Integral control of port-Hamiltonian systems: non-passive outputs
without coordinate transformation

arXiv:1703.07934v1 [cs.SY] 23 Mar 2017

Joel Ferguson, Alejandro Donaire and Richard H. Middleton

Abstract—In this paper we present a method for the addition
of integral action to non-passive outputs of a class of portHamiltonian systems. The proposed integral controller is a
dynamic extension, constructed from the open loop system, such
that the closed loop preserves the port-Hamiltonian form. It is
shown that the controller is able to reject the effects of both
matched and unmatched disturbances, preserving the regulation
of the non-passive outputs. Previous solutions to this problem
have relied on a change of coordinates whereas the presented
solution is developed using the original state vector and, therefore,
retains its physical interpretation. In addition, the resulting closed
loop dynamics have a natural interpretation as a Control by
Interconnection scheme.

I. INTRODUCTION
Port-Hamiltonian (pH) models describe system dynamics in
terms of the energy, interconnection and dissipation structures
[1]. The physical information readily available from models
written in pH form has inspired successful nonlinear control
techniques such as energy shaping (ES) and interconnection
and damping assignment (IDA) [2], [3]. Controllers designed
with these methods are such that the closed-loop dynamics can
be written as a pH system with a desired structure and energy
function [1]. The closed-loop energy function is chosen to
have a minimum at the desired equilibrium point of the control
system.
Control by Interconnection (CbI) is a passivity-based control
(PBC) methods that considers the dynamics of the controller
to be in the pH form [4]. The controller is then interconnected
to the plant via a power-preserving interconnection which
implies that, the closed-loop dynamics are passive if both the
plant and controller are passive. Casimir functions (dynamic
invariants) are used to collapse the dynamics of the controller
and generate a static-feedback law [4]. The developments
of CbI methods has primarily focused on the stabilisation
problem by developing static state-feedback controllers [1],
[4], [5].
The action of external disturbances on controlled pH systems can produce a shift of the equilibrium or may induce instabilities. Typically, passivity with respect the original inputoutput pair no longer holds which means that the Hamiltonian
cannot be used as a Lyapunov candidate for the disturbed
system. However, under the presence of constant disturbances,
Joel Ferguson and Richard H. Middleton are with School
of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and PRC
CDSC, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308,
Australia.
Email: Joel.Ferguson@uon.edu.au,

we can explore the passivity of the so-called incremental
model [6], [7], [8]. That is, we form a new incremental input
about the disturbance and a new incremental output about the
corresponding constant output. Then, incremental passivity can
be used to obtain stability results of non-zero equilibria.
In the pH framework, the addition of integral action to
energy shaping controllers has been proposed to reject the
effects of constant disturbances [9], [10]. In the case of passive
output regulation, integral action can be applied directly to the
output to solve the problem [3]. However, often the passive
outputs are not the variables of primary interest. An example
of this is mechanical system were we are often concerned
with the position variables, which are non-passive outputs. A
procedure for the addition of integral action to output that
are not necessarily passive has been proposed and explored
in [9], [10], [11]. This approach depends on a, possibly
implicit, partial coordinate transformation of the states. This
transformation may result in a state vector formed by latent
variables [12], and the physical interpretation of the states may
be lost, even though the closed loop has a pH form.
This paper presents an alternative approach to design integral action around non-passive outputs for a class of pH
systems. The pH structure of the controller is constructed by
copying part of the interconnection and dissipation structure
of the plant. The controller ensures asymptotic stability of the
closed loop to a desired equilibrium and regulation of the nonpassive outputs despite the presence of constant disturbances.
The interpretation of the closed loop as interconnected systems
is compatible with the behavioural approach (see [12] for a
survey on this topic), and the closed loop inherits the passivity
properties of the subsystems [1]. A feature of control designs
based on the interconnection of passive systems is that stability
of the closed loop holds even under parametric uncertainties,
provided that the passive properties remain unchanged [13].
The remainder of the paper will be structured as follows:
Some basic results on port-Hamiltonian systems will be reviewed in Section II. The main result on the addition of
integral action is presented in Section III. The interpretation
of the control law as a interconnection of passive systems is
discussed in Section IV. The proposed approach for integral
control is illustrated using two examples in Section V, and
conclusions and future work are discussed in Section VI.

