Regional Boundary Observability with Constraints of the Gradient

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of observability with constraints of the gradient for distributed parabolic system evolving in spatial domain Ω, and which the state gradient is to be observed only on a part of the boundary of the system evolution domain. It consists in the reconstruction of the initial state gradient which must be between two prescribed functions in a subregion Γ of Ω. Two necessary conditions are given. The first is formulated in terms of the subdifferential associated with a minimized functional, and the second uses the Lagrangian multiplier method. Nu-merical illustrations are given to show the efficiency of the second approach and lead to open questions.

Share and Cite:

Bourray, H. , Boutoulout, A. and Baddi, M. (2012) Regional Boundary Observability with Constraints of the Gradient. Intelligent Control and Automation, 3, 319-328. doi: 10.4236/ica.2012.34037.

1. Introduction

For a distributed parameter system evolving on a special domain Ω, the observability concept has been widely developed and survey of these developments can be found [1-3]. Later, the regional observability notion was introduced, and interesting results have been obtained [4,5], in particular, the possibility to observe a state only on a subregion interior to Ω. These results have been extended to the case where is a part of the boundary of Ω [6]. Then the concepts of regional gradient observability and regional observability with constraints were introduced and developed by [7-11] in the case where the subregion is interior to Ω and the case where the subregion is a part of. Here we are interested to approach the initial state gradient and the reconstructed state between two prescribed functions given only on a boundary subregion of system evolution domain. There are many reasons motivating this problem: first the mathematical model of system is obtained from measurements or from approximation techniques and is very often affected by perturbations. Consequently, the solution of such a system is approximately known, and second, in various real problems the target required to be between two bounds. This is the case, for example of a biological reactor “Figure 1” in which the concentration regulation of a substrate at the bottom of the reactor is observed between two levels.

The paper is organized as follows: first we provide results on regional observability for distributed parameter system of parabolic type and we give definitions related to regional boundary observability with constraints of the gradient of parabolic systems. The next section is focused on the reconstruction of the initial state gradient by using an approach based on sub-differential tools. The same objective is achieved in Section 4 by applying the multiplier Lagrangian approach which gives a practice algorithm. The last section is devoted to compute the obtained algorithm with numerical example and simulations.

Figure 1. Regulation of the concentration flux of the substratum at a bottom of the reactor.

2. Problem Statement

Let Ω be an open bounded subset of IRn (n = 2, 3) with regular boundary and a boundary subregion of. For a given time, let and.

Consider a parabolic system defined by

(1)

with the measurements given by the output function

(2)

where is linear and depends on the considered sensors structure.

The observation space is.

A is a second order differential linear and elliptic operator which generates a strongly continuous semigroup

in the Hilbert space.

A denotes the adjoint operators of A.

The initial state and its gradient are assumeed to be unknown. The system (1) is autonomous and (2) allows writing

We define the operator

which is linear bounded with the adjoint K* given by

Consider the operator

While denotes its adjoint given by

where v is a solution of the Dirichlet’s problem

Let

With is the extension of the trace operator of order zero which is linear and surjective., denotes the adjoint operators of and.

For, we consider

while denotes its adjoint.

We recall the following definitions

Definition 2.1

1.    The system (1) together with the output (2) is said to be exactly (respectively weakly) gradient observable on Γ if

(respectively ).

2.    The sensor (D, f) (or a sequence of sensors) is said to be gradient strategic on Γ if the observed system is weakly gradient observable on Γ.

For more details, we refer the reader to [11].

Let and be two functions defined in such that a.e. on Γ for all. In the sequel we set

Definition 2.2

1).  The system (1) together with the output (2) is said to be exactly -gradient observable on Γ if

.

2).  The system (1) together with the output (2) is said to be weakly -gradient observable on Γ if

.

3).  A sensor (D, f) is said to be -gradient strategic on Γ if the observed system is weakly -gradient observable on Γ.

Remark 2.3

1).  If the system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly -gradient observable on Γ then it is weakly -gradient observable on Γ.

2).  If the system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly gradient observable on Γ then it is exactly -gradient observable on Γ.

3).  If the system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly (resp. weakly) -gradient observable on Γ1 then it is exactly (resp. weakly) -gradient observable on any.

There exist systems which are not weakly gradient observable on a subregion Γ but which are weakly -gradient observable on Γ.

Example 2.4

Consider the two-dimensional system described by the diffusion equation

(3)

where, the time interval is ]0, T[ and let Γ be the boundary subregion given by. We consider the sensor (D, f) defined by and

.

Thus, the output function is given by

(4)

The operator

generates a semigroup in given by

(5)

where      

and           .

Then we have the result:

Proposition 2.5

The system (3) together with the output (4) is not weakly gradient observable on Γ but it is weakly -gradient observable on Γ.

