Nonlinear Control Design

I
1

Geometric, Adaptive and Robust

Riccardo Marino
Patrizio Tomei
University of Rome 'Tor Vergata'
Rome, Italy
t

PRENTICE HALL
London New York Toronto Sydney Tokyo Singapore
Madrid Mexico City Munich

i
I

Contents

Preface
1 Introduction
1.1 Nonlinear feedback c o k r o l
1.2 Towards modern nonlinear control
1.3 Linearization by state feedback
1 . 4 Inverse systems and zero dynamics
1.5 St,ate feedback for uncertain systems
1.6 Sonlinear observers
1.7 Output feedback
1.8 Output feedback for uncertain systems
1.9 Outline of t,he book
1.10 Physical cont,rol problems
1.11 Exercises

STATE FEEDBACK

Feedback linearization
2.1 Pole placement for linear syst.ems
2.2 Feedback linearization
2 . 3 Linearization by change of coordinates
2.4 Partial feedback linearization
2.5 Stabilization of t,riangular syst,ems
2.6 Global feedback lineari~at~ion
2.7 Ext,ension t o mult,i-input systems
2.8 Physical examples
2.9 Conclusions
2.10 Exercises

Con tents

viii

A d a p t i v e feedback linearization
3.1 Matching and triangular conditions
3.2 Robust stabilization
3.3 Self-tuning regulator
3.4 Adaptive feedback linearization
3.5 Extension to mult,i-input systems
3 6 Physical examples
3.7 Conclusions
3.8 Exercises

O u t p u t tracking
1 1 I n v e r s ~systems and tracklng dynamics
4 2 Input-output feedback linearization
4 3 Disturbance rejection
4 4 Disturbance attenuation
3 5 Adaptive tracklng w ~ t htransient specifications
$
1 6 Extension to multivariable systems
1 7 Phyri, a1 t ~ x a m p l ~ s
4 8 Conclusioris
3 9 Exerci.rs

I1
5

O U T P U T FEEDBACK
Adaptive observers
3 1 Observers for linrclr systems
()lwervcrs rvit1-i linear error dynaniics
- 2
5 3 :lcl;ij)t~\.c~
ob,c-.r\.rrs
t ~ ,n~:lltivarldl,lr?s y s t e ~ u s
5 1 F:xti>ris~c>~\
5 5 Plivslcai rxaniples
56 C ~ ~ ~ l ~ l i l ~ l ~ ~ ~ l ~
5 7 Exercisps

S t a b ~ l i z a t i o na n d e x p o n e n t i a l t r a c k i n g
1 'it ~t lc 111it p ~ 1 1f t > r d \ ~h( lincar~zation
6 2 Dl rinrriit o u t p u t f e e d b a ~ kIinear~zation
6 3 0 1 1 t p 1 l t f r ~ ( i b a ~stiit)ilization
k
6 1 t:xponf,ntlal tracking ,1 output feedback
b 5 Phi ~ i c c l lc,xarnples
6 b C'onclusinns
6 7 Exrrc~.rs

t,

7 Robust regulation and adaptive tracking

7.1 St,ruct,uralgeomet,ric conditions
7.2 Robust st,abilization
7.3 Self-t,uning set point regulation
7.4 Adapt,ivc tracking
7.5 Physical exanlples
7.6 Conclusiolls
7.7 Exercises
A Basics of differential geometry
A . 1 Diffeomorphisms
A.2 Vect,or fields
A . 3 Lie derivat,ives
A.4 Manifolds and distribut,ions

B Basics of stability theory

B . l Stability theorems
f
B.2 Tools for adapt,ive cont,rol design
Bibliographical notes
References

This book is intended as a text for graduate courses or final year undergraduate
courses on nonlinear feedback control design including geometric, adaptive, and
robust techniques. It is also intended as a reference for practising engineers and
applied mathematicians. Severa applications from electric machines to spacecraft
and aircraft control, from robotics t,o power syst,ems are included and worked in
detail to appeal to the physical int,uition of engineers and to the curiosity of mathematicians. The assumed background is the capability of designing, or at least
understanding, simple control syst,ems and an elementary knowledge of differential equations, stability t,heory, linear algebra, and functions of several variables.
Notat,ion and concepts from differential geometry are used to state results in a
coordinate free fashion, which is essential when dealing with nonlinear systems.
Basic notation, terminology and results from differential geometry and stability
theory which are used in the text are summarized in two appendices.

The book presents a self contained introduction to nonlinear feedback control

design for continuous time, finit,e dimensional, uncertain systems. It is focused
on design, both st,ate and output feedback, and not on analysis. Systems may be
affected by uncert,ainties, such as unknown constant parameters and time-varying
disturbances. Differential geomet,ric techniques are used to identify t h e classes
of nonlinear systems considered and to develop nonlinear design t,echniques when
unknown parameters or dist,urbances are not present. They also provide the framework on which robust and adaptive algorithms are designed for uncertain systems.
A feedback control is called adaptive when it guarantees asymptotic output tracking for systems with unknown constant parameters and no disturbances. When
unknown time-varying dist,urbances are present, controls achieving stabilization
and arbitrary dist,urbance attenuation on t,he output are called robust,.
At the present stage of the research on nonlinear control this monograph presents
a coherent collection of global design techniques basic geonetric algorithms. including feedback linearization and observers. and global output feedback exponential tracking controls, an adaptive control theory which redesigns for classes
of nonlinear systems some of the basic state and output feedback adaptive algorithms (including a d a p t ~ v eobserxers) obtained for linear systems, robust controls

xii

Preface

which achieve dist,urbance at,t,enuat,ion by st,at,e feedback; worst case robust st,abilizing algorithms which generalize earlier result,s for linear systems. All resulk
are firmly root,ed in differential geometric conditions guaranteeing global transformations int,o certain canonical forms. Most of t h e control algorit,hms presented
have been established since 1980. At t,he beginning of t h e eight,ies t,he stability
proofs of adaptive control algorithms for linear systems appeared and robust cont,rols began to appear. At t,he same time generalizat,ions of pole placement a n d
observer design techniques for nonlinear syst,erns were obt,ained, using tools from
different,ial geomet,ry which were introduced during t h e sevent,ies in t,he s t u d y of
c~ont,rollabilityand ob~ervabilit~y.
Adaptive versions of those nonlinear algorit,hms
were announced startsingfrom 1986. Since 1990 o u t p u t feedback algorit,hms (adaptivc. robust and geomet,ric) have been given for classes of nonlinear systems. T h e
research effort on nonlinear cont,rol has been motivat,ed by t h e increasing availabil~ t yof low cost powerful dedicat,ed digital signal processors (DSP) and by t,he more
dernanding performarlce required in robotics, motor drives, aircraft a n d spacecraft,
control which typically involve nonlinear dynamics. Since 1985 several books have
appeared on analysis and design of nonlinear systems wiih known paramet,ers and
on adaptive cont,rol of linear systems with unknown parameters. This book reports
r ~ ( . m rtisillts
t
on feedback control design for uncertain nonlinear systems: much of
the mat,erial included has never before been published in book form. Only single
~ r i p u t s:ngle
,
output (SISO) syst,ems are dealt with in derail, even though most sigHowever,
nlficant applications admittedly involve multivarlable ( ~ ~ I I ~ models.
IO)
once the SISO results are fully mastered, significant ;LIIMO applications can be
carr~t,do u t . Tlie complete multlvariahle ext,ension of SISO results is not straightforward and, in su:ne instances. not yet, available. Several o u t p u t feedback SISO
problc~rnsare also st111 operi. One of t h e objectives of t h e book is t o provide t h e
framr3work in which new researc ti problerris car1 be formulated.
T h c book is divided into two part.s. Part I (st,at,ef e e d b x k ) consists of Chapters
2 . 3 ar:d 4 while, Part I1 (observers anti output feedback) colisists of Chapters 5 (on
ohsc~rvcr.;i.6 and 7 Chaptvr 1 is itn introtiuctory one and provides a n informal
.iir\.c,v 1 1 i r l l c ' tif,sign t c c l ~ ~ i l q uprrsc.ntcd
c~~
throiigh simple esamples: at t h e end
o f t hi, t.l~~iptr-r
12 p h p l c a l c,orlrro! problems. w11ic.11arc, tlisc,ussed In t h e text. are
2 dcbals wit11 s t a t e fc~t~cll)ac,k
gt>ornt1trlc.rontrol for single input
f o r ~ ~ ~ i l l a r tC'llapter
~ci
.;ystf3rilsi ~ l c ~ l i l ( ifcrcil)ac.k
~~ig
li~iearizatioriariti pal-tial feedback l i n e a r i z a t i o ~ ~Robust
.
a~ici;tdaptl\.r >rat(, fertibac,k linearization algoritlirris are developed In Chapter 3.
111 ('1:uj)tr~r 1 ti s11lgle output to 1)r. c.ontrollrd is introtiuced and the output tracking
;)~ol)l(~rri
i h \tittt'(i
T h r first half of Chapter 4 is devoteti t o s t a t e feedback design
for SISO ystcJrrls w ~ t hno uncertainties and deals with zero a n d tracking dynamics.
rrlln:1riulrl phase qystrrns and iriput-output feedback liriearizat,ion. T h e second half
of C'haptc~r4 adtiresst~sadaptive ~ n p u t - o u t p u tlirlearizat,ion. disturbance decoupling
ar~cicilst i ~ r h t ~ r iatteliuation.
c.~~
Chapter 5 deals with nonlinear observer design, bot,h
c~claptivc~
alid rio~l-adaptl\-(~
Chapt,er 6 adtlresses output feedback linearization, stat j 1 1 1 ~ ~ i t 1 0 1arid
i
c~xporlentialtracking Chapter 7 addresses both robust a n d adapt,ive
o l ~ t p ~ fc~r~dbwc,k
it
tlrslgn. T h e theory is illustrated through many examples (more

Preface

...

XIII

t h a n 70) a n d physical a p p l i ~ a t ~ i o n(more

s
tjhan 20) which are worked in detail in
the text a n d many suggest,ed exercises (more t,han 120). Two appendices collect
t h e basics of differential geometry a n d stability theory act,ually used in t h e book.
T h e Bibliography, which is by no means complete, includes all t h e sources which
were consult,ed and suggests further reading on related topics. T h e material covered in t,he text allows adequat,e selection of t,opics t o meet different course content
requirements. Chapters 2, 6 a n d the first halves of Chapt,ers 4 and 5 provide a n
introduct,ion t o nonlinear geometric control design (including s t a t e feedback, observers and out,put feedback) for syst>emswith no uncertainties. This material was
used for a 30 hour graduat,e course taught by t,he first, author a t t h e Universit,y of
Illinois in Urbana-Champaign arid at, the U~iiversityof Rome "Tor Vergat,an. A
more elementary course providing a n introduction t.o adaptive a n d robust cont,rol
can be carved out from Chapt,ers 3, 4, 5 a n d 7. T h e mat,erial includes t,he design
of ~ilodelreference adapt,ive controls, adapt,ive and robust feedback linearizing controls, adaptive observers, a n d adaptive a n d robust o u t p u t feedback algorithms for
minimuni phase syst,ems wit,h known r e h i v e degree.
This book sumrnarizes a coyect,ive research effort which we have had t h e pleasure to contribut,e to by exchanging ideas and t,echniqlles wit,h colleagues during
congresses, workshops a n d joint research projects. Many rcslilts reported in t,he
book arc d u e t,o our co-authors of several papers, W. Boot,hby, D. Elliot,t,, J . Levinc,
I. Kanellakopoulos, P. Kokotovic. S. Nicosiai S. Peresada, N J . Respondek, A . van
d r r Scliaft,. D. Taylor, and to co-authors of our co-authors. We would like t,o thank
all of t , h e n ~and in particular Petar Kokotjovic for the enthusiasm and knowledge
that he con\:eycd in Joint research efforts, Salvat,ore Nicosia who established in 1981
the co~ltrolgroup at t,he Universit,~of R o m r "Tor Vergata" and int,roduced bot,h of
11s to control theory, and A1hert.o Isidori who opened up t,o bot,h of us as graduate
stlitle~itstlit 11u11lint:arc:ont,rol world a n d has been over t h e years a reference of

R Marino and P T o n i e ~
Rome, Italy

Introduction

1.1

NONLINEAR FEEDBACK C O N T R O L

This book deals with the design of feedback controls for nonlinear systems with
unknown constant parameters or time-varying disturbances. T h e n o n l i n e a r c o n t r o l s y s t e m s considered are moMelled by finite dimensional, deterministic ordinary
differential equations

in which x E R n is t h e s t a t e , xo is the initial condition, u ( t ) : R+ + R m is the

c o n t r o l input. Q ( t ) : R+ -+ RP is the d i s t u r b a n c e input, y E R S is t h e o u t p u t
vector. L'l'hen m = s = 1 we speak of s i n g l e i n p u t s i n g l e o u t p u t systems; we
speak of m u l t i v a r i a b l e systems when either m > 1 (multi-input) or s > 1 (multio u t p u t ) . Cont,rols are at t h e designer's disposal while disturbances may be either
totally unknown or generated by a known model ( e x o s ~ s t e m )

wlth unknown inltlal conditions Bo Modelled disturbances become u n k n o w n p a 0 i e they are

r a m e t e r s when in t h e exosystem v(B, t ) = 0 for every 6 and t
constant u i t h respect to tlme and equal to an unknown lnltial condltlon (Q = 0
B(0) = Bo) T h e output variables y are to be controlled, they are requlred to track
a r e f e r e n c e s i g n a l y , ( t ) this is called a t r a c k i n g p r o b l e m Ljrhen t h e reference
signal y, IS constant we speak of s e t p o i n t r e g u l a t i o n
T h e object of this book is to deslgn feedback control algorithms uhich s o l ~ ethe
tracklng problem feeding back t h e measured variables Two cases are considered
the state x IS alallable for measurement and a s t a t e f e e d b a c k c o n t r o l is to be
deslgned (Part I Chapters 2. 3 and 4 ) , only the output y IS abailable for measurement and a n o u t p u t f e e d b a c k c o n t r o l IS to be designed ( P a r t I1 Chapters 6 and
7 possibly but not necessarily on the b a a s of state o b s e r v e r s ( P a r t I1 Chapter
5 ) .A d y n a m i c o u t p u t f e e d b a c k control algorithm of order r IS a nonlinear

>

Introduction
system described by ordinary differential equations

When y is replaced by x , i.e

w
ti

= P ( W ,5 , Y,, t ) ,

w(O) = wo,

w E RT

= t1(w, x , y,, t)

we speak of d y n a m i c s t a t e f e e d b a c k control algorit,hms. If we simply have

we speak of s t a t i c o u t p u t f e e d b a c k and of s t a t i c s t a t e f e e d b a c k control,

respectively. T h e control is to be designed so that t h e tracking problem is solved
for t,he c l o s e d l o o p syst,em

A d d ~ t ~ o n as pl e c ~ f i c a t ~ o nare
s usual11 imposed the vectors x ( t ) and & ( t ) are requlred to be bounded. when d ~ s t u r b a n c e sB(t) are present t h e ~ effect
r
on t h e o u t p u t
ma\ be required to be rejectcd ( d i s t u r b a n c e r e j e c t i o n problem) or attenuated
to d r i arbitrnr? degree ( d i s t u r b a n c e a t t e n u a t i o n p r o b l e ~ n ) a, s y m p t o t ~ cs t a b ~ l i t y
of ~ t ne q u ~ l ~ b r ~ u
p rann t of Interest (x, u , ) w h ~ c hcorrespoilds to a d e s ~ r e dcoristant
rt,fere~iccoutput y, 1s u5uallj requlred In t h e special case In which there are no
d~atur'~arices
B(t) = 0, the referenct. o u t p t ~ ty, is Lero and 2 1s measured, the control
prot)leni becomes s t a t e f e e d b a c k s t a b i l i z a t i o n I e t l l ~design of a s t a t e feedt)ac I\ control wlllth r n a k ~ s(x,,a,)a s j ~ ~ l p t o t i c a bl lt ~
a b l ~ .locally or globallj, when
o n l \ 2 I > d \ a l l ~ i ) l efor measurrrnent WP speak of o u t p u t f e e d b a c k s t a b i l i z a t i o n

1.2

TOWARDS MODERN NONLINEAR CONTROL

Noril~nenrc.oritro1 systems with known pararnet,ers and

110

dist,urbances

Towards rnodern nonlinear control

have been traditionally approached via their linear approximations a b o u t equilibrium points x,, corresponding t o constant inputs ir,

in which (, = x

x,,, n, = 71

- 11,

and

are Jacobian matrices wit,h I,, and

71,

such that,

This approach involves the solut,ion of several linear control problems a n d makes
the transition from one t,o another rather critical. Good performance, or even
s t a b i l i t , ~may
,
not be maintained over wide ranges of variations of st,at,e variables.
s be viewed either
Tlie set of linear syst,ems arising from such a p p r ~ x i m a t ~ i o nmay
as a single linear system wit,h unknown paramet,ers (adaptive approach) or as a
farnily of linear syst.ems subject to disturbances (robust approach). B0t.h adaptive
and robust algorithms have been developed to control t,he set of linear syst,ems
arising from linear a p p r o ~ i m a t ~ i o n s .
T h e availability of increasingly more powerful and less expensive microprocessors and t,he need for bett,er performance st,imulated cont,rol engirieers to design
innovat,ive norllinear corit,rol algorithins for advanced applications such as robots.
aircraft a n d spacecraft, and elect,ric machines used both as motors and generators.
This happenc>tl in the sevent,~es,while nonlinear cont,rollability and observabilit,y
begari to be studied using diffc:rt,r~t,ialgeometric: t,ools, arid niotivat,ed a theory of
nonlinear feedback control design which was developed in t,he eight,ies. As often
happens practice preceded theory. In tliese applications. nonlinearities suc:h as
electric torques, ccnt,ripet,al a n d Coriolis forces, and irlert,ial forces play a significant role and can be exactly modelled using well knowri physical laws. Engineers.
on the basis of a deep uriderstarlding of t h e physics of t h e syst,em and of accurate
nonli~lear n ~ o d e l s .designed nonlinear cont.ro1 algorit,hms in different cont.exts in
order to meet tle~nandirigspecifications which could not be met by means of linear
c.oritrol techniques: field oriented cont,rol for ind~ictionmot,ors in 1972, autopilot
for I~elicoptersin 1975. and corriputed torque for high speed rigid robots In 1976.
These algorithms share a comnion innovative feature: they make use of rionlinear
c.hanges of st,ate coordinates a n d of nonlinear stat,e feedback (which aims at nonlinearity cancellat.ion) t,o make the closed loop syst,em hopefully linear. or at least

