Effects of long-term adapted physical training on functional capacity and quality of life in older adults with Parkinson's disease

Oussama Gaied Chortane; Elmoetez Magtouf; Wael Maktouf; Sabri Gaied Chortane; Oussama Gaied Chortane; Elmoetez Magtouf; Wael Maktouf; Sabri Gaied Chortane

doi:10.3934/Neuroscience.2024028

AIMS Neuroscience

2024, Volume 11, Issue 4: 468-483. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2024028

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Effects of long-term adapted physical training on functional capacity and quality of life in older adults with Parkinson's disease

1.
Research Unit (UR17JS01) Sports Performance, Health & Society, Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar-Said, Universite de La Manouba, Tunis 2010, Tunisia
2.
Bioengineering, Tissues and Neuroplasticity, UR 7377, Faculty of Health, University of Paris-Est Créteil, 8 rue du Général Sarrail, 94010 Créteil, France

Received: 06 June 2024 Revised: 24 September 2024 Accepted: 31 October 2024 Published: 27 November 2024

Background

Parkinson's disease (PD) remains incurable and its prevalence is increasing as the population ages. Although physical activity is considered a therapeutic treatment to slow the progression of the disease, it is considered to be an effective non-pharmacological adjuvant to medication to improve the symptom management.

Methods

The training program was offered for all the participants (N = 50) in three non-consecutive sessions per week for 60 minutes and a total duration of 12 to 16 months. Each session is composed of warming up, adapted boxing training exercises, muscle building and resistance exercises, and returning to calm. For the measurement of physical capacities, the following tests were administered: the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale (FAB), Timed Up and Go (TUG), and the 30-second chair lift test (TLC30). With regard to quality of life, the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire of 39 questions (PDQ-39) was used. The participants (age range from 60 to 80 years) were divided following the results of the Parkinson disease severity (Questionnaire Hoehn and Yahr; H&Y) into two groups (H&Y 1–2: mild to moderate symptoms; H&Y 3–4: moderate to severe symptoms).

Objective

The aim of this research was to assess the long-term effects (12 to 16 months) of a community-wide adapted physical program on the physical capacity and quality of life of people with Parkinson disease.

Conclusion

In view of the results, adapted physical training appears to be beneficial for physical capacity and life quality and considered to be an important approch for maintaining the physical and mental capacities and slowing down the proression of neurodegenrative disease.

Keywords:

Citation: Oussama Gaied Chortane, Elmoetez Magtouf, Wael Maktouf, Sabri Gaied Chortane. Effects of long-term adapted physical training on functional capacity and quality of life in older adults with Parkinson's disease[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2024, 11(4): 468-483. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2024028

Related Papers:

[1]	Jingjing Yang, Jianqiu Lu . Stabilization in distribution of hybrid stochastic differential delay equations with Lévy noise by discrete-time state feedback controls. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 3457-3483. doi: 10.3934/math.2025160
[2]	Xiao Yu, Yan Hua, Yanrong Lu . Observer-based robust preview tracking control for a class of continuous-time Lipschitz nonlinear systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 26741-26764. doi: 10.3934/math.20241301
[3]	Hany Bauomy . Control and optimization mechanism of an electromagnetic transducer model with nonlinear magnetic coupling. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2891-2929. doi: 10.3934/math.2025135
[4]	Jenjira Thipcha, Presarin Tangsiridamrong, Thongchai Botmart, Boonyachat Meesuptong, M. Syed Ali, Pantiwa Srisilp, Kanit Mukdasai . Robust stability and passivity analysis for discrete-time neural networks with mixed time-varying delays via a new summation inequality. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4973-5006. doi: 10.3934/math.2023249
[5]	Limei Liu, Xitong Zhong . Analysis and anti-control of period-doubling bifurcation for the one-dimensional discrete system with three parameters and a square term. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 3227-3250. doi: 10.3934/math.2025150
[6]	Abdul Qadeer Khan, Zarqa Saleem, Tarek Fawzi Ibrahim, Khalid Osman, Fatima Mushyih Alshehri, Mohamed Abd El-Moneam . Bifurcation and chaos in a discrete activator-inhibitor system. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4551-4574. doi: 10.3934/math.2023225
[7]	Omar Kahouli, Imane Zouak, Ma'mon Abu Hammad, Adel Ouannas . Chaos, control and synchronization in discrete time computer virus system with fractional orders. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(6): 13594-13621. doi: 10.3934/math.2025612
[8]	Zhiqiang Chen, Alexander Yurievich Krasnov . Disturbance observer based fixed time sliding mode control for a class of uncertain second-order nonlinear systems. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 6745-6763. doi: 10.3934/math.2025309
[9]	Sheng-Ran Jia, Wen-Juan Lin . Adaptive event-triggered reachable set control for Markov jump cyber-physical systems with time-varying delays. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25127-25144. doi: 10.3934/math.20241225
[10]	Hyung Tae Choi, Jung Hoon Kim . An $L_{\infty}$ performance control for time-delay systems with time-varying delays: delay-independent approach via ellipsoidal $\mathcal{D}$ -invariance. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 30384-30405. doi: 10.3934/math.20241466

Abstract

Background

Methods

Objective

Conclusion

Table 1. Nomenclature.

$b$	earth's magnetic induction field	$b_0$	earth's magnetic induction field in coordinate system
$e_r$	unit vector of orbital coordinate system	$J_i$	main central inertia moments, $i=1,2,3$
$M_c$	magnetic control moment	$m$	intrinsic magnetic moment
$r$	orbital radius	$\omega$	absolute angular velocity
$\omega_0$	orbital angular velocity	$\theta_i$	attitude Euler angles, $i=1,2,3$
$\mu_E$	earth's magnetic field constant	$\beta$	inclination angle of orbital plane to the equatorial plane
$\Theta$	direction cosine matrix

| Show Table

DownLoad: CSV

1. Introduction

Satellite attitude control system, which is an important guarantee system for satellite normal operation, affects the working performance and on-orbit lifetimes directly. Because of low cost and high reliability, magnetic control technology has been widely applied in the early stages of satellite development ^[1,2,3]. White, Shigemoyo and Bourquin firstly provided the concept of satellite attitude control, making it possible to achieve orientation of satellites with magnetictorquers. Soon, the first satellite magnetic attitude control method was proposed by Ergin and Wheeler ^[4], and they gave some advantages of magnetic control. Later, Renard ^[5] presented method based on averaged models to study the issue of attitude control with magnetic moments. Recently, wide application of periodic control system brings the research and development of magnetic control theory to a new height ^[6,7,8]. In order to predict the trajectory of a satellite with magnetic moments, numerous efforts have been made to investigate the nonlinear system's stability and controllability, which is based on the following Euler dynamic equation ^[9,10]

$\begin{eqnarray} J\frac{d\omega}{dt}+\omega\times{J\omega} = 3\omega_0^2(e_r\times{Je_r})+M_c, \end{eqnarray}$

(1.1)

where $J = {\rm{diag(J_1, J_2, J_3) }}$ , $\omega = [\omega_1, \omega_2, \omega_3]^T$ , $\omega_0 = [\omega^0_1, \omega^0_2, \omega^0_3]^T$ , the unit vector $e_r = [0, 0, −1]$ , and $\times$ is the familiar operation of cross product. The control moment $M_c$ is

$\begin{eqnarray} M_c = m(t)\times{b(t)}, \end{eqnarray}$

where $m(t) = [m_1, m_2, m_3]^T$ and $b(t) = \Theta b_0(t)$ , $b_0(t)$ can be approximated by the direct magnetic dipole as ^[11],

$\begin{eqnarray} b_0(t) = \frac{\mu_E}{r^3}\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \cos\omega_0{t}\sin{\beta} \\ -\cos{\beta}\\ 2\sin\omega_0{t}\sin{\beta} \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

