arXiv:1703.10182v2 [math.OC] 27 May 2017

Boundary Control for Flutter Suppression of a Flexible Wing under
Unsteady Aerodynamic Loads ⋆
Hugo Lhachemi a , David Saussié a , Guchuan Zhu a
a École

Polytechnique de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

Abstract
This paper addresses the boundary control for flutter suppression of a flexible wing, both in bending and twisting displacements, under
unsteady aerodynamic loads. The wing is modeled by a distributed parameter system described as two coupled partial differential equations.
The problem is tackled in the framework of semigroup theory, and a Lyapunov-based stability analysis is carried out to assess that the
system energy, as well as the bending and twisting displacements, decays exponentially to zero. The effectiveness of the proposed boundary
control scheme is evaluated based on simulations.
Key words: Distributed parameter system; Flexible wing; Boundary control; Well posedness; Lyapunov stability.

1 Introduction
Resulting from interactions between aerodynamic, elastic
and inertial forces, dynamic aeroelastic phenomena can significantly degrade the performance of an aircraft, and may
also jeopardize the integrity of its structure [30]. Flutter,
which generally occurs in the presence of unsteady aerodynamic loads, is recognized as one of the most significant
aeroelastic phenomena [37,40]. This aeroelastic instability,
due to a severe loss of structural damping, is characterized
by limit-cycle oscillations in both bending and twisting displacements of the wing, which can severely affect the aircraft
maneuverability and reduce the wing fatigue life [16]. For a
given altitude, the flutter boundary is defined as the smallest airspeed at which flutter occurs; it is therefore essential
to push back this boundary to enlarge the flight domain.
Conventional solutions for flutter suppression are essentially
based on passive damping mechanisms by, e.g., increasing
the structural stiffness, and so, the wing mass. Although relatively efficient, these solutions are opposite to the current
trend to reduce aircraft mass for better fuel consumption.
Nevertheless, the massive integration of composite materials decreases the structure rigidity, which implies stronger
aeroelastic phenomena, resulting in undesired couplings between the flexible modes and the flight dynamics [9,38].
⋆ This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. Corresponding author G. Zhu.
Email addresses: hugo.lhachemi@polymtl.ca (Hugo
Lhachemi), d.saussie@polymtl.ca (David Saussié),
guchuan.zhu@polymtl.ca (Guchuan Zhu).

Preprint submitted to Automatica

Therefore, the active control of aeroelasticity phenomena
has become a topic of primary interest.
One of the most noticeable contributions to flutter control is the Benchmark Active Control Technology (BACT)
wind-tunnel model developed by NASA Langley Research
Center [28,35]. The BACT is modeled as a two-degree-offreedom aeroelastic wing section capturing the first bending
and twisting modes of a flexible wing. The control design
strategy of the BACT for flutter suppression, including experimental tests, has been widely investigated in the literature [3,5,8,21,29]. Nevertheless, the BACT cannot represent
the full dynamics of real aircraft wings. Indeed, the flexible wing can be more accurately modeled by a distributed
parameter system of two coupled partial differential equations (PDEs) describing the dynamics in bending and twisting displacement respectively [6,42,43].
There exist basically two approaches in the control of distributed parameter systems. The first one consists in casting the PDEs to a finite set of ordinary differential equations (ODEs), by using, e.g, Galerkin and Rayleigh-Ritz
methods [10,36]. This allows leveraging the well-developed
techniques for finite-dimensional systems in the control of
infinite-dimensional systems. The second approach, which
is the one adopted in this paper, is to proceed to the control
design based on the original PDEs. One of the main benefits
to deal directly with the PDE models is that it does not invoke early truncations so that such phenomena as spillover
instability can be avoided [2,26].
PDE-based control of flexible structures is one of the most

31 March 2018

system.

popular problems among a wide range of applications
addressed in the literature. Different methods have been
considered for the control of different settings, including
among others, backstepping control [22,39], Lyapunov
method [13,25,33], passivity-based control [20,33], flatness method [1,27], spectral analysis [12,25], and optimal
control [4,12,23]. Nevertheless, control of coupled PDEs
is relatively less addressed although some interesting contributions have been reported [11,15,41]. This topic still
remains widely open, particularly for coupled PDEs with
asymmetric structures.

Notations: Let L2 (0, l) be the set of Lebesgue squared
integrable real-valued functions over (0, l). L2 (0, l) is a
Hilbert space when endowed with its natural inner prodR
uct h f , giL2 (0,l) = 0l f (y)g(y)dy and associated norm denoted by k·kL2 (0,l) . For any m ∈ N, H m (0, l) denotes
the usual Sobolev space, which is defined as the set of
f ∈ L2 (0, l), such that f admits m successive weak derivatives, denoted by f ′ , f ′′ , . . . , f (m) , in L2 (0, l). H m (0, l) is a
Hilbert space when endowed with its natural inner product
R l (k)
(k)
h f , giH m (0,l) = ∑m
k=0 0 f (y)g (y)dy, and associated norm
denoted by k·kH m (0,l) . Denoting by AC[0, l] the set of all
absolutely continuous functions on [0, l], H 1 (0, l) ⊂ AC[0, l]
in the sense that for any f ∈ H 1 (0, l), there exists a unique
absolutely continuous function g ∈ AC[0, l] such that f = g
almost everywhere (in the sense of the Lebesgue measure),
implying f = g in H 1 (0, l). For two given normed vector
spaces (E, k·kE ) and (F, k·kF ), L (E, F) denotes the space
of bounded linear transformations from E to F, or simply
denoted by L (E) when the normed vector spaces coincide.
L (E, F) is a normed space when equipped with the induced norm denoted by |||·|||. The range of a given operator
A is denoted by R(A ) while its resolvent set is denoted by
ρ (A ). Further details can be found in, e.g., [12, Annex A]
and [24,34].

This paper addresses the boundary stabilization problem of
a wing described by a system of coupled PDEs with actuators located at the wing tip. The considered model is a linear
version of the system presented in [6]. Different from [6],
the considered model in this work includes explicitly the
Kelvin-Voigt damping in both bending and twisting axes,
and the aerodynamic loads are supposed to be unsteady. A
quite similar problem, namely a flapping wing UAV, is considered in [31], where the backstepping method is used for
the boundary control of the spatial integral of the state variables to track the net aerodynamic forces on the wing. The
same model is considered in [19], where a Lyapunov-based
stabilization control of flapping wings can achieve bounded
bending and twisting deflections in the presence of aerodynamic load disturbances. It should be noticed that a commonly used assumption for Lyapunov-based designs of this
type of systems is that the system energy should be bounded
and the system states and their partial derivatives should be
uniformly bounded up to a certain order [13,14]. In the case
of unsteady aerodynamic loads, the requirement of bounded
aerodynamic loads, as the one imposed in [19], implies that
the above regularity assumption should hold. The boundedness of system energy and the regularity of closed-loop trajectories can be justified by physical intuitions [13,14]. This
assumption can also considerably simplify closed-loop stability analysis. However, this regularity assumption implies
the well-posedness of the underlying PDEs and the stability of the system, which is indeed a quite strong condition.
The main objective of this work is to show that this regularity assumption can be relaxed. To this aim, we formulate
the problem under an abstract form that allows the application of the semigroup theory [12,32]. Then, we show that
the closed-loop system with the proposed boundary control
admits a C0 -semigroup and is well-posed. The closed-loop
stability is derived from a Lyapunov-based analysis, which
shows that the above C0 -semigroup is exponentially stable.

For notational simplicity, the successive partial derivatives
of a sufficiently regular function f are denoted in subscript,
e.g., fty stands for ∂ 2 f /(∂ t ∂ y).
2 Problem Setting and Boundary Control Law
2.1 Flexible wing model
Let l ∈ R∗+ be the length of the wing, ρ ∈ R∗+ the mass per
unit of span, Iw ∈ R∗+ the moment of inertia per unit length,
EI ∈ R∗+ (resp. GJ ∈ R∗+ ) the bending (resp. torsional) stiffness, and ηω ∈ R∗+ (resp. ηφ ∈ R∗+ ) the bending (resp. torsional) Kelvin-Voigt damping coefficient. The bending and
twisting dynamics of the flexible wing are described by the
following PDEs [6]:

ρωtt + EI ωyyyy + ηω EI ωtyyyy = Fa ,
Iw φtt − GJ φyy − ηφ GJ φtyy = Ma ,

(1a)
(1b)

where the functions ω : [0, l]× R+ → R and φ : [0, l]× R+ →
R denote, respectively, the bending and twisting displacements at the location y ∈ [0, l] along the wing span and at
time t ≥ 0 and Fa : [0, l] × R+ → R and Ma : [0, l] × R+ → R
denote, respectively, the aerodynamic lift force and pitching
moment applied at the location y ∈ [0, l] and at time t ≥ 0.
They are expressed under the following unsteady form:

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The wing
model describing the dynamics of the bending and twisting
displacements, along with the associated abstract form, are
introduced in Section 2. The well-posedness of the problem
is analyzed in Section 3 in the framework of semigroup
theory. Then, a Lyapunov-based analysis is carried out in
Section 4 to assess that the system energy, as well as bending
and twisting displacements, exponentially decays to zero.
Finally, numerical simulations are presented in Section 5
to illustrate the performance of the resulting closed-loop

Fa /ρ = αω φ + βω φt + γω ωt ,
Ma /Iw = αφ φ + βφ φt + γφ ωt ,

2

(2a)
(2b)

where αω , βω , γω ,p
αφ , βφ , γφ ∈ R+ . Introducing cω =
p
EI/ρ and cφ = GJ/Iw , it yields the following system
of coupled PDEs:

where k·k∞ is the uniform norm for real-valued functions
defined over [0, l], i.e., k f k∞ := sup {| f (y)| : y ∈ [0, l]}.
In control design and implementation, we make the following assumption.

