Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110

www.elsevier.com/locate/sysconle

Balanced performance preserving controller reduction

G. Wanga; ∗ , V. Sreerama , W.Q. Liub
a Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6907, Australia
b School of Computing, Curtin University of Technology, WA 6102, Australia

Received 3 November 2000; received in revised form 29 November 2001

Abstract

Two methods for controller reduction based on the closed-loop system performance-preserving criterion are proposed.
They are the closed-loop block balanced and the closed-loop structurally balanced truncating methods. Reduced-order
controllers are obtained directly by solving the closed-loop system reduction problem with performance-preserving weights.
c 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the linear control system design, one of the ways to obtain low-order controllers is to design the
high-order controller 5rst and then reduce the order of controller by controller order reduction [2]. Controller
order reduction has been extensively studied for more than a decade. It is well known that preferable controller
reduction methods are those in which the information about the closed-loop system has been utilized in
reduction process.
Many controller reduction approaches have been developed based on stabilizing the closed-loop system with
the reduced-order controller or reducing the closed-loop system H∞ performance error between the full-order
controller and the reduced-order controller [2,19,16,10]. Numerical examples show that the approaches based
on reducing the closed-loop system H∞ performance error are better than those based on the closed-loop
system stability criterion. Therefore, most of the existing controller reduction methods were developed with
an e;ort to reduce the closed-loop system H∞ performance error. The closed-loop block balanced method
[16] and the closed-loop structurally balancing method [19] were developed from the famous model reduction
method—balanced truncation.
The more recent development in controller reduction is the introduction of the performance preserving
criterion by Goddard and Glover [6–8]. Further extension to H2 controller reduction and relative controller
approximation appeared in [4,3]. Here performance preservation means the H∞ norm bound of the closed-loop
system with the reduced order controller is not greater than that with the full order controller. In [14,15] another
performance preserving controller reduction method was proposed. Instead of using the additive perturbation
of the controller proposed by Goddard and Glover, the method in [14,15] is based on the additive perturbation
of the closed-loop transfer function.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-8-9380-3069; fax: +61-8-9380-1065.

E-mail addresses: wanquan@cs.curtin.edu.au (G. Wang), sreeram@ee.uwa.edu.au (V. Sreeram).

0167-6911/02/$ - see front matter
c 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 9 1 1 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 2 2 - 6
100 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110

z w

y P u

Fig. 1. Closed-loop system.

In this paper we propose two new controller reduction methods: the closed-loop block balanced and the
closed-loop structurally balanced truncating methods. Actually, the new methods are two practical applications
of the theory presented in [14,15]. Reduced-order controllers are obtained directly by reducing the closed-loop
system with performance preserving weights. In the next Section, we formulate the problem and then present
the main results from [14,15]. In Section 3, we present the analysis of the technique presented in [14,15]. In
Sections 4 and 5, we present the block balanced and the structurally balanced truncating algorithms. Finally,
a numerical example is given in Section 6 to illustrate the new method and to compare it with the techniques
of [8].

2. Preliminaries

Consider the closed-loop system shown in Fig. 1, with external input w, controlled output z, control input
u, and measured output y.
In the above 5gure,


P11 P12
P= :
P21 P22
Using LFTs, transfer function from w to z is given by
G = Fl (P; K) = P11 + P12 K(I − P22 K)−1 P21 : (1)
In practice, it is desirable to design a controller K that both stabilizes P, and makes Fl (P; K)∞ less than
a given criterion  ( ¿ 0).

Denition 2.1. A controller K is said to be (P; )-admissible if K stabilizes P and Fl (P; K)∞ ¡ .

In this paper we assume that the plant P has been scaled with
Fl (P; K)∞ ¡  = 1
or K is (P; 1)-admissible.
In controller order reduction, let Kr be the reduced-order controller. Then the closed-loop transfer function
with the controller Kr is given by
Gr = Fl (P; Kr ) = P11 + P12 Kr (I − P22 Kr )−1 P21 : (2)
Normal controller reduction methods [2,19,3,16] are based on reducing the error G − Gr ∞ . Obviously this
is not a good criterion if we are going to design a (P; 1)-admissible controller; a better criterion is making
 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110 101

Gr ∞ ¡ 1 if G∞ ¡ 1. In other words, we want Kr to be (P; 1)-admissible if K is (P; 1)-admissible. A

suKcient condition [14,15] for achieving this objective is stated in the following theorem.

