Com.~~uters them. Engng,Vol. 14, No. 4/S, pp.

415426,
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

DESIGN

Copyright

0098-I 354/90
$3.00 + 0.00
(0 1990 Pergamon
Press plc

OF P AND PI STABILIZING
CONTROLLERS
FOR QUASI-LINEAR
SYSTEMS
J.-P.

School

1990

of Chemical

Engineering,

and Y.

CALVET

Georgia

Institute

ARKUN~

of Technology,

Atlanta,

GA 30332-0100,

U.S.A.

(Received 23 October 1989; received for pubkarion 29 November 1989)

Abstract-The
systems studied in this paper are nonlinear systems perturbed by disturbances which are
feedback transformable
to quasi-linear systems [i.e. i = AZ + Bv + [(r)d with (A, B) controllable].
We
consider the problem of designing stabilizing controllers for perturbed nonlinear systems through their
equivalent quasi-linear systems. With the addition of integral action, we can guarantee not only ultimate
d-stabilization but also zero steady state offset for both the output of the quasi-linear system (u = Cz)
and for the equivalent output [y = h(x)] of the nonlinear system. Moreover,
when the so-called
disturbance matching condition is satisfied, it is shown that all the states of the quasi-linear system (and
the nonlinear system) will exhibit zero steady state offset. All the results presented here are for single
control input systems.

1.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years,
the use of differential
geometry
to
transform
nonlinear
systems
into linear systems
has
received
much
attention
in the control literature.

Several methods compete and differ in their definitions and the issues they address. One approach is to
transform a nonlinear system in an input/output
sense. This was first investigated by Gilbert and Ha
(1984) and Ha and Gilbert (1987). Another approach
is to transform the nonlinear state equations into an
equivalent linear system without specifying any output. This technique is known as the feedback linearization and has been investigated in particular by Su
(1982) and Hunt er al. (1983). The transformations
required are state and input transformations with a
nonlinear state feedback. Finally, feedback linearization with decoupling of outputs was addressed by
Isidori et al. (1981). Various control applications
have appeared in aerospace engineering (Meyer et al.,
1984), robotics (Tarn et al., 1984), power systems
(Marina, 1984) and chemical engineering (Hoo and
Kantor, 1987; Kravaris and Chung, 1987; Calvet and
Arkun, 1988a).
It should be noted that there is very limited knowledge about the robustness characteristics of these
techniques with respect to modeling errors and disturbances. For example, the pioneering work of
Kravaris and Palanki (1988a, b) shows that under
matching conditions it is possible to design robust
controllers for a transformed (in the input/output
sense) nonlinear system with modeling errors. However, the design of controllers guaranteeing stability
of the transformed nonlinear system influenced by
modeled disturbances has not yet been investigated.
Our recent work (Calvet and Arkun, 1988a, b) has
~__
___
tTo whom all correspondence should be addressed.
415

shown that under feedback linearization a perturbed

nonlinear system is in general no longer transformed
to a linear system but to a so-called quasi-linear
system, QLS. The QLS is then affected by nonlinearities only due to a state-dependent perturbation
coupled with the modeled disturbance. In this paper
we address the following problem:
Given a bound on the set of disturbances affecting the nonlinear system, we want to design a
proportional (P) controller for the QLS which will
ultimately stabilize the original nonlinear system.
Furthermore, if an output of the non-linear system
is specified, we want to design a stabilizing proportional integral (PI) controller for the QLS which
will guarantee zero steady state offset for the
output.
The paper is organized as follows. The origin of QLSs
is given in Section 2. In Section 3, a theorem gives the
sufficient condition for the design of (P) stabilizing
gains. The extension to PI stabilization is addressed
in Section 4. Because of the inherent conservation due
to the sufficiency of the theorem, a design procedure
to compute the least conservative stabilizing gains
possible is given in Section 5. In Section 6, a steady
state analysis shows that zero steady state offset can
be guaranteed for all the states of the original nonlinear system under some disturbance matching conditions. Finally, in Section 7 we apply the design
procedure to control an unstable reactor influenced
by various process disturbances.
2.

QUASI-LINEAR

SYSTEM

Definition
I-A
quasi-linear system (QLS) is a
system which is linear or affine with respect to
its control input and the modeled disturbances.

416
It is described

J.-P.

CALVE?

by:

tzId,

i=Az+Bv+

(1)

where z E R are the states, v E R is the control input,

d E RP is a set of modeled disturbances and c(z) is an
n x p matrix with smooth
scalar entries. The pair
(A, B) is a controllable matrix pair. It is usually given
in the Brunovsky
canonical form (BCF):

and Y.

ARKUN

the NLS can be transformed

to a QLS. The statedependent perturbation
term c(z)d in (1) is given by:

denotes the Jacobian matrix. Neceswhere (JT/&c)

sary and sufficient conditions
guaranteeing
the existence of these transformations
can be found in Calvet
and Arkun (1988b).
3.

