High Gain Observer

Introduction
Consider the following system y = Cx x ! = Ax + g ( y, u )

where (A,C) is observable. This form is special because g depends only on y and u. Taking the observer as ! = Ax + g ( y , u ) + H ( y Cx ) x satisfies x = xx we obtain that ~ ~ ! = ( A HC ) ~ x x Therefore, designing C such that AHC is Hurwitz guarantees asymptotic error convergence.
12-23

High Gain Observer (Continued)

However, any error in modeling g will be reflected in the estimation error equation. Thus, ! = Ax + g 0 ( y , u ) + H ( y Cx ) x where g 0 is a nominal model of g. Hence ~ ! = ( A HC ) ~ x x + g ( y, u ) g 0 ( y, u ) We give a special design of the observer gain that makes the observer robust to uncertainties in modeling the nonlinear functions. The technique, called as high-gain observers, works for a wide class of nonlinear systems and guarantees that the output feedback controller recovers the performance of the state feedback controller when the observer gain is sufficiently high.

12-24

High Gain Observer (Continued)

The main result is a separation principle that allows us to separate the design into two tasks. First, design a state feedback controller that stabilizes the system and meets other design specifications. Then, obtain an output feedback controller by replacing x by x provided by the high-gain observer. A key property that makes this separation possible is the design of the state feedback controller to be globally bounded in x.

12-25

Example
Ex: ! 2 = ( x, u ) x y = x1 Assume that u = (x) is a local state feedback control law that stabilizes the origin. To implement this control law using only y, we use the observer ! 1 = x 2 + h1 ( y x 1 ) x ! = (x , u ) + h ( y x ) x
2 0 2 1

!1 = x2 x

where 0 ( x, u ) is a nominal model of the nonlinear function ( x, u ). Then ~ !1 = h1~ x x1 + ~ x2 ~ !2 = h2 ~ x x1 + ( x, ~ x) where ~ ~ 1 , 2 x1 = x1 x x2 = x2 x )) ( x , ( x )) x ) = ( x, ( x ( x, ~

12-26

Example (Continued)
We want to design H = [h1 x (t ) = 0. h2 ] such that lim ~
T t

In the absence of , asymptotic error convergence is achieved by designing H such that h1 1 A0 = h2 0 is Hurwitz. In the presence of , we need to design H with the goal of rejecting the effect of on ~ x. This is ideally achieved, for any , if the transfer function 1 1 G0 ( s ) = 2 s + h1s + h2 s + h1 from to ~ x is ideally zero.

12-27

Example (Continued)
While this is impossible, we can make sup G0 ( jw) arbitrarily small by w R choosing h2 >> h1 >> 1. Taking h1 =

1 2 , h2 = 2 for 1 , 2 > 0 and 0 < << 1, it can be shown that G0 ( s ) = (s ) 2 + 1s + 2 s + 1

Hence lim G0 ( s ) = 0.
0

Define the scaled estimation errors ~ x x2 1 = 1 , 2 = ~ Then the newly defined variables satisfy the singularly perturbed equation. !1 = 11 + 2 !2 = 21 + ( x, ~ x) This equation shows clearly that reducing diminishes the effect of .
12-28

Example (Continued)

1 (0). Notice, however, that 1 (0) will be O(1 / ) whenever x1 (0) x

Consequently, the solution contains a term of (1 / )e In fact, (a / )e

at

at

with a > 0.

approaches an impulse function as 0.

This behavior is known as the peaking phenomenon.

12-29

Globally Stabilized by State Feedback Controller

Lets consider the system x !1 = x2
3 x !2 = x2 +u

y = x1 which can be globally stabilized by the state feedback controller

3 u = x2 x1 x2

The output controller is taken as

3 2 1 x 2 u = x x

! =x x 2 + ( 2 )( y x 1 ) 1 ! = ( 1 2 )( y x 1 ) x 2 where the observer gain assigns the eigen values of A0 at 1

and 1 .
12-30

State Feedback Controller

The above figure shows a counter intuitive behavior as 0. Since decreasing causes the estimation error to decay faster toward zero, one would expect the response under output feedback to approach the response under state feedback as

decreases. This is the impact of peaking phenomenon. Fortunately, we can

overcome the peaking phenomenon by saturating the control outside a compact region of interest in order to create a buffer that protects the plant from peaking.
12-31

State Feedback Controller

Suppose the control is saturated as 3 2 1 x 2 ) u = sat ( x x

The above figure shows the performance of the system under saturated state and output feedback. The control u is shown on a shorter time interval that exhibits control saturation during peaking. The peaking period decreases with .
12-32

Stabilization

Consider the MIMO nonlinear system x ! = Ax + B ( x, z , u ) z ! = ( x, z , u )

y = Cx = q ( x, z )

(1)

where u R P is the control input, y R m and R S are measured outputs, and x R and z R l consititutes the state variables. The A, B, C are given by

12-33

Stabilization (Continued)
0 1 0 0 0 1 Ai = # 0 " " 0 " " 0 # Bi = 0 1 i 1 Ci = [1 0 " 0]1 i " 0 " 0 # " 1 " 0
i

A = block diag[A1 " Am ],

B m = block diag[B1 " Bm ],

Cm = block diag[C1 " Cm ],

where i = 1,", m and = 1 + 2 + " + m .