Theorem 2.1. Assume G∞ =  ¡ 1; W1 and W2 are stable; invertible weighting functions with minimum
phase and also satisfy


I − W2 W2∼ G
¿0 (3)
G∼ I − W1∼ W1
and
W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ ¡ 1: (4)
Then
Gr ∞ ¡ 1:

If the weights W1 and W2 chosen are large in some sense, then there is more room for Gr in W2−1 (G −
Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction. In other words, it makes the reduction from G to Gr satisfying (4) relatively easy. In
[14,15], two formulae for choosing the weights W1 and W2 were derived. They are:
√
W1∼ W1 = I − G ∼ G; (5)
√
W2 W2∼ = I − GG ∼ (6)
and
W1∼ W1 = I − −1 G ∼ G; (7)

W2 = (1 − )1=2 I: (8)
∼ −1 ∼ ∼
When √ W1 W1 = I −  G G, we can obtain an exact solution to W√1 by spectral factorization. When W1 W1 =
∼
I − G G, we need to compute a rational approximation for G √ ∼ G 5rst which is not easy. While the
exact solution is not possible, a solution which is arbitrarily close to G ∼ G can be obtained using rational
approximation algorithms [11].
Note that once W1 and W2 are obtained, 5nding Gr from W2−1 (G −Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction is straightforward
using frequency weighted model reduction techniques [1,9,5,13,12]. However, merely 5nding Gr is not enough;
our objective is to 5nd Kr corresponding to this Gr .
Two di;erent methods can be employed here for 5nding the low-order controller Kr . First, solve W2−1 (G −
Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction directly to obtain Kr . Methods to solve W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction directly are
discussed in Sections 4 and 5.
Second, approximate W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction by W2−1 V2 (K − Kr )V1 W1−1 ∞ reduction [15] where
V1 = (I − P22 K)−1 P21 ;
V2 = P12 (I + K(I − P22 K)−1 P22 )
and then use frequency weighted model reduction methods to obtain Kr .

3. Analysis of the performance preserving techniques

In this section we compare two types of performance preserving controller reduction techniques: (i) con-
troller reduction based on minimizing W2−1 (G−Gr )W1−1 ∞ and (ii) controller reduction based on minimizing
G − Gr ∞ .
102 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110

The suKcient condition for Gr ∞ ¡ 1 when using W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction is given in
Theorem 1.
Although G − Gr ∞ reduction is not classi5ed as performance preserving, it is straightforward to derive
the suKcient condition for Gr ∞ ¡ 1 when using G − Gr ∞ reduction as shown below.
Since
Gr ∞ 6 G∞ + G − Gr ∞ =  + G − Gr ∞
then
 + G − Gr ∞ ¡ 1
or
G − Gr ∞ ¡ 1 − 
is the suKcient condition for Gr ∞ ¡ 1.
We rewrite the above inequality as
(1 − )1=2 I (G − Gr )(1 − )1=2 I ∞ ¡ 1:
This is equivalent to W2−1 = W1−1 = (I − I )−1=2 in W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ 6 1.
Let us now suppose there are three pairs of weightings:

The 5rst pair is WF2 = WF1 = (1 − )1=2 I .

The second pair is WS2 = (I − I√)1=2 and WS1
∼
WS1 = I − −1√G ∼ G.
∼ ∼
The third pair is WT2 WT2 = I − GG ∼ and WT1 WT1 = I − G ∼ G.

It is not diKcult to prove that

∼ ∼
WF2 WF2 6 WS2 WS2 ;
∼ ∼
WF1 WF1 6 WS1 WS1
and
∼ ∼
WF2 WF2 6 WT2 WT2 ;
∼ ∼
WF1 WF1 6 WT1 WT1 :
This means if there is a Gr satisfying
−1 −1
WF2 (G − Gr )WF1 ∞ 6 1
then it must satisfy
−1 −1
WS2 (G − Gr )WS1 ∞ 6 1;
−1 −1
WT2 (G − Gr )WT1 ∞ 6 1
but if there is a Gr satisfying
−1 −1
WS2 (G − Gr )WS1 ∞ 6 1
or
−1 −1
WT2 (G − Gr )WT1 ∞ 6 1
it is not necessary that
−1 −1
WF2 (G − Gr )WF1 ∞ 6 1:
 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110 103

−1 −1 −1 −1
Therefore, theoretically, there is more room for Gr in WS2 (G − Gr )WS1 ∞ or WT2 (G − Gr )WT1 ∞
−1 −1
reduction than in WF2 (G − Gr )WF1 ∞ reduction. Hence, we have a better chance of 5nding low order
controllers using W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction than using G − Gr ∞ reduction.
Since there is no optimization method for minimizing W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ , we present two satisfac-
tory approaches which can be used for 5nding the reduced order controller Kr based on making the norm,
W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ , small.

