16th IEEE International Conference on Control Applications

Part of IEEE Multi-conference on Systems and Control

Singapore, 1-3 October 2007

TuB02.4

Control Law Design for Switched Repetitive Processes with

a Metal Rolling Example
Jacek Bochniak, Krzysztof Galkowski, Eric Rogers and Anton Kummert
Abstract Discrete linear repetitive processes are a distinct
class of 2D systems where the information propagates in two
independent directions, one of which is limited to a finite and
fixed duration or interval. Recently, applications areas have
been uncovered where suitably developed system theory for
repetitive processes whose dynamics switch in one or other
of the two independent directions of information propagation
has potentially much to contribute. In this paper, we continue
previous work in this general area by developing an efficient
and numerically reliable solution to the stabilization problem,
i.e. the design of a control law to ensure stability for the case of
more complicated switching schemes and, in particular, when
more than two different models are the subject of switching.
The results are in the form of sufficient conditions which can be
implemented through the use of the Linear Matrix Inequality
(LMI) algorithms.
Index Terms Repetitive processes, 2D systems, switched
dynamics, stabilization.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The unique characteristic of a repetitive process (also
termed a multipass process in the early literature) can be
illustrated by considering machining operations where the
material or workpiece involved is processed by a series of
sweeps, or passes, of the processing tool. Assuming the
pass length < + to be constant, the output vector,
or pass profile, yk (p), p = 0, 1, . . . , ( 1), (p being the
independent spatial or temporal variable), generated on pass
k acts as a forcing function on, and hence contributes
to, the dynamics of the new pass profile yk+1 (p), p =
0, 1, . . . , ( 1), k = 0, 1, . . . . This, in turn, leads to the
unique control problem for these processes in that the output
sequence of pass profiles generated can contain oscillations
that increase in amplitude in the pass-to-pass direction, i.e.
in the collection of pass profile vectors {yk }k .
Industrial examples of such processes include long-wall
coal-cutting and metal rolling, see the original papers cited
in, for example, [1] for further details. A number of socalled algorithmic examples also exist where adopting a
repetitive process setting for analysis has clear advantages
over alternative approaches to systems related analysis. These
J. Bochniak and K. Galkowski are with Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Computer Science and Telecommunications, University of Zielona Gora, Podgorna 50, 65-246 Zielona Gora, Poland

{kgalkows,jbochnia}@uz.zgora.pl
K. Galkowski is currently the Gerhard Mercator Guest Professor in
University of Wuppertal, Germany
E. Rogers is with Department of Electronics and Computer Science,
University of Southampton, Southampton SO 17 1BJ, United Kingdom

include iterative learning control schemes [2] and iterative

solution algorithms for dynamic nonlinear optimal control
problems based on the maximum principle [3]. In the case
of iterative learning control for the linear dynamics case, the
stability theory for differential (and discrete) linear repetitive
processes is one method which can be used to undertake a
stability/convergence analysis of a powerful class of such
algorithms and thereby produce vital design information
concerning the trade-offs required between convergence and
transient performance (see, for example, [4]).
Another possible area of application is the so-called
spatially interconnected systems, which have already found
numerous important physical applications, see, for example,
[5] and references therein. This arises from the fact that some
of the state-space models in this area can be rewritten as a
discrete linear repetitive process state-space model (or its
differential equivalent).
In many practical applications, e.g. metal rolling, or processing operations using multiple operation robot arms, a
number of passes may be completed under one regime and
then the dynamics change to allow further processing to take
place. One way of modelling such a case is by switching
the dynamics from one state-space model to an alternative
(or alternatives) and this paper continues the development of
tools for the analysis of such models.
The main difficulty in the analysis and the synthesis of
control laws for repetitive processes with switching dynamics
is to extend already existing results [6] for the case of
switching after the same fixed interval has elapsed between
two different state-space models to when this happens among
three different models. In particular, if this case can be solved
then the extension to the same form of switching between an
arbitrary number of models follows in a natural way. Hence,
in this paper we restrict attention to the three state-space
model case.
Note also that there is one other form of switching which
can occur in repetitive process dynamics, i.e. along the
pass. Here, however, we restrict attention to the pass-topass case since it has more obvious and immediate practical
applications.
Throughout this paper, the null matrix and the identity
matrix with the required dimensions are denoted by 0 and I,
respectively. Moreover, M > 0 (< 0) denotes a real
symmetric positive (negative) definite matrix.
II. BACKGROUND

etar@ecs.soton.ac.uk
A. Kummert is with Faculty of Electrical, Information and Media Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Rainer Gruenter Str. 21, 42119 Wuppertal,
Germany kummert@uni-wuppertal.de

1-4244-0443-6/07/$20.00 2007 IEEE.