II. BASIC RESULTS ON PORT-H AMILTONIAN SYSTEMS

Richard.Middleton@newcastle.edu.au
Alejandro Donaire is with the Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Theory and PRISMA Lab, University of Naples
Federico II, Napoli 80125, Italy, and the School of Engineering, The
University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. Email:

Alejandro.Donaire@unina.it

A. Port-Hamiltonian systems
In this paper we consider port-Hamiltonian systems (more
specifically called input-state-output pH systems) which are

dynamic systems of the form
ẋ = [J(x) − R(x)]∇H + G(x)u

y = G> (x)∇H,

(1)

where x ∈ Rn is the state vector, J(x) = −J> (x) is the
interconnection matrix, R(x) = R> (x) ≥ 0 is the dissipation
matrix, H(x) is the Hamiltonian corresponding to the total
system energy, u ∈ Rm is the input, G(x) is the input
mapping matrix and y ∈ Rm is the passive output [1].
For most physical systems, the dimension of the input is
less than that of the state vector (m < n). In this case, the
states can be subdivided into those that are within the image
of the input mapping matrix and those that are not:
  

 

J1 − R1
J12 − R12 ∇x1 H
ẋ1
G1 (x)
=
+
u
>
ẋ2
∇x2 H
0
−J>
J2 − R2
12 − R12
y = G>
1 (x)∇x1 H,

(2)

where x1 , u, y ∈ Rm , x2 ∈ Rn−m and G1 (x) is full rank.
For systems of the form (2), we refer to y = G>
1 (x)∇x1 H
as the passive output of the system due to the natural duality
with the input u. It is often the case that the output of the
primary interest is yd = ∇x2 H or a function of it. As this
output is not passive, regulation of the passive output is not
sufficient to achieve the desired behaviour of the system in the
presence of disturbances. For the remainder of the paper we
will refer to yd as the non-passive output of the system (2).
The class of pH systems (1) can be extended with the
addition of a feedthrough term [1]:
ẋ = [J(x) − R(x)] ∇H(x) + [G(x) − P(x)] u
>

y = [G(x) + P(x)] ∇H(x) + [M(x) + S(x)] u,
subject to


(3)

which results in the closed loop dynamics
  


ẋ1
J1 − R1
J12 − R12 −K>
∇x1 Hcl
I
>
ẋ2  = −J>
J2 − R2
0  ∇x2 Hcl  ,
12 − R12
∇ζ Hcl
KI
0
0
ζ̇
(8)
where Hcl , H + Hc . The same approach can not be directly
extended for the case of non-passive outputs. As there is
no control input acting on the x2 states, it is not possible
to interconnect the non-passive output yd = ∇x2 H to the
controller (6) whilst preserving the port-Hamiltonian structure.
See [9] for a more comprehensive discussion on this limitation.
C. Integral action via change of coordinates
The addition of integral action to the non-passive outputs
(2) was proposed in [9] and further investigated in [10]. Given
a plant of the form (2), the closed-loop dynamics are proposed
to be
  

ṡ
J1 − R1
J12 − R12
0
>
ẋ2  = −J>

J2 − R2 −K>
12 − R12
I
0
KI
0
ζ̇
x1 =f (s,x2 ,ζ)


∇s Hcl
× ∇x2 Hcl  ,
(9)
∇ζ Hcl
where Hcl (s, x2 , ζ) = H(s, x2 ) + 21 ζ > K−1
I ζ. The partial
coordinate transformation f : (s, x2 , ζ) → x1 is defined by
matching the dynamics of x2 in (2) with that of (9). Then, the
control law is computed using the coordinate transformation
f to match the desired dynamics of s, given in (9), to x1 in
(2).
III. I NTEGRAL ACTION OF NON - PASSIVE OUTPUTS

>
R(x) P(x)
R(x) P(x)
=
≥0
P> (x) S(x)
P> (x) S(x)



>
−J(x) −G(x)
−J(x) −G(x)
=
−
.
G> (x) M(x)
G> (x) M(x)


WITHOUT COORDINATE TRANSFORMATIONS



(4)
(5)

Lemma 1: [1] The pH system (3) is passive with storage
function H(x), input u and output y.
B. Integral action of passive outputs
Integral action can be applied to passive outputs of pH
systems via a dynamic extension [3]. To achieve integral
action, the controller dynamics are defined as
ζ̇ = KI uc
yc = K>
I ∇ζ Hc (ζ),

(6)

where ζ ∈ Rm , KI is full rank and Hc (ζ) is a free strictly
convex function. The system (6) is interconnected with the
plant (2) via the interconnection
  