4. Block balanced truncating (BBT) algorithm

In this section, we present a method for deriving the reduced order controller Kr which is (P; 1) admissible
directly from W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ reduction.
Let
 
A B1 B2


P11 P12  
 
P= =C D D ; (9)
P21 P22  1 11 12 
C1 D21 D22
 
Ak Bk
K = ; (10)
C k Dk

where the order of K is n. Then

G = Fl (P; K); (11)

 
A + B2 LDk C2 B2 LCk B1 + B2 LDk D21
 
=
 Bk FC2 Ak + Bk FD22 Ck Bk FD21 ;
 (12)
C1 + D12 Dk FC2 D12 LCk D11 + D12 Dk FD21

where L = (I − Dk D22 )−1 and F = (I − D22 Dk )−1 .

In the following discussion, suppose D11 + D12 Dk FD21 = 0 without loss of generality.



A i Bi A o Bo
−1 −1
Let W1 = and W2 = . Then
Ci D i Co D o


AM BM
−1 −1
W2 GW1 = ;
CM DM

where
 
Ai 0 0 0
 
 0 Ao Bo (C1 + D12 Dk FC2 ) Bo D12 LCk 
 
AM =  ;
 (B1 + B2 LDk D21 )Ci 0 A + B2 LDk C2 B2 LCk 
 
Bk FD21 Di Ci 0 Bk FC2 Ak + Bk FD22 Ck
104 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110

 
Bi
 
 0 
 
BM =  ;
 (B1 + B2 LDk D21 )Di 
 
Bk FD21 Di

CM = 0 Co Do (C1 + D12 Dk FC2 ) Do D12 LCk ;

DM = 0:
For convenience, let
 
Ai 0 0
 
AM 11 =  0 Ao Bo (C1 + D12 Dk FC2 )  ;
(B1 + B2 LDk D21 )Ci 0 A + B2 LDk C2
 
0
 
AM 12 =  Bo D12 L  ;
B2 L

AM 21 = FD21 Di Ci 0 FC2 ;
 
Bi
 
BM 1 =  0 ;
(B1 + B2 LDk D21 )Di

CM 1 = 0 Co Do (C1 + D12 Dk FC2 ) :

Then


AM 11 AM 12 Ck
AM = ; (13)
Bk AM 21 Ak + Bk FD22 Ck


BM 1
BM = ; (14)
Bk FD21 Di

CM = CM 1 Do D12 LCk : (15)

M B;
Let PM and QM be the controllability and observability Gramians of W2−1 GW1−1 or (A; M D)
M C; M and be partitioned
M
compatibly with A in (13) as


PM 1 PM 12
M
P= ;

PM 12 PM 2


QM 1 QM 12
QM = 
:
QM 12 QM 2
Then there exists a nonsingular matrix T such that
T PM 2 T  = (T −1 ) QM 2 T −1 = diag(1 ; : : : ; n ) = ;
where i ¿ i+1 ¿ 0.
 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110 105

Transform and partition K as

 

−1
 Ar Ak12 Br
TAk T TBk  
K= = 
 Ak21 Ak22 Bk2 
−1
Ck T Dk
Cr Ck2 Dk
and Kr is obtained as


A r Br
Kr = :
C r Dk
Note that by substituting
 

 Ar Ak12 Br
A k Bk  
K= = 
 Ak21 Ak22 Bk2 
C k Dk
Cr Ck2 Dk
for Ak , Bk , Ck in (13) – (15), we get
 
AM 11 AM 12 Cr AM 12 Ck2
 
AM =  M
 Br A21 Ar + Br FD22 Cr Ak12 + Br FD22 Ck2  ;