The most basic state-space model for discrete linear repetitive processes over p = 0, 1, . . . , ( 1), k = 0, 1, . . ., is

700

TuB02.4
given by

xk+1 (p + 1) = Axk+1 (p) + Buk+1 (p) + B0 yk (p)
yk+1 (p) = Cxk+1 (p) + Duk+1 (p) + D0 yk (p)

(1)

Here on pass k, xk (p) is the n 1 state vector, yk (p) is the

m1 pass profile vector, and uk (p) is the r 1 control input
vector. To complete the process description, it is necessary
to specify the boundary conditions, i.e. the state initial vector
on each pass and the initial pass profile.
Attempts to control these processes using standard (or
1D) systems theory/algorithms fail (except in a few very
restrictive special cases) precisely because such an approach
ignores their inherent 2D systems structure, i.e. information
propagation occurs from pass-to-pass and along a given
pass. Also the initial conditions are reset before the start of
each new pass and the structure of these can be somewhat
complex. For example, if they are an explicit function of
points on the the previous pass profile then this alone can
destroy stability. In seeking a rigorous foundation on which
to develop a control theory for these processes, it is natural to
attempt to exploit structural links which exist between these
processes and other classes of 2D linear systems.
The case of 2D discrete linear systems recursive in the
positive quadrant (i, j) : i 0, j 0 (where i and
j denote the directions of information propagation) has
been the subject of much research effort over the years
using, in the main, the well known Roesser and Fornasini
Marchesini state-space models (see, for example, the original
references cited in [1]). For example, productive research has
been reported on H and H2 approaches to analysis and
controller design see, for example, [7].
A critical feature of repetitive processes is that information
propagation in one of the independent directions, along the
pass, only occurs over a finite duration the pass length.
Also the boundary conditions are reset before the start of
each new pass and using the stability theory of [1] it can
be shown that if these are an explicit function of points on
the previous pass profile then this alone can destroy even the
weakest form of stability.
The stability theory for these processes consists of two distinct concepts, termed asymptotic stability and stability along
the pass respectively. These both demand bounded input
bounded output stability (defined in terms of the norm on the
underlying function space) essential difference between them
is that asymptotic stability demands this property over the
finite pass length whereas stability along the pass is stronger
since it demands this property uniformly, i.e. independent of
the pass length (and hence oscillations cannot occur either
along the pass or from-pass-to-pass).
The asymptotic stability depends on dynamics from-passto-pass, it does not depend on dynamics along-the-pass. It
guarantees only that the sequence of pass profiles converge
to a steady limit profile, which however may be unstable in
the usual 1D system sense (along the pass). (Over a finite
duration even a unstable 1D system can only produce
a bounded output.) The stability along the pass guarantees

both the existence the limit pass profile and that this is stable
in the usual 1D sense.
Numerous sets of necessary and sufficient conditions for
stability along the pass of processes described by (1) are
known [1] but these have not proved to be a suitable basis
on which to develop control law design algorithms. This has
led to the use of a Lyapunov function based approach which
results in a sufficient condition for stability along the pass
which can be computed using LMI methods. Moreover, there
is a natural extension to solve the basic control law design
problem and this fact offsets the conservativeness resulting
from the fact this approach can only give sufficient, but not
necessary stability conditions.
The starting point for the work reported here is the
following result from [8].
Theorem 1: A discrete linear repetitive process described
by (1) is stable along the pass if there exist matrices W1 > 0
and W2 > 0 such that
T W W
where

< 0

(2)


A B0
.
C D0
Previous work, see, for example [8], has used an LMI
setting to design control laws of the following form over
p = 0, 1, . . . , ( 1), k = 0, 1, . . . for processes described
by (1)
W = diag (W1 , W2 ), =

uk+1 (p) =
=

K1 xk+1 (p) +K2 yk (p) 

 xk+1 (p)

K1 K2
yk (p)

(3)

where K1 and K2 are appropriately dimensioned matrices

to be designed. In effect, this control law uses feedback of
the current state vector (which is assumed to be available for
use) and feedforward of the previous pass profile vector.
In the remainder of this section we give some background
result required for the proof of main theorem reported in the
rest of the paper.
Lemma 1: Let W, L1 , L12 , L22 and V be given matrices
of appropriate dimensions with V > 0, W = WT . Then the
matrix inequality

T


W + L1 + L12 L22 V L1 + L12 L22

< 0

(4)

L1 G2
<0
L22 G2
T
V G2 G2

(5)

holds if, and only if,

W
GT1 L1T
2
GT2 LT1

L12 G1
G1 GT1
GT2 L2T
2

where G1 and G2 are the non-singular matrices of appropriate dimensions.

