
[

]

,

-

,

-

We obtain the following:

6

7
[

[

]

[

]

]

We want to design a state feedback using block pole placement for the following set of
*
+
desired eigenvalues:



Right solvents in diagonal form (Case I)
*

+

*


+

Right solvents in controller form (Case II)
*

+

*


+

Right solvents in observable form (Case III)
*

+

*

+

4.2.1. Time specifications

The magnitude and response characteristics for the three forms of solvents are
summarized in the following two tables:
Table: 1 Gains magnitude for the three cases.
Controller
gains

Form of
solvents
diagonal
controller
observer
diagonal
controller
observer

The 1-norm

The 2-norm

The

-norm

Forbenius
norm

Table: 2 Time specifications (response characteristics).
The
Outputs

Form of
solvents

Percent
undershoot
( )

Percent
overshoot
(
)

Settling time
( )

Rise time
( )

diagonal
controller
observer
diagonal
controller
observer
diagonal
controller
observer

4.2.2. Robustness analysis:

Robust stability: Robust stability is determined using the measures defined in the
previous section. First we find the norms of the left and right eigenvectors associated to
each eigenvalue. The norms of the matrices consisting of the left and right eigenvectors
respectively are:
‖
Solvents in diagonal form: ‖ ‖
and ‖ ‖
Hence the sensitivity of all eigenvalues is ( ) ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖

‖



 Solvents in controller form: ‖ ‖
Hence the sensitivity of all eigenvalues is ( )

and ‖ ‖
‖ ‖ ‖ ‖

‖

‖
Solvents in observer form: ‖ ‖
and ‖ ‖
Hence the sensitivity of all eigenvalues is ( ) ‖ ‖ ‖ ‖


‖
‖

In the following the individual eigenvalues sensitivities are given for each of the three
solvents from mentioned above.
Table: 3 Eigenvalues sensitivities.
sensitivities
(
(
(
(
(

Diagonal solvents
)

)
)
)
)

Controller solvents

Observer solvents

Table: 4 Stability measures.
Stability measures
{ (

Diagonal solvents

Controller solvents

Observer solvents

)}

( ( )) |

*

+|

2( ( )) |

* +|3

Robust performance analysis: We generate a random small perturbation using
MATLAB software, we get the following:

‖
[

‖

]

The new eigenvalues and corresponding change of each one are tabulated in table 5.
Table: 5 Change in eigenvalues due to random perturbation.
Old
eigenvalues

New eigenvalues
Diagonal Controller Observer

Relative change ( )
Diagonal Controller Observer

The tracking error due to this perturbation is:
 Case of diagonal solvents:
 Case of controller solvents:
 Case of observer solvents:

5. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
Small gains are desirable because they minimize the control energy and prevent
saturation of the controller elements and noise amplification. For time specifications, the
smaller the settling time and maximum peak the better the time response. For the
sensitivities of the eigenvalues, we choose the one that has the lowest sensitivity taking
into account the distance of the eigenvalue from the
axis. For the robust stability the
greater the value of its measure the more robustly stable the system, where
is more
accurate than
and
[1]. For robust performance, the smaller the value of relative
change the better the performance. In our case, the crucial criterion is the robustness,
because of the linearization of the model. From this results it can be observed that the
diagonal solvents gives a smaller gains magnitude, better response, smaller sensitivities,
and relatively higher performance measure. For the assumed perturbation, diagonal
solvents gave less change in eigenvalues and less tracking errors.
It should be noted that for observer solvents presents highly undesired results, besides,
for the considered perturbation the controller structure of the solvents resulted in unstable
modes in the system.

6. CONCLUSION
The goal of the present work in this paper is to design 2DOF control law consisting of
feedback gain and feedforward gain for the BTT missile autopilot. Given that the system
is multivariable, the feedback gain that assign the eigenvalues to desired locations is not
unique, different possibilities has been tested in this work. Of prime importance is that
while the overall speed of response of the closed loop system is determined by its
eigenvalues, the shape of the transient response is determined to a large extent by the
eigenvectors, this is seen from the fact that while the settling time is around one second
for the different cases, the response shapes are totally different.
The use of the three block canonical forms has shown that diagonal structure of solvents
yield better results in term of gains, magnitudes, response and robustness, furthermore,
the diagonal form of solvents is superior and less complexity in computations. In high
performance missile design faster responses are needed, control efforts must be
minimized, high oscillations are not tolerated and of course robustness is a must.
According to the above discussion the block state feedback with diagonal solvents is the
method to choose in this case of design.

