See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260661863

Parameter Estimation and Non-Collocated Adaptive Stabilization for a Wave

Equation Subject to General Boundary Harmonic Disturbance

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · July 2013

DOI: 10.1109/TAC.2013.2239003

CITATIONS READS

69 76

2 authors:

Wei Guo Bao-Zhu Guo

University of International Business and Economics Chinese Academy of Sciences
18 PUBLICATIONS   317 CITATIONS    308 PUBLICATIONS   6,190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International e-Learning of Mathematical Modeling View project

functional differential equation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bao-Zhu Guo on 31 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012
Parameter Estimation and Non-Collocated Adaptive
Stabilization for a Wave Equation subject to
General Boundary Harmonic Disturbance
Wei Guo, and Bao-Zhu Guo, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper is concerned with the parameter es-
timation and asymptotic stabilization of a one-dimensional
wave equation that is subject to general harmonic distur-
bances at the controlled end and suffers from instability
at the other end. First, we design an adaptive observer in
terms of measured position and velocity. We then adopt the
backstepping method for infinite-dimensional systems to
design the observer-based output feedback law. It is shown
that the resulting closed-loop system is asymptotically
stable and that the estimates of the parameters converge
to the unknown parameters.
Index Terms—Distributed parameter systems, harmonic dis-
turbance rejection, boundary control, backstepping.
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N the past several decades, collocated boundary feed-
back control has played a dominant role in the boundary
feedback stabilization of time reversible infinite-dimensional
systems described by wave and flexible beam equations ([1],
[2], [5], [6]). Most of those systems studied are assumed to be
conservative, meaning that the system energy remains constant
when there is no boundary control imposed. The main idea
of feedback stabilization design is to introduce a boundary
damping through control to make the system energy decay
polynomially or exponentially to zero as time goes to infinity.
The control design is usually based on passive principle and is
hence straightforward, although the stability analysis is hard
in many cases, in large part due to the PDE’s nature. This is
also the case for the stabilization of many multi-dimensional
partial differential control systems [23], [25], [26], [28]. The
early non-dissipative boundary control is designed in [8],
[27], and the generalization (to certain extend) of this design
to 2D can be found in [24]. Another interesting example
of non-dissipative stabilization example is presented in [12],
which is later proved to be dissipative in [9] under the state
transformation.
In the last few years, particular attentions have been paid
to the boundary feedback stabilization for unstable wave
Manuscript received December 29, 2011, revised August 02, 2012, and
November 22, 2012. Recommended by Associate Editor C. Prieur.
W. Guo is with School of Statistics, University of International Business
and Economics, Beijing 100029, China. Corresponding Author.
Email: guowei74@126.com
B.-Z. Guo is with the Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science,
Academia Sinica, Beijing 100190, China, and the School of Computational
and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Email: bzguo@iss.ac.cn
1
and beam equations by means of non-collocated control and
observation. In this situation, the passive principle cannot
be directly applied anymore. An observer-based compensator
which exponentially stabilizes the string system with a non-
collocated actuator/sensor configuration is proposed in [10]. A
major change has taken place since the backstepping method
is introduced in PDEs ([18]). In [16], the controller and
observer are designed using both the displacement and velocity
measurement via the backstepping method to exponentially
stabilize a one-dimensional wave equation that contains desta-
bilizing anti-stiffness boundary condition at its free end. The
destabilizing term in [16] is proportional to the displacement,
which makes the system unstable in the sense that the un-
controlled system has positive real eigenvalue. An extension
is later presented in [11] where the controller and observer
for a non-collocated wave equation are designed using the
displacement measurement only. A breakthrough was made
recently in [19], where the anti-stable wave equation with an
anti-damping term on the uncontrolled boundary (which is
different to the destabilizing term in [16]) is stabilized through
a novel backstepping transformation method. The stabilization
of unstable shear beam equation can be found in [17] where
the non-collocated boundary stabilization is discussed by using
the backstepping method and observer-based feedback. The
stabilization of the anti-damping term in internal domain of the
spacial variable is addressed in [33]. However, uncertainties
in the boundary control (input) or boundary measurement
(output) are not considered in the aforementioned controller
and observer designs.
The early efforts for the design of adaptive controller and
observer for partial differential equation control systems are
presented in [20], [21], [22]; particularly for parabolic PDEs
with boundary control and unknown parameters that may
cause instability of the system and affect the interior of the
domain. Adaptive stabilization for the most challenging anti-
wave equation system can be found in [15]. A recent progress
is made in [13] where the adaptive observer and controller are
designed for a one-dimensional wave equation with corrupted
output disturbances and non-collocated control. We also refer
to a recent nice work [3] where the stabilization of a one-
dimensional heat equation with boundary control corrupted by
bounded disturbance is considered by means of sliding mode
control and backstepping method.
In this paper, we are concerned with the parameter estima-
tion and asymptotic stabilization of a one-dimensional wave
equation that is subject to general harmonic disturbances at
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 2

the controlled end and suffers from instability at the other end.
0

An adaptive observer is designed in terms of the measured end

position and velocity to estimate the unknown parameters and d i s
t u r b a n c e

l o u d s p e a k e r
A C O U S T I C S

f l a m e f r o n t

the state simultaneously. The observer-based output feedback s e n s o r 1

s e n s o r 2

law is designed through the backstepping method to stabilize i

n j e c t
i

o n o f

the system in the time of rejecting the disturbance. The

i i x

f u e l / a r m t u r e

resulting closed-loop system is shown to be asymptotically C O N T R O L L E R

stable.
The paper is organized as follows. We give the main results
in the next section. The proofs of these results are then
provided in Section III. In Section IV, we presents some
illustrative simulation results. Concluding remarks are made
in Section V.
II. P ROBLEM FORMULATION AND MAIN RESULTS
In this paper, we are concerned with the following one-
dimensional wave equation:

 wtt (x, t) − wxx (x, t) = 0, x ∈ (0, 1), t > 0,



 x (0, t) = −qw(0, t), t ≥ 0,
w periodic unknown signal through the knock sensor. In [4],
wx (1, t) = u(t) + d(t) (1)

 sum of periodic harmonic series. This is based on the fact

 w(x, 0) = w0 (x), w t (x, 0) = w 1 (x), 0 ≤ x ≤ 1,
 that any periodic signal can be expanded through Fourier
yout (t) = (w(0, t), wt (1, t)), t ≥ 0,
where wx (or w′ ) denotes the derivative of w with respect to
x,wt (or ẇ) the derivative with respect to t, u is the boundary
control (input) at the right end, yout is the boundary mea-
surement (output), and (w0 , w1 ) is the initial value; parameter
q is a real constant, d(t) represents the general harmonic
disturbance which has the following form:
m
X is an online estimation/cacellation strategy by which the
d(t) = [θ̄j sin αj t + ϑ̄j cos αj t], t ≥ 0,
j=1
with αj 6= 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , m being the frequencies and
θ̄j , ϑ̄j , j = 1, 2, . . . , m, the amplitudes. Note that the am-
plitudes are assumed to be unknown in this paper. Such
kind of disturbance is more general than the finite sum of
periodic harmonic disturbance that can be considered as the
approximation of the period disturbance signal in terms of
Fourier expansion ([4], [32]).
The physical motivation of problem (1) has been well
explained in [15] where the unstable wave equation models
the classical Rijke tube control experiment in combustion
dynamics with control of a loudspeaker, and a pressure sensor
(microphone) near the speaker. Both the actuator and the
sensor are placed as far as possible from the flame front,
for their thermal protection. The unstable damping that we
include in our model of wave dynamics represents the injection
of energy in proportion to the amplitude field, see Figure 1
below that comes from [15, Figure 1] (velocity field is replaced
by amplitude field). The difference between our model (1)
and that in [15] is that we have the external disturbance at
the control end, because the opposite end of the flame front
of Rijke tube is exposed to the air from which the external
disturbance is imposed to the boundary. For other control
strategies of such process, we refer to [15] and the references
therein. Moreover, our study for system (1) have the following
engineering applications:
Fig. 1. Control of a thermoacoustic instability and disturbance in a Rijke
tube (a duct-type combustion chamber).
• Knock sensor in measure of knocking in combustion
process of automotive engine. The observer design such
as the one in our stabilization of system (1), is of signifi-
cance by itself. As illustrated in the interesting work [32]
and a more recent paper [4] for combustion process of
automotive engine. The knocking measurement needs to
be realized by estimation of a wave equation driven by a
the periodic unknown signal is assumed to admit a finite
decomposition. Also, the period disturbance rejection is
the objective of the repetitive control ([34], [35]). Here
we remove the limitation of the periodicity of the signal
which covers the problem of [4] as its special case in the
observer design.
• Estimation of the harmonic signal. The observer based
feedback stabilization for system (1) studied in this paper
unknown harmonic disturbance is estimated. The online
estimation of the unknown harmonic signal which is the
sum of a finite number of sinusoids has been addressed
by many authors, see [30] and the references therein.
Note that in the absence of disturbance and when q > 0,
system (1) is unstable in the sense that its open-loop system
has positive real eigenvalues in the open right half complex
plane. This instability also occurs in combustion dynamics. A
nice physical explanation is illustrated in [15].
Also note that system (1) is a non-minimum phase system
when q > 0. Indeed, the transfer function from u to output
w(0, t) is found to be
2es
G(s) = ,
(s − q)e2s − (s + q)
which has at least one real pole s0 > q. Moreover, the control
(at x = 1) and the observation (at x = 0) is non-collocated.
An adaptive regulator for the unstable system (1) with the
disturbance in the form of θ̄1 sin t + θ̄2 cos t is designed under
state feedback in [14] to achieve both parameter estimation
and stabilization. Only output feedback is used in this paper
to tackle the general harmonic disturbance.
The main result of this paper states that for any given
frequencies αj 6= 0, j = 1, 2, . . . , m, one can always construct
an observer-based adaptive scheme to achieve both parameter
estimation and stabilization. Unlike the stabilization by distur-
bance rejection only as that in [3] for the heat equation, the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 3