Many scholars focused on controllability of satellite magnetic control system based on control theories for nonlinear and linear time-varying continuous systems ^{[12,13,14,15]}. However, exact solutions and fundamental solution matrix of these time-varying continuous systems are hard to obtain, although controllability conditions of systems are satisfied. Therefore, the trajectory of satellites can not be predicted correctly. Therefore, numerous studies have been done to deal with the nonlinear second-order time-varying system (1.1) by linearization method ^[13,15]. With the development of computer technology, quite a number of research works regarding discrete-time systems have been reported in the literature ^[16,17,18] and the controllability and observability of discrete linear systems have attracted a lot of interest ^{[19,20,21,22,23]}. Witczak etc. provided a necessary and sufficient condition for the observability of first-order discrete time-varying linear systems. Mahmudov proposed the controllability and observability conditions of second-order discrete linear time-varying systems in a matrix form. The controllability and observability conditions for the problem of discrete satellite magnetic attitude control have not been presented to the best of our knowledge. Usually, the difference methods based on Taylor series are widely used for approximation discretization of the continuous-time systems ^[23]. A brief review of the possible approach to discretize linear and nonlinear time-varying systems so far has been presented in ^[24]. Here, we investigate controllability and observability property of the linearized form of equation (1.1) by transforming it into a discrete time-varying system with second derivation by the forward and backward Euler method. Then, the controllability and observability conditions of a new discrete second-order linear time-varying system are proposed, which are applied to investigate the controllability and observability of the discretized satellite magnetic control system. Different periods $\tau$ are chosen to investigate the effect on controllability and observability of the resulting discrete system.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, two different discrete schemes of the second-order linear time-varying system represented by the linearized satellite magnetic attitude control motion equation are obtained by Euler method. The linearized satellite magnetic attitude control system is changed into a discrete second-order time-varying system. In Section 3, the controllability conditions of a new discrete second-order linear time-varying system are proposed, which are applied to investigate the controllability of the discretized satellite magnetic control system. Section 4 investigates the observability of the discrete second-order satellite magnetic control system based on corresponding observability conditions. We give concluding remarks in the final section.

2. Transformation of satellite attitude control system

In this section, the nonlinear second-order time-varying system represented by satellite attitude magnetic control motion equation (1.1) is linearized. We obtain two different discrete schemes of the second-order linear time-varying system by Euler method and transform the linearized satellite magnetic attitude control motion equation into a discrete second-order time-varying linear system.

2.1. Linearized equation of satellite magnetic control

We assume the mass center of the satellite moving in earth's gravitational field and in a circular orbit. To satellite magnetic attitude control motion equation, the coordinate systems are described as follows:

(1) orbital system $(X, Y, Z).$ The origin is satellite mass center. The $Z$ -axis points in the direction of the radius vector; the $Y$ -axis is normal to the satellite orbit plane; and the $X$ -axis forms the right-hand trial.

(2) satellite body frame $(x, y, z)$ . The axes are assumed to coincide with the body's principle inertia axes and their origin are still at the center of satellite mass.

The attitude of system $(x, y, z)$ relative to the orbital system $(X, Y, Z)$ is given by Euler angles $\theta_1, \; \theta_2, \; \theta_3.$ Then the components of $\omega$ have form ^[13]

$\begin{eqnarray} \omega = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \omega_1 \\ \omega_2\\ \omega_3 \end{array} \right] = C_{\theta_3\theta_2}\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \dot{\theta}_1 \\ \dot{\theta}_2\\ \dot{\theta}_3 \end{array} \right]+\Theta\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \omega_1^0 \\ \omega_2^0\\ \omega_3^0 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

(2.1)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} C_{\theta_3\theta_2} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \cos\theta_2\cos\theta_3&\sin\theta_3&0\\ \cos\theta_2\sin\theta_3&\cos\theta_3&0\\ \sin\theta_2&0&1 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

(2.2)

and the direction cosine matrix $\Theta = [\Theta_{ij}]$ is represented using a 1-2-3 Euler angle rotation sequence as follows

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\{ \begin{array}{lllllllll} &\Theta_{11} = \cos\theta_2\cos\theta_3, \\ &\Theta_{12} = \cos\theta_1\sin\theta_3+\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2\cos\theta_3, \\ &\Theta_{13} = \sin\theta_1\sin\theta_3-\cos\theta_1\sin\theta_2\cos\theta_3, \\ &\Theta_{21} = -\cos\theta_2\sin\theta_3, \\ &\Theta_{22} = \cos\theta_1\cos\theta_3-\sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2\sin\theta_3, \\ &\Theta_{23} = \sin\theta_1\cos\theta_3+\cos\theta_1\sin\theta_2\sin\theta_3, \\ &\Theta_{31} = \sin\theta_2, \\ &\Theta_{32} = \sin\theta_1\cos\theta_2, \\ &\Theta_{33} = \cos\theta_1\cos\theta_2. \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.3)

In ^[15], Morozov and Kalenova gave the following linearized special second-order time-varying system of equation (1.1)

$\begin{eqnarray} \ddot{x}(t)+D\dot{x}(t)+Kx(t) = B(t)u(t), \end{eqnarray}$

(2.4)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} D = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&0&\frac{J_{1}+J_{32}}{J_{1}}\omega_0 \\ 0&0&0\\ \frac{J_{21}-{J_3}}{J_3}\omega_0&0&0 \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&0&-d_1\omega_0 \\ 0&0&0\\ d_3\omega_0&0&0 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} K = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{-4\omega_0^2J_{32}}{J_{1}}&0&0 \\ 0&\frac{3\omega_0^2J_{13}}{J_2}&0\\ 0&0&\frac{\omega_0^2J_{21}}{J_3} \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} -k_1\omega_0^2&0 \\ 0&-k_2\omega_0^2&0\\ 0&0&-k_3\omega_0^2 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} B(t) = \omega_0^2\epsilon\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&2b_1\sin\omega_0{t}&b_4 \\ -2b_2\sin\omega_0{t}&0&b_2\cos\omega_0{t}\\ -b_5&-b_3\cos\omega_0{t}&0 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{lllll} &x(t) = [\theta_1, \; \theta_2, \; \theta_3]^T{is\; the\; state\; vector}, \\ &\epsilon = \frac{\mu_E}{\omega^2_0{r^3}}, \; \; \; d = J_2-J_1+J_3, \; \; \; \; d_i = \frac{d}{J_i}\; (i = 1, 3), \; \; \; J_{ij} = J_i-J_j\; (i, j = 1, 2, 3), \\ &k_1 = \frac{-4J_{32}}{J_{1}}, \; \; \; \; k_2 = \frac{3J_{31}}{J_2}, \; \; \; \; k_3 = \frac{J_{12}}{J_3}, \\ &b_j = \frac{\sin{\beta}}{J_j}\; (j = 1, 2, 3), \; \; \; \; b_4 = \frac{\cos{\beta}}{J_1}, \; \; \; \; b_5 = \frac{\cos{\beta}}{J_3}\\ &{u(t) = m(t) = [m_1, \; m_2, \; m_3]^T\; is\; control\; vector, \; which\; allows\; the\; satellite\; attitude\; position\; to\; be\; stabilized}. \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

The complete linearized derivation of equation (1.1) can be found in ^[13].

With certain assumptions, the equation of the measurement yielded by the magnetometer is represented as ^[25]

$\begin{eqnarray} y(t) = C(t)x(t) \end{eqnarray}$

(2.5)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} C(t) = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} \alpha_2&0&-\alpha_1\sin\omega_0{t}-\alpha_3\cos\omega_0{t}\\ 0&-\alpha_2&\alpha_1\cos\omega_0{t}-\alpha_3\sin\omega_0{t} \end{array} \right] \end{eqnarray}$

and $\alpha_j\; (j = 1, 2, 3)$ are constant quantities determining the position of the orbit in space, $x(t)\in R^3, \; y(t)\in R^2$ are state vector and output vector respectively.