 
0
−G−1
u
y
1 (x)
=
,
(7)
−>
uc
y
G1 (x)
0
c

A. Problem formulation
We consider the following class of pH systems:
  


J1 − R1
J12
ẋ1
∇x1 H
Σp :
=
ẋ2
−J>
J2 − R2 ∇x2 H
12

>

>

>
(10)
+ I 0 u − I 0 d1 − 0 I d2
y = ∇x1 H,

where dim x1 = m, dim x2 = p ≤ m, J1 = −J>
1 , J2 =
>
>
m+p
,
R
=
R
>
0,
R
=
R
≥
0
and
H
:
R
→ R is
−J>
1
2
2
2
1
smooth and has a (strict) minimum at (x∗1 , x∗2 ). d1 ∈ Rm is a
constant, matched disturbance to the system and d2 ∈ Rp is a
constant, unmatched disturbance. The smooth dependence of
the system matrices on x1 and x2 is assumed but omitted.
The control objective is to find a dynamic controller u =
u(x1 , x2 , ζ), where ζ ∈ Rp is the state of the controller, that
ensures asymptotic stability of an equilibrium (x̄1 , x∗2 , ζ̄), for
constant vectors x̄1 ∈ Rm and ζ̄ ∈ Rp . Furthermore, the
closed loop dynamics should retain the general pH structure.
Notice that we are interested in preserving the component
of the original equilibrium associated to x2 whilst leaving free
the component associated to x1 .

Our approach requires the following assumptions:
Assumption 1: J12 and R1 are full rank.
Assumption 2: ∇x1 x2 H = 0.
Assumption 3: H is strongly convex.
Remark 1: The assumption that ∇x1 x2 H = 0 means that
there cannot be cross terms between the x1 states and x2 states
in the open loop Hamiltonian of (10). This condition is satisfied, for example, by fully actuated electrical machines that
are Blondel-Park transformable [14], whereby the dynamics
are expressed in a rotating frame.
As discussed in Section II-B, integral action cannot be
directly applied to the non-passive output as the pH form
will not be preserved. It will be shown in this section that
the aforementioned limitation arises due to the selection of
the closed-loop Hamiltonian. In this work, the closed-loop
Hamiltonian is selected to be the sum of the open-loop
Hamiltonian and an additional term which is strictly convex
in the difference between x1 and the controller state ζ.
This means that the energy associated with the controller
is coupled to the the open-loop plant energy. This coupling
is precisely the property that permits disturbance rejection
without a coordinate transformation. The resulting control law
is a state feedback control law that requires knowledge of the
entire state vector.
B. Integral control
We propose the state feedback control law:
u = (J1 − R1 )∇x1 Hc (E> x1 − ζ)

(11)

>

ζ̇ = E J12 ∇x2 H,

p

m×p

where ζ ∈ R , E ∈ R
is a constant, full rank matrix and
Hc (·) is a strictly convex function in z , E> x1 − ζ such that
∇z Hc : Rp → Rp is invertible.
The control law (11), applied to system (10), results in the
closed loop dynamics

  

ẋ1
J1 − R1
J12
0
∇x1 Hcl
ẋ2  =  −J>
 ∇x2 Hcl 
J2 − R2 −J>
12
12 E
∇ζ Hcl
0
E> J12
0
ζ̇
(12)
{z
}
|
F(x)


− I

0

0

>


d1 − 0

I

0

>

d2 ,

where Hcl , H + Hc : Rm+2p → R. The definition of Hcl
results in the following relationship between the gradients of
the open and closed loop Hamiltonians:

 

∇x 1 H
∇x1 Hcl + E∇ζ Hcl
∇x2 H = 
.
∇x2 Hcl
(13)
∇z H c
−∇ζ Hcl
The remainder of this section will be focused on the
asymptotic behaviour of the closed loop system (12).
C. Matched disturbance
We first consider the case of a matched disturbance only.
That is, d1 is some unknown constant and d2 = 0.
Assumption 4: J1 and R1 are constant.

Assumption 5: The constant E utilised in the control law
(11) can be chosen such that E> J12 is invertible and
−1 >∗
−1 >
(J>∗
J12 = (J>
J12 .
12 E)
12 E)

(14)

Assumption 6: There exists some unique x̄1 such that
−1 >∗
∇x1 H∗ = {I − E(J>∗
J12 }(J1 − R1 )−1 d1 .
12 E)

(15)

Remark 2: If J1 and R1 are not constant, they can be
replaced with some constant matrices J̃1 , R̃1 by the feedback
u = −(J1 − R1 − J̃1 + R̃1 )y + ũ, where ũ forms the new
input for further control design.
Remark 3: Assumption 5 is satisfied in two important cases.
Firstly, if J12 is invertible, the assumption is satisfied for any
invertible E. Secondly, if J12 is constant, then any constant
E such that E> J12 is invertible will satisfy the assumption.
In particular, the selection E = J12 suffices to satisfy the
assumption.
Remark 4: Assumption 6 is satisfied if J12 is invertible.
Note that the right hand side of (15) becomes zero, resulting
in the equation ∇x1 H∗ = 0. This equation is satisfied by the
equilibrium of the open loop system, x̄1 = x∗1 .
Under Assumptions 4 - 6, the closed-loop dynamics (12),
subject to a matched disturbance only, exhibit the equilibrium
point (x̄1 , x∗2 , ζ̄), which corresponds to the gradient

