1.

Introduction
In the past decades, H optimal control theories have been developed very quickly and widely applied to treat
control system problems, such as min max model matching, [3],[10],[11], min-max disturbance rejection [2],[5],[9], and
robust optimization [2],[3],[5],[11]. In general, the H optimal output feedback control problem can be solved by two
methods. One is based on Youlas parameterization with Nehari theorem or so called A-A-K technique from the
frequency domain viewpoint [2],[3]. The other is based on observer based state feedback with game theory to solve the
Riccati - like equations from time domain [5]. However, based on the above approaches the order of the derived H
optimal controller is much higher than that the plant. Hence it is not easy to implement the H optimal controller in
practical applications.
On the other hand Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are searching algorithms based on simulation of the human trial -and error procedure using the survival of the fittest Darwinian principle [1] and they have been successfully applied in
many optimization problems [4]. Further more multi objective GAs (MOGAs) have been proven as a very effective
tool in searching poorly understood and complex space for optimization in engineering applications [14],[19]. MOGAs
incorporate the concept of Paretos domination to evolve a family of non-dominated solutions along the pareto optimal
frontier.
This paper introduces a blended target function which incorporates the pareto rank [17] into a specific function and
then with the use of genetic evolution tries to minimize it towards to feasible solutions.
At first criteria, based on plant stability and plant maximum singular values are evaluated, then ranking based
coefficient is produced using those criteria, and finally a new target function having the form of Kreisselmeier [8] is
created with the use of the rank of each individual and the relative criteria values.
The above mention procedure is applied to design a controller for an ill-conditioned plant. By ill-conditioned, we
mean that the plant gain is strongly depended on the input direction, or equivalently that the plant has a high condition
number.

2. Genetic Algorithms (GAs) and Multiobjective Optimization

Genetic Algorithms
Generally speaking, one can formulate any optimization problem into a single standard of measurement - a cost
function or a fitness function - that determines the performance of a decision and then recursively improves the
performance by selecting from the most feasible of alternatives. Traditional deterministic optimization techniques
require the use of gradient or higher order statistical analysis of the cost function. These methods find optimal solutions
exponentially fast, unfortunately, the solutions are usually locally optimal and insufficient for applied engineering
problems. Darwinian evolution is an intrinsically robust search and optimization procedure. Evolved biota has
optimized solutions to complex problems at every level of organization, from the cell up to the population. The
problems that biota has solved and continues to improve upon, is typified by chaos, chance, temporality, nonlinearity,
and multidimensionality. Such problems have proven to be intractable to deterministic optimization techniques,
especially in situations where heuristic solutions are not available. A GA falls into the much broader category of
evolutionary algorithms. These algorithms attempt to simulate the processes of evolved biota in optimization. The
essence of such a simulation lies in the expression of a solution to a problem not as a single value but as a string of
fundamental building blocks (genes). This can be manipulated in much the same way as an extant species will
manipulate its gene pool through selection and mating to produce more optimal offspring for the current environment.
For example, consider x1, which is a member of a population of feasible solutions to a problem but not necessarily the
optimal solution. The real value of x1 is expressed as a string of binary digits, e.g.: 101101110 that are l digits long.
Each digit or bit is called an allele. This binary string is mapped to a real value of x1 such that the string 11111111
corresponds to xmax and 00000000 corresponds to xmin .The transformation from real value parameters to binary strings
is called coding scheme. The xmax and xmin define the upper and lower bounds respectively of the range of x that is being
searched. The real value of x1 is commonly referred to as a phenotype, whereas the binary string that defines x 1 is
referred to as a chromosome and the genetic information contained in the chromosome is defined as a genotype.
Manipulation of these strings occurs in much the same way as extant species manipulate chromosomes
First, competition among members of the population determines who is most fit or optimal. Second, the most
optimal members are allowed to reproduce. Reproduction involves slicing the chromosomes of two members of the
populations and then exchanging the segments. The resulting progeny will be placed in the next generation. The actual
crossover site is selected randomly with some probability, pc. Third, mutation occurs, which in a positively entropic
system ensures genetic diversity in the subsequent generation. Mutation involves flipping the value of a randomly
selected allele with some probability, pm. The new population that evolves from the selection, crossover, and mutation
operators is defined as a generation. This cycle is repeated for a number of generations as specified by the user.