It is important
to realize that a QLS has the nice
property to be truly linear when free of disturbances
(d = 0). Also, note that the perturbation
term c(z)d
is state dependent and not parameter dependent [i.e.
<(q)d with 4 being a set of parameters] like it is often
the case in linear system theory. Though
there are
several techniques
to study the stability of linear
systems
with
parameter-dependent
perturbation
(Corless and Leitmann,
1981), the literature on the
stability of linear systems with state-dependent
perturbation
is sparse. It is the goal of this paper to
analyze and propose a method to study the stability
of such systems.
The origin of QLS appeared when the technique of
feedback
linearization
(Su, 1982) was implemented
on perturbed nonlinear systems. This was first investigated by the authors (Calvet and Arkun, 1988b), and
the pertinent results are summarized
in the sequel.
Consider
a nonlinear system (NLS)
of the form:

0 =f(xo)

+ g(x)u

+ Y (x)d,

+ g(xclh7

(2)
(3)

and g(x) are

where x(t) E R, d(t) E RP, u(t) E R.J(x)
smooth vector fields and Y(x) is a matrix of appropriate dimension with smooth scalar function entries.
Also x0 is an equilibrium point for the control input
u = z+, and the set of disturbance inputs d = 0. Note
that this particular
nonlinear
system is also affine
with respect to its control input and disturbances.
Under the state transformation
and input transformation with feedback:
(4)

z = T(x),
u = a(x)

OF

QLS

The first problem

we address in this paper is to
stabilize
a nonlinear
system
described
by (2, 3)
through its equivalent QLS. To do so, we assume that
the disturbances
are bounded,
and we look for a
suitable (linear) proportional
(P) control law under
which aN the states of the QLS will be ultimately
bounded.
The bound of the disturbances
is known
and it generates a closed set defined by:

i =.f(x)

P STABILIZATION

+ B(X)&

(5)

where T is a local diffeomorphism

(not unique) with
T(x,) = 0 and p(x) # 0 in a neighborhood
U,, of x,,,

R,

= {d(t)

E RP; Ild(t>II < D Vt > to},

where /I. 11IS t h e usual Euclidean norm and D is the

known bound. Note that the set of disturbances could
be time varying but should be bounded at all time by
D. We now give the definitions
of &-stabilization
(Schmitendorf,
1988)
and
ultimate
boundedness
(Corless and Leitmann,
1981) as adapted for QLS.
Definition 2-A
solution z(-):[t,,
co]+R,
z(t,) = z,,
(initial condition)
of a QLS is said to be ultimately
bounded
with
respect
to a closed
set B(S) =
{z E R; )lz[I <S}
if there
exists
a nonnegative
constant
(time)
T(z,,, S) < co possibly
dependent
and
6
but
not
on
t,
such
that
:;t, EZ&6) vr 2 t0 + T( z,, 6). We call B(6) a ball of
radius 6.
Definition &A
QLS is said to be &-stabilizable
if
there exists a linear state feedback
control
law
vg(t) = -&z(t)
such that for all admissible
(time
varying) disturbances
in R, the solution z(t) is ultimately bounded in B(6). The control v6 is then called
a 6-stabilizable
control.
In order to construct a linear d-stabilizable
control
law we require two key assumptions.
Assumprion
I-The
state-dependent
perturbation
term of the QLS c (z)d must lie in the control input
space:

From a geometric point of view, this means that <(z)d

is generated by the range of the matrix operator B.
This assumption
will be referred to as the disturbance matching
condition
or simply the matching
condition.
Assumption
Z-x(z)
has a state-dependent
upper
bound in a ball B(1):
3(p, p) E R2 (both

finite) s.t. Ilx(z)ll*

<p+~+II

VZEB(F).

Design of P and PI stabilizing controllers

This assumption is the most crucial one but can
always be satisfied in closed balls B(F) for a finite F.
However, if P tends to infinity, sometimes p and/or cc
may not be finite implying that Assumption 2 will not
be satisfied. In other words, this means that Assumption 2 can always be satisfied locally [in B(6)] but not
globaly (when i-00).
This choice of F is thus very
important and involves searching for the pair (p, p)
not in the whole space R but in an adequate ball B(F)
which must be specified judiciously. Also, this assumption introduces some inherent conservatism in
the design of 6 -stabilizing controllers. This point will
be discussed and illustrated later.
We now give an important theorem where the
following notation is used: an eigenvalue of a square
matrix W is denoted by 1( W). If W is strictly positive
definite, then 1 *(W) and 1 *(W) are its maximum
eigenvalues,
and
minimum
respectively.
Also
yw = E,*( W)/,l* ( W) is its condition number.
Theorem-Given
6 such that J 2 6 B 0; if there
exists a P > 0 (strictly positive definite) solving the
algebraic Riccati equation (ARE):
PA + ArP

for
some
satisfying

PB(2R-

6 > 0,

I)BTP

+ H/E

and

N=HT)O

=O,

R=Rr>O

417

It is important to note that as P tends to infinity

6-stabilization is assured for all initial conditions
in R.
4. PI STABILIZATION

The second problem we address now is to extend

the notion of 6 -stabilization by adding integral action
in the control law. Indeed, with one manipulated
variable we can achieve zero steady state offset for
one output of the QLS. Note, however, that this type
of controller will guarantee zero steady state offset
only if the disturbances considered are ultimately
time invariant i.e.
3T* s.t. d(t) = constant
4.1.

