Sieber, J. (2006) - Dynamics of Delayed Relay Systems.: University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research
Sieber, J. (2006) - Dynamics of Delayed Relay Systems.: University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research
Sieber, J. (2006) - Dynamics of Delayed Relay Systems.: University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research
https://doi.org/10.1088/0951-7715/19/11/001
This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the
published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/user-guides/explore-bristol-research/ebr-terms/
Dynamics of delayed relay systems
J Sieber
Bristol Centre of Applied Nonlinear Mathematics, Dept. of Engineering
Mathematics, University of Bristol, U.K.,
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. The paper studies the dynamics near periodic orbits in dynamical
systems with relays (switches) that switch only after a fixed delay. As a motivating
application, we study the problem of stabilizing an unstable equilibrium by
feedback control in the presence of a delay in the control loop. We show that
saddle-type equilibria can be stabilized to a periodic orbit by a switch even if this
switch is subject to an arbitrarily large delay. This is in contrast to linear static
feedback control, which fails when the delay is larger than a problem-dependent
critical value. Our analysis is based on the reduction of the return map near a
generic periodic orbit to a finite-dimensional map. This map is smooth if the
periodic orbit satisfies two genericity conditions. A violation of any of these two
conditions causes a discontinuity-induced bifurcation of the periodic orbit. We
derive asymptotic expressions for the piecewise smooth return map for each of
these two codimension-one bifurcations. This analysis shows that the introduction
of a small delay into the switching decision can induce chaos in a relay system
that had a single stable periodic orbit without delay. This small-delay behaviour
is fundamentally different from smooth dynamical systems.
1. Introduction
This paper is concerned with dynamical systems with delayed relays. Relay systems
follow two different smooth vector fields in two different regions of their physical space.
Specifically, we consider the effects of a time delay in the decision when to switch from
one vector field to the other. As an initial motivation let us consider the problem of
stabilizing an unstable equilibrium by feedback in the presence of delay in the feedback
loop, which is a typical situation in applications. For example, a controlled inverted
(massless and frictionless) pendulum on a cart, as shown in figure 1, is governed by
the equation
θ̈ = sin θ − F cos θ. (1)
In (1), the dependent variable θ is the inclination angle of the pendulum. The force
F is applied as a feedback to the cart with the goal of stabilizing thep
unstable upright
position θ = 0; see figure 1. Time has been rescaled to units of 2L/(3g) in (1)
where L is the length of the pendulum and g describes the gravitational acceleration.
This implies that a fixed reaction time in the application of the feedback force F (θ, θ̇)
gives a delay τ in the arguments of F which increases for decreasing L. The inverted
pendulum is a prototype for balancing tasks in robotics and biomechanics [1, 2], and
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 2
Figure 1. Sketch of the setup for the controlled inverted pendulum on a cart.
a textbook example in control theory [3] and the study of delay effects [4]. Let us
consider the following question:
Problem 1 (Balancing) Let τ > 0 be a given, potentially large, delay. Find a
function F : R2 → R such that the feedback law F (θ(t − τ ), θ̇(t − τ )) inserted into (1)
is able to stabilize the upright position θ = 0.
For linear F this is impossible
√ as soon as the delay τ exceeds a certain critical value τc .
The critical delay τc = 2 is derived in the textbook [4] for the classical PD control
law F (θ(t − τ ), θ̇(t − τ )) = aθ(t − τ ) + bθ̇(t − τ ). The works [5, 6] have found critical
delays also for other specific linear control laws. Reference [7] presents a complete
stabilizability analysis for two-dimensional linear systems with static feedback subject
to time-delay, giving the critical delay in dependence of all relevant system parameters.
The references [8, 9] include small oscillations and other nonlinear phenomena, which
occur for delays close the critical value, into their study. A conclusion of [6] is that,
even if one accepts small stable oscillations around the upright position as successful
balancing, the restriction on the delay cannot be relaxed substantially beyond the
critical value obtained from the linear theory.
In order to overcome this fundamental restriction, we consider a relay switch in
(1) of the form
F = εsgn[g(θ(t − τ ), θ̇(t − τ ))], (2)
2 2
where g : R → R is a smooth or piecewise affine function dividing R into two
simple domains G1 = {g < 0} and G2 = {g ≥ 0}. A feedback of the form (2) can
never stabilize the equilibrium θ = 0 perfectly but will, at best, admit small stable
oscillations that switch back and forth between F = ε and F = −ε [10]. If we accept
small oscillations as successful balancing then a relay switch F of the form (2) can
achieve stabilization [11]. Surprisingly, one can even construct a stabilizing feedback
of form (2) for any given delay τ , thus, removing any restriction on the delay. In
section 5 we will give a geometric illustration how to construct the switching function
g for a given delay τ for the inverted pendulum (1) and prove the following general
result:
Theorem 2 (Existence of stable periodic orbits) Let f : Rn × R → Rn be
smooth and let ẋ = f (x, 0) have a saddle equilibrium x0 . Let τ > 0 be arbitrarily
large and ε > 0 be sufficiently small. If the pair (∂x f (x0 , 0), ∂u f (x0 , 0)) is controllable
then there exists a smooth function g : Rn → R such that
ẋ = f (x, εsgn[g(x(t − τ ))])
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 3
to the well-established results of the bifurcation theory for piecewise smooth maps
[13, 14, 15, 16].
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines how the results of this paper
relate to previous and recent studies on the dynamics of piecewise smooth ordinary and
delay differential equations, and how the result of Theorem 2 relates to common delay
compensation techniques in control theory and engineering. Section 3 revisits some
common notation for the definition of the forward evolution of DDEs, also pointing out
the differences to the case of smooth DDEs. Section 4 shows under which conditions
the local return map of a periodic orbit reduces to a finite dimensional smooth map.
Section 5 first shows how one can construct a switching law g in (2) that gives rise to
a stable periodic orbit for the inverted pendulum in the presence of an arbitrary delay.
This construction reveals already the main ideas of the proof for the general result
in Theorem 2. The section also lists the main differences between the illustrating
example and the general n-dimensional case. The detailed proof of Theorem 2 can be
found in Appendix C. Section 6 studies the two codimension-one bifurcations of slowly
oscillating periodic orbits, stating secondary non-degeneracy conditions and deriving
asymptotic expressions for the return maps. The sections 4, 5 and 6, which contain
technical material and general theoretical results, include also simple but instructive
examples illustrating the main concepts and ideas. More technical parts of the proofs
for statements in the sections 4, 5 and 6 are given in separate appendices.
2. Background
perturbations, including periodic forcing. The references [24, 25, 26] have studied other
simple piecewise linear systems (typically with a two-dimensional physical space). In
contrast to the studies of (4) these investigations have found a huge variety of different
dynamics such as chaos [26] or a complex network of periodic orbits [24, 25]. The
different regimes are connected by grazing or collision events that show similarities
to those in impacting or dry-friction systems [14]. However, even the behaviour of
simple prototype systems such as studied in [24, 25, 26] is far from being classified
completely.
In this paper we adopt a different approach. We consider a general system of
form (3) and assume that it has a periodic orbit x̃(t) (t ∈ [−p, 0]) that has a finite
number of switchings between the vector fields. Then we study the dynamics near
this periodic orbit and its bifurcations. In this way the results of our paper will be
more general than studies of specific classes of examples such as [10, 24, 25, 26] but all
statements are valid only locally. The consideration of only two vector fields in (3) is
not really a restriction when one studies the local dynamics near a particular periodic
orbit.
A further motivation for the study of the general system (3) is its connection with
smooth delay differential equations (DDEs) with steep nonlinearities. Often one can
start from (3) as a limiting case where the existence of stable periodic orbits is easy
to prove and then deduce the persistence of these orbits for smooth DDEs close to (3)
[27]. Reference [24] also continued periodic orbits of (3) approximately by standard
numerical software for smooth DDEs after ‘smoothing’ the discontinuity in (3). The
limit turns out to be well-behaved if the periodic orbit is not close to one of the
bifurcations discussed in section 6.
Finally, let us put Problem 1 and Theorem 2 into perspective compared to
classical delay compensation techniques in control theory and engineering. The studies
[4, 5, 6, 7] and Theorem 2 are restricted to static feedback. That is, the feedback
law (for example F in (1)) is only a function of a single instance of the delayed
state. Classical delay compensation techniques that can cope with an arbitrarily
large delay rely on dynamic feedback where the feedback depends on a predictor,
obtained by a real-time solution of a functional equation (see, for example, [28, 29]).
The fact that the basin of attraction of the periodic orbit in Theorem 2 will, in
general, be exponentially small for large delay τ is only formally a difference to classical
dynamic feedback schemes. Even though methods based on functional predictors can
be globally asymptotically stable on the linear level, they have exponentially large
transients if the initial condition is not already exponentially close to the equilibrium.
See also [30] for a survey on implementation problems of functional predictors and
how to overcome them. In the case of small delays polynomial forward prediction,
such as used in substructuring [31, 32] in civil and mechanical engineering, is often
successful and easier to implement in real-time.
Although equation (3) does not define a semiflow we can often understand the
dynamics generated by (3) near periodic orbits by studying smooth finite-dimensional
maps. This section will explain in detail how this reduction near periodic orbits works
in the simplest (but generic) case.
