146 Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.

146-152, September 1999

BLOCK DECOUPLING CONTROL OF LINEAR

MULTIVARIABLE SYSTEMS
Ching-An Lin and Chang-Ming Wu

ABSTRACT

This paper gives parameterizations of block decoupling controllers and

achievable block-diagonal I/O maps for linear multivariable plants under
unity-feedback configuration. The parameterizations, based on coprime
factorizations and a special generalized Bezout identity, do not require the
computation of Smith McMillan forms and, thus, can be reliably computed. It
is also shown that through the construction of an admissible block decoupling
precompensator, block decoupling controller design reduces to a set of con-
troller designs for the block channels which are smaller in dimension.

Key Words: Block decoupling, linear multivariable systems, precompensator.

I. INTRODUCTION decoupling controller can be designed by first block

Problems related to block decoupling control of
linear multivariable systems have been studied by many
authors. Commault et al. [3] considered block decoupl-
ing by a combination of dynamic precompensation and
state feedback and gave a lower bound on the McMillan
degree of the achievable I/O transfer matrices. Under
unity-feedback configuration, Linnemann and Wang
[7] gave conditions for the solvability of the block
decoupling problem and a parameterization of all block
decoupling controllers based on the notion of skew-
coprimeness and stability factorization. Lin and Wu [6]
gave necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence
of block decoupling controllers. Desoer and Gundes [4]
gave the design of a decoupling compensator for linear
multivariable systems.
In this paper, we will give parameterizations of all
block decoupling (stabilizing) controllers and all
achievable block diagonal I/O maps. The parameteriza-
tions are based on coprime factorizations of the plant and
a special generalized Bezout identity. In addition to the
computation of coprime factorization, only computation of
the inverses of proper rational matrices is required [5].
These computations can be more reliably done than
the computation of the Smith McMillan form of the plant,
which was required in [3] and [7]. Conceptually, a block
Manuscript received April 2, 1999; revised and accepted June
22, 1999.
The authors are with Dept. of Electrical and Control
Engineering, National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
This work was supported by the National Science Council of
the Republic of China under Grant NSC-87-2213-E-009-144.
decoupling the plant by open-loop precompensation and
then designing feedback controllers for each block channel.
A block decoupling precompensator may not maintain
stabilizability due to CI+ pole-zero cancellations [1]; even
if stabilizability is maintained, the precompensator may
impose additional constraints on the achievable block
diagonal I/O maps. In this paper, we construct a block
decoupling precompensator which maintains stabiliza-
bility and puts no additional constraint on the achievable
block diagonal I/O maps. With this precompensator, the
block decoupling controller design essentially reduces to a
set of controller designs for block channels which are
smaller in dimension.
This paper is organized as follows. Basic definitions
and preliminary results are given in Section 2. Section 3
gives parameterizations of all block decoupling controll-
ers and of all achievable block diagonal I/O maps. Section
4 describes the construction of a block decoupling precom-
pensator and shows that it has the desired properties.
Section 5 is a brief conclusion.
Notation: IR := the field of real numbers; CI := the field
of complex numbers; CI_ := {s ∈ CIRe(s) < 0}; CI+ :=
{s CIRe(s) ≥ 0}; IR(s) := the set of rational functions in s
with real coefficients; IRp(s) ( IRpo(s), respectively) :=
the set of proper (strictly proper, respectively) rational
functions in s with real coefficients. For H(s) ∈ IR(s)n × m,
Z[H] := the set of all zeros of H in CI, P[H] := the set of
all poles of H in CI [2], Z+[H] := Z[H] ∩ CI+ and P+[H] :=
P[H] ∩ CI+. S := {h ∈ IRp(s)h has no pole in CI+}. A list
of positive integers (n1, n2, …, nk) satisfying Σ ki = 1 ni = n