Selection

- I_c~D%~ > 0, then the control

v(l)=

law:

-R-B=Pz(t),

(7)

is a a-stabilizing control for the QLS, for all initial

conditions in B(r/&)
with r -c F.
Proof-See
Calvet and Arkun (1989). The proof of
the theorem is based on the inspection of the sign of
the derivative of a candidate Lyapunov function
V(z) = zTPz; where P is the solution of an algebraic
Riccati equation whose form is different depending
on whether or not the disturbance matching condition is satisfied.
Note that when the QLS is a single control input
system, the parameter R is a scalar. Assumption 1 is
a disturbance matching condition similar to the one
given in Corless and Leitmann (1981). However, this
assumption can be relaxed. Indeed, if Assumption 1
is not satisfied, one must verify the following assumption instead of Assumption 2:
Assumption ?-The
perturbation term itself must
be bounded in a ball B(F):
3(p , p) E R2 (both finite) s.t.

lli(z)lj2 <p

+ ~l(z((~

Vz E B(P).

With this assumption, the above theorem still holds,

but one has to solve a different algebraic Riccati
equation (ARE) given by:

Vt > T*.

(8)

of the output

It is known that in general an a priori specified

output of the original nonlinear system (2):
Y(l) = h]x(r)l,

(9)

will not depend linearly on the transformed states of

the QLS, z,,
, z,. This has been recognized as a
disadvantage of the feedback linearization transformation (Kravaris and Chung, 1987). In the proposed
method, however, the output of the QLS must be a
linear combination of the states as:
y(t)=Cz(t)

with i,(H)

OF A QLS

CER~.

(10)

We also consider that the output C[z(t)] will render

the unforced QLS observable. Hence without loss of
generality, we can set the output of the QLS to be Z, ,
i.e. C = [I, 0, . . , 01. Indeed, the unforced QLS can
be easily transformed to such a form through linear
transformation and feedback (Kailath, 1980).
The critical requirements for the output of the QLS
to satisfy simultaneously (9) and (10) can be tackled
in different ways:
Given a desired output (9) for the original
nonlinear system, choose a manipulated variable u which will admit feedback transformation
(4, 5) that gives a QLS with a linear output (10).
This is called an a priori output selection.
Apply the feedback linearization (4, 5) and then
select a linear output of the QLS (IO) which has
a physical meaning in the original nonlinear
system. This is called an a posteriori output
selection.
If these two approaches fail, one should resort to
partial linearization (Krener et al., 1984) or input/
output linearization (Kravaris and Chung, 1987)
which will not be addressed here. The option of
selecting an output a priori (before applying the
feedback transformation) or Q posteriori (after) has
been investigated in Kantor (1986) and applied by the
authors in Calvet and Arkun (1988a). In the reactor
application here, the selection of the output will be
done according to the procedure given above.

J.-P.

418

4.2.

The formulation

of the controller

CALVET

design problem

The design problem we investigate is then the

following:
Given the bound D of the set of disturbances, and
specifying 8, construct a control law which will:
1. a-stabilize the QLS (i.e. the norm of the states
will be ultimately bounded by 6).
2. Guarantee zero steady state offset of the output
of the QLS [under ultimately time invariant
perturbations (8)].
It is also important to realize that a-stability for a
QLS will automatically guarantee stability for the
original nonlinear system in a closed contour called
a 6-contour. This contour is obtained through the
inverse transformation [X = T-(z)] of the ball B(6).
Therefore, if stability of the original nonlinear system
is addressed through its equivalent QLS, the choice of
6 should be done judiciously so that it corresponds to
a desired region of stability, the 8-contour for the
original states x [see an application in Calvet and
Arkun (1989)].
The approach we suggest is to augment the dimension of the QLS and apply the P stabilization results
given in the previous section. First, we introduce an
additional state as:

z,+,(t)

z,(t)dz.
5 10

(11)

Next, we obtain an augmented

QLS described by:

t = ;ir + Bv + c(z)d,

(12)

with i = [zl.. . . .z,, z,,,]~.

0

. . .

ERf+I,Xc+I>

0
i (jI

_ij=

0
0
(j

...
..I.
.

0
0;

and

0
0
0

and

Finally, the new control law (PI controller) can be

constructed:

v(t) = -&Z(t)

= -[K,,

,=n
=

r-1

. . . , K,, K,+,]g(t)

c
I

Kjzi(t)

-K,+,

z, (t)dT,

.I@

(13)

and Y.

ARKIJN

are, respectively, the

where (K,, . . . , K,) and K,+,
proportional and integral gains.
The theorem given for P stabilization applies to PI
stabilization as well after replacing A, B, c(z) by
1, B, c(z). For example, if the disturbance matching
condition is satisfied by the augmented system (12);
then, one will have to solve the following algebraic
Riccati equation ARE:
P;i + ;i=P

PB(2R

Z)zP

+ H/e2

= 0.

