2388

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 45, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2000

[23] K. Azuma, Weighted sums of certain dependent random variables, Tokuku Math. J., vol. 19, pp. 357367, 1967. [24] V. V. Yurinski, Exponential bound for large deviations, Theory Probability Appl., vol. 19, pp. 154155, 1974. [25] V. Koltchinskii, C. T. Abdallah, M. Ariola, P. Dorato, and D. Panchenko, Statistical learning control of uncertain systems: It is better than it seems, Tech. Rep. EECE 99-001, EECE Dept., The University of New Mexico, Feb. 1999. [26] V. Koltchinskii, Rademacher penalties and structural risk minimization, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 2000. [27] V. Koltchinskii, M. Ariola, C. T. Abdallah, and P. Dorato, Statistical controller design for the linear benchmark problem, in Proc. 38th Conf. Decision Contr., Phoenix, AZ, 1999, pp. 507509. [28] M. Ledoux and M. Talagrand, Probability in Banach Spaces. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1991.

Input Output Linearization Approach to State Observer Design for Nonlinear System
Nam H. Jo and Jin H. Seo

AbstractIn this paper, we present a state observer for a class of nonlinear systems based on the input output linearization. While the previous result presented state observers for nonlinear systems of full relative degree, we proposed a procedure for the design of nonlinear state observers which do not require the hypothesis of full relative degree. Assuming that there exists a global state observer for internal dynamics and that some functions are globally Lipschitz, we can design a globally convergent state observer. It is also shown that if the zero dynamics are locally exponentially stable, then there exists a local state observer. An example is given to illustrate the proposed design of nonlinear state observers. Index TermsCoordinate change, nonlinear system, normal form, state observer.

I. INTRODUCTION The problem of observing the states of a nonlinear system has been considered in the literature. Some sufficient conditions for the existence of an observer have been established, and computational algorithms for construction of the observers have been presented. The first contributions to the nonlinear observer design were made by, for instance, [10] and [2]. Krener and Isidori [10] proposed the Lie-algebraic conditions under which nonlinear observers with linearizable error dynamics can be designed. Bestle and Zeitz [2] introduced a nonlinear observer canonical form in which system nonlinearities depend only on the input and output of the original system. To broaden the class of nonlinear systems for which a state observer exists, Keller [8] presented an observer design based on a transformation into a generalized observer canonical form (GOCF) that depends on the first n time derivatives of the input variables. Since afore-mentioned approaches require quite restrictive conditions on coordinate transformation, the problem of deriving approximate observers has been also studied in the literature [1], [11], [16].

Apart from observers which are based on the state transformation into canonical forms, alternative methods for the design of nonlinear observers have been examined. Walcott and Zak [15] investigated an observer design technique utilizing theory of variable-structure systems (VSS) and Slotine et al. [12] discussed the potential use of sliding surfaces for observer design. Tsinias [14] provided a sufficient Lyapunov-like condition for the existence of a nonlinear observer and showed that it is equivalent to detectability condition for linear case. However, in general, the construction of this Lyapunov function is quite difficult. Gauthier et al. [5] showed that if a nonlinear system is uniformly observable for any inputs and some functions are globally Lipschitz, then there exists a nonlinear observer whose gain depends on the solution of some Lyapunov-like equation. Ciccarella et al. [4] proposed a nice extension of the Luengerger-like observer for nonlinear systems of full relative degree under the global Hlder condition for certain functions. However, if nonlinear system has relative degree less than system order, their technique requires additional assumption that some time derivatives of the input should be zero almost everywhere. In this paper, we propose a global nonlinear observer that guarantees the estimation error to converge to zero asymptotically. Our scheme is based on the input output linearization technique and utilizes the state transformation into the normal form [7]. In contrast to [4], we do not require the hypothesis of full relative degree. Our main assumption is concerned with the existence of nonlinear observer for internal dynamics. Thus, the proposed technique can be regarded as a dual of stabilization problem via inputoutput linearization, since the latter is solvable if the zero dynamics of nonlinear system have a globally asymptotically stable equilibrium at the origin [3]. Moreover, as far as the local observation problem is concerned, the proposed condition is reduced to that the zero dynamics have a locally exponentially stable equilibrium at the origin. Our paper is organized as follows. Section II states the problem formulation and motivation which comes from comparison between some result of the linear case and the previous work on nonlinear observer. Section III provides sufficient conditions for the existence of the proposed observer and the main theorem is given in Section IV. An illustrative example is given in Section V and finally some conclusions are given in Section VI. Before we begin, some notations used in the paper are to be specified. A Hurwitz matrix will be a matrix with all eigenvalues  such that Re() < 0. For any integer r , Ir denote the r 2 r identity matrix. For any integer r , 0r denote the r 2 r zero matrix. k 1 k stands for the Euclidean norm of a vector in some Euclidean space. kxk is defined by kxk := supfkx(t)k: t  0g. Finally, the Jacobian matrices of f (x1 ; x2 ) 2 C 1 with respect to its first and second argument at (x1 ; x2 ) are denoted by D1 f (x1 ; x2 ), D2 f (x1 ; x2 ), respectively.