AM 21 Ak21 + Bk2 FD22 Cr Ak22 + Bk2 FD22 Ck2

 
BM 1
 
BM =  
 Br FD21 Di  ;
Bk2 FD21 Di

CM = CM 1 Do D12 LCr Do D12 LCk2 ;

where
 M 
A11 AM 12 Cr BM 1
 M  −1 −1
 Br A21 Ar + Br FD22 Cr Br FD21 Di  = W2 Gr W1 :
CM 1 Do D12 LCr DM
Therefore, in this algorithm, truncating K to Kr is equivalent to truncating W2−1 GW1−1 to W2−1 Gr W1−1 .
There are two advantages of this algorithm. Firstly, the computational procedure is very simple and the
result always exists. Secondly, K need not be separated into stable part K1 and an anti-stable part K2 as in the
frequency weighted model reduction procedure. Therefore, the information contained in both the anti-stable
part K2 and stable part K1 is used in the reduction procedure. The main drawback of this algorithm is that
the stability of Gr and the performance of Gr cannot be predicted, but the e;ectiveness of the method can be
explained as follows:
From the state-space realization of W2−1 GW1−1 , we know that transforming K with T is equivalent to

transforming W2−1 GW1−1 with 0I T0 . This implies controllability and observability Gramians of W2−1 GW1−1


  −1

M M M M
become TPPM1
P12T and (T −1Q)1
QM
Q12T , respectively, which means W2−1 GW1−1 is block balanced. We also
12 12

know W2−1 Gr W1−1 is actually obtained from truncating W2−1 GW1−1 which is block balanced. From the experi-
ence of frequency weighted balanced truncation we can conclude that this method will work well in reducing
the following error: W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ .
106 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110

5. Structurally balanced truncating algorithm

In this section, we present another practical method for obtaining the low-order controller Kr which is (P; 1)
admissible, based on the structurally balanced truncating algorithm [19].
Suppose we already have (A; M B; M C; M D)
M from (13) – (15).
Then the next step depends on the existence of PM and QM such that


PM 1 0
PM = = diag(PM 1 ; PM 2 ) ¿ 0; (16)
0 PM 2


QM 1 0;
M
Q= = diag(QM 1 ; QM 2 ) ¿ 0 (17)
0 QM 2

and
 
AM PM + PM AM + BM BM 6 0; (18)

 
AM QM + QM AM + CM CM 6 0: (19)

Here PM and QM are not the same as in the last section and their existence is not obvious. There are no simple
suKcient conditions for the solvability of inequalities (18) and (19), but there is a simple necessary condition.
Substituting Eqs. (13) – (17) into inequalities (18) and (19) and simplifying, we have
   
AM 11 PM 1 + PM 1 AM 11 + BM 1 BM 1 6 0; AM 11 QM 1 + QM 1 AM 11 + CM 1 CM 1 6 0;

(Ak + Bk FD22 Ck )PM 2 + PM 2 (Ak + Bk FD22 Ck ) + (Bk FD21 Di )(Bk FD21 Di ) 6 0;

(Ak + Bk FD22 Ck ) QM 2 + QM 2 (Ak + Bk FD22 Ck ) + (Do D12 LCk ) (Do D12 LCk ) 6 0:

These equations imply that AM 11 and Ak + Bk FD22 Ck must be stable. Hence, this algorithm cannot continue if
either AM 11 or Ak + Bk FD22 Ck is unstable.
The next step of the algorithm involves simultaneous diagonalization of PM 2 and QM 2

T PM 2 T  = (T −1 ) QM 2 T −1 = diag(1 ; : : : ; n ) = 2 ;

where i ¿ i+1 ¿ 0.
Transform and partition K as
 

−1
 Ar Ak12 Br
TAk T TBk  
K= = 
 Ak21 Ak22 Bk2  :
−1
Ck T Dk
Cr Ck2 Dk

Then Kr is obtained as


A r Br
Kr = :
C r Dk

The above algorithm has an important advantage as stated in the following theorem.
 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110 107

Theorem 5.1. Let Gr be the closed-loop system with the reduced order controller Kr which is obtained from
the above algorithm. Then Gr is stable and
n
W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ 6 2 i : (20)
i=r+1

To prove the theorem we need the following lemma which was proved in [10].

Lemma 5.1 (Zhou [19]). Let G be stable with a state space realization
 

 A1 A2 B1 ;
A B  
G= =  A3 A4 B2 : 
C D
C1 C2 D
and suppose there exists a diagonal matrix  = diag(1 ; 2 ) ¿ 0 satisfying
A + A + BB 6 0;
A  + A + C  C 6 0:
De3ne


A 1 B1
Ĝ = :
C1 D

Then Ĝ is stable and G − Ĝ∞ 6 2tr(2 ).