is said to be a partition of n. We use diag{H i} ki = 1 to
denote the block diagonal rational matrix with Hi as its
 C.-A. Lin and C.-M. Wu: Block Decoupling Control of Linear Multivariable Systems
ith block diagonal entry, where H i ∈ IR(s)ni × ni. For
f, g ∈ IR[s], deg(f) := degree of f, the relative degree of
f/g ∈ IR(s) is defined as deg(f) – deg(g). For H = [hij] ∈
IR(s)n × m, the relative degree of H is defined as the largest
relative degree of hij, 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ m. Two matrices
A ∈ S n × n and B ∈ S n × n are equivalent if there exist
S-unimodular matrices U and V such that A = UBV.
II. PRELIMINARY
Consider the unity-feedback system S(P, C) shown in
Fig. 1, where P ∈ IRpo(s)n × m is the plant, C ∈ IRp(s)m × n is
the controller, (u1, u2) is the input and (y1, y2) is the output.
Let u := [u 1T u 2T ] T and y := [y1T y2T ] T . The closed-loop
transfer matrix Hyu ∈ IRp(s)(n + m) × (n + m) is given by
H y1u1 H y1u2 C(I + PC) – 1 – CP(I + CP) – 1
H yu = = .
H y2u1 H y2u2 PC(I + PC) – 1 P(I + CP) – 1
(2.1)
Definition 2.1. The system S(P, C) is stable if and only if
Hyu is stable. We say that C stabilizes P or C is a stabilizing
controller for P if S(P, C) is stable.
Definition 2.2. The system S(P, C) is block decoupled
with respect to the partition (n1, …, nk)1 if C stabilizes P and
the I/O map Hy2u1 is nonsingular and block diagonal with
respect to the partition (n1, …, nk). We say that C is a
block decoupling controller for P if S(P, C) is block
decoupled with respect to the partition (n1, …, nk).
Remark. We note that decoupling is a special case of
block decoupling with each block size ni = 1.
n×n
Definition 2.3. A stable rational matrix M ∈ S is an
achievable I/O map of the system S(P, C) if there exists a
stabilizing controller C such that Hy2u1 = M.
We say that (Npr, Dpr) is a right coprime factorization
of P if Npr ∈ Sn × m and Dpr ∈ Sm × m are right coprime and
NprD –pr1 = P. Similarly, we say that (D pl, Npl) is a left
coprime factorization of P if Dpl ∈ Sn × n and Npl ∈ Sm × m
Fig. 1. Unity-feedback system S(P, C).
1
We consider block decoupling with respect to a fixed but
arbitrary partition (n1, …, nk) throughout.
147
are left coprime and D –pl1 Npl = P. We need the following
assumptions:
A1) The plant P has full normal row rank, and
A2) P+[P] ∩ Z+[P] = Ø.
Assumption A1) implies that m ≥ n, and it is neces-
sary for block decoupling [7]; assumption A2) means
that the CI+-poles and CI+-zeros of P do not coincide.
These assumptions together are sufficient for the exist-
ence of block decoupling controllers for P. Although A2)
is not necessary [6], it is generically satisfied, and it well
simplifies the derivations to be described below.
III. PARAMETERIZATIONS OF BLOCK
DECOUPLING CONTROLLERS
Consider the plant P ∈ IRpo(s)n × m, which is a strictly
proper rectangular rational matrix. Since P ∈ IRpo(s)n × m
has full normal row rank, by assumption A1), there exists
a unimodular matrix U ∈ Sm × m such that
PU = [P 0], (3.1)
where P ∈ IRpo(s)n × m is nonsingular. Clearly P satisfies
assumptions A1) and A2). Let (Nr, Dr) be a right coprime
factorization of P, and let (Dl, Nl) be a left coprime factor-
ization of P, where Nr, Dr, Nl, Dl ∈ Sn × n. We note that
these coprime factorizations can be computed through
standard state space procedure [8]. Let
Dr 0
N pr = N r 0 , D pr = U , (3.2)
0 I
N pl = N l 0 U – 1, D pl = D l , (3.3)
where Npr, Npl ∈ Sn × m, Dpr ∈ Sm × m and Dpl ∈ Sn × n. Then,
(Npr, Dpr) and (Dpl, Npl) are, respectively, a right coprime
factorization of P and a left coprime factorization of P. In
the following, we construct a special generalized Bezout
identity which is suitable for the description of block
decoupling controllers. We can write
Z ij
N r– 1 = , (3.4)
Pij–Pij+
where Zij, Pij–, Pij+ ∈ IR[s] are mutually coprime, Pij+ is
monic, Z[Pij+] ⊂ CI+ and Z[Pij–] ⊂ CI–. We choose λ ∈ S
such that the numerator polynomial of λ is the monic
least common multiple of {Pij+} i,n j = 1, and the relative degree
of λ–1 is the same as that of N r– 1 . Similarly, we write
N ij
D l– 1 = , (3.5)
D ij–D ij+
148 Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1999