objective of our design is twofold, i.e., estimation the unknown Theorem 2.1: Suppose that (ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 ,
parameters and rejection of the harmonic disturbance. e
ϑm0 ) ∈ V × V × R2m , and they satisfy the following
We design the following adaptive observer for system (1): compatible condition:
 m
 wbtt (x, t) − wbxx (x, t) = 0, X

 −kε1 (1) + ϑej0 = 0 (7)




 wbx (0, t) = −qw(0, t) − c0 w(0, t) − w(0, b t) ,


j=1




 wbx (1, t) = u(t) + k wt (1, t) − w bt (1, t) and

 m h i

 m X

 X −kε′′0 (1) + αj θej0 − rj ε1 (1) = 0. (8)
+ [θj (t) sin αj t + ϑj (t) cos αj t],
(2) j=1

 j=1



 Then system (3) admits a unique classical solution ε. That is

 θ̇j (t) = rj wt (1, t) − w bt (1, t) sin αj t,


to say, for any time T > 0,



 ϑ̇j (t) = lj wt (1, t) − w bt (1, t) cos αj t, 



  ε ∈ L∞ (0, T ; H 3 (0, 1)), εt ∈ L∞ (0, T ; H 2(0, 1)),
 θj (0) = θj0 , ϑj (0) = ϑj0 ∈ R, j = 1, 2, · · · , m,
 

 
 εtt ∈ L∞ (0, T ; H 1 (0, 1)),
w(x,
b 0) = w b0 (x), wbt (x, 0) = w b1 (x), 





 θej ∈ C 1 [0, T ], ϑ
ej ∈ C 1 [0, T ], j = 1, 2, · · · , m,
where and henceforth k, ci , i = 0, 1, 2; rj , lj , j = 1, 2 · · · , m 

are positive design parameters. Note that here and in the rest 
 εtt (x, t) − εxx (x, t) = 0 in L∞ (0, T ; L2 (0, 1)),


of the paper, we omit the (obvious) domains for t and x. 


 εx (0, t) = c0 ε(0, t),
Let ε(x, t) = w(x, t) − w(x, b t) be the error between system 


Xm
(1) and observer (2). It is easy to see that ε is governed by
 
 ε x (1, t) = −kε t (1, t) + [θej (t) sin αj t + ϑej (t) cos αj t],


 εtt (x, t) = εxx (x, t), 
 j=1

 


 εx (0, t) = c0 ε(0, t), 


 
 θėj (t) = −rj εt (1, t) sin αj t, j = 1, 2, · · · , m,

 εx (1, t) = −kεt (1, t) 


 



 Xm 
 ϑėj (t) = −lj εt (1, t) cos αj t, j = 1, 2, · · · , m,
 



 + [θej (t) sin αj t + ϑej (t) cos αj t], 

 θej (0) = θej0 , ϑej (0) = ϑej0 , j = 1, 2, · · · , m,
j=1


(3) ε(x, 0) = ε0 (x), εt (x, 0) = ε1 (x).

 θėj (t) = −rj εt (1, t) sin αj t,



 By the Sobolev embedding theorem ([31, p.85]), it follows

 ϑėj (t) = −lj εt (1, t) cos αj t,

 that ε ∈ C([0, 1] × [0, T ]).

 θej (0) = θ̄j − θj0 = θej0 , ϑej (0) = ϑ̄j − ϑj0 = ϑej0 ,

 Remark 2.1: In Theorem 2.1, condition 7 is the natural


 ε(x, 0) = ε0 (x) = w0 (x) − w
 b0 (x),
compatible condition for the classical solution of (3), and
εt (x, 0) = ε1 (x) = w1 (x) − w b1 (x), condition (8) is for the existence of the more smoother solution
where that we shall need in the proof of Theorem 2.2 in next section.
Definition 2.1: For any initial data
θej (t) = θ̄j − θj (t), ϑej (t) = ϑ̄j − ϑj (t), j = 1, 2, · · · , m, (ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) ∈ V = H 1 (0, 1) × L2 (0, 1) ×
are the parameter errors. R2m , the weak solution (ε, εt , θe1 , ϑe1 , · · · , θem , ϑem ) of
Define a Lyapunov function for system (3) as follows: equation (3) is defined as the limit of any convergent
subsequence of (εn , εnt , θe1n , ϑen1 , · · · , θem n en
, ϑm ) in the space
Z
1 1 2 c0 L (0, ∞; V) where (ε , εt , θ1 , ϑ1 , · · · , θem
∞ n n en en n en
, ϑm ) is the
Eε (t) = [εt (x, t) + ε2x (x, t)]dx + ε2 (0, t)
2 0 2 classical solution (ensured by Theorem 2.1) with the initial
m
X 1   (4) condition ( for all x ∈ (0, 1))
e2 1 e2
+ θ (t) + ϑ (t) .

2rj j 2lj j εn (x, 0), εnt (x, 0), θe1n (0), ϑen1 (0), · · · , θem n
(0), ϑenm (0)
j=1


A formal calculation shows that = εn0 (x), εn1 (x), θe10 n en
, ϑ10 , · · · , θem0
n
, ϑenm0 ∈ V × V × R2m ,

Ėε (t) = −k[εt (1, t)]2 ≤ 0. (5) which satisfies

limn→∞ εn0 (x), εn1 (x), θe10 n en
, ϑ10 , · · · , θem0
n
, ϑenm0
This can be considered as a motivation of designing observer
(2) and the update laws for the parameter errors θej , ϑej , j =

−(ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) = 0.
1, 2, · · · , m given in (3). V
Let V = H 3 (0, 1)∩D(A) with A being an operator defined By (4) and (5), the above weak solution is well defined,
in L2 (0, 1) as follows: since it does not depend on the choice of initial sequence
Aφ = −φ′′ , ∀ φ ∈ D(A), (εn (x, 0), εnt (x, 0), θe1n (0), ϑen1 (0), · · · , θem
n
(0), ϑenm (0)).
 (6) Theorem 2.2: Suppose that
D(A) = φ ∈ L2 (0, 1), φ′ (0) = c0 φ(0), φ′ (1) = 0 .
c0 > max{αj / tan αj , j = 1, 2, · · · , m} (9)
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 4

in observer (2). Then for any initial value The transformation (12) converts system (11) into
(ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) ∈ V, the solution of 
system (3) is asymptotically stable in the sense that 
 w
ett (x, t) − w
exx (x, t) = (c0 + q)(c1


 Z 1  
 qx
+q)e ε(0, t),
1 

lim [ε2t (x, t) + ε2x (x, t)]dx + c0 ε2 (0, t) = 0 

t→∞ 2 0

 w
ex (0, t) = c1 w(0,
e t) − (c0 + q)ε(0, t),


 w e (1, t) = −c w e (1, t),
x 2 t
and (14)