12-34

Output Feedback Controller

The functions , and q are locally Lipschitz and (0,0,0)=0, (0,0,0)=0, q(0,0)=0. Our goal is to find an output feedback controller to stabilize the origin. We use a two-step approach to design the output feedback controller. (i) A partial state feedback controller using x and is designed to asymptotically stabilize the origin. (ii) A high-gain observer is used to estimate x from y. The state feedback controller can be shown as ! = ( , x, ) u = r ( , x, ) where r, are locally Lipschitz in their arguments over the domain of interest and globally bounded functions of x. Moreover, r(0,0,0)=0 and (0,0,0)=0.
12-35

Output Feedback Controller (Continued)

For convenience, we write the closed-loop system under state feedback as ! = f (X ) X where X = (x, z, ). The output controller is taken as ! = ( , x , ) , ) u = r ( , x is generated by the high gain observer where x ! = Ax + B0 ( x , , u ) + H ( y Cx ) x (3) (2)

12-36

Output Feedback Controller (Continued)

The observer gain H is chosen as
H = block diag[H1 " H m ],

1 2i 2 Hi = # i i i
i

where is a positive constant to be specified and ij are chosen such that the roots of
i i s i + 1i s i 1 + " + s + =0 1 i i

are in the OLHP for i = i,", m. The function 0 ( x, , u ) is a nominal model of ( x, , u ) which is locally Lipschitz in its arguments over the domain of interest and globally bounded in x and 0 (0,0,0) = 0.
12-37

Theorem
Theorem: Consider the closed-loop system of the plant (1) and the output feedback controller (3). Suppose the origin of (2) is asymptotically stable and R is its region of attraction. Let S be any compact set in the interior of R and Q be any compact subset of R . Then, (t )) there exists 1* > 0 such that, for every 0 < 1* , the solutions ( X (t ), x of the closed - loop system, starting in S Q, are bounded for all t 0.
* given any > 0, there exist 2 > 0 and T2 > 0, both dependent on , such * that, for every 0 < 2 , the solutions of the closed - loop system, starting

in S Q, satisfy (t ) , t T2 X (t ) and x

12-38

Theorem (Continued)
* given any > 0, there exist 3 > 0, dependent on , such that, * for every 0 < 3 , the solutions of the closed - loop system, starting

in S Q, satisfy X (t ) X r (t ) , where X r (t ) is the solution of (2), t 0 starting at X (0).

if the origin of (2)

* is exponentially stable, then there exists 4 >0

* such that, for every 0 < 4 , the origin of the closed - loop system is

exponentially stable and S Q is a subset of its region of attraction.

Proof: See Ch 14.5

12-39

Results
The theorem shows that the output feedback controller recovers the performance of the state feedback controller for sufficiently small . Note that (i) (ii) recovery of exponential stability recovery of the region of attraction in the sense that we can recover any compact set in its interior (iii) the solution under output feedback approaches the solution under the state feedback as 0.

12-40

Example
Ex: Consider the following plant: x !1 = x2 + x1 sin t !2 = x3 + x2 sin u x !3 = x12 + u x y = x1 Note : the given system is in triangular form. Thus, it is stabilizable by u = x12 + k1 x1 + k2 x2 + k3 x3 The output feedback controller is 12 + k1 x 1 + k2 x 2 + k3 x 3 ) u = sat 3 ( x

12-41

Example (Continued)
with h ! 1 = x 2 + 1 ( y x 1 ) x h ! 2 = x 3 + 2 1 ) (y x x 2 h ! 3 = x 12 + u + 3 1 ) x (y x 3

For simulation: All system eigenvalues at 5. (k1 = 125, k2 = 75, k3 = 15) All observer eigenvalues at 5/ with = 0.05. (h1 = 15, h2 = 75, h3 = 125)

12-42

Simulation Results
xi x i

3
x1 and x1hat

2 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

x2 and x2hat

2 0 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

x3 and x3hat

2 0 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12-43