Then we have the following linear satellite magnetic attitude control system with measurement, corresponding coefficient matrices are in accordance with matrices in equation (2.4) and (2.5)

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &\ddot{x}(t)+D\dot{x}(t)+Kx(t) = B(t)u(t), \\ &y(t) = C(t)x(t). \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.6)

2.2. Discretization of the linearized satellite control system

Firstly, letting $t = k\tau\; (k = 0, 1, 2...),$ we realize an approximate form of $\dot{x}(t)$ and $\ddot{x}(t)$ using Taylor forward expansion as

$\begin{equation} \dot{x}(t)\approx\frac{x((k+1)\tau)-x(k\tau)}{\tau} \end{equation}$

(2.7)

and

$\begin{equation} \ddot{x}(t)\approx\frac{x((k+1)\tau)-2x(k\tau)+x((k-1)\tau)}{\tau^2}. \end{equation}$

(2.8)

Substituting equation (2.7) and (2.8) into system (2.6), we have

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &\frac{x((k+1)\tau)-2x(k\tau)+x((k-1)\tau)}{\tau^2}+D\frac{x((k+1)\tau)-x(k\tau)}{\tau}+Kx(k\tau) = B(k\tau)u(k\tau), \\ &y(k\tau) = C(k\tau)x(k\tau). \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.9)

Then we can get

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &(I_3+\tau D)x_{k+1}+(\tau^2 K-\tau D-2I_3)x_k+x_{k-1} = \tau^2B_ku_k, \\ &y_k = C_kx_k, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.10)

where $I_3$ denotes the identity matrix of $3$ dimension and

$\begin{eqnarray} x_k = x(k\tau), \; \; u_k = u(k\tau), \; \; y_k = y(k\tau), \; \; C_k = C(k\tau), \; \; B_k = B(k\tau). \end{eqnarray}$

(2.11)

Noting that

$\begin{eqnarray} I_3+\tau D = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1&0&-d_1\omega_0\tau \\ 0&1&0\\ d_3\omega_0\tau&0&1 \end{array} \right] \end{eqnarray}$

(2.12)

and

$\begin{eqnarray} det(I_3+\tau D) = 1+d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2 > 0, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.13)

which means the matrix $\; I_3+\tau D\;$ is invertible. Therefore, we can rewrite the system (2.10) as the following discrete system

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &x_{k+1} = A_0x_{k-1}+A_1x_k+\widetilde{B}_ku_k, \\ &y_k = C_kx_k, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.14)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} A_0 = -(I_3+\tau D)^{-1} = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} -\frac{1}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&0&-\frac{d_1\omega_0\tau}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1} \\ 0&-1&0\\ \frac{d_3\omega_0\tau}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&0&-\frac{1}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1} \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} A_1 = (I_3+\tau D)^{-1}(\tau D+2I_3-\tau^2 K) = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1+\frac{k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&0&\frac{d_1\tau\omega_0(k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1)}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1} \\ 0&k_2\omega_0^2 \tau^2+2&0\\ \frac{-d_3\omega_0\tau(k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+1)}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&0&1+\frac{k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1} \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} \widetilde{B}_k = (I_3+\tau D)^{-1}\tau^2B_k = \tau^2\omega_0^2\epsilon\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} -\frac{b_5 d_1\omega_0\tau}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&\frac{2b_1\sin\omega_0{k\tau}-b_3 d_1\omega_0\tau \cos\omega_0{k\tau}}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&\frac{b_4}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1} \\ -2b_2\sin\omega_0{k\tau}&0&b_2\cos\omega_0{k\tau}\\ -\frac{b_5}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&\frac{-(b_3\cos\omega_0{k\tau}+2b_1d_3\omega_0\tau\sin\omega_0k\tau)}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1}&\frac{-b_4d_3\omega_0\tau}{d_1d_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+1} \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

Next, by analogy, the system (2.6) can also be discretized with backward Euler method. We can obtain an approximate form of $\dot{x}(t)$ and $\ddot{x}(t)$ using Taylor backward expansion as

$\begin{equation} \dot{x}(t)\approx\frac{x(k\tau)-x((k-1)\tau)}{\tau} \end{equation}$

(2.15)

and

$\begin{equation} \ddot{x}(t)\approx\frac{x((k+1)\tau)-2x(k\tau)+x((k-1)\tau)}{\tau^2}. \end{equation}$

(2.16)

Substituting equation (2.15) and (2.16) into system (2.6), letting $t = k\tau\; (k = 0, 1, 2...),$

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &\frac{x((k+1)\tau)-2x(k\tau)+x((k-1)\tau)}{\tau^2}+D\frac{x((k\tau)-x((k-1)\tau)}{\tau}+Kx(k\tau) = B(k\tau)u(k\tau), \\ &y(k\tau) = C(k\tau)x(k\tau), \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.17)

Based on equation (2.11) and (2.17) we get

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &x_{k+1}+(K\tau^2+D\tau-2I_3)x_k+(I_3-D\tau)x_{k-1} = \tau^2B_ku_k, \\ &y_k = C_kx_k. \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.18)

Therefore, we can rewrite the system (2.17) as the following discrete system with backward Euler method,

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &x_{k+1} = \widetilde{A}_0x_{k-1}+\widetilde{A}_1x_k+\widetilde{\widetilde{B}}_ku_k, \\ &y_k = C_kx_k, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.19)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \widetilde{A}_0 = \tau D-I_3 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} -1&0&-d_1\omega_0\tau \\ 0&-1&0\\ d_3\omega_0\tau&0&-1 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} \widetilde{A}_1 = 2I_3-\tau D-\tau^2 K = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+2&0&d_1\omega_0\tau \\ 0&k_2\omega_0^2 \tau^2+2&0\\ -d_3\omega_0\tau&0&k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+2 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} \widetilde{\widetilde{B}}_k = \tau^2\omega_0^2\epsilon\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&2b_1\sin\omega_0{k\tau}&b_4 \\ -2b_2\sin\omega_0{k\tau}&0&b_2\cos\omega_0{k\tau}\\ -b_5&-b_3\cos\omega_0{k\tau}&0 \end{array} \right], \; k = 0, 1, 2...\; . \end{eqnarray}$

In general, when the sampling period $\tau$ is about one tenth of the minimum time constant of the system, the approximation is satisfactory enough. In fact, the error between the exact solution and the numerical solution will be lager if the period is too big, which makes the mathematical precision lower. On the contrary, if the period is too small, then step size increases and the computation is huge. Then, based on the similar form of discrete system (2.14) and (2.19), we can rewrite them as the following general discrete system

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &x_{k+1} = \hat{A}_0x_{k-1}+\hat{A}_1x_k+\hat{B}_ku_k, \\ &y_k = C_kx_k, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.20)

where $x_k\in R^n, \; y_k\in R^r, \; u_k\in R^m\; (m\leq n)$ are the state vector, the output vector and the control vector respectively. $\hat{A}_0, \; \hat{A}_1\in R^{n\times n}$ , $\hat{B}_k\in R^{n\times m}, \; C_k\in R^{r\times n}$ are coefficient matrices.

3. Controllability of the discrete system

3.1. Controllability analysis

According to the definition of controllability of discrete linear time-varying systems in ^[26], we present the definition of controllability and uncontrollability of the second-order discrete time-varying linear system (2.20).

Definition 1. The second-order discrete time-varying linear system (2.20) is said to be controllable to final state $x_n = x_f$ in finite $n$ steps if it exists an input sequence $U = \{u_0, u_1, ..., u_{n-1}\}$ which brings the initial state $(x_{-1}, x_0)$ to a final state $x_n = x_f$ in the finite discrete time interval $[0, n].$ Otherwise the system (2.20) is uncontrollable.