2
ωtt + cω
ωyyyy + ηω c2ω ωtyyyy = αω φ + βω φt + γω ωt , (3a)

φtt − cφ2 φyy − ηφ c2φ φtyy = αφ φ + βφ φt + γφ ωt ,

(3b)

Assumption 1 It is assumed that ω (l, ·), ωt (l, ·), ωtt (l, ·),
φ (l, ·), φt (l, ·), and φtt (l, ·) are measurable and available for
feedback control.

in (0, l) × R+ . The boundary conditions for the tip-based
control scheme considered in this work are such that, for
any t ≥ 0,

The proposed boundary stabilization control takes the following form:

ω (0,t) = ωy (0,t) = ωyy (l,t) = φ (0,t) = 0,
(4a)
2
2
ρ cω ωyyy (l,t) + ρηω cω ωtyyy (l,t) = −Ltip (t) + ms ωtt (l,t),(4b)

Ltip (t) = −k1 ρ [ωt (l,t) + ε1 ω (l,t)] + ms ωtt (l,t),
Mtip (t) = −k2 Iw [φt (l,t) + ε2 φ (l,t)] + Jsφtt (l,t),

Iw cφ2 φy (l,t) + Iw ηφ cφ2 φty (l,t) = Mtip (t) − Jsφtt (l,t), (4c)

where Ltip : R+ → R and Mtip : R+ → R are the tip control
inputs. More precisely, Ltip (t) and Mtip (t) denote the aerodynamic lift force and pitching moment generated at time t
by the flaps located at the wing tip. The store at the wing
tip is characterized by its mass ms ∈ R∗+ and its moment of
inertia Js ∈ R∗+ .

for any t ≥ 0, where k1 , k2 ∈ R+ are tunable controller gains
and ε1 , ε2 ∈ R∗+ are two parameters to be determined. In the
remainder of this paper, we show that this boundary control
solves Problem 1.
2.3 Closed-loop system in abstract form

Finally, the initial conditions are given, for any y ∈ (0, l), by

ω (y, 0) = ω0 (y), ωt (y, 0) = ωt0 (y),
φ (y, 0) = φ0 (y), φt (y, 0) = φt0 (y).

In order to study the properties of the closed-loop system,
the problem is rewritten in abstract form. In this context, we
introduce the following real Hilbert space:

(5)

H = {( f , g, h, z) ∈ H 2 (0, l) × L2 (0, l) × H 1 (0, l) × L2 (0, l) :
f (0) = f ′ (0) = 0, h(0) = 0, f , f ′ , h ∈ AC[0, l]},

2.2 Boundary control law
Introducing the system energy defined by
1
E(t) :=
2

Z l
0

(7a)
(7b)

endowed with the inner product h·, ·iH ,1 defined by
2 2
ωyy (y,t) + ωt2 (y,t) + c2φ φy2 (y,t) + φt2 (y,t)dy,
cω

h( f1 , g1 , h1 , z1 ), ( f2 , g2 , h2 , z2 )iH ,1

(6)
the control problem investigated in this paper is formalized
as follows.

:=

Z l
0

+

Problem 1 The boundary control objective is twofold.

2 ′′
[cω
f1 (y) f2′′ (y) + g1(y)g2 (y)]dy

Z l
0

(1) To guarantee that the system energy exponentially decays to zero, i.e., there exist KE , Λ ∈ R∗+ such that

[c2φ h′1 (y)h′2 (y) + z1 (y)z2 (y)]dy.

The induced norm is denoted by k·kH ,1 and is such that the
energy of the wing defined by (6) can be expressed as

∀t ≥ 0, E(t) ≤ KE E(0) exp(−Λt).

∀t ≥ 0, E(t) =

(2) To guarantee that both bending and twisting displacements converge exponentially and uniformly over the
wing span to zero.

1
k(ω (·,t), ωt (·,t), φ (·,t), φt (·,t))k2H ,1 .
2

Remark 1 The vector space H endowed with h·, ·iH ,1 is
a Hilbert space because it is a closed subset of the Hilbert
space H 2 (0, l) × L2 (0, l) × H 1 (0, l) × L2 (0, l) endowed
with the inner product h( f1 , g1 , h1 , z1 ), ( f2 , g2 , h2 , z2 )i∑ =
h f1 , f2 iH 2 (0,l) + hg1 , g2 iL2 (0,l) + hh1, h2 iH 1 (0,l) + hz1 , z2 iL2 (0,l) .
Furthermore, the induced norm, denoted by k·k∑ , is such
that, as a consequence of the Poincaré’s inequality stated in
Lemma 1 (see Section 3), k·kH ,1 and k·k∑ are equivalent
on H .

In particular, it will be shown that if the first objective in
Problem 1 is satisfied, the second one follows in the sense
that there exist Kω , Kφ ∈ R∗+ such that for any t ≥ 0,
p
E(0) exp(−Λt/2),
p
kφ (·,t)k∞ ≤ Kφ E(0) exp(−Λt/2),

kω (·,t)k∞ ≤ Kω

3

In view of equations (3a-3b), the following operator is introduced:
A :

D(A )

−→

With this approach, the regularity properties of the closedloop trajectory are deduced from the well-posedness assessment, and the exponential energy decay of the system in
closed loop is confirmed by Lyapunov stability analysis. The
details of the proof are presented in the following two sections.

H

( f , g, h, z) −→ ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃)

(8)

where

3 Well-posedness
f˜ := g,
g̃ :=

To assess that the Cauchy problem (10) admits for any
given initial condition X0 ∈ D(A ) a unique solution X :
R+ → D(A ) that is continuously differentiable over R∗+ ,
i.e., X ∈ C 1 (R∗+ ; H ), it is necessary to study the properties
of the operator A [32, Chap.4, Th.1.3.]. To this end, the two
following linear auxiliary operators A1 : D(A1 ) → H and
A2 : D(A2 ) → H are introduced:

−c2ω ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′ + αω h + βω z + γω g,

h̃ := z,

z̃ := c2φ (h′ + ηφ z′ )′ + αφ h + βφ z + γφ g.
The linear operator A is defined, based on boundary conditions (4a-4c) and the boundary control (7a-7b), on the domain D(A ) ⊂ H defined by


2
A1 ( f , g, h, z) := g, −cω
( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′ , z, c2φ (h′ + ηφ z′ )′ ,

A2 ( f , g, h, z) := 0, αω h + βω z + γω g, 0, αφ h + βφ z + γφ g ,

D(A ) := {( f , g, h, z) ∈ H :

g ∈ H 2 (0, l), z ∈ H 1 (0, l),

with domains D(A1 ) = D(A ) and D(A2 ) = H . In particular, they are such that A = A1 + A2 over D(A ).

h′ + ηφ z′ ∈ H 1 (0, l),
f (0) = f ′ (0) = 0, g(0) = g′ (0) = 0,
h(0) = 0, z(0) = 0, ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )(l) = 0,

In the upcoming developments, the following versions of the
Poincaré’s and Agmon’s inequalities will be used.

f ′′ + ηω g′′ ∈ H 2 (0, l),

(9)

Lemma 1 [18,22] For any f ∈ H 1 (0, l) such that f (0) = 0,
the Poincaré’s inequality ensures that

c2ω ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′ (l) = k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l)),
c2φ (h′ + ηφ z′ )(l) = −k2 (z(l) + ε2 h(l)),
f , f ′ , g, g′ , h, z, ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ ) ∈ AC[0, l],
( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′ , (h′ + ηφ z′ ) ∈ AC[0, l]}.

k f k2L2 (0,l) ≤

2
,
L2 (0,l)

while the Agmon’s inequality provides

Then, the evolution equation in abstract form is given by

 dX
(t) = A X(t), t > 0,
dt
 X(0) = X ∈ D(A ),
0

4l 2 ′
f
π2

k f k2∞ ≤ 2 k f kL2 (0,l) f ′

(10)

L2 (0,l)

.