Otherwise the following Riccati equation ARE must

be solved:
Pa + ;i=P

P(2BR

5.

DESIGN

-BT

Z)P + HJc2 = 0.

PROCEDURE

In this section, we give guidelines which will ease

the search of the b-stabilizing gains. This procedure
applies for both P and PI stabilization of a QLS. It
is a graphical approach and is not analytical mainly
because a closed expression for the condition number
yp as a function of R, H and L is not available when
one solves the above algebraic Riccati equations.
5.1. Solving

ARE

and ARE

One can see that the gains of the s-stabilizing

control K = R -BTP do not depend explicitly on the
constants p and ZJintroduced in Assumption 2 (Assumptions 2 or 2) but rather on the parameters t, H
and R of the algebraic Riccati equation. Assumption
1 will determine which Riccati equation needs to be
solved. Then all the possible gains can be computed
as a function of E (parametrized by R and H) and
independently of p and p. In other words, Assumption 2 need not to be checked before computing the
gains.
If the disturbance matching condition (Assumption
1) is satisfied, then, there always exists a unique P > 0
solving the ARE for all H = H > 0, R = RT with
2R --! - Z > 0 and t > 0. Indeed, one can recognize
that in this case the Riccati equation is similar to the
one encountered in the LQR optimal control problem (Kwakemaak and Sivan, 1972). As mentioned
earlier, the matrix pair (A, B) is usually in the BCF.
As an example, for a 2-D BCF and for R = 1 and
H = Z, we can plot the gains R -BTP
as a function
of L as shown in Fig. 1. Also, in Fig. 2, we give the
gains obtained when the QLS is augmented with the
integral action. Note that we can obtain the gains for
all values of es, and they tend to infinity as L tends
to zero.
However, if the disturbance matching condition is
not satisfied, we may not be able to solve the ARE
for all the values of the parameters t, H and R.
Indeed, we can show that for a given H and R there
exists a value of e, say climbelow which ARE does not
have a positive solution P. The value of +,,, depends
on the parameters H and R. In Fig. 3, we give the

Design of P and PI stabilizingcontrollers

0;
A
0 urn

419

EPS

Fig. 1. Stabilizing gains from the ARE (for QLS

disturbancematchingcondition).

with

gains we calculated for a 2-D BCF for n = I and

R = 0.1. Also, in Fig. 4 are the gains for the augmented QLS. The parameter R = 0.1 was chosen
because it gives the lowest value of c for which ARE
has a positive solution P with N fixed to the identity
matrix (the value of R was obtained by trial and
error). In comparison with the gains obtained from
the ARE, these gains tend to infinity as t tends to cltm.
no gains can be computed.
Below Ellrn
Clearly, it is more attractive to solve the classical
algebraic Riccati equation (ARE) than the ARE.
Therefore the matching condition (Assumption 1) is
a desired property. In the case that Assumption 1 is
not satisfied one may wonder if either a similarity
transformation (change of state coordinate a = Qz)
or another suitable difleomorphism [z = T(x)]
would render Assumption 1 satisfied. However, this
is not true as one can easily show that the matching
condition Assumption
1 is independent of the

Fig. 3. Stabilizing gains from the ARE (for QLS without

disturbance matching condition).

diffeomorphism and the choice of coordinate system

in the z-domain.
5.2. Verifving Assumption 2
Assumption 2 is the most crucial assumption. In
fact, this assumption is the only one dealing with the
nonlinearities of the QLS. It quantifies in a way the
magnitude of the nonlinear state-dependent perturbation through the values of the two constants p
and p. Therefore, the challenge in our design method
is not to solve the algebraic Riccati equation (ARE
or ARE) which is usually an easy task; but rather to
find the constants p and p which are obviously not
unique and are problem dependent. In the application we will refer to an algorithm which computes
these constants.
5.3. Conservatism
In general, assuming that the bound of the disturbances D is available and the desired region of

200,

of
2

2
EL

Fig. 2. Stabilizinggains from the ARE (for augmented QLS

with disturbance matching condition).

Fig. 4. Stabilizing gains from the ARE (for augmented

QLS without disturbance matching condition).

J.-P. CALVET and Y. ARKUN

420

8l

values

Fig. 5. Graphical

procedure

to select the

least conservativegains (with disturbancematchingcondition).

stabilization (i.e. 6) is specified, the proposed method

will give higher stabilizing gains than it is necessary.
Hence, given two pairs of constants @,, p,) and
&, p2) satisfying Assumption 2, we will say that one
pair gives less conservative results, if for a given set
of parameters t, n and R, it gives smaller S-stabilization gains than the other pair. We then have the
following result that will become clearer later on. If:
a,:.,,(~,

H, R) < ap:,,,z(~ H, R),

where 6* is given by (6); then, the pair @, , p,) will

give less conservative (smaller) gains than b2, pr). In
other words (for H and R fixed) if the curve SF,,,, vs
.Eis below the curve 6,:. p2; then, the pair @, , p, ) will
be preferred. The curve 6 * vs l will have the following
shape:

If the disturbance matching condition is satisfied, the 6* curve is strictly increasing with 6.
Also as L tends to zero, S* tends to zero as well
(see the schematic plots in Fig. 5).
If the disturbance matching condition is not
satisfied; then, the S* curve has a minimum
(3E s.t. as*/&),_,=
0) and the 6 l curve goes to
infinity as c tends to tlim(see schematic plots in
Fig. 6).

