Dominance analysis of linear complementarity systems

arXiv:1802.00284v1 [cs.SY] 1 Feb 2018

F. A. Miranda-Villatoro∗

Abstract— The paper extends the concepts of dominance
and p-dissipativity to the non-smooth family of linear complementarity systems. Dominance generalizes incremental stability
whereas p-dissipativity generalizes incremental passivity. The
generalization aims at an interconnection theory for the design
and analysis of switching and oscillatory systems. The approach
is illustrated by a detailed study of classical electrical circuits
that switch and oscillate.

I. INTRODUCTION
Dominance analysis and p-dissipativity were recently introduced in [1], [2] to extend the application of dissipativity theory to the analysis of multistable and oscillatory
systems. The approach is differential, that is, based on the
analysis of linearized dynamics along trajectories, in the
spirit of contraction theory [3], convergence analysis [4], or
differential stability analysis [5]. It is particularly adapted
to systems whose linearization can be easily parametrized,
such as Lure systems that interconnect linear time-invariant
systems with static nonlinearities [6]. The present paper
investigates how to extend this analysis to nonlinear circuits
modeled as linear complementarity systems: models that
consist of linear time-invariant systems augmented with a
static complementarity constraint. The modeling framework
of linear complementarity systems has proven very useful
to analyze systems whose nonlinear dynamical behavior
arises from non-smooth constraints [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
They find applications in a number of fields including
mechanical systems with unilateral constraints [12], electrical
circuits with diodes [13], and mathematical programming
[14]. Linear complementarity systems provide an attractive
framework for dominance analysis because they are general
enough to model switching and oscillatory behaviors often
encountered in the presence of non-smooth constraints and
specific enough to lead to tractable analysis. In particular,
the passivity property of complementarity constraints has
proven central to analyze linear complementarity systems
in the framework of dissipativity theory [15], [9]. Linear
complementarity systems hence offer an ideal platform for
the application of p-dissipativity theory to switching and
oscillatory behaviors. To account for the non-smoothness of
linear complementarity systems, the differential analysis of
[1], [2] has to be replaced by incremental analysis [16], [17],
[18]. Incremental analysis studies how increments between
The research leading to these results has received funding from the
European Research Council under the Advanced ERC Grant Agreement
Switchlet n. 670645.
∗ University
of
Cambridge,
Department
of
Engineering,
Trumpington Street, CB2 1PZ, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Emails: fam48@cam.ac.uk, f.forni@eng.cam.ac.uk,

r.sepulchre@eng.cam.ac.uk

F. Forni∗

R. Sepulchre∗

trajectories evolve in time, whereas differential analysis
only considers linearized trajectories, that it, infinitesimal
increments. In the context of linear complementarity systems,
the difference is technical rather than conceptual: the main
results of [1], [2] extend with no difficulty to the incremental
setting imposed by non-smooth constraints. This paper is
organized as follows. In Section II we briefly review the
modeling of linear complementarity systems and its core
passivity property. Section III is dedicated to the property of dominance and p-dissipativeness in the incremental
setting. The example Section IV illustrates the potential
of p-dissipativity theory to analyze classical switching and
oscillatory circuits. The papers ends with conclusions in
Section V.
II. L INEAR COMPLEMENTARITY

SYSTEMS AND
INCREMENTAL PASSIVITY

A. Linear complementarity systems
A linear complementarity system [15] consists of a linear
dynamical system subject to a complementarity constraint


ẋ = Ax + Bu + Bv
(1)
y = Cx + Du


0 ≤ u ⊥ y ≥ 0,

where x ∈ Rn is the state variable, u ∈ Rm and y ∈ Rm
are the so-called complementary variables, and v ∈ Rm
is an additional control input. The matrices A, B, C, and
D are constant and of the appropriate dimensions. The
complementarity condition 0 ≤ u(t) ⊥ y(t) ≥ 0 is a
compact representation of the following three conditions: i)
m
u ∈ Rm
+ , ii) y ∈ R+ , and iii) hu(t), y(t)i = 0. A solution of
the linear complementarity system (1) is any tuple (x, u, y, v)
such that x : R+ → Rn is an absolutely continuous function
and (x, u, y, v) satisfies (1) for almost all forward times
t ∈ R+ . In general, we assume that the initial conditions
x(0) = x0 are such that the complementarity conditions hold.
This implies the absence of jumps in the initial condition and
in the complementarity variables [9].
B. Incremental passivity
A cornerstone in the analysis of linear complementarity
systems is to observe that the complementarity relation
R⊥ = {(y, ζ) ∈ Rm × Rm |0 ≤ y ⊥ −ζ ≥ 0}

(2)

defines an incrementally passive relation. We recall the
definition and the proof of that property.

