ME677c9 FeedbackLinearization T

Feedback Linearization Lecture Notes by B.
Yao
FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION
Problem Formulation
Consider the SISO nonlinear plant modeled by
( , )
( )
n
x f x u x R
y h x
= e
=
`
(F1)
where f and h are nonlinear functions. Control of a nonlinear system modeled
by (F1) is in general difficult. One idea is to use a combination of certain
nonlinear coordinate transformation:
1
2 2
( ) or ( ), z g x x g z
= = (F2)
and certain feedback linearization control law:
1
( , ) u g x v = (F3)
so that the transformed system from the new synthesis input v to the output y
becomes an LTI system. Linear control techniques can then be applied to
obtain a control input v to achieve the desired response as shown below:
Feedback controller
synthesized via
techniques for
LTI systems
Nonlinear Plant
An Equivalent LTI System
y
C
z
( )
2
g x
x
( )
, x f x u =
`
u
( )
1
, g x v
v r
Feedback controller
synthesized via
techniques for
LTI systems
Nonlinear Plant
y
C
z
( )
2
g x
x
( )
, x f x u =
`
u
( )
1
, g x v
v r

Feedback Linearization Lecture Notes by B.Yao
Linearization via Nonlinear Input Transformation

Let us consider a nonlinear system modeled by a Hammerstein model given by

| |
1 2
2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
k
k
p p p
y t G p u t G p u t G p u t
( (
= + + +

(F4)

where ( )
i
p
G p is a TF which could be unknown. In general, feedback
linearization techniques cannot be directly applied to (F4). However, for a
special class of Hammerstein model, a nonlinear input transformation can be
used to handle the nonlinearities effectively as follows.

Consider the Hammerstein model where

( ) ( ), 1,2, ,
i
p i p
G p c G p i k = = (F5)

where c
i
is a constant. From (6.1.3)

( ) ( )
2
1 2
2
1 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) , ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
k
p k
k
p k
y t G p c u t c u t c u t
G p f u t f u t c u t c u t c u t
(
= + + +

( = = + + +

(F6)

Suppose that there exists a nonlinear mapping
1
( ) g v such that

( )
1
( ) f g v v = (F7)

For example,

2
1 1
1
3
3
1
2
1 1
( ) ( ) or ( )
( ) ( )
1 1 4 1 1 4
( ) ( ) or ( )
2 2
f u u g v v g v v
f u u g v v
v v
f u u u g v g v
= = =
= =
+ + +
= + = =
(F8)

Then, the nonlinear input transformation defined by

1
( ) u g v = (F9)

will result in an LTI system given by

( ) | |
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
p p
y G p f g v G p v t ( = =

(F10)

which is linear from the new synthetic input v to the output y.

A control law can then be synthesized for the new input v to handle the model
uncertainties in ( )
p
G p effectively since control of an LTI system is well
documented. The resulting overall system is graphically shown below, where
1
f

represents an approximate inverse of the nonlinear function f in
implementation.

y
v
) (p G
p
( )
f
( )
p
G p
() f
Nonlinear Plant
u
1
() f

Feedback controller
synthesized via
techniques for
LTI systems
r
y
v
) (p G
p
) (p G
p
( )
f
( )
f
( )
p
G p
() f
Nonlinear Plant
u
1
() f

Feedback controller
synthesized via
techniques for
LTI systems
r

Fig.2 Nonlinear Input Transformation
Feedback Linearization
Example F1:
System
( )
1 2 1
2
1
x x f x
x u
y x
= +
=
=
`
`
(F11)
Coordinate Transformation
Define a new set of coordinates
| |
1 2
T
= as

1 1 1
2
2 1 2 2 1
( ) , or
( ) ( )
x x
g x
x f x x f x
=
(
=
(
+ = +

(F12)

System in New Coordinate

1 1 2
2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2
1
( ) ( ) ( )
x
x f x x u f x u f
y

= =
' ' '
= + = + = +
=
`
`
`
` `
(F13)
Feedback Linearization Control Law
Choose the control law as

( )
1 2 1 2 1
( ) ( ) ( ) u f v u v f x x f x
' '
+ = = + (F14)

From (6.12), the new system is
1 2
2
1
v
y

=
=
=
`
`
(F15)

which is a linear system. A control law can then be synthesized for v. For
example, let

2 1 1 2 1 2
, 0, 0.
c
v a a u a a = + > > (F16)

The resulting system (6.1.14) would be

| |
2 1
0 1 0
1
1 0
c
u
a a
y

( (
= +
( (

=
`
(F17)

which is a stable LTI system with a closed-loop TF

2
1 2
( ) 1
( )
( )
c
Y s
G s
U s
s a s a
= =
+ +
.