Introduction

simpler, in new coordinates. For i n ~ t ~ a n c in

e , the context of electric drives, the
field oriented control algorithm for induction motors forces the closed loop system
to coincide with the dynamics of a d.c. motor, which is well behaved and easy t o
cont,rol. This is not far from the spirit of the pole placement theorem which states
that any linear, cont,rollable system (stable or unstable) is transformable into a
system with desired eigenvalues by means of state feedback.
The above applications may be viewed as the beginning of modern nonlinear
feedback design. The novelt,y of these t,echniques may be appreciated by considering
simple examples, such as the first order system (0 # 0)

If y, = 0,so that the purpose of the cont,rol is to drive tlhe output to zero, on the
basis of the linear approximat,ion about t,he origin

we design the control (k > 0)

The closed loop system

has three equilibrium points: an asymptotically stable one at x = 0 with domain of

attraction -@ < x <
and t,wo unstable ones a t x =
The larger
the gain k, the larger the domain of attraction of t,he origin. However, no matter
how large k is, global asympt,ot,icstability is not achieved while it is guarant,eed by
the nonlinear control (k > 0)

VG

*LlklB

which makes the closed loop system linear and asymptot,ically st,able. T h e nonlinear term ox3 is cancelled and t,his requires exact knowledge both of the parameter
b' arid of the nonlinearity x3.
While (1.1) illustrat,es the benefits of nonlinear feedback. the importance of
using the right coordinat,es in nonlinear control design is clarified by the second
order example

Towards modern nonlinear control

which is expressed in t h e new coordinates zl = X I ,

z2 = x2

+ ox:

as

T h e control (kl > 0 , k2 > 0)

.
t h a t also in this case t h e term 0xf
guarantees global asympt,ot,ic~ t ~ a b i l i t yNotice
has to be exactly known.
T h e advantage of combining both nonlinear change of coordinates and nonlinear
state feedback is apparent in t h e second order example
XI

x2

52

Xl

+ ox:

in which no linear control

designed on the basis of t h e linear approximation about t h e origin makes t h e origin

globally asymptotically stable when 0 # 0. O n the other hand t h e nonlinear control
(ki > 0, k2 > 0)

makes the orlgln globally a s y m p t o t ~ c a l l jstable In fact the closed loop system
becomes in new global coordinates zl = x l 2 2 = x2 Ox:

There are cases in which a linear design based on linear approximations may
cause serious drawbacks d u e to neglected nonlinear terms. Consider the system

.As in example (1 5 ) . a linear control

Introduction

based on t,he linear approximation about the origin does not guarantee, when B > 0,
global asymptotic stability since the syst,em
x1 = x2

x2 = - k l x l - k2x2

+ Ox23

Xl

has an unstable limit cycle. If the linear gains are chose11 as k l = k', k 2 = k , it
turns out that, for instance when 0 = 113, all t,raject,ories starting in t,he region
{ x E R~ : kx: + ( I l k ) x; > 9) tend t,o infinity. This is shown by defining T = k t ,
z l = z2/&,
2 2 = f i x 1 which transforms t,he system into a reversed-time van der
Pol equation. While on the basis of the linear approximation increasing k seems
to improve the response, the initial conditions are to be closer arid closer t,o the
x2-axis in order to guarantee that the corresponding t r a j e ~ t ~ o r i t,end
e s t,o tjhe origin.
Such problems do not arise if we use the nonlinear cont,rol ( k l > 0, k2 > 0)

which cancels the nonlinearity O X ; .

4
The examples (1.1),( 1 . 3 ) , (1.5). and (1.7) recnpt,ure only some of t,he feat,ures of
the above mentioned pioneering pliysical applications which act,ually involve mult,ivariable models. However, they show t,hat there are classes of nonlinear systems
for which nonlinear controls outperform linear controls designed on the basis of
linear approximations. This is reasonable and to be expected since the former use
more information on the syst,em than the latter do: in fact, all of t,he information
cont.airied in nonlinear models may be used by nonlinear control algorithms.

1.3

L I N E A R I Z A T I O N BY STATE FEEDBACK

As we have seen, the examples (1.1), (1.3), (1.5), and (1.7) are t,ransformable by
st,at,espace change of coordinat,es and riorllirlear st,ate feedback into linear controllable svst,ems having linear input-out,put maps. Since not every nonlinear syst.em
enjoys such advant.agcous propert,irs a classification is n r e d ~ d .t,he system
z-1

T?

S?

,; + ,,

r{ =
Y

J ,

XI

-or;

( 1 9)

zhows that ~t nid) riot be poss~hleto ach~eves~multaneouslyboth goals b\ state

feedback In fa( t (1 9) is transformed by the change of coordinates

Linearization b y state feedback

and t h e nonlinear s t a t e feedback

which is linear and controllable but, does not have a linear input-output m a p when
B # 0. O n t,he other hand (1.9) is t,ransformed by the stat,e feedback

which has a linear input-output m a p b u t its s t a t e equations are only partially linear
when B # 0.
A theory is available which characterizes in terms of necessary and sufficient
conditions those syst,ems which are s t a t e f e e d b a c k l i n e a r i z a b l e (i.e. transformable into linear and cont,rollable syst,ems by st,at>espace change of coordinates
and nonlinear stat,e feedback) a n d those which a r e i n p u t - o u t p u t f e e d b a c k line a r i z a b l e (i.e. t,ransformable intjo a syst,em with linear input,-output m a p ) . These
two result,s were obt,ained a t the beginning of t h e eighties for multivariable systems.
They allow u s t,o establish for inst,ance that,:
(i) the syst,em

is riot feedback linearizable for any constant parameter B but is input-output

feedback linearizable for any 0;
(ii) the syst,em

is feedback linearizable b u t is not input-out,put feedback linearizable:

Introduction

(iii) t,he system

is neit,her linearizable about the origin nor input-output linearizable by st,ate

feed back.
The results are constructjive. For instance, the linearizing transformation for system
(1.13) is given by t,he change of ~ o o r d i n a t ~ e s

and the state feedback control

The closed loop system (1.13)-(1.15) becomes in z-coordinates

Note that t,he input-output map is still nonlinear.

For those systeins which are not feedback linearizable a nat>uralproblem is the
characterization of the part which can be made linear by stlate feedback. System
(1.12) is not feedback linearizable but the st,ate feedback

makes the input-output map linear and the closed loop system

(22

= x2

-I-

82:)

partially linear, that is the cascade connection of a nonlinear system and a linear
controllable system

I
!

Inverse systems and zero dynamics

INVERSE SYSTEMS A N D ZERO D Y N A M I C S

1.4

While feedback linearization is t h e generalization of t h e pole placement theorem

for linear systems, input-output feedback linearization is t h e generalization of the
zero-pole cancellation technique Consider t h e linear system
51

= 52

+ 71

52

= 53

x3

= XI+ 22

+2 3

= Xl

whose transfer function is ( s E C)

T h e linear system (1.17) and t h e nonlinear one (1.12) have a similar structure when
0 = 0 in ( 1 . 1 2 ) . T h e state feedtack (compare with (1.16) with 0 = 0)

applied to (1.17) makes the closed loop syst,em

unobservable: its t>ransferfunction is

T h e control (1.18) places the poles in s = 1 and in s = 0 with multiplicity 2 and

causes a zero-pole cancellation. T h e unstable dynamics

evolve in the unobservable subspace S = { x E R"

X I = 0,x 2 = 0 ) and are
characterized by a n eigenvalue which is equal t o t h e cancelled zero. T h e i n v e r s e
s y s t e m for (1.17) is

LVhen it is driven by y = y = y = 0 its dynamics coincide with t h e dynamics made

unobservable b) a state feedback w h ~ c hcauses a zero-pole cancellation .As is well
known for linear systems the zero-pole cancellation technique is not feasible for
n o n - m i n i m u m p h a s e q s t e r n s (1 e with unstable zeros)

10

Introduction

While transfer functions, poles and zeros are not. defined for nonlinear systems,
observabilit,~is a well defined concept: t h e closed loop syst,em (1.12) cont,rolled by
( 1.16) wit,h 0 = 0 is not observable since tlhe dynamics

which are unstable and evolve on the subspace S = {s E R? X I = 0, x:! = 0) are

made unobservable from the output by t h e st,ate feedback (1.16). T h e dynamics
which are made unobservable by t h e input,-out,put linearizing stat,e feedback, are
called zero dynamics a n d generalize t o nonlinear syst,ems t h e notion of zeros
developed for linear ones. More precisely, they generalize t h e not,ion of dynamics
evolving on urlobservable subspaces.
Inverses for nonlinear syst,ems may be defined a n d are re1at)ed t>ot.he zero dynamics. T h e inverse syst,em for (1.12), with 0 = 0, is

If y r ( t ) 1s t h e signal to be t,racked, the dynamlcs

are called tracking dynamics. When the tracking dynamics are driven by y =
y = ,y .= 0, t,hey coincide wit,h the zero dynamics; in this case t,he inverse system
generates the input signals which are needed to maintain t h e o u t p u t equal t,o zero.
S i n t r system (1.12) is non-mini~numphase ( t h e zero dynamics are unstable) t h e
linearizing s t a t e feedback (1 16) is not feasible. In fact, even t,hough v is designed
to drive y = X I and y = x2 to zero for any init,ial condit,ion different t h a n zero,
r u i t )(and the control ~ ( tas) well) tends to infinity as t tends to infinity.

1.5

S T A T E F E E D B A C K FOR U N C E R T A I N S Y S T E M S

The 11:1c~~~r1zirig
t e c l i ~ l ~ q u eso
s far discussed deal with norlliric?ar systems with no
untertainties tile\- rrquire stat,? measurt3rnents and involve t,he cancellation of
i i o n l ~ l l t ~ i t r ~ tLVhilc
l e ~ . t h t w are significant systems whose nonlinear rriodels may be
exactly obtained from physical laws and whose states are measured, it. is much less
r(.allstic to assume thitt all the parameters involved in the models (such as niasses,
~ntlrtias.resistar~c,rs.and ~nductances)are exactly known or t,hat t h e system is not,
affected at all by disturbances
I t is the11 ~ l a t u r a lto invest,igate what happens t o c.ontrol systems involving
uriknow11, or not precisely known, paramc,ters. T h e control algorit,hms should
be dc,signcd s o that the control problems are strill solved in spite of paramet,er
unc,ertaint!.. This problem was addressed during t,he eight,ies for linear systenls
and led to adaptive and robust controls. Since 1986 adapt,ive control of nonlinear

State feedback for uncer-tain systems

11

systems has ?merged as a very active field. Adapt,ive feedt~ac~k

linearizat,iori arid
adapt,ive input,-o~itput.li~iearizat,io~i
algorit,lirns have been developed for classes of
systkms which are rest,ric,t,ed by t.he ass~lrrlpt,ionof linear pararrieterization

arid by st,ruct,uraltriangularity c,oliditiorls on the vect,or fields l l Z ( x )which multiply the para~nctcrs.Those result,^ arc*sigliificarit since a fccdbac~klirirarizi~lgcontrol
pararnctcJrs may rlot ~rlcct,the control ot)jec,tivc.
applied t,o systcrrls with l~rlk~iowri
To see this corlsidcr again syst,rrrl ( 1 . 7 ) anti suppose tliat R > 0 is llnknowrl arid
that. rl^ > 0 is t.hc cst,i~nat,eof B so that t,llc coritrol (1.8) becomes

arid the corresponding closeti loop systcrrl 1s

f
Xi

52

j2

(B

k2.r.'

If B B < 0, t.liat is 0 is ~ v e r e s t ~ i ~ n a t t,hr

e t i , origirl is globally asyrnpt,ot,ic:ally stahlr.
If R - d > 0, tliat is B is ~lriderest,irriated,a llrnit cycle t:xists, which is the h o ~ ~ n d a r y
of t,he dorriain of at,ttraction, arid global asyrrlpt,otic stability is riot ac,hicved. This
drawback is overcwrrie t ~ ynonlinear aciaptivc t,echnicll~es. In fact, t,he adaptive
feedback linearizing control ( k l > 0,k2 > 0 )
-

wit 11 itciapt at i o ~ itbrinrnics

assures that I~rn~-., ( l . r ( t ) J l= 0 for any i~litialcorlciit,ion ~ ( 0 ) B(0)

.
and for ally
I I I I ~ I I O ~ pararrietcr
II
B , positive or ~iegativc, This c o ~ l c l ~ ~ s irriay
o r l be tiraw11 ~isirlg
t hr Lyapuriov f ~ ~ n c t ~ o r l

I.' =

.r T .L

Introduction

12

Similar problems arise for linear or affine systems with unknown parameters. Consider for instance the system

wit,h (Bo,81, B2) unknown parameters which may be positive or negative. In this
special case, adaptive feedback linearization techniques lead t o the design of classical PID (proportional int,egral derivative) controls. There are systems such a s

which do not satisfy the triangular conditions even though they are feedback linearizable for every value of 0. At the present state of t,he a r t , feedback linearizability
for any parameter value is not a sufficient condition for the existence of adaptive
controls.
Uncertainties due to unknown parameters may be call@ structured. Uncertaint,ies may also be unstruct,ured: for instance a nonlinear function may be bounded
by a known polynomial or the nonlinearity may be expressed by look-up tables of
experiment,al d a t a confined in a cert,ain region. These situations cannot be handled
by adaptive algorithms and require robust and worst case techniques.
In those cases in which the system is affected by disturbances the problem of
disturbance rejection or, at least, disturbance attenuation on t,he output t o be controlled naturally arises. Such problems have been widely st,udied for linear systems
and recently for nonlinear ones. T h e disturbance rejection (or decoupling) problem for nonlinear syst,ems is completely solved in t,erms of necessary and sufficient,
conditions. T h e d i ~ t ~ u r b a n cat,tenuation
e
problem, which was posed and solved for
linear systems a t t,he beginning of the eight,ies, has been recently addressed for
nonlinear systems and sufficient condit,ions are available. For instance, suppose
that a reference signal y,(f) is to be t,racked for the linear system

If 0 is a constant and unknown parameter, the adaptive cont,rol ( A > 0)

u = - X ( y - y,) - By + y,
B

= YIY

Y,)

(1.23)

guarantees as>mpotic tracking for any i n ~ t i a cl o n d ~ t l o ni, e limt,K(y(t) - y , ( t ) ) =

0 On the other hand, a robust control does not aim at asymptotic tracking but
only a t a r b ~ t r a r \disturbance attenuation on the ;racking error, according t o the
formula

Nonlinear observers

13

which has to hold for any positive t and for any arbitrarily large positive k , whenever y(0) = yr(0). Note that B ( t ) is an unknown disturbance which need not be
const,ant but only square integrable. The robust control ( k > 0)

solves the disturbance attenuation problem for system (1.22).

1.6

NONLINEAR OBSERVERS

When measurements of the whole state are not available in linear observable systems and only some states, called the outputs, are measured, output feedback
algorithms are based on observers which provide state estimates tending asymptotically to the unmeasured states Observability guarantees the existence of a linear
9
change of coordinates z = T x transforming a linear observable system x = A x + b u ,
y = cx into an o b s e r v e r f o r m

- 0 ... 0 0 1 ... 0 0
.

..

a1
a2

y + Tbu = A,z
A

+ ay + Tbu

0 ... 1 0

an

The system

with k = [ k l . . . . . k,IT and s n k,sn-I + . . . k 2 s

an observer since the error dynamics (2 = z - i)

+ k1 a Hurwitz polynomial. is

are asymptotically stable. It is then natural to look for those nonlinear systems
transformable by a nonlinear change of coordinates z = T ( x ) into

14

Introduction

with 7 and 6 vector fields depending on t,he output y only. Necessary and sufficient. condit,ions which ident,ify such systems were obtained in 1983. Once the
t,ransformat,ion is det,ermined, the nonlinear observer is given by

which has t,he sarne linear error dynamics as in t h e linear case. This result is a
non-trivial one as simple examples such as

show System (1.25) is transformed by t h e global change of coordinates

A s in ft,edhack linearization, nonlincar observers are based or1 nonlinearity cancc.llation which may not be feasible when unknown parameters are i n ~ o l v e d .For
1ristanc.e if fl 1s unknou.11 in (1.25) and is its estimate in t,he observer ( k l > 0 .
k2 > 0)

the error dvnarnits arc no 1orlgc.r l ~ n c a r

If the output y i t j docs not tend to zero as t goes to ~ n h n ~ t yt h. e error 5 ( t ) does

not t m d t o L P I O e ~ t h e runless 6' = 4 Iri those cases obserlers are t o be redesigned
to obtairi convcrgllig s t a t e Psrlmates also In presence of unknown constant parameteri such oi)sc>r\rlrsare called adaptive observers Uritier the restriction of
I i n ~ a rparar1ietc~i7arlonthls p r o b l ~ ~has
r i been iolbed both for l ~ n e a ra n d nolillnear
\ \ itcms

Nonlinear observers

Consider for instance t h e syst,em

The observer is ( k I > 0, k2 > 0 )

wit,h R being t,he est,imat,e of the unknown constant, pararnet,er 19. We look for a n
updat,e law

such that t.he est,imat,e error 2 = x

x , whose dynamics are (I9 = Q - 0 )

t,ends t,o zero as t --t cc for any unknown value of 8. In t,his case we choose k l and
k 2 as follows ( A > 0)

so t h a t , denoting A = A,

kc,, we obtain

Thls lrnpl~esthat thcie cxist p o s i t ~ v edefinite matrices P and Q such t h a t , accord~rig

to .\lrvt~~-E;alnlan-Yac~~bovlch
Lemma B 2 2

Thc ~ l p d a t flaw
,

glvrs. togct her with (1.28). an adaptive observer. 111 fact.

and t hc error dyriani~csare

since

B is constant.