where Nij, Dij–, Dij+ ∈ IR[s] are mutually coprime, Dij+ is

monic, Z[D ij+] ⊂ CI+ and Z[D ij–] ⊂ CI–. We can then Q1
choose ψ ∈ S such that the numerator polynomial of ψ is HP = N pr U cl + D Q 1 ∈ S n × n and Q 2 ∈ S (m – n) × n
Q 2 pl
the monic least common multiple of {D ij+} ni, j = 1 , and the
relative degree of ψ–1 is the same as that of D l– 1 . Since (3.11)
Dl(∞) is nonsingular, D l– 1 is proper but not strictly proper.
Thus, ψ(∞) ≠ 0. It then follows that λN r– 1 ∈ Sn × n and ψD l– 1 = {αλI + NrQ1Dl|Q1 ∈ Sn × n} (3.12)
∈ Sn × n. The zeros of λ and ψ define the CI+ zeros of Nr
and Dl, respectively [2]. Since Nr and Nl are equivalent, the by (3.2), (3.3) and (3.8).
zeros of λ are also the CI+ zeros of Nl, and the relative The set of achievable block diagonal I/O maps is a
degree of N l– 1 is the same as that of N r– 1 . Thus, λN l– 1 ∈ subset of HP defined in (3.12). Since αλI is diagonal,
Sn × n. Similarly, ψD r– 1 ∈ Sn × n. Moreover, p0 ∈ P+[P] if stable and proper, it follows from (3.12) that the set of all
and only if ψ(p0) = 0; z0 ∈ Z+[P] if and only if λ(z0) = achievable block diagonal I/O maps Hy2u1 is
0. By assumption A2) and that ψ(∞) ≠ 0, λ and ψ have no
common zeros in CI+ ∪ {∞}; hence, λ and ψ are coprime. HPd = {αλI + NrQ1Dl|Q1 ∈ Sn × n
Thus, there exist α, β ∈ S such that
and NrQ1Dl is block diagonal}. (3.13)
αλ + βψ = 1. (3.6)
Also, from (3.7), (3.8) and (3.10), the set of all block
Define decoupling controllers for P is

αλN l– 1
U cr = , V cr = βψD l– 1, (3.7)
0
αλN l– 1 + D rQ 1 –1
C Pd = U βψD l– 1 – N rQ 1
Q2
αλN r– 1 βψD r– 1 0
U cl = , V cl = U – 1 , (3.8)
0 0 I

where Ucr, Ucl ∈ Sm × n, Vcr ∈ Sn × n, and Vcl ∈ Sm × m. It is

easy to check that they satisfy the following generalized 1 Q 1 ∈ S n × n, Q 2 ∈ S (m – n) × n and
. (3.14)
Bezout identity: N rQ 1D l is block diagonal

V cl U cl D pr – U cr
= I0 . (3.9)
– N pl D pl N pr V cr 0I
In the descriptions of HPd and CPd, (3.13) and (3.14),
respectively, the parameter Q1 is not free but must satisfy
The set of all stabilizing controllers for P is, thus, that NrQ1D l is block diagonal. In order to obtain an
given by, unconstrained parameterization, we partition N r– 1 as