Definition 1: A relation R ⊆ Rm × Rm is incrementally
passive if for any (y1 , ζ1 ) ∈ R, and any (y2 , ζ2 ) ∈ R the
inequality
hy1 − y2 , ζ1 − ζ2 i ≥ 0
(3)
holds.
Proposition 2: R⊥ is incrementally passive.
Proof: Take (y1 , ζ1 ) ∈ R⊥ and (y2 , ζ2 ) ∈ R⊥ .
Then, hy1 − y2 , ζ1 − ζ2 i = h−y2 , ζ1 i + hy1 , −ζ2 i +
hy1 , ζ1 i + hy2 , ζ2 i = hy2 , −ζ1 i + hy1 , −ζ2 i ≥ 0.
| {z }
| {z } | {z } | {z }
=0

=0

≥0

≥0

An alternative description of the relation R⊥ is via the
multivalued map
ζ = ϕ⊥ (y) ∈ {ζ ∈ Rm |0 ≤ y ⊥ −ζ ≥ 0}

(4)

which leads to the feedback representation in Figure 1.
This Lure type representation of linear complementarity

Fig. 1.

systems calls for an analysis rooted in passivity theory: the
linear complementary system is incrementally passive as the
negative feedback interconnection of a linear passive system
Σ with an incrementally passive relation. Passivity of the
linear part is a standard assumption in the literature on
linear complementarity systems; it guarantees existence and
uniqueness of solutions for (1). Details can be found in [9],
[8], [19] based on the following additional assumption, which
ensures well-posedness of the closed loop in the presence of
the throughput term D, [9].
Assumption 3: The linear part of (1) is a minimal realization, it is passive and the matrix


B
(5)
D + D⊤

V̇ (x) ≤ hy, ui

y
(6)

where the derivative of the quadratic storage V := xT P x,
P = P T > 0, is computed along the linear dynamics. Passivity and incremental passivity coincide for linear systems.
In fact, for any pair of trajectories xi , outputs yi and inputs
ui , the incremental dynamics characterized by the variables
∆x = x1 − x2 , ∆y = y1 − y2 , ∆u = u1 − u2 satisfies
V̇ (∆x) ≤ h∆y, ∆ui .

|x1 (t) − x2 (t)| ≤ β(|x1 (0) − x2 (0)|)

∀t ≥ 0

for any pair of trajectories x1 (·), x2 (·) of (1). Furthermore,
if the passive inequality (6) is strict, the resulting closed loop
becomes incrementally asymptotically stable; its trajectories
converge towards each other
lim |x1 (t) − x2 (t)| = 0 .

t→∞

In this case, an equilibrium point is necessarily unique and
globally stable. The concept of incremental stability [20] is
analog to the concept of differential stability in the theory
of contraction [3] or convergent systems [4]. But it does not
require any differentiability of the system dynamics.
C. Beyond linear complementarity relations
For the purpose of this paper, the linear complementarity
condition can be replaced by any incrementally passive static
relation. Figure 2 provides an illustration of incrementally
passive memoryless nonlinearities. Those multivalued maps
are widely used for modeling electronic circuits. For example, the three graphs in Figure 2 represent the ideal currentvoltage characteristic of a diode, of a zener diode, and of
an array of diodes [21], [22]. Denoting (w, z) ∈ Ri any pair

Block diagram of the linear complementarity system (1)

has full column rank.
Passivity of the linear part of (1) from u to y reads

incrementally stable, that is, there exists a nondecreasing
function β such that

(7)

Since the negative feedback interconnection of incrementally
passive systems is incrementally passive [15], the closed
loop linear complementarity system is incrementally passive.
For any constant input v, the resulting closed loop is thus

Fig. 2.

Popular examples of incrementally passive relations.