 

∗
(J1 − R1 )−1 d1
∇x1 Hcl
∗
∇x2 Hcl
.
0
=
∗
−1 >∗
−1
∇ζ Hcl
−(J>∗
E)
J
(J
−
R
)
d
1
1
1
12
12

(16)

Using the identity (13), the gradient of the closed loop
Hamiltonian can be related to the gradients of the open-loop
Hamiltonian and the controller Hamiltonian as follows:

 

−1 >∗
∇x1 H∗
{I − E(J>∗
J12 }(J1 − R1 )−1 d1
12 E)
∇x2 H∗  = 
.
0
−1 >∗
−1
∇z Hc∗
(J>∗
E)
J
(J
−
R
)
d
1
1
1
12
12
(17)
As ∇z Hc is invertible, (17) corresponds to a unique equilibrium point.
Importantly, the controller preserves the equilibrium point
x∗2 under the action of matched disturbances. The stability of
this equilibrium point is assessed in the following proposition.
Proposition 1: Consider system (10) subject to unknown,
matched disturbance in closed loop with the controller (11).
Then, under Assumptions 1-6, the equilibrium of the closed
loop, corresponding to the gradient (16), is globally asymptotically stable.
Proof: We propose the Lyapunov candidate1
>

W = Hcl (w) − [w − w∗ ] ∇Hcl (w∗ ) − Hcl (w∗ ),

(18)

1 This Lyapunov candidate has been previously utilised for similar analysis
in [15], [7].

where w = col(x1 , x2 , ζ). The derivative of W along the
solution of the closed-loop system (12) can be computed as
follows:
>

∗
Ẇ = {∇w Hcl − ∇w Hcl
} {ẇ − 0}

=

=
≤

(19a)

∗ >
{∇w Hcl − ∇w Hcl
} {(F∇w Hcl − d)
∗
∗
− (F ∇w Hcl − d)}
(19b)

> 


∗
∇w Hcl
F −F
∇w Hcl
(19c)
∗
∗
∇w Hcl
−F F∗
∇w Hcl

> 


∇x1 Hcl
(J1 − R1 ) −(J1 − R1 ) ∇x1 Hcl
∗
∗
∇x1 Hcl
−(J1 − R1 ) (J1 − R1 )
∇x1 Hcl
>∗
∗
>
>∗
∗
+ ∇>
x2 Hcl J12 E∇ζ Hcl + ∇x2 Hcl J12 ∇x1 Hcl
∗ >
>
∗
− ∇>
ζ Hcl E J12 ∇x2 Hcl − ∇x1 Hcl J12 ∇x2 Hcl

(19d)

> 


∇x1 Hcl
(J1 − R1 ) −(J1 − R1 ) ∇x1 Hcl
=
∗
∗
∇x1 Hcl
−(J1 − R1 ) (J1 − R1 )
∇x1 Hcl
>∗
∗
>
>∗
∗
+ ∇>
x2 Hcl J12 E∇ζ Hcl − ∇x2 Hcl J12 E∇ζ Hcl

>
>∗
−1 >∗
∗
+ ∇>
J12 ∇x1 Hcl
x2 Hcl J12 E(J12 E)

>
>
−1 >
∗
− ∇>
J12 ∇x1 Hcl
(19e)
x2 Hcl J12 E(J12 E)

>  



 ∇x1 Hcl
∇x1 Hcl
I
=
(J1 − R1 ) I −I
∗
∗
∇x1 Hcl
−I
∇x1 Hcl
>
>∗
−1 >∗
+ ∇>
J12
x2 Hcl J12 E{(J12 E)

≤ 0,

−1 >
∗
− (J>
J12 }∇x1 Hcl
12 E)

(19f)
(19g)


>
where d = I 0 0 d1 and we have used Assumptions 4
and 5 and equation (16) throughout these equations.
As (19) is negative semi-definite along the trajectories of
(12) and W is strictly convex, there exists a compact set U ⊂
Rn defined by

U = x ∈ R3m |W(x) ≤ W(w0 ) ,

(20)

which is invariant under the dynamics (12). As R1 is positive
definite, LaSalle’s invariance principle implies that the trajectories (12) converge to the maximum invariant set contained
within
∗
S = {w|∇x1 Hcl − ∇x1 Hcl
= 0}.

(21)

Evaluating the dynamics (12), restricted to the set S, reveal
that any solution of the system restricted to S satisfies
ζ̇ = E> ẋ1 .