 θėj (t) = −rj εt (1, t) sin αj t,


lim θj (t) = θ̄j , lim ϑj (t) = ϑ̄j , j = 1, 2, · · · , m. 
 ϑėj (t) = −lj εt (1, t) cos αj t,
t→∞ t→∞ 


 w(x,
e 0) = w e0 (x), w et (x, 0) = w
e1 (x),
We propose the following observer-based feedback con- 



troller: θej (0) = θej0 , ϑej (0) = ϑej0 , j = 1, 2, · · · , m,
u(t) where ε is given by (3) and (i = 0, 1)
= −(c2 − k)wbt (1, t) − (c1 + q)w(1,
b t) − kwt (1, t) Z x
Z 1 w
ei (x) = wbi (x) + (c1 + q) eq(x−ξ) w
bi (ξ)dξ. (15)
−(c1 + q) eq(1−ξ) [c2 w
bt (ξ, t) + q w(ξ,
b t)]dξ (10) 0
0
m The recommended choices of the control gains are as follows:
X
− [θj (t) sin αj t + ϑj (t) cos αj t]. c2 ≈ 1, c1 > 0, and c0 satisfies (9).
j=1 Now we turn to transformed system (14) without dynamic
equations for θej (t) and ϑej (t), j = 1, 2, · · · , m, since they have
Controller (10) contains two parts: one part is used to over- been determined by the error system (3) already. The system
come the instability caused by the term −qw(0, t) on the left now reads
end of (1), and the another (last term in controller (10)) is used 
to cancel the effect of the disturbance. Simply speaking, it is 
 wett (x, t) − w exx (x, t) = (c0 + q)(c1


obtained by the applying the backstepping method in PDEs qx
+q)e ε(0, t),
which transfers the “w” b part of system (2) to the “w” e part (16)

 wex (0, t) = c1 w(0,
e t) − (c0 + q)ε(0, t),
of (14) later for which the stability is almost straightforward. 

wex (1, t) = −c2 w et (1, t).
Moreover, if we compare output feedback controller (10) and
the state feedback controller (1.3) of [14], we see that our We consider system (16) in the energy space H = H 1 (0, 1) ×
controller here is just to replace the state w in [14] by w.
b In this L2 (0, 1). The norm of H is induced by the inner product
sense, our result is something of the well-known separation Z 1
principle.
k(p, q)k2H = [|p′ (x)|2 dx + |q(x)|2 ]dx + c1 |p(0)|2
The closed-loop of system (2) corresponding to controller 0
(10) becomes
 for any (p, q) ∈ H. Define the operator A : D(A)(⊂ H) → H

 wbtt (x, t) − wbxx (x, t) = 0,
as follows:

 wb (0, t) = −qw(0, t) − c0 w(0, t) − w(0,b t) , 

 x

  A(u, v) = (v, u′′ ), ∀ (u, v) ∈ D(A),

 wbx (1, t) = −c2 w bt (1, t) − (c1 + q)w(1,
b t)

 D(A) = {(u, v) ∈ H| A(u, v) ∈ H, (17)
 Z 1 

 u′ (0) = c1 u(0), u′ (1) = −c2 v(1)}.
 −(c1 + q) eq(1−ξ) [c2 w
bt (ξ, t) + q w(ξ,
b t)]dξ,
0
(11)

 θ̇j (t) = rj wt (1, t) − w bt (1, t) sin αj t, Theorem 2.3: For each initial value (w e0 , w
e1 ) ∈ H, there

 exists a unique solution (w,
e wet ) ∈ C(0, ∞; H) to (16); and




 ϑ̇j (t) = lj wt (1, t) − w bt (1, t) cos αj t, for all T > 0, there exists a DT > 0 (depending on T only)



 such that

 θ (0) = θj0 , ϑj (0) = θj0 , j = 1, 2, · · · , m,

 j
w(x,
b 0) = w b0 (x), wbt (x, 0) = w b1 (x). k(w(·, et (·, T ))k2H
e T ), w
Z T
Consider the reversible change of variable ≤ DT {k(w e1 )k2H
e0 , w + [|g(τ )|2 + kf (·, τ )k2L2 (0,1) ]dτ },
0
w(x,
e t) = [(I + P)w](x,
b t)
Z x
where
q(x−ξ)
(12) 
= w(x,
b t) + (c1 + q) e w(ξ,
b t)dξ, f (x, t) = (c0 + q)(c1 + q)eqx ε(0, t),
0 (18)
g(t) = −(c0 + q)ε(0, t).
where P is a Volterra transformation [16]. The inverse (I +
P)−1 is given by Moreover, for each (w e0 , w
e1 ) ∈ D(A) and
(ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) ∈ V × V × R2m with
b t) = [(I + P)−1 w](x,
w(x, e t) ε0 (0) = 0 and satisfying the compatible conditions (7) and
Z x (13) (8), there exists a classical solution (w, et ) ∈ C 1 (0, ∞; H) to
e w
= w(x,
e t) − (c1 + q) e−c1 (x−ξ) w(ξ,
e t)dξ. (16).
0
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 5

Theorem 2.4: The transformed system (16) is asymptoti- equation with initial value (ξ10 , η10 , · · · , ξm0 , ηm0 ) =
cally stable. That is, for any (we0 , w
e1 ) ∈ H, the (weak) solution (0, 1, 0, 1, · · · , 0, 1):
of (16) justified by Theorem 2.3 satisfies 
⊤
 d
Z 1 
 ξ1 (t), η1 (t), · · · , ξm (t), ηm (t)
1  dt

⊤
lim Ewe (t) = limt→∞ e2 (x, t) + w
[w et2 (x, t)]dx = B ξ1 (t), η1 (t), · · · , ξm (t), ηm
(t) ,
t→∞ 2 0 x 
(20)
 
 ξ1 (0), η1 (0), · · · , ξm (0), ηm (0)
+c1 w e2 (0, t) = 0. 

⊤
= ξ10 , η10 , · · · , ξm0 , ηm0 ,
We go back to the closed-loop system of (1) and (2) under where
the feedback (10):  
 0 α1 ··· 0 0
 wtt (x, t) − wxx (x, t) = 0, wx (0, t) = −qw(0, t),  −α1 0 ··· 0 0 

  

  .. .. .. .. 

 wx (1, t) = −(c2 − k)w bt (1, t) − (c1 + q)w(1, b t) B= . . ··· . . .

  

 Z 1  0 0 ··· 0 αm 


 eq(1−ξ) [c2 w
 −kwt (1, t) − (c1 + q)


bt (ξ, t) 0 0 ··· −αm 0

 0

 m Let L2 (0, 1) be the usual Hilbert space with the inner

 X

 +q w(ξ,
b t)]dξ + [θej (t) sin αj t + ϑej (t) cos αj t], product h·, ·i and inner product induced norm k·k. We consider



 j=1 system (3) and (20) in the energy state space H = V × R2m



 with the inner product

 w(x, 0) = w0 (x), wt (x, 0) = w1 (x),

 w btt (x, t) − w
bxx (x, t) = 0, w bx (0, t) h(u1 , v1 , θ1 , ϑ1 , · · · , θm , ϑm , ψ1 , ω1 , · · · , ψm , ωm ),
(19)

 = −qw(0, t) − c (w(0, t) − w(0,
b t)),

 0 (u2 , v2 , θ̂1 , ϑ̂1 , · · · , θ̂m , ϑ̂m , ψ̂1 , ω̂1 , · · · , ψ̂m , ω̂m )iH

 wbx (1, t) = −c2 w bt (1, t) − (c1 + q)w(1, b t)

 Z 1 Z 1

 Z 1 ′ ′

 = u1 (x)u2 (x)dx + v1 (x)v2 (x)dx + c0 u1 (0)u2 (0)



 −(c1 + q) eq(1−ξ) [c2 w bt (ξ, t) + q w(ξ,
b t)]dξ, 0 0

 0 m
!