Multi-Objective Optimization for Control Systems

A formulation of the control system design problem, which has close similarities to the method of inequalities, has
been proposed by Kreisselmeier [8]. Instead of a set of inequalities they translate a specific design problem into a set of
performance objectives { J i ( p ), ( i = 1, 2,K , m )} where p is the design parameter vector. This set of objectives can be
considered to be a vector of objective functions, or a multi-objective function:

(1)
J ( p ) = [ J1 ( p ),..., J m ( p )]
The performance specification is satisfied if J(p) < c for some threshold vector c.
The distinctive feature of Kreisselmeier [8] approach is the way in which they replace the multi-objective problem
min { Ji ( p ) ci } , i = 1,...., m by the min -max problem
p

J i ( p)
ci
and finally approximate this by a smooth, unconstrained problem:
min a ( p) = max
p

min a( p ) =
p

J ( p )
m
ln exp i
>0
i =1
ci

(2)

(3)

3. The -framework.
This section gives a very brief introduction to -framework and defines some of nomenclature used in the rest of the
paper. For further reading consult [6],[7]. The H norm of a transfer function matrix M(s) is the peak value of the
maximum singular value over all frequencies.
(4)
M ( s) sup (M ( j ))

The left block diagram in Fig. 1(a) shows the general problem formulation for controller synthesis. It consists of an
augmented plant P with three pairs of input /output variables including the performance and stability requirements on
the nominal to be controlled system G. The first pair consists of the measured outputs y(t) and control inputs u(t). The
second pair consists of performance variables e(t) and external input signals d(t) and the third pair consists of output
signals z(t) and w(t) through which unit norm perturbations are fed back into system. A controller K and a (blockdiagonal) perturbation matrix =diag{1,,n} representing the uncertainty that includes all possible perturbations of
the system and it is usually normalized in such a way that 1 .
By grouping P and K we get N obtained from the lower LFT [6] with

N = Fl ( P, K ) = P11 + P12 K ( I P22 K )1 P21

(5)

To evaluate the perturbed (uncertain) transfer function from external inputs d to performance variable e we use to
close the upper loop N Fig 1 (b) resulting the upper LFT
N 22 + N 21 ( I N11 )1 12

F = Fu ( N , )

(6)

Fig 1. General Problem Description

The right block diagram in Fig. 1(c) is used for robustness analysis. N is a function of P and K, and P ( P 1 ) is a
fictitious performance perturbation connecting e to d . Provided that the closed-loop system is nominally stable the
condition for robust performance (RP) is
(7)
RP RP = sup % ( Fl ( P, K )( j ) ) < 1

with % = diag{, P } . is computed frequency by frequency through upper and lower bounds. Here we only consider
the upper bound % ( F ( P, K ) ) min ( DF ( P, K )( j ) D 1 ) where D is a scale for the plant with D = {D | D% = % D}

D D

At present there is no direct method to synthesize an -optimal controller, however -synthesis which combines analysis and H -synthesis often yields good results. The idea is to attempt to solve
min inf DFl ( P, K )( j ) D 1
(8)
K

DD

by alternating between minimizing for either K or D while holding the other fixed. In this work we keep the D(s) fixed
at a given, stable, minimum phase, real rational function and then we solve the optimization problem
min Fl ( PD , K )( j ) which is an H synthesis.(PD is the D- scaled plant).
K
stabilizing

4. H optimal structured controller design via GAs

In the following the H optimization problem with the use of a structure-specified controller will be treated with GAs.

Coding Scheme
The structured - specified controller has the following form:
N ( S ) m s m + m 1s m 1 + L + 0
(9)
C (s) = C
=
DC ( S )
s n + n 1s n 1 + L + 0
The controller is assigned with some desired order m and n to minimize the performance criterion (8) and the solution
will be found using genetic algorithms. Thus for integrating the GAs with the H optimal control problem first we
define the structure - specified controller parameter vector , which corresponds to (9) and has the following form:
= [ m , m 1 ,K , 1, 0 , n 1 , n 2 ,K , 1 , 0 ]
(10)
Further more for each i we specify an upper and lower bound and thus the controllers parameter space can be
defined as:
= { i | iL i iU , i = 1,.., n}
(11)
iU , iL are the upper and lower bounds of each i , where i denotes the ith element of
Thus for solving the problem and finding a feasible solution, in parameter vector, which minimizes (8) using GAs, , is
coded to a binary chromosome. In binary coding method every element i of the parameter vector is coded as a

string of length l i , which consists of 0 and 1 for the desired resolution Ri . In general we have Ri =

iU iL
2l i 1

Pareto domination
A vector x is partially less than y, symbolically x < py when the following condition holds:

( x < py ) ( i )( xi yi ) ( i )( xi < yi )
Under these circumstances we say that point x dominates point y [4].