5.4. Procedure
In light of the above results, we give two different
procedures depending on whether or not the

disturbance matching condition is satisfied. These

procedures help the designer to get the smallest
stabilizing gains once 6 and D are specified. The gains
obtained will guarantee that the QLS will be ultimately stable in B(8), and with no steady sate offset
for the output if the QLS is augmented.
With matching condition:
This procedure is schematically illustrated in Fig. 5
where each step number is circled.
1. Plot the gain curve (K vs C) with usually Ei = I
and R = 1.
2. Find @&, , past) so that a&(e)
is the lowest
possible (this will avoid conservatism).
3. Locate S and pick 6 * so that S r 6 * (as required
by the theorem).
4. Get E (from 6* vs e curve).
5. Get the stabilizing gains K (from K vs L curves).
One can see in Fig. 5 that for 6 given, we get smaller
gains as 6* tends to 6. Also it is now clear that if
another pair @, JJ) gives a 6 * curve above the one
depicted in Fig. 5 it will give higher gains. Hence Step
2 in the procedure is the most important step which
avoids conservatism. It is important to notice that as
6 tends to zero, then 5* must tend to zero and
henceforth L. The stabilizing gains will then all tend
to infinity. As a result, asymptotic stability of all the
states of the QLS can be guaranteed as K tends to
infinity. This important result is not true when the
disturbance matching condition is not satisfied.

Design

of P

and

PI

stabilizing

controllers

421

gains
K

Fig.

6. Graphical

procedure to select the least conservative gains (without disturbance matching

condition).

Also for P controllers only, as c increases, Ki

decreases and the amplitude of the overshoot (if it
exists) and the steady state offset will increase. This
can be seen from Fig. 1. Since the offset is related to
S, the steady state offset will decrease as e decreases
(the Kis increase). Also, the addition of integral
action in the control law will increase the values of the
gains. A comparison of Figs 1 and 2 shows that for
a given c, higher gains are obtained with the use of
integral action.
Without matching condition:
This procedure

is schematically

illustrated

in Fig. 6.

1. Plot the gain curves (K vs 6) with usually N = I

and R is tuned so that slim is the smallest

possible.
2. Find (Pbeat,~,_,) so that 6$,(s)
is the lowest
possible (thus will avoid conservatism).
3. Obtain 6 zin
as*
[from 3C s.t. X
~_~ = 0 then S&, = S*(C)].
4. Select 6* > ~5%(and 6 > 6* from the theorem).
5. Get L (from 6* vs c curve).
6. Get the stabilizing gains K (from K vs 6 curves).
Hence, for all S > 6 * z=-S tin such gains are 6 -stabilizable. Once again, when 6* tends to S, the gains will
be smaller. Also the existence of ~5% shows that 6
cannot be arbitrarily chosen as small as we wish. AS

a result asymptotic

stability of all the states of the

QLS cannot be guaranteed contrary to results with
matching conditions.
Also, if the disturbance matching condition is
satisfied but is not detected by the designer, stabihzing controller gains can still be obtained through the
procedure without the matching condition, but in
general, the results will be more conservative.
6.

STEADY

STATE

ANALYSIS

OF PI STABILIZATION

The reason we introduce integral action in the

control law is to achieve zero steady state offset of the
controlled output under ultimately time invariant
disturbances. In this section, we show that when the
disturbance matching condition is satisfied, the control law will lead to zero steady state offset, not only
for the output but also for the other states of the
QLS. Equivalently, by virtue of the state transformation [the diffeomorphism (4)], this means that UN the
states of the original nonlinear system will exhibit
zero steady state offset. We illustrate this by performing a steady state analysis. With the control law:

s
I

,=1

aa = -

Kiz,(t) - Km+,

r-l

21 (rW7,

the augmented closed loop QLS is given by

t=af+r:<Z)d,

422

J.-P.

CALVET

and Y.

ARKUN

7. APPLICATION

with

As an illustration, we first show that the standard

CSTR model perturbed by fluctuations in the feed
temperature and the feed concentration falls into the
category of a nonlinear system described by (2, 3) and
can be transformed into a QLS by feedback linearization. We will then stabilize the CSTR under the
influence of these disturbances using PI control. We
will make use of the plots of the stabilizing gains
obtained in Section 5.1 and then follow the procedures given in Section 5.4. The only knowledge
required about the set of (ultimately time invariant)
disturbance(s) will be the bounds.
7.1. Transformafion

of a CSTR

model

into a QLS

The dimensionless model of a first-order exothermic irreversible reaction taking place in a CSTR
is given by Uppal ef al. (1976) and Ray (1981):

2 &_,&-)d,=O

zp+

k -2,.

with

. ..n.

i=l
i=n

A(x)

i=p

K.zPq
1

n+

,zz+

1 +

C LiWM

i=,

zp=o.