II. PROBLEM FORMULATION AND MOTIVATION

Manuscript received June 17, 1998; revised October 25, 1999. Recommended by Associate Editor, L. S. Wang. This work was supported by the Basic Research program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation under Grant 9810911-050-2. The authors are with the School of Electrical Engineering, Seoul National University, Kwanak Seoul, 151-742 Korea (e-mail: nhjo@bigfoot.com). Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9286(00)10037-6.

In this paper, we will consider the following single-input singleoutput (SISO) nonlinear systems:

x _ = f (x) + g (x)u y = h(x)

(1)

00189286/00$10.00 2000 IEEE

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 45, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2000

2389

where x 2 Rn is the state vector; u2R is the input; y2R is the output; f and g are smooth vector fields on Rn ; and h is a smooth function. We will assume f (x0 ) = 0; h(x0 ) = 0, i.e., x0 is an equilibrium point of the unforced system. Our problem is to design an observer whose output converge to true state of the original system (1). In general, the inputs of the observer are supposed to be the inputs and the outputs of the original system (1). When (1) has relative degree n, then it has been shown [4] that there exists a state observer for nonlinear system (1). As a matter of fact, if nonlinear system (1) has relative degree n, then it is diffeomorphic to

might be tempted to think that the following system is a state observer for nonlinear system (6):

z _1 z _n01 z _n y

= z2 = zn = a(z) + b(z)u = z1 :
. . .

Again, regarding a(z;  ) + b(z;  )u as a new control input v , we can assume that an external part z can be estimated by the above observer (8). All we have to do is, now, to guarantee that the observation error of internal part  also go to zero. According to the above statement on linear systems, we can conjecture that if the internal part is stable in some sense, then the observation error of internal part  converges to zero. In fact, we will show that this is indeed true. Our final remark in this section is given on some difference between linear system (4) and nonlinear system (6). As for nonlinear system (6), the internal part  affects the observable part z through the term a(z;  ) + b(z;  )u, whereas there is no such term in (4). III. PRELIMINARY ASSUMPTIONS

_ = Az z ^ ^ + B [a(^ z;  ^) + b(^ z;  ^)u] + K (y 0 C z ^) _  ^ = q(^ z;  ^):

(8)

(2)

Regarding a(z )+ b(z )u as a new control input v , we can interpret that (2) is completely observable in the sense of linear system theory. However, as far as linear system is concerned, observable systems are not the whole class of systems for which observer can be constructed to guarantee the observation error converges to zero. It is well known that if an unobservable states of linear system are asymptotically stable, i.e., detectable, then there is a stable observer for this linear system. If the following linear system:

We begin by inputoutput linearizing (1). So, we need the following assumption. (H1): System (1) has uniform relative degree r  n and the vector fields

01 ~(x); adi ~ g f
with

1ir

~= f f

fh g; g ~= 1 g 0LL Lr01 h L Lr01 h g f g f

x _ = Al x + Bl u y = Cl x
is detectable, then it is diffeomorphic to

(3)

are complete. Assumption (H1) implies [3], [7] that there exist n i (x); 1  i  n 0 r , such that T 8(x) := zT ; T

0 r functions

x _o x _o

= Ao xo + Bo u = Aoo xo + Ao xo + Bo u xo y = [Co Co ] x
o

T r01 h(x);  (x); 1 1 1 ;  = h(x); 1 1 1 ; Lf 1 n0r (x) is a global diffeomorphism with 8(x0 ) = 0 and it transforms (1) into

(4)

the normal form (9)

where (Co ; Ao ) is observable and Ao is a Hurwitz matrix. A state observer for (4) is given by