N r– 1 = N 1 Nk , (3.15)
–1
Q1 Q1
CP = U cr + D pr V cr – N pr
Q2 Q2 where Ni ∈ IR(s)n × ni, 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Let (Γi, Θi) be a right
coprime factorization of Ni, 1 ≤ i ≤ k, where Γi ∈ Sn × ni
and Θi ∈ Sni × ni. Thus, N r– 1 has the following property:

N r– 1 = Γ 1Θ –1 1 Γ kΘ –k 1 = ΓΘ – 1 , (3.16)
1

Q 1 ∈ S n × n and Q 2 ∈ S (m – n) × n . (3.10)
where Γ = [Γ1 … Γk] and Θ = diag{Θ i} ki = 1. Since, for each
i, P+[Ni] ⊂ P+[N r– 1 ] = Z+[P] and P+[Ni] = Z+[Qi], it follows
that
Since NprUcl = αλI, the set of all achievable I/O maps
Hy2u1 is Z+[Θ] ⊂ Z+[P]. (3.17)
 C.-A. Lin and C.-M. Wu: Block Decoupling Control of Linear Multivariable Systems
Similarly, we can partition D l– 1 as
T
D l– 1 = D 1T D kT , (3.18)
where Di ∈ IRp(s)ni × n, 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Let (∆i, Ωi) be a left
coprime factorization of Di, 1 ≤ i ≤ k, where Ωi ∈ Sni × n,
∆i ∈ Sni × ni and det ∆i(∞) ≠ 0. Let ∆ = diag{∆ i} ki = 1 and
Ω = [Ω1T … ΩkT ]T. Then,
T
D l– 1 = (∆ –1 1Ω1) T (∆ –k 1Ωk) T = ∆ – 1Ω .
For 1 ≤ i ≤ k, P+[Di] ⊂ P+[D l– 1 ] = P+[P] and P+[Di]
= Z+[∆i]. It then follows that
Z+[∆] ⊂ P+[P].
The following lemma is used in the proof of
Theorem 3.2, which yields a free parameter description of
HPd and CPd.
Lemma 3.1. Suppose H = diag{H i} ki = 1 ∈ Sn × n is block
diagonal, and that Θ and ∆ are as defined in (3.16)
and (3.19), respectively. Then, (i) N r– 1 H ∈ Sn × n if and only
if Θ–1H ∈ Sn × n, and (ii) HD l– 1 ∈ Sn × n if and only if H∆–1 ∈
Sn × n.
Proof. Since H is block diagonal, N r– 1 H ∈ Sn × n if and
only if ΓiΘ –i 1 Hi ∈ Sn × ni, 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Since Θi and Γi are
right coprime, ΓiΘ –i 1 Hi ∈ Sn × ni if and only if Θ –i 1 Hi ∈
Sni × ni [9] for 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Thus, N r– 1 H ∈ Sn × n if and only if
Θ–1H ∈ Sn × n. This proves (i). The proof of (ii) is similar.
n×n
Theorem 3.2. Suppose the plant P ∈ IRpo(s) has full
normal row rank and has no CI+-coincidence poles or
zeros. Let (Nr, Dr) and (Dl, Nl) be, respectively, the right
and left coprime factorizations of P. If Qi ∈ Sn × n is such
that NrQ1Dl is block diagonal, then there is a Qd ∈ Sn × n
block diagonal such that ΘQd∆ = NrQ1Dl, where the block
diagonal matrices Θ and ∆ are defined, respectively, through
(3.16) and (3.19).
Comments. (a) Since Γ and Ω are stable and proper,
ΓQ dΩ is stable and proper for every Qd ∈ S n × n block
diagonal. Let Q1 = ΓQdΩ ∈ Sn × n, then, NrQ1Dl = ΘQd∆
is block diagonal. It then follows from the theorem and
(3.13) that the set of all achievable block decoupled I/O
maps Hy2u1 for the plant P is
HPd = {αλI + ΘQd∆|Qd is block diagonal and stable}.
(3.21)
(b) Since NrQ1Dl = ΘQd∆ if and only if
149
Q 1 = N r– 1ΘQ d∆D l– 1 = ΓQ dΩ , (3.22)
where we have used (3.16) and (3.19), it follows from
(3.14) that the set of all block decoupling controllers is
αλN l– 1 + D rΓQ dΩ –1
C Pd = U βψD l– 1 – N rΓQ dΩ
Q2
(3.19)
1 Q d is block diagonal and stable
. (3.23)
Q 2 ∈ S (m – n) × n
(3.20)
Proof. Let Q1 ∈ Sn × n be such that H := NrQ1Dl is block
diagonal. Since N r– 1 H = Q1Dl is stable and proper, by
Lemma 3.1, it follows from (3.16) that Θ–1H is stable
and proper. Similarly, since HD l– 1 = NrQ1 is stable and
proper, it follows from (3.19) that H∆–1 is stable and
proper. Let Qd = Θ–1H∆–1, which is block diagonal; we
then have H = ΘQ d∆. It then suffices to show that
Θ–1H∆–1 is stable and proper. Since H∆–1 and Θ–1H are
stable, P+[Θ–1H∆–1] ⊂ P+[Θ–1] and P+[Θ–1H∆–1] ⊂ P+[∆–1].
Consequently, P +[Θ –1 H∆ –1] ⊂ (P +[Θ –1] ∩ P +[∆ –1 ]) =
(Z+[Θ] ∩ Z+[∆]). By (3.17), (3.20) and assumption A2),
P+[Θ–1H∆–1] ⊂ (Z+[P] ∩ P+[P]) = Ø; thus, Θ–1H∆–1 is stable.
Since Θ–1H and ∆–1 are proper, Θ–1HD–1 is proper, and the
proof is complete. ■
■
The equations (3.21) and (3.23) completely param-
eterize the set of achievable block decoupled I/O maps and
the set of block decoupling controllers via a block diagonal
parameter. Thus, the design of the block decoupling
controller becomes the task of choosing two appropriate
parameters so that the design requirements are satisfied. If
the requirements are specified on the I/O map and the
sensitivity map (where they are both block diagonal), then
the design reduces to a set of k block channel designs of
smaller dimension. We emphasize again that the param-
eterization given above does not require computation of the
Smith-McMillan form of the plant; hence, it can be reliably
computed.
IV. BLOCK DECOUPLING
PRECOMPENSATORS
Another way to design block decoupling controllers
is to first find a block decoupling precompensator which
makes the transfer matrix of the cascade connection (of the
precompensator and the plant) block diagonal and then
150 Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1999