Multiobjective Rank
An individual xi , at generation t, which is dominated, by pi(t ) individuals in the current population receives the
following rank ( xi , t ) = 1 + pi( t ) [17]

Generalized Objective Value (GOV)

Along with the pareto domination and multi-objective ranking we have formulated a novel evaluation function, which
has the same format as [8] but incorporates self - tunable parameters for taking the advantage of Pareto ranking
knowledge. We call it Generalized Objective Value and has the following format

rank ( xi , t ) m
Nind
GOV ( xi , t ) =
J k ( xi )
ln exp

Nind k =1
rank ( xi , t ) + 1

Nind is the number of individuals at the current population.
J k ( xi ) is the k-th objective and xi = i for our control optimization problem.

Objective Functions and Fitness Assignment

The procedure of objective functions J k ( i ) evaluation for a given chromosome i is listed as follows:

(12)

1.
2.
3.
4.

Decode chromosome to real value parameters and calculate controller C ( s )

Calculate the close loop transfer function T ( s ) and form the Fl ( PD , K ) Find the maximum real part of closed loop
eingenvalues (eingenvalues of A_clp).
Compute the frequency response (frsp) of Fl ( PD , K ) , over a grid of one thousand frequencies logarithmic spaced
from 10-3 to 103 and store them to a varying matrix.
Compute objective functions by
J1 ( i ) = max( real (eig ( A _ clp )))

100

J 2 ( i ) = The maximum Singular Value of varying

matrix frsp ( F ( P , K )( j )),
l
D

103 ,103

5.

if J1 ( i ) 0.0

(13)
else

Compute the Generalized Objective Value (GOV) in accordance with.

6. To convert the GOV to the fitness value an exponential ranking [18] with appropriate selective pressure is applied
Optimization Procedure
The optimization procedure follows the next steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

For a given plant P ( s ) specify the weighting function matrices, the controller structure C ( s ) , the genetic
parameters pc , pm , Nind and the desired resolution R .
Specify upper and lower bounds for the parameter vector (parameter space) and then calculate the required
chromosome length.
Generate randomly a population of binary strings
Calculate objective values for each chromosome.
Start Genetic Algorithm

Select parents by Stochastic Universal Sampling

Generate new chromosomes via double point crossover and mutation

Calculate the objective and fitness values of the new chromosomes

Reinsert the new chromosomes into the population via fitness-based reinsertion

Terminate genetic algorithm if maximum generations have reached.
Terminate genetic algorithm if maximum generations have reached

5. Controller design for distillation column

CDC Problem Definition- Plant Mode
The plant and the design specifications for the CDC benchmark [15] are presented in this section. The process to be
controlled is a distillation column with reflux flow and boil up flow as manipulated inputs and product compositions as
outputs. The resulting model is ill-conditioned, as is here given by
s

1 0.878 0.864 k1e 1

G% ( s) =
(14)

1.082 1.096
2 s
75s + 1
k2e

ki [ 0.8 1.2] i [0.0 1.0 ]

(15)

In physical terms this equivalent to a gain uncertainty of 20% and the delay of up to 1 min in each input channel. The
set of possible plants defined by (14) is denoted as and the following specifications must be achieved for every plant
G% .

Design Specifications
The following specifications S1 to S3 should be fulfilled for every plant G
S1 Closed loop stability
S2 For a unit step demand in channel 1 at t=0 the plant outputs y1 (tracking) and y2 (interaction) should satisfy:

y1 (t ) 0.9 for all t 30 min

y1 (t ) 1.1 for all t

0.99 y1 () 1.01

y2 (t ) 0.5 for all t


0.01 y2 () 0.01
Corresponding requirements hold for a unit step demand in channel 2.
S3 ( KS ) 316, . This specification is mainly added to avoid saturation of the plant inputs.
% ) < 1, 150. , which is indirectly satisfied with S3
S4 (GK

Nominal Model and Precompensator

The nominal G(s) for designing the controller, can be obtained if we put 1=2=0 and k1 =k2=1 in plant equation (14).
% are minimum over all plant
A precompensation matrix [16] is used such that the off diagonal parameters of GR
uncertainty. The matrix R is the following:
0.693
1
R=