3.1 Introduction of a second inner product on H
In order to study the well-posedness of the abstract Cauchy
problem (10), it will be useful to consider the following
second inner product on H . Let ε1 , ε2 ∈ R∗+ be constant
parameters and h·, ·iH ,2 : H × H → R be defined for any
( f1 , g1 , h1 , z1 ), ( f2 , g2 , h2 , z2 ) ∈ H by

where X(t) = (ω (·,t), ωt (·,t), φ (·,t), φt (·,t)) is the state vector and X0 = (ω0 , ωt0 , φ0 , φt0 ) is the initial condition.
Remark 2 The boundary condition ωyy (l,t) = 0 (see
(4a)) implies ωtyy (l,t) = 0, which provides ωyy (l,t) +
ηω ωtyy (l,t) = 0. Conversely, ωyy (l,t) + ηω ωtyy (l,t) = 0
with the initial condition ωyy (l, 0) = 0 implies ωyy (l,t) = 0
for any t ≥ 0. It motivates the introduction of the boundary
constraint ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )(l) = 0 in (9).

h( f1 , g1 , h1 , z1 ), ( f2 , g2 , h2 , z2 )iH ,2
:= h( f1 , g1 , h1 , z1 ), ( f2 , g2 , h2 , z2 )iH ,1
+ ε1

The proof of the closed-loop exponential stability consists
in two main steps:

+ ε2

Z l
0

Z l
0

[ f1 (y)g2 (y) + g1(y) f2 (y)] dy
[h1 (y)z2 (y) + z1 (y)h2 (y)] dy.

Finally, let Km ∈ R∗+ be defined by

(1) to show that A is the infinitesimal generator of a C0 semigroup T (t) on H ;
(2) to show that the C0 -semigroup T (t) is exponentially
stable.

Km = max

4



1 1 4l 2 16l 4
, ,
,
cφ cω π 2 cφ π 4 cω



.

Remark 3 The utility of the second inner product h·, ·iH ,2
for assessing the well-posedness of the abstract Cauchy
problem (10) will appear clearly in the proof of Lemma 4
regarding the dissipativity of the operator A1 . It will also
be useful for assessing the exponential stability of the
closed-loop system in the framework of energy multiplier
method [17].

Then the following lemma holds.
Lemma 2 For any given 0 < ε1 , ε2 < 1/Km , h·, ·iH ,2 is
an inner product for H . Furthermore, the norm induced
from this inner product, denoted by k·kH ,2 , is equivalent to
k·kH ,1 .
Proof. Note first that h·, ·iH ,2 is bilinear and symmetric. For
any X = ( f , g, h, z) ∈ H ,
hX, XiH ,2 = kXk2H ,1 +2ε1

Z l
0

f (y)g(y)dy+2ε2

Z l

Hereafter, we assume that 0 < ε1 , ε2 < 1/Km whenever
Lemma 2 is applied.

h(y)z(y)dy.

0

Then, by first applying Young’s inequality 1 , and then
Poincaré’s inequality for h ∈ H 1 (0, l) with h(0) = 0, it yields
Z l
0

3.2 A1 generates a C0 -semigroup of contractions

Z

1 l
cφ h(y)z(y) dy
cφ 0

Z l
Z l
1
≤
cφ2 h2 (y)dy + z2 (y)dy
2cφ 0
0
 2Z l

Z l
1 4l
2 ′2
2
c
≤
z
(y)dy
h
(y)dy
+
2cφ π 2 0 φ
0
Z l
2
2
max(1, 4l /π )
≤
c2φ h′2 (y) + z2 (y)dy.
2cφ
0

h(y)z(y)dy ≤

We apply the Lumer-Phillips theorem [12,17,32] to show
that A1 generates a C0 -semigroup. To do so, the following
preliminary lemma is introduced.
Lemma 3 The operator A1−1 : H → D(A1 ) exists and is
bounded, i.e., A1−1 ∈ L (H , D(A1 )) ⊂ L (H ). Therefore,
0 ∈ ρ (A1 ) and A1 is a closed operator.
Remark 4 As k·kH ,1 and k·kH ,2 are equivalent, it is sufficient to show that A1−1 is bounded with respect to k·kH ,1
to deduce that this property also holds for k·kH ,2 .

Similarly, for f , f ′ ∈ H 1 (0, l) with f (0) = f ′ (0) = 0, one has
Z l
0



Z
Z l
1 4l 2 l 2 ′2
2
c f (y)dy + g (y)dy
f (y)g(y)dy ≤
2cω π 2 0 ω
0

 4Z l
Z l
1 16l
2
2 ′′2
c f (y)dy + g (y)dy
≤
2cω π 4 0 ω
0
Z
max(1, 16l 4 /π 4 ) l 2 ′′2
≤
cω f (y) + g2(y)dy.
2cω
0

Proof. Let us show first that A1 is surjective. Let
( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃) ∈ H . We are looking for ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A1 )
such that A1 ( f , g, h, z) = ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃), i.e.,
g = f˜,

Hence, for any X ∈ H ,

2
( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′
−cω

(1 − εm Km ) kXk2H ,1 ≤ hX, XiH ,2 ≤ (1 + εm Km ) kXk2H ,1 ,

= g̃,

in H 2 (0, l);
2

in L (0, l);

(12a)
(12b)

z = h̃,

1

in H (0, l);

(12c)

c2φ (h′ + ηφ z′ )′ = z̃,

in L2 (0, l).

(12d)

with εm = max(ε1 , ε2 ). Then, for 0 < εm < 1/Km , h·, ·iH ,2
is positive definite and hence, it defines an inner product on
H . Furthermore, denoting by k·kH ,2 the induced norm, we
have for any X ∈ H ,

Direct computations show that f defined below and g = f˜
solve (12a-12b),

p
p
1 − εm Km kXkH ,1 ≤ kXkH ,2 ≤ 1 + εm Km kXkH ,1 .
(11)
Thus k·kH ,2 is equivalent to k·kH ,1 . ✷

f (y) = −ηω f˜(y) +
Z Z

k1
1 − ε1 ηω
y2 (y − 3l) f˜(l)
· 2
6 cω
+ ε1 k1 l 3 /3
Z Z

1 y ξ1 l l
g̃(ξ4 )dξ4 dξ3 dξ2 dξ1
2
cω
ξ2 ξ3
0 0
1
ε1 k1
− 2 · 2
y2 (y − 3l)
6cω cω + ε1 k1 l 3 /3
−

From Lemma 2 the following corollary holds.
Corollary 1 (H , h·, ·iH ,2 ) is a real Hilbert space.
For any a, b ∈ R+ and r ∈ R∗+ , the Young’s inequality provides
ab ≤ a2 /(2r) + rb2 /2.

1

×

5

Z l Z ξ1 Z l Z l
0

0

ξ2 ξ3

g̃(ξ4 )dξ4 dξ3 dξ2 dξ1 ,

(13)

while h defined below and z = h̃ solve (12c-12d),
h(y) = −ηφ h̃(y) − k2
Z yZ l

1 − ε2 ηφ
yh̃(l)
c2φ + ε2 k2 l

−

1
cφ2

+

k2
ε2
y
· 2
2
cφ cφ + ε2 k2 l

0

ξ1

h = 0. Thus A1 ( f , g, h, z) = (0, 0, 0, 0) implies ( f , g, h, z) =
(0, 0, 0, 0) and hence, A1 is injective.
(14)

We have proven that A1 : D(A1 ) → H is bijective. Then
A1−1 : H → D(A1 ) is well defined for any ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃) ∈ H
by A1−1 ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃) = ( f , f˜, h, h̃) where f and h are given
by equations (13) and (14), respectively, and is clearly linear. Finally, it is shown in Annex A that A1−1 is bounded,
i.e., there exists M ∈ R+ such that for all ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃) ∈ H ,
A1−1 ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃) H ,1 ≤ M ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃) H ,1 . Thus, it shows

z̃(ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1
Z lZ l

ξ1

0

z̃(ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1 ,

that A1−1 ∈ L (H , D(A1 )) ⊂ L (H ). Then 0 ∈ ρ (A1 ) and
it follows that A1 is a closed operator 2 . ✷

with ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A1 ) = D(A ). Therefore, A1 is surjective. Let us now investigate the injectivity. By linearity, it is sufficient to show that for ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A1 ),
A1 ( f , g, h, z) = (0, 0, 0, 0) ⇒ ( f , g, h, z) = (0, 0, 0, 0). By
definition, A1 ( f , g, h, z) = (0, 0, 0, 0) implies
g = 0,

in H 2 (0, l);

−c2ω ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′ = 0,

in L2 (0, l);

z = 0,

in H 1 (0, l);

cφ2 (h′ + ηφ z′ )′ = 0,

in L2 (0, l).

H 2 (0, l)

H 1 (0, l).

Remark 5 The main interest of considering operator A1
as an intermediate step in the study of A relies in the fact
that equations (12a)-(12b) and (12c)-(12d) are uncoupled,
facilitating the surjectivity assessment of the operator.
The second key-element for applying the Lumer-Phillips
theorem is stated in the following lemma with

ε1∗ =

f ′′′′

Then g = 0 in
and z = 0 in
Hence
=0
and h′′ = 0 in L2 (0, l). As ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A1 ), the integration conditions are f (0) = f ′ (0) = f ′′ (l) = 0, f ′′′ (l) =
(k1 ε1 /c2ω ) f (l), h(0) = 0, and h′ (l) = −(k2 ε2 /c2φ )h(l). Then,
as f ′′′′ (y) = 0 for almost all y ∈ (0, l) and f , f ′ , f ′′ , f ′′′ ∈
AC[0, l], it yields for any y ∈ [0, l] by successive integrations:

4π 2ηφ c2φ
16l 2 + π 2ηφ2 c2φ

∈ R∗+ .