design feedback controllers for each of the block channels.

Two problems, however, may arise in this approach. The
cascade connection may not be stabilizable and the block
decoupling precompensator may introduce additional
constraints on the achievable block decoupled (closed-
loop) I/O maps.
Fig. 2. The feedback system S(P, F , A).
We say the block decoupling precompensator F
for the plant P is admissible if the cascade connection of
F and P is stabilizable. In this section, we will construct
an admissible block decoupling precompensator for
P which does not introduce any constraint on the achiev-
able block decoupled I/O maps. First, we construct
an admissible block decoupling precompensator F for
P ∈ IRpo(s)n × n given in (3.1) that is nonsingular and
satisfies assumption A2). In order to find a block decoupl-
ing precompensator for P, we need the following. Fig. 3. Unity-feedback system S(PF, A).

Proposition 4.1. Let λ, ψ, Θi and ∆i be as defined in the

previous section. The following holds: FA(I + PFA) – 1 – FAP(I + FAP) – 1 F(I + APF) – 1
H yu = PFA(I + PFA) – 1 P(I + FAP) – 1 PF(I + APF) – 1 .
(i) λΘ –i 1 ∈ S n i × n i and ψ∆ –i 1 ∈ S n i × n i , and A(I + PFA) –1
– AP(I + FAP) – APF(I + APF) – 1
–1

(ii) λΘ –i 1 and ∆i are right coprime.