The symbols used in the above lemma are independent of the symbols used in the rest of the paper.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. Let T1 be such that

T1 PM 1 T1 = (T1−1 ) QM 1 T1−1 = diag(1 ; : : : ; r ) = 1 ¿ 0
and de5ne TM = diag(T1 ; T ) and  = diag(1 ; 2 ). Then transform W2−1 GW1−1 as

−1 

TM AM TM TM BM Â B̂
, :
CM TM
−1
DM Ĉ DM

The new realization of W2−1 GW1−1 satis5es

 
 +  + B̂B̂ 6 0;
 
  +  + Ĉ Ĉ 6 0:
We already know that truncating K to Kr equals truncating W2−1 GW1−1 to W2−1 Gr W1−1 . Applying Lemma 3.1


 B̂
to ; we know that W2−1 Gr W1−1 is stable and
Ĉ DM
n
W2−1 (G − Gr )W1−1 ∞ 6 2 i :
i=r+1

Since W1 and W2 are stable; Gr = W2 W2−1 Gr W1−1 W1 is also stable.

Remark 5.1. It is easy to see that PM and QM are not unique if they exist. Considering the error bounds given
n
in Theorem 3.1; it is desirable to minimize i=r+1 !i1=2 (P; M when we choose PM and Q;
M Q) M but such PM and QM
108 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110

are diKcult to 5nd since the involved optimization is not convex. A practical way to choose PM and QM is to
 
minimize the tr(PM 2 ) subject to the constraint AM PM + PM AM + BM BM 6 0 and to minimize the tr(QM 2 ) subject to the
 
constraint AM QM + QM AM + CM CM 6 0. These optimizations can be done using the LMI-LAB.

6. Examples

In this section, we consider a four-disk control system studied by Enns and was quoted in [18] as an
example to show the e;ectiveness of Goddard and Glover’s performance preserving controller reduction. Here
we use this example to illustrate the BBT method presented in the paper and we also compare the results
with the results of Goddard and Glover’s performance preserving controller reduction [18]. In the BBT-method
calculations we have used second pair of weights de5ned in Section 3.
Consider the system given by (9) where
 
−0:161 −6:004 −0:58215 −9:9835 −0:40727 −3:982 0 0
 
 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
 
 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
 
 
A= 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0;
 
 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
 
 
 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 
 
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
   
1 0 1
   
0 0 0
   
   
0 0 0
   
   
0 0 0
   
B1 =   ; B2 =   ;
0 0 0
   
   
0 0 0
   
   
0 0 0
   
0 0 0


0 0 0 0 0:00055 0:011 0:00132 0:018
C1 = ;
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

C2 = 0 0 0:0064432 0:0023196 0:071252 1:0002 0:10455 0:99551 ;



0 0 0

D11 = D12 = D21 = 0 1 D22 = 0:

0 0 1
In [18], an eighth order suboptimal controller K is designed such that the H∞ norm of the closed-loop system
Fl (P; K) is ¡ 1:2. The controller order is reduced using several methods and the results are listed in Table
1. Since we only compare performance preserving balanced controller reduction methods, in Table 1 we only
quote the results from balanced reduction. The following abbreviations are used in Table 1.
 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110 109

Table 1
H∞ norms of the closed-loop system (Fl (P; Kr ))

Order of Kr 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

UW U 1.321 U U U U U
SW 1.327 1.199 2.27 1.47 23.5 U U
PWA 1.196 1.196 1.199 1.197 U 4.99 U
PWRCF 1.2 1.196 1.207 1.195 2.98 1.674 U
PWLCF 1.197 1.196 U 1.197 U U U
BBT 1.198 1.196 1.204 1.197 3.906 1.954 U

UW Unweighted reduction: K − Kr ∞ . The order of K is reduced directly by balanced truncation without

any weightings.
SW Stability weighted reduction: Wa (K −Kr )∞ where Wa =(I −P22 K)−1 P22 . The order of K is reduced
by the frequency weighted balanced truncation method.
PWA Performance weighted additive reduction [18]:
PWRCF Performance weighted right coprime factor reduction [18]:
PWLCF Performance weighted left coprime factor reduction [18]: These are three variations of Goddard and
Glover’s performance preserving controller reduction method, see [18] for details.
U Unstable closed-loop system.