Introduction

16

Differentiating t h e function

V = zTp5 +R2
with respect to time a n d recalling t h a t Pb = cT, we have
dV
dt

- = - z T ~ 5 2 z T p b y 2 j - 2 y 2 i ~=
1 - Z T ~ 5.

If the output, y ( t ) is bounded, it follows t h a t

lim llZ(t)ll = 0

t-oo

and (1.28), (1.29) define a n adaptive observer.

1.7

OUTPUT FEEDBACK

T h e assumption t h a t all t h e states are measured and available for feedback is often
unrealistic: for instance some states may not b e accessible for sensors (such as rotor
currents in a squirrel cage induction motor) or t,he required sensors may be too
expensive or unreliable. For linear systems this difficulty is overcome by using s t a t e
observers and t h e separation theorem which establishes t h a t any linear stabilizing
s t a t e feedback algorithm globally stabilizes when t h e states are replaced in t h e
algorithm by their estimat,es provided by a linear observer.
For nonlinear systems global st,abilization by out,put feedback is, in general, a
difficult problem. However, there are classes of systems for which global stability
1s achieved by means of observer-based controls. Consider t h e syst,em

If HZ = 0.in the coordinates

21

= 21,

22

= xl - x2. (1.30) becomes

If the parameter
is known and only y 1s measured, an output feedback stabillzing
control is designed using the function

O u t p u t feedback

17

with i2being the estimate of t,he unmeasured state

respect to time we obtain

+(22

22.

Differentiating V with

'

- i2)(21 - 2 2 - 81z1 - 22)

Choosing the control (k > 0)

with the state estimate dynamics i2given by

i2= rl - i2- 2612,3

and substituting in

we obt,ain

The closed loop system (1.30)-(1.31)is such t h a t 2 tends exponentially to zero and
i2e~ponent~ially
to 2 2 as t goes to infinity. T h e dynamic compensator (1.31) is
based on a reduced order observer (1.32) which observes only in closed loop: it is
an o u t p u t f e e d b a c k s t a b i l i z i n g c o n t r o l . Note that the correction term -O1z;
is added to the open loop reduced order observer given by

System (1.30) (with O2 = 0 ) is also globally stabilized by a static output feedback

( k l > 0: k 2 > 0)

which is not based on nonlinear it,^ cancellation. The closed loop system becomes
in z-coordinates (zl = X I , 2 2 = X I - x2)

Global stability is proved by using the Lyapunov function

whose time derivative is negative definite for kl > 114 and k2 2 1

Introduction

1.8

O U T P U T FEEDBACK FOR UNCERTAIN S Y S T E M S

Syst,ems (1.27) and (1.30) belong t,o t,he class of observable minimum phase nonst,able zero dynamics and nonlinearities
linear systems with linear a~ympt~otically
depending, in suit,able st,ate coordinat,es, on t,he measured out.put y only. For these
systems o u t p u t feedback controls can be designed provided t h a t parameters a n d
n~nlinearit~ies
are exactly known. When t h syst,ems
~
a r e uncertain, for t h e same
class of nonlinear systems additional out,put feedback cont,rol algorithms are available:
(i) adaptive tracking ones, which are observer-based and require exact knowledge of nonlinearities and linear paramet,erization with respect t,o unknown
constant parameters;
(ii) robust stabilizing ones, which are not observer-based, require only functional
bounds on the nonlinearities, and d o not need linear p a r a m e t e r i ~ a t ~ i o n .
For instance the system

belongs to such a (.lass: it has relative degree 1 and linear asympt,otically stable
z r m dynamics as can h e seen by performirig the linear change of coordinat,es

n.hlch arc, obtained by sett,ing y = 2 3 = 0 , are asymptotically stable so t,liat t h e

b\..st<,nli b ~nirli~nlim
phasc.
.4nother example is given bj. sk-stem (1.30) with
= 0 and /I2 unknown, for
w111(,hall ohsrrver-based control has been designed in t,he previous section. If B1 = 0

Output feedback for uncertain systems

19

and 82 is unknown. an adaptive output feedback contxol may be designed. Rewrite

(1.30) as

In x-coordinates a n adapt,ive observer is

+ + 4ay2 + kl(y
+ k 2 ( y 21)

i1 = .C2 ( I
i2 = u + $aY2
f12

21)

y 2 ( y - 21)

with ( A , positive real)

so t,hat t,he charact,eristic polynomial of ( A , - k,cc) is ( s + l ) ( s + A,), i.e. t,here is

a zero-pole cancellation in t,he t,ransfer function

Let

be the reference model which generat,es the reference outsput y,. T h e gains kc
(i.,3,
k q ) are chosen so t,hat the charact,erist,icpolynomial of (A,-bk,) is (s+l)(s+A,),
i.e. there is a zero-pole cancellat,ion in t,he transfer function c c [ s I- ('4, - hk,)j-'b
l / ( . s + A,) (A, is a positjive real). In both zero-pole cancellat,ions we rnake use
tho crucial property enjoyed by t h e triples ( A , - k,c,, b , c,) and ( A , - bk,, b , c,)
being minirrlum phase a n d of relative degree 1 . T h e cont,rol is designed as

=
=

of
of

in which t h e st,ate estimat,es are provided by the observer. Both the cont,rol and
t,he observer t,ry t,o cancel the nonlinearity f l a y 2 by using the same est,irnat,e i2of
the unknown parameter f12 which is now adjusted according to t h e update law (7
s~lficient,lylarge positive r ~ a l )

which reacts both to t,he tracking error y - y, a n d to t h e observer error y T h e stabilit,y of t,he closed loop syst,em can be assessed by expressing t h e dynamics

20

Introduction

of t,he tracking error e = x

O2 = O2 - B2
2 = ( A , - bk,)e
=

+ by2&

x,, observer error 2 = x - i and estimation error

+ bkc2

( A , - kocc)Z b y 2 i 2

and using the function

with PC and Po positive definite solutions of

( A , - b k c ) T ~+c P,(A, - hk,)

P,h

( A , - ~ , c , ) ~ P+, Po(Ac - k,c,)

-Q,

C,

-Q,

Pob =

Cc

with Q , a n d Q , suitable positive definite matrices, a c c q d i n g t o bleyer-KalmanYacubovich Lemma B.2.2. T h e t,ime derivative of V is in fact

T h e adaptive tracking control (1.36) is based on a n adaptive observer and

solves, for any value of the unknown parameter B 2 , t h e tracking problem. T h e
design of a tracking control for (1.30) is simple since (1.30) has relative degree 1.
More complex adaptive control algorit,hms solve t h e tracking problem for systems
with relative degree greater t,han 1. System (1.30) belongs t,o t h e class of observable nonlinear systems which are minimum phase, have linear zero dynamics, a
well defined relative degree independent of uncertainties a n d nonlinearities which
depend, in suitable coordinates, on the output only. Linear systems characterized
by t h e transfer function

~ i t unknown
h
but constant coefficients ( a o ,
, bn-,) belong t o such a
, a n - I , bo
C ! ~ S S provlded that they are minimum phase (all 77 - p zeros of h,-,~"-~+
+bls+ho
ha\? negatiLP redl part) and the s~griof hn-, (usuallj called high-frequency galn)
1s known
U'heri parameters d o not enter linearly b u t a prior1 bounds are known, robust
rionlinear algoritlirns can stabilize not only system ( 1 30) but also t h e more general
one

Outline of the book

21

$12F

in which t h e nonlinearity
is uncertain a n d its graph is only known t o belong
t,o a region bounded by known nonlinear f ~ n c t ~ i o nIn
s . new coordinates t = x 2 - X I ,
y = x l syst,em (1.38) becomes

Assuming t,hat )81ye2p11

< y8, i.e. bounds on 81 and
out,put feedback control

$2

are available, t,he st,atic

globally st,abilizes t h e family of syst,ems (1.38): in fact t h e function

has a negative definit,e time d e r i ~ a t ~ i v e

T h e cont,rol (1.39) is designed on t h e basis of t h e worst case: it is a robust output

feedback stabilizing control. Since syst,em (1.38) is of relative degree 1 and
minimum phase, the design of (1.39) is rather simple and is a generalizat,ion of linear
high-gain control techniques. More complex dynamic o u t p u t feedback algorithms
have to be resorted t,o for systems wit,h relative degree greater than 1. These results
generalize t,o a class of nonlinear syst,ems t,he simultaneous stabilization results
obtained for linear systems with uncertain parameters belonging to bounded sets.

1.9

OUTLINE OF T H E BOOK

This book int,roduces nonlinear design t,echniques which led t,o a n d were motivat,ed
by applications in elect,ric machines, robotics, aircraft and aerospace control, and
power systems. It is divided into t,wo parts: s t a t e feedback design (Chapters 2, 3: 3)
arid output feedback design (Chapters 6 and 7 ) ,including observer design (Chapter
5 ) . Basic result,s from differential geometry a n d ~ t ~ a h i l i ttheory
y
which a r e actually
used are recalled in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively, mainly to clarify t,he
notation arid t h e terminology: t h e reader is, however, referred to several excellent
books on these subjects which are listed in the Bibliography. Each chapter contains
worked examples, physical examples and suggested exercises. T h e results presented
are non-local in the sense t,hat they are global whenever t h e change of coordinates
ilivolved is global. Co~ltrolalgorit,hms which only yield local results are outside the
d single input single output syst,ems
scope of the book. All results are p r e ~ e n t ~ efor

22

Introduction

even though most relevant applicat,ions involve mult.ivariable models. E ~ t ~ e n s i o of

ns
some of t.he main result,^ t,o multivariable syst,erris are only st,at,ed,when available,
a t t,he end of each chapter. Worked physical examples involving multivariable
systems are also given.
Chapt,ers 2 and 3 deal wit,h nonlinear systems with no output,s Chapter 2
deals wit,h systems with no uncert,ainties, i.e, not affecred by disturbances and
wit,h paramet,ers and n~nlinearit~ies
exactly k ~ l o w n .T h e main result is t h e feedback
liriearizat,ion theorem which is present.ed as a generalization of t h e pole placement
t,heorern for linear systems t80a class of nonlinear systems ident,ified by different,ial
geometric conditions. Part,ial feedback linearization is also introduced. Chapter 3
deals wit,h uncerthin feedback linearizable syst,ems which contain unknown paramet,ers or are affected by time-varying disturbances: adaptive and robust versions of
the feedback linearization algorit,hrri are developed which include model reference
adaptjive cont,rol and high-gain techniques for linear systems.
In Chapt,er 4 a single output variable t,o be cont,rolled is int.roduced for t h e
first time in t h e book: inverse systems, relative degree* zero dynamics, t,racking
dynamics, a n d rni~iimumphase syst,ems are defined a n d t h e d i ~ t ~ u r b a n crejection
e
and the disturbance at,tenuation problems are formulat,ed. T h e main result is t h e
input,-output feedback linearization t,heorem, which is a generalization of the zeropolr, c a n r ~ l l a t i o ntechnique for linear systems. It,s relationships wit,h zero dynamics
and part>ialfeedback l i n r a r i ~ a t ~ i oare
n illustrat,ed; it,s adaptive version, for systems
with unknown paramet,ers, is developed. Necessary a n d sufficient conditions are
given for t,he solvabilit,y of t,he dist,urbance rejection problern. Sufficient conditions
are given for t h e solvability of t,he disturbance attenuation problem a n d for t h e
design of adaptive tracking controls wit11 guaranteed transient specificat,ions.
Chapter 5 deals with observers axid adapt,ive observers. T h e main result provides sufficient coriditions for the exist,ence of observers wit,h linear asympt,ot,ically
st,able error dl-narnics. This result is viewed as a n extension of t,he construction of
observers for linear systems which involves the t,ransformat,ion into observer forms.
Xtlaptivr versions of observers wit,h linear error dynanlics are developed which inc.ludp :tdaptivc o b s ~ r v c r sfor linear s y s t e n ~ swith unknown paramet,ers as special
('ases.
Chapters G and 7 deal u i r h output feedback design Chapter 6 addresses syst e m ~u l r h n o ilrlc ertaintles Conditions for linearization are glven both by s t a t ~ c
axid b\ ti\:iarnic output ferdbatk For a clasq of rionllnear s l s t e m s , identified by
d i f f c r ~ n t i ~georncrric
il
c o ~ i d l t ~ oo~u~t psu, t feedback control algorithms a r e deslgned
Chapter 7 addre5ses the tracking problern for systems with unknown constant
pardmeters and distinguishes two cases nonlinear parameterization arid linear pararneteri7ation In the first case a robust stabllizlng control ls deslgned while In t h e
second rare an ddaptlre tracking control 1s developed Both algorithms apply t o
11rit.dr ~rllrilrnl~in
phase s ~ s t e m swith unknown coefficients they generalize known
rr,sults for lir~car71 stems to a class of nonlinear systems

Physical control problems

1.10

23

PHYSICAL CONTROL PROBLEMS

Physical syst,ems which have nonlinear models and are widely studied are reported
below. These rnodels and t8hecorresponding c o n t ~ o lproblerns will be used in the
t,ext to illust,rat,e t h e t,echniques developed.
1.10.1 (Induction motor) A detailed model of a n unsat,urated induction rnotor
is given by

n'wh
-

dt
di,

dt

12.1R,
n it1
*a +
dljlb
L,L, - 1212
( L , L, - i ~ i 1 2 ) E ,
, v f 2 ~+
, L;R,
L,
7, +
a
L, L, - 1212
( L , L, - iW2)L,
i2.1R,
n,hl
- rL'h d dl,
(L,L, - 1212)~, L, L, - 111

in which rotor speed d , rotor fluxes (u,,. L L ~ ) , and stator currents ( 7 , , zbi
are t h r states. rotor inertia J , stator and rotor inductances (L,, L,), mutual
,
and rotor resistancrs (R,. R,), and tht, number of pole
inductance A l l stator
the palarneters T h t voltages ( I I , , 1 1 ~ )are to b e desig~ledas a
pair5 n ,
fu~lctionof t h e whole state (& (1,. w b , I , , 7 h ) (or, prc,ferablv as a function of
)
difficult to measure) so that
measured xariables ( d , ?, l b ) since (LS, ~ h are
the speed ,tiacks t h e reference 5ignal ,,(t) a n d a: + W ; i y regulated to t hc~
desired t onstant valut, @, (typically chosen to maximize motor tfficiencg) in
spite of load torque TL xariations and possibly rotol resistance R, variations
due to o h n i ~ chcating A simplified model (current-fed motor) is gixen b\

In which

(I,,

16)

are the control variables

Introduction

24

1.10.2 (Rigid robot) A two link planar robot, with t,wo revolute joint,s is modelled, assuming rigid joints and rigid links, by

+ +

(81 203 cos q2)(i'l (02 O3 cos q2)q2

- 283 sin 42(11(12- 03 sin q2$
o5 cos ql

+
+ e6 cos(ql + qz) = vr 1
+ o4q2 + O3 sin q 2 i T + 196 cos(q1 + q2) = u2
Y l = 11 cos q1 + 12 cos(q1 + q2)
y2 = 11 sin ql + 12 sin(q1 + (12)
(02 + 83 cos q2)ijl

in which the parameters 0,, 1 5

I,

5 6 depend on physical ones

where g is the gravity const,ant, I,, m,,, li are inertia, mass and 1engt)h of link
i , respectively, and d, = 1,/2. T h e torque inputs (?I1,u,z) are t o be designed
as a function of the st,ate ( q l , q l , q2, i2)or a s a function of the measured
variables (ql, q2) so that the outputs, which are the end point coordinates
( y l , y2), follow a reference trajectory (y,l ( t ) y,2(t)).
,
Parameters 8i may be
unknown. More generally, an N-link robot is modelled by

in which q E R." is the vector of link displacements, 11 E R~ is the vector of

torques applied t,o each link, y E R" is the output vect,or, B ( q ) is the iv x N
inertia matrix. C ( q q)rj
, are Coriolis and centripetal forces, g(q) is t,he vector
of gravity forces. T h e general control problem is t o design 71 as a function
of t,he state [ q . 4 ) or as a funct,ion of the output y so that y tracks a desired
reference signal 9 , .
1.10.3 (Rigid b o d y ) Consider the dynamics of a rigid body. Let ( x , y. z ) be the
coordinates of t,he center of mass in an absolut,e frame, (@, 0, O ) be the roll,
pitch and yaw angles, and ( 1 1 . z.. L ~ the
) velocity component,s in a relative frame
att,achec-l to the rigid body. T h e cont,rol inputs are t,he torque components
( T ~ T,,.
.
r 2 ) with respect to the same relat,ive frame and the thrust p . T h e
equations of motion are

d,

+ tan O(d,sin d + J, cos 4)

d + &, cos @

&,/ S I I ~

cos e

Physical control problems

+
J?,G?l +
J z ~ z+

JzGz

( J z - J,)wvwz = ~z

( J z - Jz)wzwz = 7 ,
( J 1 /- J z ) w z ~ !=
/ TZ
x = 11.cos~cost9+v(cos~hsint9sin~-sin$cos~)
y

t w (cos $J sin 6' cos C#I + sin 1L sin 4 )

= ~1.sin~~cost9+v(sin$sint9sind+cos.rltcosC#I)
+w (sin IC/ sin t9 cos 6 - cos w sin 4)

= g cos 9t sin C#J - w,v

w = g COS 0 COS 4

Y
+ wzw + rn,

W ~ / 1 1-

w,u

Z
+m,

in which (z, y , z ) are the cockdinates of the center of mass in an absolute frame
with t,he vert,ical z-axis oriented downwards, ( v ,v , w ) the velocity components
in a relative frame attached to the rigid body, (c$,O, d) are the roll, pitch
and yaw angles, (w,, w,, w,) are the components of the angular velocity with
respect to t,he principal axes of inertia, (X J p , Y , Z ) are the components
of the force vector except gravity,
is the mass, and (J,, J,, J,) are the
moment of inertia with respect to the principal axes of inertia. T h e control
problem is to design (r,, r7/,r,, p ) so that a reference traject,ory ( x r ( t ) ,y , ( t ) ,
z r ( t ) , Q , - ( t ) ,Q r ( t ) $, , ( t ) ) is followed.