(4.3)
Proof. (i) Since λN = [λΓ Θ … λΓkΘ ] ∈ S and
–1
r 1 1
–1 –1
k
n×n

Now, suppose the block diagonal controller A is

Γi and Θi are right coprime, λΘ ∈ Sni × ni. Similarly, ψ∆ –i 1
–1
i
such that the system S(PF, A) is stable. It is easy to verify
∈ Sni × ni. (ii) By (3.6), we have αλI + βψI = I, where α, β
that the following Bezout identity
∈ S. The matrices αΘi, λΘ –i 1 , βψ∆ –i 1 and ∆i are stable and
proper. Since (αΘi) (λΘ –i 1 ) + (βψ∆ –i 1 )∆i = αλI + βψI = I,
βψ∆ αλΘ – 1 ∆ – αΘ
–1
λΘ –i 1 and ∆i are right coprime, 1 ≤ i ≤ k. ■ = I0 (4.4)
– λΘ
–1
∆ Θ βψ∆ – 1 0I
Since det ∆i(∞) ≠ 0, (λΘ –i 1 )∆ –i 1 ∈ IRp(s)ni × ni. There
exists Θ i , ∆ i ∈ Sni × ni left coprime such that
follows from (3.6) and (4.1), and that each element in
(4.4) is stable and proper. Since Θ and ∆ are block diagonal
(λΘ –i 1)∆ –i 1 = ∆ i Θ i ,
–1
(4.1)
and right coprime, from (4.4), and since PF = Θ∆–1, the set
of all block diagonal stabilizing controllers for PF is
where ∆i and ∆ i are equivalent, and λ Θ –i 1 and Θ i are
equivalent. Since det ∆ i (∞) ≠ 0 and ∆ i and ∆ i are
equivalent,∆ i is proper, 1 ≤ i ≤ k.
–1

A PF = (αΘ + ∆Q d)(βψ∆ – 1 – ΘQ d) – 1
Let ∆ i = diag{∆ i} i = 1 , and let
k
d

F = P Θ∆
–1 –1
. (4.2)
1
Since P–1Θ = DrΓ and ∆–1 are proper, F in (4.2) is a proper Q d is block diagonal and stable . (4.5)
rational matrix, and the cascade connection of F and P has
a block diagonal transfer matrix PF =: PF. Clearly, PF =
Θ∆ i –1. To show that the cascade connection of F and P is Hence,
stabilizable, we only have to show that there is a controller
A(s) such that the system S(P, F , A) shown in Fig. 2 is A = (αΘ + ∆Q d)(βψ∆ – 1 – ΘQ d) – 1 (4.6)
stable. We will do this by showing that if A(s) is a block
diagonal controller which stabilizes the plant PF , that is, for some Qd which is block diagonal and stable. Since
the system S(PF , A) shown in Fig. 3 is stable, then the S(PF, A) is stable, Hyiuj, i = 2, 3 and j = 1, 3, are stable. In
system S(P, F , A) is also stable. Let u := [u 1T u 2T u 3T ]T and the Appendix, we will show that the transfer matrices
y := [y1T y2T y3T ]T. The closed-loop transfer matrix H yu of Hy1u1, Hy1u2, Hy1u3, Hy2u2 and Hy3u2 are also stable. Hence,
the system S(P, F , A) is the system S(P, F , A) is stable and F defined in (4.2) is
 C.-A. Lin and C.-M. Wu: Block Decoupling Control of Linear Multivariable Systems 151

an admissible block decoupling precompensator for P.

