Control of Complex Systems pp 1-27 | Cite as

# Decompositions of Large-Scale Systems

## Abstract

From the standpoint of control theory, it is usually convenient to represent a large-scale system as a collection of interconnected subsystems. In certain cases such a decomposition can be derived directly from the physical description of the problem, which suggests a “natural” grouping of the state variables. More often than not, however, the only information that we have about the system dynamics comes from a mathematical model whose properties provide little or no insight into how the subsystems should be chosen. In order to deal with such problems in a systematic manner, one obviously needs to develop decomposition algorithms that are based exclusively on the structure of the underlying equations.

In this chapter we will consider three decompositions, all of which are designed to exploit the sparsity of large-scale state space models. The algorithms are based on graph theoretic representations, which provide the necessary mathematical framework for partitioning the system. We should also point out that each of the three decompositions corresponds to a *different* gain matrix structure. With that in mind, it is fair to say that the purpose of these decompositions is not only to simplify the computation, but also to help us identify the most appropriate type of control law for a given large-scale system. We will take a closer look at this aspect of the problem in Chaps. 2 and 3, which are devoted to control design with information structure constraints.

### Keywords

Rium Decen Wallach## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

### References

- Amano, M., A. I. Zečević and D. D. Šiljak (1996). An improved block-parallel Newton method via epsilon decompositions for load-flow calculations.
*IEEE Transactions on Power Systems*,**11**, 1519–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Asratian, A., T. Denley and R. Häggkvist (1998).
*Bipartite Graphs and Their Applications*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.MATHGoogle Scholar - Csermely, P. (2006).
*Weak Links: Stabilizers of Complex Systems from Proteins to Social Networks*. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar - Duff, I. S. (1981). On algorithms for obtaining a maximal transversal.
*ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software*,**7**, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Duff, I. S., A. M. Erisman and J. K. Reid (1986).
*Direct Methods for Sparse Matrices*. Clarendon, Oxford.MATHGoogle Scholar - Ferrari, R. M. G., T. Parisini and M. M. Polycarpou (2009). Distributed fault diagnosis with overlapping decompositions: An adaptive approximation approach.
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*,**54**, 794–799.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Finney, J. D. and B. S. Heck (1996). Matrix scaling for large-scale system decomposition.
*Automatica*,**32**, 1177–1181.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Gačić, N., A. I. Zečević and D. D. Šiljak (1998). Coherency recognition using epsilon decomposition.
*IEEE Transactions on Power Systems*,**13**, 314–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Gajić, Z. and X. Shen (1993).
*Parallel Algorithms for Optimal Control of Large Scale Linear Systems*. Springer, London.MATHGoogle Scholar - George, A. and J. W. H. Liu (1981).
*Computer Solution of Large Sparse Positive Definite Systems*. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.MATHGoogle Scholar - George, A. and J. W. H. Liu (1989). The evolution of the minimal degree ordering algorithm.
*SIAM Review*,**31**, 1–19.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - George, A., J. Gilbert and J. W. H. Liu (Eds.) (1993).
*Graph Theory and Sparse Matrix Computation*. Springer, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar - Gould, R. (1988).
*Graph Theory*. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Menlo Park, CA.MATHGoogle Scholar - Happ, H. H. (1971).
*Diakoptics and Networks*. Academic, New York.Google Scholar - Iftar, A. (1993). Decentralized estimation and control with overlapping input, state and output decomposition.
*Automatica*,**29**, 511–516.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Ikeda, M. and D. D. Šiljak (1986). Overlapping decentralized control with input, state and output inclusion.
*Control Theory and Advanced Technology*,**2**, 155–172.Google Scholar - Ikeda, M., D. D. Šiljak and D. E. White (1984). An inclusion principle for dynamic systems.
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*,**29**, 244–249.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Peponides, G. M. and P. K. Kokotovic (1983). Weak connections, time scales, and aggregation of nonlinear systems.
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*,**28**, 729–735.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Pothen, A., H. D. Simon and K. P. Liou (1990). Partitioning sparse matrices with eigenvectors of graphs.
*SIAM Journal of Matrix Analysis and Applications*,**11**, 430–452.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Sezer, M. E. and D. D. Šiljak (1986). Nested ε decompositions and clustering of complex systems.
*Automatica*,**22**, 321–331.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Sezer, M. E. and D. D. Šiljak (1991). Nested epsilon decompositions and clustering of linear systems: weakly coupled and overlapping blocks.
*SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications*,**12**, 521–533.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Šiljak, D. D. (1978).
*Large-Scale Dynamic Systems: Stability and Structure*. North Holland, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar - Šiljak, D. D. (1991).
*Decentralized Control of Complex Systems*. Academic, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar - Šiljak, D. D. and A. I. Zečević (1995). A nested decomposition algorithm for parallel computations of very large sparse systems.
*Mathematical Problems in Engineering*,**1**, 41–57.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Stanković, S. S. and D. D. Šiljak (2001). Contractibility of overlapping decentralized control.
*Systems and Control Letters*,**44**, 189–199.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Tarjan, R. (1972). Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms.
*SIAM Journal on Computing*,**1**, 146–160.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Tinney, W. F. and J. W. Walker (1967). Direct solutions of sparse equations by optimally ordered triangular factorization.
*Proceedings of the IEEE*,**55**, 1801–1809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Wallach, Y. (1986).
*Calculations and Programs for Power System Networks*. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar - Zečević, A. I. and D. D. Šiljak (1994a). A block-parallel Newton method via overlapping epsilon decompositions.
*SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications*,**15**, 824–844.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Zečević, A. I. and D. D. Šiljak (1994b). Balanced decompositions of sparse systems for multilevel parallel processing.
*IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems*,**41**, 220–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zečević, A. I. and N. Gačić (1999). A partitioning algorithm for the parallel solution of differential-algebraic equations by waveform relaxation.
*IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems*,**46**, 421–434.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zečević, A. I. and D. D. Šiljak (1999). Parallel solutions of very large sparse Lyapunov equations by balanced BBD decompositions.
*IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control*,**44**, 612–618.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Zečević, A. I. and D. D. Šiljak (2005). A decomposition-based control strategy for large, sparse dynamic systems.
*Mathematical Problems in Engineering*,**11**, 33–48.Google Scholar