Theorem 1. The linear discrete-time varying system (2.20) is controllable if and only if ${\rm{rank}}\; \mathbb{C} = {\rm{n}}$ , and the controllability matrix $\mathbb{C}$ is defined by

$\begin{equation} {\mathbb{C} = [M^{(n)}_{n-1}\hat{B}_{n-1}, \; M^{(n)}_{n-2}\hat{B}_{n-2}, ..., M^{(n)}_{1}\hat{B}_{1}, M^{(n)}_{0}\hat{B}_0], } \end{equation}$

(3.1)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{ll} &M^{(n)}_{i-2} = M^{(n)}_{i-1}\hat{A}_1+M^{(n)}_{i}\hat{A}_0, \; \; i = 2, ..., n-1, \\ &M^{(n)}_{n-2} = \hat{A}_1, \; \; \; M^{(n)}_{n-1} = I_n. \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

(3.2)

Proof Based on the form of the state vector in the system (2.20), we derive the following set of equations

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{ll} &{\; x_1 = \hat{A}_0x_{-1}+\hat{A}_1x_0+\hat{B}_0u_0, }\\ &\begin{array}{ll} x_2& = \hat{A}_0x_0+\hat{A}_1x_1+\hat{B}_1u_1 = \hat{A}_0x_1+\hat{A}_1(\hat{A}_0x_{-1}+\hat{A}_1x_0+\hat{B}_0u_0)+\hat{B}_1u_1\\ & = \hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0x_{-1}+(\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^2_1)x_0+\hat{A}_1\hat{B}_0u_0+\hat{B}_1u_1. \end{array} \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

(3.3)

Thus, by iteration, it is finally not difficult to find that in equations (3.3) the $k-th$ instant state vector $x_k$ starting from initial time $k = 0$ and $k = 1$ is

$\begin{equation} x_k = {Q(k)x_{-1}+P(k)x_0+\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{k-1}M_i^{(k)}\hat{B}_iu_i}, \end{equation}$

(3.4)

where $Q(k), \; P(k), \; M_i^{(k)}$ are polynomial functions consisted of matrices $\hat{A}_0, \; \hat{A}_1$ , and they satisfy the following important iteration equations

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{lll} &Q(k) = \hat{A}_0Q(k-2)+\hat{A}_1Q(k-1), \; \; Q(1) = O_{n\times n}, \; \; Q(0) = I_n, \\ &P(k) = \hat{A}_0P(k-2)+\hat{A}_1P(k-1), \; \; P(0) = O_{n\times n}, \; \; P(1) = I_n, \; \; k = 2, 3, ...\; , \\ &M_{i-2}^{(k)} = M_{i-1}^{(k)}\hat{A}_1+M_i^{(k)}\hat{A}_0, \; \; i = 2, ..., k-1, \; \; M_{k-2}^{(k)} = \hat{A}_1, \; \; \; M_{k-1}^{(k)} = I_n. \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

(3.5)

In a general case, the state vector at final time $n$ can be written as

$\begin{equation} x_{n} = {Q(n)x_{-1}+P(n)x_0+\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n-1}M_i^{(n)}\hat{B}_iu_i}. \end{equation}$

(3.6)

Therefore

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} &x_{n}-Q(n)x_{-1}-P(n)x_0 = \sum\limits_{i = 0}^{n-1}M_i^{(n)}\hat{B}_iu_i\\ & = {M_0^{(n)}\hat{B}_0u_0+M_1^{(n)}\hat{B}_1u_1+...+M_{n-1}^{(n)}\hat{B}_{n-1}u_{n-1}}\\ & = [M_{n-1}^{(n)}\hat{B}_{n-1}, \; M_{n-2}^{(n)}\hat{B}_{n-2}, ..., M_1^{(n)}\hat{B}_{1}, M_0^{(n)}\hat{B}_0]{\left[ \begin{array}{lllll} u_{n-1}\\ u_{n-2}\\ ...\\ u_1\\ u_0 \end{array} \right].} \end{array} \end{equation}$

(3.7)

If we denote

$\begin{eqnarray} {\mathbb{C} = [M_{n-1}^{(n)}\hat{B}_{n-1}, \; M_{n-2}^{(n)}\hat{B}_{n-2}, ..., M_1^{(n)}\hat{B}_{1}, M_0^{(n)}\hat{B}_0]} \end{eqnarray}$

as the controllability matrix in the sequel, then the equation (3.7) determines the input sequence which transfers the initial state $(x_{-1}, x_0)$ to the desired state $x_f = x_n$ in $n$ steps. Thus, these equations will have a solution for any given vector $x_f$ if and only if the matrix has full rank, i.e. ${\rm{rank}}\; \mathbb{C} = {\rm{n}},$ the discrete system (2.20) is controllable.

In order to further verify the correctness of the theoretical results, some numerical examples are given.

Example.1 Let us investigate the controllability of the following system ^[20]:

$\begin{eqnarray} \ddot{x}(t) = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1&0&-1\\ 2&3&1\\ 4&-5&2 \end{array} \right]x(t) +\left[ \begin{array}{lll} 1\\ 0\\ 3 \end{array} \right]u(t). \end{eqnarray}$

(3.8)

Firstly, it is noticed that there is no $\dot{x}(t)$ in system (3.8), which means the discrete forms with forward and backward method of system (3.8) are equivalent, that is

$\begin{eqnarray} x_{k+1} = \hat{A}_0x_{k-1}+\hat{A}_1x_k+\hat{B}u_k \end{eqnarray}$

(3.9)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{A}_1 = 2I_3+\tau^2A, \; \; \; \; \hat{A}_0 = -I_3, \; \; \; \; \hat{B} = \tau^2B, \; \; \; \; A = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 1&0&-1\\ 2&3&1\\ 4&-5&2 \end{array} \right], \; \; B = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} 1\\ 0\\ 3 \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

Letting $\tau = 0.1s,$ according to Theorem $1$ , we have

$\begin{eqnarray} n = 3, \; \; M_2^{(3)} = I_3, \; \; M_1^{(3)} = \hat{A}_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 2.01&0&-0.01\\ 0.02&2.03&0.01\\ 0.04&-0.05&2.02 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} M_0^{(3)} = M_1^{(3)}\hat{A}_1+M_2^{(3)}\hat{A}_0 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 3.0397&0.0005&-0.0403\\ 0.0812&3.1204&0.0403\\ 0.1602&-0.2025&3.0795 \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

Then

$\begin{eqnarray} \mathbb{C} = [M^{(3)}_{2}\hat{B}, \; M^{(3)}_{1}\hat{B}, M^{(3)}_{0}\hat{B}] = \tau^2[M^{(3)}_{2}B, \; M^{(3)}_{1}B, M^{(3)}_{0}B] = \tau^2[B, \; \hat{A}_1B, \; (\hat{A}_1^2+\hat{A}_0)B], \end{eqnarray}$

(3.10)

here,

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{A}_1B = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} 1.98\\ 0.05\\ 6.1 \end{array} \right], \; \; \; (\hat{A}_1^2+\hat{A}_0)B = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} 2.9188\\ 0.2021\\ 9.3987 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray} det\; \mathbb{C} = -0.000221\neq 0, \; \; \; rank\; \mathbb{C} = 3 = n. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.11)

Therefore, discrete system (3.9) is controllable.