We summarize this result in the following theorem.
Theorem 4.2. For the plant P defined in (3.1), the block
decoupling precompensator F = P–1Θ∆–1 is admissible.
Comment. It is also possible to generate the set of all
admissible block decoupling precompensators for P
from F . Let R be a block diagonal matrix with block
diagonal entry Ri ∈ IR(s)ni × ni. It is clear that if the cascade
connection of Ri and Θi∆ i have no CI+ pole-zero can-
–1
cellation and G = F R is proper, then G is also an admissible
block decoupling precompensator for P. The converse is
also true: if there is CI+ pole-zero cancellation in the cas-
cade connection of Ri and Θi∆ i , then G = F R is not
–1
admissible. A detailed proof can be found in [10].
We have constructed an admissible block decoupl-
ing precompensator for a square plant that satisfies
assumptions A1) and A2). We will now consider the
rectangular plant P ∈ IRpo(s)n × m. Define
I 0 0
0 U– 1 0 . (4.9)
0 0 I
Since the transfer matrices of PF and PF are the same
and have no CI+ hidden mode, the set of all block decoupl-
ing controllers for PF is the same as the set of all block
decoupling controllers for PF . Since U and U –1 are
S-unimodular and the sets of the block decoupling con-
trollers for PF and PF are the same, the system S(P, F, A) is
stable if and only if the system S(P, F , A) is stable and F
satisfies that F (I + PF A)–1, F AP(I + F AP)–1 and F (I +
APF )–1 are stable. Obviously, if we choose F ∈ S(m – n) × n,
then F defined in (4.7) is an admissible block decoupling
precompensator for P.
The I/O map Hy2u1 of S(P, F, A) is the same as the
I/O map Hy2u1 of S(P, F , A). By computation, the set of all
I/O maps of S(P, F, A) is
{αλI + ΘQd∆|Qd is block diagonal and stable}.
(4.10)

F=U F , (4.7) Thus, the block decoupling precompensator F does

F not introduce any constraints placed on the achievable I/O
where F ∈ IRpo(s)n × n is an admissible block decoupl-
ing precompensator for P defined in (4.2) and F ∈
IR po(s)(m – n) × n. Let the transfer matrix of the cascade
connection of F and P be PF. The transfer matrix of PF is
the same as that of PF , which is block diagonal. To show
that the cascade connection of F and P is stabilizable,
and hence, that F is admissible, we have to show that if A
is a block diagonal controller such that the system S(PF, A)
is stable, then the system S(P, F, A) is also stable. The
closed-loop transfer matrix of the system S(P, F, A) is
FA(I + PFA) – 1 – FAP(I + FAP) – 1 F(I + APF) – 1
H yu = PFA(I + PFA) – 1 P(I + FAP) – 1 PF(I + APF) – 1
–1
A(I + PFA) – AP(I + FAP) – APF(I + APF) – 1
–1
maps.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have described parameterizations
of the set of all block decoupling controllers and the set of
all block diagonal I/O maps. The computations involve
coprime factorizations and inverse of rational matrices.
Through construction of an admissible open-loop block
decoupling precompensator, it has been shown that the
block decoupling controller design reduces to a set of k
block channel designs of smaller dimensions provided that
the design requirement is based on the I/O map and the
sensitivity map.
APPENDIX

We will first show that λΘ i ∈ Sni × ni and ψ∆ i ∈

–1 –1

S . Thus, λΘ and ψ∆ are stable. Since λΘ –i 1 and Θ i

ni × ni –1 –1
U0 0
= 0 I 0 . (4.8) are equivalent, there exist Xi, Yi ∈ Sni × ni, S-unimodular,
0 0 I
such that, λΘ –i 1 = XiΘ i Yi. Hence, λΘ i = YiΘiXi and λΘ i
–1 –1

∈ Sni × ni, 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Thus, λΘ is stable. Similarly, ∆i and

–1

∆ i are equivalent, and ψ∆ i and ψ∆ i are also equivalent.

–1 –1

F(I + PFA) – 1 FAP(I + FAP) – 1 F(I + APF) – 1 By Proposition 4.1, ψ∆ i ∈ Sni × ni; thus, ψ∆ i ∈ Sni × ni and
0 –1 –1
–
F(I + PFA) – 1 FAP(I + FAP) – 1 0 F(I + APF) – 1
ψ∆ is stable.
–1

By (4.1), (4.2) and (4.6),

PFA(I + PFA) – 1 P(I + FAP) – 1 0 PF(I + APF) – 1

–1

= I + Θ∆ (αΘ + ∆Q d)(βψ∆ – ΘQ d)
–1 –1 –1 –1
A(I + PFA) –1
– AP(I + FAP) –1
0 – APF(I + APF) –1
(I + PFA)
(A.1)
152 Asian Journal of Control, Vol. 1, No. 3, September 1999

= βψI – ΘQ d∆ . (A.2) Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 47-53 (1996).