= 0,

[ h(x)
(14)

Since the disturbances are all ultimately time invariant, all the terms df, i = 1, . . . ,p are considered
constant in the steady state analysis. Note that the
last equation is a natural consequence of the fact that
the control was designed to guarantee zero steady
state offset of the output z, , The above equations do
not simplify further. In particular z: for i = 2, . . . , n
cannot be obtained explicitly in terms of the
disturbances dis. However, if we assume that c(z)d
satisfies the disturbance matching condition with
respect to B as:
3~ (z) E R xp s.t. <(z)d

= &

(z)d.

Then, the steady state equations become:

;;i,S + & (z)d = 0,
which gives simpler relations
z

i=l,...,n,

Below, we summarize this result.

Under PI 6-stabilization and ultimately time invariant disturbances, all the states of the QLS (and
the original nonlinear system) will exhibit zero steady
state offset if the disturbance matching condition is
satisfied.

-x1

fDU(1

--z+BDa(l

-X,)eXP[&]
-x,)exp[~]-B(x,-x*~~)

where xI and x2 are the dimensionless composition

and temperature respectively. Da, B, v, fi and xzcOare
the standard dimensionless parameters (Uppal et al.,
1976) and d, and d2 are the dimensionless feed
temperature and feed composition fluctuations, respectively (Calvet and Arkun, 1988a). The control
variable u is the dimensionless temperature of the
cooling jacket unit. Note that this system is indeed
linear with respect to the control variable and the set
of disturbances; thus the CSTR model is of the form
described by (2). In the sequel, we will select the
dimensionless parameters to be: Da = 0.072, B = 8,
B = 0.3, v = 20 and x2 = 0. With these parameters,
the CSTR exhibits anignition/extinction behavior.
We will operate at the unstable operating condition
uOp= -0.2, x;p = 0.5 and x;p= 3.03 satisfying (3).
Now, consider the state and input transformations:

-xy.

z, =

T,(x)=x,

z2 =

T2(x) =f,(x)

116)

and
u = (dTzrf)

+ u(dTl>g).

(17)

where ( _, .) denotes the inner product. Note also

that this state space coordinate transformation maps
xP to the origin in the z-state space [i.e. T(xP) = 01.

Design of P and PI stabilizingcontrollers

Then under these transformations, the CSTR model
is transformed to the QLS:

423

and the algebraic Riccati equation to solve is the

ARE where we picked n = I and R = I (see gain
plots in Fig. 2).
In order to verify Assumption 2, we inspect the
inequality in the ball B (f = 0.2). Among all the

with

-1
-1

x2

-Daexp
[

where the inverse transformation x = T-(z)

is obtained through the one-to-one mapping of the state
transformation:

~
1 +x2/v

2
II

(19)

X- T- 1(Z)

possible pairs @, p) satisfying Assumption 2, the pair

giving the lowest 6* curve is:

x, = Z, + x;

(PM, C(M) = (0.45, 1.51).

II
z2
+z,+xy . (20)
v
( [
I>

x2 = v In

2,

z, + x;)p
- ~7)

[ Da(1 -z,
In

Da(1 -z,

-x9)

Remark-We
will consider X, (i.e. the dimensionless composition) to be the output of the nonlinear
system. According to the state transformation (16)
such output corresponds to z,. Hence, the required
conditions (9) and (10) from Section 4.1 are satisfied
simultaneously and PI stabilization can he applied
with z, as output. However, if we would have chosen
x2 as output for the CSTR, then the residence time
should have been the new manipulated variable rendering the nonlinear system transformable to a QLS
with an output z, corresponding to the dimensionless
temperature. Here, the flexibility to choose a new
manipulated variable as mentioned in Section 4.1
indeed exists.
7.2. PI stabilization
tions (d, = 0)

under feed

temperature perturba -

and the control law is U(Z) = -X:1:! Kizi(t)

where
(K,, K2) and K3 are, respectively, the proportional
and integral gains to be determined. In this case, the
state-dependent perturbation term satisfies the disturbance matching condition with:

(l-

(1 +&Iv>2
x) Da exp[*]]_

[K,, KZ, K,] = [4.93,3.93,2.37].

A simulation in Fig. 8 with these gains in the control

law show that as expected both states of the CSTR
exhibit zero steady offset under a step disturbance of
d,(t) = 0.3. As a performance criterion we can also
obtain the integral below the curve z, (t) = x,(t) - xyp
vs time. Indeed according to the construction of the
augmented QLS (1 I, 12) and the steady state equations (15) we have:
z? = lim C z, IT) dr = xod,

Consider that the CSTR is subject to feed temperature perturbations only. With a PI stabilizing controller we then have the augmented QLS described
by:

X(z)=

An algorithm to compute such a pair was developed

by the authors and is available in Calvet and Arkun
curves as a function of L and
(1989). a:__,,.,,
parametrized by various bounds D of the disturbance
d, are displayed in Fig. 7. According to the procedure
(with matching condition) we can now compute the
stabilizing gains of the PI controller. Let d = 0.2 and
6* = 0.199; also we consider ultimately time invariant
disturbance bounded by D = 0.3. The a-stabilizing
gains are then:

r_,(Z1

I-CC

Jo"'

JG

= 0.048

Remark-Note
that under the condition of disturbance matching condition, it is not necessary to

specify an a priori output of the nonlinear system (i.e.

here dimensionless composition or temperature).
Indeed, integral action on z, {no matter what its
relationship with the original nonlinear system may
mean) will guarantee zero steady state offset of all the
states of the QLS and henceforth of the states of the
original nonlinear system (i.e. here the CSTR).