 X θj θ̂j ϑj ϑ̂j

 θėj (t) = −rj (wt (1, t) − w bt (1, t)) sin αj t, + + + ψj ψ̂j + ωj ω̂j ,

 rj lj




j=1
 ϑėj (t) = −lj (wt (1, t) − w
 bt (1, t)) cos αj t, ∀ (u1 , v1 , θ1 , ϑ1 , · · · , θm , ϑm , ψ1 , ω1 , · · · , ψm , ωm ),



 (u2 , v2 , θ̂1 , ϑ̂1 , · · · , θ̂m , ϑ̂m , ψ̂1 , ω̂1 , · · · , ψ̂m , ω̂m ) ∈ H,

 θ (0) = θj0 , ϑj (0) = θj0 , j = 1, 2, · · · , m,
 j
w(x,
b 0) = w b0 (x), w bt (x, 0) = w b1 (x), where V is defined in Definition 2.1.
Let us consider system (19) in the state space X = Define the operator A : D(A)(⊂ H) → H as follows:

(H 1 (0, 1) × L2 (0, 1))2 × R2m .  A(u, v, θ1 , ϑ1 , · · · , θm , ϑm , ψ1 , ω1 , · · · , ψm , ωm )


Theorem 2.5: For any initial value 
 = (v, u′′ , −r1 v(1)ψ1 , −l1 v(1)ω1 , · · · ,


(w0 , w1 , w b1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 )
b0 , w ∈ X , there 
 −rm v(1)ψm , −lm v(1)ωm , α1 ω1 , −α1 ψ1 , · · · ,


exists a unique (weak) solution to (19) such that αm ωm , −αm ψm ),
(w(·, t), wt (·, t), w(·,
b t), w bt (·, t), θe1 (t), ϑe1 (t), · · · , θem (t), (21)

 D(A) = {(u, v, θ1 , ϑ1 , · · · , θm , ϑm , ψ1 , ω1 , · · · ,
e
ϑm (t)) ∈ C([0, ∞); X ). Moreover, the closed-loop 
 2 1 4m

 ψm , ωm ) ∈ H (0, 1) × H (0, 1) × R |
b θe1 (t), ϑe1 (t), · · · , θem (t), ϑem (t)) of (19) is 

solution (w, w, 
 u′ (0) = c0 u(0),
asymptotically stable in the sense that  u′ (1) = −kv(1) + Pm (θ ψ + ϑ ω )}.
j=1 j j j j
(Z
1 Then system (3) and (20) can be written as a nonlinear
lim [wx2 (x, t) + wt2 (x, t) + w bx2 (x, t) + w bt2 (x, t)]dx evolution equation
t→∞ 0
) d
m
X z(·, t) = Az(·, t), z(·, 0) = z0 (·) ∈ H, (22)
+c0 w2 (0, t) + c0 w
b2 (0, t) + [θej2 (t) + ϑe2j (t)] = 0. dt
j=1 where

And 
 z(x, t) = ε(x, t), εt (x, t), θe1 (t), ϑe1 (t), · · · , θem (t),
 e

ϑm (t), ξ1 (t), η1 (t), · · · , ξm (t), ηm (t) ,
lim θj (t) = θ̄j , lim ϑj (t) = ϑ̄j , j = 1, 2, · · · , m.  e e e e
t→∞ t→∞  z0 (x) = (ε0 (x), ε1 (x), θ10 , ϑ10 , · · · , θm0 , ϑm0 ,

ξ10 , η10 , · · · , ξm0 , ηm0 ).
III. P ROOF OF THE MAIN RESULTS
Equation (22) is a nonlinear autonomous revolution system.
a) Proof of Theorem 2.1.: Since system (3) is non- However, same as [14], it seems hard to use nonlinear
autonomous, we introduce some additional variables to semigroup to prove its well-posedness due to the lack of
make it time invariant. For this purpose, observer that the dissipativity of A defined by (21) (or A + ωI for any constant
harmonic disturbance function vector (sin α1 t, cos α1 t, · · · , ω ∈ R). Hence we invoke the Galerkin method to establish
sin αm t, cos αm t)⊤ is a solution to the following autonomous the existence and the uniqueness of the solution of Equation
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 6

(3). To do this, we need a basis to construct the Galerkin Integrating over [0, t] on both sides of (27) gives
approximation, which can be realized by the operator A Z t
defined by (6). It is obvious that A is unbounded self-adjoint
U (t) = U (0) − k [ε̈(1, s)]2 ds
positive definite in L2 (0, 1) with compact resolvent. A simple 0
computation shows that the eigenpairs {(λn , φn )}∞ n=1 are m
X Z t
 2 −1 + αj ε̈(1, s)[θej (s) cos αj s − ϑej (s) sin αj s]ds

 λn = ωn , ωn = nπ + O(n ),

 j=1 0
c0
φn (x) = sin ωn x + cos ωn x (23) m Z
X t
 ω n


 − (rj sin2 αj s + lj cos2 αj s)ε̇(1, s)ε̈(1, s)ds
= cos nπx + O(n−1 ), j=1 0

where ωn satisfies Z t m
X
c0
tan ωn =
. = U (0) − k [ε̈(1, s)]2 ds − αj ε1 (1)θej0
ωn 0 j=1
Since {φn }∞ n=1 defined by (23) is approximately normalized m
X
(i.e., 0 < m1 < kφn kL2 (0,1) < m2 for some constants m1 , m2 + αj ε̇(1, t)[θej (t) cos αj t − ϑej (t) sin αj t]
independent of n), it forms an orthogonal basis for L2 (0, 1). j=1
We can then follow the steps as those in [14] to construct a m Z
X t
Galerkin scheme to prove the existence and uniqueness for the + α2j ε̇(1, s)[θej (s) sin αj s + ϑej (s) cos αj s]ds
classical solution to error system (3). The details are omitted. j=1 0

m
b) Proof of Theorem 2.2.: By density argument, we 1X
− (rj sin2 αj t + lj cos2 αj t)[ε̇(1, t)]2
may assume without loss of generality that the initial value 2 j=1
(ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) belongs to V × V × R2m m Z
and satisfies compatible conditions (7) and (8). Construct the X t
+ αj (rj − lj ) ε̇2 (1, s) sin 2αj sds
Lyapunov functional Vε (t) for system (22) as follows: j=1 0
Z
1 1 2 c0 m Z
Vε (t) = [ε (x, t) + ε2x (x, t)]dx + ε2 (0, t) 1X 2 t
2 0 t 2 + lj ε (1) = U (0) − k [ε̈(1, s)]2 ds
  (24) 2 j=1 1 0
m
X 1 Xm
e 2 1 e2 2 2
+ θ (t) + ϑ (t) + [ξj (t) + ηj (t)], m
X m
X
j=1
2rj j 2lj j j=1 − αj ε1 (1)θej0 + αj [θej (t) cos αj t
j=1 j=1
where ξj (t) = sin αj t, ηj (t) = cos αj t, j = 1, 2, · · · , m. The
time derivative of Vε (t) along the solution of system (22) is m
X  −θej2 (t) θej0
2
found to be −ϑej (t) sin αj t]ε̇(1, t) + α2j +
2rj 2rj
V̇ε (t) = −k[εt (1, t)]2 . j=1

This shows that Vε (t) ≤ Vε (0), hence ϑe2j (t) ϑe2j0  1 X m

 Z 1 − + − (rj sin2 αj t + lj cos2 αj t)[ε̇(1, t)]2

1 2lj 2lj 2 j=1
supt≥0 [ε2 (x, t) + ε2x (x, t)]dx + c0 ε2 (0, t)
2 0 t m
X Z m

t
1X 2
(25) + αj (rj − lj ) ε̇2 (1, s) sin 2αj sds + lj ε (1).
Xm
0 2 j=1 1
+ [|θej (t)| + |ϑej (t)|] < ∞. j=1
(28)
j=1
From (28), one has
In particular, one has
m
X
εt (1, t) ∈ L2 (0, ∞). (26) U (t) ≤ U (0) + |αj ε1 (1)θej0 |
Similarly, let j=1
Z 1  2
1 c0 Xm 
U (t) = [ε2xx (x, t) + ε2tx (x, t)]dx + ε2t (0, t). 1
2 0 2 + αj [θej (t) cos αj t − ϑej (t) sin αj t]
δ 2 c0  j=1

It is found that the time derivative of U (t) along the solution
of (3) can be found as Z 1
+δ2 c0 ε2t (0, t) + δ2 c0 ε2tx (x, t)dx (29)
2
U̇ (t) = −k[εtt (1, t)] 0
m
X m
X θej0
2
ϑe2j0 Xm
+εtt (1, t) αj [θej (t) cos αj t − ϑej (t) sin αj t] + 2
αj ( + )+ |αj (rj
j=1 (27) j=1
2rj 2lj j=1
m
X Z m
2 2
t
2 1X 2
− (rj sin αj t + lj cos αj t)εt (1, t)εtt (1, t). −lj )| ε̇ (1, s)ds + lj ε (1).
j=1 0 2 j=1 1
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 7