Example.2 The equations of controlling the motion of a spacecraft between the earth and the moon have the form ^[25]

$\begin{eqnarray} \ddot{x}(t)+2D\dot{x}(t)+Kx(t) = B(t)u(t) \end{eqnarray}$

(3.12)

Here,

$\begin{eqnarray} D = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0&-1\\ 1&0 \end{array} \right], \; \; K = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -\alpha_1&0\\ 0&-\alpha_2 \end{array} \right], \; \; B(t) = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -\cos t\\ \sin t \end{array} \right], \; \; \alpha_1, \alpha_2 = const. \end{eqnarray}$

For forward Euler method, the discrete form of system is as follows:

$\begin{eqnarray} (I+2\tau D)x_{k+1}+(\tau^2K-2I-2\tau D)x_k+x_{k-1} = \tau^2 B_ku_k. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.13)

Then, choosing $\tau = 0.1s,$ we have

$\begin{eqnarray} I+2\tau D = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1&-2\tau\\ 2\tau&1 \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1&-0.2\\ 0.2&1 \end{array} \right], \; \; det(I+2\tau D) = 1+4\tau^2 = 1.04\neq 0, \end{eqnarray}$

which means the inverse matrix of $I+2\tau D$ exits and

$\begin{eqnarray} (I+2\tau D)^{-1} = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{1+4\tau^2}&\frac{2\tau}{1+4\tau^2}\\ -\frac{2\tau}{1+4\tau^2}&\frac{1}{1+4\tau^2} \end{array} \right]\approx\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0.9615&0.1923\\ -0.1923&0.9615 \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

The discrete system can be represented as

$\begin{eqnarray} x_{k+1} = \hat{A}_0x_{k-1}+\hat{A}_1x_k+\hat{B}_ku_k \end{eqnarray}$

(3.14)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{A}_0 = -(I+2\tau D)^{-1}, \; \; \hat{A}_1 = (I+2\tau D)^{-1}(2I+2\tau D-\tau^2K), \; \; \hat{B}_k = \tau^2 (I+2\tau D)^{-1}B(k\tau). \end{eqnarray}$

According to Theorem $1$ , we have

$\begin{eqnarray} n = 2, \; \; M_1^{(2)} = I_2, \; \; M_0^{(2)} = \hat{A}_1. \end{eqnarray}$

Then

$\begin{eqnarray} \mathbb{C} = [M^{(2)}_{1}\hat{B}_{1}, \; \; M^{(2)}_{0}\hat{B}_0] = [\hat{B}_1, \; \hat{A}_1\hat{B}_0], \end{eqnarray}$

(3.15)

here

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{B}_1\approx\left[ \begin{array}{ll} 0.00937\\ 0.00287 \end{array} \right], \; \; \; \hat{B}_0\approx\left[ \begin{array}{cc} -0.00962\\ 0.00192 \end{array} \right], \; \; \; \hat{A}_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \frac{2.04+0.01\times \alpha_1}{1.04}&\frac{0.2+0.002\times \alpha_2}{1.04}\\ \frac{-0.2-0.002\times \alpha_1}{1.04}&\frac{2.04+0.01\times \alpha_2}{1.04} \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

Because of $\alpha_1 = 1+2b, \; \; \alpha_2 = 1-b, \; \; 0 < b < < 1$ , then

$\begin{eqnarray} det\; \mathbb{C}\approx-0.000112-0.0000021\alpha_2\neq 0, \; \; \; rank\; \mathbb{C} = 2 = n. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.16)

Therefore, discrete system (3.13) is controllable. Similarly, we can prove the controllability of system (3.12) with forward Euler discretized form.

3.2. Numerical calculations of controllability of discrete magnetic attitude control system

To the specific discrete system (2.19) with backward difference, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} M_2^{(3)} = I_3, \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} M_1^{(3)} = \hat{A}_1 = \widetilde{A}_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+2&0&d_1\tau\omega_0 \\ 0&k_2\omega_0^2 \tau^2+2&0\\ -d_3\tau\omega_0&0&k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+2 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} { \begin{array}{ll} &M_0^{(3)} = M_1^{(3)}\hat{A}_1+M_2^{(3)}\hat{A}_0 = \widetilde{A}_1^2+\widetilde{A}_0 = \\ &\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} (k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+2)^2-d_1d_3\tau^2\omega_0^2-1&0&d_1\tau\omega_0(k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+3) \\ 0&{(k_2\omega_0^2 \tau^2+2)}^2-1&0\\ -d_3\tau\omega_0(k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+3)&0&-d_1d_3\tau^2\omega_0^2+(k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+2)^2-1 \end{array} \right], \end{array}} \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{B}_2 = \widetilde{\widetilde{B}}_2 = \tau^2\omega_0^2\epsilon\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&2b_1\sin2\omega_0{\tau}&b_4 \\ -2b_2\sin2\omega_0{\tau}&0&b_2\cos2\omega_0{\tau}\\ -b_5&-b_3\cos2\omega_0{\tau}&0 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{B}_1 = \widetilde{\widetilde{B}}_1 = \tau^2\omega_0^2\epsilon\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&2b_1\sin\omega_0{\tau}&b_4 \\ -2b_2\sin\omega_0{\tau}&0&b_2\cos\omega_0{\tau}\\ -b_5&-b_3\cos\omega_0{\tau}&0 \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} { \hat{B}_0 = \widetilde{\widetilde{B}}_0 = \tau^2\omega_0^2\epsilon\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0&0&b_4 \\ 0&0&b_2\\ -b_5&-b_3&0 \end{array} \right].} \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} M_1^{(3)}\hat{B}_1 = \widetilde{A}_1\widetilde{\widetilde{B}}_1 = \tau^2\omega_0^2\epsilon\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} -b_5d_1\omega_0\tau&l_{12}&b_4(k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+2) \\ -2b_2\sin\omega_0{\tau}(k_2\omega^2_0\tau^2+2)&0&b_2\cos\omega_0{\tau}(k_2\omega^2_0\tau^2+2)\\ -b_5(k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+2)&l_{32}&-b_4d_3\omega_0\tau \end{array} \right] \end{eqnarray}$

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} &l_{12} = 2b_1\sin\omega_0{\tau}(k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+2)-b_3d_1\omega_0\tau\cos\omega_0\tau, \\ &l_{32} = -2b_1d_3\omega_0\tau\sin\omega_0\tau-b_3\cos\omega_0{\tau}(k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+2). \end{array} \right. \end{eqnarray}$

It can be shown

$\begin{eqnarray} {\rm{det}}{\rm{(M_2^{(3)}\hat{B}_2) = det(\hat{B}_2) = b_2(b_3b_4-b_1b_5)\sin4}}\omega_0\tau = 0 \end{eqnarray}$

(3.17)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} b_3b_4-b_1b_5 = \frac{\sin{\beta}}{J_3}\frac{\cos{\beta}}{J_1}-\frac{\sin{\beta}}{J_1}\frac{\cos{\beta}}{J_3} = 0. \end{eqnarray}$

(3.18)

Based on the results in equation (3.17), the condition of full rank of $\mathbb{C}$ is not satisfied when the determinant of matrix $\mathbb{C}$ composed of the first three columns. However, if the other three independent columns (such as, 1, 2, 5) are selected, for convenience, we choose $\tau = 0.1$ as the period of the discrete system without loss of generality, it is easy to see that ${\rm{det}}(\mathbb{C})\neq 0$ on the basic of satellite and its orbit parameters in ^[27]. Then

$\begin{equation} { {\rm{rank}}\; \mathbb{C} = {\rm{rank\; [M_2^{(3)}\hat{B}_2, \; \; M_1^{(3)}\hat{B}_1, \; \; M_0^{(3)}\hat{B}_0] = 3.}}} \end{equation}$

(3.19)

According to Theorem $1$ , the system (2.19) by backward Euler method is controllable.

Moreover, we make $\tau = 0.2, \; 0.05$ respectivly to compute the rank of $\mathbb{C}$ and the results show different $\tau$ have no effect on the controllability of system (2.19). In the same way, we can also calculate the rank of $\mathbb{C}$ for the system (2.14) with Matlab and then prove the discretized system (2.14) by forward Euler method is controllable.

4. Observability of the discrete system

4.1. Observability analysis

Based on the definition of observability of discrete linear time-varying systems in ^[28], we can also present the following definition of observability of system (2.20).

Definition 2. The second order discrete linear time-varying system (2.20) is observable if for any unknown initial state $(x_{0}, \; x_1)$ , there exists a finite $k_{\beta}\in N(k_{\beta} > 0)$ such that $(x_{0}, \; x_1)$ can be determined uniquely from the knowledge of output $y_k$ and input $u_k, \; k\in[0, k_{\beta}].$ Otherwise the system is said to be unobservable.