Proof. As 0 < ε1 , ε2 < 1/Km , Lemma 2 ensures that
(H , h·, ·iH ,2 ) is a real Hilbert space. Thus, to prove the
dissipativity of operator A1 , we have to show that [12,17,32]

k1 ε1
f (l)
2
cω
k1 ε1
⇒ f ′′ (y) = f ′′ (l) + 2 (y − l) f (l)
| {z } cω

∀X ∈ D(A1 ), hA1 X, XiH ,2 ≤ 0.

=0

Let X = ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A1 ),

k1 ε1 y(y − 2l)
f (l)
⇒ f (y) = f (0) + 2 ·
| {z } cω
2
′

hA1 X, XiH ,2
= hA1 X, XiH ,1

=0

k1 ε1 y2 (y − 3l)
⇒ f (y) = f (0) + 2 ·
f (l).
|{z} cω
6

+ε1

=0

+ε2

(1 + k1ε1 l 3 /(3c2ω )) f (l)

= 0. As
Evaluating at y = l, it yields
2 , k , l, ε ≥ 0, it implies that f (l) = 0 and hence, f = 0.
cω
1
1
Similarly, as h′′ (y) = 0 for almost all y ∈ (0, l) and h, h′ ∈
AC[0, l], we have for any y ∈ [0, l],
h′ (y) = h′ (l) = −

ε2∗ =

Lemma 4 Let ε1 , ε2 ∈ R∗+ such that ε1 < min(ε1∗ , 1/Km ) and
ε2 < min(ε2∗ , 1/Km ). Then the operator A1 : D(A1 ) → H
is dissipative with respect to h·, ·iH ,2 .

f ′′′ (y) = f ′′′ (l) =

′

4π 4 ηω c2ω
∈ R∗+ ,
64l 4 + π 4ηω2 c2ω

Z l
0

Z l
0

(15)

g2 (y)dy − ε1c2ω
z2 (y)dy + ε2c2φ

Z l

0
Z l
0

( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′ (y) f (y)dy

(h′ + ηφ z′ )′ (y)h(y)dy.

We evaluate the first term on the right-hand side of (15) as
follows:

k2 ε2
h(l)
cφ2

=

k2 ε2
k2 ε2
⇒h(y) = h(0) − 2 yh(l) = − 2 yh(l).
|{z} cφ
cφ

hA1 X, XiH ,1


g, −c2ω ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′ , z, c2φ (h′ + ηφ z′ )′ , ( f , g, h, z)

= c2ω

=0

Z l

+cφ2

k2 ε2 l/c2φ )h(l)

= 0.
Evaluating at y = l, it yields (1 +
2
As cφ , k2 , l, ε2 ≥ 0, it implies that h(l) = 0 and hence,

2

6

′′

f (y)g

0

Z l
0

′′

(y)dy − c2ω

h′ (y)z′ (y)dy + cφ2

Z l
0

Z l
0

′′

′′ ′′

H ,1

( f + ηω g ) (y)g(y)dy (16)

(h′ + ηφ z′ )′ (y)z(y)dy.

A non closed operator has an empty resolvent set.

Finally, for the fifth term on the right-hand side of (15),
integrating by parts along with the boundary conditions (9)
yields:

Applying integration by parts for absolutely continuous
functions [7] to the second integral in (16) along with the
boundary conditions (9) yields:
Z l

( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′ (y)g(y)dy
y=l

= c2ω ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′ (y)g(y) y=0
c2ω

0

−c2ω

Z l

′′ ′

′′

cφ2

+c2ω

Z l
0

= k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l))g(l) + c2ω
Z l

+ηω c2ω

0

0

0

c2φ
= c2φ

0

Z l

Z l
0

′

′

+ε1

′

(h + ηφ z )(y)z (y)dy

′

′

′2

z (y)dy.

−ε2 c2φ

−k2 (z(l) + ε2 h(l))z(l) − ηφ c2φ

Z l
0

Z l
0

g′′2 (y)dy

z′2 (y)dy.

Z l

( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′′ (y) f (y)dy
 ′′
y=l
2
( f + ηω g′′ )′ (y) f (y) y=0
= cω
0

( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )′ (y) f ′ (y)dy

y=l
= k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l)) f (l) − c2ω ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )(y) f ′ (y) y=0
0

+ηω c2ω

Z l
0

0

Z

0
l

0
Z l
0

z2 (y)dy

0

g′′2 (y)dy − ηφ c2φ

Z l
0

2
f ′′2 (y)dy − ε1 ηω cω

h′2 (y)dy − ε2ηφ cφ2

Z

z′2 (y)dy

Z l
0
l

0

f ′′ (y)g′′ (y)dy

h′ (y)z′ (y)dy.

f ′′ (y)g′′ (y)dy ≤

Z

4l 2 l ′2
16l 4
g
(y)dy
≤
π2 0
π4
0
Z l
Z l
2
4l
z′2 (y)dy.
z2 (y)dy ≤ 2
π 0
0

Z l

( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )(y) f ′′ (y)dy
Z l

Z l

Z l

Z

Applying Poincaré’s inequality to g, g′ , z ∈ H 1 (0, l) with
g(0) = g′ (0) = z(0) gives,

Z l

= k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l)) f (l) + c2ω

g2 (y)dy + ε2

l
1
r1 l ′′ 2
f ′′ (y)2 dy +
g (y) dy,
2r1 0
2 0
0
Z l
Z l
Z
r2 l ′ 2
1
h′ (y)2 dy +
h′ (y)z′ (y)dy ≤
z (y) dy.
2r2 0
2 0
0

Z l

0

h′ (y)z′ (y)dy.

Applying Young’s inequality with r1 , r2 > 0 to be determined
later, it provides

(17)

We now study the third term on the right-hand side of (15).
Integrating by parts along with the boundary conditions (9)
yields:

+c2ω

0

−ε1 c2ω

2
= −k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l))g(l) − ηω cω

Z l

Z l

−ηω c2ω

h (y)z (y)dy

0

hA1 X, XiH ,1

2
−cω

h (y)dy

0

hA1 X, XiH ,2

Then

2
cω

′2

= −k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l))2 − k2 (z(l) + ε2 h(l))2

= −k2 (z(l) + ε2 h(l))z(l) − c2φ
0

Z l

It yields then

g′′2 (y)dy,

 ′
y=l
(h + ηφ z′ )(y)z(y) y=0 − c2φ

−ηφ cφ2

0

f ′′ (y)g′′ (y)dy

(h′ + ηφ z′ )′ (y)z(y)dy

Z l

Z l

−ηφ cφ2

while the fourth integral becomes:
Z l

(h′ + ηφ z′ )′ (y)h(y)dy

= −k2 (z(l) + ε2 h(l))h(l) − cφ2

( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )(y)g′′ (y)dy
Z l

0

Z l

y=l
= cφ2 (h′ + ηφ z′ )(y)h(y) y=0 − c2φ (h′ + ηφ z′ )(y)h′ (y)dy

′

( f + ηω g ) (y)g (y)dy

y=l
= k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l))g(l) − c2ω ( f ′′ + ηω g′′ )(y)g′ (y) y=0
0

Z l

f ′′2 (y)dy

f ′′ (y)g′′ (y)dy.

g2 (y)dy ≤

Z

Z l
0

g′′2 (y)dy,

Thus, it yields for any X = ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A1 ) and any
7

r1 , r2 > 0,

the Lumer-Philips theorem [17, Th.2.29] [32] for reflexive
spaces concludes the proof. ✷

hA1 X, XiH ,2

≤ −k1 (g(l) + ε1 f (l))2 − k2 (z(l) + ε2 h(l))2

 Z l
 4
16l
ηω c2ω r1
2
− ηω cω − ε1
g′′2 (y)dy
+
π4
2
0
!! Z
2
l
4l 2 ηφ cφ r2
2
z′2 (y)dy
− ηφ cφ − ε2
+
2
π
2
0
Z l

ηω
2
−ε1 cω 1 −
f ′′2 (y)dy
2r1
0
Z l

ηφ
−ε2 c2φ 1 −
h′2 (y)dy.
2r2
0

Corollary 2 Let ε1 , ε2 > 0 such that ε1 < min(ε1∗ , 1/Km )
and ε2 < min(ε2∗ , 1/Km ). Then, D(A ) is dense in H endowed by either h·, ·iH ,1 or h·, ·iH ,2 , i.e., D(A ) = H .