701

TuB02.4
III. PASS - TO - PASS S WITCHING

where

The state-model considered here is

A1 xl+1 (p) + B1 ul+1 (p) + B01 yl (p)

for l = 0, 3, . . .

A2 xl+1 (p) + B2 ul+1 (p) + B02 yl (p)

xl+1 (p + 1) =
for l = 1, 4, . . .

3 xl+1 (p) + B3 ul+1 (p) + B03 yl (p)

for l = 2, 5, . . .
(6)

C
x
(p)
+
D
u
(p)
+
D
y
(p)

1
l+1
1
l+1
01
l

for l = 0, 3, . . .

C2 xl+1 (p) + D2 ul+1 (p) + D02 yl (p)

yl+1 (p) =
for l = 1, 4, . . .

C
xl+1 (p) + D3 ul+1 (p) + D03 yl (p)

for l = 2, 5, . . .

where the variables have the meanings ascribed to them

in (1).
To complete the process description, it is necessary to
specify the boundary conditions, i.e. the state initial vector
on each pass and the initial pass profile. Without loss of
generality we can assume that xl+1 (0) = dl+1 , l 0 and
y0 (p) = f (p) where the vector dl+1 Rn has known
constant entries and the vector f (p) Rm has entries which
are known functions of p. We make no further reference to
boundary conditions in this paper
In the model of (6) the process undergoes more than one
switch, whereas in previous work [6] only one switch was
considered. This fact makes problem much more difficult and
the results developed in [6] are not applicable. Also it turns
out that results developed for two switches generalizes easily
to more than this number, i.e. the significant new challenge
lies in going from one to two switches. Hence we focus here
on the case of two switches.
One obvious approach to the analysis of the process model
given above is to attempt to transform it into an equivalent
model of the form (1) and then directly apply the existing
results. Introduce, therefore, the following new state, pass
profile and input vectors

x3k+1 (p)
u3k+1 (p)
Xk+1 (p) = x3k+2 (p) , Uk+1 (p) = u3k+2 (p) ,
x3k+3 (p)
u3k+3 (p)
Yk (p) = y3k (p),
Yk+1 (p) = y3k+3 (p)



b = D03 D02 C1 D03 C2 C3 ,
C


b = D03 D02 D1 D03 D2 D3 ,
D

B01
b0 = B02 D01 , D
b 0 = D03 D02 D01 .
B
B03 D02 D01

Now it is possible to give conditions for stability along

the pass of processes described by (6). Of the numerous sets
of conditions which have been developed, the most relevant
here is the following on [6] which we give here in its final
LMI based form. This sufficient condition then leads easily
to implementable control law design (as shown below). As a
preliminary step, it is convenient to introduce the following
notation
"
#
#
"
b
b B
b0
B
A
b
b=
(8)

b .
b D
b0 , = D
C
b and
b are termed the augmented process and
The matrix
the augmented input matrices, respectively.
Theorem 2: A discrete linear repetitive process described
by (7) is stable along the pass if there exist matrices W1 > 0
and W2 > 0 such that
bT W
b W

< 0

(9)

holds, where W = diag (W1 , W2 ).

Proof: Follows immediately on interpreting the condition of
Theorem 1 in terms of (7).

To control these processes we consider a switched control
law of the form
1
K1 xl+1 (p) + K21 yl (p) for l = 0, 3, . . .
K 2 xl+1 (p) + K22 yl (p) for l = 1, 4, . . .(10)
ul+1 (p) =
13
K1 xl+1 (p) + K23 yl (p) for l = 2, 5, . . .
or, equivalently,

where
for k = 0, 1, . . . Note that the variable l is not equal to k.
The variable l is used to denote the pass number and k to
indicate each of three successive (i.e. {3k+1, 3k+2, 3k+3})
pass numbers.
Then the equivalent model of the form (1) for processes
described by (6) is
(
b k+1 (p) + BU
b k+1 (p) + B
b0 Yk (p)
Xk+1 (p + 1) = AX
b
b
b 0 Yk (p)
Yk+1 (p) = CXk+1 (p) + DUk+1 (p) + D