(w, z) that belongs to the i-th relation in Figure 2, we extend
the class of linear complementarity systems to the family of
systems of the form


ẋ = Ax + Bu + Bv
(8)
y = Cx


(y, −u) ∈ Ri .

Following the approach of linear complementarity systems,
for a solution of (8) we mean any tuple (x, u, y, v) such
that x : R+ → Rn is an absolutely continuous function
and (x, u, y, v) satisfies (8) for almost all forward times
t ∈ R+ . Indeed, the closed loop (8) allows for the block
diagram representation in Figure 1, with ϕ⊥ replaced by
ϕRi , the static multivalued map associated to the relation

Ri . Thus, for any passive relation Ri , the closed loop (8) is
incrementally passive. We remark that incremental passivity
guarantees existence and uniqueness of solutions also for
general maximal monotone static multi-valued maps, [8].
III. D OMINANCE

AND

p- DISSIPATIVITY

A. Dominance
Dominance was recently introduced in [1], [2], [6] as a
generalization of incremental stability for smooth nonlinear
systems. Motivated by dominance analysis of linear complementarity systems, we extend the definition of dominance
in a non smooth setting, replacing differential analysis by
incremental analysis as in the previous section. For the sake
of simplicity in this section, and the rest of the paper, we
consider generic pairs of trajectories x1 (·) and x2 (·), and we
adopt the notation ∆x = x1 − x2 to denote their mismatch.
∆ẋ = ẋ1 − ẋ2 is defined for almost every t by the right-hand
side of (8) computed for x1 and x2 , respectively. A similar
notation is adopted for inputs ∆u = u1 − u2 and outputs
∆y = y1 − y2 . Finally, we say that a symmetric matrix P
has inertia {p, 0, n − p} when it has p negative eigenvalues
and n − p positive eigenvalues.
Definition 4: The nonsmooth system (8) is p-dominant
with rate γ ≥ 0 if there exist a matrix P = P ⊤ with inertia
{p, 0, n − p} and a constant ε ≥ 0 such that for any pair
trajectories of (8),
 
 
∆ẋ
0
P
∆ẋ
≤ 0.
(9)
∆x P 2γP + εI ∆x
Strict p-dominance holds for ε > 0.
Note that dominance is just incremental stability if P is
positive definite, which corresponds to p = 0. But we are
interested in the generalization corresponding to p = 1 and to
p = 2. For smooth closed systems ẋ = f (x), (9) is equivalent
to the linear matrix inequality inequality
∂f (x)⊤ P + P ∂f (x) + 2γP + εI ≤ 0

∀x ∈ Rn (10)

where ∂f (x) denotes the Jacobian of f at x. In the linear
case, f (x) = Ax, (10) implies the existence of an invariant
splitting such that Rn = En ⊕ En−p , where Ep is the pdimensional eigenspace associated to the dominant modes
of A (eigenvalues of A whose real part is larger than −γ),
and En−p is the (n − p)-dimensional eigenspace associated
to the transient modes of A (i.e., the eigenvalues of A
whose real part is smaller than −γ). Roughly speaking,
in the nonlinear case the property of dominance forces the
asymptotic behavior to be p-dimensional [2, Theorem 2], as
shown by the analysis of the linearized flow in [2, Theorem
1]. The following theorem extends [2, Theorem 2] to the
non-smooth case.
Theorem 5: Assume v constant and suppose that all the
trajectories of (13) are bounded. Let Ω(x) be the set of all
ω-limit points of x and let (13) be strictly p-dominant with
rate γ ≥ 0. Then, the flow on the Ω(x) is topologically
equivalent to the flow of a p-dimensional system.