(18)

Proof. The property that D(A1 ) is dense in H endowed by
h·, ·iH ,2 follows from both dissipativity and range conditions
satisfied by operator A1 in the application of the LumerPhilips theorem for reflexive spaces [32, Chap.1, Th.4.5 and
Th.4.6]. As the norms k·kH ,1 and k·kH ,2 are equivalent,
D(A1 ) is also dense in H endowed by h·, ·iH ,1 . The proof
is complete because, by definition, D(A ) = D(A1 ). ✷

2
2
As ϕ1 : R∗+ ∋ x → 2π 4 ηω cω
/(32l 4 + π 4 ηω cω
x) is a con∗
tinuous decreasing function over R+ and, by assumption
ε1 < ε1∗ = ϕ1 (ηω /2), hence there exists r1∗ > ηω /2 such
that ε1 < ϕ1 (r1∗ ) < ϕ1 (ηω /2). Similarly with ϕ2 : R∗+ ∋ x →
2π 2ηφ c2φ /(8l 2 + π 2ηφ cφ2 x), there exists r2∗ > ηφ /2 such that
ε2 < ϕ2 (r2∗ ) < ϕ2 (ηφ /2) = ε2∗ . Therefore, taking r2 = r2∗ and
r1 = r1∗ in (18), as the left-hand side of the inequality is
independent of r2 and r1 , it ensures that for any X ∈ H ,
hA1 X, XiH ,2 ≤ 0, i.e., (A1 , D(A1 )) is dissipative on H endowed with h·, ·iH ,2 . ✷

3.3 A2 is bounded
We now investigate the operator A2 . In particular, the following lemma holds.
Lemma 5 The linear operator A2 is bounded, i.e., A2 ∈
L (H ).
Remark 7 Again, as k·kH ,1 and k·kH ,2 are equivalent, it
is sufficient to show that this result holds with respect to
k·kH ,1 to deduce that it also holds for k·kH ,2 .

Remark 6 The motivation of introducing the second inner
product h·, ·iH ,2 is that the operator A1 is not dissipative
with respect to the first inner product h·, ·iH ,1 . Indeed, introducing f = g = 0, h(y) = (2κ1 /l − κ2 )y+ (−κ1 /l 2 + κ2 /l)y2
and z(y) = y/l, where κ1 = −(1 + k2 + ηφ c2φ /l)/(k2 ε2 ) ∈
R and κ2 = −k2 (1 + ε2 κ1 )/c2φ − ηφ /l ∈ R are two constant parameters, one can check that ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A1 )
and, based on (17), a straightforward computation yields
hA1 ( f , g, h, z), ( f , g, h, z)i H ,1 = 1 > 0.

Proof. Let X = ( f , g, h, z) ∈ H . Then,
kA2 Xk2H ,1 = (0, αω h + βω z + γω g, 0, αφ h + βφ z + γφ g)
=

0

+

3

Actually, any λ0 ∈ 0,

A1−1

dition based on [12, Th.A.4.9].

−1
H ,2

(αφ h(y) + βφ z(y) + γφ g(y))2 dy.

∀X ∈ H , kA2 XkH ,1 ≤ M kXkH ,1 ,

Proof. As 0 < ε1 , ε2 < 1/Km , Lemma 2 ensures that
(H , h·, ·iH ,2 ) is a real Hilbert space and hence, it is reflexive. Furthermore, Lemma 4 shows that the linear operator
A1 is dissipative with respect to h·, ·iH ,2 . It remains to show
that there exists λ0 > 0 such that R(λ0 ID(A1 ) − A1 ) = H .
Lemma 3 shows that the operator A1 is closed. Then
its resolvent set ρ (A1 ) is an open subset of C. As
0 ∈ ρ (A1 ), there exists λ0 > 0 such that the range condition R(λ0 ID(A1 ) − A1 ) = H holds 3 . The application of


Z l

By developing the square in the two integrals, using the
Young’s inequality and then the Poincaré’s inequality with
h ∈ H 1 (0, l) and h(0) = 0, it provides a constant M ∈ R+
depending only on l, cω , cφ , αω , βω , γω , αφ , βφ , γφ such that

that ε1 < min(ε1∗ , 1/Km )
operator A1 generates a

Theorem 1 Let ε1 , ε2 ∈
such
and ε2 < min(ε2∗ , 1/Km ). Then the
C0 -semigroup of contractions on (H , h·, ·iH ,2 ).



(αω h(y) + βω z(y) + γω g(y))2 dy

0

We are now ready to establish the main property of the
operator A1 .
R∗+

Z l

2
H ,1

which concludes the proof. ✷
3.4 A generates a C0 -semigroup
We can now introduce the main result of this section.
Theorem 2 Let ε1 , ε2 ∈ R∗+ such that ε1 < min(ε1∗ , 1/Km )
and ε2 < min(ε2∗ , 1/Km ). Then the operator (A , D(A ))
generates a C0 -semigroup on both (H , h·, ·iH ,1 ) and
(H , h·, ·iH ,2 ).

satisfies the range con-

8

min(ε1∗ , 1/Km ) and 0 < ε2 < min(ε2∗ , 1/Km ) such that

Proof. We have by definition A = A1 + A2 over D(A ) with
D(A ) = D(A1 ) and D(A2 ) = H . Furthermore, by Theorem 1, A1 generates a C0 -semigroup of contractions with
respect to h·, ·iH ,2 and, by Lemma 5, A2 is bounded. Then
the perturbation theory [32, Chap.3, Th.1.1][12, Th.3.2.1]
ensures that A generates a C0 -semigroup on (H , h·, ·iH ,2 ).
The proof is complete because, based on Lemma 2, k·kH ,1
and k·kH ,2 are equivalent. ✷




2
8l 4 αω βω γω
ηω cω
2
λ1 := ε1 cω −
− 4
+
+
,
2r1
π
r4
r5
r3
αω + ε2 γφ ε1 γω r3 βω + γφ
λ2 := γω +
+
+
,
2r6
2
2r7

 4
ηω c2ω r1
16l
,
+
λ3 := ηω c2ω − ε1
π4
2
ε2 cφ2 ηφ
λ4 := ε2 c2φ −
2r2


2
α
αφ + ε2 βφ ε1 αω r4
(
4l
ω + ε2 γφ )r6
− 2
+
+
+ ε2 αφ ,
π
2
2r8
2
(βω + γφ )r7 (αφ + ε2 βφ )r8 ε1 βω r5
λ5 := βφ +
+
+
,
2
2
2
!
2
4l 2 ηφ cφ r2
+
λ6 := ηφ c2φ − ε2
,
π2
2

Therefore, the Cauchy problem (10) is well-posed [12,17,32].
Let T : R+ → L (H ) be the C0 -semigroup generated by
A . Then, for any initial condition X0 ∈ D(A ),
X : R+ −→

H

t −→ T (t)X0

is the unique solution of (10), i.e., it satisfies X(0) = X0 , X ∈
C 1 (R+ , H ), and for any t > 0, (dX/dt)(t) = A X(t). Furthermore, for any t ≥ 0, X(t) ∈ D(A ) [32, Chap.1, Th.2.4],
i.e., X ∈ C 0 (R+ ; D(A )) ∩ C 1 (R+ ; H ).

satisfy λ1 , . . . , λ6 > 0, π 4 λ3 /(16l 4 )− λ2 > 0, and π 2 λ6 /(4l 2 )−
λ5 > 0.

4 Exponential Stability Assessment

Remark 8 Assumption 2 imposes restrictions on both control parameters ε1 , ε2 and the physical parameters of the
wing. Note that these restrictions are similar to those considered in [6,19]. Essentially, it consists in a trade-off between the structural stiffness of the wing and the amplitude
of the aerodynamic coefficients. Usually, aerodynamic coefficients are obtained based on performance criterion in correspondence to the desired flight envelope. Then, structural
stiffness, along with the control parameters ε1 , ε2 can been
adjusted to satisfy Assumption 2.

4.1 Exponential decay of the system energy
The objective of this section is to show the exponential stability of the solutions of (10). We introduce, in the framework of energy multipliers methods [17], the augmented energy of the plant, defined by
∀t ≥ 0, E (t) :=

1
1
kX(t)k2H ,2 = hX(t), X(t)iH ,2 , (19)
2
2

where R+ ∋ t → X(t) := T (t)X0 ∈ D(A ) denotes the unique
solution of (10) associated to the initial condition X0 ∈
D(A ). As T (t) is a C0 -semigroup, there exist M ≥ 1 and
ω ≥ 0 such that for any t ≥ 0, |||T (t)|||H ,2 ≤ Meω t [32,
Chap.1, Th.2.2]. Then (|||T (t)|||H ,2 )[0,t0 ] is bounded for any
given t0 ≥ 0 by Meω t0 . Thus, one can show that E is continuously differentiable over R+ (i.e., E ∈ C 1 (R+ ; R)), with a
derivative denoted by E˙ that satisfies for any t ≥ 0:
E˙ (t) = Ẋ(t), X(t)

H ,2

= hA X(t), X(t)iH ,2

= hA1 X(t), X(t)iH ,2 + hA2 X(t), X(t)iH ,2 .

We can now introduce the main result of this section.
Theorem 3 Assume that Assumption 2 holds. Then the augmented energy E defined by (19) exponentially decays to
zero, i.e., there exists Λ ∈ R∗+ such that
∀t ≥ 0, E (t) ≤ E (0) exp(−Λt).

(20)

Furthermore, T (t) is an exponentially stable C0 -semigroup
for k·kH ,2 .

In order to derive the exponential stability of the system, we
formulate the following assumption regarding the constants
in the considered system dynamics.