 
1 1 We now claim that A is skew-symmetric in H. In fact, for
Take 0 < δ2 < min , in (29) to give
4 4c0 any (f, g), (φ, ψ) ∈ D(A),
m
X Z 1
U (t) ≤ 2U (0) + +2 |αj ε1 (1)θej0 | hA(f, g), (φ, ψ)iH = [g1′ (x)φ′2 (x)
j=1 0
 2 ′′
+f (x)ψ(x)]dx + cg(0)φ(0)
2 X 
m
Z (34)
+ αj [θej (t) cos αj t − ϑej (t) sin αj t] 1
δ2 c0 j=1  = −c0 f (0)ψ(0) + c0 g(0)φ(0) − f ′ (x)ψ ′ (x)dx
0
(30) Z 1
! + g ′ (x)φ′ (x)dx = −h(f, g), A(φ, ψ)iH .
m
X θej0
2
ϑe2j0 m
X 0
+ α2j + +2 |αj (rj Thus all eigenvalues of A are located on the imaginary axis.
j=1
rj lj j=1
Next we claim that each eigenvalue of A is geometrical
Z ∞ m
X simple and hence algebraically simple from general functional
−lj )| ε̇2 (1, s)ds + lj ε21 (1). analysis theory. To see this, we solve the eigenvalue problem
0 j=1
A(φ, ψ) = λ(φ, ψ)
It is found from (25), (26) and (30) that
for any λ ∈ σp (A). The solution is ψ = λφ with φ 6= 0
sup U (t) < ∞, satisfying
t≥0  2
λ φ(x) − φ′′ (x) = 0,
(35)
which implies that the trajectory of system (22) φ′ (0) = c0 φ(0), λφ(1) = 0.
γ(z0 ) = {(ε, εt , , θe1 (t), ϑe1 (t), · · · , Solve (35) in the case of λ = 0 to give
θem (t), ϑem (t), ξ1 (t), η1 (t), · · · , ξm (t), ηm (t))|t ≥ 0} φ(x) = c0 x + 1 (36)
is precompact in H. In light of Lasalle’s invariance principle When λ 6= 0,
([6, p.161]), any solution of system (22) tends to the maximal
invariant set of the following: c0 + λ λx
φ(x) = e + e−λx (37)
λ − c0
S = {(ε, εt , θe1 (t), ϑe1 (t), · · · , θem (t), ϑem (t), sin α1 t,
with
cos α1 t, · · · , sin αm t, cos αm t) ∈ H|V̇ε (t) = 0}. c0 + λ λ
e + e−λ = 0 (38)
λ − c0
Now, since V̇ε (t) = 0, it follows that εt (1, t) = 0, θej ≡ θej0 or
and ϑej ≡ ϑej0 , j = 1, 2, · · · , m. Thus the solution reduces to c0 − λ
e2λ = . (39)
 c0 + λ

 εtt (x, t) = εxx (x, t),

 εx (0, t) = c0 ε(0, t), εt (1, t) = 0, Hence λ is geometrically simple. From (36)-(38) we see that
Xm (31) φ′ (1) 6= 0. Therefore φ′ (1) 6= 0 for any eigenfunction φ of A.

 ε (1, t) = [θej0 sin αj t + ϑej0 cos αj t]. π c0 − iβ

 x If β = kπ + , k ∈ Z, then ei2β = −1 6= . Thus
j=1 2 c0 + iβ
π
We now show that (31) admits zero solution only. To this end, iβ = i(kπ + ), k ∈ Z is not solution of (39). For given
π2
we first consider the equation β 6= 0, kπ + , k ∈ Z, it is easy to follow that iβ is a solution
 2
to (39) if only if β satisfies
 εtt (x, t) = εxx ,
εx (0, t) = c0 ε(0, t), (32) β
 − tan β = . (40)
εt (1, t) = 0. c0
π
Introduce a Hilbert space H = H 1 (0, 1) × L2 (0, 1) with the In fact, assume β 6= kπ + , k ∈ Z and β is a solution to
inner product 2
(39). Then
Z 1
c0 − iβ β
h(y1 , z1 ), (y2 , z2 )iH = [y1′ (x)y2′ (x) 2β = arg + 2kπ = −2 arctan + 2kπ.
0 c0 + iβ c0
+z1 (x)z2 (x)]dx + c0 y1 (0)y2 (0). Hence
β
β = − arctan + kπ. (41)
Define a linear operator A associated to system (32) c0
 From (41), one has
 A(y, z) = (z, y ′′ ),
D(A) = {(y, z) ∈ H 2 (0, 1) × H 1 (0, 1)| (33) β
 − tan β = .
y ′ (0) = c0 y(0), z(1) = 0}. c0
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 8

β
If tan β = − , then Define
c0
  
β  λn = nπ − π i + O(n−1 ), λ−n = λn ,
β = − arctan + kπ = − arg(c0 + iβ) + kπ. 2 (46)
c0 
Φn = (λn φn , φn ), Φ−n = (λ−1
−1
−n φn , φn ), n ∈ Z.
Thus
e2iβ = e−2i arg(c0 +iβ) = e−i arg(c0 +iβ) e−i arg(c0 +iβ) By general theory of functional analysis, {Φn }n∈Z forms an
 
c0 − iβ orthogonal basis for H. Therefore, the solution of (32) can be
i arg 
represented as
−i arg(c0 +iβ) i arg(c0 −iβ) c0 + iβ
=e e =e
  
c0 − iβ  c0 − iβ  c0 − iβ (ε(·, t), ε̇(·, t))
=  
c0 + iβ  c0 + β  = c0 + iβ , ∞
X ∞
X
= a0 (c0 x + 1, 0) + an eλn t Φn + a−n eλ−n t Φ−n ,
which implies that iβ is a solution to (39). Hence, if we choose
n=1 n=1
c0 satisfying condition (9): c0 > max{αj / tan αj , j =
1, 2, · · · , m}, then where the constants {an }n∈Z are determined by the initial
iαj + c0 iαj condition. That is,
e + e−iαj 6= 0, j = 1, 2, · · · , m. (42)
iαj − c0
X∞ X∞
an a−n
Finally, we claim that the spectrum of A consists of isolated ε0 = a0 (c0 x + 1) + φn + φn ,
eigenvalues only. In fact, for a given (f, g) ∈ H and µ ∈ λ
n=1 n
λ
n=1 −n
ρ(A), µ 6= 0,, solve (µI − A)(φ, ψ) = (f, g), i.e., ∞
X ∞
X
 ′′ ε1 = an φn + a−n φn .

 φ (x) = µ2 φ(x) − µf (x) − g(x),
 n=1 n=1
f (1)
φ′ (0) = c0 φ(0), φ(1) = ,

 µ Hence

ψ(x) = µφ(x) − f (x)
∞
X ∞
to give φ′n (1) λn t X φ′ (1)
εx (1, t) = a0 c0 + an e + a−n n eλ−n t
 λn λ−n
 φ(x) = a1 eµx + a2 e−µx n=1 n=1

 Z x m
 1 X
− [eµ(x−ξ) − e−µ(x−ξ) ](µf (ξ) + g(ξ))dξ, (43) = [θej0 sin αj t + ϑej0 cos αj t].

 2µ 0


j=1
ψ(x) = µφ(x) − f (x),
Therefore,
where a1 , a2 satisfy the following algebra equations:
 ∞ ∞
X φ′n (1) λn t X φ′ (1)
 (µ − c0 )a1 − (µ + c0 )a2 = 0,

 a 0 c0 + an e + a−n n eλ−n t

 f (1) λn λ−n
a1 eµ + a2 e−µ = n=1 n=1
Z 1 µ (44)

 1
m
X 1X e
m (47)
 1

 + [e µ(1−ξ)
− e−µ(1−ξ) ](µf (ξ) + g(ξ))dξ. − [ϑej0 − iθej0 ]eiαj t − [ϑj0 + iθej0 ]e−iαj t
2µ 0 2 j=1
2 j=1
A simple computation together with (38) shows that the = 0.
determinant of coefficient of (44) eµ (c0 +µ)+(µ−c0 )e−µ 6= 0,
which implies that We now show that a±n = 0, for all n ≥ 1. Since  otherwise,
 φ′n0 (1) 
if there exists n0 ≥ 1 such that an0 λn0  6= 0, then
(µ − A)−1 (f, g) = (φ, ψ), ∀ (f, g) ∈ H,
an0 6= 0 due to the fact φ′n (1) 6= 0 for all n. Further-
and hence more, the smoothness  of the initial value guarantees that
P  φ′n (1) 
k(µ − A)−1 (f, g)kH 2 (0,1)×H 1 (0,1) ≤ C4 k(f, g)kH n∈Z,n6=0 an λn  < ∞, which implies that there exists
an integer N > n0 such that
for some constant C4 > 0. By the Sobolev embedding
theorem, (µI − A)−1 is compact on H. That is, A is a skew- X∞    ′ 
 φ′n (1)  1  
adjoint operator with compact resolvent on H. Consequently,  an  < an0 φn0 (1)  ,
 λn  4  λn0 
the spectrum of A consists of isolated eigenvalues only. n=N
∞     (48)
Furthermore, from (37) and (38), we can obtain the follow- X  ′   ′ 
ing asymptotic expressions of eigen-pairs of A: a−n φ−n (1)  < 1 an0 φn0 (1)  .
 λ−n  4  λn0 
 π n=N
λn = nπ − i + O(n−1 ),
2
(45)
φn (x) = cos n − 21 πx + O(n−1 ). Since λn 6= λm for any n, m ∈ Z, n 6= m and lim |λn+1 −
n→∞
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 9