1 . 1 0 . 4 (Spacecraft) The dynamic model of a spacecraft driven by gas jet actu-

ators is given by

O = w,cosq3 - w,sin$
w, sin @ w, cos Q
$2
=
cos s

in which: ( $ , Q ,d l ) are t,he roll, pit,ch and yaw angles; ( d , , w,.J,) are the
co~nponent~s
of t,he angular velocity of t,he spacecraft expressed in a frame
attached tlo t,he spacecraft; J is the symmet,ric posit,ive definite inertia matrix
of the spacecraft; ( T ~r Y, r7,) are the torques supplied by the gas jet actuators.
The control input,s (r,, r,, r,) are to be designed so t'hat the reference attitude
( d l ( t )O
, , ( t ) , ( t ) ) is tracked. The entries of t,he inertia mat,rix J may be
unkrlown

26

Introduction

1 . 1 0 . 5 ( I n v e r t e d p e n d u l u m ) T h e dynamic equat,ions of a n invert,ed pendulum

on a moving cart are given by

( ~ L+
I m )i+ m l cos p p

m l slncpcp2 =

rnlcoscpx+m12~-mglsinp =

711

112

in which cp is the angle displacement of the pendulum from t h e vertical configurat,ion, x is the position of t,he cart,, 1 is t h e length of t h e pendulum, h.1
is t,he mass of t h e cart, m is t h e point mass at,t,ached at t h e end of t h e pen] t,he force applied t,o t,he
dulum, g is t,he gravity constbnt,. T h e input t ~ is
cart while t,he input ( 1 2 is the t,orque applied a t t,he base of t,he pendulum.
Several cont,rol problems arise:
( a ) Assuming t,he st,at,es ( x , x , cp, +) are measured:
(i) ( u l , r r 2 ) are t o be designed in order t.o track x , ( t ) and cp,.(t);
) 0,
is t,o be designed in order t,o track cp,(t), in particular ~ , ( t =
(ii)
assuming 712 = 0;
(iii) 7 ~ 2is t,o b e designed in order t,o t,rack ~ , - ( t ) in
( i particular cp,.(t) = 0,
when vl is const,ant a n d unknown;
(iv) the above cont,rol problems ( i ) , jii), (iii) a r e 60 be solved when t,he
parameters are unknown.
( b ) Assuming t,hat only p is measured:

(i) 111 is t,o be designed in order to track cp,.(t) when 712 = 0;

(ii) 7r2 is to b e designed in order t o t,rack cp,(t) when 711 is constant a n d
unknown.
1.10.6 ( B a l l a n d b e a m ) A hall of point mass m is in a t u b e of infinite length
a n d of moment of inertia J around t,he middle point a t which a t.orque r is

esert,ed: neglecting any friction, t,he rnodel is given by

I.'

- g sin p

-2m7

+ rd"

~,u,

+ mrL

rilgr cos 9

+~

+~

The posit,ion of t,he ball with respect t,o t h e origin is given by r while cp
denot,es the angle by which t h e t u b e is rotat,ed with respect to t h e horizontal
line. Assuming t,hat, the s t a t e ( r ,v ,cp. d) is measured a control T is t,o be
designed so that r tracks any const,ant reference value r,. including r , = 0.
1 . 1 0 . 7 ( P o i n t rrlass s a t e l l i t e ) A point mass rn in a plane. subject t,o a n inverse
square law force field wit,h potent,ial energy k / r and bot,li radial a n d t>angential
thrusts t11 and 7 1 2 , respect,ively, is governed by t,he equations

Physical control problems

in which ( r , (F) are t,he polar coordinat,es of t h e mass, v is t h e radial speed

a n d w is t,he angular speed. Assuming t,hat the stat,e ( r , v , cp, w ) is measured,
or t,hat only t h e variables r a n d q are measured, t h e following problems can
be formulat,ed bot,h when t2he t,wo parameters ( k , m,) are known a n d when
t,lley are unknown:
(a)

(1r1,

(b)

11,2

are t,o be designed so t,hat constant r,. a n d w, are tracked;

is t,o be designed in order to track a const,ant r,. when

711

=0

1.10.8 (Robot with flexible joint) T h e dynamic equations of a single link robot
rotfating in a vertical plane a r e given by
a r m wit,h a revolute elastic

hint

in which ql a n d q2 are t h e link displacement a n d t h e rotor displacement,

respect,ively. T h e link inert,ia J 1 , the motor rotor inertia J,, t,he elastic const,ant. k , t,he link mass M , t h e gravity constant g , t h e center of mass 1 and
t,he viscous friction coefficients F l , F, are positive constant parameters. T h e
control o is t,he t,orque delivered by t,he motor. T h e control problems are:
( a ) assuming t h a t t,he whole st,at,e ( q l , ql, qz, i z ) is measured, 11 is t,o be
designed so t,hat q1 tracks a desired reference q r l ( t ) in two situations:
(i) t,he parameters a r e assumed t,o b e known,
(ii) t,he parameters are unknown;
jb) assuming t h a t only ql is measured, 71 is t30be designed so t,hat ql t,racks
a desired reference qrl(t) in two situations:
(i) t h e parameters a r e assumed t o b e known,
(ii) all parameters are unknown.
1.10.9 (Synchronous generator) A synchronous generator connected through

purely react,ive transmission lines to t h e rest of a net,work which is represent,ed by a n infinite bus (i.e. a machine rot,at,ing a t synchronous speed w, and
capable of absorbing or deliveriilg any amount of energy) is modelled by

J-J,

; = c,

02w.Gfsin6 - f93~'4A
sin 6

O ~ W
$ B cos 6

+ O5 sin 6 cos 6

Introduction

$B

- e 1 4 w ~ B- OI5 sin 6

in which: 6 is the generator rotor angle referred to the infinit,e bus, w is

t,he rot,or angular speed, , y ~ f is the field flux linkage, W A is the direct axis
e damper winding
damper winding flux linkage, 4~ is the q ~ a d r a t ~ u raxis
flux linkage, uf is the field excitat,ion voltage, c, is the acceleration provided
by the turbine; Bi are constant parameters depending on the machine (in
particular O2 > O ) , the transmission line electrical parameters, rotor inertia,
be the stable
and infinite bus const,ant volt,age. Let (he,w,, qfe,dAe,
operat,ing condition corresponding to t,he inputs (c,,, v f e ) A short circuit,
in the transmission line may cause an abrupt variation of most parameters
and impose a different operating condit,ion. T h e control problem is t o design
feedback cont,rols c, - c,,, vf- vf, to drive t,he generator to a stable operating
condition bot,h in the case in which t,he short, circuit, is not cleared and in t h e
case in which it is promptly cleared. I\ieglect,ing tke dynamics of the damper
windings, the reduced order model (8: are new pa;ameters) is

ij

= c, - 19iw$~sin 6

+ 8; sin 6 cos 6

Since the input vf may be varied more quickly than the input c,, c, may be
viewed as a const,ant parameter (c, = 0;) and vf is to be designed as a feedback control to stabilize the generator after t,he occurrence of a short circuit
or a turbine failure. Flux linkage (,hf,4,4,
,$B) measurements are usually not
available.
1.10.10 (Synchronous m o t o r ) T h e dynamic equations of a permanent magnet
synchronous motor with sinusoidal flux distribution are given by

d?,

dl

h
-

dt

R
L
R

--I,

Km
+ -d
L

- -16

- -L,

tft

h',
L

sin(p6)

+L
'1a

cos(p6) + L
7' b

in which b and w are the rotor position and speed, and (i,, 7,b) and ( v , , 11.b)
are st,ator currents and stator voltages expressed in a fixed stator frame.
The parameters of the motor are the stator winding resistance R and selfinductance L , the motor torque constant K,, the rotor inertia J , the viscous
friction F and the number of pole pairs p. All parameters, except,ing TL,

Exercises

29

are positive. Assuming that. (6, w, i,, I+) are measured, 71, a n d 7/,b are t o be
designed so t h a t 6 tracks a smoot,h reference signal 6,(t) in two situations:
(i) t h e parameters are assumed to be known;
(ii) t,he parameters are unknown
1.10.11 ( U n k n o w n p o i n t m a s s ) Consider an unknown point mass m. subject to:
a control input, force u , an unknown constant disturbance force d , unknown
viscous damping force k,x a n d unknown elastic force kPx. According to
Newt,onls law the model is

wit,h m,, k p , k, unknown positlive constant,^ and d unknown. T h e control task

is to design a feedback control algorithm so t h a t x ( t ) asymptotically tracks
a reference signal x , ( t ) in two cases:
(a) x and x are measured,

( b ) only x is measured.
1.10.12 ( S a t e l l i t e w i t h s o l a r t a r r a y s ) A simplified model of a satellite with
flexible appendages (solar arrays) along each principal axis of inertia when
couplings are neglected is given by

1
S' + 2(,Ld,s
4(s) = J s Z ,=, y s 2 + 2(,w,s

UJ;

+ w:

in which N is the number of elastic modes with w, cantilever frequencies, C,

damping ratios and pi coupling fact,ors ( J > 2p,2), J is the satellite moment
of inertia about the considered axis, $r is t h e angle of rotation, u is t h e control
given by the torque delivered by act,uators (gas jets or reaction wheels), dT
is the const,ant disturbance torque. Since t h e solar arrays may rotate, the
parameters J , p,, J,,C,, dT are assumed t o be constant but unknown: the
control problem is to design a stabilizing feedback control u on t h e basis of
Q measurenlent only.

1.11

EXERCISES

T h e following examples have been discussed in this chapter and are collected for easy
reference and co~nparison. T h e reader may t r y t o design observers, s t a t e and o u t p u t
feedback stabilizing or tracking controls using his or her background and then compare
with t h e solutions sketched in this chapter. All t h e exercises are globally solvable on the
basis of t h e techniques introduced in this book.
1.11.1 Design a stabilizing feedback control for t h e system (compare with ( 1 . 2 ) )

r.

0:C3+,1L

30

Introduction

1 . 1 1 . 2 Design a stabilizing s t a t e feedback control for t h e system (compare with (1.4))

1 . 1 1 . 3 Design a stabilizing s t a t e feedback control for t h e system (compare with (1.6))

1.11.4 Design a n adaptive stabilizing s t a t e feedback control for t h e system (compare

w i t h (1.20), (1.21))

1.11.5 Design a stabilizing s t a t e feedback control for t h e system (compare with (1.10),

(1.11))

1.11.6 Design an adaptive stabilizing s t a t e feedback control for t h e system (compare

with (1.16))

1 . 1 1 . 7 1)esigrr a stabilizing s t a t e feedhack control for t h e systern (cornpare with (1.15))

r,

2
1'2 - r 2 "

1.2

I,

I/

('

1 . 1 1 . 8 Design a stabilizing s t a t e feedback control for t h e system (1.14)

11

rL'

I.:

+ ,r:,,

I,

w111ch rrlnkes t h e origin a globally asy~nptoticallystable equilibrium point

H t r i f : use the, func,tion V = ( r ? t . r : ) / 2 .

Exercises

31

1 . 1 1 . 9 Design a stabilizing s t a t e feedback control for t h e linear system (compare with

(1.18))

1 . 1 1 . 1 0 Design a n observer for t h e system (compare with (1.26))

1.11.11 Design a n adaptive observer for t h e system (compare with (1.28)-(1.29))

1 . 1 1 . 1 2 Design a n o u t p u t feedback adaptive tracking control for t h e system (compare

with (1.23) and (1.24))

1.11.13 Design both s t a t e feedback and o u t p u t feedback stabilizing controls for the
system (compare with (1.31), (1.32), (1.33), (1.35), (1.36), (1.37))

1 . 1 1 . 1 4 Design a n o u t p u t feedback adaptive tracking control for the system (1.34)

1 . 1 1 . 1 5 Desigri a n o u t p u t feedback stabilizing control for t h e systern (compare with

(1.39))

Part I

STATE FEEDBACK

Feedback linearization

In this chapt,er we consider single input syst,ems witah no ~ n c e r t ~ a i n t i e s

in a neighborhood U,, c R n of a n equilibrium point x, corresponding to 71 = 0,

i.e. j(x,) = 0; j and g are a s s u h e d t80be smooth vector fields defined on R n with
g(x,) # 0.We present two results given in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, respectively, stating
necessary and sufficient condit,ions under which system (2.1) is transformable into a
linear cont,rollable system by nonlinear change of coordinates only (Section 2.3) or
n These t,wo problems
by nonlinear feedback and change of c ~ o r d i n a t ~ (eSs e ~ t ~ i o2.2).
are called st,at,e linearizat,ion and feedback linearization, respect,ively. Feedback
linearizat,ion is viewed as a generalization of pole placement for linear systems,
which is recalled in Section 2.1. More general problems such as partial feedback
linearizat,ioil (Section 2.4) and its application to st,abilizat,ion (Section 2.5), global
issues (Sect,ion 2.6), and ext,ensions to multivariable systems (Section 2.7) are also
addressed. Physical examples are discussed in Section 2.8.

2.1

P O L E P L A C E M E N T FOR L I N E A R S Y S T E M S

We first recall a well known result from linear system theory, t h e pole placement
theorem, and problde a proof whlch generalizes to a class of nonlinear systems
(2 1 )

Theorem 2 . 1 . 1 (Pole Placement) Consider the single input linear system

.i =

FX

<

+ grr.

I.

Rn,

I/

E R .

(2.2)

<

Given v
n / 2 arbitrary pairs of complex conjugate nllnlbers 1,& I & , , 1 5 I
v,
and 11 - 2v arbitrary real numbers A,, 2v t 1 5 J 5 7 ~ there
,
exists a linear state
feedback transfornlation; i.e. a linear change of coordinat,es ( T nonsingular)

Feed back ljnearjzation

and a s t a t e feedback (v E R )

such t,hat t h e closed-loop system

and

if. and only if, t h e Kalman controllability condition

span{g, F g , . . . ,

Fn--lg)
=

Rn

(2.3)

holds
assumption ( 2 . 3 ) t h e n x n,
Proof. Suficzency. By virt,ue of t,he cont~rollabilit~y
controllability matrix

is nonsingular and therefore there exist,s a unique row vector h which solves t,he
linear equat,ion
hR

that

1s

h [ g , F g . . . , F n - ' g ] = [hg, h , F g , . . . , h , ~ " - ' ~ ]= [ O , . . . , 0 , 11

(2.4)

Pole placement for lineal. systems

Let

Recall t h a t by t h e Cayley-

be the characteristic polynomial of the matrix F

Hamilton Theorem

Define the n x n nonsingular matrix T

To show that T is a nonsingular matrix, observe that t h e n x n Toeplitz matrix

is nonsingular since, according t o definition (2 4 ) .

Slncr R is nonsingular by assumption T =

is also nonsingular a n d z = T x
is a lirlrar change of coordinates In z-coordinates the linear system x = Fx tg r ~
becomes z = T F T ~ ' Z + T ~ hIore
I I precisely. b y virtue of ( 2 8 ) , we directly compute
L

Applying ( 2 . 6 ) . we have

'

Feedback linearization

which, substituted in (2.9), gives

i.e. a linear system in c o n t r o l l e r f o r m . Define now t,he stat,e feedback

which, s ~ b s t i t u t ~ eind (2.10), gives

and concludes the sufficiency part.

Necesszty. We proceed by cont,radict,ion. Assume t-hat condition (2.3) does not,
hold, that, is
rank[g, F g , .

..

, Fn-lg] =

1.

<

TI

It follows t h a t g , F g , . . . , FT-'g are linearly independent a n d that. the subspace

span{g, F g , . . . , Fr-'g)

<

is F-invariant,, i.e. FR c R . Let e,, r + 1 5 j

n be vectors which, along wit,h
g . . . . , F ' - ' ~ , form a basis in Rn. In the new basis {FT-'g, . . . , g , e , + l , . . . , e n ) the
pair ( F , g ) becomes

with
T-I

[ ~ ' - l g ..

..

, g, e r + l , . . . , e,l.

For any choice of the vector k t,he st,ate feedback

Pole placement for linear systems

39

does not. modify the eigenvalues of F 2 2 , which contradicts the hypothesis. The
necessity of t,he controllabilit,y condition (2.3) can be alternatively proved by shows state feedback
ing that, (2.3) is invariant under linear change of ~ o o r d i n a t ~ eand
t,hen
observing
that
(2.3)
is
satisfied
for
the
pair
(
A
,
b)
for
any choice of the
and
eigenvalues of the matrix A .
R e m a r k 2.1.1 As is well known from linear system theory, the condition (2.3) is
necessary and sufficient for t,he existence of a piecewise continuous input driving
t,he syst,em from any arbitrary stat,e X I int,o any arbitrary state x2 in any (arbitrarily small) positive time. Condition (2.3) is equivalent to the P o p o v - B e l e v i c h H a u t u s controllability condition:

A linear system (F,g ) satisfying these condit,ions is said to be c o n t r o l l a b l e .