{g = 0} C1
l1u
(1, 0)
(−1, 0) x1
l2u
C2
l1s
Gτ2 = Φ2 (τ ; {g = 0})
(0, −1)
Figure 2. Sketch of the dynamics near a periodic orbit of the linearized inverted
pendulum. The flows Φ1 (dashed) and Φ2 (dotted) are superimposed in R2 . The
periodic orbit is the bold closed curve with corners the C1 and C1 . The return
map to this orbit is a 1D map from Gτ1 back to itself.
flows Φ1 and Φ2 can be computed analytically for (8), giving rise to the affine maps
Φ1 (t; v) = A(t)v − v0 (t), and Φ2 (t; v) = A(t)v + v0 (t)
where
cosh(t) sinh(t) 1 − cosh(t)
A(t) = , v0 (t) = .
sinh(t) cosh(t) − sinh(t)
Let us choose, for illustration, a linear switching function g of slope α, namely
g(x1 , x2 ) = x1 cos α + x2 sin α, α ∈ (0, π/2),
and consider a delay τ < log(1 + tan α). Figure 2 shows a sketch of the situation.
The flows Φ1 (dashed) and Φ2 (dotted) are superimposed in the plane R2 . The flow
Φ1 has a saddle equilibrium at (−1, 0), the flow Φ2 has a saddle at (1, 0). The stable
s u
(l1,2 ) and unstable (l1,2 ) subspaces of both flows form a square, which is sketched in
figure 2. We denote the Φ1 (τ ; ·)-image of {g = 0} by Gτ1 and its intersection point
with the axis x1 = 0 by C1 . Correspondingly, the Φ2 (τ ; ·)-image of {g = 0} is denoted
by Gτ2 and its intersection point with the axis x1 = 0 by C2 . The points C1 and C2 are
mirror images of each other (C2 = −C1 ). If τ < log(1 + tan α) they are also mapped
onto each other by the flows. That is, C2 = Φ2 (p/2; C1 ), C1 = Φ1 (p/2; C2 ) where
τ
e tan α + 1 − eτ
p = 2 τ + log . (9)
tan α + 1 − eτ
This implies that the closed curve W = Φ1 ([0, p/2); C2 ) ∪ Φ2 ([0, p/2); C1 ) is the graph
of a periodic orbit of (8). Moreover, the dynamics near W are given by the return map
to the line Gτ1 , which is a one-dimensional map. Any initial value x ∈ C([−τ, 0]; R2 )
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 9
that is sufficiently close to Φ1 ([−τ, 0]; C1 ) will, after time τ , follow Φ2 . Thus, the next
switching to Φ1 will invariably be located on the time-τ image of {g = 0} under Φ2 ,
which is Gτ2 . From now on the trajectory will always follow Φ1 to Gτ1 and Φ2 to Gτ2 ,
reducing the evolution of (8) to a smooth one-dimensional map from Gτ1 back to itself.
This map is nonlinear if α 6= π/4 even though both flows and g are linear.
The facts that make this reduction possible are that
(i) the switchings of W (C1 and C2 ) have a positive distance from {g = 0},
(ii) the intersections of W with {g = 0} are transversal,
(iii) the time between successive crossings of the switching manifold is larger than the
delay τ .
The first two conditions are genericity conditions. Their violations correspond to
discontinuity induced bifurcations, which are discussed in section 6. Periodic orbits
that satisfy the last condition are called slowly oscillating.
We observe that the same curve W is the graph of a periodic orbit also if the
delay τ in (8) is replaced by a delay of size τ + kp where k is a positive integer and p
is the period of W given in (9). Then all time differences between successive crossings
of the switching manifold {g = 0} are smaller than the switching delay. Thus, W for
delay τ + kp with k ≥ 1 would be a rapidly oscillating periodic orbit. A general lemma
expressing the return map will be developed in the following section. It also applies
to rapidly oscillating orbits and gives for the pendulum case a dimension of 1 + 2k for
the return map.
for k ∈ {1, . . . , m}. Lemma 7 below states that the dynamics of the local Poincaré
map P : S → S is attracted by a finite-dimensional local invariant manifold M
after finite time. Moreover, the local manifold M can be parametrized by tuples
(v, t1 , . . . , tµ ) ∈ Rn−1+µ where each of the µ numbers tk is close to t̃k and the vector
v ∈ Rn−1 is small. The number µ equals the number of switchings of the periodic orbit
in the interval [−τ, 0] (see (11)). In the formulation of the lemma we use the notation
that a set M is ‘invariant under P relative to a set N ’ if any trajectory starting in
M ∩ N stays in M ∩ N under iterations of P as long as it stays in N .
Lemma 7 There exists an open neighbourhood N of x̃0 in the local Poincaré section
S that is mapped by P 2 = P ◦ P into a local manifold M ⊂ S of dimension n − 1 + µ
where µ is defined by (11). The local manifold M is invariant under P relative to
N . Moreover, M can be parametrized by a small open ball B ⊂ Rn−1+µ around
(0, t̃1 , . . . t̃µ ) ∈ Rn−1 × Rµ . The parametrization of M
IM : (v, t1 , . . . , tµ ) ∈ B → z ∈ C([−τ, 0]; Rn ) (13)
is defined recursively by
Φ1 (t; x̃(0) + Lv)
if t ∈ [tµ , 0],
z(t) = Φ2 (t − tk ; z(tk )) if t ∈ [tk−1 , tk ) and µ − k is even, (14)
Φ1 (t − tk ; z(tk )) if t ∈ [tk−1 , tk ) and µ − k is odd
(0, 1)
Gτ1
C1
l1u
G1 = Φ1 (−τ ; Gτ1 ) l2s
(−1, 0) (1, 0)
G∗
l1s
l2u G2 = Φ2 (−τ ; Gτ2 )
C2
Gτ2
(0, −1)
Let us come back to Problem 1 formulated in the introduction and the resulting
general Theorem 2 about the existence of stable periodic orbits. By choosing a suitable
switching law g, we can create a periodic orbit resembling any closed curve in Rn that,
in alternating fashion, follows Φ1 and Φ2 , always for a time longer than the delay τ .
Thus, this periodic orbit will be slowly oscillating, and its dynamical stability will be
determined by the concatenation of (n − 1)-dimensional maps of the form (16). Hence,
we can achieve the dynamic stability of the periodic orbit by ‘tilting’ the local switching
manifolds such that their time-τ images are tangential to desired hyperplanes.
than τ . Such a curve exists: the periodic orbit W found in section 4.1 is of this type
if the points C1 and C2 are sufficiently close (0, ±1), respectively. Let h ∈ (0, 1/2) be
such that
eτ ∈ h−1 − 1, h−1 .
(17)
If we choose C1 = (0, 2eτ h−1)T and C2 = (0, 1−2eτ h) then Φ1 (2τ −log(1−h−1 ); C2 ) =
C1 and Φ2 (2τ − log(1 − h−1 ); C1 ) = C2 . The traveling time 2τ − log(1 − h−1 ) is larger
than τ by construction of h. Next, we find the boundary G such that this curve
W = Φ1 ([0, 2τ − log(1 − h−1 )]; C2 ) ∪ Φ2 ([0, 2τ − log(1 − h−1 )]; C1 ) (18)
is a stable periodic orbit of (8). The local delayed switching manifolds have to
contain the corners: C1 ∈ Gτ1 and C2 ∈ Gτ2 . If Gτ1 = C1 + s∂1 Φ2 (0; C1 ) where
s ∈ (−δ, δ) then Gτ1 is tangent to the outgoing flow Φ2 in C1 . At the same time Gτ1
is transversal to the incoming flow Φ1 in C1 . Thus, the image of Gτ1 under Φ1 (−τ ; ·)
is an affine line segment G1 intersecting W transversally within the (dashed) segment
Φ1 ([0, 2τ − log(1 − h−1 )]; C2 ) of the curve W . The corresponding local manifolds for
C2 are Gτ2 = −Gτ1 and G2 = −G1 . Since W does not self-intersect we can connect
G1 and G2 by a segment G∗ and extend G1 ∪ G∗ ∪ G2 to a global piecewise affine
manifold G0 which generates the periodic orbit W . This piecewise affine manifold can
subsequently be smoothed at its corners (which have a positive distance to the curve
W ) to obtain a smooth switching manifold G; see Figure 3.
Lemma 8 The periodic orbit W defined by (18) is stable.
Proof: As demonstrated in section 4.1, the Poincaré map P for the periodic orbit
W can be reduced to a one-dimensional return map P0 from Gτ1 to itself, defined by
following Φ2 to Gτ2 and then Φ1 back to Gτ1 . Let p0 = C1 + s∂1 Φ2 (0; C1 ) be a point in
Gτ1 close to C1 (that is, s ∈ R is small). Thus, p0 = Φ2 (s; C1 ) + O(s2 ). The traveling
time t(s) from p0 to Gτ2 is 2τ − log(1 − h−1 ) − s + O(s2 ) for small s. Thus, the image
of p0 under the flow Φ2 to Gτ2 is
p′0 = Φ2 (t(s); Φ2 (s; C1 )) = C2 + O(s2 ).
Since the map defined by following Φ1 from Gτ2 to Gτ1 is smooth this implies that
P0 (p0 ) = C1 + O(s2 )).
We observe that the orbit W is even quadratically stable. That is, the
linearization of P0 in C1 is zero. The periodic orbit W is also structurally stable.