A1
0
0
b = B02 C1
A2
0 ,
A
B03 D02 C1 B03 C2 A3

B1
0
0
b = B02 D1
B2
0 ,
B
B03 D02 D1 B03 D2 B3

(7)

702

b 1 Xk+1 (p) +
Uk+1 (p) = K

b1 =
K

b 2 Yk (p)
K

K11
+ D1 K11 )
3
K2 (D02 + D2 K22 )(C1 + D1 K11 )

0
0
K12
0 ,
3
2
K2 (C2 + D2 K1 ) K13
K22 (C1

K21
b2 =
.
K22 (D01 + D1 K21 )
K
K23 (D02 + D2 K22 )(D01 + D1 K21 )

(11)

TuB02.4
u 3k+1(t)

Suppose now that this control law is applied to (7). Then

the resulting process state-space model is given by
(
bnew Xk+1 (p) + B
b0new Yk (p)
Xk+1 (p + 1) = A
(12)
b
b
Yk+1 (p) = Cnew Xk+1 (p) + D0new Yk (p)

u 3k+2(t)

spring

11

A12 =

"

0
B02
0
0

A22 =

"

C1
0
0
0

A13 =

A23 =

"

"

0
A2
0
0

0
0
A3
C3

0
0
B03
D03
0
C2
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
B03
D03

0
D02
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

B01
0
0
0

0
B02
0
0

0
0
0
D01
0
0
0
0
0
D02
0
0

=
,B
#

"

12

21 =
,B

22 =
,B

"

31 =
, B

"

"

32 =
,B

"

0
B2
0
0

0
0
B3
D3
0
D2
0
0

D1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D2
0
0

0
0
B3
D3

0
0
B3
D3
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1 = diag K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , K 1 ,
K
1
1
1
2


2 = diag K22 , K23 , K22 , K22 .
K

B1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
B2
0
0
0
0
0
D1

0
0
0
0

0
D2
0
0

spring

zero compression
separation

y 3k+1(t)

Fig. 1.

y 3k+2(t)

y 3k+3(t)

Multi-roll rolling machine operation

where
L,

1N

12 Z = A12 Z + B
1 V = AV + B
2 ,
2
2
2
1
1
2 L,

31 N,

2 V = A2 V + B
3 Z = A3 Z + B
2N

23 Z = A23 Z + B
3

(16)

and
X = diag (X1 , X2 ) ,
V = diag (V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 ) , Z = diag (Z1 , Z2 , Z1 , Z1 ) ,
= diag (L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 ) , N
= diag (N1 , N2 , N1 , N1 ) .
L
If this condition holds, the control law matrices are given by


1 = L
V 1 = diag K 1 , K 2 , K 3 , K 1
K
1
1
1
2

(17)
2 = N
Z 1 = diag K22 , K23 , K22 , K22
K
Proof: This follows immediately from interpreting Theorem 2 in terms of the controlled process state-space model
in this particular case and use of Lemma 1. The details are
omitted here due to space limitations.


IV. I NDUSTRIAL A PPLICATION

,
#

M3

13

(14)

0
B2
0
0

B1
0
0
0

z3k+3(t)
zero compression
separation

metal strip

where
22 K
1,
K
1 , 12 = A12 + B
21 K
2 , 22 = A22 + B
1 = A + B
1
1
1
2
2
2

3 = A3 + B3 K2 , 3 = A3 + B3 K2 ,
A1
0
0
0

M2
spring

y 3k(t)

b new = 1 + (12 + 13 23 )22

"

zero compression
separation

which can be rewritten in the form of

A =

M3

z3k+2(t)

M1

b0new = B
b0 + B
bK
b 2,
B
b 0new = D
b0 + D
bK
b2
D

The augmented process matrix for the controlled process is

#
"
b0new
bnew B
A
b
new =
b
bnew D
C
# " 0new
"
#
(13)
i
b h
b B
b0
B
A
b
b
b
b
b
+
=

K
=
K1 K2
b
b D
b0
D
C

with

M2

z3k+1(t)

where

bnew = A
b+B
bK
b1,
A
bnew = C
b+D
bK
b1,
C

u 3k+3(t)

M1

Now the major result of this paper can be given.