_o x ^ _o x ^

= Ao x ^o + Bo u + K (y 0 Co x ^o ) = Aoo x ^o + Ao x ^o + Bo u

(5)

= Az + B [a(z; ) + b(z; )u] = q(z; ) (9) = Cz where A; B; C are given by (7) and a(z;  ); b(z;  ), and q (z;  ) are
defined as

z _  _ y

where K is chosen such that Ao 0 KCo is a Hurwitz matrix. Now, we return to (1). When it has relative degree r(< n), then it is diffeomorphic to [7]

where A

Rr2r , B A=

z _ = Az + B [a(z; ) + b(z; )u]  _ = q(z; ) y = Cz

801 (z; ) r01 h 801 (z;  ) b(z;  ) := Lg Lf qi (z;  ) := Lf i 801 (z;  ) ; 1  i  n 0 r:

rh a(z;  ) := Lf

(6)

2
. . .

0 1 0 111 0 0 0 1 111 0
. . . . . . . . .

Rr21 , and C

2R

12r

are defined as

;B

0 0 1
(7) . . .

In case there is no zero dynamics [see (2)], it has been shown [4] that there is a state observer for (1) provided that a(z ) and b(z ) are both globally Lipschitzian. So, we need the following similar assumption for the normal form (9). (H2): The functions a(z;  ) and b(z;  ) are globally Lipschitzian. If (H2) is satisfied and u is bounded, then there exist positive constants l1 and l2 such that

0 0 0 111 0 C = [1 0 111 0]:

In the following, the state z and  are referred to as an external part and internal part, respectively [9]. As an analogy to linear observer (5), we

Our next assumption concerns some property of the internal dynamics  _ = q(z; ). As stated in the introduction, the most simple

ka(z1 ; 1 ) + b(z1 ; 1 )u 0 a(z2 ; 2 ) 0 b(z2 ; 2 )uk  l1 kz1 0 z2 k + l2 k1 0 2 k for all z1 ; z2 2 Rr ; 1 ; 2 2 Rn0r .

(10)

2390

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 45, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2000

condition for the observation of  to be possible may be to resemble the linear case (4), i.e.,


with sr + k1 sr01 + 1 1 1 + kr the solution of

A1 P1

= 0 is a Hurwitz polynomial. Let P1 be + P1 A1 = 0Ir

1 2

_ = A21 z + A2 
where

(15)

where A21 is an r 2 n matrix and A2 is a Hurwitz r 2 r matrix. Clearly, this is not the whole case where the state observation of  is possible. We are able to generalize this condition by using the following assumption, which was first introduced by Tsinias [14]. (H3): There exist a positive definite matrix P2 2 R(n0r)2(n0r) and a positive constant k0 such that
v P2 D2 q z; 
0 2

A1

:=

0k 1 0 1 1 1 0 0k 0 1 1 1 1 0
. . . 0kr

f ( )gv 8(z; ; v) 2 Rr 2 Rn0r 2 Rn0r :  0k kvk

0 0 111 0

. . .

. . .

. . .

(11)

Remark III.1: In [14], we should find a positive matrix P for the whole system x _ = f (x; u). The main difference between the assumption of [14] and ours is that, in our method, it suffices to find a positive definite matrix P2 for the reduced system  _ = q(z; ), not for the entire system x _ = f (x; u). Clearly, finding such a matrix becomes more difficult as the systems order becomes larger. Assumption (H3) means that if the external state z is known, then there is a state observer for the internal dynamics


Moreover, let x0 and x ^0 be initial states of (1) and (14), respectively, and set e0 = x ^0 0 x0 . Now, we are ready to state our main theorem. Theorem IV.1: Consider the nonlinear system (1) and the observer governed by (14). Suppose that the Assumptions H1H4 are satisfied and the input u is bounded. Then, for any initial conditions e0 ; x0 and for all 0 <  < 3 ,
t!1

lim kx ^(t) 0 x(t)k = 0

where

_ = q(z; )
(12)

and the observer is given by



1 k0 4l1 kP1 k ; 16(l2 kP1 k + l3 kP2 k)2 : Proof: Throughout the proof, we will assume 0 <  < 1. In the new coordinate system (z T ;  T )T = 8(x), the observer equation (14)


3

_ = q(z;  ^ ^):

becomes

The problem is that the observer system (12) uses the information of true external state z instead of its estimate z ^. Moreover, the external part experiences the same phenomenon: if the internal part is available, then the system