R e m a r k 2 . 1 . 2 Provided that A is asympt,otically stable, a Lyapunov function for
the closed loop system in z-coordinates V = z T p z , which becomes in the original
X-coordinates V = x T T T p T x , c n be computed by solving the Lyapunov matrix
equation for P

R e m a r k 2 . 1 . 3 The sufficiency part of t,he proof is c~nst~ructive.To place the

poles of the closed loop system a t desired locations in the complex plane one has
t,o apply t,o t,he system (2.2) the state feedback given by (2.11), that is
11

= (cr

a ) T ~+
zv

where a and a are the vect.ors ~ n a d eby t,he coefficients of t,he characteristic polynornials of the given mat,rix F and of t,he closed loop mat,rix A (which has the desired
eigenvalues) , respect,ively.
If we consider the family of all ~ont~rollable
pairs (F,
g ) , and the action of l i n e a r
s t a t e f e e d b a c k t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s defined as

with T a nonsingular n x
restated as follows

77

matrix and k.

row vector, Theorem 2 1 1 can be

T h e o r e m 2 . 1 . 2 A linear system ( F ,g ) is transformable by a linear state feedback

transformation int,o a B r u n o v s k y c o n t r o l l e r f o r m

Feedback linearization

40

i.e. there exist a nonsingular mat,rix T and a row vector k such that
if, and only if, the pair ( F , g ) is controllable.
We say t,hat t,wo single input linear syst,ems are feedback equivalent if they are
related by a linear state feedback t,ransformation: ail syst,ems are then divided int,o
feedback equivalence classes. According to Theorem 2.1.2, all single input linear
~ont~rollable
syst,ems belong t,o the same feedback equivalence class represent,ed
by the Brunovsky controller form (2.12).
If we only consider a linear change of coordinates acting on the pair ( F , g ) as
( F , g)

--,

(TFT-',

Tg)

we can stat,e a result which was obtained as an intermediate st,ep in t h e proof of

Pole Placement Theorem 2.1.1.

Theorem 2 . 1 . 3 Any controllable pair ( F , g ) with d e t ( s I - F) = sn a,-IS"-'

. . + a l s + a 0 is transformable by a linear change of coordinates into:

( a ) the controller form

T~FT;'

- 0

0
1
.

...
...
.

0
0

...
...

=
-a0

-a1

-02

Tlg=

111.
.

1;-

-ffn-1

( b ) the controllable form

-a,-1

-0,-2

T~FTF' =
-a1

-a,,

1 0 ... 0
0 1 ... 0
.
. '.. I

0 0 ... 1
0 0 ... 0

0
0
,

Tzg =

0
1

Proof. ( a ) Stat,ement ( a ) is proved in the first part of the proof of Theorem 2.1.1
(see ( 2 . 1 0 ) ) .
( h ) Since
rank[g. F g .

.~"-'g]

= n

we can choose t h t n linearly independent vectors F " - ' ~.,. . , g as a new basis so
t!iat in the new coordinates 2 = T2x defined by
tlie system is expressed in controllable form. This is easily seen since, by the

Caj.ley-Ham~ltonTheorem,

Feedback linearization
2.2

FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION

Consider now single input nonlinear systems (2.1) which generalize linear ones
(2.2)since t,he vector field f (x) is not restricted to being linear and g(x) is not
re~trict~ed
t,o being constant. We restrict ourselves to a neighborhood U,, of an
equilibrium point x, (f (x,) = 0) which is assumed t o be the origin since we can
always perform a change of coordinates r = x - x, so that 2 = 0 is an equilibrium
point. However, the same considerations apply in a neighborhood of any point xo,
not necessarily an equilibrium point for t,he vector field f , provided that f (so)and
g(xo) are linearly dependent, i.e. f (xo)= yg(xo) with g(xo) # 0. Indeed, we can
define the change of ~ o o r d i n a t ~ ez s= x - xo so that in new coordinates

Let v be the new control variable defined as v = 11 + y which, s u b s t i t ~ t ~ eind (2.13),

gives

witah fz(0) = 0 and g,(O) # 0.

We generalize the notion of linear state feedback transformations by allowing:
(a) nonlinear local change of coordinates

wit,h T : Uo Rn a local diffeomorphism in

(b) nonlinear st,at,e feedback

with k(0) = 0 ,P(0)# 0, k : Co

Uo,a neighborhood of the origin;

R,3 : Uo

R both smooth functions

The above transformation is called nonlinear s t a t e feedback transformation.

The act,ion of nonlinear state feedback (2.14)on the vector fields f and y is to
transform them int,o the vector fields

The action of nonlinear state feedback t,ransformation on the single input system
(2.1)is to t,ransform (2.1)into

'4 natural problem is to determine the nonlinear feedback equivalence class containing the Brunovsky cont,roller form. As we have already seen, it contains all
conirollable single input, linear syst,ems: we would like to determine all nonlinear
syst,ems (2.1)belonging to such an equivalence class.

Feedback linearization

Definition 2 . 2 . 1 Two systems

where f l ,f2,g l , g2 are smooth vector fields In Rn wlth fl(0) = 0 f2(0) = 0 ,

gl(0) # 0,g2(0)# 0 ,are said t o h e locally feedback equivalent ~f there exist two
smooth functions k(xl),P(xl),wlth k(0) = 0, O(0) # 0 definlng a s t a t e feedback

and a local diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of t h e origin in R n .

such that tJheclosed loop syst,em

in

x2

coordinates is

Definition 2.2.2 T h e nonlinear single input system (2.1) is said to be locally

state feedback linearizable if it is locally feedback equivalent t,o a linear syst,em
in Brurlovsky controller form

bVe wol~ldlike to determine those nonlinear systems which are locally feedback
lincarizablc. T h e following theorem identifies t,liose syst,ems by means of necessary
and sufficierlt conditions.

Theorern 2 . 2 . 1 (Feedback Linearization) T h e single input system ( 2 . 1 ) is locally s t a t e feedback lirlearizable if, and only if, in Croj a neighborhood of t h e origin:
( i ) sp;~n{g.

. udnf-lg)= R n ,

Feedback linearization

(ii) t h e dist,ribut,ion
rank rl. - 1.

43

GnP2

span{g, . . . ,

is involutive and of constant

or, e q ~ i v a l e n t ~ lify ,a n d only if:

(iii) t,he disth-ibutions

are involutive and of constant rank

+ 1.

Proof: Suficzency. By virt,ue of assumptions ( i ) a n d (ii) we can apply Frobenius's

Theorem 14.4.3 which guarantees the existence of a srnooth funct,ion h : R n -t R
such t,hat in a neighborhood of t,he origin

arid h (0) = 0. In ot,her words (i) and (ii) guarant,ee t,he existence of a solut,ion h
for t,he set of linear part,ial different,ial equations
( ( d h ,g)

(dh, a d ( - ~ ) , g ). . . . . (dh. ad;:&))

for sorne snlooth function y ( x ) , y ( 0 )

L;-'h(x), we can show t h a t

-- (0 , . . . : 0

# 0 Defining t h e

71

,?(X))

(2.17)

funct~orish ( r ) , L f h ( x ) ,

is a local d~ffeomorphisrnIn a ileighborhood of t h e orlgin we just need to shorn

that its 7,t~obiand T / d x 1s nons~ngularand then apply Inverse Function Theorem
.4 1 1 Drhlie t h e T I x n rnatrlx

By defin~tiori(2.17). t h e first row of t h e rnatrix ;l:(x) is given by [O.

By v ~ r t u eof Lcibniz's formula and of (2.17), we have

. . , 0 , -r

(.~.)j.

Feedback linearization

44

so that the second row of mat,rix N ( x ) is [O, . . . , 0 , ( x ) ,( d ( L f h , ) ,

Applying repeatedly Leibniz's formula, the remaining rows of t h e matrix N ( x ) can be
computed, yielding

i.e. N ( x ) is nonsingular in a neighborhood of t,he origin. This fact along with

assumption (i) imply t h a t d T / d x is nonsingular: by Inverse Function Theorem
A . l . l it follows t h a t z = T ( x ) is a local diffeomorphism. T h e system

is expressed in z-coordinates as

i, = ~ ) h , ( x +
) L , L > - ' ~ , ( X ) ~ ~ , ,1 5

5n .
4

From ( 2 . 1 7 ) , by applying Leibniz's formula

and equation ( 2 . 1 9 ) becomes

Define the state feedback

and not,e t,hat k ( 0 ) = 0 since f ( 0 ) = 0 and 0 ( 0 ) # 0 since L , L ~ - ' h ( 0 ) = ~ ( 0#) 0 .

Substituting ( 2 . 2 1 )in ( 2 . 2 0 )we obt,airi t,he Brunovsky controller form ( 2 . 1 5 ) . While
condition (i) implies that rank G, = z t 1 for 0
1
11 - 1 in Uo, i n ~ p e c t ~ i nthe
g
matrix .V( L )we observe that

<

dh.

d ( ~ ; - ~ hE)

G,'

Feedback linearization

45

<

and that dh,, . . . , d ( ~ ) h , are

) linearly independent for 0 _< i. n - 2, which proves,
according to Frobenius's Theorem A.4.3, that the distributions Gi are involutive
for I; = 0,.
. . , n. - 2. Since
is involut,ive by assumption (i), this shows that
conditions (i) and (ii) imply condition (iii). On the other hand, condition (iii)
implies (i) and (ii): t,herefore (i) and (ii) are equivalent to (iii).
Necessity. By assumption there exists a nonlinear state feedback taransformation
from syst,em (2.1) to system (2.15) and vice versa. Consider the linear system
(2.15) in Brunovsky controller form for which we can compute the distributions

which are involut,ive and of dimension 1: 1. We now show that they are invariant
Giare invariant
under nonlinear st,at,efeedback tJransformations. T h e di~t~ributions
under st,at,e space change of coordinates. Hence we need only consider the action
of a nonlinear state feedback transformation on a system ( f , g)

Clearly

We proceed by induction. Assume that

we claim that

Hence

S ~ n c eG, are irivolutive, in particular adgG, C G,, it follows that

Contiltions (iii) are then satisfied for any feedback linearizable system (2.15).

Feed back linearization

R e m a r k 2 . 2 . 1 In z-coordinat,es t,he vect,or field g is

so that

G~

span

Since in z-coordinates the vect,or field f is

w e compute

- L,LT;-'~,-

azn-l

-L

dz, j

Since L , L ; - ' ~ # 0, we have

=

-)

d
{dz,Ldz,.-]

span

Analogous comput,ations lead t,o

Reniark 2 . 2 . 2 Polv placement. Throrern 2.1.1, stat,ed as Theorem 2.1.2, is a corollary of Fred1)ack Linearization Theorem 2.2.1. In fact for linear systems (2.2), condition (ii) is always satisfied while contlit,ion (i) becomes t,he Kalman controllabilit,y
c,ur~ciit
ion
r a r ~ k [F~g..

. Fn-'

91 =

TI

R e m a r k 2 . 2 . 3 S o t e t,!~at the proofs of t,he sufficiency parts of t h e pole placement

and frt,dbac,k Ilnt~arizatlon tlieorerns conceptually follow tile same steps. While
thtl c,ontrollat)~lit,vassurriptiori (2.3) is sufficient t,o solve t h e linear equation ( 2 . 4 ) .
co~~ciitions
( i allti
~
( i ~ are
) sufficient t,o solve the linear partial different,ial equation
(2 1 7 ) . this I.: the niain difference ket,ween t h e t,wo proofs and it is a technical
orlc'.
CI

Feedback linearization

47

Remark 2 . 2 . 4 T h e linearizing t,ransformat,ion for a feedback linearizable system

is not unique since tlhe solut,ion of (2.16) is not unique.

We now st,at,ethree consequences of Feedback Linearization Theorem 2.2.1.

Corollary 2 . 2 . 1 A planar nonlinear system (2.1)

is locally st,at,efeedback linearizable in a neighborhood of t,he origin, if a n d only if

it,s linear approximation about t,he origin

Proof. S u f i c i e n c y . Since g(0) # 0 and g is a smooth vect.or field g does not vanish
in a neighborhood of t>heorigin qnd 50 = span{g) is involutive of constant rank 1.
Since

and f (0) = 0 , a t t h e origin

By virt,ue of t h e cont,rollability a s s ~ m p t ~ i oon

n the linear approximation. g ( 0 ) and
ad /g(O! are linearly independent). Since g a n d a d f g are smooth vector fields, they

also are linearly independent in U o , a neighborhood of t h e origin, i.e.

so t,hat Feedback Linearization Theorem 2.2.1 applies.

N e c e s s ~ t y . Feedback Linearization Theorem 2.2.1 implies (2.24) which, by virtue
0
of (2.22) and (2.23) implies t h a t g a n d F g are linearly independent,.
Sirnple examples show t,hat controllabilit,y of t h e linear approximation about
the origin is no longer a sufficient condit,ion for local s t a t e feedback linearizat,ion
for syst,ems (2.1) wit,h n
3; it, is, however, a necessary condit,ion which is easy to
check.

>

Corollary 2 . 2 . 2 If the nonlinear system (2.1) is locally st,ate feedback linearizable

then its linear approxirriatior~about t,he origin

is controllable, i.e. rank[g, F g . . . . , Fn-'g] = n

Feed back linearization

Proof. This is left t,o t,he reader as a n exercise.

C o r o l l a r y 2.2.3 T h e system in t r i a n g u l a r f o r m

. . . , 4, are smooth functions such t h a t @,(O) = 0. 1

in which
feedback linearizable.

5 n,;is locally

Proof. A proof consists in comput,ing t h e distributions GnW1a n d G,-z a n d verifying

that conditions (i) a n d (ii) of Theorem 2.2.1 apply. .4lternatively, t h e feedback
linearizing transformation may be directly computed as follows:

R e m a r k 2 . 2 . 5 More generally a system

Xn

@n(xlr

x
)
1 1 7 L n - 1
xn) O(x1.
, xn)71

o,,1 < 7 < n , a n d 3 smooth functions such t h a t o,(O) = 0, 1 < 7 5 n ,

d~,/dx~+l(O
# )0 , 1 5 I n - 1, and 3 ( 0 ) 0 is said to be in t r i a n g u l a r f o r m
and 1s locally feedback llnearlzable
with

R e r n a r k 2 . 2 . 6 \Vhen the control

L

f (x

11)

f (0. 11) = 0.

11

enters nonilnearly in t h e s t a t e equations, i e

V I IE R

t h e feedback l ~ r i e a r ~ ~ a t lproblem
on
may be posed for t h e e x t e n d e d s y s t e m
s

f(x

I1

IL

11)

(2 27)

uhlch ti 1s t h e nev, control and ( x , 11) 1s the extended s t a t e If t h e c o n d ~ t i o n s

of ihe fveciback li~lea~izatiorl
theorem apply to t h e extended system (2 27), t h e
resulting control
111

is a d y n a m i c s t a t e f e e d b a c k l i n e a r i z i n g c o n t r o l for t,he original system.

Feedback linearization

Example 2.2.1 Consider the syst,em

It is not feedback linearizable in any neighborhood of t h e origin by virtue of Corollary 2.2.1, since t h e linear approximation about t h e origin is not controllable.

Example 2.2.2 Consider t,he system

Note t h a t t,he origin cannot be made globally asymptotically stable by a linear

s t a t e feedback 11 = - k l x l - kzxz. T h e system is feedback linearizable by virtue of
either Corollary 2.2.1 or Corollary 2.2.3. Denoting

so that
=

span{g, adfg) = R'.

Vx E R~

T h e linearizing transformations are computed by determining a function h such

that h ( 0 ) = 0 and (see (2.16))

In this case any localiy invert,ible function of zl,h,(xl), is such t h a t

If we choose h l ( x l )
( 2 21))

= ~

the
,
feedback linearizing transformation is (see (2.18),

Feedback linearization

50

while if we choose h,%(xl)= xl + x:, t h e feedback linearizing t,ransformat,ion is

This shows that the feedback linearizing t,ransformat,ion is not unique. It,s choice
act,ually affects t h e complexit,y of t,he resulting linearizing st.ate feedback.

Exarnple 2 . 2 . 3 Consider t,he system

where cu is a smooth function. Denote f = x 2 d / d x l , g = cu(x2)d/dxl + d / d x 2 .

LLTecomput,e a d f g = - a / d z l . Hence rank G1 = 2 in R'. T h e system is locally
feedback linearizable. We look for a function h ( x l , x 2 ) such t,hat.

The funct,ion

solves t,hr partial differential equation (2.30). In t h e global coordinat,es

I he >ystt>rnbecomes

Yotc that onlv a change of c oordlnatcs

the s~ stern I ~ n e a rslid controllable

15 neec-lcd

Exarrlple 2.2.4 C o n s ~ d e rtlic \?stem ( o , d l ,

82

no feedback 1s rpqliired to make

srnooth functions)

with J2 f 0. V.1. E R ' ~ which coincides wit,h Example 2.2.3 whet 0

1 = 0 , ,02 = 1.
This systcl~n1s fveclback linearizable by the diffeornorphisrn

Feedback linearization

and the s t a t e feedback

E x a m p l e 2.2.5 Corls~drrt,he systrn!

T h e linear approximat,ion about t h e origin is controllable: ~ievertlieless,a s we shall

see, this system is not feedback linearizable. Denote

We compute

n of Theorem 2.2.1
Since span{g, a d f g , ad2fg) = R3 in t h e whole of R 3 , c ~ n d i t ~ i o(i)
is satisfied. Since [y, a d f g ] $! span{g, a d f y ) , t h e d i ~ t r i b u t ~ i oGnI = s p a n i g , a d f g )
is riot involut.ive, so t,hat condit,ion (ii) of Theorem 2.2.1 is violated. T h e system
is not feedback linearizable. This example shows t h a t controllability of t,he lii~ear
approx~niat,ionabout. t h e origin is riot sufficient for feedback linearizahilit,~.
Exarrlple 2 . 2 . 6 Consider the system

which is not, according to Corollary 2.2.3 or Remark 2.2.5, in triangular form.