That is, it is robust with respect to small nonlinearities or small perturbations of the
parameters, for example, of τ , or the location of the switching manifold. However,
this tolerance is exponentially small for large τ since (17) gives effectively a condition
on τ once h is chosen. Similarly, the basin of attraction of the periodic orbit W is
exponentially small with respect to τ .
Remark 1: Apart from the fact that the relay stabilizes to a periodic orbit instead of
the equilibrium, the exponential smallness of the basin of attraction is a difference to
classical methods for delay compensation, such as finite spectrum assignment [29].
Finite spectrum assignment is a linear dynamic control law based on an explicit
predictor. However, even though methods, such as finite spectrum assignment,
are globally asymptotically stable on the linear level, they have exponentially large
transients if the initial condition is not exponentially close to the equilibrium.
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 15
Remark 2: The study in [36] discusses systems of the form αẍ(t) = −ẋ(t) + kx(t) −
sgnx(t−1), finding conditions under which there are no bounded non-trivial oscillatory
solutions. The crucial difference between [36] and the above construction, which gives
a stable slowly oscillating solution for all α > 0, k > 0 is that we allow the relay to
depend not only on x(t − 1) but also on ẋ(t − 1). That is, the relay is of the form
sgng(x(t−1), ẋ(t−1)), giving rise to a switching curve in figure 3 which is not vertical.
the outgoing flow eliminates only one dimension of the linearization. Thus, each
switching at one of the delayed switching manifolds Gτj acts as a projection with a
one-dimensional kernel on the linearization of P0 . This means that we have to find
a closed curve Ψ consisting of an even number m > n of segments Ψj , alternating
between the two flows and always following each of the flows for a time θj greater
than the delay τ . Subsequently, we have to verify that
(i) we can find a switching manifold that intersects each segment Ψj transversally
exactly once in a point of our choice (namely, in Ψ(θj − τ )), and
(ii) we can tilt the switching manifold locally in the intersection points with Ψ in a
manner such *that the concatenation of the projections induced by the switchings
cancels out all components of the linearization.
The existence of an appropriate closed curve and point (i) follow from the saddle
property of A, which implies that all trajectories that spend a long time near the
equilibrium approximately follow first the stable and then the unstable subspace of
A. The second point is implied by the controllability required in Theorem 9. The
detailed proof of Theorem 9 is given in Appendix C.
6. Discontinuity-induced bifurcations
This section discusses what happens generically to the dynamics near relay periodic
orbits that violate one of the transversality requirements, either Condition 5 or
Condition 6. To simplify our presentation we restrict ourselves in this section to the
practically most relevant case of slowly oscillating periodic orbits. We assume that
the general delayed relay system (3) depends on a parameter λ where the dependence
of f1 , f2 , g on x and λ and the dependence of τ on λ are smooth:
(
f1 (x(t), λ) if g(x(t − τ (λ)), λ) < 0,
ẋ(t) = (22)
f2 (x(t), λ) if g(x(t − τ (λ)), λ) ≥ 0.
Moreover, we assume that, for λ < 0, (22) has a slowly oscillating periodic orbit x̃(·, λ)
of uniformly bounded period p(λ), which satisfies the transversality conditions 5 and
6. Section 6.1 investigates the case of x̃(·, 0) violating Condition 5, section 6.2 studies
the case of x̃(·, 0) violating Condition 6. This study treats (22) and the periodic orbit
only at the parameter λ = 0. Thus, we can drop the parameter λ, which is always 0,
from our notation in the remainder of the section.
x̃(s̃2 ) Gτ1
x̃(t̃2 ) x̃(t̃3 ) x̃(t̃3 ) Gτ1
x̃(s̃2 ) x̃(s̃2 )
Gτ1
x̃(s̃1 )
{g = 0} x̃(s̃1 )
x̃(s̃1 )
{g = 0}
{g ≥ 0} {g < 0} {g < 0} {g = 0}
this difference on the dynamics becomes clear if both flows are linearly dependent
in the delayed switching point x̃(t̃2 ) (that is, f1 (x̃(t̃2 )) and f2 (x̃(t̃2 )) are linearly
dependent). Then the linearization of the return map will be continuous for case
(b) but, in general, it will still be discontinuous for case (c). Case (c) is the most
complex scenario because the discontinuity is affected by the configuration at four
different points along the orbit: at x̃(s̃2 ), x̃(s̃3 ), x̃(t̃2 ), and x̃(t̃3 ).
The dynamics of piecewise asymptotically linear maps have been studied in [13, 14],
also classifying possible bifurcations when the parameter λ unfolds the degeneracy
transversally. Thus, Lemma 11 links the study of the infinite-dimensional delayed
relay system to the bifurcation theory of piecewise smooth asymptotically linear finite-
dimensional maps.
(b) The time when the tangency is noticed along the orbit x̃ does not coincide
with another crossing of the switching manifold. That is, g(x̃(t∗ )) 6= 0 where
t∗ = s∗ + τ .
(c) The grazing does not coincide with a simultaneous violation of Condition 5 (a
corner collision). That is, g(x̃(s∗ − τ )) 6= 0. Hence, s∗ 6= t̃j (j = 1, . . . , m) where
t̃j = s̃j + τ .
The periodic orbit x̃ is slowly oscillating for parameter λ < 0. Thus, s∗ lies in an
interval [a, b] which is longer than the delay τ (that is, b − a > τ ) where x̃ follows one
flow. Without loss of generality, let us assume that x̃([a, b]) follows Φ1 . We choose as
Poincaré section S the set of all z ∈ C([−τ, 0]; Rn ) with headpoint z(0) ∈ G where G
is a hyperplane intersecting x̃ transversally at time t̃0 = (a + b + τ )/2. The following
lemma describes the local return map P to the Poincaré section S to leading order.
Lemma 13 (Return map for tangential grazing) The image of the local return
map P to the Poincaré section S is contained in a (n − 1)-dimensional manifold that
can be parametrized by the elements of the affine hyperplane
˙ ∗ )T [x − x̃(s∗ )] = 0}.
F0 := {x : x̃(s
On F0 , P is described by a piecewise smooth (n − 1)-dimensional map P0 : F0 7→ F0 .
There exists a smooth function m : U (x̃(s∗ )) → R such that the map P0 is smooth in
F+ = F0 ∩ {x : m(x) > 0} and F− = F0 ∩ {x : m(x) < 0}. For small x ∈ F0 − x̃(s∗ )
the map P0 has the form
Ax + O(kxk2 )
(
if x̃(s∗ ) + x ∈ F+ ,
P0 (x̃(s∗ ) + x) = x̃(s∗ ) + p (25)
v −m(x̃(s∗ ) + x) + O(kxk) if x̃(s∗ ) + x ∈ F−
where A ∈ Rn×n and v ∈ F0 − x̃(s∗ ) ⊂ Rn .
The expansion of the function m in x̃(s∗ ) is
m(x̃(s∗ ) + x) = q −1 g ′ (x̃(s∗ ))x + O(kxk2 ).
This implies that the return map of all trajectories near x̃(·) that intersect F− expands
to lowest order like a square root. The first statement of Lemma 13 follows from
the fact that all elements of S will have an image under P which has the form
Φ1 ([−τ, 0]; z0 ) where z0 ∈ G. This reduces the Poincaré map P to a return map
to the hyperplane G ⊂ Rn . Since both hyperplanes F and G are transversal to x̃,
return maps to G and to F are conjugate to each other under the local diffeomorphism
obtained by following the flow Φ1 from F to G.
The function m(x) used in Lemma 13 is defined as the local minimum of the
parabola-shaped function q −1 g(Φ1 (·; x)) near 0. This local minimum is uniquely
defined and depends smoothly on x. The square-root asymptotics of P0 arises, roughly
speaking, from the fact that the time which a trajectory through x̃(s̃2 )+x ∈ F− spends
in {x : m(x) < 0} depends asymptotically linearly on the square root of −m(x).
The precise dependence of A and v on the right-hand-side is described in detail in
Appendix E. Figure 5 illustrates the two different cases that can arise. The difference
between the two cases is that in case (a) x̃ does not cross the switching manifold
{g = 0} between s∗ and t∗ , whereas in case (b) there is an intermediate crossing at
x̃(s̃2 ). Both cases have two sub-cases depending on the existence of the intermediate
switching at t̃1 between s∗ and t∗ , but those cause only minor differences. Case
(b) is more complex because the discontinuity of the return map is affected by the
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 20
x̃(t∗ )
x̃(t̃2 ) x̃(t̃2 )
F0 F0 {g = 0}
x̃(s̃1 )
x̃(s∗ ) x̃(s∗ )
x̃(s̃2 ) x̃(s̃1 ) x̃(s̃2 )
{g = 0}
x̃(t̃1 ) x̃(t̃1 )
x̃(t∗ )
{g < 0} {g ≥ 0}
configurations near four points along the periodic orbit: x̃(s∗ ), x̃(s̃2 ), x̃(t∗ ) and x̃(t̃2 ).
A special case of type (a) is a periodic orbit of period larger than the delay τ that has
no transversal intersections with the switching manifold {g = 0}.
Lemma 13 allows one to link phenomena occurring close to a grazing periodic
orbit in a delayed relay system to the bifurcation theory of piecewise smooth maps
with square-root asymptotics on one side of the discontinuity. The general results in
[15, 16] classify the dynamics for maps of this type.