REFERENCES
[1] Chia-Chi Tsui, “Robust Control System Design: Advanced State Space Techniques”,
Second edition, Marcel Dekker, 2004.
[2] Malika Yaici, Kamel Hariche, “On eigenstructure assignment using block poles
placement” European Journal of Control, May 2014.
[3] Malika Yaici, Kamel Hariche, “On Solvents of Matrix Polynomials” International
Journal of Modeling and Optimization, Vol. 4, No. 4, August 2014.
[4] Katsuhiko Ogata, “Modern Control Engineering”, Third edition, Prentice Hall, 1997.
[5] M.V. Cook, “Flight Dynamics Principles”, Second edition, Butterworth-Heinemann,
2007.
[6] William L. Brogan, “Modern Control Theory”, Third edition, Prentice Hall, 1990.
[7] K. Hariche and E. D. Denman” On Solvents and Lagrange Interpolating λ -Matrices”
applied mathematics and computation 25321-332 (1988).
[8] E. Periera, “On solvents of matrix polynomials” Appl. Numer. Math., vol. 47, pp.
197-208, 2003.
[9] E. Periera, “Block eigenvalues and solution of differential matrix equation”
mathematical notes, Miskolc, Vol. 4, No.1 (2003), pp. 45-51.
[10] F. R. Gantmacher, Theory of Matrices, New York: Chelsea, 1960.
[11] I. Gohberg, P. Lancaster, L. Rodman, Spectral Analysis of Matrix Polynomials: I.
Canonical Forms and Divisors, Linear Algebra Appl., 20, pp. 1-44, 1978.
[12] I. Gohberg, P. Lancaster, L. Rodman, Spectral Analysis of Matrix Polynomials: II.
The Resolvent Form and Spectral Divisors, Linear Algebra Appl. 21, 1978.
[13] I. Gohberg, P. Lancaster, L. Rodman, Matrix Polynomials, Academic Press, 1982.
[14] P.Lancaster, Lambda-Matrices and Vibrating Systems, New York, Pergamon Press,
1966.
[15] P. Lancaster, M. Timenetski, “The Theory of Matrices”, 2nd Ed., Academic Press,
1985.
[16] Leang S. Shieh, Y. T Tsay ”Transformation of solvents and spectral factors of
matrix polynomials and their applications” Int J. Control. Vol. 34, pp. 813-823, 1981.
[17] William S. Levine, “Control system advanced methods” CRC Press ,2011.
[18] Magdi S. Mahmoud and Yuanqing Xia, Applied Control Systems Design,SpringerVerlag London Limited 2012.
[19] Belkacem Bekhiti, A. Dahimene, B. Nail, K. Hariche, and A. Hamadouche, “On
Block Roots of Matrix Polynomials Based MIMO Control System Design”, 4th
International Conference on Electrical Engineering ICEE Boumerdes , 2015.
[20] B. C. Moore, "On the flexibility offered by state feedback in multivariable systems
beyond closed loop eigenvalue assignment", IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, Vol AC-21,
No.5,pp. 689-692, 1976.
[21] J. Lu, H. D. Chiang and J. S. Thorp, "Eigenstructure assignment by decentralized
feedback control", IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, Vol. AC-38, No.4, pp. 587-594, 1993.
[22] T. Clarke, S. J. Griffin and J. Ensor, "Output feedback eigenstructure assignment
using a new reduced orthogonality condition", Int. J. Control, Vol. 76, No.4, pp. 390-402,
2002.

[23] O. Bachelier, J. Bosche and D. Mehdi, On pole placement via eigenstructure
assignment approach, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, Vol. AC-51, No.9, pp. 1554-1558,
2006.
[24] A. Pomfret and T. Clarke, "An extension to output-feedback eigenstructure
assignment: structuring controllers by exploiting unused design freedom", Int. J. Control,
Vol.82, No.2, pp. 207-216, 2009.
[25] A. N. Andry, E. Y. Shapiro and J. C. Chung, "Eigenstructure assignment for linear
systems", IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., Vol. 19, No.5, pp. 711-729, 1983.
[26] K. M. Sobel and E.J. Lallman, "Eigenstructure assignment for the control of highly
augmented aircraft", J. of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 12, No.3, pp. 18-324,
1989.
[27] J. -F. Magni, "Multimodel eigenstructure assignment in flight-control design",
Aerosp. Sci. Technol., Vol.3, pp. 141-151, 1999.
[28] Clark D.Meyer, Matrix analysis and applied linear algebra, SIAM, 2000.
[29] Ching-Fang Lin, Advanced control system design, Prentice Hall, 1994.
[30] Q-G.Wang, Decoupling control, LNCIS 285, pp 1-9 Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, 2003.