_ = Az ^ ^ + B [a(^ z;  ^) + b(^ z;  ^)u] + K ()(y 0 C z ^) _ = q(^  ^ z;  ^):

z

(16)

Define the observation error

e1

_ = Az z ^ ^ + B [a(^ z ;  ) + b(^ z ;  )u] + K (y 0 C z ^)

is a state observer for the external part z of (9). The point is that each observer asymptotically estimates the true state only when the other part of the state is exactly known. This is because the dynamics of external state z depends on the internal state  and vice versa. Compare this with linear case (4) in which observable state is not affected by unobservable state. Despite of this unfavorable situations it will be shown in the next section that there exists a state observer, if the following additional assumption is made. (H4): q (z;  ) is globally Lipschitz in z , uniformly in  , i.e., there exists a positive constant l3 such that
e1

:= z ^0 z ^ 0 : e2 := 

Then, it follows from (9) and (16) that

_ = (A 0 K ()C )e1 + B [a(^ z;  ^) + b(^ z;  ^)u 0 a(z; ) 0 b(z; )u] z;  ^) 0 q(z; ) e _ 2 = q(^
which can be written as
e1 e2

_ = A1 ()e1 + B [a(^ z;  ^) + b(^ z;  ^)u 0 a(z; ) 0 b(z; )u] z;  ^) 0 q(^ z ;  ) + q (^ z ;  ) 0 q (z;  ) _ = q(^

kq(z ; ) 0 q(z ; )k  l kz 0 z k; 8 z ; z 2 Rr ;  2 Rn0r :

2 1 3 2 1 1 2

where (13)
A1 

0 k 1 0 1 1 1 0
1

IV. STATE OBSERVER DESIGN Consider the following nonlinear observer dynamical equation:
x

( ) := A 0 K ()C =

0 1 111 0 0k 
2 2

_ = f (^ ^ x) + g (^ x)u +

@x

01 8 (^ x)

K 

0n0r

x)) 1 1 1 (y 0 h(^

()

. . . kr 0 r

. . .

. . .

. . .

0 0 111 0 0 0


(14)

Define

where
k1 K  

4() =

1 0 111 0  111 0 0 111

. . . . . . .. .

r01

. . .

( ) :=

. . . kr r

Then, it can be easily shown that

A1 

( ) = 01 4()01 A1 4():

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 45, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2000

2391

It follows from (15) that

T P1 () := 4() P1 4()

it follows that

_ V
(17)

0

3 k 4 0

ke k 0
2 2

1 (1  4

02r) k1 k2

satisfies
A1 ()P1 () + P1 ()A1 ()

= 001 4()T 4():

Now, define Lyapunov function candidate

V (e1 ; e2 )

which concludes the proof. The following corollary can be obtained from Theorem IV.1 if we assume the following. (H5): Define
R(z;  )

T P ()e + eT P e = (202r) e1 1 1 2 2 2

:= q(z; ) 0 A2 

where P2 is given by (11). Then, taking (11) and (17) into consideration we have

where A2 is an any Hurwitz matrix. Then, there exist positive constants l4 and l5 (<(1=2kP3 k)) such that

_ V

+ 2(202r) B T P1 ()e1 1 [a(^ z;  ^) + b(^ z;  ^)u 0 a(z; ) 0 b(z; )u] 2 T z ;  ) 0 q (z;  )] P2 e2 0 k0 ke2 k + 2[q(^ (102r ) T T (202r ) T = 0 e1 4() 4()e1 + 2 B 4()P1 4()e1 1 [a(^ z;  ^) + b(^ z;  ^)u 0 a(z; ) 0 b(z; )u] 0 k0 ke2 k2 T + 2[q(^ z ;  ) 0 q (z;  )] P2 e2 :
1

  0 r eT
(2 2 ) 1

P1 ()A1 () + A1 ()P1 () e1

kR(z ;  ) 0 R(z ;  )k  l kz 0 z k + l k 0  k
1 1 2 2 4 1 2 5 1 2

where P3 is the solution of

A2 P3

+ P3 A2 = 0I:

Corollary IV.2: Consider (1) and the observer governed by (14). Suppose that the Assumptions H1, H2, and H5 are satisfied and the input u is bounded. Then, there exists a small positive constant 3 > 0 such that
t!1