Proof: Consider any pair of trajectories x1 (·) and x2 (·),
define the increment ∆x(·), and consider the quadratic form
V (∆x(t)) = ∆x(t)T P ∆x(t). From (9),
d
V (∆x(t)) ≤ −2γV (∆x(t)) − εk∆x(t)k2 ,
dt
therefore
d 2γt
e V (∆x(t)) ≤ −εe2γt k∆x(t)k2 .
dt
By integration,
Z t
e−2γ(t−τ )k∆x(τ )k2 dτ
V (∆x(t)) ≤ e−2γt V (∆x(0)) − ε
0

(11)
Let x̄1 and x̄2 be two different points of Ω(x) and define
∆x̄ = x̄1 − x̄2 . Note that both x̄1 and x̄2 are accumulation
points of a suitable trajectory, therefore ∆x̄ 6= 0 and (11)
implies
V (∆x̄ ) < 0.
(12)
Let HP , VP be the eigenspaces of P associated to the p
negative eigenvalues of P , and n − p positive eigenvalues of
P , respectively. Let Π : Rn → HP be the projection onto
HP along VP . We claim that Π restricted to Ω is one-toone. In fact, assume by contradiction that for x̄1 , x̄2 ∈ Ω(x),
x̄1 6= x̄2 implies Π(∆x̄ ) = 0, it follows that ∆x̄ ∈ VP
and therefore V (∆x̄ ) > 0 which contradicts (12). Hence, Π
restricted to Ω(x) is one-to-one.
Now, for each constant input v, consider the equivalent
representation of the system (8) based on the differential
inclusion
ẋ ∈ Fv (x) .
(13)
Using the results above, if y ∈ ΠΩ(x) then there exists a
unique initial condition z(0) ∈ Ω(x) such that y = Πz(0)
and the flow Πz(t) in HP is generated by the vector field
Gv (y) = ΠFv (Π−1 y),

y ∈ Ω(x)

(14)

which is p-dimensional.
Theorem 5 shows that the asymptotic behavior of a strict
p-dominant system is strongly constrained for small values
of p.
Corollary 6: Let the assumptions of Theorem 5 hold. In
addition, assume that solutions of (8) are unique. Then all
solutions asymptotically converge to
1) a unique equilibrium point, if p = 0.
2) an equilibrium point, if p = 1.
3) an equilibrium point, a set of equilibrium points and
connecting arcs, or a limit cycle, if p = 2.
Under uniqueness of solutions, distinct trajectories cannot
intersect. For p = 1, the asymptotic dynamics are onedimensional, forcing bounded trajectories to converge to
some fixed point. Uniqueness of solutions is also sufficient
for guaranteeing the validity of the Poincaré-Bendixson
Theorem, see e.g., [23, Theorem 5.3]. Hence, under the
assumption of uniqueness of solutions, a 2-dominant system
with a compact limit set that contains no equilibrium point
has a closed orbit.

B. Incremental p-dissipativity

C. p-Passivity of linear complementarity systems

Dissipativity theory is an interconnection theory for stability analysis. In the same way, p-dissipativity is an interconnection theory for dominance analysis [2], [6]. It mimics
standard dissipativity theory in the differential/incremental
setting but relies on quadratic storage functions that have a
prescribed inertia.
Definition 7: A nonsmooth system (8) is p-dissipative
with rate γ ≥ 0 and incremental supply w : Rm × Rm → R
 ⊤ 
 
∆y
Q L⊤ ∆y
w(∆u, ∆y) :=
(15)
∆u
L R
∆u

As in the classical theory, p-passivity is p-dissipativity for
the particular supply rate
 ⊤ 
 
∆y
0 I ∆y
w(∆u, ∆y) :=
(17)
∆u
I 0 ∆u

if there exists a matrix P = P ⊤ with inertia {p, 0, n − p}
and ε ≥ 0 such that
 
 
∆ẋ
0
P
∆ẋ
≤ w(∆y, ∆u)
(16)
∆x P 2γP + εI ∆x
for any pair of trajectories. Strict p-dissipativity holds for
ε > 0.
0-dissipativity coincides with the classical concept of incremental dissipativity. p-dissipativity allows for an interconnection theory for non-smooth systems, as clarified by the
next theorem. The simplest example is given by the closed
loop in Figure 1.
Theorem 8: Let Σ1 and Σ2 be (strict) p1 and p2 dissipative respectively, both with rate γ ≥ 0 and supplies

 i ⊤ 

∆y
Qi Li ∆y i
wi (∆ui , ∆y i ) =
, i = 1, 2.
∆ui
L⊤
Ri ∆ui
i
The negative feedback interconnection
u1 = −y 2 + v 1 ,

u2 = y 1 + v 2

of Σ1 and Σ2 is (strict) (p1 + p2 )-dissipative with respect to
the input v := [v 1 , v 2 ]⊤ and the output y := [y 1 , y 2 ]⊤ , with
incremental supply given by