Theorem 2. The second-order linear discrete-time system (2.20) is observable if and only if the observability matrix $\mathbb{S}$ has rank equal to $2n$ and

$\begin{equation} \nonumber \mathbb{S} = \left[ \begin{array}{llllll} C_0&O\\ O&C_1\\ C_2\hat{A}_0&C_2\hat{A}_1\\ C_3\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0&C_3(\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}_1^2)\\ ...&...\\ C_{2n-1}Q(2n-1)&C_{2n-1}P(2n-1) \end{array} \right] \end{equation}$

where the definitions of $M(k), P(k)$ are same as above, and $O$ denotes the relative dimensions of zero matrix.

Proof Taking $k = 0, 1, ...$ in system (2.20) and equations (3.3), we generate the following sequence

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{lll} y_0 = C_0x_0, \; \; \; y_1 = C_1x_1, \\ y_2 = C_2x_2 = C_2(\hat{A}_0x_0+\hat{A}_1x_1+\hat{B}_1u_1) = C_2\hat{A}_0x_0+C_2\hat{A}_1x_1+C_2\hat{B}_1u_1, \\ y_3 = C_3x_3 = C_3\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0x_0+C_3(\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^2_1)x_1+C_3\hat{A}_1\hat{B}_1u_1+C_3\hat{B}_2u_2. \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

Then the measurement $y_k$ according to the equation (3.4) of state vector $x_k$ is

$\begin{equation} y_k = C_kQ(k)x_0+C_kP(k)x_1+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{k-1}C_kM_i^{(k)}\hat{B}_iu_i, \end{equation}$

(4.1)

In general, we have

$\begin{equation} y_{2n-1} = C_{2n-1}Q(2n-1)x_0+C_{2n-1}P(2n-1)x_1+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{2n-2}C_{2n-1}M_i^{(2n-1)}\hat{B}_iu_i, \end{equation}$

(4.2)

As consequence, equation (4.2) can be rewritten in the following relevant matrix form

$\begin{eqnarray} \left[ \begin{array}{llllll} y_0\\ y_1\\ y_2-C_2\hat{B}_1u_1\\ y_3-C_3\hat{A}_1\hat{B}_1u_1-C_3\hat{B}_2u_2\\ ......\\ y_{2n-1}-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{2n-2}C_{2n-1}M_i^{(2n-1)}\hat{B}_iu_i \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{llllll} C_0&O\\ O&C_1\\ C_2\hat{A}_0&C_2\hat{A}_1\\ C_3\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0&C_3(\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^2_1)\\ ...&...\\ C_{2n-1}Q(2n-1)&C_{2n-1}P(2n-1) \end{array} \right]\left[ \begin{array}{ll} x_0\\ x_1 \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

We know from linear algebra that the system of linear algebra equations with 2n unknowns, equation (4.1) has a unique solution $(x_0, x_1)$ if and only if the system matrix has rank $2n$ :

$\begin{eqnarray} {\rm{rank}}\; \left[ \begin{array}{llllll} C_0&O\\ O&C_1\\ C_2\hat{A}_0&C_2\hat{A}_1\\ C_3\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0&C_3(\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^2_1)\\ ...&...\\ C_{2n-1}Q(2n-1)&C_{2n-1}P(2n-1) \end{array} \right] = {\rm{2n}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.3)

The matrix in (4.3) we denote by $\mathbb{S}.$ Then the initial values $x_0, x_1$ are determined uniquely, if and only if ${\rm{rank}}\; \mathbb{S} = {\rm{2n}}.$

Analogously, a numerical example is given as follows to verify the validity of observability analysis.

Example.3 Considering the following system with discrete method ^[20]

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{ll} &\ddot{x}(t) = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 2&1\\ 3&4 \end{array} \right]x(t)+\left[ \begin{array}{ll} 1\\ 2 \end{array} \right]u(t),\\ &y(t) = [1\; \; \; \; 3]x(t). \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

(4.4)

The discrete system has the form

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{ll} x_{k+1} = \hat{A}_0x_{k-1}+\hat{A}_1x_k+\hat{B}u_k, \\ y_k = Cx_k \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

(4.5)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{A}_0 = -I_2, \; \; \hat{A}_1 = 2I_2+\tau^2 A, \; \; \hat{B} = \tau^2 B, \; \; \; A = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 2&1\\ 3&4 \end{array} \right], \; \; B = \left[ \begin{array}{ll} 1\\ 2 \end{array} \right], \; \; C = [1\; \; \; \; 3]. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.6)

Letting $\tau = 0.1s,$ according to Theorem $2,$ we have

$\begin{eqnarray} n = 2, \; \hat{A}_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 2.02&0.01\\ 0.03&2.04 \end{array} \right], \; \hat{A}_1^2 = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 4.0807&0.0406\\ 0.1218&4.1619 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

(4.7)

$\begin{eqnarray} \mathbb{S} = \left[ \begin{array}{llll} C&O\\ O&C\\ C\hat{A}_0&C\hat{A}_1\\ C\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0&C(\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^2_1) \end{array} \right] = \left[ \begin{array}{llll} 1&3&0&0\\ 0&0&1&3\\ -1&-3&2.11&6.13\\ -2.11&-6.13&4.4461&12.5263 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

(4.8)

$\begin{eqnarray} det\mathbb{S} = -0.04\neq 0, \; \; rank\mathbb{S} = 4 = 2n. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.9)

Therefore, the discrete system (4.5) is observable.

4.2. Numerical calculations of observability of discrete magnetic attitude control system

To system (2.19), according to equations (3.5), we also have

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{llllllll} &Q(2) = \hat{A}_0Q(0)+\hat{A}_1Q(1) = \hat{A}_0, \\ &Q(3) = \hat{A}_0Q(1)+\hat{A}_1Q(2) = \hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0, \\ &Q(4) = \hat{A}_0Q(2)+\hat{A}_1Q(3) = \hat{A}^2_0+\hat{A}^2_1\hat{A}_0, \\ &Q(5) = \hat{A}_0Q(3)+\hat{A}_1Q(4) = \hat{A}_0\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}_1(\hat{A}^2_0+\hat{A}^2_1\hat{A}_0), \\ &P(2) = \hat{A}_0P(0)+\hat{A}_1P(1) = \hat{A}_1, \\ &P(3) = \hat{A}_0P(1)+\hat{A}_1P(2) = \hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^2_1, \\ &P(4) = \hat{A}_0P(2)+\hat{A}_1P(3) = \hat{A}_0\hat{A}_1+\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^3_1, \\ &P(5) = \hat{A}_0P(3)+\hat{A}_1P(4) = \hat{A}_0(\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0)+\hat{A}_1(\hat{A}_0\hat{A}_1+\hat{A}_1\hat{A}_0+\hat{A}^3_1), \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

(4.10)

and

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{A}_0 = \widetilde{A}_0 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} -1&0&-d_1\omega_0\tau \\ 0&-1&0\\ d_3\omega_0\tau&0&-1 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

$\begin{eqnarray} \hat{A}_1 = \widetilde{A}_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} k_1\omega^2_0\tau^2+2&0&d_1\omega_0\tau \\ 0&k_2\omega_0^2 \tau^2+2&0\\ -d_3\omega_0\tau&0&k_3\omega^2_0\tau^2+2 \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

and we can rewrite the measurement matrix $C_k$ as the following form

$\begin{eqnarray} C_k = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} \alpha_2&0&-\alpha_1\sin\omega_0k\tau-\alpha_3\cos\omega_0k\tau\\ 0&-\alpha_2&\alpha_1\cos\omega_0k\tau-\alpha_3\sin\omega_0k\tau \end{array} \right], \; \; k = 0, 1, ..., 5 \end{eqnarray}$

letting

$\begin{eqnarray} -\alpha_1\sin\omega_0k\tau-\alpha_3\cos\omega_0k\tau = \sqrt{\alpha_1^2+\alpha_3^2}\sin(\omega_0k\tau+\phi)\triangleq{\eta_k(\phi)}, \\ \alpha_1\cos\omega_0k\tau-\alpha_3\sin\omega_0k\tau = \sqrt{\alpha_1^2+\alpha_3^2}\sin(\omega_0k\tau+\varphi)\triangleq{\eta_k(\varphi)}, \end{eqnarray}$