(22)

∗
On the set S it holds that ∇x1 Hcl = ∇x1 Hcl
, which is
constant. Thus any solution restricted to S must satisfy

d
[∇x1 Hcl ] = 0.
dt

(23)

Expanding this equation results in:
d
[∇x1 Hcl ] = ∇2x1 Hcl ẋ1 + ∇x1 x2 Hcl ẋ2 + ∇x1 ζ Hcl ζ̇
dt
= ∇2x1 Hẋ1 + ∇2x1 Hc ẋ1 + ∇x1 x2 Hẋ2
=
=
=
=

+ ∇x1 x2 Hc ẋ2 + ∇x1 ζ Hζ̇ + ∇x1 ζ Hc ζ̇
2
∇x1 Hẋ1 + ∇2x1 Hc ẋ1 + ∇x1 x2 Hẋ2
+ ∇x1 ζ Hc ζ̇
2
∇x1 Hẋ1 + E∇2ζ Hc E> Hẋ1
− E∇2ζ Hc E> ẋ1
∇2x1 Hẋ1 + ∇x1 x2 Hẋ2
∇2x1 Hẋ1 ,

+ ∇x1 x2 Hẋ2

(24a)

(24b)
(24c)
(24d)
(24e)

where we have used the symmetry of Hc (E> x1 − ζ) together
with the identity (22) to make the substitution −∇x1 ζ Hc ζ̇ =
∇2x1 Hc ẋ1 = E∇2ζ Hc E> ẋ1 in (24c) and used Assumption 2
in (24d).
Rearranging (24e), together with (23) results in
ẋ1 = (∇2x1 H)−1 0 = 0,

(25)

where ∇2x1 H is invertible due to Assumption 3. Equation
(25) further implies that ζ̇ = 0 by (22). Considering the ẋ1
dynamics restricted to S,
∇x2 Hcl = ∇x2 H = 0,

(26)

due to (21) and (25).
By (26), the dynamics restricted to S satisfy ∇x2 H = 0,
which is constant. Taking the time derivative of ∇x2 H it
follows that
ẋ2 = (∇2x2 H)−1 ∇x2 H = 0,

(27)

where ∇2x2 H is invertible due to the Assumption 3.
Substituting (21), (26) and (27) into (12) reveals that on the
set S
−1 >
∇ζ Hcl = −∇z Hc∗ = −(J>
J12 (J1 − R1 )−1 d1
12 E)

−1 >∗
= −(J>∗
J12 (J1 − R1 )−1 d1 ,
12 E)

(28)

where we have used Assumption 5. Considering (21), (26)
and (28), we have recovered the equilibrium gradient (16).
Thus, the maximum invariant set in S is comprised of a
singleton satisfying (16), which implies that the system is
globally asymptotically stable to this non-zero equilibrium.
Remark 5: It is advantageous for J12 to be invertible, so that
Assumption 5 is satisfied for any choice of E. If dim x2 <
dim x1 , it is always possible to add a dynamic extension to
the system in order to transform the system into a similar one
with dim x̃2 = dim x1 . The extended system can be obtained
via the feedback law
γ̇ = −J⊥
12 ∇x1 H

>
0
u = (J⊥
12 ) γ + u ,

(29)

where J⊥
left annihilator
of J12 , which
12 is the full-rank


>
satisfies that J̃12 = J12 (J⊥
is an invertible m × m
12 )
matrix. The resulting system has the dynamics
  


>
J1 − R1
J12
(J⊥
ẋ1
∇x1 H0
12 )
ẋ2  =  −J>
J 2 − R2
0  ∇x2 H0 
12
⊥
γ̇
∇γ H 0
−J12
0
0
 
 
 
(30)
I
0
I
− 0 d1 −  I  d2 + 0 u0 ,
0
0
0
where H0 = H+ 12 γ > γ and u0 is the new input for subsequent
control design. This system is now of the form (12) with J̃12
invertible.

where we made use of Assumption 7 and (32) throughout these
equations.
The proof is completed following the same procedure as
Proposition 1, utilising invariance and Assumptions 1-3.
E. Matched and unmatched disturbance
Now consider the case where both matched and unmatched
disturbances are acting on the system. That is, d1 and d2 are
non-zero unknown constants. In this case, Assumptions 4 and
7 are required. That is, J1 , R1 and J12 must be constant.
Assumption 9: There exists some unique x̄1 such that
−1 >
∇x1 H∗ = {I − E(J>
J12 }(J1 − R1 )−1 d1
12 E)

−1
− E(J>
d2 .
12 E)

D. Unmatched disturbance
We now consider the case of an unmatched disturbance only.
That is, d1 = 0 and d2 is an unknown constant. In this case
R1 and J1 can be state-dependant.
Assumption 7: J12 is constant.
Assumption 8: There exists some unique x̄1 such that
−1
∇x1 H∗ = −E(J>
d2 .
12 E)

(31)

Under Assumptions 7 and 8, the dynamics (12) subject
to an unmatched disturbance only, has an equilibrium point
(x¯1 , x∗2 , ζ̄) which corresponds to the gradient