Viewing (F12) and (F16), the nonlinear feedback control law u can be
expressed in terms of original state x as

( )( )
2 1 1 1 2 1
( ) ( )
c
u a x a f x x f x u
'
= + + + (F18)

Normal Form of SISO Nonlinear Systems
System
1 1
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
, , ( ) , ( )
( )
( ) ( )
n
n n
f x g x
x f x g x u
x R f x g x
y h x
f x g x
( (
= +
( (
e = =
( (
=
( (

`
. . (F19)
Relative Degree
Roughly speaking, the relative degree r of the system (F19) is defined to be
the lowest order of the derivative of the output y that involves the control input
explicitly. To make this point clear, let us take the derivative of y:

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
h
y x dh x f x dh x g x u
x
c
= = +
c
` `
(F20)

where
1
( ) , ,
n
h h h
dh x
x x x
(
c c c
= =
(
c c c

is called the differential of h. If
( ) ( ) 0 dh x g x = , then, y
`
involves u explicitly and the relative degree of the
system would be r=1. Otherwise,
( ) ( ) ( ) 0
g
L h x dh x g x =
and we would have
( ) ( ) ( )
f
y dh x f x L h x =
`
(F21)

in which the short hand notation ( )
g
L h x is called Lie derivative of h with
respect to the vector field g or along g, and the short hand notation
f
L h is
called the Lie derivative of h with respect to the vector filed f or along f. We can
then take the derivative of y
`
to see if y
``
involves u explicitly

( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
f f
f f
y L h x x L h x f x g x u
x x
L h x f x L h x g x u
x x
c c
= = +
c c
c c
= +
c c
`` `
(F22)

Similarly, if the Lie derivative of ( )
f
L h x with respect to g is non-zero, i.e.

( )
( ) ( ) ( ) 0
g f f
L L h x L h x g x
x
c
=
c
(F23)

then, the relative degree of the system would be r=2. Otherwise, we can
continue the process until we reach a step where
( ) r
y includes u explicitly.
Mathematically, the above process can be summarized by the following formal
definition of the relative degree r.

Definition [Page 510 of REF1]: [Relative Degree]
Consider the system (F19), where :
n
f D R , :
n
g D R , and : h D R are
smooth on a domain D. The system has relative degree r on D iff
1
( ) 0, 0 2
( ) 0,
i
g f
r
g f
L L h x i r
L L h x x D
= s s
= e
(F24)

Coordinate Transformation
Let us assume that the system has a relative degree of r. Then, we can define
r new state variables
| |
1 2
T
r
r
R = e as

1
2
1 ( 1) 1
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
or ( ), ( )

( ) ( )
f f
r r r
f r f
y h x h x
L h x y L h x
x x
L h x y L h x

= =
(
(
= =
(
= + + =
(
(
= =
(

`
. .
(F25)

Since r n s , the above r new state variables cannot characterize the system
completely if r n < . So additional n-r independent new variables
| |
1 2
T
n r
n r
R q q q q

= e have to be introduced:

( ) x q = u (F26)
where
| |
1 2
( ) ( ) ( )
T
n r
(x) x x x | | |

u = are smooth functions of x. The
new set of state variables given by

( )
( )
( )
x
z T x
x
q
+
( (
= =
( (
u

(F27)

can then characterize the system completely if
1 1 1
1 2
1 2
1 1 1
1 2
1 2
n
r r r
n
n
n r n r n r
n
x x x
x x x
T
x
x x x
x x x

| | |
| | |

c c c
(
(
c c c
(
(
(
c c c
(
c c c
(
c
=
(
c c c c
(
c c c
(
(
(
( c c c
(
c c c

. . . .
. . . .
(F28)
is nonsingular on D.
Dynamics in New Coordinates
From (F19), (F25) and (F26), the system dynamics in the new coordinates can
be written as