⊤
L1 R2  
 ⊤ Q1⊤+ R2 −L1 + L2
∆y 
+ L2 Q2 + R1 −R1 L2 
 ∆y .
−L1 ⊤
∆v 
R1
0  ∆v
L1
−R1⊤
0
R2
R2
L⊤
2
and rate γ ≥ 0. In addition, if


Q1 + R2 −L1 + L⊤
2
≤0
−L⊤
Q2 + R1
1 + L2

then the interconnection is (strictly) (p1 + p2 )-dominant.
Proof: The proof follows by standard arguments of
dissipativity theory. See also [1].
Classical dissipativity theory provides a tool to analyze stable
systems, that is, 0-dominant systems, as interconnection of
dissipative open systems, that is, 0-dissipative systems. Theorem 8 generalizes this conclusion: 1-dominant systems can be
analyzed as interconnections of 0-dissipative systems with a
1-dissipative system; 2-dominant systems can be analyzed as
interconnections of 0-dissipative systems with a 2-dissipative
system, or as interconnections of two 1-dissipative systems.

We have seen in Section II that the linear complementarity
relation R⊥ is 0-passive (since 0-passivity and incremental passivity coincide). Also the static nonlinearities Ri in
Section II-C are 0-passive. Thus, from Theorem 8, the nonsmooth system (8) is the negative feedback loop of a 0passive static nonlinearity with a linear system, whose degree
of p-passivity determines the degree of passivity of the closed
loop. The degree of passivity of the linear part restricts the
asymptotic behavior of the system. We observe that for linear
systems of the form ẋ = Ax + Bu, y = Cx, the inequality
(16) with (17) reduces to the simple feasibility test
AT P + P A + 2γP ≤ −εI

P B = CT

for some matrix P = P T with inertia {p, 0, n − p};
a numerically tractable condition. Also, p-passivity has a
frequency domain characterization based on the rate-shifted
transfer function G(s − γ) = C(sI − (A + γI))−1 B, [6]:
Proposition 9: A linear system is p-passive if and only if
the following two conditions hold,
1) ℜ {G(jω − γ)} > 0, for all, ω ∈ R ∪ {+∞}.
2) G(s − γ) has p poles on the right-hand side of the
complex plane.
Frequency domain conditions prove useful in capturing the
limits of the theory and for the selection of the systems
parameters, as shown in the next section.
IV. S WITCHING

AND OSCILLATING

LCS

CIRCUITS

A. The operational amplifier is 0-passive
A model of the operational amplifier is shown in Figure
3: a first order model [24], with additional voltage saturation
limits, implemented via ideal diodes, to take into account
the physical limitations of any op-amp device. Note that the
right-most element ×1 in the model denotes a buffer, which
decouples the output current from the internal circuit. We
make the usual assumption of infinite input impedance Zin =
+∞ and 0 output impedance Zout = 0. The model in Figure
3 is described by the linear complementarity system
α
1
1
xa +
VE −
(ID1 (t) − ID2 ) (18a)
ẋa = −
Ra Ca
Ca
Ca
V0 = xa
(18b)
0 ≤ −V0 + E1 ⊥ ID1 ≥ 0,

(18c)

0 ≤ V0 + E2 ⊥ ID2 ≥ 0.

(18d)

where we assume that the voltage sources E1 and −E2
are constant and Ei > 0, i = 1, 2. The model is derived
via Kirchhoff’s laws together with the complementarity
conditions for the diodes [21]. xa denotes the voltage across
the capacitor Ca . The input is set to VE and the output
is V0 . For completeness, we write (18) in the standard
linear complementarity form (1) by taking VE = V1 − V2 ,

Fig. 4.

Block diagram of the operational amplifier (18)

contains an op-amp, whose model is given by (18), and a
linear network Σc represented by
(
2
ẋ1 = − RR11R+R
x1 + R21C1 ν1
2 C1
Σc :
Schmitt
(20)
y1 (t) = −x1 ,
Fig. 3.