 

∗
0
∇x1 Hcl
∗
∇x2 Hcl
.
0
=
(32)
∗
>
−1
∇ζ Hcl
−(J12 E) d2
Using the identity (13), (32) can be related to the open-loop
Hamiltonian and the controller Hamiltonian:
 


−1
−E(J>
d2
∇x1 H∗
12 E)
.
∇x2 H∗  = 
0
(33)
∗
>
−1
∇z Hc
(J12 E) d2

(35)

Under Assumptions 4, 7 and 9, the equilibrium of the dynamics (12) subject to constant disturbances d1 and d2 satisfy

 

∗
(J1 − R1 )−1 d1
∇x1 Hcl
∗
∇x2 Hcl
,
0
=
∗
−1
>∗
−1
∇ζ Hcl
−(J>∗
E)
{J
(J
−
R
)
d
+
d
}
1
1
1
2
12
12
(36)
which can be related to the open loop Hamiltonian using the
∗
identity (13) Notice that as ∇x2 Hcl
= ∇x2 H∗ = 0, the
equilibrium of the variable x2 is preserved to its desired values
x∗2 despite the disturbances.
Proposition 3: Consider system (10) subject to both matched
and unmatched constant disturbances in closed loop with the
controller (11). Then, under Assumptions 1-4, 7 and 9, the
equilibrium of the closed loop, corresponding to the gradient
(36), is globally asymptotically stable.
Proof: The proof is obtained by combining the proofs for
Propositions 1 and 2.
IV. I NTERPRETATION OF THE INTEGRAL ACTION
CONTROLLER AS C B I

In this section, the closed-loop dynamics (12) are studied
As ∇z Hc is invertible, (33) corresponds to a valid equilibrium under a coordinate transformation. In the new coordinates, the
point. It follows from (33) that the value of x2 at equilibrium dynamics coincide with the dynamics presented in [16] with
is x∗2 as desired.
E = J12 , giving a CbI interpretation to the closed loop. This
Proposition 2: Consider system (10) subject to unmatched, interpretation is of particular interest as in the case that R1 =
constant disturbance in closed loop with the controller (11). 0, disturbance rejection of unmatched disturbances from the
Then, under Assumptions 1-3, 7 and 8, the equilibrium of the non-passive outputs can be achieved without knowledge of the
closed loop, corresponding to the gradient (32), is globally states x2 .
asymptotically stable.
Consider the system (12) under the coordinate transformaProof: We again make use of the Lyapunov candidate tion
  
 
I 0 0
x1
x1
(18). Following the same procedure as the proof of Proposition
x2  ,  0 I 0  x2  ,
(37)
1, the derivative of W along the dynamics of the closed-loop
z
ζ
E> 0 −I
system (12) satisfies:

> 


(J1 − R1 )
0
0
∇x1 Hcl
∇x1 Hcl which results in the transformed dynamics

 ∇x2 Hcl  ẋ1   J1 − R1
0
0
J>
Ẇ ≤ ∇x2 Hcl  
J12
(J1 − R1 )E
12 E
∗
∗
ẋ2  = 

∇ζ Hcl
∇ζ Hcl
0
−E> J12
0
−J>
J2 − R2
0
12
>
>
ż
E (J1 − R1 )
0
E (J1 − R1 )E

  
 
I
∇x 1 H
0
(34a)
× ∇x2 H −  0  d1 −  I  d2 .
>
= −∇x1 Hcl R1 ∇x1 Hcl
(34b)
∇z H c
0
E>
≤ 0,
(34c)
(38)

Careful inspection reveals that the system (38) can be obtained
as the power-preserving interconnection of the controller
Σc : ż = E> (J1 − R1 )E∇z Hc + E> (J1 − R1 )uc − E> d1
yc = −(J1 − R1 )E∇z Hc + R1 uc ,

(39)

with the plant
  


J1
J12
ẋ1
∇x 1 H
Σp :
=
ẋ2
∇x 2 H
−J>
12 J2 − R2


>

>
+ I 0 u − I 0 d1 − 0

I

>

d2

(40)

A. Electrical network
In this case study, we consider the basic electrical circuit
shown in Figure 1. This figure represents the feedback interconnection of a plant (Σp ) and a controller (Σ0c ). The plant
is a LC circuit with a constant source of current acting as
an unmatched disturbance and a constant source of voltage
acting as a matched disturbance. The objective is to regulate
∗
the voltage of the capacitor to a desired set-point (V ∗ = qC ).
It can be see that the controller shown in Figure 1 achieves the
control objective in the case where there are no disturbances
and no additional control input, ie. d1 = 0, d2 = 0 and u = 0.
For a linear inductor, capacitor and resistor, the dynamics of

y = ∇x1 H,

R

R = E> R1 E

G = E> J1

S = R1

M = 0,

yc = −(J1 − Rd )J12 ∇z Hc + Rd uc ,

L

C
q∗
C

d2
d1

(42)
Σ0c

which is acted upon by a disturbance −d1 . It can be verified
that the matrices (42) satisfy (4) and (5), thus by Lemma 1
the controller is a disturbed, port-Hamiltonian system.
Under this interpretation, the dissipation term R1 is viewed
as a parameter of the controller subsystem Σc , rather than the
plant which restricts our ability to implement the controller as
a passive interconnection. Furthermore, in the case of matched
disturbances, the controller subsystem (39) requires knowledge
of the disturbance.
In the case that the open-loop plant has R1 = 0, integral
action can be applied for the rejection of unmatched disturbances using the controller,
>
Σc̃ : ż = J>
12 (J1 − Rd )J12 ∇z Hc + J12 (J1 − Rd )uc

+

−
+

P = E> R1

u

(41)

The controller subsystem (39) is a pH system of the form (3)
with
J = E> J1 E

−

−
+

via the interconnection
  
 
u
0 −I y
Σi :
=
.
uc
I 0
yc

(43)

where Rd is a positive definite matrix to be chosen. The
closed-loop dynamics has the form (38) and, thus, the analysis
of section III applies to it. This formulation has the advantage
of not requiring knowledge of the states to be regulated, x2 .
This controller was studied in [16] as a disturbance rejection
controller for unmatched disturbances.
V. E XAMPLES
In this section, application of the integral action scheme
to a simple RCL circuit is presented to demonstrate the
interpretation of the integral action scheme as CbI. The integral
action controller is also applied to a class of fully actuated
mechanical systems. An example application of the proposed
action controller to a permanent magnet synchronous motor
can be found in [16].

Σp

Fig. 1: Plant-controller connected through power-preserving
interconnection.
the system are as follows:
  
ẋ
−R
Σcl : 1 =
ẋ2
1


 
−1
1
∇Hd (x) +
u
0
0
 
 
1
0
−
d −
d
(44)
0 1
1 2


y = 1 0 ∇Hd (x)
1
1 2
x1 +
(x2 − x∗2 )2 ,
Hd (x) =
2L
2C
with x = col(x1 , x2 ) where x1 is the inductor flux and x2 is
the capacitor charge.
The integral action controller (11) can be implemented to
ensure that ∇x2 Hd = C1 (x2 − x∗2 ) converges to zero for any
constant disturbances d1 , d2 . According the the interpretation
of the closed loop provided in Section IV, the resulting
dynamics can be interpreted as the interconnection of a plant
(40) with a controller (39).
For this example, the controller subsystem (39) has the form
Σc : ż = −R∇z Hc + Ruc − d1
yc = −R∇z Hc + Ruc ,

(45)

where Hc (z) is a free convex function. For simplicity, we take
Hc (z) = 2L1 a ζ 2 . The integral action controller (45) has the
interpretation of a resistor in parallel with a linear inductor,
with inductance La , and voltage source d1 in series. The
physical interpretation of the controller Σc interconnected with
the plant Σp is depicted in Figure 2.
In the case where there is only an unmatched disturbance
acting on the plant, the controller subsystem does not require

L

La

C
d2

R
−
+

d1

−
+

d1

VI. C ONCLUSION

−
+

Σc

q∗
C

Σp

Fig. 2: Electrical circuit scheme of a CbI controller interconnected to the plant.

any knowledge of the disturbances. Thus the controller can
be implemented as a CbI scheme. In this electrical example,
this is simply the case where d1 = 0. The advantage of
implementing the controller in this form is that the controller
does not require knowledge of the capacitor voltage, whereas
in the form (11), the controller does require this information.
B. Mechanical systems
The control law (11) can be applied to a class of mechanical
systems to add integral action to the configuration variables.
Consider a mechanical system with dynamics

  
  
ṗ
I
J(p, q) − D(p, q) −K> (q) ∇p H
=
+
u
q̇
∇q H
0
K(q)
0

>

>
− I 0 d1 − 0 I d2
∂H
y=
∂p
1 > −1
H = p M p + V(q),
2
(46)
where p ∈ Rm is the momenta, q ∈ Rm is the configuration,
J(p, q) = −J> (p, q) contains the Coriolis and centrifugal
terms, D(p, q) = D> (p, q) > 0 contains the dissipative
terms, M = M> > 0 is the constant mass matrix, K(q) maps
between the reference frame of the momenta and generalised
velocities and V(q) > 0 is the potential energy. d1 is a vector
of force disturbances acting on the system, while d2 is a vector
of velocity disturbances. The mechanical system (46) is of the
form (10) with x1 = p and x2 = q.
When controlling mechanical systems, the control objective
is typically concerned with the asymptotic behaviour of the
configuration variables, q. It is easily verified that Assumptions 1 - 3 are satisfied provided that D > 0, M is constant and
V(q) is strongly convex. As dim p = dim q, Assumption 5 is
satisfied for any full rank E. Furthermore, as ∇p H = M−1 p
is invertible, Assumptions 6, 8 and 9 are satisfied for each of
the relevant disturbance cases. Thus, the control law (11) can
be applied to the mechanical system (46):
u = [J(p, q) − D(p, q)]∇p Hc (E> p − ζ)
ζ̇ = −K> (q)∇q H.