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \phi = \arctan{\frac{\alpha_3}{\alpha_1}}, \\ \varphi = \arctan{(-\frac{\alpha_1}{\alpha_3})}, \end{eqnarray}$

we get

$\begin{eqnarray} C_0 = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} \alpha_2&0&-\alpha_3\\ 0&-\alpha_2&\alpha_1 \end{array} \right], \; \; C_1 = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} \alpha_2&0&-\eta_1(\phi)\\ 0&-\alpha_2&\eta_1(\varphi) \end{array} \right], \; \; C_2 = \left[ \begin{array}{llllll} \alpha_2&0&-\eta_2(\phi)\\ 0&-\alpha_2&\eta_2(\varphi) \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

and

$\begin{eqnarray} C_2Q(2) = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} u_{51}&0&u_{53}\\ u_{61}&\alpha_2&u_{63} \end{array} \right], \; \; \; C_2P(2) = \left[ \begin{array}{lll} u_{54}&0&u_{56}\\ u_{64}&u_{65}&u_{66} \end{array} \right], \end{eqnarray}$

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \begin{array}{lllllllll} &u_{51} = -\alpha_2+d_3\omega_0\tau\eta_2(\phi), \\ &u_{53} = -\alpha_2d_1\omega_0\tau-\eta_2(\phi), \\ &u_{61} = d_3\omega_0\tau\eta_2(\varphi), \\ &u_{63} = -\eta_2(\varphi), \\ &u_{54} = \alpha_2(k_1\omega_0^2\tau^2+2)-d_3\omega_0\tau\eta_2(\phi), \\ &u_{56} = \alpha_2d_1\omega_0\tau+(k_3\omega_0^2\tau^2+2)\eta_2(\phi), \\ &u_{64} = -d_3\omega_0\tau\eta_2(\varphi), \\ &u_{65} = -\alpha_2(k_2\omega_0^2\tau^2+2), \\ &u_{66} = (k_3\omega_0^2\tau^2+2)\eta_2(\varphi). \end{array} \end{eqnarray}$

The following matrix $U$ is chosen as the first six columns of the observability matrix $\mathbb{S}$

$\begin{eqnarray} U = \left[ \begin{array}{llllll} \alpha_2&0&-\alpha_3&0&0&0\\ 0&-\alpha_2&\alpha_1&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&\alpha_2&0&\eta_1(\phi)\\ 0&0&0&0&-\alpha_2&\eta_1(\varphi)\\ u_{51}&0&u_{53}&u_{54}&0&u_{56}\\ u_{61}&\alpha_2&u_{63}&u_{64}&u_{65}&u_{66} \end{array} \right]. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.11)

The determination of matrix $U$ is

$\begin{eqnarray} (-\alpha^2_2)(\alpha_2(u_{53}(u_{66}+(k_2\omega^2_0\tau^2+2)\eta_1(\varphi))-u_{56}(\alpha_1+u_{63}))+\eta_1(\phi)(u_{53}u_{64}-u_{54}(\alpha_1+u_{63}))\\ +\alpha_3((-\alpha_2)(u_{51}(u_{66}+(k_2\omega^2_0\tau^2)\eta_1(\varphi)-u_{56}u_{61})+\eta_1(\phi)(u_{51}u_{64}-u_{61}u_{54})))). \end{eqnarray}$

Generally speaking, the determination of matrix $U$ is not equal to 0 if and only if $\alpha_j\; (j = 1, 2, 3)\neq 0,$ which is valid according to the definition of $\alpha_j.$ In addition, using Matlab, choosing $\tau = 0.1,$ we also have

$\begin{eqnarray} {\rm{rank}}\; {\rm{U}} = \; {\rm{rank}}\; \mathbb{S} = 6. \end{eqnarray}$

(4.12)

Based on Theorem $2$ , the system (2.19) with backward Euler method is observable.

Moreover, we make $\tau = 0.2, \; 0.05$ respectivly to compute the rank of $\mathbb{S}$ and the results show different $\tau$ have no effect on the observability of system (2.19). The observability of system (2.14) with forward Euler method can be proven similarly.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, two different discrete schemes of the second-order linear time-varying system represented by the linearized satellite magnetic attitude control motion equation are obtained by Euler method. Subsequently, the controllability and observability conditions of a new discrete second-order linear time-varying system are proposed, which are applied to investigate the controllability and observability of the discretized satellite magnetic control system. Some numerical examples are given to further verify the correctness of theoretical results. Research results show that, generally speaking, different periods $\tau$ and parameters in coefficient matrices have no effect on the controllability and observability of the resulting discrete system.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (12171196).

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to all medical staff and all persons who contributed to the realization of this work.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors contribution

OG assess the methodological quality of the studies, devised the main research topic and planned the literature search. EM drafted the first version of the manuscript. WM contributed to the data interpretation, and SG revised the manuscript critically. All authors gave the final approval for the version to be published.