Set

lim kx ^(t) 0 x(t)k = 0

:= 4()e1 : = r01 together with (10) and (13),

(1 ) 1 1 1 1 2

Then, using the fact B T 4() we have

 0  0 r k k + 2 0r l kP kk kke k + 2 0r l kP kk kke k 0 k ke k + 2l ke kkP kke k: Moreover, since k4()0 k =  0r , it follows that ke k   0r k k,
_ V
(1 2 ) 1 2 (1 ) 2 1 1 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1

for any initial conditions e0 ; x0 and for all 0 <  < 3 . Now, we consider a local estimation problem, i.e., when the output of nonlinear observer (14) converges to the true state of system (1) at least locally. As far as local coordinate transformation is concerned, the completeness Assumption of (H1) is not necessary. Moreover, if the zero dynamics of (1) are locally exponentially stable, then Assumption (H3) is fulfilled at least locally. In fact, suppose that the origin of system
 _

= q(0; )

which leads to

is locally exponentially stable. Then, it follows from Lyapunov converse theorem [6] that
@q @

_ V
Since

 0  0 r k k + 2 0 r l kP k k k 0 k ke k + 2 0r l kP k k kke k + 2 0r l kP k k kke k:
(1 2 ) 1 2 (2 2 ) 2 1 1 1 ) 2 0 2 2 (1 ) 2 1 1 (1 3 2 1 2

(0; 0)

1  4l k P k
1 1

is a Hurwitz matrix. Thus, there exist a positive constant k and a positive definite matrix P such that
v P

@q @

(0; 0)

= 0kkvk2 :

we have

_  0 1 (102r) k1 k2 0 k0 ke2 k2 V 2 + 2(10r) (l2 kP1 k + l3 kP2 k)k1 kke2 k 2 =03 4 k0 ke2 k 2 (10r) (l kP k + l kP k)k k 2 0 k0 1 k e2 k 0 2 1 3 2 1 2 k0 (102r ) 0 1 0 k40 (202r) (l2 kP1 k + l3 kP2 k)2 k1 k2 2 3 k ke k2 04 0 2 (102r ) 0 1 0 k4 (202r) (l2kP1 k + l3 kP2 k)2 k1 k2 : 2
0

By the continuity of (@q=@ )(z;  ), there exists a  > 0 such that

v P

Finally, since a(z;  ); b(z;  ); and q (z;  ) are smooth functions, Assumptions (H2) and (H4) are automatically satisfied provided x and x ^ are bounded. However, if x and e0 are bounded sufficiently small, then it can be shown that x ^ is also bounded by using the state observer (14). Therefore, we have the following corollary. Corollary IV.3 (Local Version): Suppose that nonlinear system (1) has relative degree r  n at x0 , its zero dynamics are locally exponentially stable at the origin, and the control u is bounded. Then, there exist 3 > 0 and  > 0 such that for all ke0 k <  , kx 0 x0 k1 < ; and 0 <  < 3 .
t!1

 01 2 kkvk ;
2

@q (z; ) @

8kzk < ; kk < ; v 2 Rn0r :

Finally, since


 16 (l kP k + l kP k)
k0
2 1 3 2

lim kx ^(t) 0 x(t)k = 0

2392

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 45, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2000

V. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE To illustrate the approach developed in the previous section we consider the following nonlinear system:
x

which, in turn, implies that Assumption (H3) is satisfied with P2 and k0 = 1. From (19) we obtain
@

= I2

_ = f (x) + g(x)u y = h(x)

(18)

1 8 (x) 01 = 2x1 0 @x 0

0 0 0 1 02x3 x4 0x2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1
k1 

with
2 0x2 1 + x2 + x3 x4 2 x1 x2 0 x2 + cos x4 f (x) = 2 2 2 x1 0 x2 x4 0 2x3 0 x3 x4 2 3 x1 sin x1 + x2 x3 0 x4 + x3 x4

As a consequence, the proposed observer (14) turns out to be

0 (g) = 1 0 0

h x

( ) = x1 :

k1 2 _ = f (^ x1 +k ^ x) + g (^ x) + 2^ (y 0 x ^1 )  2 0 0

(20)

Throughout this section, we assume that all the states remain in some bounded region. Since

where k1 and k2 are chosen such that s2 + k1 s + k2 polynomial. VI. CONCLUSION

= 0 is a Hurwitz

=0 Lg Lf h = 1
Lg h

(18) has relative degree 2. Moreover, using the coordinate transformation

8(x) :=

z1 z2 1 2

2 2 2 + x3 x4 := 0x1 + x x3
x4

x1

(19)