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 2
2 3
1

, ,
, ,
r r
r z z
u
x x u u
u

o | o q | q
q q q
=
=
=
= + = +
= +
`
`
.
`
`
`
(F29)
where

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
1
1
1
1
( , )
1
( , )
( , )
( , )
, , ( )
, , ( )
( )
, ( )
( )
, ( )
r
z f
x T
r
z g f
x T
x T
u
x T
x x L h x
x x L L h x
x
f x
x
x
g x
x
q
q
q
q
o q o o
| q | |
q
q
=
=
=
=
=
cu
c
cu
c
(F30)
As seen from (F30), if ( ) x u in the coordinate transformation can be chosen
such that
( ) 0 ( ) 0,
i
g x g x i
x x
| c cu
= =
c c
(F31)
then,
( , ) 0
u
, q = (F32)

and the internal dynamics will be

( , ) q , q =
`
(F33)

which is independent of u. The transformed system thus becomes

[ ( ) ( )]
( )[ ( )], ( ) ( ) ( )
( , )

c c
c c
c
A B x u x
A B x u x x x x
y C
| o
| o o o |
q q
= + +
= + + =
`
`
(F34)
where

| |
0 1 0 0
0 0
, , 1 0 0
1 0
0 0 0 1
c c c
A B C
( (
( (
( (
= = =
( (
( (

. .
. .
(F35)
is said to be in the normal form. For SISO nonlinear systems described by
(F19), the existence of the coordination transformation (F31) to transform the
system into the normal form is always guaranteed (Theorem 13.1 of REF1).

Input-Output Feedback Linearization Control Law

Let us consider the following input-output feedback linearization control law
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
1 1
,
,
z
z
u x v v
x
o o q
| | q
= + = + (F36)

where v is a new synthesis input. Then (F29) becomes

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
| |
0 1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1
,
, ,
,
1 0 0
u
z
z
v
v
y

q
q q o q
| q
( (
( (
( (
= + ( (
( (
( (
( (

= + +
=
`
. . . . .
(F37)

Thus, if we only care about the dynamics from v to the output y, i.e., the -
dynamics, the system is an LTI system with a TF
( ) 1
( )
r
Y s
V s
s
= . A control law can
thus be easily synthesized for the new input v such that the output y tracks any
smooth desired trajectory ( )
d
y t . For example, choose v as

( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( 1)
1 1 2 1
( ) ( 1)
1 1

r r
d r d r d r d
r r
d r r
v y a y a y a y
y a e a e a e

=
=
`

`

(F38)

where
1 d d
e y y y = = is the output tracking error. Then, from (F37), we
have

( ) ( 1)
1
0
r r
r
e a e a e
+ + + = (F39)
and thus
( ) 0 as e t t (F40)
as long as
1
1
( )
r r
r
D s s a s a
= + + + is Hurwitz. In summary, a control law

given by (F36) and (F38) can be used to achieve output tracking.
Internal Dynamics and Zero Dynamics
The control law (F38) guarantees that the output tracking error e(t) converges
to zero exponentially, which in turn guarantees that is bounded since
( )
, , , 0
r
e e e
`
as t and the desired trajectory ( )
d
y t is bounded with
bounded derivatives. However, the internal dynamics described by q-dynamics
of (F37) may not be I/O stable, i.e.

( )
( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
1 1 2
( 1)
1
,
,
,
,

r
z d r d r d
u
r
z
r d
y a y a y
a y
o q
q
q q
| q

| |
+
|
= +
|

\ .
`
`
(F42)

may not be BIBO stable (q as the output and ,
d
y as inputs). Thus, an
unbounded q may result even if and ( )
d
y t are bounded. In turn, the control
input calculated by (F36) and (F38) or (F41) may become infinite and cannot
be realized in implementation. Therefore, to be able to implement the
feedback linearization control law (F41), it is also necessary to verify that the
internal dynamics (F42) is BIBO stable.

Zero Dynamics
Verification of the BIBO stability of the internal dynamics (F42) is in general
difficult. As a starting point, we should first check if certain internal dynamics
such as the zero-dynamics of the system is stable or not. Zero dynamics is
defined to be the internal dynamics of the system when the output y(t) is
constrained to zero all the time (zero output).

To obtain zero dynamics, let
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) 0
r
d d d
y t y t y t = = = =
`
and
1
( ) 0, y t = =
2
( ) 0, , y t = =
`

( 1)
( ) 0
r
r
y t

= = in (F42) (since the output y is constrained
to be zero all the time),
( )
( )
( )
( )
0,
0, 0,
0,
u
z
z
q
q q o q
| q
=
`
(F43)
or when the internal states are chosen according to (F31),
( )
0, q q =
`

which depends on q only. Stability of the zero-dynamics (F43) can then be
studied by using standard nonlinear stability theorems.

Definition [Minimum Phase Nonlinear Systems]:
The system is said to be minimum phase if the zero dynamics has an
asymptotically stable equilibrium point in the domain of interests.

Remark F1:
In general, the zero-dynamics (F43) being stable does not mean that the
internal dynamics (F42) is BIBO stable since (F42) is nonlinear.
Internal Dynamics and Zero Dynamics of LTI Systems

Consider a SISO LTI system with a TF of

1
0 1
1
1
( )
m m
m
n n
n
s s
G s
s a s a
| | |
+ + +
=
+ + +
(F44)

The statespace realization of (6.1.39) is (observable canonical form)

| |
1
2
0
1
0
1 0 0
1 zeros
0 1 0
0
0 0 1
0 0 0
1 0 0
n
n
m
a
n m
a
x x u
a
a
y x
|
|
(

(

`
(
(

(
(
)
= + (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

=
`
. . . .
,
1
1
n m
n m
n
x
x
x
x
x
+
(
(
(
(
=
(
(
(
(

.
.
(F45)

It is seen that

( ) ( )
1 1 1 2 1 1 2
1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3
1
2 3
2
1
( ) ( 1)
1
1
1
1
1

n m n m
n m n m
n m
n m n m
n m
n
y x a x x E x x
y a x x a a x x a x x
x
E x
x
x
d d
y y E x
dt dt
x
x
E x
x
E

= = + = +
= + = + + +
(
= +
(

(
(
(
(
= = +
(
(
(
(

(
(
= +
(
(

=
` `
`` ` `
.
.
`
`
.
`
1
1 0 m n m
n m
x
x u
x
|
+
(
(
+ +
(
(

.
(F46)
where
i
E are some constant matrices. Thus, the system has a relative degree
of r=n-m, which is consistent with our usual understanding of the relative
degree of a TF G(s). If we use the standard notation in the above section, then

1 1
2 1 1 2
1
( 1)
1
1
1

r
r n m n m
n m
n m
m
n
y x
y E x x
x
y E x
x
x
R
x

+
= =
= = +
(
(
= = +
(
(

(
(
= e
(
(

`
.
.
.
(F47)

To obtain the zero-dynamics, set 0 = . From (6.1.42),

1 2
0
n m
x x x

= = = = (F48)

and the input u for the zero output can be obtained from the (n-m)-th equation
of (F45) or the last equation of (F46) as

| |
1
0 0
1 1
1 0 0
n m
u x q
| |
+
= = (F49)

From (F48) and (F49), the zero-dynamics (F43) described by q is given by

| |
1 1
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
1
1 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0

0 0 1
0 0 0
m m
m
m
u
| |
q q q q
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
( (
( (
( (
( (
( (
= + = ( (
( (
( (
( (

( (
( (

(
(
(
(
(
(
=
(
(

`
. . . . . . . . . .

. . . .
q
(
(
(
(
(
(F50)

which has a characteristic equation of

1
1
0 0
0
m m
m
s s
| |
| |
+ + + =

Thus, the zero-dynamics is asymptotic stable iff the numerator of the TF G(s) is
Hurwitz, i.e., the system is strictly minimum phase, and is unstable if the TF
G(s) is non-minimum phase. Since internal dynamics for a linear system is still
linear, the asymptotic stability of zero-dynamics also implies the BIBO stability
of the internal dynamics.
Input/Output Feedback Linearization

It is seen from the above development that the zero-dynamics (F43) and the
internal dynamics (F42) depend on the choice of the output or the function h(x),
even though we have the same dynamical system characterized by the state x;
for example, for an output defined by ( )
a
y h x = , the system may have a relative
degree of
a
r while picking up another output ( )
b
y h x = may result in a relative
degree of
b
r . Thus, if we can pick up an output ( ) y h x = such that the resulting
system has a relative degree of r n = , then, there will be no internal dynamics
or zero dynamics and the feedback linearization control law (F41) can be
applied without worrying about the stability of the resulting internal dynamics.
The technique is called feedback linearization as illustrated by the following
example.

Example F2:
System

3
1 2 1
2
1
x x x u
x u
y x
= + +
`
`
,
3
2 1
( )
0
x x
f x
(
+
=
(

,
1
( )
1
g x
(
=
(

Relative Degree:
3
1 2 1
1 y x x x u r = = + + =
` `

Coordinate Transformation:

1 2
( ) 0 0 g x
x x x
| | | c c c
= =
c c c

So pick
1 2
x x | = +
Then,
1 1
1 2 2
x x
x x x
, ,
q q ,
( ( ( (
= =
( ( ( (
+

3 3
2 1
3 3
1 2 2 1
x x u u
x x x x
y
, q , ,
q q , ,
,
= + + = + +
= + = + = +
`
` ` `

Q: Can we use I/O Feedback Linearization Control Law?

3
2 1
, 0 u x x k k , = >
to obtain

, 0 k as t , , , =
`

A: No, as the zero dynamics given by

q q =
`

is unstable, which demands infinite control input u to implement control law-
- not possible in reality!

Let us try another output:
1 2 new
y x x = +

3
1 2 2 1
2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 2 1 1
3 3 3 (3 1)
new
new
y x x x x
y x x x x x x x u
= + = +

= + = + +
` ` `
`` ` `

2 r = no internal dynamics.

We can always apply the I/O Feedback Linearization Control law:

2 2
1 2 1 1 2
2
1
1
3 3 ( )
3 1
new newd new
u x x x k y y k y
x
(
=

`

to obtain:
2 1
0
new new new
y k y k y + + =
`` `

0 as
new new newd
y y y t =

Nonminimum Phase Systems

Two approaches to Nonminimum Phase Systems:

1. Redefine the output y, for example, ( )
new new
y h x = , such that
new
y still has a
relative degree of r as y, but has good internal dynamics, from which one
can apply the I/O feedback linearization control law.

2. Try to find a transformation that provides input/state linearization, i.e., find
an output ( ) y h x = such that its relative degree is n as follows.

Input/State Feedback Linearization

Conditions for r=n:

1
1
2
( )
differential of ( )
1
( ( )) 0,
( ) 0
, ( ( )) , ,
( ) 0
( ( )) 0
g
g f
g
n
n
n
g f
dh x
h x
n
g f
L h x
L L h
g
h h h
L h x g
x x x
g
L L h
L L h x
(
(
c c c
(
= =
(
(
c c c

(
=

. .
_
(F51)

The first 1 n equality conditions are equivalent to the following conditions:

( ( )) 0, 0, , 2
k
f
ad g
L h x k n = = . (F52)

where
k
f
ad g is the Lie bracket of f and
1 k
f
ad g
. The Lie bracket of two vector

field ( ) , ( )
n n
f x R g x R e e is defined by:

[ , ]( ) ( ) ( )
f
g f
ad g f g x f x g x
x x
c c
=
c c
(F53)
Notations:

0
( )
f
ad g g x =

1
[ , ]( ) , 1
k k
f f
ad g f ad g x k
= >

Note that (F52) is the same as:

2
( ) 0 , , ,
n
f f
dh x g ad g ad g
( =

(F54)

Geometric Terminology
For vector fields
1 2
( ), ( ), , ( ) on
n
k
f x f x f x D R c , let

1 2
1
( ) { ( ), ( ), , ( )}
( ) : ( ) ( ) ( ), ( ) are scalar functions

k
k
n
j j j
j
x span f x f x f x
f x R f x c x f x c x
=
A

e =
=
`
)

be the subspace of
n
R spanned by the vectors
1
( ), , ( )
k
f x f x at any fixed
x D e . The collection of all vector spaces ( ) for x x D A e is called a distribution
and referred to by:
1 2
{ , , , }
k
span f f f A =

The dimension of ( ) x A at each x D e is defined by:

1
dim( ( )) [ ( ), , ( )]
k
x rank f x f x A =

If dim( ( )) x k A = for all x D e , we say that A is a nonsingular distribution on D,
generated by
1
, , .
k
f f

A distribution is involutive if

1 2 1 2
, [ , ] g g g g eA eA eA

If A is a nonsingular distribution on D, generated by
1
, ,
k
f f , then A is
involutive if and only if

[ , ] , 1 ,
i j
f f i j k eA s s

A is said to be completely integrable if for each
o
x D e , there exists a
neighborhood of N of
o
x and n k real-valued smooth functions
1
( ), h x ,
( )
n k
h x
such that

( )
( ) 0 or 0, 1 , 1
j
i j i
h x
f x dh f i k j n k
x
c
= = s s s s
c


FROBENIUS THEOREM

A nonsingular distribution is completely integrable if and only if it is
involutive.

Using Frobenius Theorem, we can find the geometric condition for (F54) to be
true as:

THEOREM F1 [Theorem 13.2 of REF1]

For
( ) ( ) x f x g x u = +
`
,

there exists a ( ) h x whose relative degree is n (or full state feedback
linearizable) if and only if:

A. The matrix
1
( ) [ ( ), ( ), , ]
n
f f
x g x ad g x ad g
= has rank n
B. The distribution
2
{ , , , }
n
f f
span g ad g ad g
= is involutive.

Example F3:
System
3
2 1
1
( ) , ( )
1
0
x x
f x g x
(
+ (
= =
(
(

Then,
2 2
1 1
1
3 1 1 3
[ , ]
1
0 0 0
f
x x g f
ad g f g f g
x x
( (
( c c
= = = =
( (
(
c c

2
1
1 1 3
( )
1 0
x
x
(
=
(

has rank of 2 for any x that
1
1
3
x =

{ ( )} D span g x = is always involutive as
| |
, 0 , g g g = .

There exists a ( ) h x that has a relative degree of 2.

Example F4: Field-Controlled DC Motor with negligible shaft damping
System:
1 1
2 2 1 3
3 1 2
x ax u
x bx k cx x
x x x u
= +
= +
`
`
`

1
2 1 3
1 2
1
( ) , ( ) 0
0
ax
f x bx k cx x g x
x x u
( (
( (
= + =
( (
( (

where
1
: x field current

2
: x armature current

3
: x angular velocity

Case 1: Speed Control

3 1 2
y x y x x u = =
`

1 2 1 2
y x x x x u u = +
`` ` `

1 2 1 2 1 3
( ) ( ) ax u x x bx k cx x u u = + + +

2
1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2
( )
( )
x
x
ax x bx x kx cx x x u
|
o
u u u u u = + +
_

{ }
3
2
2 in : 0
o
r D x R x = = e =

I/O Linearization Law:

1 1
( )
( ) ( )
u x v y v
x x
o
| |
= + =
``

Zero Dynamics:
1
( ) ( ) ( ) 0 , ( )
( )
y t y t y t t u x
x
o
|
= = = = =
` ``

3 1
0 and 0, x x t = =
Thus, the zero-dynamics are:
2 2
x bx k = +
`

which is a stable dynamics w.r.t. the equilibrium point at
2e
k
x
b
= .
Case 2: Full-State Feedback Linearization

| |
3 1 3
2 1 2
0 0 1
, 0
0 0
f
a a
f
ad g f g g cx b cx cx
x
x x x u u u
( ( (
c
( ( (
= = = =
( ( (
c
( ( (


1
2
2 1 3 3 1
1 2 2 1
2
3
2
0 0 0 0 0
, 0 0
0 0 0
( )
( )
f f f
ax a
ad g f ad g c bx k cx x cx b cx ad g
x x x x
a
a b cx
b a x k
u u u u
u u

( ( (
( ( (
( = = +

( ( (
( ( (

(
(
= +
(
(

2
2
3 3
2 2
1
( ) 0 ( )
0 ( )
f f
a a
x g ad g ad g cx a b cx
x b a x k u u u
(
(
(
= = +
(
(

2 3
( ) ( 2 ) x c k bx x u = +
( ) x has rank 3 for
2 3
, 0
2
k
x x
b
= =
The distribution
{ }
,
f
span g ad g = is involutive as
0 0 0 1 0
( )
, 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
f
f
ad g
g ad g g c
x
u
( ( (
c
( ( (
( = = = e

( ( (
c
( ( (

Thus, the conditions of Theorem 13.2 are satisfied in the domain

3
2 3
: , 0
2
o
k
D x R x x
b

= e > >
`
)

Suppose that the control goal is to stabilize the system to the equilibrium point:
0
T
e o
k
x
b
e
(
=
(

where
o
e is the desired speed. Let us find ( ) h x that has a relative degree of 3,
i.e.,

2
( ) ( )
0 , 0 , 0
f f
L h L h
h
g g g
x x x
c c
c
= = =
c c c

with ( ) 0
e
h x = so that the I/O linearization for ( ) y h x = can be applied to
stabilize the system for zero output or at
e
x . For this purpose, note

2 3
1
0 0 ( , )
h h
g h h x x
x x
c c
= = =
c c

Then,
2 3 2 3
2 1 3 1 2
2 3
( , ) ( , )
( )
f
h x x h x x
L h bx k c x x x x
x x
u
c c
= + +
c c