6.3. The dynamics near grazing bifurcations in the small-delay limit — illustrating
example
The occurrence of square-root terms in return maps as in Lemma 13 is typical
for impacting systems in the vicinity of periodic orbits with slow-velocity impacts
rather than ordinary differential equations with discontinuous right-hand-side (that is,
systems such as (3) with τ = 0, so-called Filippov systems [14]). A consequence of this
fact is that the dynamics of system (3) can change dramatically by changing τ from 0 to
a small positive value. The reason behind this change is that codimension-one grazing
events of periodic orbits generically induce C 1 -smooth or piecewise asymptotically
linear return maps for Filippov systems, in contrast to impacting systems, or the case
of (3) with a positive delay. As an illustrative example we consider the system in R2
0 −1 x − a · (kxk − λ)
if x1 (t − τ ) − 1 < 0,
ẋ = 1 0 (26)
f (x)
2 if x1 (t − τ ) − 1 ≥ 0
where a > 0, λ > 0, k · k is the Euclidean norm in R2 , and f2 (x0 ) = (−b, 0) at
x0 = (1, 0) with b > 0. The switching function g is g(x) = x1 − 1. This system
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 21
(a) (b)
τ =0
0
P0 (y)
x2
0 y
x1 x0
(c)
0<τ ≪1
0
O(τ )
P0 (y)
{x1 = 1}
0 y
Figure 6. Illustration of the configuration for the periodic orbit of (26). Panel (a)
shows the phase portrait for the grazing periodic orbit. The dashed trajectories
correspond to flow Φ1 with its stable limit cycle, the dotted arrow shows f2 (x0 ).
Panels (b) and (c) show the asymptotics of the local return map P0 to {x2 = 0}
for y = x1 − 1 for small y, and delay τ = 0 (b) or small delay (c).
has a stable limit cycle (x̃1 (t), x̃2 (t)) = (λ cos(t), λ sin(t)) if λ < λ0 = 1. At the
parameter value λ = 1 the periodic orbit x̃(·) grazes tangentially the switching line
{x1 = 1} in x0 . Figure 6 illustrates this situation in panel (a). For τ = 0 the
orbit continues to exist also for λ ≥ 1 (λ ≈ 1), changes its shape continuously and
√ 1 < λ ≪ 2 the orbit slides along the line {x1 = 1} from
remains√stable. In fact, for
x2 = − λ2 − 1 to x2 = λ2 − 1 (due to f2 (x0 ) pointing toward the sliding line in
the grazing point). Thus, at the grazing its only non-trivial Floquet multiplier jumps
from c = exp(−4πa) ∈ (0, 1) for λ < 1 to 0 for λ > 1.
If, however, τ is small but positive the return map P0 to the line segment x2 = 0,
x1 ∈ [1 − δ, 1 + δ] has the form described in Lemma 13 for λ = 1. Specifically,
introducing the variable y = x1 − 1,
(
cy if y < 0
P0 (y) = √ (27)
−d y + O(|y|) if 0 ≤ y ≪ 1
where d is a positive factor close to 2bc. The Poincaré map of the grazing periodic
orbit is depicted in figure 6(c), comparing it to the return map without delay in panel
(b). The expression in (27) captures only the first square root branch of the return
map of height O(τ ). The dynamics of maps with square-root asymptotics has been
studied by [15, 16]. A consequence of the results of [16] is that, if exp(−4πa) > 2/3, for
any given τ > 0 the system has a chaotic attractor for all λ in an interval (1, λmax (τ )).
This sudden transition to chaos by an introduction of an arbitrarily small delay is
fundamentally different from the behaviour of smooth systems. If one introduces a
small delay in one of the arguments of a smooth system of ODEs the delay acts as
a regular perturbation parameter, preserving, for example, hyperbolic equilibria or
periodic orbits without changing their stability [37].
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 22
7. Conclusion
The paper considered the dynamics of dynamical systems with delayed relays in the
vicinity of periodic orbits. First, we found that the dynamics can be described
generically by low-dimensional local return maps, even though the phase space of
the original system is infinite-dimensional. Generically these return maps are smooth.
Specifically, we provided two sufficient genericity conditions on the periodic orbit that
guarantee the smoothness and finite-dimensionality of the local return map.
We exploited the existence and form of these local return maps to show that relays
can be used to design simple static feedback laws that are able to stabilize saddle-type
equilibria to nearby periodic orbits even in the presence of arbitrarily large delays.
Finally, we studied the two most common bifurcations that occur when one of
the genericity conditions is violated: the corner collision and the tangential grazing.
They give rise to piecewise smooth local return maps. These return maps are either
piecewise asymptotically linear (corner collision) or have square-root asymptotics on
one side (grazing). The reduction to piecewise smooth maps provides a link to well-
established results of the bifurcation theory for these types of maps [13, 14, 15, 16].
It also shows that the small-delay limit for relay systems is more subtle than the
corresponding limit for smooth DDEs.
The main open problem concerning the bifurcation theoretic part of our studies
is that the secondary non-degeneracy conditions, even though they are genericity
conditions, are often not fulfilled in practice. Typically, symmetric periodic orbits of
piecewise linear systems of the form ẋ = Ax − vsgn[bT x(t − τ )] violate the secondary
non-degeneracy conditions formulated in the sections 6.1 and 6.2 whenever they violate
the primary conditions 5 or 6. This gives rise to much more degenerate bifurcation
scenarios in the systems studied in [24, 25].
A caveat of the stabilizability result in Theorem 9 is that the basin of attraction
of the quadratically stable periodic orbit shrinks not only for increasing τ but also for
decreasing amplitude of the orbit (which is related to the size of ε). A possible solution
to this problem are the more general hybrid feedback control law. For example, a
hybrid feedback for the inverted pendulum would give rise to a dynamical system of
the form
1
if x(t − τ ) ∈ D+ ,
ẍ = x − α where α = 0 if x(t − τ ) ∈ D0 ,
−1 if x(t − τ ) ∈ D− ,
Acknowledgments
[1] M. Garcia, A. Chatterjee, and A. Ruina. Efficiency, speed, and scaling of passive dynamical
bipedal walking. Dynamics and Stability of Systems, 15(2):75–99, 2000.
[2] F. Moss and J.G. Milton. Balancing the unbalanced. Nature, 425:911–912, 2003.
[3] H. Kwakernaak and R. Sivan. Linear Optimal Control Systems. Wiley Interscience, New York,
1972.
[4] G. Stépán. Retarded Dynamical Systems: Stability and Characteristic Functions. Longman
Scientific and Technical, 1989.
[5] F.M. Atay. Balancing the inverted pendulum using position feedback. Appl. Math. Letters,
12:51–56, 1999.
[6] J. Sieber and B. Krauskopf. Extending the permissible control loop latency for the controlled
inverted pendulum. Dynamical Systems: An International Journal, 20(2):189–199, 2005.
[7] W. Michiels and D. Roose. Limitations of delayed state feedback: a numerical study.
International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 12(6):1309–1320, 2002.
[8] M. Landry, S.A. Campbell, K. Morris, and C. Aguilar. Dynamics of an inverted pendulum with
delayed feedback control. Preprint, University of Waterloo, 2003. submitted.
[9] J. Sieber and B. Krauskopf. Bifurcation analysis of an inverted pendulum with delayed feedback
control near a triple-zero eigenvalue. Nonlinearity, 17(1):85–104, 2004.
[10] L. Fridman, E. Fridman, and E. Shustin. Steady modes and sliding modes in relay control
systems with delay. In J. P. Barbot and W. Perruguetti, editors, Sliding Mode Control in
Engineering, pages 264–295. New York, 2002.
[11] L. Fridman, V. Strygin, and A. Polyakov. Stabilization of amplitude of oscillations via relay
delay control. Int. J. Control, 76(8):770–780, 2003.
[12] O. Diekmann, S. van Gils, S.M. Verduyn Lunel, and H.-O. Walther. Delay Equations, volume
110 of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, 1995.
[13] S. Banerjee and C. Grebogi. Border collision bifurcations in twodimensional piecewise smooth
maps. Phys. Rev. E, 59:4052–4061, 1999.
[14] M. di Bernardo, M.I. Feigin, S.J. Hogan, and M.E. Homer. Local analysis of C-bifurcations in
n-dimensional piecewise smooth dynamical systems. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 10:1881–
1908, 1999.
[15] A.B. Nordmark. Universal limit mapping in grazing bifurcations. Phys. Rev. E, 55:266–270,
1997.
[16] H. Nusse, E. Ott, and J. Yorke. Border collision bifurcations: an explanation for observed
bifurcation phenomena. Phys. Rev. E, 49:1073–1076, 1994.
[17] J. Gonçalves, A. Megretzki, and M.A. Dahleh. Global stability of relay feedback systems. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 46(4):550–562, 2001.
[18] K.H. Johansson, A.E. Barabanov, and K.J. Åström. Limit cycles with chattering in relay
feedback systems. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control, 47(9):1414–1423, 2002.
[19] K. Popp and P. Stelter. Stick-slip vibrations and chaos. Philosophical Transactions: Physical
Sciences and Engineering, 332(1624):89–105, 2000.
[20] B. Brogliato. Impacts in mechanical systems — analysis and modelling, volume 551 of Lecture
notes in physics. Springer-Verlag, 2000.
[21] S. Banerjee and G.C. Verghese. Nonlinear phenomena in power electronics: attractors,
bifurcations, chaos, and nonlinear control. IEEE Press, New York, 2001.