A nonsmooth model of an operational amplifier

where x1 is the voltage across the capacitor C1 . Their
u = [ID1 , ID2 , E1 , E2 ]⊤ , v = [−αV1 , −αV2 , 0, 0]⊤ , A =
− Ra1Ca , B = C1a [−1, 1, 0, 0],
 


−1
0 0 1 0
1
 0 0 0 1



C=
 0  , and D = 0 0 0 0 .
0
0 0 0 0

A representation of (18) is the negative feedback interconnection of a strictly 0-passive system with a 0-passive relation
R defined by (18b),(18c), and (18d), linking voltage V0 and
the difference of diode currents IDD = ID1 − ID2 . The
relations 0 ≤ −V0 (t) + E1 and 0 ≤ V0 (t) + E2 imply
−E2 ≤ V0 (t) ≤ E1 . Thus, the output of the op-amp
V0 (t) = xa (t) always belongs to the interval [−E2 , E1 ].
For V0 (t) = E1 , (18c) and (18d) imply that ID1 (t) ≥ 0
and ID2 (t) = 0, respectively, that is, IDD (t) ≥ 0. Similarly,
V0 (t) = −E2 implies IDD (t) ≤ 0 and V0 (t) ∈ (−E2 , E1 )
implies IDD (t) = 0. Hence, R corresponds to the 0-passive
relation represented in Figure 2.ii). Its associated multivalued
function ϕR maps the voltage V0 into


(−∞, 0], V0 (t) = −E2
IDD = ϕR (V0 ) ∈ {0},
−E2 < V0 (t) < E1


[0, +∞), V0 (t) = E1 .
The operational amplifier model (18) is thus given by the
feedback loop in Figure 4, combining the 0-passive linear
system Σa with matrices A = − Ra1Ca , B = C1a , and C = 1,
with the 0-passive nonlinearity ϕR . The transfer function of
Σa reads
G(s) =

1
Ca

s+

1
Ra C a

.

(19)

and Proposition 9 guarantees strict 0-passivity with rate γ ∈
[0, Ra1Ca ). By Theorem 8, the op-amp is thus a strictly 0passive device from VE to V0 with rate γ ∈ [0, Ra1Ca ).
B. Positive feedback amplifier: multistable Schmitt trigger
The positive feedback interconnection of the op-amp with
an additional passive network leads to 1-passive circuits. For
instance, the Schmitt trigger circuit represented in Figure 5

Fig. 5. Schmitt Trigger circuit formed as the positive feedback interconnection of the circuit in Figure 3 with a RC network

interconnection is characterized by the positive feedback
identity
VE = x1 , ν1 = V0 .
(21)
Positive feedback loops of two 0-passive systems are not 0passive. But Σc is also strictly 1-passive from the input ν1
2
to the output y1 with rate γ ∈ ( RR11R+R
, +∞), which allows
2 C1
to rewrite (21) as negative feedback
VE = −y1 ,

ν1 = V0 .

(22)

Indeed, the positive feedback in (21) is equivalent to the negative feedback between a strictly 0-passive system, the opamp, and a strictly 1-passive system, Σc . Thus, by selecting
the circuit parameters to satisfy
1
R1 + R2
<
,
R1 R2 C1
Ra Ca

(23)

Theorem 8 guarantees that the Schmitt trigger is strictly 12
, 1 ). The closed loop is
passive with rate γ ∈ ( RR11R+R
2 C 1 Ra C a
thus strictly 1-dominant. An interpretation of (23) is that
the linear circuit Σc must have a slower dynamics than
the op-amp dynamics, to determine a dominant behavior of
dimension 1. Mathematically, (23) guarantees the existence
of a common rate γ ≥ 0 for which op-amp and Σc are
respectively 0-passive and 1-passive, as required by Theorem
8. A 1-passive circuit can be multistable. Bounded trajectories of a strictly 1-dominant system necessarily converge to
a fixed point. Boundedness of trajectories follows from the
saturation of the op-amp voltage, which essentially “opens
the loop” for large overshoots. To enforce multistability, we

look for circuit parameters that guarantee the existence of at
least one unstable equilibrium point. The condition
αR1
1
<
,
(24)
Ra
R1 + R2
makes the zero-equilibrium unstable. The parameters in
Table I satisfies (23) and (24), enabling bistability. The value
of resistance Ra and capacitance Ca have been taken from
[24], to ensure good matching between simulations and the
behavior of a real op-amp component. Figure 6 shows the
trajectories of the system from two different initial conditions
(xa (0), x1 (0)) ∈ {(−2, −2), (2, 2)}.