Proof

Let g1 be the function defined in Ω by

be the gradient to be observed on Γ and show that g1 is not weakly gradient observable on Γ.

we have. Consequently, the gradient g1 is not weakly gradient observable on Γ. Then the system (3) together with the output (4) is not weakly gradient observable on Γ. but we can show that it is weakly -gradient observable on Γ, indeed, for

we have

which show that the gradient g2 is weakly gradient observable on Γ.

For and, we have that, then the system (3) together with the output (4) is weakly -gradient observable on Γ.

Proposition 2.6

The system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly -gradient observable on Γ if and only if

Proof

-       If

then, we can find such that

then where and with, then

and thus

which shows that the system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly -gradient observable on Γ.

-       Assume that the system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly -gradient observable on Γ, which is equivalent to

then there exists and such that which gives

.

Let and, then z = y1 + y2 with and which shows that

and therefore

Proposition 2.7

The system (1) together with the output (2) is weakly -gradient observable on Γ if and only if

Proof

-       Suppose that

then, there exists such that

so, where and

with, , then

and

therefore

which implies that the system (1) together with the output (2) is weakly -gradient observable on Γ.

-       Suppose that the system (1) together with the output (2) is weakly -gradient observable on Γ, which is equivalent to

then there exists and a sequence of elements of .such that

which gives

.

Let

and

then with and

which shows that

and therefore

3. Subdifferential Approach

This section is focused on the characterization of the initial state of the system (1) together with the output (2) in the nonempty subregion Γ with constraints on the gradient by using an approach based on subdifferential tools [12]. So we consider the optimization problem

(6)

where

Let us denote by

-       the set of functions

proper, lower semi-continuous (l.s.c.) and convex.

-       For the polar function f* of f be given by

where

.

-       For the set

denotes the subdifferential of f at y0, then we have if and only if

.

-       For D a nonempty subset of

denotes the indicator functional of D.

With these notations the problem (6) is equivalent to the problem:

(7)

The solution of this problem may be characterized by the following result.

Proposition 3.1

If the system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly -gradient observable on Γ, then y* is a solution of (7) if and only if and

Proof

We have that y* is a solution of (7) if and only if

with

since

Y is closed, convex and nonempty, then

Also, according to the hypothesis of the - gradient observability on Γ, we have

.

Now F is continuous, then

it follows that y* is a solution of (7) if and only if

.

On the other hand F is Frechet-differentiable, then

and y* is a solution of (7) if and only if

which is equivalent to and

and consequently and

4. Lagrangian Multiplier Approach

In this section we propose to solve the problem (6) using the Lagrangian multiplier method [13]. Also we describe a numerical algorithm which allows the computation of the initial state gradient on the boundary subregion Γ and finally we illustrate the obtained results by numerical simulation which tests the efficiency of the numerical scheme.

From the definition of the exact -gradient observability on Γ all state we will consider are of the form such that. So the last minimization problem is equivalent to

(8)

with

.

Then we have the following result:

Proposition 4.1

If the system (1) together with the output (2) is exactly observable in Ω, exactly -boundary gradient observable on Γ with, , then the solution of (8) is given by

(9)

and the gradient in Γ of the solution of the problem (6) is given by

(10)

where is the solution of

(11)

while

denotes the projection operator, and

.

Proof

The system (1) together with the output (2) is -gradient observable on Γ then and the problem (8) has a solution. The problem (8) is equivalent to the saddle point problem

(12)

where

We associate with problem (12) the Lagrangian functional L defined by the formula

for all

.

Let us recall that is a saddle point of L if

-      

-       The system (1) together with the output (2) is -gradient observable on Γ and, therefore, there exist and such that

which implies

as

moreover, there exists such that

then L admits a saddle point.

-       Let be a saddle point of L and prove that is the restriction gradient on Γ of the solution of (6).

We have

for all

.

The first inequality above gives

.

which implies that and hence

.

The second inequality means that

we have

.

Since we have

for all

.

Taking

we obtain

which implies that minimize, and so whose the restriction of the gradient on Γ is minimize the function for all the states which are of the form with.

-       Now if is a saddle point of L, then the following assumptions hold

(13)

(14)

(15)

From (13) we have

Then

we assume that the system is observable in Ω, then is invertible, and

so y* is given by

Then

with

.

By (14) we have

Then

Corollary 4.2

If the system (1) together with the output (2) is observable in Ω, exactly gradient observable on Γ and the function

is coercive, then for ρ convenably chosen, the system (11) has a unique solution.

Proof

We have

then

So if is a saddle point of L then the system (11) is equivalent to

It follows that y* is a fixed point of the function

Now the operator is coercive, so such that

It follows that

and we deduce that if

then is a contractor map, which implies the uniqueness of y* and.