Theorem 3: Suppose that a control law of the form (11)
is applied to a discrete LRP which can be written in the
form (7). Then the resulting controlled process is stable along
the pass if there exists a matrix X > 0, nonsingular matrices
and rectangular matrices L,
N
such that
V and Z,

1 V
12 Z
X
13 Z

Z T 1T
0
Z Z T
23 Z
3

T 1T
T
2T
T
2

Z 2
Z 3
Z Z
2 V
V T
V T T1
0
V T 2T
X

V
2
< 0 (15)

The first results on metal rolling process have been developed in [9], [10] and the results here follow on these
previous works, but in the case of switched process and for
the minimal realization of the state-space representation.
Consider a multi-roll roll system (Fig. 1) consists of three
separate pairs of rolls which are controlled by separate input
signals, i.e. different rolling forces. The deformation of the
workpiece takes place between these pairs of rolls with
parallel axes revolving in opposite directions. The metal
strip to be rolled to a pre-specified thickness (also termed
the gauge or shape) through a series of rolls for successive
reductions.
In practice, a number of models of this process can be
developed depending on the assumptions made about the
underlying dynamics and the particular mode of operation
under consideration. The particular task is to develop a
simplified (but practically feasible) model relating the gauge
on the passes through the rolls. The current pass is denoted
by y3k+3 (t), the previous passes by y3k+2 (t), y3k+1 (t) and
y3k (t). The other process variables and physical constants are
defined as follows: u3k+1 (t), u3k+2 (t) and u3k+3 (t) are the
forces developed by the motors, M1 , M2 and M3 are the
lumped masses of the roll-gap adjusting mechanisms, 11 ,
12 and 13 are the stiffnesses of the adjustment mechanism
springs, 2 is the hardness of the metal strip.

703

TuB02.4
We can written the model of the multi-roll rolling machine
with three pairs of rolls in the form of three differentialdifference equations

y3k+1 (t) + a01 y3k+1 (t) + b21 y3k (t)

+ b01 y3k (t)

= c01 u3k+1 (t)

y3k+2 (t) + a02 y3k+2 (t) + b22 y3k+1 (t)

(18)
+ b02 y3k+1 (t) = c02 u3k+2 (t)

y3k+3 (t) + a03 y3k+3 (t) + b23 y3k+2 (t)

+ b03 y3k+2 (t) = c03 u3k+3 (t)

over 0 t < , k = 0, 1, . . ., where, for i = 1, 2, 3,

a0i =

1i 2
,
Mi (1i + 2 )

b2i =

2
,
1i + 2

b0i =

1i 2
,
Mi (1i + 2 )

c0i =

1i
.
Mi (1i + 2 )

Applying approximation to (18) by backward Euler discretization method with sampling period T yields the
discrete(-discrete) state-space model (6), where for i =
1, 2, 3,




1
T
T
c0i T
1
, Bi = 1+a0i T 2
,
Ai = 1+a0i T 2
a0i T 1
1
B0i =
Di =

(b0i +a0i b2i )T

1+a0i T 2
c0i T 2
1+a0i T 2 ,

T
1

D0i =

Ci =

1
1+a0i T 2

b2i b0i T 2
1+a0i T 2 ,

1 T

with
y3k+1 (p) + b21 y3k (p),

3k+2 (p) =
3k+3 (p) =

y3k+2 (p) + b22 y3k+1 (p),

y3k+3 (p) + b23 y3k+2 (p).

and hence no difficulties in forming these matrix inverses to

give the control law matrices


K11 =  410.5212 349.9161  , K22 = 64.9264 ,
K12 =  610.7370 533.3123  , K21 = 52.6197 ,
K13 = 888.5518 674.4851 , K23 = 107.2939 .

V. C ONCLUSIONS

Here, the boundary conditions are given by

x3k+1 (0) = d3k+1 , x3k+2 (0) = d3k+2 ,
x3k+3 (0) = d3k+3 and y0 (p) = f (p).
Numerical Example
Consider the multi-roll metal rolling process with following parameters
11 = 40N/m, 12 = 60N/m, 13 = 80N/m,
2 = 100N/m, M1 = 10kg, M2 = 20kg, M3 = 30kg.