λn | = π, n ∈ Z, one has, for t > 0, Denoted f, g by that given in (18), and δ(·) the Dirac distri-
∞
bution. Then (16) is equivalent to
φ′n0 (1) X φ′ (1)
an0 + an n e(λn −λn0 )t 
λn0 λn 
 w
ett (x, t) − w
exx (x, t) = f (x, t) − δ(x)g(t),
n=N +1 
w
ex (0, t) = c1 w(0,
e t),
N
X (51)
φ′n (1) (λn −λn )t 
 w
ex (1, t) = −c 2w
et (1, t),
+ an e 0 
λn w(x,
e 0) = w e0 (x), wet (x, 0) = we1 (x)
n=1,n6=n0
∞
X φ′−n (1) (λ−n −λn )t or in operator form:
+ a−n e 0
λ−n    
n=N +1
(49) d w(·,
e t) w(·,
e t)
N
X =A
φ′−n (1) (λ−n −λn )t dt w
et (·, t) w
et (·, t)
+ a−n e 0
   
n=1
λ−n 0 0
+ + g(t) (52)
m f (·, t) −δ(x)
1X e    
+a0 c0 e−λn0 t − [ϑj0 − iθej0 ]e(iαj −λn0 )t
2 j=1 w(·,
e t) 0
=A + + Bg(t),
wet (·, t) f (·, t)
m
1X e
− [ϑj0 + iθej0 ]e−(iαj +λn0 )t = 0.
2 j=1 where B = (0, −δ(x))⊤ . By the equivalence between (16) and
(51), one can prove Theorem 2.3 as that in [11]. The proof is
Integrating both sides of (49) and using (42), (48), and the complete.
fact Reλn = 0 , we obtain Remark 3.1: In the above setting, we understand the solu-
  ′
  Z t X  tion of (52) in D(A∗ ) by identifying A by its extension Ã
′ N
 φ (1)   φn (1) (λn −λn )s 
′
defined by
an0 n0 t ≤ 2 a e 0 ds
 λn0   n
λn 
 0 n=1,n6=n0 
Z N  D(Ã) = H, hÃF, GiD(A∗ )′ ×D(A∗ ) = hF, A∗ GiH , ∀ G ∈ D(A∗ ),
 tX φ′ (1) 
 
+2  a−n −n e(λ−n −λn0 )s ds
 0
n=1
λ −n  where D(A∗ )′ is the dual space of D(A∗ ) with the pivot space
 H.
Z t  Z t m
   X d) Proof of Theorem 2.4.: We first assume that
+2  a 0 c0 e −λn0 s 
ds +  [ϑej0 − iθej0 ]e(iαj −λn0 )s
0  0 j=1 (w e1 ) ∈ D(A) and (ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) ∈
e0 , w
 V × V × R2m with ε0 (0) = 0 and satisfy the compatible
m  conditions (7) and (8). Now, Theorem 2.3 assures that the
X 
+ [ϑej0 + iθej0 ]e−(iαj +λn0 )s ds . classical solution exists. Let
j=1 
Z 1
Since the right side of the above equation has an upper bound ρwe (t) = (1 + x)w
ex (x, t)w
et (x, t)dx.
0
for all t ≥ 0, we get that an0 = 0, which is a contradiction.
By (47), a±n = 0, n = 1, 2, · · · and θej0 = ϑej0 = 0, j = Then there exists an M1 > 0 such that
1, 2, · · · , m.
We have thus proved that S = {(0, 0, 0, 0 · · · , 0, 0)}, that
|ρwe (t)| ≤ M1 Ewe (t). (53)
is
 Z 1
1 The time derivatives of Ewe and ρwe (t) along the solution of
lim [ε2t (x, t) + ε2x (x, t)]dx + c0 ε2 (0, t)
t→∞ 2 0 (16) are, respectively
Xm  
1 e2 1 e2 Z 1
+ θ (t) + ϑ (t) = 0.
2rj j 2lj j E˙we (t) = [w
et (x, t)w
ett (x, t) + w
ex (x, t)w
ext (x, t)]dx
j=1
0

The proof is complete. +c1 w(0,

e t)wet (0, t) = −w
et (0, t)[c1 w(0,
e t)
c) Proof of Theorem 2.3.: It is well-known that the Z 1

operator A defined by (17) generates a C0 -semigroup of −(c0 + q)ε(0, t)] + (c0 + q)(c1 + q)ε(0, t) eqx w
et (x, t)dx
0
contractions eAt on H ([7]). From (17), it is readily found
that its adjoint operator A∗ is +w
et (1, t)w
ex (1, t) + c1 w(0,
e t)wet (0, t)
 ∗ et2 (1, t) + w
= −c2 w et (0, t)(c0 + q)ε(0, t)
 A (φ, ψ) = (−ψ, −φ′′ ), ∀ (φ, ψ) ∈ D(A∗ ), Z 1
D(A∗ ) = {(φ, ψ) ∈ H| A∗ (φ, ψ) ∈ H, (50)
 +(c0 + q)(c1 + q)ε(0, t) eqx w
et (x, t)dx,
φ′ (0) = c1 φ(0), φ′ (1) = c2 ψ(1)}. 0
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 10

 
and c2 1
Take δ ≤ min , to get
Z 1 + c22 M1
1
ρ˙we (t) = (1 + x)w
ext (x, t)w
et (x, t)dx δ1
0 F˙δ (t) ≤ − Ewe (t) + M2 ε2 (0, t)2 . (56)
Z 1 2
+ (1 + x)w
ex (x, t)w
ett (x, t)dx where δ1 = min{δ, δc1 }. Now, by virtue of (55), we have
0
Z 1 δ1
1 1 2 F˙δ (t) ≤− Fδ (t) + M2 ε2 (0, t).
=− [wex2 (x, t) + w
et2 (x, t)]dx − w e (0, t) 2(1 + M1 δ)
(57)
0 2 2 t
1 δ1
+(1 + c22 )wet2 (1, t) − [c1 w(0,
e t) − (c0 + q)ε(0, t)]2 Let µ = and apply the Gronwall inequality to
2 2(1 + M1 δ)
Z 1 (56) to conclude
+(c1 + q)(c0 + q)ε(0, t) (1 + x)eqx w
ex (x, t)dx. Z t
0
Fδ (t) ≤ e−µt Fδ (0) + M2 e−µ(t−τ ) ε2 (0, τ )dτ. (58)
Let 0

Fδ (t) = Ewe (t) + δρwe (t), δ > 0. By (24) and Theorem 2.2, one has

Then, 2
ε2 (0, t) ≤ Vε (t) and ε2 (0, t) → 0 as t → ∞.
c0
F˙δ (t) = E˙we (t) + δ ρ˙we (t) µη
Z Given η > 0, we choose t0 such that for t > t0 , ε2 (0, t) < .
δ 1 2 δ 2 2
=− [w e (x, t) + w et2 (x, t)]dx − we (0, t) Then
2 0 x 2 t Z t Z t0
δ e −µ(t−τ ) 2
ε (0, τ )dτ ≤ e−µ(t−τ ) ε2 (0, τ )dτ
−[c2 − δ(1 + c22 )]w et2 (1, t) − [c1 w(0,e t)
2 0 0
Z t
−(c0 + q)ε(0, t)]2 + w et (0, t)(c0 + q)ε(0, t) 2Vε (0) −1 −µ(t−t0 ) η
+ e−µ(t−τ ) ε2 (0, τ )dτ ≤ µ e + .
t0 c0 2
+(c1 + q)(c0 + q)ε(0, t)·
Z 1 Choosing t > t0 large enough, the first term on the
eqx [w
et (x, t) + δ(1 + x)w
ex (x, t)]dx. η
right hand side above will be less than and thus
0 Z t 2
Performing two completions of square gives e−µ(t−τ ) ε2 (0, τ )dτ < η for t large enough, which implies
0
Z that
˙ δ 1 2 Z t
Fδ (t) = − [w
e (x, t) + w et2 (x, t)]dx
4 0 x e−µ(t−τ ) ε2 (0, τ )dτ → 0 as t → ∞. (59)
0
δ 2
− [w e (0, t) + c21 we2 (0, t)] − [c2 − δ(1 Combining (58) and (59), we have lim Fδ (t) = 0. This
4 t t→∞
δ 2 together with (55) gives
+c22 )]w
et2 (1, t) − [w et (0, t) − (c0 + q)ε(0, t)]2
4 δ
lim Ewe (t) = 0.
δ (54) t→∞
e t) − 2(c0 + q)ε(0, t)]2
− [c1 w(0,
4 Finally, since V × V × R2m is dense in H 1 (0, 1) ×
Z
δ 1 L (0, 1) × R2m , and D(A) is dense in H, for any
2
− [wex (x, t) − 2(c1 + q)(c0 + q)ε(0, t)(1
4 0 (w e1 ) ∈ H and (ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) ∈
e0 , w
Z H (0, 1) × L2 (0, 1) × R2m , we can take (w
1
e0n , w
e1n ) ∈ D(A)
δ 1 2
+x)eqx ]2 dx − [w
et (x, t) − (c1 + q)(c0 n n en en e e
and (ε0 , ε1 , θ10 , ϑ10 , · · · , θm0 , ϑm0 ) ∈ V ×V ×R2m such that
n n
4 0 δ