0.667 1.042
and the nominal model becomes
0.693
1 0.878 0.864 1
1 0.30171 -0.29183
G ( s) =
1.082 1.096 0.667 1.042 =

75 s + 1

75s + 1 0.35097 -0.39221

Controller Structure
As a controller structure we will use a diagonal controller and then with Singular Value Decomposition it will transform
to a full order one. Hovd et al [12] found that the SVD-controller structure is optimal in a some cases e.g. for plants
consisting of symmetrically interconnected subsystems.
T
So the controller will be K ( s) = V0 K GA (s )U 0 where V0 , U0 are obtained from the singular value decomposition of
G0 = U 0 0V0T at a given frequency 0 and KGA is the diagonal controller which will be produced by the GA.
In this work we set 0=0 rad/sec and thus we have
T

-0.78198 0.67279
0
0.30171 -0.29183 0.6233
0.68745 -0.72623
G0 =
=

0.6233 0
0.023646 -0.72623 -0.68745
0.35097 -0.39221 1444
0.78198
424444
3 1444
424444
3 1444424444
3
U

The diagonal controller structured is

a12 s 2 + a11 s + a10

0
A1

2
s (b12 s + b11 s + b10 )

K GA =

a22 s 2 + a21 s + a20

0
A2

s(b22 s 2 + b21 s + b20 )

VT

(16)

with
(17)
= [a12 , a11 , a10 , b12 , b11 , b10 , a22 , a21 , a20 , b22 , b21 , b20 , A1 , A2 ]
as the parameter vector.
The parameter space region is = { i | 0 i 400 i = 1...14} and the resolution for each parameter will be 10-4 .

Controller synthesis
The controller may be synthesized using the GA-H synthesis with the following D-scales [13] for One Degree of
Freedom Controller and the control problem structure is pictured in fig 2
D(s ) = diag{d ( s ), d ( s), I 22 }
where
2 10 5 (s + 1000)( s + 0.25)(s + 0.054)
d ( s) =
( s + 067 + j 0.56)( s + 0.67 j 0.56)( s + 0.013)
and weights
1.1s + 0.2
10s+1
W (s ) =
I 2 2 ,We (s)=0.5
I 22
0.5s + 1
10s+10 -5

Fig 2 Control Problem Structure

6. Simulations and Comparison study

The parameters of genetic algorithm are Nind=100, p c = 0.9, p m = 0.02, Selective Pressure SP=5, Max Gen=100 and after 100
generations the procedure gave the following controller
0
K
48.64s 2 + 116.5s + 16.12
233.7s 2 + 286.6s + 10.02
K GA = GA1
,
K
=
159.59
,
K
=
51.904
,
GA1
GA 2
K GA 2
s (0.1769s 2 + 167.3s + 371.3 )
s(148.1s 2 + 229.7s + 57.19 )
0
The resulting GA controller will compared with an One Degree of Freedom ODF -controller which is obtained with
the same scales and weights in compliant to [7],[13] without any precompensation matrix.
1

10

10
1/W P

1/W P

10

10

-1

-1

sv

10

sv

10

-2

-2

10

10

-3

-3

10

10

-4

10

-4

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

10
Frequency

10

10

10

10

-3

10

-2

10

-1

10

10
Frequency

10

10

10

(a) SVD- GA controller

(b) -controller
%
Figure 3 Maximum and minimum singular values of S for the two under comparison controllers
All simulations and tests are made from the four combinations of k1=0.8,1,2 and k2=0.8,1.2 with the maximum delay of
one minute approximated by second order pade.
The - synthesis gave one controller with 18 states and with U as a full block uncertainty the -controller has =1.0275
very close to optimal. The final SVD GA produced controller has 6 states but with the same block uncertainty the
resulting upper bound of =1.1203 which is not optimal but is very good.
In fig 3 we can see the singular value plots of Sensitivity for four different plants. The GA produced controller does not
violate the performance weight WP. The corresponding -controller despite of the =1.0275 violates the performance
weigh for 2rad/sec.