References

[1]	Postuma RB, Berg D, Stern M (2015) MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 30: 1591-1601. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26424
[2]	Tsukita K, Sakamaki-Tsukita H, Tanaka K, et al. (2019) Value of in vivo α-synuclein deposits in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord 34: 1452-1463. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.27794
[3]	Da Silva PG, Domingues DD, De Carvalho LA, et al. (2016) Neurotrophic factors in Parkinson's disease are regulated by exercise: Evidence-based practice. J Neurol Sci 363: 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2016.02.017
[4]	DeMaagd G, Philip A (2015) Parkinson's Disease and Its Management: Part 1: Disease Entity, Risk Factors, Pathophysiology, Clinical Presentation, and Diagnosis. Pharm Ther 40: 504-532.
[5]	Williams-Gray CH, Mason SL, Evans JR, et al. (2013) The CamPaIGN study of Parkinson's disease: 10-year outlook in an incident population-based cohort. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 305277. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2013-305277
[6]	Nicola T, Michele R, Paolo C (2018) Levodopa in Parkinson's Disease: Current Status and Future Developments. Curr Neuropharmacol 16: 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570159X15666170510143821
[7]	Ahlskog JE (2018) Aerobic exercise: evidence for a direct brain effect to slow Parkinson disease progression. Mayo Clin Proc 93: 360-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.12.015
[8]	De Vries NM, Darweesh SKL, Bloem BR (2021) Citius, fortius, altius-understanding which components drive exercise benefits in Parkinson disease. JAMA Neurol 78: 1443-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.3744
[9]	Benka Wallén M, Franzén E, Nero H, et al. (2015) Levels and patterns of physical activity and sedentary behavior in elderly people with mild to moderate Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 95: 1135-41. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20140374
[10]	Tsukita K, Sakamaki-Tsukita H, Takahashi R (2022) Long-term effect of regular physical activity and exercise habits in patients with early Parkinson disease. Neurology 98: E859-71. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000013218
[11]	Vergara-Diaz G, Osypiuk K, Hausdorff JM (2018) Tai chi for reducing dual-task gait variability, a potential mediator of fall risk in Parkinson's disease: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Global Adv Health Med 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2164956118775385
[12]	Haraldstad K, Wahl A, Andenæs R, et al. (2019) A systematic review of quality of life research in medicine and health sciences. Qual Life Res 28: 2641-2650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9
[13]	Marquez DX, Aguiñaga S, Vásquez PM, et al. (2020) A systematic review of physical activity and quality of life and well-being. Transl Behav Med 10: 1098-1109. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz198
[14]	Lee J, Choi M, Yoo Y (2017) A Meta-Analysis of Nonpharmacological Interventions for People With Parkinson's Disease. Clin Nurs Res 26: 608-631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054773816655091
[15]	Song R, Grabowska W, Park M, et al. (2017) The impact of Tai Chi and Qigong mind-body exercises on motor and non-motor function and quality of life in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Park. Relat Disord 41: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.05.019
[16]	Terrens AF, Soh SE, Morgan PE (2018) The efficacy and feasibility of aquatic physiotherapy for people with Parkinson's disease: Asystematic review. Disabil Rehabil 40: 2847-2856. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1362710
[17]	Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V, et al. (1997) The Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): Development and validation of a Parkinson's disease summary index score. Age Ageing 26: 353-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/26.5.353
[18]	Schlenstedt C, Paschen S, Kruse A, et al. (2015) Resistance versus balance training to improve postural control in Parkinson's disease: a randomized rater blinded controlled study. PLoS ONE 10: e0140584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140584
[19]	Schlenstedt C, Brombacher S, Hartwigsen G, et al. (2015) Comparing the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale With the Mini-BESTest and Berg Balance Scale to Assess Postural Control in Patients With Parkinson Disease. Arch Phys Med Rehab 96: 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2014.09.002
[20]	Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA (2006) Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther 86: 735-743. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/86.5.735
[21]	Morris S, Morris ME, Iansek R (2001) Reliability of measurements obtained with the Timed “Up & Go” test in people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 81: 810-818. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/81.2.810
[22]	Huang SL, Hsieh CL, Wu RM, et al. (2011) Minimal Detectable Change of the Timed “Up & Go” Test and the Dynamic Gait Index in People With Parkinson Disease. Phys Ther 91: 114-121. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090126
[23]	Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC (1999) A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exercise Sport 70: 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028
[24]	Petersen C, Steffen T, Paly E, et al. (2017) Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change for Sit-to-Stand Tests and the Functional Gait Assessment for Individuals With Parkinson Disease. J Geriatr Phys Ther 40: 223-226. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000102
[25]	Lord SR, Murray SM, Chapman K, et al. (2002) Sit-to-Stand Performance Depends on Sensation, Speed, Balance, and Psychological Status inAddition to Strength in Older People. J Gerontol 57: M539-M543. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/57.8.M539
[26]	Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick RAY, Peto VIV, et al. (1997) The Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson's disease summary index score. Age Ageing 26: 353-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/26.5.353
[27]	Sasaki S, Horie Y (2020) Association between olfactory impairment and disease severity and duration in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord Clin Prac 7: 820-826. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13028
[28]	Mishra P, Pandey CM, Singh U, et al. (2019) Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann Card Anaesth 22: 67. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
[29]	Gallo PM, Garber CE (2011) Parkinson's disease: a comprehensive approach to exercise prescription for the health fitness professional. ACSMS Health Fit J 15: 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1249/FIT.0b013e31821eca84
[30]	Mehrholz J, Friis R, Kugler J, et al. (2010) Treadmill training for patients with Parkinson's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD007830. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007830.pub2
[31]	Herman T, Giladi N, Hausdorff JM (2009) Treadmill training for the treatment of gait disturbances in people with Parkinson's disease: A mini-review. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 116: 307-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-008-0139-z
[32]	Tomlinson CL, Patel S, Meek C (2012) Physiotherapy intervention in Parkinson's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 345: e5004. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5004
[33]	Shu HF, Yang T, Yu SX (2014) Aerobic exercise for Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 9: e100503. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100503
[34]	Combs SA, Diehl MD, Staples WH, et al. (2011) Boxing training for patients with Parkinson disease: a case series. Phys Ther 91: 132-142. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100142
[35]	King LA, Horak FB (2009) Delaying mobility disability in people with Parkinson disease using a sensorimotor agility exercise program. Phys Ther 89: 384-393. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080214
[36]	Combs SA, Diehl MD, Chrzastowski C, et al. (2013) Community-based group exercise for persons with Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation 32: 117-124. https://doi.org/10.3233/NRE-130828
[37]	Latt MD, Lord SR, Morris JG, et al. (2009) Clinical and physiological assessments for elucidating falls risk in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disord 24: 1280-1289. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22561
[38]	Urell C, Zetterberg L, Hellström K, et al. (2021) Factors explaining physical activity level in Parkinsońs disease: a gender focus. Physiother Theory Pract 37: 507-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2019.1630875
[39]	Zaman A, Ellingson L, Sunken A, et al. (2021) Determinants of exercise behaviour in persons with Parkinson's disease. Disabil Rehabil 43: 696-702. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2019.1638975
[40]	Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R (2001) Determining minimally important differences for the PDQ-39 Parkinson's disease questionnaire. Age Ageing 30: 299-302. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/30.4.299
[41]	Chu SY, Tan CL (2019) Perception on the Quality of Life, Communication and Life Satisfaction among Individuals with Parkison's and Their Caregivers. Ethiop J Health Sci 29: 551-558. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v29i5.4
[42]	Tsatali M, Overton PG, Vivas AB (2019) Self-reported and experimentally induced self-disgust is heightened in Parkinson's disease: Contribution of behavioural symptoms. PLoS ONE 14: e0223663-e0223663. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223663
[43]	Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S (2014) Older adults reporting social isolation or loneliness show poorer cognitive function 4 years later. Evidence-based Nursing 17: 59-60. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2013-101379
[44]	Subramanian I, Farahnik J, Mischley LK (2020) Synergy of pandemics-social isolation is associated with worsened Parkinson severity and quality of life. NPJ Parkinsons Dis 6: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-020-00128-9
[45]	Angelopoulou E, Anagnostouli M, Chrousos GP, et al. (2020) Massage therapy as a complementary treatment for Parkinson's disease: A Systematic Literature Review. Complement Ther Med 49: 102340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2020.102340
[46]	Zhang Q, Yang X, Song H, et al. (2020) Cognitive behavioral therapy for depression and anxiety of Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Clin 39: 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101111
[47]	Afshari M, Yang A, Bega D (2017) Motivators and barriers to exercise in Parkinson's disease. J Parkinsons Dis 7: 703-11. https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-171173
[48]	Lim ICZY, Saffari SE, Neo S (2022) A cross-sectional study of knowledge and practices in the management of patients with Parkinson's disease amongst public practice-based general practitioners and geriatricians. BMC Health Serv Res 22: 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07503-7
[49]	Bouça-Machado R, Rosário A, Caldeira D, et al. (2020) Physical activity, exercise, and physiotherapy in Parkinson's disease: defining the the concepts. Mov Disord Clin Pract 7: 7-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.12849
[50]	Speelman AD, van de Warrenburg BP, van Nimwegen M, et al. (2011) How might physical activity benefit patients with Parkinson disease?. Nat Rev Neurol 7: 528-534. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2011.107

This article has been cited by:

1.	Uliana Vladimirovna Monakhova, Orbital stabilization of dynamically elongated small satellite using active magnetic attitude control, 2024, 20712898, 1, 10.20948/prepr-2024-5
2.	Dmitry Roldugin, Anna Okhitina, Uliana Monakhova, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, Comparison of Feedback Three-Axis Magnetic Attitude Control Strategies, 2023, 10, 2226-4310, 975, 10.3390/aerospace10120975

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

AIMS Neuroscience

2.7 5.7

Metrics

Article views(1137) PDF downloads(63) Cited by(0)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(1) / Tables(3)

AIMS Neuroscience

Effects of long-term adapted physical training on functional capacity and quality of life in older adults with Parkinson's disease

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Transformation of satellite attitude control system

2.1. Linearized equation of satellite magnetic control

2.2. Discretization of the linearized satellite control system

3. Controllability of the discrete system

3.1. Controllability analysis

3.2. Numerical calculations of controllability of discrete magnetic attitude control system

4. Observability of the discrete system

4.1. Observability analysis

4.2. Numerical calculations of observability of discrete magnetic attitude control system

5. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

This article has been cited by:

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

AIMS Neuroscience

Effects of long-term adapted physical training on functional capacity and quality of life in older adults with Parkinson's disease

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Transformation of satellite attitude control system

2.1. Linearized equation of satellite magnetic control

2.2. Discretization of the linearized satellite control system

3. Controllability of the discrete system

3.1. Controllability analysis

3.2. Numerical calculations of controllability of discrete magnetic attitude control system

4. Observability of the discrete system

4.1. Observability analysis

4.2. Numerical calculations of observability of discrete magnetic attitude control system

5. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

This article has been cited by:

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog