Backstepping

In control theory, backstepping is a technique developed

circa 1990 by Petar V. Kokotovic and others[1][2] for designing stabilizing controls for a special class of nonlinear
dynamical systems. These systems are built from subsystems that radiate out from an irreducible subsystem that
can be stabilized using some other method. Because of
this recursive structure, the designer can start the design
process at the known-stable system and back out new
controllers that progressively stabilize each outer subsystem. The process terminates when the nal external control is reached. Hence, this process is known as
backstepping.[3]

is stabilized to the origin (i.e., x = 0 ) by some known

control ux (x) such that ux (0) = 0 . It is also assumed
that a Lyapunov function Vx for this stable subsystem is
known. That is, this x subsystem is stabilized by some
other method and backstepping extends its stability to the
z shell around it.
In systems of this strict-feedback form around a stable x
subsystem,
The backstepping-designed control input u has its
most immediate stabilizing impact on state zn .
The state zn then acts like a stabilizing control on
the state zn1 before it.

Backstepping approach

This process continues so that each state zi is stabilized by the ctitious control zi+1 .

The backstepping approach provides a recursive method

for stabilizing the origin of a system in strict-feedback
The backstepping approach determines how to stabilize
form. That is, consider a system of the form[3]
the x subsystem using z1 , and then proceeds with determining how to make the next state z2 drive z1 to the

control required to stabilize x . Hence, the process steps

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1

backward from x out of the strict-feedback form system

z1 = f1 (x, z1 ) + g1 (x, z1 )z2

until
the ultimate control u is designed.

z2 = f2 (x, z1 , z2 ) + g2 (x, z1 , z2 )z3

...

Recursive
Design

zi = fi (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi1 , zi ) + gi (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi1 , 2

zi )zi+1
for 1 i < k Control
1

..
Overview

zk1 = fk1 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk1 ) + gk1 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk1 )zk

1. It is given that the smaller (i.e., lower-order) subsys

z = f (x, z , z , . . . , z
)u
k
k
1 2
k1 , zk ) + gk (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk1 , zk tem
where
x Rn with n 1 ,

x = fx (x) + gx (x)ux (x)

z1 , z2 , . . . , zi , . . . , zk1 , zk are scalars,

is already stabilized to the origin by some

control ux (x) where ux (0) = 0 . That
is, choice of ux to stabilize this system
must occur using some other method. It
is also assumed that a Lyapunov function
Vx for this stable subsystem is known.
Backstepping provides a way to extend
the controlled stability of this subsystem
to the larger system.

u is a scalar input to the system,

fx , f1 , f2 , . . . , fi , . . . , fk1 , fk vanish at the origin
(i.e., fi (0, 0, . . . , 0) = 0 ),
g1 , g2 , . . . , gi , . . . , gk1 , gk are nonzero over the
domain of interest (i.e., gi (x, z1 , . . . , zk ) = 0 for
1 i k ).

2. A control u1 (x, z1 ) is designed so that the system

Also assume that the subsystem

x = fx (x) + gx (x)ux (x)

z1 = f1 (x, z1 ) + g1 (x, z1 )u1 (x, z1 )

1

3 INTEGRATOR BACKSTEPPING
is stabilized so that z1 follows the desired ux control. The control design is
based on the augmented Lyapunov function candidate

3 Integrator Backstepping

Before describing the backstepping procedure for general strict-feedback form dynamical systems, it is convenient to discuss the approach for a smaller class of
1
V1 (x, z1 ) = Vx (x) + (z1 ux (x))2
strict-feedback form systems. These systems connect a
2
series of integrators to the input of a system with a known
The control u1 can be picked to bound
feedback-stabilizing control law, and so the stabilizing
V 1 away from zero.
approach is known as integrator backstepping. With a
small modication, the integrator backstepping approach
3. A control u2 (x, z1 , z2 ) is designed so that the system can be extended to handle all strict-feedback form systems.
z2 = f2 (x, z1 , z2 ) + g2 (x, z1 , z2 )u2 (x, z1 , z2 )
is stabilized so that z2 follows the desired u1 control. The control design is
based on the augmented Lyapunov function candidate
1
V2 (x, z1 , z2 ) = V1 (x, z1 ) + (z2 u1 (x, z1 ))2
2
The control u2 can be picked to bound
V 2 away from zero.

3.1 Single-integrator Equilibrium

Consider the dynamical system

where x Rn and z1 is a scalar. This system is a cascade

connection of an integrator with the x subsystem (i.e., the
input u enters an integrator, and the integral z1 enters the
x subsystem).

We assume that fx (0) = 0 , and so if u1 = 0 , x = 0

4. This process continues until the actual u is known, and z1 = 0 , then
and
The real control u stabilizes zk to ctitious

x = fx (|{z}
0 ) + (gx (|{z}
0 ))(|{z}
0 ) = 0 + (gx (0))(0) = 0

control uk1 .
x

u1
The ctitious control uk1 stabilizes zk1 to
z}|{

ctitious control uk2 .

z1 = 0

(i.e., z1 =

The ctitious control uk2 stabilizes zk2 to So the origin (x, z ) = (0, 0) is an equilibrium (i.e., a
1
ctitious control uk3 .
stationary point) of the system. If the system ever reaches
the origin, it will remain there forever after.
...
The ctitious control u2 stabilizes z2 to ctitious control u1 .
The ctitious control u1 stabilizes z1 to ctitious control ux .

3.2 Single-integrator Backstepping

In this example, backstepping is used to stabilize the

The ctitious control ux stabilizes x to the ori- single-integrator system in Equation (1) around its equilibrium at the origin. To be less precise, we wish to design
gin.
a control law u1 (x, z1 ) that ensures that the states (x, z1 )
return to (0, 0) after the system is started from some arThis process is known as backstepping because it starts bitrary initial condition.
with the requirements on some internal subsystem for
stability and progressively steps back out of the system,
First, by assumption, the subsystem
maintaining stability at each step. Because
fi vanish at the origin for 0 i k ,
gi are nonzero for 1 i k ,
the given control ux has ux (0) = 0 ,
then the resulting system has an equilibrium at the origin
(i.e., where x = 0 , z1 = 0 , z2 = 0 , ..., zk1 = 0 , and
zk = 0 ) that is globally asymptotically stable.

x = F (x)

(i.e., x =

z1

where

F (x) fx (x)+gx (x)ux (x)

with ux (0) = 0 has a Lyapunov function

Vx (x) > 0 such that

Vx
V x =
(fx (x) + gx (x)ux (x)) W (x)
x

3.2

Single-integrator Backstepping
where W (x) is a positive-denite function.
That is, we assume that we have already
shown that this existing simpler x subsystem
is stable (in the sense of Lyapunov). Roughly
speaking, this notion of stability means that:

The function Vx is like a generalized energy

of the x subsystem. As the x states of the system move away from the origin, the energy
Vx (x) also grows.
By showing that over time, the energy
Vx (x(t)) decays to zero, then the x states must
decay toward x = 0 . That is, the origin x = 0
will be a stable equilibrium of the system
the x states will continuously approach the origin as time increases.
Saying that W (x) is positive denite means
that W (x) > 0 everywhere except for x = 0
, and W (0) = 0 .
The statement that V x W (x) means that
V x is bounded away from zero for all points
except where x = 0 . That is, so long as the
system is not at its equilibrium at the origin, its
energy will be decreasing.
Because the energy is always decaying, then
the system must be stable; its trajectories must
approach the origin.
Our task is to nd a control u that makes our
cascaded (x, z1 ) system also stable. So we
must nd a new Lyapunov function candidate
for this new system. That candidate will depend upon the control u , and by choosing the
control properly, we can ensure that it is decaying everywhere as well.

3
We now can change variables from (x, z1 ) to (x, e1 )
by letting e1 z1 ux (x) . So

x = (fx (x) + gx (x)ux (x)) + gx (x)e1

e 1 = u1 u x

Additionally, we let v1 u1 u x so that u1 =

v1 + u x and

x = (fx (x) + gx (x)ux (x)) + gx (x)e1

e 1 = v1

We seek to stabilize this error system by feedback through the new control v1 . By stabilizing the system at e1 = 0 , the state z1 will track
the desired control ux which will result in stabilizing the inner x subsystem.
From our existing Lyapunov function Vx , we dene
the augmented Lyapunov function candidate

1
V1 (x, e1 ) Vx (x) + e21
2
So

V x (i.e.,

Next, by adding and subtracting gx (x)ux (x) (i.e.,

we don't change the system in any way because we
make no net eect) to the x part of the larger (x, z1 )
Vx /x
system, it becomes

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1 + (gx (x)ux (x) gx (x)ux (x))

|
{z
}
0

z = u
1
1
which we can re-group to get

x (x) + gx (x)ux (x)) + gx (x) (z1 ux (x))

x = (f
{z
}
|
{z
}
|
z1 tracking error ux
F (x)

z1 = u1
x = F (x)

d Vx
dt

z }| {
e 1
z}|{ Vx
1

V1 = Vx (x)+ (2e1 e 1 ) = Vx (x)+e1 e 1 = Vx (x)+e1 v1 =

x +
2
x |{z}
(i.e., dd tx )

W (x)

z
}|
{
Vx
Vx
Vx

V1 =
(fx (x) + gx (x)ux (x)) +
gx (x)e1 +e1 v1 W (x)+
g
x
x
x
To ensure that V 1 W (x) < 0 (i.e., to ensure stability of the supersystem), we pick the
control law

v1 =
k1 > 0

Vx
gx (x) k1 e1
x

3 INTEGRATOR BACKSTEPPING

v1

3.3 Motivating Example: Two-integrator

Backstepping

z(
}|
){
V
V
x
x
V 1 = W (x)+
gx (x)e1 +e1
gx (x) k1 e1 Before discussing the recursive procedure for the general
x
x
multiple-integrator case, it is instructive to study the recursion present in the two-integrator case. That is, consider the dynamical system
e
1

where x Rn and z1 and z2 are scalars. This system

0
}|
{
z
is a cascade connection of the single-integrator system in
Vx
Vx
2
gx (x)e1 e1
gx (x)k1 e21 = WEquation
(x)k1 e(1)
W another
(x) < 0 integrator (i.e., the input u2
V 1 = W (x)+
1 with
x
x
enters through an integrator, and the output of that inteSo our candidate Lyapunov function V1 is a
true Lyapunov function, and our system is stable under this control law v1 (which corresponds the control law u1 because v1 u1
u x ). Using the variables from the original
coordinate system, the equivalent Lyapunov
function

As discussed below, this Lyapunov function

will be used again when this procedure is applied iteratively to multiple-integrator problem.

grator enters the system in Equation (1) by its u1 input).

By letting
[ ]
x
y
,
z1
[
]
fx (x) + gx (x)z1
fy (y)
,
0
[ ]
0
gy (y)
,
1
then the two-integrator system in Equation (4) becomes
the single-integrator system

Our choice of control v1 ultimately depends on all of

our original state variables. In particular, the actual By the single-integrator procedure, the control law
feedback-stabilizing control law
uy (y) u1 (x, z1 ) stabilizes the upper z2 -to- y subsystem using the Lyapunov function V1 (x, z1 ) , and so Equation (5) is a new single-integrator system that is structurally equivalent to the single-integrator system in EquaThe states x and z1 and functions fx and gx
tion (1). So a stabilizing control u2 can be found using
come from the system. The function ux comes
the same single-integrator procedure that was used to nd
from our known-stable x = F (x) subsystem.
u1 .
The gain parameter k1 > 0 aects the convergence rate or our system. Under this control
3.4 Many-integrator backstepping
law, our system is stable at the origin (x, z1 ) =
(0, 0) .
In the two-integrator case, the upper single-integrator
subsystem was stabilized yielding a new single-integrator
Recall that u1 in Equation (3) drives the input
system that can be similarly stabilized. This recursive
of an integrator that is connected to a subsysprocedure can be extended to handle any nite numtem that is feedback-stabilized by the control
ber of integrators. This claim can be formally proved
law ux . Not surprisingly, the control u1 has a
with mathematical induction. Here, a stabilized multipleu x term that will be integrated to follow the staintegrator system is built up from subsystems of alreadybilizing control law u x plus some oset. The
stabilized multiple-integrator subsystems.
other terms provide damping to remove that
oset and any other perturbation eects that
First, consider the dynamical system
would be magnied by the integrator.
So because this system is feedback stabilized by u1 (x, z1 )
and has Lyapunov function V1 (x, z1 ) with V 1 (x, z1 )
W (x) < 0 , it can be used as the upper subsystem in
another single-integrator cascade system.

x = fx (x) + gx (x)ux
that has scalar input ux and output states x =
[x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ]T Rn . Assume that

3.4

Many-integrator backstepping

fx (x) = 0 so that the zero-input (i.e., ux = 0

which is equivalent to the single-integrator sys) system is stationary at the origin x = 0 . In
tem
this case, the origin is called an equilibrium of
f1 (x1 )
g1 (x1 )
x 1

the system.

z[}|]{ z[
}|
{
z}|{

]
[ ]

The feedback control law ux (x) stabilizes the

x
fx (x) + gx (x)z1
0
=
+
z2
function Lyapunov by (
system at the equilibrium at the origin.

z1
0
1

A Lyapunov function corresponding to this z2 = u2

system is described by Vx (x) .
Using these denitions of x1 , f1 , and g1 , this
That is, if output states x are fed back to the
system can also be expressed as
input ux by the control law ux (x) , then the
{
output states (and the Lyapunov function) rex 1 = f1 (x1 ) + g1 (x1 )z2
function Lyapunov by ( V1 , by stabilized
turn to the origin after a single perturbation
z2 = u2
(e.g., after a nonzero initial condition or a sharp
disturbance). This subsystem is stabilized by
This system matches the single-integrator
feedback control law ux .
structure of Equation (1), and so the single-

Next, connect an integrator to input ux so that the

augmented system has input u1 (to the integrator)
and output states x . The resulting augmented dynamical system is

integrator backstepping procedure can be applied again. That is, if we feed back states z1 ,
z2 , and x to input u2 according to the control
law
u2 (x, z1 , z2 ) =

{
x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1
z1 = u1
This cascade system matches the form in
Equation (1), and so the single-integrator backstepping procedure leads to the stabilizing control law in Equation (3). That is, if we feed
back states z1 and x to input u1 according to
the control law

V1
u1
g1 (x1 )k2 (z2 u1 (x1 ))+
(f1 (x1 )+g1 (x1 )z2 )
x1
x1

with gain k2 > 0 , then the states z1 , z2 , and

x will return to z1 = 0 , z2 = 0 , and x = 0
after a single perturbation. This subsystem is
stabilized by feedback control law u2 , and the
corresponding Lyapunov function is
1
V2 (x, z1 , z2 ) = V1 (x1 ) + (z2 u1 (x1 ))2
2

That is, under feedback control law u2 , the

Lyapunov function V2 decays to zero as the
Vx
ux
u1 (x, z1 ) =
gx (x)k1 (z1 ux (x))+
(fx (x)+gx (x)zstates
1)
return to the origin.
x
x
with gain k1 > 0 , then the states z1 and x
will return to z1 = 0 and x = 0 after a single
perturbation. This subsystem is stabilized by
feedback control law u1 , and the corresponding Lyapunov function from Equation (2) is
1
V1 (x, z1 ) = Vx (x) + (z1 ux (x))2
2
That is, under feedback control law u1 , the
Lyapunov function V1 decays to zero as the
states return to the origin.
Connect a new integrator to input u1 so that the augmented system has input u2 and output states x . The
resulting augmented dynamical system is

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1
z1 = z2

z2 = u2

Connect an integrator to input u2 so that the augmented system has input u3 and output states x . The
resulting augmented dynamical system is

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1

z = z
1
2

=
z
2
3

z3 = u3
which can be re-grouped as the singleintegrator system

f2 (x2 )
g2 (x2 )
x 2

z
}|
{
z}|{
z}|{

x
f
(x)
+
g
(x)z
0

x
x
2

z2
z1 =
+ 0 z3

z2
0
1

z3 = u3

function Lyapunov by

GENERIC BACKSTEPPING

By the denitions of x1 , f1 , and g1 from the

previous step, this system is also represented by

has the recursive structure

{

function Lyapunov by ( Vx ,

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1

z1 = z2

f2 (x2 )
g2 (x2 )

x 2

z[}|]{ z[
}|
{ z}|{

]
[
]

z2 = z3

x 1
f1 (x1 ) + g1 (x1 )z2
0

.. ( V2 , by stabilized subsystem u2 (x2 ))

by
z3
function
Lyapunov
=
+

1
z

zi = zi+1

z3 = u3

..

Further, using these denitions of x2 , f2 , and

k2 = zk1

g2 , this system can also be expressed as

zk1 = zk

{
zk = u
x 2 = f2 (x2 ) + g2 (x2 )z3
function Lyapunov by ( V2 , by stabilized subsystem u2 (x2 ))
and can be feedback stabilized by nding
z3 = u3
the feedback-stabilizing control and Lyapunov
function for the single-integrator (x, z1 ) subSo the re-grouped system has the singlesystem
(i.e., with input z2 and output x ) and
integrator structure of Equation (1), and so the
iterating
out from that inner subsystem until
single-integrator backstepping procedure can
the
ultimate
feedback-stabilizing control u is
be applied again. That is, if we feed back states
known.
At
iteration
i , the equivalent system is
z1 , z2 , z3 , and x to input u3 according to the

control law
x i1

z }| {

x
V2
u2

u3 (x, z1 , z2 , z3 ) =
g2 (x2 )k3 (z3 u2 (x2 ))+
(f
2 (x

2 )+g2 (x2 )z3 )

gi1 (xi1 )
fi1 (xi1 )
x2
x2

z1 z

}|
z}|{

[
]{
[ ]

z2
f
(x
)
+
g
(x
)z
0

i2
i2
i2
i1
i2
with gain k3 > 0 , then the states z1 , z2 ,
+
zi
func.
. =

0
1

z3 , and x will return to z1 = 0 , z2 = 0 ,

.

z3 = 0 , and x = 0 after a single perturbation.

i2

This subsystem is stabilized by feedback con

i1

trol law u3 , and the corresponding Lyapunov

zi = ui
function is
1
V3 (x, z1 , z2 , z3 ) = V2 (x2 ) + (z3 u2 (x2 ))2
2

The corresponding feedback-stabilizing control law is

xi

That is, under feedback control law u3 , the

Lyapunov function V3 decays to zero as the
states return to the origin.
This process can continue for each integrator added
to the system, and hence any system of the form

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1

z1 = z2

z2 = z3

..

.
zi = zi+1

..

zk2 = zk1

zk1 = zk

zk = u

}|
{
z
Vi1
ui
gi1 (xi1 ) ki (zi ui1 (xi1 )) +
ui (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi ) =
xi1
xi
with gain ki > 0 . The corresponding Lyapunov function is
1
Vi (xi ) = Vi1 (xi1 ) + (zi ui1 (xi1 ))2
2
By this construction, the ultimate control
u(x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk ) = uk (xk ) (i.e., ultimate
control is found at nal iteration i = k ).

function Lyapunov by ( Vx , by stabilized subsystem ux (x))

Hence, any system in this special many-integrator strictfeedback form can be feedback stabilized using a
straightforward procedure that can even be automated
(e.g., as part of an adaptive control algorithm).

4 Generic Backstepping
Systems in the special strict-feedback form have a recursive structure similar to the many-integrator system

4.2

Many-step Procedure

structure. Likewise, they are stabilized by stabilizing the

smallest cascaded system and then backstepping to the
next cascaded system and repeating the procedure. So
it is critical to develop a single-step procedure; that procedure can be recursively applied to cover the many-step
case. Fortunately, due to the requirements on the functions in the strict-feedback form, each single-step system
can be rendered by feedback to a single-integrator system, and that single-integrator system can be stabilized
using methods discussed above.

4.1

Single-step Procedure

with gain k1 > 0 . The corresponding Lyapunov function

from Equation (2) is

Because this strict-feedback system has a feedbackstabilizing control and a corresponding Lyapunov function, it can be cascaded as part of a larger strict-feedback
system, and this procedure can be repeated to nd the
surrounding feedback-stabilizing control.

Consider the simple strict-feedback system

4.2 Many-step Procedure

where

As in many-integrator backstepping, the single-step procedure can be completed iteratively to stabilize an entire
strict-feedback system. In each step,

x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ]T Rn ,
z1 and u1 are scalars,
For all x and z1 , g1 (x, z1 ) = 0 .
Rather than designing feedback-stabilizing control u1 directly, introduce a new control ua1 (to be designed later)
and use control law

u1 (x, z1 ) =

1
(ua1 f1 (x, z1 ))
g1 (x, z1 )

1. The smallest unstabilized single-step strictfeedback system is isolated.

2. Feedback is used to convert the system into a singleintegrator system.
3. The resulting single-integrator system is stabilized.
4. The stabilized system is used as the upper system in
the next step.
That is, any strict-feedback system

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1

which is possible because g1 = 0 . So the system in

z1 = f1 (x, z1 ) + g1 (x, z1 )z2

Equation (6) is

z2 = f2 (x, z1 , z2 ) + g2 (x, z1 , z2 )z3

..

x
=
f
(x)
+
g
(x)z
x
x
1

u1 (x,z1 )
zi = fi (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi ) + gi (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi )zi+1
}|
{
z

..

(ua1 f1 (x, z1 ))
z1 = f1 (x, z1 ) + g1 (x, z1 )

g1 (x, z1 )

zk2 = fk2 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . zk2 ) + gk2 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk2 )zk1

zk1 = fk1 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . zk2 , zk1 ) + gk1 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk2 , zk

which simplies to

zk = fk (x, z1 , z2 , . . . zk1 , zk ) + gk (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk1 , zk )u

{
has the recursive structure
x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1
z1 = ua1
{

function Lyapunov

x = fx (x) + gx (x)z1

This new ua1 -to- x system matches the single-integrator

=
f
(x,
z
)
+
g
(x,
z
)z

cascade system in Equation (1). Assuming that a

1
1
1
1
1 2

feedback-stabilizing control law ux (x) and Lyapunov

=
f
(x,
z
,
z
)
+
g
(x,
z1 , z2 )z3

2
2
1 2
2

function Vx (x) for the upper subsystem is known, the

..

feedback-stabilizing control law from Equation (3) is

zi = fi (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi ) + gi (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi )zi+1

ux
Vx

1 ) .

gx (x)k1 (z1 ux (x))+

(fx (x)+g
(x)z
ua1 (x, z1 ) =

zk2 = fk2 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . zk2 ) + gk2 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk2 )zk1

x
x

k1 = fk1 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . zk2 , zk1 ) + gk1 (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk2 , zk

with gain k1 > 0 . So the nal feedback-stabilizing con-

trol law is
zk = fk (x, z1 , z2 , . . . zk1 , zk ) + gk (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk1 , zk )u

and can be feedback stabilized by nding the feedbackstabilizing control and Lyapunov function for the singleintegrator (x, z1 ) subsystem (i.e., with input z2 and output x ) and iterating out from that inner subsystem until
the ultimate feedback-stabilizing control u is known. At
iteration i , the equivalent system is

REFERENCES

[2] Lozano, R.; Brogliato, B. (1992). Adaptive control of robot manipulators with exible joints. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control 37 (2): 174181.
doi:10.1109/9.121619.
[3] Khalil, H.K. (2002). Nonlinear Systems (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-067389-7.

x i1

z }| {

fi1 (xi1 )
gi1 (xi1 )

1 z

}|
{ z[ }| ]{

[
]

z
fi2 (xi2 ) + gi2 (xi2 )zi2
0
2
zi
+
. =

g
f
(x
)

i1 (xi )
i1 i
.

zi2

zi1

zi = fi (xi ) + gi (xi )ui

func. Lyap. by ( Vi1 , by stabilized subsystem ui1 (xi1 ))

By Equation (7), the corresponding feedback-stabilizing

control law is

xi

z
}|
{
ui (x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zi ) =

1
Vi (xi ) = Vi1 (xi1 ) + (zi ui1 (xi1 ))2
2
By this construction,
the ultimate control
u(x, z1 , z2 , . . . , zk ) = uk (xk ) (i.e., ultimate control is found at nal iteration i = k ). Hence, any
strict-feedback system can be feedback stabilized using
a straightforward procedure that can even be automated
(e.g., as part of an adaptive control algorithm).

See also
Nonlinear control
Strict-feedback form
Robust control
Adaptive control

}|

1
ui1
Vi1

gi1 (xi1 ) ki (zi ui1 (xi1 )) +

(fi1 (xi1 ) + gi1 (xi1 )zi ) fi (xi1 )

gi (xi ) xi1
xi1

with gain ki > 0 . By Equation (8), the corresponding

Lyapunov function is

control stabilizing Single-integratorua i (xi )

References

[1] Kokotovic, P.V. (1992). The joy of feedback: nonlinear

and adaptive. Control Systems Magazine, IEEE 12 (3):
717. doi:10.1109/37.165507. Retrieved 2008-04-13.

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

7.1

Text

Backstepping Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backstepping?oldid=703096500 Contributors: Giftlite, Ukexpat, TedPavlic, Oleg

Alexandrov, Rjwilmsi, Bgwhite, Encyclops, SmackBot, Chris the speller, Ohconfucius, J Milburn, PKT, David Eppstein, Jiuguang Wang,
Mild Bill Hiccup, Yobot, Citation bot, J04n, FrescoBot, Citation bot 1, Jrriehl, ChrisGualtieri, NYBrook098 and Anonymous: 8

7.2

Images

7.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0