Denote

Feedback linearization

We compute
adfg = -zl-

a
ax1

a
ax2

and we have
rank{g, adfg, ad:g)

= 3,

Vx E {x E R~ : x2 # 1)

On the other hand since [g, a d f g ] = 0, t,he distxibution

Gi

span{gl adrg)

is involutive of constant rank 2 in R ~ Hence

.
conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem
2.2.1 are satisfied and t,he syst,em is state feedback linearizable. To compute t.he
linearizing diffeomorphism and state feedback we need t o determine a function h,
such that h.(O) = 0 and, in Uol

The function h,(x) = xlePz2 satisfies the syst,em of partial differential equations
(2.32). The diffeomorphism is given by
z

(21,

22,

23)

= (h.(x), Lrh,(x), L ; ~ . ( x ) ) = T ( z )

with

The linearizing state feedback is

with

This example shows that a feedback linearizable system need not be in triangular
form ( 2 . 2 6 ) .

Linearization by change of coordinates

Example 2.2.7 Consider the system

which is not in triangular form (2.26).It is linearizable by the global change of

coordinates

No state feedback is needed.

+
i

2.3

LINEARIZATION BY CHANGE OF COORDINATES

As we have seen in Examples 2 2 3 and 2 2 7, there are nonlinear systems transformable into linear and controllable ones, by using nonlinesr change of coordinates
only In this section such systems are identified in terms of necessary and sufficient
conditions A procedure to construct the l~nearizlngcoordinates is also presented
Definition 2 . 3 . 1 Two systems

where f l , f2,gl,gz are smooth vector fields in R7'with fl(0)= 0, f2(0)= 0,

gl(0)# 0,g2(0)# 0,are said to be locally state equivalent if there exists a local
diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of the origin in R n ,

such that

Feedback linearization

54

Definition 2.3.2 T h e nonlinear single input system (2.1) is said t o be locally

state linearizable if it is locally s t a t e equivalent t o a linear controllable system,
t h a t is

with ( A , b) a controllable pair.

Our goal is t,o characterize all locally s t a t e linearizable syst,ems. We consider a
nonlinear local change of coordinates

and would like t o determine those nonlinear single input systems (2 1 ) which are
transformable by a local change of coordinates (2 33) into a linear controllable
system, 1 e

A'?+b?l
#

witah rank[b, A h , . . . A"-'b] = n . Since, according to Theorem 2 . 1 . 3 , any linear

controllable system is t,rinsformable int,o a c6ntjr611able form, t,he pair ( A , h ) is
t,aken in controllable form.
Theorem 2.3.1 (State Linearization) T h e nonlinear single input system ( 2 1)
1s locally s t a t e Ilnearizable, i e transformable in a n ~ i g h b o r h o o dof the origin, by
a local diffeomorphisnl

int.0 a linear cont.rollable system

if, and onlv i f , in CJo, a neighborhood of t h e origin:

. a d ; - ' g } = Rn,
ad$l,] = 0, 0 < j 5
or, eqliivalently, [y, a d j g ] -- 0, 0 < < 277

(1)

s p a n { g . ad,g.

(11)

[ud;q,

I .

77,

1
-

1 1

Linearizatior! by change of coordinates

Proof. Sufficiency. By asscmption (ii) t,he distributions

are invplutive and, by virtue of ( i ) , of constant r a ~ l kn - 1 so t h a t by Frobenius's

Theorem A . 4 . 3 there exist n smooth functions 9,(x), &(0) = 0, 1 5 t 5 n , such
thit

By virtue of assumption ( i ) , they satisfy

rank{dJl, . , d$,)

= n .

It follows, by Inverse Function f i e o r e m A . 1.1, that

is a local diffeomorphism. In t-coordinaks we have

By virtue of assunlption (ii) it follows that

7,

7,(%),

We can then define

and the n functions

so t h a t

l<_l<n

Feedback linearization
and

is a local diffeomorphism. In z-coordinates the vector fields g , . . . ,

simultaneously locally rectified, i.e.

are

Alternatively, the rectifying local coordinates are obtained by computing the exact
one forms d@,, 1 5 I: 5 n , from

and then integrating

At this point, we would like t,o determine the components of the vector field f in
z-coordinates, i.e. the smooth functions ( f l , . . . , fn) such that

From g = a / a z n and

it follows that

-f,

8 zn

From

= 0

l < r < n , , z#n,-1

Linearization by change of coordinates

it follows t h a t

and, in general, from

it follows t h a t

fn-J

azn-j+l
We conclude that,

ft
fn

= .$ttzl)

1,

+ZI+~,

l < j < n - l .

l 4 z l n - 1

= $n(rl)

1
-.
with suitable functions $,(zl). We now compute from (2.38) and (2.39)

(2.39)

From condition (ii) and (2.38), we have

so that

which implies, since f (Oj = 0, t h a t the functions Qt11 5

respect to z l , i.e.

In conclusion

I;

< n , are linear with

58

Feedback linearization

This concludes the sufficiency part.

Necesszty Condltlons (i) and ( i i ) are independent of local coordinates and are
satisfied by syst-em (2 34)

Remark 2.3.1 State Linearlzatlon Theorem 2 3 1 generalizes to a class of nonlinear systems the res,ul established by Theorem 2 1 3 (b) for llnear controllable
systems T h e proofs of t e two results are similar Condition (ii), which is always
satisfied for linear systems, needs to be 'added for nonlinear systems in order to
guarantee that the dlfferentlals computed by (2 37) are exact

Example 2 . 3 . 1 (Example 2.2.3 continued). For system (2.29), we have

Conditions ( 1 ) and (11) of Theorem 2 3 1 are satisfied Following the sufficienqy

part of the broof we compute the exact dlfferentlals d @ l = d l l d x l + d 1 2 d x 2 and
d 4 ? = (bZ1dx1 422dx2 satkfying

and, int.egrat.ing with $,(O) = 0

In t,he new coordinates

t,he system (2.29) becomes

L~nea~izatlon
by change of coordinates

Exanlple 2.3.2 Conslder t h e system

Denote

g = -

(3x3

-.
\

a n d compute

We have

Hence the condit~onsof Thporern 2 3 1 are satisfied a n d (2 40) can be transformed

by a diffeomorphlsm (and no state feedb&kj into a h e a r control]able system T h e
llntarlzlng d~ffeomorphisy,according to (2 35), is computed by determining three
c
functions &(.c), &(2) and J 3 ( x ) shch t h a t &(o) = 0 a n d

60

Feedback linearization

which are equivalent to the set of partial differential equations

A solution is given by

Recalling (2.36), the linearizing diffeomorphism is

2.4

PARTIAL FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION

For those systems which are not feedback linearizable we determine in this section
feedback linearizable s~bsyst~ems.
Definition 2.4.1 The nonlinear single input system ( 2 . 1 ) is said t,o be locally
partially s t a t e feedback linearizable with index r 5 n. if it is locally feedback
equivalent to the partially linear system

If a syst,em is partially st,at,e feedback linearizable with index r 5 n,,it is also

partially state feedback linearizable with index r', with r' any integer less than r .
If r = n the system is locally state feedback linearizable.

Partial feedback linearizatior~

61

T h e o r e m 2.4.1 Systenl (2.1) is locally partially state feedback linearizable with

index r = 1.

Proof. Since g(0) # 0 and g is a smooth vector field, according t o Theorem A.4.4,
g is locally rectifiable, i.e. there exists a local diffeomorphism

such that

system (2.1) becomes

In z-~oordinat~es
2%

i n

= Lfdt,
l s i < n - I
= Lf&+ll,.
4

Defining

and substituting in (2.42), we have

which is in the form (2.41) with r = 1.

T h e o r e m 2.4.2 ( P a r t i a l Feedback L i n e a r i z a t i o n ) System (2.1) is locally partially st,ate feedback linearizable with index r if the distribution c,-2, the involutive
closure of Gr-2, has constant rank less than or equal to n - 1 in Uo,a neighborhood
n,,such that
of the origin, and there exists an integer r , 2 5 r

<

Proof. By virtue of (2.43) and since, by assumption, G,-2 has constant rank less
than or equal to n - 1, we can apply Frobenius's Theorem 4 4 . 3 which guarantees
the existence of a smooth function h ( x ) , with h(0) = 0, such that in a neighborhood
of the origin

We now show, by contradiction, that since ad;-'g

&a,

it follows that in Uo

62

Feedback linearization

Suppose t h a t for some

< r - 1, for some x E Uo

which implies

which contradicts assumption (2.43) in x E Uo. By repeat,ed applications of Leibniz's rule, from t,he definition of h it follows t.hat

&

Hence, by virt,ue of (2.45),

and, in part.icular
(d(~;-'h,), 9 ) = 7 # 0

( d ( L . ' f h , ) ,g ) = 0,

053

<r -2

Hence. applying again Frobenius's Theorem A . 4 . 3 , sirice span{g) is an involut,ive

distribution of rank 1 we can determine, in addit,ion to t h e already det,ermirled
f u n c t ~ o n s( h , . . , ~ ; - ' h ) , 7, - r funct,iorls (,(z), . . . , [ , _ , ( r ) ,[,(O) = 0 , such t h a t

and

Partial feedback linearization

By Inverse Function Theorem A. 1.1

is a local diffeomorphism. In the ([,

z)

local coordinates system (2.1) becomes

From (2.46), (2.47) and recalling t h a t z,+~ = L;h, 0 5 1 5 r - 1 , we have

It

zl

= zl+ll

z,

LfEt(x)

1 1 . 1 < ~ - 1
= Ljh + ?IL,L;-'~ .

Since f (0) = 0 , L j h ( 0 ) = 0. Moreover, from (2.46) we have in a neighborhood of

t,he origin

L,L;-'h

= y f o .

Define

so that,, subst,itut,ing (2.49) in (2.48), we have (2.41), i.e.

Exarrlple 2 . 4 . 1 Consider t,he syst,em

Denoting

- a+ - + - a
i)xl

ax,

a
ax3

Feedback linearization

64

we compute

Since

system ( 2 . 5 0 ) is partially feedback linearizable wit,h index r = 2. To find t h e

transformation, we look for a funct,ion h , ( x ) , h,(O) = 0 , such t h a t

i.e. a function h such t h a t

A solution is given by

Hence. the first two coordinat,es are

T h e other two coordinates t l ( x ) and C 2 ( x )must be such that (,(O) = 0 and

Moreover, they have t o satisfy t,he rank condition

rank

",f

4,

'ti

t Uo .

Partial feedback linearization

A solution is

The final change of coordinates is a linear one

In %-coordinates, we have

which, applying the feedback

becomes a partially linear system in the form ( 2 . 4 1 ) .

Definition 2.4.1 does not restrict the dependence of cp on the vector z in (2.41).
As we shall see, to compute stabilizing controls it is useful to identify those cases
in which cp only depends on 21.
Definition 2.4.2 The nonlinear single input systerr, (2.1) is said to be locally
p a r t i a l l y s t a t e f e e d b a c k l i n e a r i z a b l e i n t r i a n g u l a r f o r m with index T 5 n if
it is locally feedback equivalent t,o the part,ially linear system

R e m a r k 2.4.1 Note that in (2.51) only the first component

affectas the nonlinear part of the syst,em.

21

of t h e vector

Sufficient differential geometric conditions characterize those nonlinear systems

which are locally feedback equivalent to partially linear systems in triangular form.

66

Feed back linearization

Theorem 2.4.3 (Partial Linearization in Triangular Form) System (2.1) is

locally partially feedback linearizable in t,riangular form with index r 5 n if t h e
distributions

are involutive and of constant rank

+ 1 in Cro, a neighborhood

of t h e origin.

Proof. By assumption

a n d therefore, following t h e proof of Theorem 2.4.2 there exists a s ~ n o o t hfunction

h . ( x ) , wit,h h.(O) = 0, such that,
(dh,,
(dh,

Gr-2)

= 0
= y

#0

and in a neighborhood of t h e origin

rank

dh

d(L;-'h.)

Since by assumption t h e distribution G,-, is involutive and of const,ant rank r

we can det,ermine, by virtue of Frobenius's Theorem A . 4 . 3 , n - r functions t t ( x ) ,
1 5 I 5 n - r , wit.h ( , ( 0 ) = 0 , such t,hat, in a neighborhood of t,he origin,

and

By Inverse Function Theorem A . 1.1

is a local diffeomorphism. In ((, 2)-coordinat,es, following t,lle proof of Theorem

2 . 4 2, syst,em ( 2 . 1 ) becomes

67

Partial feedback linearization

Applying Leibniz's formula, by virtue of (2.53) we have, for 1 5 i

In ((, 2)-coordinates we have

n-r

T-1

C 2,+1- 821 + (L?h)--82,

at, + ,=I

C(L/F,)-

1=1

so t h a t , by virtue of (2.55),

Recalling t h a t

span{Gl, adfGl), we have

which, by virtue of (2.55), implies

We now proceed by induction. Assume that,

so t h a t , if

r - 3 , by virt,ue of (2.55)

< n - r,

Feedback linearization

Since (2.56) was proved for j = 1, by induction we have

that is, using the notation in (2.54),

It also follows that

G,-l

{ azl

span "...,").

azr

Example 2.4.2 (Example 2.4.1 continued). Since for system (2.50) the distribution

is involutive and of c m s t a n t rank 2 in R ~the

, syst.em is locally partially feedback
linearizable in triangular form with index r = 2. In fact, as shown in Example
0
2.4.1, the system in the new coordinates is in triangular form.
Example 2.4.3 Consider the system

+ xz + 2xi

= x;

x2 =

"3

71.

Xg

Since
= span{g, ad g) is not involutive in any neighborhood of t,he origin the
system is not feedback linearizable. According to Definition 2.4.2, the syst,em is
partially stsate feedback linearizable in triangular form with index r = 1: in fact,
sett,ing x3 = z we have

69

Stabilization o f triangular systems

On t h e other hand, according t o Definition 2.4.1, the system is partially state

feedback linearizable with index r = 2: in fact, setting = X I , 21 = x2, 22 = x3 we
have

+ 2: + 2223

E3

21

22

22

= u .

2.5

S T A B I L I Z A T I O N O F T R I A N G U L A R SYSTEMS

This sectiori deals with the stabilization problem for those systems which are partially state feedback linearizable in triangular form.
T h e o r e m 2.5.1 ( ~ r i a n ~ u l Sa tda b i l i z a t i o n ) Consider the partially linear system in triangular form

with ;p a smooth function, c p ( O , O )

"0

= vo(0,

0, and assume there exists a smooth function

vo(0) = 0

and a posit,ive definite radially unbounded function V o ( J )such t h a t (dVo,c p ( E , v o ( < ) ) )

is negat,ive definite. Then, there exists a smooth feedback control

which makes the origin

(E, z) = 0

globally asymptotically stable.

Proof. We first prove the theorem in the case r = 1, t h a t is for the system

E
21

= v(E,z,)
= 2'

which is expressed in new coordinates

70

Feed back linearization

Since the components of $J are smooth functions, J, may be expressed as (the

are smooth functions)
components of

which, s u b ~ t i t u t ~ eind (2.57),gives

Consider the function

By virtue of the assumption on Vo, its time derivat,ive is

Defining

and substituting v = vl in

v1,we obt,ain

The origin is globally asymptot,ically stable by Lyapunov Theorem B.1.5 since Vl

is a radially unbounded posit,ive definite function and Vl is negative definite. If
r > 1 we use an induction argument.
Claim. Assume t h a t for the system

there exist I smoot,h functions v o ( ( )., . . , v , - ~((, z l , . . . ,

feedback cont,rol

with ~ ~ (. . 0, 0, ) = 0 , 1

< 1 5 r , such t,hat,

Z,_I)

and a stabilizing state

Stabilization o f triangular systems

has time derivative

with k, > 0, 1 5 3 5

2,

and v = v,(<,z l ,. . , , 2,) substit,ut,ed in (2.58). Then there exists a stabilizing state
feedback cont,rol v = v,+~([,2 1 , . . . , z,+l), v,+l(O,.. . , 0 ) = 0,for the system

such that the time derivative of

with k,.+l > 0 and

Proof of the c l a m . Expressing (2.59)in (<, 21,.. . , t-,+l)-coordinates and using the
assurnpt,ion on V,, we cornput,e

Defining

we obtain (2.60).
Applying t h e claim r

1 times a globally stabilizing control

Feedback linearization

is iteratively built so that

is a radially unbounded positive definit,e function with

Example 2.5.1 Consider the system

The origin
x1 =

XI

= 0 of the reduced order subsystem

ZlX2

is made globally asymptotically stable by

x2

= v o ( x l )= - x l 2 .

Introduce the global change of coordinates

21

51

22

X ~ - U I J ( X ~ ) = X ~ + X ~

in which the syst,em becomes

We now look for a state feedback control law

11

111 (

z ~22)
, = 11 l ( x 1 , 5 2 )

which forces the t,ime derivative of the candidate Lyapunov function

which is given by

-2;

+ z:z2 + 2z12 z 22 - 2 z 4l .z2 + 221r

to be negat,ive definite: an obvious choice is

=

-2:

so that V =

-2:

22:z2

2.22.

+ 2 2 ; - 22

Stabilization of triangular systems

E x a m p l e 2.5.2 Consider the system

Triangular Stabilization Theorem 2.5.1 applies since the subsystem made up of the
first two equations can be globally asymptotically stabilized by

with Lyapunov function

and Po tlie solution of

A T P ~+ P O A ~=

-I

with

E x a m p l e 2.5.3 Theorem 2.5.1 does not apply to t h e system

since there is no smooth stabilizing feedback x2 = vo(<)for the first order system

1
I
I
1

i =r

- T:.

Theorem 2.5.1, when applied to linear systems, gives the following result

C o r o l l a r y 2.5.1 Given the linear system in Brunovsky controller form

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

there exist a triangular linear change of coordinates

2 = Tz=

1 0 ...
1 ...
.. ,. , .
. .
,

0 0
z
...

* *

...

Feed back linearization

and a st,abilizing state feedback cont,rol

such that the closed loop system in f-coordinates is

-A1
-1
z

1
-Az

...

...
.

.. .

...