4.1. Numerical Approach

In this section we describe a numerical scheme which allows the calculation of the initial state gradient between and on the subregion Γ.

We have seen in the previous section that in order to reconstruct the initial state between and, it is sufficient to solve the Equations (9)-(11), which can be done by the following algorithm of Uzawa type. Let, if we choose two functions

and

then we obtain the following algorithm (Table 1).

4.2. Simulation Results

In this section we give a numerical example which

Table 1. Algorithm.

illustrates the efficiency of the previous approach. The results are related to the choice of the subregion, the initial conditions and the sensor location. Let us consider a two-dimensional system defined in and described by the following parabolic equation

The measurements are given by a pointwise sensor with b is the location of the sensor and. Let and

the initial gradient to be observed on Γ with g1 and g2 are given by

and

For

and

with

Applying the previous algorithm for, we obtain

“Figures 2 and 3” show that the estimated initial gradient is between and on the subregion Γ, and show that the sensor located in is -gradient strategic on Γ. The estimated initial gradient is obtained with reconstruction error.

If we take, we obtain “Figure 4

Figure 2. The first component of the estimated initial gradient, α1(·) and β1(·) on Γ.

Figure 3. The second component of the estimated initial gradient, α2(·) and β2(·) on Γ.

shows that the estimated initial gradient is not between and on the subregion Γ, which implies that the sensor located in is not -gradient strategic on Γ.

Remark 4.2

The above results are obtained with pointwise measurement, and one can obtain similar results with zone (internal or boundary) measurement.

5. Conclusions

The problem of -boundary gradient observability on Γ of parabolic system is considered. The initial state gradient is characterized by two approaches based on regional observability tools in connection with Lagrangian and subdifferential techniques.

Moreover, we have explored à useful numerical algorithm which allows the computation of initial state gradient and which is illustrated by numerical example and simulations. Various questions are still open. The characterization of -boundary gradient observability by a rank condition as stated for usual gradient observability or regional gradient observability of distributed parameter systems is of great interest. This

Figure 4. The first component of the estimated initial gradient, α1(·) and β1(·) on Γ.

question is under consideration and will be the subject of the future paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] R. F. Curtain and A. J. Pritchard, “Infinite Dimensional Linear Systems Theory,” Springer Lecture Notes in Control and Informations, Science, Springer, New York, 1978.
[2] R. F. Curtain and H. Zwart, “An Introduction to Infinite Dimensional Linear Systems Theory,” Texts in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 21, Springer, New York, 1995.
[3] A. El Jai and A. J. Pritchard, “Sensors and Actuators in the Analysis of Distributed Systems,” Wiley, New York, 1988.
[4] M. Amouroux, A. El Jai and E. Zerrik, “Regional Observability of Distributed Systems,” International Journal of Systems Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1994, pp. 301-313.
[5] A. El Jai, M. C. Simon and E. Zerrik, “Regional Observability and Sensor Structures,” International Journal of Sensors and Actuators, Vol. 39, No. 2, 1993, pp. 95102. doi:10.1016/0924-4247(93)80204-T
[6] E. Zerrik, L. Badraoui and A. El Jai, “Sensors and Regional Boundary State Reconstruction of Parabolic Systems,” Sensors and Actuators Journal, Vol. 75, 1999, pp. 102-117. doi:10.1016/S0924-4247(98)00293-3
[7] A. Boutoulout, H. Bourray and M. Baddi, “Constrained Observability for Parabolic Systems,” International Journal of Mathematical Analysis, Vol. 5, No. 35, 2011, pp. 1695-1710.
[8] A. Boutoulout, H. Bourray, M. Baddi and F. Z. El Alaoui, “Regional Boundary Observability with Constraints,” International Review of Automation Control, Vol. 4, No. 6, 2011, pp. 846-854.
[9] E. Zerrik and H. Bourray, “Gradient Observability for Diffusion Systems,” International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2003, pp. 39-50.
[10] E. Zerrik and H. Bourray, “Flux Reconstruction: Sensors and Simulations,” Sensors and Actuators A, Vol. 109, 2003, pp. 34-46. doi:10.1016/S0924-4247(03)00358-3
[11] E. Zerrik, H. Bourray and A. El Jai, “Regional Flux Reconstruction for Parabolic Systems,” International Journal of Systems Science, Vol. 34, No. 12, 2003, pp. 641-650. doi:10.1080/00207720310001601028
[12] J. P. Aubin, “L’analyse Non Linéaire et ses Motivations Economiques,” Masson, 1984.
[13] M. Fortin and R. Glowinski, “Méthodes de Lagrangien Augmenté. Applications à la Résolution Numérique des Problèmes Aux Limites,” Dunod, 1982.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.