10

10

10

10

10
sv

sv

10

10

10

10

10

-1

10

-1

-3

10

-2

-1

10

10

(b)

10
Frequency

10

10

10

10

-3

10

-controller

-2

10

-1

10

10
Frequency

10

10

10

(b) SVD- GA controller

Figure 4 Maximum and minimum singular values of K S% for the two under comparison controllers
The specification S3 for both controllers is presented in figure 4. We can see from there that the GA produced controller
achieves the bound of 50db (316) and thus the plant input never saturates. The -controller violates the bound and
increases the amplitude in higher frequencies.
In fig 5 we can see the step response for the four different plants and we can see that both controller violate the
specifications presented above.

Opt. Controller

GA Controller

1
--..
-.
--

0.5

k1 k2
1.2 1.2
0.8 1.2
1.2 0.8
0.8 0.8

0.5

0
0

50
Time: min

100

0.5

0.5

0
0

50
Time: min

100

50
Time: min

100

50
Time: min

100

Figure 5. Step responces [1 0] ,[0 1] for four different plants

Finally as can be seen in [13] the non-completeness of the time domain specifications can be easily overcome by using
different more tight weight with a Two Degree of Freedom Control Scheme or from our experience by adding a simple
1 1
prefilter of the form F =
with T=5min is fixing the time domain of the GA controller but not the -one
1 Ts + 1

7. Conclusions

In this paper we have developed a method based on genetic algorithms to design structured specified H controller with
-sub optimal characteristics. The proposed scheme is found beneficial in designing low degree controllers and the
control of an ill-condition plant outlines the usefulness of the procedure.
The GOV function guides very well the the genetic search over large parameter spaces and finds feasible solutions very
soon. Finally it is easy to change the objectives and apply the scheme to 2 or other robust control problems.

References
[1] J.H.Holland, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems (The University of Michifan Press, Ann Ardor MI, 1975).
[2] M.Vidyasagar, Control System Synthesis : A factorization approach (Cambridge MA. MIT Press, 1985).
[3] B.A.Francis, A course in H Control Theory (Berlin Germany, Springer - Verlag, 1987).
[4] D.E.Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning (Addison Wesley, Pub Co. Inc, 1989).
[5] A.Stoorvogel, The H Control Problem: A State Space Approach (Prentice Hall, 1992).
[6] G.Balas, J.Doyle, K.Glover, A.Packard, and R.Smith, -Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox (The Mathworks Inc, 1998).
[7] S.Skogestad and I.Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control : Analysis and Design (John Willey and Sons, 2000)
[8] G.Kreisselmeier and et al, Application of vector performance optimization to a robust control loop design for a fighter
aircraft, Int.J.Control, (1983), 37, (2), 251-284.
[9] B.S Chen, Controller synthesis of optimal sensitivity : Multivariable Case, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng, (1984), 131, 47-51.
[10] Kwakernaak H., Minimax frequency domain performance and robustness optimization of linear feedback systems, IEEE
Trans.Aut.Cont., (1985), 10, (AC-30), 994-1004.
[11] B.S Chen, Robust controller for multivariable model matching system, Int.J.Control, (1989), 50, 1717-1730.
[12] M.Hovd, R.D.Braatz, and S.Skogestad, SVD controllers for H2 - H and m-optimal, Automatica, (1997), 33, 433-439.
[13] P.Lundstrom, S.Skogestad, and J.Doyle, Two Degree of Freedom Controller Design for an Ill-Conditioned Distillation
Process using -Synthesis, IEEE Trans.Control Sys. Tech, (1999), 7, (1), 12-21.
[14] S Obayashi, D.Sasak, Y Takeguchi, and N.Hirose, Multiobjective Evolutionary Computation for supersonic wing -shape
optimization, IEEE Trans.Evol.Comp.,(2000), 4, (2), 182-188.
[15] D.J.N.Limmebeer, The specification and purpose of a controller design study, Proc.IEEE Conf.Decision Contr., 1991, 15791580.
[16] O.Yaniv and I.Horowitz, Ill-conditioned plants: A case study, Proc.IEEE Conf.Decision Contr., 1991, 1596-1600.
[17] C.M.Fonseca and P.J.Fleming, Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, Discussion and
Generalization, Proc.5th Inter.Conf.on Genetic Algorithms, 1993, San Mateo, California, 416-423.
[18] A.J.Chipperfield and P.J.Fleming, The matlab genetic algorithm toolbox, IEE Col.on Applied Control Tech.Using MATLAB,
1995.
[19] Kay Chen Tan and Yun Li, Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm based time and frequency domain design unification of linear
systems, IFAC/IEEE Int.Symp.on Art.Intel.in Real-Time Control, Sept.1997, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, 61-66.