The problem of designing global state observer for a class of nonlinear systems has been discussed. While the previous result [4] presented state observers for nonlinear systems of full relative degree, we proposed a procedure for the design of nonlinear state observers which do not require the hypothesis of full relative degree. In particular, we dealt with a class of systems which can be transformed into a global normal form in which the internal dynamics satisfied some Lyapunov-like condition. As far as local observation problem is concerned, the exponential stability of zero dynamics is sufficient to guarantee that the output of the proposed observer converges to true states. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors are greatly indebted to the referees for careful reviews and valuable suggestions. REFERENCES
[1] W. T. Baumann and W. J. Rugh, Feedback control of nonlinear systems by extended linearization, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 31, pp. 4046, 1986. [2] D. Bestle and M. Zeitz, Canonical form observer design for nonlinear time-variable systems, Int. J. Contr., vol. 38, pp. 419431, 1983. [3] C. I. Byrnes and A. Isidori, Asymptotic stabilization of minimum phase nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 36, pp. 11221137, 1991. [4] G. Ciccarella, M. Dallamora, and A. Germani, A Luenberger-like observer for nonlinear systems, Int. J. Contr., vol. 57, pp. 537556, 1993. [5] J. P. Gauthier, H. Hammouri, and S. Othman, A simple observer for nonlinear systems: Applications to bioreactors, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 37, pp. 875880, 1992. [6] W. Hahn, Stability of Motion. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1967. [7] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1989. [8] H. Keller, Non-linear observer design by transformation into a generalized observer canonical form, Int. J. Contr., vol. 46, pp. 19151930, 1987. [9] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996. [10] A. J. Krener and A. Isidori, Linearization by output injection and nonlinear observers, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 3, pp. 4752, 1983. [11] S. Nicosia, P. Tomei, and A. Tornamb, An approximate observer for a class of nonlinear systems, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 12, pp. 4351, 1989. [12] J. J. E. Slotine, J. K. Hedrick, and E. A. Misawa, On sliding observers for nonlinear systems, J. Dyn. Syst., Meas. Contr., vol. 109, pp. 245252, 1987. [13] A. Tornamb, Output feedback stabilization of a class of nonminimum phase nonlinear systems, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 19, pp. 193204, 1992. [14] J. Tsinias, Observer design for nonlinear systems, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 13, pp. 135142, 1989.

(18) can be transformed into

_ = z2 _ = b(x) + a(x)u 2 2 0 z2 + z1 2 0 21  _1 = z1 2 2  _2 = z1 sin z1 + z2 + z1 1 0 2

z1 z2

where
a x

( ) =1 2 2 2 b(x) = 0 2x1 0x1 + x2 + x3 x4 + x1 x2 0 x2 + cos x4 2 + 2x3 x4 x1 0 2x3 0 x2 x4 2 + x2 3 x1 sin x1 + x2 x3 0 x4 : 0 g ~= 1 0 0

We can compute the vector fields g ~ and adf ~ as ~g

01 2 3 0 2 x1 0 2x3 x4 + x3 adf ~= ~g x4 0x3

which implies that Assumption (H1) is satisfied. Since a(x); b(x), and q (z;  ) are smooth functions and all the states are assumed to be bounded, the Assumptions (H2) and (H4) are also satisfied. Moreover, it follows that
v

T D q (z;  ) v 2

2 2 0z1 0 z2 g = [v1 v2 ] z20 01 1 + z2 2 2 = 0 2v1 0 v2 2  0 kvk

v1 v2

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 45, NO. 12, DECEMBER 2000

2393

[15] B. L. Walcott and S. H. Zak, State observation of nonlinear uncertain dynamical systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 32, pp. 166170, 1987. [16] M. Zeitz, The extended Luenberger observer for nonlinear systems, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 9, pp. 149156, 1987.

Robust and Nonblocking Supervisor for Discrete-Event Systems with Model Uncertainty under Partial Observation
Seong-Jin Park and Jong-Tae Lim

AbstractThis paper addresses a robust and nonblocking supervisory control problem based on a framework of discrete-event systems with model uncertainty under partial observation. The uncertainty introduced in this paper is associated with internal and unobservable events occurring in systems. This paper presents a systematic method for modeling -transition representing the internal and uncertainty described as a unobservable events. In particular, at a state with the assigned positive integer value a system is assumed to experience at most a -step state transition by the internal and unobservable event. Under the framework on model uncertainty, this paper presents necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a robust supervisor with the nonblocking property.