By using MATLAB LMI Control Toolbox to the condition

of Theorem 3 we can find the control law matrices. The
condition number of matrix variables V and Z are




cond V = 6.5557, cond Z = 1.1202

The final process is stable along the pass and it is without

oscillations, as shown in Fig. 2.
Without control action, the process here is unstable along
the pass. Suppose also that the task is to reduce the thickness
of the workpiece by one unit. Then, since the process dynamics are assumed to be linear, we can take the initial pass
profile y0 (p) = 1 over p = 0, 1, . . . , 100 and zero initial state
vectors x3k+1 (0), x3k+2 (0), x3k+3 (0) over k = 0, 1, . . . , 6.
Hence as k increases the sequence of pass profiles should
approach zero. This is confirmed by the plot of Fig. 2.

and the state vectors are



3k+1 (p 1)
x3k+1 (p) =
,
1
 T {3k+1 (p 1) 3k+1 (p 2)} 
3k+2 (p 1)
x3k+2 (p) =
,
1
T
{
(p 1) 3k+2 (p 2)} 
3k+2

3k+3 (p 1)
x3k+3 (p) =
,
T 1 {3k+3 (p 1) 3k+3 (p 2)}
3k+1 (p) =

The matrices for discrete(-discrete) state-space model with

sampling period T = 0.1 used for backward Euler method
discretization of this process are given by

A1 B01 B1
C1 D01 D1

A2 B02 B2

C2 D02 D2

A3 B03 B3
C3 D03

D3
972.222 97.222
7.936 0.278
277.778 972.222 79.365 2.778

972.222 97.222 722.222 0.278

981.595 98.159
6.902 0.184

= 103
184.049 981.595 69.018 1.840 .
981.595 98.159 631.902 0.184

985.401 98.540
6.488 0.146

145.985 985.401 64.882 1.460

985.401 98.540 562.044 0.146

This paper has developed a major new result on control

law design for discrete linear repetitive processes in the
presence of switching in the pass-to-pass direction (to complement existing results see for example [6]) which can
be computed in a numerically reliable and efficient manner
using LMIs. Future work includes removing the restrictions
on the switching mechanism, including the effects of uncertainties in control law design and many others. When mature,
this approach could well play a major role in the analysis
of so-called bidirectional repetitive processes [1] (successive
passes are completed in opposite directions) which have
many practical applications but for which no analysis tools
currently exist.

704

TuB02.4
l = 0,...,21;

[9] K. Galkowski, E. Rogers, W. Paszke, and D.H. Owens, Linear

repetitive process control theory applied to a physical example,
International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science,
vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 8799, 2003.
[10] W. Paszke, K. Galkowski, E. Rogers, and D.H. Owens, Robust
stabilization of discrete linear repetitive processes with application
to a physical example, in In Proceedings of 11th Mediterranean
Conference on Control and Automation, Rhodes, Greece, 1820 June
2003, CD-ROM.

p = 0,...,100

PASS

PROFILE

5
0
5
10
15
20

100
80

0
60

5
40

10
15

20
20

point on the pass

pass number

PASS

PROFILE

l = 0,...,21;

p = 0,...,100

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

100
80

0
60

5
40

10
15

20
20

point on the pass

pass number

Fig. 2.

Pass profile before and after stabilizing control

R EFERENCES
[1] E. Rogers and D.H. Owens, Stability Analysis for Linear Repetitive
Processes, ser. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1992, vol. 175.
[2] K.L. Moore, Y. Chen, and V. Bahl, Monotonically convergent iterative
learning control for linear discrete-time systems, Automatica, vol. 41,
no. 9, pp. 15291537, 2005.
[3] P.D. Roberts, Two-dimensional analysis of an iterative nonlinear optimal control algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I:
Fundamental Theory and Applications, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 872878,
2002.
[4] D.H. Owens, N. Amann, E. Rogers, and M. French, Analysis of linear
iterative learning control schemes a 2D systems/repetitive processes
approach, Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 11,
no. 1-2, pp. 125177, 2000.
[5] R. DAndrea and G.E. Dullerud, Distributed control design for
spatially interconnected systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 14781495, 2003.
[6] J. Bochniak, K. Galkowski, E. Rogers, D. Mehdi, O. Bachelier, and
A. Kummert, Stabilization of discrete linear repetitive processes with
switched dynamics, Multidimensional Systems and Signal Processing,
vol. 17, no. 2-3, pp. 271293, 2006.
[7] C. Du and L. Xie, H Control and Filtering of Two-dimensional
Systems, ser. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences.
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2002, vol. 278.
[8] K. Galkowski, E. Rogers, S. Xu, J. Lam, and D.H. Owens, LMIs
a fundamental tool in analysis and controller design for discrete linear
repetitive processes, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I:
Fundamental Theory and Applications, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 768778,
2002.

705