0
0

0
0
:

-An-l

-1

i=Ai

1
-An

witah ( A 1 , . . . , An) arbit,rary positive reals

s Lyapunov function
In t - ~ o o r d i n a t ~ et,he

has time derivative

n

2.6

GLOBAL FEEDBACK L I N E A R I Z A T I O N

In this sect,ion we discuss global versions of t,he lineari~at~ion

theorems 2 . 2 . 1 , 2 . 3 . 1 ,
2 . 4 . 2 and 2 . 4 . 3 : Definit,ions 2 . 2 . 2 , 2 . 3 . 2 , 2 . 4 . 1 and 2 . 4 . 2 are rest,ricted by requiring
t,he local diffeomorphisms to be global and the state feedback to be defined in t,he
whole of R n .
T h e o r e m 2 . 6 . 1 ( G l o b a l S t a t e L i n e a r i z a t i o n ) The single input syst,enl ( 2 . 1 ) is
globally st,ate linearizable, i.e. it, is transformable in R n by a global diffeomorphism

int,o a linear cont,rollable syst.ern

if,

and only if in R n :

Global feedback linearization

= Rn;
(i) span{g, . . . ,
= 0, 0
i , 5~n ;
(ii) [ a d j g ,
(iii) t h e vector fields a d j g , 0 5 1 5 n

<

1, are complete

Sketch of the proof: T h e proof proceeds as for Theorem 2 . 3 . 1 . Condition (iii)

guarantees the exist,ence of a global diffeomorphism which simultaneously rectifies
t,he vect,or fields y, c ~ d [ - ~ ) .g. ,. , ad;:lg,
according to Theorem A.4.5.
T h e o r e m 2.6.2 ( G l o b a l F e e d b a c k L i n e a r i z a t i o n ) T h e single input system
(2.1) is globally feedback linearizable, i.e. it is globally transformable in Rn by
a s t a t e feedback

and a global diffeomorphism

z

= T(x),

T(O)=O

irit,o a linear system in BrunovsMj controller form (2.15) if, and only if, in Rn
(i) span{y, . . . , ad;-'g) = Rn;
(ii) t,here exists a smooth function p : Rn

--, R ,

p ( 0 ) = 0, such t h a t

( a ) d y ~is nowhere zero a n d ( d v , udjg) = 0, 0 5

( b ) t h e vect,or fields ad)g, 0

< n - 2, ( d y ~adYplg)
,
# 0,

< i 5 n - 1 , are complete with

Sketch of the proof. From the proof of Theorem 2.2.1 the st,ate feedback

transforms syst,ern (2.1) irit,o the system

=

j(.) + ?(X)U

which is locally st,ate linearizable. Sirice span{G, . . . , ad';-'j} = R n , V r t R n , and

(ii)(b) holds it also follows from Theorem 2.6.1 t h a t it is globally s t a t e linearizable.
0

R e r r l a r k 2 . 6 . 1 As shown by Example 2.2.2, t h e linearizing transformation is not

unique since t,he funct,ion p which solves

is riot unique. Coriditions (ii) require the existence of such a function satisfying
t h c completeness assun~pt,iorls(ii) ( b )

Feed back linearization

76

T h e o r e m 2.6.3 ( G l o b a l P a r t i a l Linearization) The single input system (2.1)

is globally partially feedback linearizable with index r , 1 5 r 5 n,,if in Rn:
(i) the distribution Grw2 = inv.cl.{g, . . . ,

$.

has constant rank and ad;-lg(z)

Cr-2;

(ii) there exists a smooth function p : Rn --, R such that

(a) dlp is nowhere zero and (dP, GrP2) = 0, (dp, ad;-'g)

# 0,

(b) the vector fields ad)i, 0 5 i 5 r - 1, are complete with

T h e o r e m 2.6.4 ( G l o b a l P a r t i a l Linearization in T r i a n g u l a r F o r m ) The

single input system (2.1) is globally partially linearizable in triangular form with
index r , 1 5 r n , if in Rn:
t
(i) the distributions A = span{g, . . . , ad>} are involutive and of const,ant rank
i + l forz=O ,...,r - 1 ;
(ii) there exist,s a smeoth function p : R n --, R such that

<

(a) d p is nowhere zero and ( d ~Gr-2)

,
= 0, (dp, adj-lg) # 0,
(b) the vector fields ad'-i, 0 5 i 5 r - 1, are complete with

R e m a r k 2.6.2 Only the st,at,ement of Theorem 2.6.1 is ~at~isfactory

since it relies
on checkable conditions. The ~ t a t e m e n t ~ofs Theorems 2.6.2, 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 are less
satisfactory since they are based on the existence of a certain function cp.
E x a m p l e 2.6.1 Consider the system

Denoting

we compute

77

Extension to rnulti-input systems

It follows that span{g, adfg)

p(0,O) = 0 and

R 2 , Vx E R'. Let p ( x l , x2) be a function such that

that is, cp(xl, x2) = $(xl) with $(O) = 0 and d$(xl)/dxl # 0 , Vxl E R , so that dll,
is nowhere zero in R'. For any function $(XI) with d$(xl)/dxl # 0, Vxl E R , the
vector field

is not complete. According to Theorem 2.6.2 the system is not globally feedback
linearizable.

Consider a multi-input nonlinear syst,em

i = f ( x ) + ~ g , ( x ) 7 1a~ rf (x) + G ( x ) v ,

x E Rn

i=l

in which f , gl, . . . , g, are smooth vector fields in R n , f (0) = 0, the n x m, matrix

G ( x ) has maximum rank a t the origin, i.e. rank G(0) = m., and u = [ u l , . . . , u,] T
is the m.-dimensional input vector.
All t,he results presented in this chapter, namely pole placement, feedback linearization, state linearizat,ion, partial feedback linearization and partial feedback
linearization in triangular form can be extended to multi-input systems (2.61). In
this sect,ion only main definitions and results are stated.
Theorem 2.1.2 generalizes to mult,i-input linear syst,erns

with rank G

m., once the notion of controllability indicesjs introduced.

Definition 2.7.1 A set of controllability indices { k l , . . . , k,)

ciated with any controllable system (2.62), i.e. such that
rank[G, F G , . . . , F"-'G]

= n

as follows:
k, = card{m,, 2 1 : j 2 0 ) ,

15

1.

< m,

is uniquely asso-

Feedback linearization

with
mo = rank C

rn, =

r a n k [ G , F G ] - rank G

By definition k.1 1 k2 2 . . .

> k,

a n d , since t h e system is controllable,

Czlk, = n .

T h e cont,rollabilit,y indices are invariant under linear st,at,e space change of coordinates
z =

Tx.

E Rn

(2.63)

with T nonsingular, and under nonsingular s t a t e feedback transformations

where O is a nonsingular m x m matrix and K is a n m x n mat,rix

Theorem 2.1.2 is generalized as follows.
Theorem 2.7.1 For any controllable syst,em (2.62) with ~ont~rollabilit~y
indices
{ k l , .. . . k,) t,here exists a linear s t a t ~ espace change of coordinates (2.63) a n d a
nonsingular st,ate feedback (2.64) transforming (F,G ) into

with (A,, B,) in Brunovsky controller form:

A,

= block d i a g [ A 1 , .. . , A,]

B,

block d i a g [ B 1 , .. . , B,,]

in which, for 1

<

rn,

Note t,hat while for single input systems 0 = 1 without loss of general it,^, for
multi-irip~itsystems t , h ~matrix i?
is not, in general, t,he identit,y.

79

Extension to multi-input systems

Theorem 2.7.2 (Multi-Input Feedback Linearization) T h e nonlinear system

(2.61) is locally feedback linearizable, i.e. locally transformable in Vo, a neighborhood of t,he origin contained in Uo, into a linear controllable system in Brunovsky
controller form by means of

( a ) a nonsingular state feedback

where K ( x ) is a smoot,h function from Vo into R n , P ( x ) is a n m. x m matrix

with smooth entries, nonsingular in Vo,
( b ) a local diffeomorphism in Vo

if, and only if, in Uo:

(1)

GP = span{ud3/gZ: 1 <

< fm,, 0 I j I e ) , 0 I e 5 n - 2, is involutive and of

constant rank,
(ii) rank GnP1 = n .
T h e controllability indices { k ] , . . . , k , ) associated with those systems (2.61)
which sat,isfy t,he co~idit,ioilsof Theorem 2.7.2 a r e defined as

with

mo

7n,

rank
rank

Go
GI - rank Go

rank

G,-1

- rank

5,-z

and are invariant under feedback transformations. Theorem 2.7.2 may also be
st,ated as follows.
0

Theorem 2.7.3 T h e nonlinear system (2.61) is locally transformable in a neighborhood of t,he origin, by a nonsingular state feedback transformation (which
consist,^ of a nonsingular st,at.efeedback (2.66) a n d a diffeomorphism (2.67)) into a
linear controllable system in Brunovsky cont,roller form with controllability indices
kl
. . . 2 k , if, and only if, in Lfo, a neighborhood of t h e origin:

>

< <

m , are lnvolutive and of constant rank;

( I ) G1;,-2, 1 I
rank G k l - ] = 1 1 .

(11)

Feedback linearization

80

Conditions (i) and (ii) guarantee the existence of m, smooth functions $Jl(x),

. . . , $ J , ( x ) such t h a t
(d$JlrGk,-2) = 0,

j > i

and t h e matrix

is nonsingular in Vo. T h e linearizing nonsingular s t a t e feedback transformation

and diffeomorphism are, respectively,

and

indices may be computed using t h e linear approximaNote that the ~ontrollabilit~y

tion about the origin.
State Linearization Theorem 2.3.1 generalizes t o mult,i-input systems as follows.

Theorem 2 . 7 . 4 (Multi-Input S t a t e Linearization) There exists a local diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of t,he origin transforming t h e nonlinear system (2.61)
into a linear controllable one if, a n d only if, in Uo, a neighborhood of t h e origin:
(I)

(11)

rank{s~an{ad;~, O 5 J 5 n - 1. 1 5
[ad;g,, ad;g,] = 0, 0 5 P , k 5 n , 1 5 i

< m ) ) = n,

5~ m

Partial feedback linearization results also have thelr multi-input counterparts.

Definition 2 . 7 . 2 System (2.61) is said to be locally partially s t a t e feedback linearizable with indices { k l , . . . , k,) if there exist a nonsingular s t a t e feedback transformation (2.66) and a local diffeomorphism (2.67) transforming (2.61) into

w ~ t h('A,, B,) In Brunovskv controller form ( 2 65) wlth indlces { k l .

C z , k, = r < n

that

. k,)

such

Physical examples

Define the distributions

Under the assumption that all distributions Gj, Q j , and the involutive closure of
G,, Cj1j 0, have constant rank in Uo, we can define

>

m.1 =

rank Go
rank Q1- rank

Go

m., =

rank Q, - rank

c,-I

m.0

and

k:

= card{mj

2i:

20):

< i 5 m,

By definition
k; 2 k ; > . . . > k : ,
It can be shown that the integers {k;, . . . , k k ) are invariant under nonsingular
state feedback and local diffeomorphisms.

Theorem 2 . 7 . 5 (Multi-Input Partial Feedback Linearization) The system

(2.61) is locally partially state feedback linearizable with indices {k;, . . . , k;).
0

2.8

PHYSICAL EXAMPLES

Example 2 . 8 . 1 (Problem 1.10.8) Consider the single link robot with flexible
joint rotating in a vertical plane. Choosing as state variables

the model is rewritten in state space form as

+-

82

Feedback linearization

Feedback Linearization Theorem 2.2.1 applies. Defining h =

diffeomorphism is given by

My1

sin X I

XI, the

k
+ -(XI
JI

linearizing

53)

Assuming t,hat all the stat,es are available from measurement,^ and all parameters
are exactly known, t h e linearizing s t a t e feedback is

with

T h e new control v designed as

with s4 k4s3 k 3 s 2 k2s + kl a H u r w i t , ~polynomial and q,l a constant desired

referelice for link position, guarant,ees global asymptotic s h b i l i t y about the equilibrium point. z1 = q r l , z2 = 23 = z4 - 0.

Exaniple 2 . 8 . 2 (Problem 1 10 9) Consider the reduced order model of a synchronous generator connected t o an ~ n f i n ~ tbus
e
Denoting the vector helds
(2y = 11
vie)

,92wd1f sin d

a
+ O3 sin 6 cos 6 ) ad

Physical examples
in which 8: = 8, for simplicity, we compute

a
+
B4w ---aw
8.h

udfg = 02w sin 6-

= span{g, adjg) is an involutive distribution of rank 2 in a

and verify t,hat,
the
stable operating point ( b e ,w , , I+!Jfe), which is a solution of t h e
neighborhood of
algebraic equat,ions

81 - O ~ W , $sin
~ ~6,

+ O3 sin 6, cos 6 ,

vfe - O4ws.$fe

+ O5 cos 6,

= 0
= 0

Moreover, G2 = span{g, a d f g , ad!g) has rank 3 in a neighborhood of ( b e ,w , , I+!Jfe).

A linearizing feedback t,ransformat,ion is given by

22

W -W,

f 6
z3 = O 1 - 8 2 w q ~sin
u

+ OP sin 6 cos 6

(-/j2wsin6)~r+[-82w~rcos6+03(cos26-sin26)](w
-us)
- 192 sin 6(01qLy - 0~w7/,:sin 6

+vfew - 8 4 w 2 ~ f O5w cos 6 )

+ 031+!Jf
sin 6 cos 6
.

There is a physical singularity a t w = 0 and 6 = 0, 6 = x . It is left t,o t h e reader

to verify t,hat the full order model with c , and v f a s input,^ is locally feedback
linearizable with cont,rollability indices 3 and 2 and t o compute the linearizing
feedback transformation according t o Multi-input Feedback Linearization Theorem
2.7.2.
Example 2 . 8 . 3 (Problem 1.10.10) Consider the model of a permanent magnet
synchronous motor wit,h t.he number of pole pairs p = 1 for simplicity: this is

a mult,ivariable nonlinear problem with ( T I , , l i b ) being the controls. Multi-input

Feedback Linearization Theorem 2 . 7 . 2 applies with controllability indices ( 3 , l ) .
In fact,, in new state space coordinates which are globally defined

F
TL
cos 6 - -w - J
J
cos 6 $-K,ib sin 6

23

Km
-I,, sin 6

24

K,x,

Km
+ -i,b
J

the model of the mot,or beconies

Z3

Km .
-sin 6 ( - R I ,

JL

+ K m w sin 6 + u,)

Km

- -taw

cos 6

Feed back linearization

+-Km
cos6(-Rib
JL
Km

iq

= -cos 6(-Ria

- Kmw cos6

sin 6 -

+ Kmwsin 6 + u,)

.
+-Km
sin 6(-Rlb - K,w
L

-23

- Kmiawsin 6

cos 6 + 1 1 ~ )+ KmlbwcoS 6 .

We introduce the new cont,rol variables

sin 6

+ I t b ) - -Km
7.b~

III

and

cos 6

1r2

defined by
1

with
Km
+ Kmwsin 6) --taw
cos 6
JL
J
Km
h'm
-cos 6(-Rib - Kmw cos 6) + -2bW
sin 6
JL
J
Km
= -cos 6(-Ria
K,W
sin 6) ~ , i , w sin
L
Km sinJ (- Rib - Kmw cos 6) - Kmibwcos 6
--

& = - Km
' sin 6(-RI,

F
+ -r3
J

L
Note that (2.70) is a nonsingular state feedback since the matrix

sin 6
- c z

cos6

;It

is nonsingular for every 6. Substitut,ing (2.70) into (2.69), we obt,ain the multivariable linear controllable system in Brunovsky controller form with controllability
indices { 3 , 1 )

T h e control 11, is designed to t,rack a desired position reference y,(t) while

designed to drive 2 4 to zero to maximize energy efficiency.

112

is

Example 2.8.4 (Problem 1.10.5) Consider the model of an inverted pendulum

on a moving cart, with 1r2 = 0, that, is the only control is the force acting on the
moving cart. We now show that this system is not feedback linearizable. The
model with 712 = 0 and u l = 71 is expressed in state space form as

Physical examples

ljz

m lw2 sin p
n/r

m,g sin p cos cp

11.

+ m. sin2 p

-m lw2 sin cp cos cp

.\I1

+ ( M + m,)gsin p - u cos p
+r n l ~ i n ~ ~

Since feedback linearizability is invariant under stat,e feedback, t,o simplify comput,at,ionswe int,roduce t h e s t a t e feedback

in t h e above equat,ions which become

g sin p

cosp
1 u . 1

T h e linear approximation about the origin ( x , v,, p . w) = 0 is controllable. Denoting

d
dx

d
gsinpd
-dy
1 dw
c-osp d
1 ad

= uz-+w-+

g =

--

a~,

we compute
cosp 8
I ay
sin 3 cos p d
[ s > Q ~=~ s-2]
1'
dw
adfg =

--

ax

t
-

sing d
I ad

4 ---- -

Since [g,a d f g ] does not belong to t h e distribution GI = span{g, adJg},

is not,
i n ~ o l u t ~ i v according
e:
t o Theorem 2.2.1 t h e system is not feedback linearizable. O n
the ot,her hand, if both controls are available ( 1 1 ~ # 0, ir2 # 0) t h e model of a n
invert,ed pendulum on a moving cart is feedback linearizable with controllability
indices { 2 , 2 } . according to Theorem 2.7.2: no s t a t e space change of coordinates is
needed.
Example 2 . 8 . 5 (Problem 1 10 3) Neglecting the dynamic equations for u, in t h e
model of a rigid body a n d assuming that ( d , , ~ ,di?,,
p) are t h e controls for t h e
ninth order system rnade up of t h e first three equations a n d t h e la5t six equations
of the model, i f we set p = 6 t h e extended system whose inputs are (J,
ijz,6) 15
feedback linearizable with indices { 3 , 3 , 3 I}, that is, it 1s dynamic s t a t e feedback
liricarlzable

86

Feed back linearization

Example 2.8.6 (Problem 1.10.1) Consider t,he fifth-order model of an induction

motor in which ( T I , , . ,ub) are the cont,rols. According t o Theorem 2.7.2 t,his syst,em
is not feedback linearizable since the dist,ribut,ionG1 fails t,o be i n v ~ l u t ~ i v e .
Example 2 . 8 . 7 (Problem 1.10.6) Consider t,he ball a n d b e a m syst,em in a neighborhood of ( r , r!. p , d ) = 0 . T h c linear approxi~nat,ionabout the origin is controllable but t,he system is not locally feedback linearizable in any neighborhood of t h e
origin. This is readily est,ablished after performing t h e s t a t e feedback

so that the closed loop system is

a,.