Proof. As E ∈ C 1 (R+ ; R), the objective is to show that there
exists a Λ ∈ R∗+ such that for any t ≥ 0, E˙ (t) ≤ −ΛE (t).
We first note that the first term of the right-hand side of (20)
is upper bounded by (18) since for any t ≥ 0, X(t) ∈ D(A )
and, by definition of operator A1 , D(A1 ) = D(A ). For the
second term in the right-hand side of (20), we have for any

Assumption 2 It is assumed that the constants in (3a-3b),
2 , c2 , η , η , α , β , γ , α , β , and γ , are
i.e., l, cω
ω
ω
ω
ω
φ
φ
φ
φ
φ
such that there exit r1 , r2 , . . . , r8 > 0 along with 0 < ε1 <

9

X = ( f , g, h, z) ∈ D(A ) ⊂ D(A2 ),
hA2 X, XiH ,2
Z l

= ε1 γω

0

+ε1 βω

f (y)g(y)dy + ε1 αω

Z l
0

f (y)z(y)dy + γω

+(αω + ε2 γφ )
+ε2 αφ
+βφ

Z l

Z l

0

Z l
0

Z l

Introducing

µm := 2 min

f (y)h(y)dy

it provides, based on (11),

g2 (y)dy

g(y)h(y)dy + (βω + γφ )

h (y)dy + (αφ + ε2 βφ )

Z l

Z l

Λ
µm
kX(t)k2H ,1 ≤ − kX(t)k2H ,2 = −ΛE (t),
∀t ≥ 0, E˙ (t) ≤ −
2
2

g(y)z(y)dy

0

h(y)z(y)dy

where Λ := µm /(1 + εm Km ) > 0 is independent of the
initial condition X0 ∈ D(A ). Thus, for any t ≥ 0,
E (t) ≤ E (0) exp(−Λt). Recalling that E (t) = kX(t)k2H ,2 /2,
it yields that

0

z2 (y)dy.

0

∀X0 ∈ D(A ), ∀t ≥ 0, kT (t)X0 kH ,2 ≤ kX0 kH ,2 exp(−Λt/2).
This equality can be extended to all X0 ∈ H because for any
t ≥ 0, T (t) ∈ L (H ) and, based on Corollary 2, D(A ) =
H . In other words,

hA2 X, XiH ,2
Z l

8ε1 l 4 αω βω γω
≤ 4
+
+
f ′′2 (y)dy
π
r4
r5
r3
0

Z l
αω + ε2 γφ ε1 γω r3 βω + γφ
+ γω +
+
+
g2 (y)dy
2r6
2
2r7
0


4l 2 (αω + ε2 γφ )r6 αφ + ε2 βφ ε1 αω r4
+
+
+ ε2 αφ
+ 2
π
2
2r8
2
h′2 (y)dy

Z l

z2 (y)dy.

0

(βω + γφ )r7 (αφ + ε2 βφ )r8 ε1 βω r5
+ βφ +
+
+
2
2
2
×

> 0,

0

Applying first Young’s inequality and then Poincaré’s inequality with f , f ′ , g, g′ , h, z ∈ H 1 (0, l) and f (0) = f ′ (0) =
g(0) = g′ (0) = h(0) = z(0) = 0, it yields for any r3 , . . . , r8 >
0, and in particular for the value of the parameters satisfying
Assumption 2,

×

!

0

Z l

2

Z l

λ1 π 4 λ3
λ4 π 2 λ6
,
− λ2 , 2 , 2 − λ5
2
4
cω 16l
cφ 4l

∀X0 ∈ H , ∀t ≥ 0, kT (t)X0 kH ,2 ≤ kX0 kH ,2 exp(−Λt/2).
Thus T (t) is an exponentially stable C0 -semigroup for
k·kH ,2 with |||T (t)|||H ,2 ≤ exp(−Λt/2) for any t ≥ 0. ✷
Corollary 3 Assume that Assumption 2 holds. Then the energy E defined by (6) exponentially decays to zero. In particular, there exists KE ∈ R∗+ such that



∀t ≥ 0, E(t) ≤ KE E(0) exp(−Λt/2),
where Λ > 0 is provided by Theorem 3. Furthermore, T (t)
is an exponentially stable C0 -semigroup for k·kH ,1 .

0

Let X(t) = ( f (·,t), g(·,t), h(·,t), z(·,t)) ∈ D(A ) be the solution to (10) associated to the initial condition X(0) = X0 ∈
D(A ). Considering the values of r1 , . . . , r8 , ε1 , ε2 satisfying
Assumption 2, together with (18), (20) verifies for any t ≥ 0,

Proof. This is immediate with KE = (1 + Km εm )/(1 −
Km εm ) > 0 because based on the equivalence of the norms
(11),

E˙ (t) ≤ −k1 (g(l,t) + ε1 f (l,t))2 − k2 (z(l,t) + ε2 h(l,t))2

E(t) ≤

−λ1
−λ4

Z l
0

Z l
0

f ′′2 (y,t)dy + λ2
h′2 (y,t)dy + λ5

Z l

Z

0
l

0

g2 (y,t)dy − λ3

z2 (y,t)dy − λ6

Z l

Z

0

0
l

g′′2 (y,t)dy

z′2 (y,t)dy

E (0)
1
E (t) ≤
exp(−Λt)
1 − Km εm
1 − Km εm
1 + Km εm
≤
E(0) exp(−Λt).
1 − Km εm

Following the same argument as in the last part of the
proof of Theorem 3, the claim holds true because E(t) =
kX(t)k2H ,1 /2, providing |||T (t)|||H ,1 ≤ KE exp(−Λt/2) for
any t ≥ 0. ✷

≤ −k1 (g(l,t) + ε1 f (l,t))2 − k2 (z(l,t) + ε2 h(l,t))2
Z l
 4
Z l
π λ3
′′2
− λ2
g2 (y,t)dy
f (y,t)dy −
−λ1
16l 4
0
0
Z l
 2
Z l
π λ6
′2
−λ4 h (y,t)dy −
− λ5
z2 (y,t)dy.
4l 2
0
0

4.2 Uniform exponential stability of the bending and twisting displacements

where the second inequality is based again on Poincaré’s
inequality and with λ1 , . . . , λ6 > 0 defined in Assumption 2.

Finally, we assess the uniform exponential stability of bending and twisting displacements.

10

Corollary 4 Assume that Assumption 2 holds. Then, there
exist Kω , Kωy , Kφ ∈ R∗+ such that for any initial condition
X0 ∈ D(A ) and for all t ≥ 0, the solution to the Cauchy
problem (10) satisfies
p
kω (·,t)k∞ ≤ Kω E(0) exp(−Λt/2),
p
ωy (·,t) ∞ ≤ Kωy E(0) exp(−Λt/2),
p
kφ (·,t)k∞ ≤ Kφ E(0) exp(−Λt/2),

out. The numerical scheme is based on the Garlekin method
with which both bending and twisting displacements are expressed under the form of a weighted sum of basis functions:
n

ω (y,t) := ∑ ai (t) fi (y) = a(t)⊤ f (y),
φ (y,t) :=

Z l

h2 (y,t)dy h′2 (y,t)dy
0
0
2
Z l
16l 2
64l 2
≤ 2
h′2 (y,t)dy ≤ 2 4 E(t)2 .
π
π cφ
0

∀i ∈ {0, . . . , n}, fi (0) = fi′ (0) = fi′′ (l) = 0,
f0′′′ (l) = 1, ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , n}, fi′′′ (l) = 0,
∀ j ∈ {0, . . . , p}, h j (0) = 0,
′
h0 (l) = 1, ∀ j ∈ {1, . . . , p}, h′j (l) = 0.

Hence for any t ≥ 0,
||h(·,t)||∞ ≤

In simulation, the following polynomial functions are selected as the basis functions:

23/2l 1/2 p

π 1/2 cφ

with
Kφ =

p
E(t) ≤ Kφ E(0)exp(−Λt/2),

23/2l 1/2
×
π 1/2 cφ

r


y2  y
−l ,
2l 3
(y − l)i+3 − (−l)i+2 (i + 3)y − (−l)i+3
,
fi (y) =
(i + 1)(i + 2)(i + 3)
y
ho (y) = ,
l
(y − l) j+1 − (−l) j+1
h j (y) =
,
j+1
fo (y) =

1 + Kmεm
.
1 − Kmεm

Following the same procedure with f ′ (·,t) ∈ H 1 (0, l) and
f ′ (0,t) = 0, Kωy = Kφ cφ /cω is such that for any t ≥ 0,
f ′ (·,t)

∞

≤ Kωy

p
E(0) exp(−Λt/2).

where i ∈ {1, . . . , n} and j ∈ {1, . . . , p}. Approximations
(21a-21b) are injected into (3a-3b) and the resulting equations are projected into the space spanned by the basis functions. Integrating by parts along with the boundary control
conditions (4b-4c), the control inputs Ltip and Mtip explicitly
appear, providing the following set of ordinary differential
equations:



ms
2
Mf f +
f (l) f (l)⊤ ä − ηω cω
M f ′ f ′′′ + γω M f f ȧ
ρ
1
−c2ω M f ′ f ′′′ a = f (l)Ltip + αω M f h b + βω M f h ḃ ,
ρ



Js
Mhh + h(l)h(l)⊤ b̈ + ηφ c2φ Mh′ h′ − βφ Mhh ḃ
Iw

1
+ cφ2 Mh′ h′ − αφ Mhh b = h(l)Mtip + γφ Mh f ȧ,
Iw

Finally, as for any t ≥ 0, f (·,t), f ′ (·,t) ∈ H 1 (0, l) and
f (0,t) = f ′ (0,t) = 0, it gives for any t ≥ 0,
|| f (·,t)||∞ ≤

p
25/2 l 3/2 p
E(t) ≤ Kω E(0) exp(−Λt/2),
3/2
π cω

with

r
25/2 l 3/2
1 + Km εm
.
×
Kω = 3/2
1 − Km εm
π cω
The proof is complete as f = ω , f ′ = ωy , and h = φ .