Index TermsDiscrete event systems, nonblockingness, robust supervisor.

1-transition, model uncertainty,

synchronous composition (PSC) is introduced to model the interaction of a system and a supervisor. In [8] and [9], it is shown that the supervisory control of nondeterministic DESs can be achieved using PSC as a mechanism of control and trajectory models as a modeling formalism. In [9], in particular, it is shown that the usual notion of nonblocking, called language model nonblocking, may not be adequate in the setting of nondeterministic systems, and a stronger notion, called trajectory model nonblocking, is necessary for nonblocking supervisory control of nondeterministic systems. In this paper, we propose a new framework on model uncertainty. In [3] and [4], only the existence of known events is considered. However, the uncertainty introduced in this paper is associated with the existence of unknown and unobservable events occurring in the interior parts of systems. Even though -transition represents internal events in literatures about nondeterministic systems, the systematic methods for modeling uncertainty described as -transition are missing and the systems are analyzed using complex modeling schemes such as trajectory models or failure semantics models. However, this paper presents a systematic method using simple language models to reflect the existence of internal and unobservable events in modeling uncertain DESs. In this paper, is introduced as the event to represent internal and unobservable events. Also, a positive integer-valued function is given to assign a value to each state at which -transition may occur. At a state with the assigned positive integer value p, a system is assumed to experience at most the p-step state transition by . Under the proposed framework on model uncertainty, this paper addresses a robust supervisory control problem subject to nonblockingness of uncertain DESs under partial observation.

I. INTRODUCTION In general, robust control is available to control uncertain systems whose dynamics are only partially known. While robust control theory has been studied extensively for continuous variable dynamic systems, comparatively few results exist for the robust control of discrete-event systems (DESs). There may exist many different types of uncertainty in the area of DESs. In [3], model uncertainty is assumed as follows: although the exact model of a system is not known, it belongs to a set of some possible models. The task of robust supervision is to synthesize a supervisor that realizes a given desired behavior for any model in the set. In [4], it is shown that the uncertainty in transition structure of a system results in multiple models of the system that might potentially be correct. The goal of [4] is to specify conditions and algorithms that enable the identification of the correct model in a finite number of transitions. Recently, other approaches for modeling uncertainty in the transition structure of DESs have been developed for nondeterministic systems. In [5], a lifting procedure is presented through which a nondeterministic system is translated to a partially observed deterministic system. Well-known algorithms for the supervisory control of deterministic systems under partial observation [2] can be adapted for synthesis of supervisors for nondeterministic systems. In [6], the failure semantics formalism is presented for the supervisory control of nondeterministic DESs. The work of [7] introduces the trajectory model formalism for modeling nondeterministic behavior. Moreover, prioritized
Manuscript received October 5, 1998; revised September 24, 1999. Recommended by Associate Editor, K. Rudie. This work was supported by Grant KOSEF 961-0100-001-2 from Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon, 305-701, Korea (e-mail: jtlim@stcon.kaist.kr). Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9286(00)10679-8.

II. DISCRETE EVENT SYSTEMS WITH MODEL UNCERTAINTY To develop the nominal model, we begin with the usual 5-tuple automaton of form

Gn = (Q; 6n ; q0 ; n ; Qm )
where is the set of states, is the set of nominal events, q0 is the initial state, and Qm  Q is the set of marked states. The nominal state transition function is defined as a partial function n Q 2 n ! Q. In the literature on nondeterministic systems,  represents internal and unobservable events. However, it may cause confusion, since  is also the empty string. So as to avoid such confusion, we introduce a new event, denoted by , representing internal and unobservable events. Then, we define the total event set as follows:

6n :

6 := 6n _ 1 :
[ f g

Let 3 denote the set of all finite strings of elements in including the empty string . 3 is called the Kleene closure. Also, for  2 , let 3 denote the set of all finite strings of  including , i.e., 3 3 is called a language over . f; ; ; ; 1 1 1g. Any subset of Given s 2 3 , we use jsj to denote the length of s, and s denotes the set of all strings that are prefixes of s, i.e., s ft 2 3 j tu s for some u 2 3 g. The closure of a language L  3 , denoted by L, is the set of 3 all strings that are prefixes of strings of L, i.e., L fu 2 juv 2 L for some v 2 3 g.

6 = 6

= 6

6 :=

= 6

00189286/00$10.00 2000 IEEE