Fig. 7. Relaxation Oscillator realized as the mixed positive and negative
feedback of two RC networks and an op-amp

For a2 = 0, there is no negative feedback and the system
reduces to the Schmitt trigger. For a2 6= 0, the negative
feedback loop either stabilizes the closed loop system, typically for parameter values that guarantee 0-passivity of G(s),
or induces oscillations, typically for parameter values that
guarantee 2-passivity of G(s). For instance, G(jω − γ) has
positive real part if

Fig. 6.

Schmitt trigger trajectories from two different initial conditions.

R1 = 1KΩ
R2 = 1KΩ

Ra = 1M Ω
α = 0.1

C1 = 100µF
Ca = 15.9nF

E1 = 12V
E2 = 12V

TABLE I
PARAMETER VALUES FOR THE SIMULATION OF THE S CHMITT TRIGGER .

C. Mixed feedback amplifier: relaxation oscillator
The interconnection of the op-amp with two slow passive
networks, one with negative and one with positive feedback,
leads to 2-passive circuits. For instance, the circuit in Figure
7 is a typical architecture for the generation of relaxation
oscillations. It is derived from the Schmitt trigger through
the addition of a slow network Σd , in negative feedback,
represented by
(
4
ẋ2 = − RR33R+R
x2 + R41c2 ν2
4 C2
Σd :
(25)
y2 = x2 ,
where x2 is the voltage across the capacitor C2 . The interconnection of the op-amp and of the two networks Σc and
Σd is given by the mixed positive/negative feedback
VE = x1 − x2 ,

ν1 = ν2 = V0 .

(26)

which can be written as a standard negative feedback loop
using the aggregate output y = y1 + y2 , for instance
VE = −y = −y1 − y2 ,
1
R2 C 1 ,

1
R4 C 2 ,

ν1 = ν2 = V0 .

(27)

R1 +R2
R2 R1 C 1

Taking a1 =
a2 =
b1 =
and b2 =
R3 +R4
,
the
aggregate
transfer
function
from
V
to
y reads
0
R3 R4 C 2
G(s) = −

a1
a2
(a2 − a1 )s + a2 b1 − a1 b2
+
=
.
s + b1
s + b2
(s + b1 )(s + b2 )
(28)

a2 (b2 − γ) − a1 (b1 − γ) > 0
a2 (b1 − γ) − a1 (b2 − γ) > 0
Hence, by Proposition 9, if




1
a2
b1 − γ b2 − γ
0 < γ < min b1 , b2 ,
,
> max
,
Ra Ca
a1
b2 − γ b1 − γ
then G(s) is strictly 0-passive with rate γ. The overall closed
loop has a globally asymptotically stable fixed point. In
contrast, for


a2
b1 − γ b2 − γ
1
,
< min
,
0 < max{b1 , b2 } < γ <
Ra Ca a1
b2 − γ b1 − γ
G(s) is strictly 2-passive with rate γ. Thus, by Theorem 8,
the overall closed-loop is 2-dominant with rate γ. Indeed,
γ divides the fast op-amp dynamics from the dominant
two dimensional slow dynamics of the linear networks.
We conclude the section with a numerical simulation. The
parameters of Table I together with R3 = 3.3KΩ, R4 =
1KΩ and C2 = 200µF satisfy the conditions above, thus
guarantee strict 2-dominance the closed loop with rate γ =
25. The fixed point in 0 is unstable but all trajectories remain
bounded (the constraint xa ∈ [−E2 , E1 ] implies that x1 and
x2 remain bounded), which enforces oscillations, as shown
in Figure 8.
V. CONCLUSIONS
We extended the concept of dominance to the analysis of
nonsmooth linear complementarity systems. The extension
mimics the smooth case when uniqueness of solutions is
assumed. The approach is based on the interconnection
theory of dissipativity. It opens the way to the analysis of
switching or oscillatory circuits with no restriction on the
dimension of the state-space. The potential of the approach
was illustrated with a detailed analysis of well-known circuits