(21b)

where the basis functions of projection in space fi (y) and
h
i⊤
h j (y) are gathered into f (y) = f0 (y) . . . fn (y) ∈ Rn+1
h
i⊤
and h(y) = h0 (y) . . . h p (y) ∈ R p+1 , respectively. The
h
i⊤
temporal functions are given by a(t) = a0 (t) . . . an (t) ∈
h
i⊤
Rn+1 and b(t) = b0 (t) b1 (t) . . . b p (t) ∈ R p+1 . In view
of the boundary conditions (4a-4c), the basis functions are
selected such as ( fi )0≤i≤n and (h j )0≤ j≤p form two linearly
independent set of functions with the following constraints:

Proof. Let X(t) = T (t)X0 = ( f (·,t), g(·,t), h(·,t), z(·,t)) be
the solution of the Cauchy problem (10) associated to the
initial condition X0 ∈ D(A ). Recall that for any t ≥ 0, X(t) ∈
D(A ). Thus, by applying Agmon’s inequality recalled in
Lemma 1 along with h(·,t) ∈ H 1 (0, l) and the boundary
condition h(0,t) = 0, and then Poincaré’s inequality under
the same conditions, it yields
Z l

∑ b j (t)h j (y) = b(t)⊤ h(y),

j=0

where Λ > 0 is given in Theorem 3 and E(0) = kX0 k2H ,1 /2
is the initial energy of the system.

||h(·,t)||4∞ ≤ 4

(21a)

i=0
p

✷

5 Simulations
In order to assess the adequate temporal behavior of the
proposed boundary control scheme, simulations are carried

11

where for any p, q ∈ { f , f ′ , f ′′ , f ′′′ , h, h′ }, based on the selected basis function, the following matrix is computed
R
M pq := 0l p(y)q(y)⊤ dy.

ω(y,t) (m)

0.04

For open-loop simulations, the aerodynamic force and momentum applied at the wing tip are zero, i.e., Ltip = Mtip = 0,
while in closed-loop they are given by (7a-7b) which, with
approximations (21a-21b), gives

0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04

h
i
Ltip (t) = −k1 ρ f (l)⊤ ȧ + ε1 f (l)⊤ a + ms f (l)⊤ ä,
i
h
Mtip (t) = −k2 Iw h(l)⊤ ḃ + ε2 h(l)⊤ b + Js h(l)⊤ b̈.

-0.06
1
10
0.5

The initial conditions are selected as ω (y, 0) = 0.15 f0 (y)/l 3 m
and φ (y, 0) = 16(h0 (y) + h1 (y)/l 2 ) = 8y2 /l 2 deg for both
open-loop and closed-loop simulations. The temporal behavior of the open-loop system is depicted in Fig. 1. It can
be seen that both bending and twisting displacements are
poorly damped, exhibiting large oscillations. Setting the two
controller gains as k1 = k2 = 1, the behavior of the closedloop system, depicted in Fig. 2 shows that the oscillations
have been damped out rapidly. To better illustrate the performance improvement provided by the proposed control
scheme, a comparison of displacements at the wing tip for
the open-loop and closed-loop systems is given in Fig. 3.
Finally, the actuation effort at the wing tip is depicted in
Fig. 4.

5

y/l

0

0
Time (s)

(a) Bending displacement ω (y,t)

φ(y,t) (deg)

10
5
0
-5
-10
1
10

6 Conclusion

0.5

A

Fig. 1. Open-loop response

where f and h are given by (13) and (14), respectively. Based
on (14), there exist c1 , c2 , c3 , c4 ∈ R, which only depend
on the constants ηφ , cφ2 , ε2 , k2 , l, such that for almost any
y ∈ [0, l],
h′ (y) = c1 h̃′ (y) + c2 h̃(l) + c3
+c4

Z lZ l
0

ξ1

Z l

z̃(ξ )dξ

y

z̃(ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1 .

Then by triangular inequality,
h′

2
2
+ f˜ L2 (0,l)
L2 (0,l)
2
2
h′ L2 (0,l) + h̃ L2 (0,l) ,

=c2ω f ′′
+ cφ2

0
Time (s)

We have
2
H ,1

0

(b) Twisting displacement φ (y,t)

Proof of the boundedness of the operator A1−1

A1−1 ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃)

5

y/l

This paper tackled the boundary control of a flexible wing
under unsteady aerodynamic loads. The wing is modeled
by a distributed parameter system consisting of two coupled
partial differential equations describing both bending and
twisting displacements of the wing. It is demonstrated that
the problem is well-posed by resorting to the framework
of the semigroup theory. Furthermore, it is shown by using
the Lyapunov method that the proposed boundary control
scheme ensures the uniform exponential stability of both
bending and twisting displacements. Numerical simulations
have been carried out to illustrate the performance of the
closed-loop system. Note that the obtained results rely in
certain structural constraints that mainly impose restrictions
on the amplitude of the aerodynamic coefficients. As these
constraints may limit the admissible airspeed, relaxing these
restrictions can be considered in the future work.

L2 (0,l)

≤ |c1 | h̃′
+|c3 |

L2 (0,l)
Z l
·

√
+ l|c2 ||h̃(l)|

z̃(ξ )dξ
L2 (0,l)

Z lZ l
√
+ l|c4 |
|z̃(ξ2 )|dξ2 dξ1 .

(A.1)

0

12

ξ1

ω(l,t) (m)

ω(y,t) (m)

0

0.04
0.02
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06

-0.02

0

2

4
6
Time (s)

8

10

0

2

4
6
Time (s)

8

10

10
φ(l,t) (deg)

-0.04
1
10
0.5

0

5

y/l

0

-10

0
Time (s)

(a) Bending displacement ω (y,t)

Fig. 3. Open-loop versus closed-loop bending and twisting displacements at the wing tip
15
10

L tip (N)

φ(y,t) (deg)

8
6
4

5
0
-5

2

0

2

4
6
Time (s)

8

10

0

2

4
6
Time (s)

8

10

0
-2
1

M tip (N.m)

10
10
0.5

5

y/l

0

0

0
-10
-20
-30

Time (s)

(b) Twisting displacement φ (y,t)
Fig. 2. Closed-loop response

Fig. 4. Applied control momentum Mtip and force Ftip

Finally,

As h̃ ∈ AC[0, l], h̃(0) = 0 and based on the Cauchy-Schwartz
inequality, the second term is such that
|h̃(l)| = h̃(0) +
≤

Z l
0

Z l
0

Z lZ l
0

h̃′ (ξ )dξ

√
|h̃′ (ξ )|dξ ≤ l h̃′

y

z̃(ξ )dξ ≤

Z l

L2 (0,l)

.

y

≤

Z l
0

0 0
3/2

|z̃(ξ2 )|dξ2 dξ1

kz̃kL2 (0,l) .

It gives
h′

|z̃(ξ )|dξ ≤

Z lZ l

≤l

Similarly, for any y ∈ [0, l],
Z l

ξ1

|z̃(ξ2 )|dξ2 dξ1 ≤

L2 (0,l)

≤ M1 h̃′

L2 (0,l)

+ M2 kz̃kL2 (0,l) ,

with M1 = |c1 | + l|c2 | and M2 = l|c3 | + l 2 |c4 |. Based on (13),
there exist d1 , d2 , d3 , d4 ∈ R depending only on the constants
2 , ε , k , l such that for almost any y ∈ [0, l],
ηω , cω
1 1

|z̃(ξ )|dξ

√
l kz̃kL2 (0,l) ,

′′

f (y) = d1 f˜′′ (y) + d2(y − l) f˜(l) + d3

then,
Z l
·

z̃(ξ )dξ
L2 (0,l)

(A.2)

≤ l kz̃kL2 (0,l) .