[22] J.-L. Gouzé and T. Sari. A class of piecewise linear differential equations arising in biological
models. Dynamical systems, 17:299–316, 2003.
[23] D.A.W. Barton, B. Krauskopf, and R.E. Wilson. Explicit periodic solutions in a model of a
relay controller with delay and forcing. Nonlinearity, 18(6):2637–2656, 2005.
[24] D.A.W. Barton, B. Krauskopf, and R.E. Wilson. Periodic solutions and their bifurc-
ations in a non-smooth second-order delay differential equation. Preprint 2005.15,
University of Bristol, Bristol Centre for Applied Nonlinear Mathematics, 2005.
http://www.enm.bris.ac.uk/anm/preprints/2005r15.html.
[25] W. Bayer and U. an der Heyden. Oscillation types and bifurcations of a nonlinear second-order
differential-difference equation. J. Dynam. Diff. Eq., 10(2):303–326, 1998.
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 24
[26] U. Holmberg. Relay feedback of simple systems. PhD thesis, Lund Institute of Technology,
1991.
[27] H.-O. Walther. Contracting return maps for monotone delayed feedback. Discrete and
Continuous Dynamical Systems, 7(2):259–274, 2001.
[28] Y.-H. Roh and J.-H. Oh. Robust stabilization of uncertain input-delay systems by sliding mode
control with delay compensation. Automatica, 35:1861–1865, 1999.
[29] Q.G. Wang, T.H. Lee, and K.K. Tan. Finite spectrum assignment for time-delay systems. In
Lecture notes in control and information sciences, volume 239. Springer Verlag, New York,
1999.
[30] S. Mondié and W. Michiels. Finite spectrum assignment of unstable time-delay systems with a
safe implementation. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48(12):2207–2212, 2003.
[31] T. Horiuchi and T. Konno. A new method for compensating actuator delay in real-time hybrid
experiments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 359:1893–1909, 2001.
[32] M.I. Wallace, D.J. Wagg, and S.A. Neild. An adaptive polynomial based forward prediction
algorithm for multi-actuator real-time dynamic substructuring. Accepted for publication in
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A.
[33] J.K. Hale and S.M. Verduyn Lunel. Introduction to Functional Differential Equations, volume 99
of Applied Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[34] A. Pazy. Semigroups of Linear Operators and Applications to Partial Differential Equations.
Applied mathematical Sciences. Springer Verlag, New York, 1983.
[35] J. Sieber. Dynamics of delayed relay control systems with large delays. In Proceedings of the
5th IFAC Workshop on Time-Delay Systems, Leuven, Belgium, 2004.
[36] E. Shustin, E. Fridman, and L. Fridman. Stable oscillations in a discontinuous delay system
of the second order. Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems, (Added Volume II):209–233, 1998.
Dynamical systems and differential equations, Vol. II (Springfield, MO, 1996).
[37] C. Chicone. Inertial and slow manifolds for delay equations with small delays. Journal of
Differential Equations, 190:364–406, 2003.
It is sufficient to prove the continuity of E(T ; ·) in x̃t0 for T ∈ (0, τ ) since x̃t0 lies on
a periodic orbit. The set of all roots of g(x̃t0 (θ)) within [−τ, −τ + T ] is a subset of
{t0 + s̃1 , . . . , t0 + s̃m }. Let us denote these time points by rj (j = 1, . . . , q, q ≤ m) in
ascending order: −τ ≤ r1 < . . . < rq ≤ T − τ . We define the constant
C = max [kf1 (x̃(θ))k + kf2 (x̃(θ))k]
θ∈R
which is bounded since x̃ is periodic and the functions fj are Lipschitz continuous.
Let ε > 0 be small enough such that exp(4εL) < 2 where L is a Lipschitz constant for
f1 and f2 . In order to prove continuity it is sufficient to find a δ > 0 such that
q+1
kE(T ; ξ) − E(T ; x̃t0 )k < (8C + 1) 2eLT ε (A.1)
for all ξ ∈ C([−τ, 0]; Rn ) satisfying kξ − x̃t0 k < δ in the (maximum) norm of
C([−τ, 0]; Rn ). We choose δ ∈ (0, ε) such that all ξ ∈ C([−τ, 0]; Rn ) with kξ − x̃t0 k < δ
meet the following condition:
Sq g(ξ(θ)) is nonzero and has the same sign as g(x̃t0 (θ))
for all θ ∈ [−τ, T − τ ] \ j=1 (rj − ε, rj + ε). That is, for all ξ in the δ-neighbourhood
of x̃t0 , g(ξ(·)) can have zeroes only in the vicinity of the zeroes of g(x̃t0 (·)).
Let ξ ∈ C([−τ, 0]; Rn ) be such that kξ− x̃t0 k < δ. Since E(T ; ·)(θ) = E(0; ·)(θ+T )
for θ ∈ [−τ, −T ], we have
kE(T ; ξ)(θ) − E(T ; x̃t0 )(θ)k < δ < ε for θ ∈ [−τ, −T ]. (A.2)
If θ ∈ (−T, 0] then E(T ; ·)(θ) = E(θ + T ; ·)(0). Consequently, we have to focus on the
evolution of the difference between the headpoints, x(t) := E(t; ξ)(0) and x̃(t0 + t),
∆(t) := kx(t)
Sq − x̃(t0 + t)k, for t ∈ [0, T ]. Inequality (A.2) implies that |∆(0)| < ε. If t
is not in j=1 (τ + rj − ε, τ + rj + ε) then both headpoints follow the same flow (either
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 25
Φ1 or Φ2 ). Thus, we have the following set of recursive inequalities for the evolution
of ∆(t) in the intervals (τ + rj + ε, τ + rj+1 − ε):
∆(t) < eLt ∆(0) < eLT ε if 0 ≤ t ≤ τ + r1 − ε,
∆(t) < eL(t−(τ +rj +ε)) ∆(τ + rj + ε)
< eLT ∆(τ + rj + ε) if τ + rj + ε ≤ t ≤ τ + rj+1 − ε (j = 1, . . . , q − 1), (A.3)
L(t−(τ +rq +ε))
∆(t) < e ∆(τ + rq + ε)
LT
<e ∆(τ + rq + ε) if τ + rq + ε ≤ t ≤ T .
The variation-of-constants formula (7) implies an estimate on how ∆(t) evolves in the
intervals (τ + rj − ε, τ + rj + ε). Let t1 , t2 be in [0, T ] ∩ (τ + rj − ε, τ + rj + ε) for
some j and t1 < t2 :
∆(t2 ) ≤ ∆(t1 ) + kx(t2 ) − x(t1 )k + kxt0 (t2 ) − xt0 (t1 )k
Z t2
≤ ∆(t1 ) + kf1 (x(s))k + kf2 (x(s))kds+
t1
Z t2
+ kf1 (xt0 (s))k + kf2 (xt0 (s))kds
t1
t2 t2
(A.4)
Z Z
≤ ∆(t1 ) + 2 kf1 (xt0 (s))k + kf2 (xt0 (s))kds + 2L ∆(s)ds
t1 t1
Z t2
≤ ∆(t1 ) + 2(t2 − t1 )C + 2L ∆(s)ds
t1
2L(t2 −t1 )
≤ [∆(t1 ) + 2C(t2 − t1 )] e
≤ 2∆(t1 ) + 4C(t2 − t1 )
The recursion of inequalities (A.3) and estimate (A.4) (where always t2 − t1 < 2ε)
allow for a global estimate of ∆(t) for t ∈ [0, T ]:
∆(t) ≤ eLT 8C + 8C 2eLT + . . . + 8C(2eLT )q−1 + (2eLT )q ε
q+1 (A.5)
≤ (8C + 1) 2eLT ε
The inequalities (A.2) and (A.5) combined imply the validity of the estimate (A.1) for
the whole maximum norm of the function E(T ; x) − E(T ; xt0 ).
Let δ > 0 be such that all intervals (−p, −p + δ), (s̃k − δ, s̃k + δ), (t̃k − δ, t̃k + δ) and
(−δ, 0) are disjoint (k = 1, . . . , m). This is possible due to Condition 5 on x̃.
Let s̃k (k ∈ {1, . . . , m}) be one of the zeroes of g(x̃(·)) in (−p, 0). Due to
Condition 5 the periodic orbit x̃ follows one of the flows in s̃k , say Φj . Because
of the transversality of Φj with {g = 0} in x̃(s̃k ) (Condition 6) there exists a εk > 0
such that the function t → g(Φj (t; z)) changes its sign and has exactly one zero in
(−δ, δ) for all z ∈ Rn with kz − x̃(s̃k )k < εk . Furthermore, for sufficiently small δ there
exists a ε0 such that the function t → l0T [Φ1 (t; z) − x̃(0)] has exactly one regular zero
in (−δ, δ) for all z ∈ Rn with kz − x̃(0)k < ε0 . We define ε := min{εk : k = 0 . . . , m},
which is larger than zero.
Let the open neighbourhood N ⊂ S of x̃0 be sufficiently small such that for all
ξ ∈ N the following three Conditions B0–B2 are satisfied:
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 26
The proof of Theorem 9 requires several steps which we will follow through in the form
of several lemmas. Let us denote by Φ1 the flow corresponding to ẋ = A(x + v) and by
Φ2 the flow corresponding to ẋ = A(x − v) (following the notation of the section 3).