T h e distribut,ion span{g. ad,!]) is not involutive since it does not contain t h e vector
field !y, a d f y ] Hence the systerrl is not feedback linearizable since condit,ion (iii)
of Theorem 2 . 2 . 1 is violated.
Example 2.8.8 (Problem 1 10 7) T h e multivanablc model of a point mass satellite is feedback I~nearizablew ~ t hcontroilabllit~indites { k l = 2, X 2 = 2 ) in any open
set not containing the point r = O which is a siiigular point for t h e system itself
On t h r o t h r r hand t h r single input nod el n ith 1 1 ; = 0 (tangential thrust only) is
In fact, denoting
not feedhat k 111ic~ar!~ablr
d

-/

3 +

d
,.acp

2cd 3
,.

a,.

Conclusions

1s not an involutive distribution and.

Since [ g , a d f g ] $ GI = span{g, a d f g ) .
according t,o Theorem 2.2.1, the system is not feedback linearizable. Since ad?g $
has const,ant rank equal t o 3, according t,o Theorem 2.4.2 and Definition
and
2.4.1 it follows t h a t t h e system is partially feedback linearizable with index r equal
to 3. In fact, choosing as new coordinates ( r , I ! , CY = rw2 - k / ( m r 2 ) ,p ) , we have

T h e new cont,rol

with r , a constant reference and a suitable c h o ~ c eof k , . guarantees that

lini ( ~ ( t-) I . , ) = 0

I-3C

2.9

CONCLUSIONS

T h v rnain results of this chapter are Feedback Llneari~ationTheorem 2 2 1 and

Starc, 1,inc~arl~atlon
Theorerr! 2 3 1 which g ~ n e r a l l z eto rionllnear svstems Pole
Platrmtmt Theorern 2 1 1 (or 2 1 2) a n d Theorerri 2 1 3 r e s p e c t l ~ e l S t a t e Llncar17ation Theorern 2 3 1 provldes necebsarl and sufficient c o n d ~ t i o n sfor t h e ?xi,trncc of a nonlinear change of coordinates transforming a nonlinear system into a
controller form whlle Feedback Linearization Theoreni 2 2 1 gl\rs npcessary and
sufficient conditions for t h e existence of a rlonlinear s t a t e feedback transformatlon transforming a nonlinear system int,o a Brunovsky controller form. Global
vrrsions are give11 in Section 2.6 while t h e exterisions to multi-input systems are
glvc,ri i r ~Scctior! 2.7. These results are coristruct,ive arid constitut,c basic drsign
tools as illustrated by Examples 2.8.1, 2.8.2, and 2.8.3 in whlch state feedback
c,oritrols for a rohot with flexible joint, a synchronous generator and a synchronous

88

Feed back linearization

motor are designed. The conditions are checkable through Lie bracket comput#ations: the inverted pendulum (Example 2.8.4), the ball and beam (Example 2.8.7)
and the point mass satellite (Example 2.8.8) provide physical systems which are
not feedback linearizable. For systems which are not feedback linearizable, partial feedback linearization, which is related t , input-out,put
~
feedback linearization
treated in Chapter 4, is achieved by the constructive design procedure given by
Theorems 2.4.2 and 2.4.3. Triangular Stabilization Theorem 2.5.1 introduces an
iterative feedback design which will be used several times in the following chapters
to design robust and adaptive control algorithms.

2.10

EXERCISES

2.10.1 Consider t h e systems

il = z ~ + e - " ~ z ~

a)

X
'. 2

d3 =

:c 3
'ti

Show that they are both state linearizable and determine the corresponding linearizing transformations.

2.10.2 Show that t h e system

is not feedback linearizable.

2.10.3 Determine whether the system

:il = :c2
i 2

-:c1

3:cl:r;+3:c;+3:c;u

+ :cz3 +'L

is state linearizable or feedback linearizable and compute the corresponding linearizing transformations.

2.10.4 Design a state feedback which makes t h e origin globally asymptotically stable
for the systems:

Exercises

:il = :c1:cz

b)

:i2

2
= :c2+:c3

:i3

:cg sin :el

7"

2.10.5 Show that the system

:i1 = :c 2 - :c 21
:i?2

= 2 3 + 2z1:c2 - 2:c1 + 2:c311

3

k3 =

is not feedback linearizable.

2.10.6 Consider the system .i. = f (:c) y(:c)u, with f (0) = 0, g(0) # 0, x E R n and let
s be an integer such that in Uo, a neighborhood of the origin:
(i) rank{g,. . . ,

= .F;

(ii) [ad)g,ndig] = 0, 0 5 i,$< n - 1;

(iii) [o.d;-',g, adsfg] # 0.
Prove the following claim: there exists a local change of coordinates, z = #I(x),
d(0) = 0, z E R n , such that the system in z-coordinates becomes
ii = zi+l,
is

151:I~-1

= ao(zs+l,. . . ,zn)

+ a l ( z s + 1 7 . . , zn)zl

+ . . . + a s ( z I + l , . . . ,zn)zg+
s+15j

11

ij = g3(zl,t s + l , . . . , z,),

5 n.

2.10.7 Consider the system

:il =
22

+ :c::c2,

-:el
11

:c1(0) = z10, z2(0) = 2 2 0

Show that the state feedback

makes the origin asymptotically stable with domain of attraction S = {z E n2 :
< k 11). Show that when k = 1 and :elo:c20 > 2, :cl(t) escapes to infinity in
finite time. Design a globally stabilizing control according to Theorem 2.5.1.

:el:"

2.10.8 Is the system

.+ 1

"2

x2 =

11

+ :q1"2

locally feedback linearizable? Is it globally feedback linearizable? Prove that no

state feedback ( a a smooth function)

can make the origin globally asymptotically stable.

Feedback linearization
2.10.9 Consider the system (6' is a real number)

Prove that no linear state feedback control

can make the origin globally asymptotically stable.

Hint: the difficult step is to analyze the case k2 = 0 in which

is a first integral.

[el, . . . , OplT

2.10.10 Consider the system (6' =

Prove the following claim: if in Uo

is a constant parameter vector)

c Rn, a neighborhood of the origin,

(i) rank{ql(:c), . . . , qp(z)) = p ,

(ii) [qi,qj] = 0,

1I
i , j 5 P,

then there exists a local change of coordinates z = +(:c), d(0) = 0, in which the
system becomes

2.10.11 Consider the system ((6' =

[ol,. . . , oplT is a constant parameter

vector)

k = f (z) + x ~ , ~ , ( : c ) ,

.c E

R n , p < n , f (0) = 0 .

t=l

Prove the following claim: if there exists an involutive distribution D of constant

rank n. - p in U o , a neighborhood of the origin, such that in Uo
(i) span{D(:r), ql(z), . . . , qp(x)} = n,,
(ii) [qj,X] E D, VX E D, 1

< j < p,

(iii) [qi,qj] D, 1 I i , j 5 p ,
then there exists a local change of coordinates z = d(:c), d(0) = 0, in which the
system becomes

Exercises

2.10.12 Consider the systems:

Determine whether they are state linearizable or feedback linearizable. Find, whenever possible, a smooth state feedback which makes the origin globally asymptotically stable.

2.10.13 Show that the system

is not feedback linearizable for any positive value of the parameters O1 and 02.

2.10.14 Show that the system

is feedback linearizable for any value of the parameters O1 and Oz and compute a
linearizing transformation parameterized by O1 and 02.

2.10.15 Show that the system

is feedback linearizable and compute a linearizing transformation. Is the system

feedback linearizable for any smooth function y vanishing a t the origin? If so,
compute a linearizing transformation.

.$

2.10.16 Consider the system

$1

2: -

.?2

zp

Show that:

+u

Feedback linearization
a) the system is not feedback linearizable;
b) the origin can be made globally asymptotically stable by a smooth state feedback control and design such a control.

2.10.17 Consider the system

a) Design a globally stabilizing state feedback ( a solution is:

IL

= -:c!

- x2);

b) show that IL = -k:c2 does not make the origin globally asymptotically stable
no matter how large k > 0 is.

2.10.18 Design a globally stabilizing control for the system

2.10.19 Consider the system

with f (0) = 0, g ( ~ #) 0, V:c E R", and assume there exists a radially unbounded
smooth positive definite function V ( a ) with the property that
(i) (dV, f ) is a negative definite function in R n ,
(ii) (dV, 9 ) = /I.(Z).
Show that

is a globally stabilizing feedback.

2.10.20 Consider the system (f (0) = 0, g(0) # 0)

Assume there exists a positive definite smooth function V(:c) with the property
that in a neighborhood of the origin:
(i) (dV, f ) is a negative semidefinite function;
(ii) (dV, g) = /i,(:c);
(iii) ranktdlr, d(Lflr),. . . , d ( ~ ; - ' l ~ ) ) = n.
Show that

11,

= -Ir(z) is a locally stabilizing feedback.

Exercises

2.10.21 Show t h a t the system

is not feedback linearizable.

2.10.22 Show that the system

i l = :cq
$2

+ (1 + :c1):c2

11

is not globally feedback linearizable. Design a globally stabilizing control.

2.10.23 Show that the system

is not globally feedback linearizable.

2.10.24 Show that the multi-input system

i l = C'. 2
i2 =
P3
,b 4

tr 1

= 112
= ~3

- 23111

is not locally feedback linearizable about the origin.

2.10.25 Show that the multi-input system

1

.'C4 cos 2 3

:c2

:c4 sin z 3

.'C

is not locally feedback linearizable about the origin. Nevertheless, design a state
feedback linearizing control to track : c , l ( . t ) = A t , z r 2 ( t ) = A t , with A > 0 , starting
)
zq(0) > 0.
from any initial condition ~ ( 0 with

2.10.26 Consider the system ( 9 1 > 0 , 6'2 > 0 )

Feedback linearization
Show that Feedback Linearization Theorem 2.2.1 does not apply to the extended
system.
Hint: recall Remark 2.2.6.

Adaptive feedback linearization

In this chapter we consider single input, uncertain systems

;.= f ( x )

+ q ( x ,0 ( t ) )+ g(x)11. A f ( x , 0 ( t ) )+ g

( ~ ) ~

(3.1)

in which x E R n , u.E R , 0 E R C RP, f and g are assumed to be smooth known

vector fields with g ( 0 ) # 0 , ~ ( t is) a vector of unknown, t,ime-varying, piecewise
continuous disturbances evolving in R, a compact subset of RP, and f ( x ) is the
nominal vect,or field

with 6 a known nominal constant vector. We assume, unless stated otherwise, that
there exists an isolated equilibrium point (without loss of generality the origin
x = 0 ) which is not affecied by 0 ( t ) , i.e.

The function

is assumed to be smooth with respect to x and 0 and to contain all uncertainties.

It may contain: nonlinearities which are exactly modelled but depend on physical
parameters whose exact value is not known; uncertain nonlinearities for which
only functional bounds are known; time-varying unknown disturbances. In such
cases the techniques developed in Chapter 2 do not apply since they require no
disturbances and exact knowledge of parameters and nonlinearities. In Chapter 1
we have seen several examples of feedback linearizable systems depending on an
unknown parameter 0 or involving uncertain nonlinearities for which the design of
stabilizing state feedback controls is not an obvious task.
This chapter is devoted to the design of state feedback controls for uncertain
systems. T h e main goal is to identify classes of uncertain systems for which such
controls exist and t o provide constructive design procedures. We assume that the
nominal system ( f , g ) is locally state feedback linearizable and investigate under

Adaptive feedback linearization

96

which assumptions on the uncertainties q(x, B ( t ) ) state feedback controls may still
be designed. In Section 3.1 admissible uncertain terms, called triangular, are identified in terms of coordinat,e free conditions. In these cases, the robust ~tabilizat~ion
problem is st,ated and solved in Section 3.2, allowing for disturbances and/or uncertain parameters t>oenter nonlinearly as long as t,heir bounds are known. In Section
3.3 self-tuning regulators, which do not require bounds for uncertainties, are designed when disturbances enter linearly. In Section 3.4 model reference adaptive
controls and adaptive feedback linearizing controls are designed in the special case
in which disturbances are constant parameters. Ext#ensionsto multi-input systems
are given in Section 3.5.

3.1

M A T C H I N G A N D TRIANGULAR C O N D I T I O N S

In this section, under the assumption that the nominal system is feedback linearizable, structural conditions on the uncertainties are given which define, independently of the choice of state coordinates, the class of ubcertain systems dealt with
in this chapter.
T h e o r e m 3.1.1 (Triangular Uncertainties) If system (3.1) is such that,:
(i) the nominal system ( f ,g) is locally (globally) feedback linearizable,
(ii) the s t r i c t triangularity assumption
adqG'i C

OS7,sn-2

G'i,

is satisfied in Uo, a neighborhood of the origin (in R n ) ;

then system (3.1) is locally (globally) feedback equivalent to

Proof. Since the nominal system ( f , g) is locally (globally) feedback linearizable,

according to Feedback Linearization Theorem 2.2.1 (or its global version, Theorem
2.6.2):

<

(a) the distributions Gi = span{g, . . . , ad;g}, 0 i 5 n - 1, are involutive and

of constant rank i 1 in Uo, a neighborhood of the origin (in R n ) ;
(b) there exists a function h,(x) such that in a neighborhood of the origin (in Rn)

(dh,
(dh, G'n-2)
and

# 0
= 0

97

Matching and triangular cohditions

is a local (global) change of coordinates in which the nominal system ( f ,g)

becomes
z3 = 2~+lr

l<j<n,-1

in = Lyh, + (LgLy-'h.)lr = u
A

with

(c) in z-coordinates

Hence the closed loop system in z-coordinates is

ij = zj+l

in = v

+~,~$-lh,,

+ L,L;-'~,

l<j<n-1

and q is expressed as

The strict triangularity assumption (ii) becomes in z-coordinates

O<i<n,-2
which imply

-dj

= 0,

j+l<k<n,

I<j<n,-I

8t.k

from which

dj

= d j ( z l , . . . , zj, O ) ,

< j < n, .

In conclusion the closed loop system in 2-coordinates is given by (3.3).

98

Adaptive feedback linearization

Remark 3.1.1 Note that t,he time-varying system (3.3) is in triangular form and,
according to a ~traight~forward
extension of Corollary 2.2.3 t,o time-varying syst,ems,
it is feedback linearizable for any known smooth disturbance B ( t ) . The result,ing
0
linearizing change of coordinates may be a time-varying one.
Remark 3.1.2 If in Theorem 3.1.1 the strict triangularity as~umpt~ion
is relaxed
by requiring that in Uo (in R") the weaker triangularity assumption

is satisfied, then system (3.1) is locally (globally) feedback equivalent to

as may be established by a slight modification of the proof of Theorem 3.1.1.

1
Example 3.1.1 The system

does not satisfy the strict triangularity assumption. In fact, denoting

g = -

a +-+a
a
axl ax2 ax,

and therefore ad,g does not belong to span{g). Since ad,g does not belong to
the triangularity condition is also not satisfied. Note that
the system with -9 # 0 is not feedback linearizable.

GI= span(g,

Matching. and triangular conditions

Remark 3.1.3 The triangularity assumption implies that

for any local change of coordinates (3.4). In the special cases in which q E Go, that
is

we speak of matching conditions. When q E

G1,i.e.

we speak of extended matching conditions. Both matching and extended

matching conditions imply triangularity. Matching conditions also imply strict
triangularity.
0

b
Example 3.1.2 Consider the system

with (A, b) a controllable pair. In this case the matching condition is expressed as

while the extended matching condit,ion is expressed as

q(x,B) E

span{b, Ab),

Vx E R n , VB E

Corollary 3.1.1 (Matching Uncertainties) If system (3.1) is such that in Uo,

a neighborhood of the origin, (in Rn):

(i) the nominal system ( f ,g) is locally (globally) feedback linearizable,

(ii) the matching conditions
q E Go,

VBEn

are satisfied;
then it is locally (globally) feedback equivalent to

100

Adaptive feedback linearization

Corollary 3.1.2 (Extended Matching Uncertainties) If system (3.1) is such

that in Uo, a neighborhood of the origin, (in Rn):
(i) the nominal system ( f ,g) is locally (globally) feedback linearizable,
(ii) the extended matching conditions

are satisfied:
then it is locally (globally) feedback equivalent to

Theorem 3.1.1 can be extended to cases in which t@ nominal system ( f ,g)

is locally partially state feedback linearizable in triangular form with index r as
follows.

Theorem 3.1.2 If system (3.1) is such that in Uo, a neighborhood of the origin:
(i) the nominal system ( f ,g) is locally partially state feedback linearizable in
triangular form with index r ,
(ii) q E &-I,
(iii) the strict triangularity assumption

is satisfied;
then it is locally feedback equivalent to

Proof. According to Theorem 2.4.3 the dist,ributions

are involutive and of constant rank i + 1 in Uo for i = 0 , . . . , r - 1 and are expressed

in the partially linearizing coordinates ((, z) as

Matching and triangular conditions

Since q E GT-l, in

(t,2)-c~ordinat~es
we have

The strict, t r i a n g u w y assumption (iii) in (6, z)-coordinates is expressed as

which imply

is not satisfied but the remaining two

Remark 3.1.4 If the condition q t
conditions of Lemma 3.1.2 are satisfied then system (3.1) is locally feedback equivalent to

Condition (ii) in Theorem 3.1.2 guarantees that the dynamics of (' are not affected
by the disturbances 0(t). When q E Go or q E GI we still speak of matching and
extended matching conditions, respectively.