When we applied our proposed block balanced truncating method to this example, we also obtained a eighth
order suboptimal controller K and the H∞ norm of the closed-loop system Fl (P; K) is 1.196. In Table 1,
note that some results when using PWA, PWRCF and PWLCF methods are slightly better than the results of
the proposed BBT method. However, these methods use optimization technique proposed in [17], where as
our technique does not require optimization.

7. Conclusion

In this paper, two new techniques for computing performance preserving reduced-order controllers are
proposed. The methods are the block balanced and the structurally balanced truncating algorithms. In terms of
computational complexity, the block balanced truncating algorithm is easier to implement than the structurally
balanced truncating algorithm. The disadvantage of the structurally balanced method is it requires solving
optimization problems and the solution may not exist. However, the block balanced truncating algorithm is
simple, easy to compute and the solution always exists. Furthermore, unstable controllers need not be separated
into stable and unstable subsystems which means that the information in the unstable part is also used in the
reduction process. Numerical example shows that the block balanced truncating algorithm compares well with
other well-known controller reduction methods [18].

References

[1] U.M. Al-Saggaf, G.F. Franklin, Model reduction via balanced aealization: an extension and frequency weighted techniques, IEEE
Trans. Automat. Control AC-33 (1988) 687–692.
[2] B.D.O. Anderson, Y. Liu, Controller reduction: concepts and approaches, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control AC-34 (1989) 802–812.
[3] X. Chen, K. Zhou, H2 and H∞ controller reductions with guaranteed performance, Proceedings of the 35th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, 1996, 897pp.
[4] J.C. Chen, K. Zhou, B.C. Chand, Closed-loop controller reduction by a structured truncation approach, Proceedings of the 33th IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, Lake Buena Vista, 1994, pp. 2726 –2731.
110 G. Wang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 46 (2002) 99 – 110

[5] D.F. Enns, Model reduction with balanced realizations: an error bound and a frequency weighted generalization, Proceedings of the
23rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Las Vegas, NM, 1984, pp. 127–132.
[6] P.J. Goddard, K. Glover, Controller reduction: weights for stability and performance preservation, Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE
Conference on Decision and Control, San Antonio, TX, 1993, pp. 2903–2908.
[7] P.J. Goddard, K. Glover, Performance preserving frequency weighted controller approximation: a coprime factorization approach,
Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Lake Buena Vista, 1994, pp. 2720 –2725.
[8] P.J. Goddard, K. Glover, Controller approximation: approaches for preserving H∞ performance, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 43,
858–871.
[9] G.A. Latham, B.D.O. Anderson, Frequency weighted optimal Hankel norm approximation of stable transfer functions, Systems
Control Lett. 5 (1984) 229–236.
[10] K.E. Lenz, P.P. Khargonekar, J.C. Doyle, Controller order reduction with guaranteed stability and performance, Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, 1988, pp. 1697–1698.
[11] M.J.D. Powell, Approximation Theory and Methods, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991.
[12] V. Sreeram, B.D.O. Anderson, Frequency weighted balanced reduction technique: a generalization and an error bound, Proceedings
of the 34th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Vol. 4, New Orleans, LA, 1995, pp. 3576 –3581.
[13] V. Sreeram, B.D.O. Anderson, A.G. Madievski, New results on frequency weighted balanced reduction technique, Proceedings of
American Control Conference, Washington, 1995, pp. 4004 – 4009.
[14] G. Wang, V. Sreeram, W. Q. Liu, Performance preserving controller reduction via additive perturbation of closed loop transfer
function, Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 1998, pp. 623– 628.
[15] G. Wang, V. Sreeram, W.Q. Liu, Performance preserving controller reduction via additive perturbation of closed loop transfer
function, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 46 (2001) 771–775.
[16] P.M.R. Wortelboer, Frequency-weighted balanced reduction of closed-loop mechanical servo-systems: theory and tools, Thesis, Delft
University of Technology, 1994.
[17] K. Zhou, Frequency-weighted L∞ norm and optimal Hankel norm model reduction, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 40 (10) (1995).
[18] K. Zhou, J.C. Doyle, K. Glover, Robust and Optimal Control, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli;s, NJ, 1996.
[19] K. Zhou, C. D’Souza, J.R. Cloutier, Structurally balanced controller order reduction with guaranteed closed-loop performance,
Systems Control Lett. 24 (1995) 235–242.