We observe that Φ1 and Φ2 are symmetric to each other with respect to rotation by
π in the origin, that is,
Φ2 (t; z) = −Φ1 (t; −z) (C.1)
n
for all z ∈ R . The flow Φ1 can be expressed as an affine map
Φ1 (t; z) = exp(At)z + [exp(At) − I]v (C.2)
n
for z ∈ R and t ∈ R. The equilibrium of the flow Φ1 is at −v and is of saddle type.
There exist nonzero invariant projections P+ and P− corresponding to the stable (P− )
and unstable (P+ ) eigenspaces of A such that P− + P+ = I. Let us assume (without
loss of generality) that the basis of Rn is chosen such that kP± k = 1 and, for certain
constants K2 > K1 > 0, the dichotomy inequalities
exp(K2 t)kP+ zk ≥ kP+ exp(At)zk ≥ exp(K1 t)kP+ zk
(C.3)
exp(−K1 t)kP− zk ≥ kP− exp(At)zk ≥ exp(−K2 t)kP− zk
hold for all t ∈ R and z ∈ Rn in the original Euclidean norm of Rn .
Let m be an even number greater than n + 1. We now construct a g that gives
rise to a slowly oscillating periodic orbit intersecting the switching manifold {g = 0}
transversally m times. More precisely, the periodic orbit switches m times between
the two flows Φ1 and Φ2 and the time between successive switches is always greater
than the delay τ of the switch.
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 27
Lemma 14
Let δ > 0 be sufficiently small and denote by Bδ := {z ∈ Rn : kP− z − P− vk <
δ and kP+ z + P+ vk < δ}. Then there exist m-tuples (θ1 . . . , θm ) ∈ Rm and
(x1 , . . . , xm ) ∈ (Rn )m such that
(i) θj > τ for all j = 1, . . . , m,
(ii) xj ∈ Bδ for all j = 1, . . . , m,
(iii) xj+1 = −Φ1 (θj ; xj ) for j = 1, . . . , m − 1 and x1 = −Φ1 (θm ; xm ),
(iv) the curves Φ1 ([0, θj ]; xj ) for j = 1, . . . , m are mutually disjoint, and,
(v) using the notation rj = θj + . . . + θm (j = 1, . . . , m), the n vectors x1 , v,
exp(rm A)v,. . . , exp(rm−n+3 A)v are linearly independent.
Remark: We often use sets indexed by j = m − n + 3, . . . , m throughout this section
(for example in point (v) above). For n = 2 these sets are meant to be empty.
Proof: Let θ1 , . . . , θm be larger than τ . A tuple (x1 , . . . , xm ) ∈ (Rn )m has
property (iii) if and only if it satisfies the linear system of equations
xj+1 = − [exp(Aθj )xj + (exp(Aθj ) − I)v] for j = 1 . . . , m − 1,
(C.4)
x1 = − [exp(Aθm )xm + (exp(Aθm ) − I)v] .
Using the invariant projections P+ and P− we can split (C.4) into an equivalent pair
of systems of equations for P− xj and P+ xj (j = 1, . . . , m):
P− xj+1 = P− v − exp(Aθj )(P− xj + P− v) for j = 1 . . . , m − 1,
P− x1 = P− v − exp(Aθm )(P− xm + P− v),
(C.5)
P+ xj = −P+ v − exp(−Aθj )(P+ xj+1 − P+ v) for j = 1 . . . , m − 1,
P+ xm = −P+ v − exp(−Aθm )(P+ x1 − P+ v)
where the recursion for P+ xj follows from (C.4) after premultiplication with
exp(−θj A). If the θ1 , . . . , θm are sufficiently large, the linear system (C.5) is a small
perturbation of the regular system
P− xj = P− v for j = 1 . . . , m,
(C.6)
P+ xj = −P+ v for j = 1 . . . , m,
due to the dichotomy inequalities (C.3). Consequently, we can find a θ0 > τ such that,
for any tuple (θj )m
j=1 of numbers greater than θ0 , the perturbed system (C.5) (and,
hence, (C.4)) is uniquely solvable and such that its solution has a distance less than
δ from the solution of the unperturbed system (C.6). Thus, for any tuple (θj )m j=1 of
numbers greater than θ0 we find a unique tuple (xj )m j=1 that meets the properties (ii)
and (iii) in the lemma. For a sufficiently small δ let the time Tδ be bigger than
sup{t ≥ 0 : Φ1 (t; Bδ ) ∩ Bδ 6= ∅} + sup{t ≥ 0 : Φ1 (t; −Bδ ) ∩ −Bδ 6= ∅}.
Both summands are finite since −v (the equilibrium of Φ1 ) is neither in Bδ nor in
−Bδ due to the controllability of the pair (A, v). In fact, Tδ becomes smaller when δ
gets smaller. If the tuple (θj )mj=1 is chosen such that each two members of the tuple
differ by more than Tδ then all curves Φ1 ([0, θ1 ]; x1 ),. . . , Φ1 ([0, θm ]; xm ) are mutually
disjoint. If, in addition, all θj (j = 1, . . . , m) are greater than θ0 then the assertions
(ii)–(iv) of the lemma are satisfied simultaneously.
Let us finally adapt the tuple (θj )m m
j=1 (and, thus, simultaneously (xj )j=1 defined
by (C.4)) further to achieve property (v). Due to the controllability of the pair (A, v)
we can find, for any (m − 1)-tuple (θj )m j=2 , a (m − 1)-tuple nearby such the set
Σ = {v, exp(rm A)v, . . . , exp(rm−n+3 A)v}
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 28
Then there exists a smooth function g such that g(−v) < 0, g(v) > 0 and such
that {g = 0} is a manifold which partitions Rn into two simple domains and which
intersects Ψ transversally exactly once in each of its smooth segments. Moreover,
• for odd j, {g = 0} intersects the segment Ψj in x̃j and its tangential hyperplane
has the normal vector β̃j , and
• for even j, {g = 0} intersects the segment −Ψj in −x̃j and its tangential
hyperplane has the normal vector −β̃j
Property (i) in the construction of Lemma 14 guarantees that x̃j lies on Ψj for
j = 1, . . . , m). Condition (C.9) guarantees that the affine hyperplane attached to
x̃j with normal vector β̃j in x̃j is indeed transversal to the segment Ψj in x̃j .
Proof: It is sufficient to construct two simple domains, G1 for the flow Φ1
and G2 for the flow Φ2 , and a smooth boundary b separating them. Then, a smooth
function g can always be chosen such that the interior of G1 is {g < 0} and the closure
of G2 is {g ≥ 0}. For any sufficiently small ε > 0 we can choose a manifold b0 such
that (using the notation Bε (z) for the open ball of radius ε around z ∈ Rn )
• b0 has the form {z : β0T (z − x̃0 ) = 0} in the ball Bε (x̃0 ) where x̃0 = Φ1 (−τ ; P+ v −
P− v) and β0 is chosen such that b0 intersects all trajectories of Φ1 transversally
in Bε (x̃0 );
• b0 has the form {z : −β0T (z − x̃0 ) = 0} in the ball −Bε (x̃0 ), thus, b0 intersects all
trajectories of Φ2 transversally in −Bε (x̃0 );
• b0 has a positive distance from the ε-neighbourhoods of the affine subspaces
V1 = {z : P− (z + v) = 0} and V2 = {z : P− (z − v) = 0}
• the subspace V1 (including the equilibrium −v of Φ1 ) lies on one side of b0 and
the subspace V2 (including the equilibrium v of Φ2 ) lies on the other side of b0 .
The balls Bε (x̃0 ) and −Bε (x̃0 ) do not intersect with the ε-neighbourhoods of V1
and V2 for sufficiently small ε. The transversality of the intersection of b0 with
Φ1 ([−∞, 0]; P+ v − P− v) in x̃0 implies that β0T A[x̃0 + v] 6= 0.
Next we choose δ sufficiently small and the times of the tuple (θj )m
j=1 sufficiently
large such that
• each of the segments Ψj intersects b0 exactly once;
• all intersections of Ψj with b0 occur in Bε (x̃0 ) (let us denote these intersections
by x̃0j , which are given by x̃0j = Φ1 (θ̃j ; xj ) for some θ̃j ∈ (0, θj ));
• Φ1 (−τ ; −Bδ ) ⊂ Bε (x̃0 ), and, thus, x̃j = Φ1 (θj −τ ; xj ) = Φ1 (−τ ; −xj+1 ) ∈ Bε (x̃0 )
for j = 1, . . . , m.
1
This choice of δ and (θj )m j=1 is possible due the C -closeness of the segments Ψ1 ,. . . ,
Ψm to the curve Φ1 ((0, ∞]; −P+ v + P− v) ∪ Φ1 ([−∞, 0]; P+ v − P− v) outside of a
small neighbourhood of −v (the equilibrium of Φ1 ) for large times θ1 ,. . . , θm . The
construction of b0 implies that, for even j, the segments −Ψj intersect b0 in −Bε (x̃0 ).
Furthermore, all intersections of b0 with Ψj (j odd) and −Ψj (j even) are transversal
as they occur in Bε (x̃0 ) and −Bε (x̃0 ), respectively.