+d4 (y − l)

13

Z l Z ξ1 Z l Z l
0

0

ξ2 ξ3

Z lZ l
y

ξ1

g̃(ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1

g̃(ξ4 )dξ4 dξ3 dξ2 dξ1 ,

References

then by triangular inequality,
f ′′

L2 (0,l)

≤ |d1 | f˜′′
+|d3 |

L2 (0,l)

Z lZ l

ξ1

·

l 3/2

+ √ |d4 |
3

l 3/2
+ √ |d2 || f˜(l)|
3

g̃(ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1
L2 (0,l)

Z l Z ξ1 Z l Z l
0

[1] Y. Aoustin, M. Fliess, H. Mounier, Rouchon P., and Rudolph J.
Theory and practice in the motion planning and control of a flexible
robot arm using Mikusinski operators. In Proc. of the Fifth IFAC
Symposium on Robot Control, pages 287–293, France, Nantes, 1997.
[2] M.J. Balas. Feedback control of flexible systems. IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, 23(4):673–679, 1978.
[3] A. Behal, P. Marzocca, V. M. Rao, and A. Gnann. Nonlinear adaptive
control of an aeroelastic two-dimensional lifting surface. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 29(2):382–390, 2006.
[4] A. Bensoussan, G. Da Prato, M. Delfour, and S. K. Mitter.
Representation and Control of Infinite-Dimensional Systems.
Birkhauser, Boston, 2nd edition, 2007.
[5] N. Bhoir and S. N. Singh. Output feedback nonlinear control of an
aeroelastic system with unsteady aerodynamics. Aerospace Science
and Technology, 8(3):195–205, 2004.
[6] B. J. Bialy, I. Chakraborty, S. C. Cekic, and W. E. Dixon. Adaptive
boundary control of store induced oscillations in a flexible aircraft
wing. Automatica, 70:230–238, 2016.
[7] P. Cannarsa and T. D’Aprile. Introduction to measure theory and
functional analysis, volume 89. Springer, 2015.
[8] M. Cassaro, M. Battipede, P. Marzocca, and A. Behal. Comparison
of adaptive control architectures for flutter suppression. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 38(2):346–355, 2014.
[9] A. Chakravarthy, K. A. Evans, and J. Evers. Sensitivities & functional
gains for a flexible aircraft-inspired model. In in Proceedings of the
Amerrican Control Conference (ACC), pages 4893–4898, 2010.
[10] P. D. Christofides and P. Daoutidis. Finite-dimensional control of
parabolic pde systems using approximate inertial manifolds. Journal
of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 216:398–420, 1997.
[11] 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 Journal on Control and Optimization,
51(3):2005–2035, 2013.
[12] R. F. Curtain and H. Zwart. An introduction to infinite-dimensional
linear systems theory, volume 21. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.
[13] M. S. De Queiroz, D. M. Dawson, S. P. Nagarkatti, and F. Zhang.
Lyapunov-based control of mechanical systems. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2012.
[14] M. S. De Queiroz and C. D. Rahn. Boundary control of vibration
and noise in distributed parameter systems: an overview. Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing, 16(1):19–38, 2002.
[15] 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, 58(12):3097–3111,
2013.
[16] E. H. Dowell, J.P. Thomas, and K. C. Hall. Transonic limit cycle
oscillation analysis using reduced order aerodynamic models. Journal
of Fluids and Structures, 19(1):17–27, 2004.
[17] B.-Z. Guo. Riesz basis approach to the tracking control of a flexible
beam with a tip rigid body without dissipativity. Optimization
Methods and Software, 17(4):655–681, 2002.
[18] G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, and G. Pólya. Inequalities. Cambridge
university press, 1952.
[19] W. He and S. Zhang. Control design for nonlinear flexible wings of a
robotic aircraft. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology,
25(1):351–357, 2017.
[20] J. Henikl, W. Kemmetmüller, T. Meurer, and A. Kugi.
Infinite-dimensional decentralized damping control of large-scale
manipulators with hydraulic actuation. Automatica, 63:101–115,
2016.

ξ2 ξ3

0

|g̃(ξ4 )|dξ4 dξ3 dξ2 dξ1 .

As f˜, f˜′ ∈ AC[0, l], f˜(0) = f˜′ (0) = 0, and based on the
Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, the second term is such that
| f˜(l)| =
≤

Z l Z ξ1

Z

0 0
lZ l
0

0

f˜′′ (ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1

| f˜′′ (ξ2 )|dξ2 dξ1 ≤ l 3/2 f˜′′

L2 (0,l)

.

Similarly, for any y ∈ [0, l],
Z lZ l

ξ1

y

g̃(ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1 ≤

Z lZ l

≤l

0 0
3/2

|g̃(ξ2 )|dξ2 dξ1

kg̃kL2 (0,l) ,

then,
Z lZ l
·

ξ1

g̃(ξ2 )dξ2 dξ1
L2 (0,l)

≤ l 2 kg̃kL2 (0,l) .

Finally,
Z l Z ξ1 Z l Z l
0

0

ξ2 ξ3

|g̃(ξ4 )|dξ4 dξ3 dξ2 dξ1 ≤ l 7/2 kg̃kL2 (0,l) .

It yields,
f ′′

L2 (0,l)

≤ M3 f˜′′

L2 (0,l)

+ M4 kg̃kL2 (0,l) ,

(A.3)

√
√
with M3 = |d1 |+ l 3 |d2 |/ 3 and M4 = l 2 |d3 |+ l 5 |d4 |/ 3. Finally, based on Poincaré’s inequality with f˜, f˜′ , h̃ ∈ AC[0, l]
and f˜(0) = f˜′ (0) = h̃(0),
h̃

2
≤ M5 c2φ
L2 (0,l)

h̃′

2
,
L2 (0,l)

f˜

2
≤ M6 c2ω
L2 (0,l)

f˜′′

2
,
L2 (0,l)

(A.4)
with M5 = 4l 2 /(π 2 c2φ ) and M6 = 16l 4 /(π 4 c2ω ). Putting together (A.1) with inequalities (A.2-A.4), it yields
A1−1 ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃)

H ,1

≤ M ( f˜, g̃, h̃, z̃)

H ,1

,

with the constant
M := max( M1 (M1 + M2 ) + M5 , c2φ M2 (M1 + M2 ),
M3 (M3 + M4 ) + M6 , c2ω M4 (M3 + M4 ))1/2 ∈ R+ ,
which only depends on the physical parameters of the wing.

14

[21] J. Ko, T. W. Strganac, and A. J. Kurdila. Adaptive feedback
linearization for the control of a typical wing section with structural
nonlinearity. Nonlinear Dynamics, 18(3):289–301, 1999.

[43] M. Y. Ziabari and B. Ghadiri. Vibration analysis of elastic uniform
cantilever rotor blades in unsteady aerodynamics modeling. Journal
of Aircraft, 47(4):1430–1434, 2010.

[22] M. Krstic and A. Smyshlyaev. Boundary control of PDEs: A course
on backstepping designs. SIAM, 2008.
[23] I. Lasiecka and R. Triggiani. Control theory for partial differential
equations: Volume 1, Abstract parabolic systems: Continuous and
approximation theories, volume 1. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[24] Giovanni Leoni. A first course in Sobolev spaces, volume 105.
American Mathematical Society Providence, RI, 2009.
[25] Z.-H. Luo, B.-Z. Guo, and O. Morgul. Stability and stabilization of
infinite dimensional systems with applications. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2012.
[26] L. Meirovitch and H. Baruh. On the problem of observation spillover
in self-adjoint distributed-parameter systems. Journal of Optimization
Theory and Applications, 39:269–291, 1983.
[27] T. Meurer. Control of HigherDimensional PDEs: Flatness and
Backstepping Designs. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[28] V. Mukhopadhyay. Benchmark active control technology: Part I.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 23(5):913, 2000.
[29] V. Mukhopadhyay. Transonic flutter suppression control law design
and wind tunnel test results. Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, 23(5):930–937, 2000.
[30] V. Mukhopadhyay. Historical perspective on analysis and control of
aeroelastic responses. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
26(5):673–684, 2003.
[31] A. A. Paranjape, J. Guan, S.-J. Chung, and M. Krstic. Pde boundary
control for flexible articulated wings on a robotic aircraft. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics, 29(3):625–640, 2013.
[32] A. Pazy. Semigroups of linear operators and applications to partial
differential equations, volume 44. Springer Science & Business
Media, 2012.
[33] C. D. Rahn. Mechatronic control of distributed noise and vibration:
A Lyapunov Approach. Springer, 2001.
[34] H. L. Royden and P. Fitzpatrick.
Macmillan New York, 1988.

Real analysis, volume 198.

[35] R. C. Scott, S. T. Hoadley, C. D. Wieseman, and M. H. Durham.
Benchmark active controls technology model aerodynamic datai.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 23(5):914–921, 2000.
[36] A. Shawky, A. Ordys, and M. Grimble. End-point control of
a flexible-link manipulator using h nonlinear control via a statedependent riccati equation. In In 2002 IEEE international conference
on control applications, 2002.
[37] C. M. Shearer and C. E. Cesnik. Nonlinear flight dynamics of very
flexible aircraft. Journal of Aircraft, 44(5):1528–1545, 2007.
[38] E. F. Sheta, V. J. Harrand, D. E. Thompson, and T. W. Strganac.
Transonic limit cycle oscillation analysis using reduced order
aerodynamic models. Journal of Aircraft, 39:133–141, 2002.
[39] A. Smyshlyaev, B.-Z. Guo, and M. Krstic. Arbitrary decay rate
for euler-bernoulli beam by backstepping boundary feedback. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(5):1134–1140, 2009.
[40] W. Su and C. E. Cesnik. Nonlinear aeroelasticity of a very flexible
blended-wing-body aircraft. Journal of Aircraft, 47(5):1539–1553,
2010.
[41] R. Vazquez and M. Krstic. Marcum q-functions and explicit kernels
for stabilization of 2× 2 linear hyperbolic systems with constant
coefficients. Systems & Control Letters, 68:33–42, 2014.
[42] X. Zhang, W. Xu, S. S. Nair, and V. Chellaboina. PDE modeling
and control of a flexible two-link manipulator. IEEE Transactions
on Control Systems Technology, 13(2):301–312, 2005.

15