In the case where J(p, q) and D(p, q) are constant, the
controller (47) can be used to reject the effects of a matched
disturbance from the configuration variables. Likewise, in the
case where K(q) is constant, the controller (47) can be used
to reject the effects of an unmatched disturbance from the
configuration variables.

(47)

This paper presents a method for the addition of integral
action that is driven by the non-passive outputs to a pH control
systems. Previous methods involve solving (possibly implicit)
algebraic expressions to define a suitable coordinate transformation. The control law proposed here is given explicitly,
without the need of coordinate transformation. Under suitable
assumptions, this control law is able to reject both matched
and unmatched disturbances.
The control scheme can be interpreted, under a simple
coordinate transformation, as the interconnection of the openloop plant and a dynamic controller in pH form. This allows
the interpretation of the closed loop as a CbI scheme. The
controller was applied to a simple RCL circuit and the physical
interpretation of the control realised. The control law was also
given explicitly for a class mechanical systems.
We notice that Assumption 2 restricts the applicability of
the proposed design to mechanical systems with constant mass
matrix. Future research will focus on relaxing assumption
2 and extending the approach in this paper to mechanical
systems with non-separable Hamiltonian.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. van der Schaft and D. Jeltsema, “Port-Hamiltonian systems theory:
An introductory overview,” Foundations and Trends in Systems and
Control, vol. 1, no. 2-3, pp. 173–378, 2014.
[2] R. Ortega, A. van der Schaft, I. Mareels, and B. Maschke, “Putting
energy back in control,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 21, no. 2,
pp. 18–33, 2001.
[3] R. Ortega and E. Garcia-Canseco, “Interconnection and damping assignment passivity-based control: A survey,” European Journal of control,
vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 432–450, 2004.
[4] R. Ortega and A. van der Schaft, “Control by interconnection and
standard passivity-based control of port-Hamiltonian systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 2527–2542,
2008.
[5] J. Koopman and D. Jeltsema, “Casimir-based control beyond the dissipation obstacle,” in IFAC Workshop on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian
Methods for Non Linear Control, Bertinoro, Italy, 2012, pp. 173–177.
[6] A. Pavlov and L. Marconi, “Incremental passivity and output regulation,”
Systems & Control Letters, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 400–409, 2008.
[7] B. Jayawardhana, R. Ortega, and E. Garcı́a-Canseco, “Passivity of nonlinear incremental systems: Application to PI stabilization of nonlinear
RLC circuits,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 56, no. 9-10, pp. 618–
622, 2007.
[8] B. Jayawardhana and G. Weiss, “A class of port-controlled Hamiltonian
systems,” in IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Seville, Spain,
2005, pp. 5630–5632.
[9] A. Donaire and S. Junco, “On the addition of integral action to portcontrolled Hamiltonian systems,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 8, pp. 1910–
1916, 2009.
[10] R. Ortega and J. G. Romero, “Robust integral control of portHamiltonian systems: The case of non-passive outputs with unmatched
disturbances,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 11–17,
2012.
[11] J. G. Romero, A. Donaire, and R. Ortega, “Robust energy shaping
control of mechanical systems,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 62,
no. 9, pp. 770–780, 2013.

[12] J. Willems, “The behavioral approach to open and interconnected
systems,” IEEE Control Systems, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 46–99, 2007.
[13] B. Brogliato, R. Lozano, B. Maschke, and O. Egeland, Dissipative
systems analysis and control, 2nd ed. London: Springer-Verlag, 2007.
[14] P. J. Nicklasson, R. Ortega, and G. Espinosa-Pérez, “Passivity-based
control of a class of Blondel-Park transformable electric machines,”
Modeling, Identification and Control, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 273–305, 1997.
[15] A. A. Alonso and B. Ydstie, “Stabilization of distributed systems
using irreversible thermodynamics,” Automatica, vol. 37, pp. 1739–1755,
2001.
[16] J. Ferguson, R. H. Middleton, and A. Donaire, “Disturbance rejection
via control by interconnection of port-Hamiltonian systems,” in IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control. Osaka, Japan: IEEE, dec 2015,
pp. 507–512.