Finally, we modify b0 in the interior of Bε (x̃0 ) such that the modification b
intersects Ψj in x̃j with normal vector β̃j (instead of intersecting Ψj in x̃0j with
normal vector β0 ) for odd j. In exactly the same manner we also modify b0 in the
interior of −Bε (x̃0 ) such that the modification b intersects −Ψj in −x̃j with normal
−β̃j (instead of intersecting −Ψj in −x̃0j with normal vector −β0 ) for even j. An
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 30
Let us choose a Poincaré section G0 for Ψ through a point p on the segment −Ψ2
(transversally to the curve −Ψ2 ). Let the intersection time t0 be such that t0 is in
the open interval (0, θ2 ). The periodic orbit Ψ corresponds to a fixed point p of the
return map. The return map along Ψ from G0 to back G0 has the simple form of a
concatenation of maps between (n − 1)-dimensional local hyper-surfaces of Rn . The
linearization of this concatenation in p contains the product of matrices
Π2 exp(θ1 A)(−I)Π1 exp(θm A)(−I)Πm exp(θm−1 A) · . . . · Πm−n+3 (C.13)
where the maps Πj are the discontinuity maps at the switching points xj (after
symmetry reduction). They are projections of the form
A[v − xj ]βjT
Πj = I − ,
βjT A[v − xj ]
which are well defined if the βj satisfy the transversality condition (C.12). Thus, the
kernel of Πj is spanned by A[v − xj ] and its image is {z ∈ Rn : βjT z = 0}. Let us
define the following recursion of matrices for j from m downward to m − n + 3:
P1 := −Π2 exp(θ1 A)Π1 , Pm = −P1 exp(θm A)Πm , Pj := −Pj+1 exp(θj A)Πj
for j < m. The product (C.13) coincides with the final iterate Pm−n+3 of this
recursion. We now prove inductively that we can choose the vectors βj (j =
2, 1, m, m − 1, . . . , m − n + 3) defining Πj such that
ker P1 = AL (x1 , v) ,
ker Pm = exp(−rm A)AL (exp(rm A)xm , v, exp(rm A)v)
(C.14)
= AL (xm , v, exp(−θm A)v) ,
ker Pj = exp(−rj A)AL (exp(rj A)xj , v, exp(rm A)v, . . . , exp(rj A)v)
for j = m − 1, . . . , m − n + 3 where the notation L(w1 , . . . , wk ) refers to the subspace
spanned by the vectors w1 , . . . , wk . Lemma 14 and Corollary 15 imply that all sets
on the right-hand-side of (C.14) are linearly independent. Thus, (C.14) implies that
dim ker Pm−j = j + 3, and, hence, Pm−n+3 = 0.
Initial step of induction (j = 1): Let β2 be arbitrary but satisfying the transversality
condition (C.12). The kernel of Π2 is spanned by A(v − x2 ), which is non-zero. Thus,
the kernel of Π2 exp(θ1 A) is spanned by exp(−θ1 A)A(v − x2 ) = A(v + x1 ) (due to
(C.4)). Because x1 and v are linearly independent, so are A(v+x1 ) and A(v−x1 ) (since
A is regular). Thus, we can choose β1 such that β1T A(v + x1 ) = 0 but β1T A(v − x1 ) 6= 0
(thus, β1 satisfies transversality condition (C.12)). The condition β1T A(v + x1 ) = 0
implies that ker[Π2 exp(θ1 A)] ⊂ ImΠ1 . Since ker Π1 = L(A(x1 − v)), this implies
ker P1 = L(A[x1 − v], A[x1 + v]) = AL(x1 , v). For n = 2 the product (C.13) is already
identically zero.
This section explains how the piecewise linearizations A1 and A2 in the statement
of Lemma 11 depend on the right-hand-side and the concrete configuration of the
periodic orbit x̃. Assume (without loss of generality) that x̃ follows Φ1 for times
smaller than s̃2 and then switches to Φ2 at s̃2 . Furthermore, we order the intersection
times −p < s̃1 < . . . < s̃m < 0 and denote the corresponding switching times by
t̃1 , . . . , t̃m .
Case (a)
Let us denote fj0 = fj (x̃(s̃2 )), fj1 = fj (x̃(t̃2 )) where j = 1, 2 and t̃2 = s̃2 + τ ,
and g ′ = g ′ (x̃(s̃2 )). Furthermore, let F1 be the hyperplane intersecting x̃ in x̃(t̃2 )
orthogonal to the outgoing flow f11 . Let R be the return map along x̃(·) from F1 to
Gτ1 , which is a concatenation of smooth maps. We denote its derivative ∂x R|x=x̃(t̃2 ) by
R′ . Case (a) is defined in section 6.1 by g ′ f10 · g ′ f20 > 0, which means that the periodic
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 33
U (x̃(s̃2 )) U (x̃(t̃2 ))
R1
x̃(·)
Gτ1 x̃(·)
f11
z0 {g < 0} Gτ2
f20
G2 z3 y3
x̃(s̃2 ) y1 x̃(t̃2 ) F1
{g ≥ 0}
z4
f10 f21
z1 z2 y0 y2
x̃(·) x̃(·)
R1 Φ2 (τ ; ·)
Φ1 Φ2
Figure D1. Sketch of the neighbourhoods U (x̃(s̃2 )) and U (x̃(t̃2 )) when x̃(·)
undergoes a corner collision of type (a). Dashed trajectories follow flow Φ1 ,
dotted trajectories follow flow Φ2 . The return map P0 is a concatenation of a
non-smooth map from Gτ1 to F1 and a smooth map R1 from F1 back to Gτ1 . The
non-smooth map from Gτ1 to F1 maps x̃(s̃2 ) to x̃(t̃2 ), y0 ∈ F− to y3 ∈ F1 , and
z0 ∈ F+ to z4 ∈ F1 .
U (x̃(s̃2 )) U (x̃(t̃2 ))
R2
Gτ1
{g < 0} f11
z0
z5 x̃(·) y1
z2 G2
x̃(s̃2 ) {g ≥ 0} f21
z1 f20 z3
F2
f10 x̃(·)
y2
y0 x̃(t̃2 )
z6
x̃(·)
z4
x̃(·)
R2 Φ2 (τ ; ·)
Φ1 Φ2
Figure D2. Sketch of the neighbourhoods U (x̃(s̃2 )) and U (x̃(t̃2 )) when x̃(·)
undergoes a corner collision of type (b). The return map is a concatenation of a
non-smooth map Gτ1 7→ F2 and the smooth map R : F2 7→ Gτ1 . The non-smooth
map maps x̃(s̃2 ) to x̃(t̃2 ), y0 ∈ F− to y2 ∈ F2 and z0 ∈ F+ to z6 ∈ F2 .
Case (b)
Let us denote fj0 = fj (x̃(s̃2 )), fj1 = fj (x̃(t̃2 )) where j = 1, 2 and t̃2 = s̃2 + τ ,
and g ′ = g ′ (x̃(s̃2 )). Furthermore, let F2 be the hyperplane intersecting x̃ in x̃(t̃2 )
orthogonal to the flow f21 . Let R be the return map along x̃(·) from F2 to Gτ1 , which
is a concatenation of smooth maps. We denote its derivative ∂x R|x=x̃(t̃2 ) by R′ . Case
(b) is defined in section 6.1 by g ′ f10 · g ′ f20 < 0, which means that the periodic orbit
lies entirely on one side of the switching manifold {g = 0} near x̃(s̃2 ), touching it in
x̃(s̃2 ). The left panel of figure D2 shows the configuration of the manifolds G2 , Gτ1
and the periodic orbit x̃ in the neighbourhood of x̃(s̃2 ). In addition, case (b) requires
that the orbit x̃ does not intersect {g = 0} between s̃2 and t̃2 . The maps A1 (for
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 35
Case (c)
In this case four locations in the physical space are involved in determining the
discontinuity in the linearization of the Poincaré map P0 : Gτ1 7→ Gτ1 0: U (x̃(s̃2 )),
U (x̃(s̃3 )), U (x̃(t̃2 )) and U (x̃(t̃3 )). A characteristic feature of this case is that the orbit
x̃ crosses the switching manifold between s̃2 and t̃2 = s̃2 + τ (in s̃3 ; see figure 4(c)).
Locally near x̃(s̃2 ), the orbit x̃ lies entirely on one side of {g = 0}, say, {g ≥ 0},
switching from Φ1 to Φ2 in s̃2 . Figure D3 shows the four neighbourhoods.
Let us denote fj0 = fj (x̃(s̃2 )), fj1 = fj (x̃(s̃3 )), fj2 = fj (x̃(t̃2 )), and fj3 = fj (x̃(t̃3 ))
where j = 1, 2 and t̃k = s̃k + τ (k = 2, 3). Furthermore, let g0′ = g ′ (x̃(s̃2 ))
and g1′ = g ′ (x̃(s̃3 )), and F3 be the hyperplane intersecting x̃ in t̃3 orthogonal to
the outgoing flow Φ1 . The intersection and switching manifolds are called Gτ1 =
Φ1 (τ ; {g = 0}) ∩ U (x̃(s̃2 )), G2 = {g = 0} ∩ U (x̃(s̃2 )), G3 = {g = 0} ∩ U (x̃(s̃3 )) and
Gτ3 = Φ2 (τ ; {g = 0}) ∩ U (x̃(t̃3 )), respectively. We denote by Π1 the projection along
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 36
U (x̃(s̃2 )) G2 U (x̃(s̃3 ))
{g < 0} {g ≥ 0}
{g ≥ 0}
Φ2
z2 f20 x̃(·) x̃(s̃3 )
Gτ1 z3 {g < 0}
z0
y1
x̃(s̃2 ) f21
y0 G3
f10
x̃(·)
R z1
x̃(·)
U (x̃(t̃3 )) U (x̃(t̃2 ))
Φ2
x̃(·)
Gτ3
y2
f13
x̃(t̃2 )
y3 Φ2
f22
z7 x̃(t̃3 ) z4
F3 f12
z5
z6
Φ1 Φ2
Figure D3. Sketch of the neighbourhoods U (x̃(s̃2 )), U (x̃(s̃3 )), U (x̃(t̃2 )) and
U (x̃(t̃3 )) when x̃(·) undergoes a corner collision of type (c). The return map is a
concatenation of the non-smooth map Gτ1 7→ F3 , mapping y0 to y3 and z0 to z7 ,
and the smooth map R : F3 7→ Gτ1 .