+q)ε(0, t)eqx ]2 dx + M2 ε2 (0, t).  (we0n , w
e1n ) → (w e0 , w e1 ) in H,


 (ε0 , εn1 , θe10
 n n en
, ϑ , · · ·,
where 
 10
 θen , ϑen ) → (ε0 , ε1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) in V,

 
 m0 m0
δ 1  m
M2 = (c0 + q)2 + X
2 δ 
 ε n
0 (0) = 0, −kε n
1 (1) + θej0
n
= 0,
Z 1   


 j=1
1 2qx 
 X m
+ (c1 + q)2 δ(1 + x)2 + e dx 

0 δ
n ′′
 −k(ε0 ) (1) +
 [αj θej0
n
− rj εn1 (1)] = 0.
j=1
In view of (53), we have
The result then follows from the density argument and the
(1 − M1 δ)Ewe (t) ≤ Fδ (t) ≤ (1 + M1 δ)Ewe (t). (55) conclusion just justified for the classical solution.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 11

e) Proof of Theorem 2.5.: For any initial We only need to give the numerical simulation results for the
value (w0 , w1 , w b0 , wb1 , θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) ∈ X, system (w, ε, θe1 , ϑe1 (t), · · · , θem (t), ϑem (t)): which is described
from (3) and (15), it is easy to verify that by
(ε0 (x), ε1 (x), θe10 , ϑe10 , · · · , θem0 , ϑem0 ) ∈ H 1 (0, 1) × 
2
L (0, 1) × R 2m
and (w e0 (x), w e1 (x)) ∈ H, which implies that  wtt (x, t) − wxx (x, t) = 0, wx (0, t) = −qw(0, t),




there exists a unique solution to (3) and (16), respectively. 
 wx (1, t) = −c2 wt (1, t) − (c1 + q)w(1, t) + (c2


Let 


 −k)εt (1, t) + (c1 + q)ε(1, t)
 

 w(x, t) = w(x, b t) + ε(x, t), Z 
 Z 1


x 
 −(c1 + q) eq(1−ξ) [c2 wt (ξ, t) + qw(ξ, t)]dξ
 w(x,
b t) = w(x, e t) − (c1 + q) e−c1 (x−ξ) w(ξ,
e t)dξ. 


 0
0 
 Z 1


Then a direct computation shows that such a defined (w, w) b 
 +(c + q) eq(1−ξ) [c2 εt (ξ, t) + qε(ξ, t)]dξ

 1
satisfies (19) with initial value (w0 , w1 , w b0 , w
b1 ). This solution 
 0


is unique by the following invertible transformation  X
 m

 [θej (t) sin αj t + ϑej (t) cos αj t],
 +
    j=1 (60)
ε w 
 εt   wt  

    
 εtt (x, t) = εxx (x, t), εx (0, t) = c0 ε(0, t),
 w   w 

 e   b   
 Xm
 w   w  
 ε (1, t) = −kε (1, t) + [θej (t) sin αj t
 et   bt   x t


 θe (t)   θe (t)  
 j=1
 1  = D 1 , 

 e   e  
 +ϑej (t) cos αj t],
 ϑ1 (t)   ϑ1 (t)  

 .   .  

 ..   ..  
 θėj (t) = −rj εt (1, t) sin αj t, j = 1, 2, · · · , m,
    

 e   e  

 θm (t)   θm (t)  
 ϑėj (t) = −rj εt (1, t) cos αj t, j = 1, 2, · · · , m,


ϑem (t) ϑem (t) 

 θej (0) = θej0 , ϑej (0) = ϑej0 , j = 1, 2, · · · , m,



 w(x, 0) = w0 (x), wt (x, 0) = w1 (x),
where 
  ε(x, 0) = ε0 (x), εt (x, 0) = ε1 (x).
1 0 −1 0 0 0 ··· 0 0 The values of the parameters are: q = 0.1, m = 2, α1 =
 0 1 0 −1 0 0 ··· 0 0
  1.4, α2 = π4 , α3 = · · · = αm = 0, k = 0.5, r1 = l1 =
 0 0 I +P 0 0 0 ··· 0 0
  0.5, r2 = 0.6, l2 = 0.7, c0 = 100, c1 = 500, c2 =
 0 0 0 I +P 0 0 ··· 0 0
  0.9, θ̄1 = 0.8, ϑ̄1 = 0.2, θ̄2 = 0.6, and ϑ̄2 = 0.4. The
 0 0 0 0 1 0 ··· 0 0
  initial values are taken as:
D= 0 0 0 0 0 1 ··· 0 .
0
  w0 (x) = ε0 (x) = 0.2(1 − x),
 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
  1 1
 . . . . . . ··· .  .
w1 (x) = ε1 (x) = 5, 0 < x ≤ 2,
  0, otherwise,
 
 0 0 0 0 0 0 ··· 1 0 
θ10 = 0.5, ϑ10 = 0.8, θ20 = 0.3, ϑ20 = 0.7.
0 0 0 0 0 0 ··· 0 1
In the simulation, the second order in time equations are
and by the uniqueness of solution to (3) and (16). The first converted into a system of two first order equations, and
asymptotic stability follows from (12), Theorems 2.2 and 2.4. then Backward Euler Method in time and Chebyshev spectral
method in space are used. The grid size is taken as N = 20
and time step dt = 2 × 10−3 . The code was programmed in
Matlab ([29]).
IV. N UMERICAL SIMULATION The numerical results for w(x, t) and ε(x, t) are presented
In this section, we present some numerical simula- in Figure 2. We see that system (60) is indeed asymptotically
tions to illustrate the main results. Notice that there stable.
is an invertible transform between the closed-loop sys- Figure 3 shows the approximation of the parameters. It is
tem (w, , θe1 (t), ϑe1 (t), · · · , θem (t), ϑem (t)) and the system seen that the estimates θ1 (t), ϑ1 (t), θ2 (t) and ϑ2 (t) with initial
(w, ε, θe1 (t), ϑe1 (t), · · · , θem (t), ϑem (t)) given by values θ10 = 0.5, ϑ10 = 0.8, θ20 = 0.3 and ϑ20 = 0.7 approx-
   imate, respectively, the system parameters θ̄1 = 0.8, ϑ̄1 =
w  w 
1 0 0 0 ··· 0 0 0.2, θ̄2 = 0.6 and ϑ̄2 = 0.4 reasonably well.
 w b   ε  Figure 4 shows that the control is quite reasonable, and
   1 0 −1 0 · · · 0 0   
 θe (t)     θe (t)  since it is the output feedback, it also converges to zero as
 1   0 0 1 0 · · · 0 0  1 
 e   e1 (t)  time goes to infinity.
 ϑ1 (t) = 0 0 0 1 · · · 0 0  ϑ .
   