6. Lin, C.A. and C.M. Wu, “Block-Decoupling Linear
By (3.16), Multivariable Systems: Necessary and Sufficient
Conditions,” Automatica, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 237-243
–1 (1998).
H y1u1 = FA(I + PFA) – 1 = P I – (I + PFA) – 1 (A.3)
7. Linnemann, A. and Q.G. Wang, “Block Decoupling
with Stability by Unity Output Feedback —Solution
= D rΓ(αλΘ – 1 + Q d∆) . (A.4) and Performance Limitations,” Automatica, Vol. 29,
No. 3, pp. 735-744 (1993).
By (3.16) and (3.19), 8 Nett, C.N., C.A. Jacobson and M.J. Balas, “A Connec-
–1
tion between State-space and Doubly Coprime Frac-
H y1u2 = – FAP(I + FAP) – 1 = – I + P (I + PFA) – 1P tional Representation,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
(A.5) Vol. 29, pp. 831-832 (1984).
9. Vidyasagar, M., Control System Synthesis: A Factor-
= – αλI – D rΓQ dΩN l . (A.6) ization Approach, MIT Press, MA (1985).
10 Wu, C.M., “Block Decoupling Control of Linear
Furthermore, Multivariable Feedback Systems,” Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Electrical and Control Engineering,
H y1u3 = F(I + APF) – 1 = P(I + PFA) – 1PF (A.7) National Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
(2000).
= βD rΓψ∆ – D rΓQ dλΘ
–1 –1
; (A.8)

H y2u2 = P(I + FAP) – 1 = (I + PFA) – 1P (A.9)

= (βψ∆ – ΘQ d)ΩN l ;
–1
H y3u2 = – AP(I + FAP) – 1
= – (αΘ + ∆Q d)ΩN l .
Since λΘ–1, λΘ , ψ∆–1 and ψ∆ are stable, the
–1 –1
transfer matrices Hy1u1, Hy1u2, Hy1u3, Hy2u2 and Hy3u2 are
stable.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, B.D.O. and M.R. Gevers, “On Multivari-
able Pole-Zero Cancellations and the Stability of Feed-
back Systems,” IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., Vol. 28,
pp. 830-833 (1981).
2. Callier, F.M. and C.A. Desoer, Multivariable Feed-
back Systems, Springer-Verlag, New York (1982).
3. Commault, C., J.M. Dion and J.A. Torres, “Minimal
Structure in the Block Decoupling Problem with
Stability,” Automatica., Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 331-338
(1991).
4. Desoer, C.A. and A.N. Gundes, “Decoupling Linear
Multiinput Multioutput Plants by Dynamic Output
Feedback: An Algebraic Theory,” IEEE Trans.
Automat. Contr., Vol. AC-31, No. 8, pp. 744-750
(1986)
5. Lin, C.A., C.W. Yang and T.F. Hsieh, “An Algorithm
for Inverting Rational Matrices,” Syst. Contr. Lett.,
Ching-An Lin received the B.S. de-
(A.10) gree from National Chiao-Tung
University, Taiwan, in 1977, the M.S.
(A.11) degree from the University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, in 1980, and
(A.12) the Ph.D. degree from the University
of California, Berkeley, 1984, all in
electrical engineering.
He was with the Chung-Shan Institute of Science and
Technology from 1977 to 1979, and with Integrated Sys-
tems Inc. from 1984 to 1986. Since June 1986, he has been
with the Department of Electrical and Control Engineering,
National Chiao-Tung University, Taiwan, where he is a
professor. His current research interests are in multivari-
able control and multirate signal processing.
Chang-Ming Wu was born in
Taiwan, Taiwan, R.O.C., on May 27,
1969. He received the B.S. degree in
control engineering from National
Chiao-Tung University, Hsinchu,
Taiwan, in 1991.
He is currently working toward
the Ph.D. degree in electrical and con-
trol engineering at National Chiao-Tung University, Taiwan.
His research interests include multivariable control sys-
tems and multirate systems.