Case (a)
The characteristic feature of case (a) is that the orbit x̃ does not cross the switching
manifold between the grazing time s∗ and t∗ = s∗ + τ . Furthermore, let us assume
that the configuration is such that the orbit x̃ does not switch from Φ1 to Φ2 between
˙ ∗ ) = f1 (x̃(s∗ ))
s∗ and t∗ , either; see figure E1 where we use the abbreviations f 0 = x̃(s
T
and fj1 = fj (x̃(t∗ )). The hyperplane F1 = {x : f11 [x − x̃(t∗ )] = 0} intersects x̃
orthogonally in x̃(t∗ ). The linearized projection along Φ1 onto F1 defined by
T
f11 f11
Π=I− T
f11 f11
is orthogonal. We express the return map to F0 as a concatenation of a piecewise
smooth map from F0 to F1 and a smooth map R along x̃ from F1 back to F0 , which
is a concatenation of smooth maps. Let us denote the derivative ∂x R(x̃(t∗ )) by R′ .
Using these notations the matrix A and the vector v in the statement of Lemma 13
have the form
A = R′ Π∂2 Φ1 (τ ; x̃(s∗ ))
(E.1)
v = 2R′ Πf21 .
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 38
U (x̃(s∗ )) U (x̃(t∗ ))
{x : m(x) < 0}
F0
xm (z0 ) z5
0} f21
R z0 z2 {g = x̃(·) R
y1
f0
x̃(s∗ ) z3
z1 f11
x̃(·)
z6
x̃(t∗ ) y2 F1
x̃(·) y0 z4
Φ1 (τ ; ·)
x̃(·)
{x : m(x) > 0}
Φ1 Φ2
Figure E1. Sketch of the neighbourhoods U (x̃(s∗ )) and U (x̃(t∗ )) when x̃(·)
undergoes a grazing bifurcation of type (a). The return map to F0 is a
concatenation of a non-smooth map F0 7→ F1 and a smooth map R. The non-
smooth map maps y0 ∈ F+ to y2 ∈ F1 and z0 ∈ F− to z6 ∈ F1 .
is uniquely defined and smooth for a sufficiently small δ0 > 0 due to Condition 12 (see
page 18) stating the non-degeneracy of the grazing event. Moreover, the function
δm : U (x̃(s∗ )) 7→ [−δ0 , δ0 ], defined by q −1 g(Φ1 (δm (x); x)) = m(x),
and the map
xm (x) : U (x̃(s∗ )) 7→ U (x̃(s∗ )), defined by xm (x) = Φ1 (δm (x); x),
are also well-defined and smooth in U (x̃(s∗ )). The function δm describes the traveling
time to the minimum in the definition of m. The map xm describes the position
in Rn where this minimum is attained. Thus, δm (x̃(s∗ )) = 0, which implies
δm (x̃(s∗ ) + x) = O(kxk), and xm (x̃(s∗ )) = x̃(s∗ ).
A trajectory through z0 = x̃(s∗ ) + x ∈ F− has two intersections z1 and z2 with
{g = 0}. The traveling time from z0 to xm (z0 ) is δm (z0 ). The traveling times −δ1 from
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 39
z1 to xm (z0 ) and δ2 from xm (z0 ) to z2 are solutions of h(δ) := q −1 g(Φ1 (δ, xm (z0 ))) = 0,
which expands as
0 = h(δ) = m(z0 ) + δ 2 + O(kxk2 ) + O(δ 3 ).
Thus, δ1 and δ2 have the expansions (keeping in mind that m(z0 ) = O(kxk))
p p
δ1 = − −m(z0 ) + O(kxk), δ2 = −m(z0 ) + O(kxk). (E.2)
This implies that both, thep traveling time from z1 to z0 and the traveling time from
z0 to z2 , are of the order −m(z0 ) + O(kxk) (because δm (z0 ) = O(kxk)).
The trajectory through z0 switches to the flow Φ2 time −δ1 before it reaches the
point
z3 = Φ1 (τ ; z0 ) = x̃(t∗ ) + O(kxk)
(see figure E1). This happens in point
z4 = z3 + δ1 f11 + O(kxk) = x̃(t∗ ) + δ1 f11 + O(kxk).
Subsequently the trajectory follows Φ2 for time δ2 − δ1 up to
p p
z5 = z4 + 2 −m(z0 )f21 + O(kxk) = x̃(t∗ ) + δ1 f11 + 2 −m(z0 )f21 .
The point z6 is the projection of z5 onto F1 under Π, which projects f11 to 0. Thus,
the expansion of z6 is
z6 = x̃(t∗ ) + Π(z5 − x̃(t∗ )) + O(kxk2 )
p
= x̃(t∗ ) + Π[2f21 ] −m(z0 ) + O(kxk),
which implies the expression for v in (E.1).
If the orbit x̃ switches from Φ1 to Φ2 between s∗ and t∗ (at some time t̃1 ∈ (s∗ , t∗ )
a modification of (E.1) applies. Since x̃ follows Φ2 in t∗ instead of Φ1 the role of f11
and f21 is interchanged in the definition of Π and v. Furthermore, the time τ -map from
U (x̃(s∗ )) to U (x̃(t∗ )) is no longer Φ1 (τ, ·) but R0 (x) = Φ2 (τ − t(x); Φ1 (t(x); x)) where
t(x) is the traveling time from x to the delayed switching manifold Gτ1 = Φ1 (τ ; {g =
0}) ∩ U (x̃(t̃1 )). This traveling time depends smoothly on x, which implies that R0 is
smooth as well. With these modifications the arguments given above lead to
" T
# " T
#
f21 f21 f21 f21
A=R I− ′
T
′
∂x R0 (x̃(s∗ )), v = 2R I − T
f11 . (E.3)
f21 f21 f21 f21
Case (b)
The characteristic feature of this case is that the orbit x̃ intersects the switching
manifold {g = 0} between s∗ and t∗ at some time s̃2 . Four locations in the physical
space are involved in determining the discontinuity in the linearization of the Poincaré
map P0 from F0 back to F0 : U (x̃(s∗ )), U (x̃(s̃2 )), U (x̃(t∗ )) and U (x̃(t̃2 )). Let us first
assume that the orbit x̃ does not switch from flow Φ1 to Φ2 between s∗ and s̃2 .
Figure E2 shows this configuration. It uses the abbreviations f 0 = x̃(s ˙ ∗) =
f1 (x̃(s∗ )), fj1 = fj (x̃(s̃2 )), fj2 = fj (x̃(t∗ )) and fj3 = fj (x̃(t̃2 )) for j = 1, 2. The
T
hyperplane F3 = {x : f23 [x − x̃(t̃2 )] = 0} intersects x̃ orthogonal to the outgoing flow
Φ2 in x̃(t̃2 ). We denote by Π1 the projection along Φ1 onto G2 = {g = 0} ∩ U (x̃(s̃2 )),
linearized in x̃(s̃2 ), and by Π3 the projection along Φ2 onto F3 , linearized in x̃(t̃2 ).
The projections Π1 and Π3 read
T
f11 g ′ (x̃(s̃2 )) f 3f 3
Π1 = I − ′ 1 , Π3 = I − 2 T2 .
g (x̃(s̃2 ))f1 f23 f23
Dynamics of delayed relay systems 40
U (x̃(s∗ )) {g = 0} U (x̃(s̃2 ))
{x : m(x) < 0}
z2 {g < 0}
Φ1 z3
xm (z0 ) x̃(s̃2 )
x̃(·) {g ≥ 0}
f0
z0 y1
{x : m(x) > 0} G2 f11
x̃(s∗ )
y0 x̃(·)
z1
F0
x̃(·)
U (x̃(t̃2 )) U (x̃(t∗ )) Φ1
x̃(·)
R Gτ2
Φ2 y2 x̃(t∗ )
f23
y3 Φ1
f12 z4
z7 x̃(t̃2 )
F3 f22
z5
z6
Φ1 Φ2
Figure E2. Sketch of the neighbourhoods U (x̃(s∗ )), U (x̃(s̃2 )), U (x̃(t∗ )) and
U (x̃(s̃t )) when x̃(·) undergoes a grazing bifurcation of type (b). The return map
to F0 is a concatenation of a non-smooth map F0 7→ F3 and a smooth map R.
The non-smooth map maps y0 ∈ F+ to y3 ∈ F3 and z0 ∈ F− to z7 ∈ F3 .