424

J.-P. CAL~ET and Y. ARKUN

00

0.24

0.20

0.16

0.12

0.06

0.520

0.515

OH0

z
z

3.06
3.10
3.16
3.12 3.14
c!
x

0.505
k

a495

I
2

vs L parametrized by D (with disturbance

matching condition).
7.3. PI stabilization
tions (d, = 0)

under feed

composition

perturba-

Fig.

8. PI stabilization

admissible
are:

If we consider feed composition

perturbation
only,
then, with a PI stabilizing controller,
the augmented
QLS is described by:

and the control

law is again u(t)=
-%I:
K,z,(t).
One can easily see that the disturbance
matching
condition is not satisfied. Then the algebraic Riccati
equation to solve is ARE where we picked n = I and
R = 0.1 (see gain plots in Fig. 4). With the algorithm
given in Calvet and Arkun (1989) we get the pair
(p. p) satisfying
Assumption
2 in B (P = 0.2) that
gives the lowest 6* curve (for n = I and R = 0.1) vs
L. The pair is:
(P bcs,, p~brrt)= (2.4,

3D2

1
a

Time

EPS

Fig. 7. 6 * curves

I
6

1
4

(with disturbance
tion).

value of 0.006.

[K,, K,,

Then

= [2.44,

&]

matching

condi-

the stabilizing

gains

1.86,

1.21.

A simulation
in Fig. 11 with these gains implemented in the control law shows that, as expected,
only the output of the QLS i.e. z, will exhibit zero
steady state offset. However,
the other state z2 will
exhibit
a steady
state offset.
By virtue of the
diffeomorphism
T, this corresponds
to zero steady

13.22).

dFbt._
curves as a function of L and parametrized by
various bounds D of the disturbance d2 are displayed
in Fig. 9. One can see that, as a result of the absence
of disturbance matching condition,
all the 6* curves
parametrized
by D have a minimum S&(D).
Therefore, 6 cannot be as small as we may wish. For
example, a-stabilization
with 6 = 0.2 cannot be guaranteed for disturbance
having a bound larger than
0.0065. This can be seen in Fig. 10 where we plotted
S,&(D)
as a function
of D. Indeed,
such curve
gives regions where a-stabilization
can or cannot be
implemented.
According
to the procedure
(without
matching
condition),
we can now compute the stabilizing gains
of the PI controller.
Let d = 0.2 and 6 = 0.199. As
a bound
D for the disturbance
dZ we picked an

a30
00

t
0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

Fig. 9.

Ek

I
6

curves vs c parametrized
by D (without
bance matching condition).

I
7

distur-

Design of P and PI stabilizing controllers

425

0.30 -

0.25 8 -stabilization

posaibls

0.20 0.15 0.10

0.00

8-stabilization
not
possible

IILLI
0.01

0.001

D
Fig. 10. Region of d-stability (without matching condition).

Fig.

state offset for the dimensionless

composition
x,
and a steady state offset for x2 the dimensionless
temperature.

(A, B) = A controllable matrix pair (usually the

BCF)
f(x), g(x) = Smooth vector fields in R (infinitely
differentiable i.e. C)
Y(x) E WXp = Perturbation matrix associated with the
disturbances
z = T(x) = A
nonlinear
one-to-one
mapping
(diffeomorphism)
dT/ax = Jacobian matrix of T
u = S(.X, U) = A (single) input nonlinear transformation with state feedback
B(6) = Ball of radius 6
r, P = Real positive constants denoting the
radii of balls E(r), B(T)
6,6* = Real positive constants denoting the
radii of balls B(d), B(d *)
p. p = Real positive constants satisfying Assumption 2
D = Real positive number, bound of the
disturbance(s)
R, c RP = Set of disturbances
c(z) = aT/ax Y(x)
= Perturbation of the QLS
X(Z)ER rp = Row vector satisfying Assumption I
L = Real positive number (parameter of the
ARE)
R, W = Matrices of the ARE (parameters)
,I(~) = Eigenvalue of a square matrix
,I*(.), A* (~) = Maximum and minimum eigenvalues
of a positive definite matrix
v(.) = 1 *(-)/A * (.) = Condition number
P z 0 = Solution of an algebraic Riccati equation (ARE or ARE)

8.