Fig. 8.
Trajectories of the relaxation oscillator in Figure 7. xa (·) –
thin/black line; x1 (·) – thick/gray line; x2 (·) – dashed line.

based on op-amps, predicting multistable and oscillatory
behaviors, while providing margins on the circuit parameters
to enable such behaviors.
R EFERENCES
[1] F. Forni and R. Sepulchre, “A dissipativity theorem for p-dominant
systems,” in 56th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Melbourne, Australia, 2017.
[2] ——, “Differential dissipativity theory for dominance analysis,”
2017, submitted to IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01721.
[3] W. Lohmiller and J.-J. E. Slotine, “On contraction analysis for
nonlinear systems,” Automatica, vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 683–696, 1998.
[4] A. Pavlov, N. Van De Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “Convergent systems:
analysis and synthesis,” in Control and observer design for nonlinear
finite and infinite dimensional systems. Springer, 2005, pp. 131–146.
[5] F. Forni and R. Sepulchre, “A differential Lyapunov framework
for contraction analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 614–628, 2014.
[6] F. A. Miranda-Villatoro, F. Forni, and R. Sepulchre, “Analysis of
Lur’e dominant systems in the frequency domain,” 2017, submitted
to Automatica, http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01645.
[7] B. Brogliato, “On the control of non-smooth complementarity dynamical systems,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
vol. 359, no. 1789, pp. 2369–2383, 2001.
[8] ——, “Some perspectives on the analysis and control of complementarity systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 48,
no. 6, pp. 918–935, 2003.
[9] M. K. Çamlıbel, W. Heemels, and J. Schumacher, “On linear passive
complementarity systems,” European Journal of Control, vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 220–237, 2002.
[10] M. K. Çamlıbel, P. J. S, and J. L. Shen, “Lyapunov stability of linear
complementarity systems,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 17,
no. 4, pp. 1056–1101, 2006.
[11] W. Heemels and B. Brogliato, “The complementarity class of hybrid
dynamical systems,” European Journal of Control, vol. 9, no. 2, pp.
322–360, 2003.
[12] B. Brogliato, Nonsmooth Mechanics, ser. Communications and Control
Engineering. Springer, 2016.
[13] V. Acary, O. Bonnefon, and B. Brogliato, Nonsmooth modeling and
simulation for switched circuits, ser. Lecture Notes in Electrical
Engineering. Springer, 2011.
[14] A. Nagurney, Network economics: A variational inequality approach,
ser. Advances in Computational Economics. Springer, 1999.
[15] A. J. van der Schaft, L2-Gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear
Control, ser. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences.
Springer, 1996.
[16] G. B. Stan and R. Sepulchre, “Analysis of interconnected oscillators by
dissipativity theory,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 52,
no. 2, pp. 256–270, 2007.

[17] A. Pavlov and M. L, “Incremental passivity and output regulation,”
Systems & Control Letters, vol. 57, pp. 400–409, 2008.
[18] T. Liu, D. J. Hill, and Z. J, “Incremental-dissipativity-based synchronization of interconnected systems,” in Proceeding of the 18th World
Congress, Milano, Italy, 2011, pp. 8890–8895.
[19] F. A. Miranda-Villatoro and F. Castaños, “Robust output regulation of
strongly linear passive systems with multivalued maximally monotone
controls,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 1, pp.
238–249, 2017.
[20] D. Angeli, “A Lyapunov approach to incremental stability properties,”
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 47, pp. 410–421, 2000.
[21] V. Acary and B. Brogliato, “Implicit Euler numerical scheme and
chattering-free implementation of sliding mode systems,” Systems &
Control Letters, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 284–293, 2010.
[22] Y. J. Lootsma, A. J. van der Schaft, and M. K. Çamlıbel, “Uniqueness
of solutions of linear relay systems,” Automatica, vol. 35, pp. 467–478,
1999.
[23] K. Ciesielski, “The Poincaré-Bendixson theorems for two dimensional
semiflows,” Topological Methods in Nonlinear Analysis, vol. 3, pp.
163–178, 1994.
[24] J. Karki, “Effect of parasitic capacitance in op amp circuits,” Texas
Instruments, Tech. Rep. SLOA013A, 2000.