.. ..  
 ..   .. .. .. ..  .. 
 .    . . . . ··· . .   .  V. C ONCLUDING REMAKES
 e    e 
 θm (t)  0 0 0 0 · · · 1 0  θm (t)  We considered the boundary output feedback stabilization of
ϑem (t) 0 0 0 0 ··· 0 1 ϑem (t) a one-dimensional wave equation subject to boundary distur-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012
Fig. 2. Amplitude w(x, t) (left) and error ε(x, t) (right).
Fig. 3. Parameters estimation θ1 (t), ϑ1 (t), θ2 (t) and ϑ2 (t).
bance. Two features of the system make the problem difficult:
a) the boundary control and observation are non-collocated;
and b) the boundary input is subject to harmonic disturbance
with arbitrary frequencies and unknown magnitude. We de-
sign an infinite-dimensional observer and an adaptive update
laws to estimate online the unknown parameters. The output
feedback controller is then designed by the backstepping
method for infinite-dimensional systems. It is shown that the
resulting closed-loop system is asymptotically stable, and that
the estimates of the parameters converge to the true values of
the unknown parameters. The idea used in this paper can be
potentially applied to solve the anti-stable problem discussed
in [19] and [33]. Another problem left is that the method here
cannot be applied to deal with the constant disturbance, which
12
Fig. 4. Time trace of control u(t).
requires a separate discussion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the suggestions
and comments by anonymous referees and editors, which
improve the manuscript substantially. This work was supported
by the Program for Innovative Research Team in UIBE, the
National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National
Basic Research Program of China (2011CB808002), and the
National Research Foundation of South Africa.
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Chen, M.C. Delfour, A.M. Krall, and G. Payre, Modeling, stabiliza-
tion and control of serially connected beam, SIAM J. Control Optim.,
25(1987), 526-546.
[2] G. Chen, Energy decay estimates and exact boundary value controlla-
bility for the wave equation in a boundary domain, J. Math. Pure Appl.,
58(1979), 249-273.
[3] M.B. Cheng, V. Radisavljevic and W. C. Su, Sliding mode boundary
control of a parabolic PDE system with parameter variations and
boundary uncertainties, Automatica, 47(2011), 381-387.
[4] J. Chauvin, Observer design for a class of wave equation driven by an
unknown periodic input, Prof. 18th IFAC World Congress, 2011, 1332-
1337.
[5] F. Conrad and O. Morgul, On the stabilization of a flexible beam with
a tip mass, SIAM J. Control Optim., 36(1998), 1962-1986.
[6] Z.H. Luo, B.Z. Guo and O. Morgul, Stability and Stabilization of Infinite
Dimensional Systems with Applications, Springer-Verlag, London, 1999.
[7] B.Z. Guo and R. Yu, The Riesz basis property of discrete operators and
application to a Euler-Bernoulli beam equation with boundary linear
feedback control, IMA J. Math. Control Inform., 18 (2001), 241-251.
[8] B.Z. Guo, J.M. Wang and S.P. Wang, On the C0 -semigroup generation
and exponential stability resulting from a shear force feedback on a
rotating beam, Systems Control Lett., 54(2005), 557-574.
[9] B.Z. Guo and Z.C. Shao, On exponential stability of a semilinear
wave equation with variable coefficients under the nonlinear boundary
feedback, Nonlinear Anal., 71(2009), 5961-5978.
[10] B.Z. Guo and C.Z. Xu, The stabilization of a one-dimensional wave
equation by boundary feedback with non-collocated observation, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Control, 52(2007), 371-377.
[11] B.Z. Guo and W. Guo, The strong stabilization of a one-dimensional
wave equation by non-collocated dynamic boundary feedback control,
Automatica, 45(2009), 790-797.
[12] A. Guesmia, A new approach of stabilization of stabilization of nondis-
sipative distributed systems, SIAM J. Control Optim., 42(2003), 24-53.
[13] W. Guo, B.Z. Guo and Z.C. Shao, Parameter estimation and stabilization
for a wave equation with boundary output harmonic disturbance and
non-collocated control, Internat. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, 21(2011),
1297-1321.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. XX, NO. Y, MONTH 2012 13

[14] W. Guo and B.Z. Guo, Stabilization and regulator design for a one-
dimensional unstable wave equation with input harmonic disturbance,
Internat. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, in press.
[15] M. Krstic, Adaptive control of an anti-stable wave PDE, Dyn. Contin.
Discrete Impuls. Syst. Ser. A Math. Anal., 17(2010), 853-882.
[16] M. Krstic, B.Z. Guo, A. Balogh and A. Smyshlyaev, Output-feedback
stabilization of an unstable wave equation, Automatica, 44(2008), 63-74.
[17] M. Krstic, B.Z. Guo, A. Balogh, and A. Smyshlyaev, Control of
a tip-force destabilized shear beam by non-collocated observer-based
boundary feedback, SIAM J. Control Optim., 47(2008), 553-574.
[18] M. Krstic and A. Smyshlyaev, Boundary Control of PDEs: A Course on
Backstepping Designs, Philadelphia, PA: SIAM, 2008.
[19] A. Smyshlyaev and M. Krstic, Boundary control of an anti-stable
wave equation with anti-damping on the uncontrolled boundary, Systems
Control Lett., 58(2009) 617-623.
[20] M. Krstic and A. Smyshlyaev, Adaptive boundary control for unstable
parabolic PDEs - Part I: Lyapunov design, IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control, 53(2008), 1575-1591.
[21] A. Smyshlyaev and M. Krstic, Adaptive boundary control for unsta-
ble parabolic PDEs - Part II: Estimation-based designs, Automatica,
43(2008), 1543-1556.
[22] A. Smyshlyaev and M. Krstic, Adaptive boundary control for unstable
parabolic PDEs - Part III: Output-feedback examples with swapping
identifiers, Automatica, 43(2007), 1557-1564.
Wei Guo received his Ph.D degree from the
Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, the
Chinese Academy of Science in 2004. He worked
in the School of Computational and Applied Math-
ematics, University of the Witwatersrand, South
Africa in 2007 as a postdoctoral fellow. He is
currently an associate professor at University of In-
ternational Business and Economics, Beijing, China.
His research interests include control of systems de-
scribed by partial differential equations, the adaptive
control of infinite-dimensional systems.
Bao-Zhu Guo received the Ph.D degree from the
Chinese University of Hong Kong in applied math-
ematics in 1991. From 1985 to 1987, he was a Re-
search Assistant at Beijing Institute of Information
and Control, China. During the period 1993-2000, he
was with the Beijing Institute of Technology, first as
an associate professor (1993-1998) and subsequently
a professor (1998-2000). Since 2000, he has been
with the Academy of Mathematics and Systems
Science, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, where
he is a research professor in mathematical system
theory.
Dr. Guo is the recipient of the One Hundred Talent Program from the
Chinese Academy of Sciences (1999), and the National Science Fund for
Distinguished Young Scholars (2003). He is the author or co-author of over
130 international peer/refereed journal papers, and three books including
the book: “Stability and Stabilization of Infinite Dimensional Systems with
Applications” (Springer-Verlag, 1999). His research interests include the
theory of control and application of infinite-dimensional systems.

[23] V. Komornik, Exact Controllability and Stabilization: The Multiplier

Method, John Wiley Chichester, 1994.

[24] I. Lasiecka and D. Toundykov, Semigroup generation and “hidden” trace

regularity of a dynamic plate with non-monotone boundary feedbacks,
Commun. Math. Anal., 8(1)(2010), 109-144 (2010).

[25] J. Lagnese, Decay of soultions of wave equations in a bounded domain

with boundary dissipation, J. Differential Equations, 50(1983), 163-182.

[26] J.L. Lions, Exact controllability, stabilization and perturbations for

distributed systems, SIAM Review, 30(1988), 1-68.

[27] Z.H. Luo and B.Z. Guo, Shear force feedback control of a single
link flexible robot with revolute joint, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control,
42(1997), 53-65.

[28] M. Slemrod, Stabilization of boundary control systems, J. of Differential

Equations, 22(1976), 402-415.

[29] L.N. Trefethen, Spectral Methods in Matlab, Philadelphia, PA: SIAM,

2000.

[30] X. Xia, Global frequency estimation using adaptive identifiers, IEEE

Trans. Automat. Control, 47(2002), 1188-1193.

[31] R.A. Adams, Sobolev Spaces, Academic Press, Boston, 1975.

[32] J. Chauvin, G. Corde, N. Petit and P. Rouchon, Period input estimation

for linear periodic systems: Automotive engine applications, Automatica,
43(2007), 971-980.

[33] A. Smyshlyaev, E. Cerpa and M. Krstic, Boundary stabilization of a 1-

D wave equation with in-domain antidamping, SIAM J. Control Optim.,
48(2010), 4014-4031.

[34] A. Medvedev and G. Hillerström, An external model control system,

Control-Theory and Advanced Technology, 10(1995), 1643-1665.

[35] G. Hillerström and J. Sternby, Application of repetitive control to a

peristaltic pomp, Trans. AMSE J. Dym. Systems, Measurement, and
Control, 116(1994), 786-789.

View publication stats