CONCLUSION

The theory and application of the P and PI stabilization of quasi-linear systems (QLS) is presented. The
origin and practical importance
of QLSs is introduced, and the concept of ultimate boundedness
and
&-stabilization
is adapted
for
such
systems.
A
theorem and a procedure
are given to compute the
stabilizing gains in the least conservative sense for the
proposed methodology.
The results permit to stabilize the class of nonlinear
systems with bounded
disturbances
which are feedback
transformable
to
QLSs.
If the so-called
disturbance
matching
condition is satisfied, we show that PI stabilization
will
guarantee zero steady state offset, not only for the
output but also for all the other states of the QLS
(and henceforth
for the original nonlinear system).
Simulation
results on an open-loop
unstable (and
perturbed) CSTR mode1 illustrate and agree with the
theory.

NOMENCLATURE

R = Set of real numbers

R = Set of real n vectors

1. = Absolute value of elements in R

norm for x E R, IIxII =
I/x II = Euclidean

R"

Xl_, xf
m = All n x m real matrices

I E R x = Identity matrix
x E R = States of a system (usually nonlinear)
z E R = States of a system (usually linear or
quasi-linear)
y = h(x) = (Single) output of a system
d E RP = Disturbance vector
24= (Single) control input of a system
(usually nonlinear)
zi= (Single) control input of a system
(usually linear or quasi-linear)
K E R = Stabilizing gains

Il.

PI stabilization (without
condition).

disturbance

matching

Abbreviations

ARE
BCF
QLS
P
PI

=
=
=
=
=

Algebraic Riccati equation

Brunovski canonical form
Quasi-linear system
Proportional
Proportional integral

REFERENCES
Calvet J.-P. and Y. Arkun, Feedforward and feedback
linearization of nonlinear systems and its implementation
using IMC.
Znd. Engng
Chem.
Rex. 27, 1822-1831
(1988a).
Calvet J.-P. and Y. Arkun, Feedforward and feedback
linearization of nonlinear systems with disturbances. Znt.
J. Control 48, 1551~1559 (1988b).

J.-P. CALVET

426

Calvet J.-P. and Y. Arkun, Stabilization of feedback linearized nonlinear processes under bounded perturbations.
1989 ACC, Pittsburgh (1989).
Corless M. and G. Leitmann, Continuous state feedback
guaranteeing uniform untimate boundedness for uncerain
dynamic systems. IEEE
Trans. Automat.
Control
26,
1139-1144 (1981).
Gilbert E. and I. J. Ha, An approach to nonlinear feedback
control with application to robotics. IEEE Trans. System.
Man. Cyhernet.
14, 879 (1984).
Ha I. J. and E. Gilbert, Robust tracking in nonlinear
systems. IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 24, 763 (1987).
Hoo K. A. and J. C. Kantor, Linear feedback equivalent
and control of an unstable biological reactor. Chem.
Engng

Commun.

46,

385 (1987).

Hunt L. R., R. Su and G. Meyer, Multi-input nonlinear

systems. D&$erential Geometric
Control
Theory (R. W.
Brockett,. R. S. Millman, and H. J. Sussman, Eds), p. 268.
Birkhauser, Boston (1983).
Isidori A., A. J. Krener, C. Giri-Giorgi and S. Monaco,
Nonlinear decoupling via feedback: a differential geometric approach. IEEE Trans. Auromar. Control 26, 331
(1981).
Kailath T., Linear Systems. Information and System Sciences
Series. Prentice-Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey
(1980).
Kantor
J. C.,
Proc.
ACC,
Seattle, pp.
1014-1016
(1986).
Kravaris C. and C. B. Chung, Nonlinear state feedback

and Y. ARKUN
synthesis by global input/output linearization. AIChE
33, 592-603

Jl

(1987).

Kravaris C. and S. Palanki, Robust nonlinear state feedback

under structured uncertainty. AIChE JI 34, 1119-I 125
(1988a).
Kravaris C. and S. Palanki, A Lyapunov approach for
robust nonlinear state feedback synthesis. IEEE Trans.
Automat.
Control 33, 118&l 191 (1988b).
Krener A., A. Isidori and W. Respondek, Proc. 23rd IEEE
CDC. Las Vegas, pp. 126130
(1984).
Kwakemaak J. N. and R. Sivan, Linear Optimal Control
Systems.
Wiley, New York (1972).
Marino R., An example of nonlinear regulator. IEEE Trans.
Automat.
Control 29, 000 (1984).
Meyer G., R. Su and H. R. Hunt, Application of nonlinear
transformations to automatic flight control. Automatica
20,

103-107

(1984).

Ray W. H., Proc. Found. Conf Chemical Process Control,

Sea Island, Georgia (1981).
Schmitendorf W. E., Stabilizing controllers for uncertain
linear systems with additive disturbances. ht. .J. Control.
47, 85-95 (1988).
Su R., On the linear equivalents of nonlinear systems.
System Control Letrs 2, 48-52 (1982).
Tam T. J., A. K. Bejczy, A. Isidori and Y. Chen, Nonlinear
feedback in robot arm control. Proc. 23rd IEEE CDC,
Las Vegas, pp. 736751
(1984).
Uppal A., W. H. Ray and A. B. Poore, Chem. Engng Sci.
31, 205 (1976).