Note
2 3 2 3
3 2
1 2 3
( ) ( )
( , ) ( , )
0 0 0
f f
L h L h
h x x h x x
g cx x
x x x x
u
c c
c c
= = + =
c c c c

which is satisfied if ( ) h x is chosen as

2 2
2 3 1 2 3 2
( , ) h x x c x cx c u
(
= + +

where
1 2
and c c are any constant. Let
2 2
1 2 2 3
1and ( ) ( )
e e
c c x c x u = = so that
( ) 0
e
h x = . For this ( ): h x

2 2 1 3 3 1 2
(2 )( ) (2 )
f
L h x bx k cx x cx x x u u = + +
2 2
2 ( ) x k bx u =

1
2
2 2 1 3
1 2
( )
[0 2 ( 2 ) 0]
f
f
ax
L h
L h f k bx bx k cx x
x
x x
u
u
(
c
(
= = +
(
c
(

2 2 1 3
2 ( 2 )( ) k bx bx k cx x u = +


2 2
3 2
1
( ) ( )
2 ( 2 ) 0
f f
L h L h
g cx k bx
x x
u
c c
= = =
c c
on
o
D .

Indeed, if we use the coordinate transformation:

2 2 2 2
2 3 2 3
2 2
2 2 1 3
( ) ( )
( ) 2 ( )
2 ( 2 )( )
e e
x cx x c x
z T x x k bx
k bx bx k cx x
u u
u
u
(
+
(
= =
(
(
+

then, in the new coordinates:

1 2
2 3
3 2
3
( )
f g f
z z
z z
z L h L L h u
=
= +
`
`
`

MIMO Nonlinear Systems
Consider a square system
| |
1
1
1
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) , ( ) ( ), , ( )
[ ( ), , ( )]
m
i i
i
m
T
m
x f x g x u
f x G x u G x g x g x
y h x h x
=
= +
= + =
=
`
.
(F55)
Let
:
k
r relative degree of the output ( )
k
h x
to be
( )
1
0 ( )
k
i
r
g f k
L L h x
= for some i
and
( )
( )
0, , 0 2 ( )
i
j
g k f k
L i j r L h x = s s
Define:
1
1
1
1
1 1
( ( ))
, ( ) ,
( ( ))
m
m
m
r
r
r
f
r m
r
r
f m m
m
r
d y
L h x u
dt
y R x u
L h x u
d y
dt
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
= e = =
(
(
(
(
(
(

(

. / . . (F56)

( ) ( )
r
y x J x u = + / (F57)
Let

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
, , ( ) ( )
( )
, , ( ) ( )
m
m m
m
r r
g g f f
r r
g g f m f m
L L L h L h
J x
L L L h L h

(
(
=
(
(
(

. .
(F58)

which is called the decoupling matrix, also the invertability matrix. If ( ) J x is
nonsingular in an area of interest, then, we have a linear I/O relation between
y and v when one uses the following I/O Feedback Linearization Law:

1
( ) ( ( )) u J x v x
= / (F59)

r
y v =

Internal Dynamics
Let
1
m
T k
k
r r n
=
= <

We can transform the system into a normal form as follows. Define:

1 1 1
( ), , 1
i i i
i j j
z h x z z j r
= = s s `
1 2
1 1 2 2
1 1 1
[ , , , , , , , , , ]
T
m
r m m T
r r r
z z z z z z z R = e
( ) ,
T
n r
x R ,

= u e state variables of internal dynamics
Then,

( )
1 2
1
1
( )
( , ) ( )
,
( )
( ) ( )
( , ) ( )
( , ) ( , )
i i
i k
i i
m
r r i
r f i g k f i
k
z z
x
z f x
x
x
z L h L u L h
P z G x
x
z P z u
,
,
, , ,
=
cu
+ =
cu
= +
=
c
= + +
`
.
`
`
(F60)

Note that unlike SISO case, we cannot guarantee that one can always pick up
( ) x u such that ( , ) 0 P z , = .

In order to be able to apply the I/O Feedback Control law, we have to make
sure that the resulting internal dynamics is stable in the sense that , is
bounded, which is normally difficult. So as a first cut design, let us look at the
Zero Dynamics instead:

Zero Dynamics
The control input for the zero dynamics is:

1
( ) ( ) u J x x
= / , ( , ) x x z , =

1
( ,0) ( ,0) ( ( ,0)) ( ( ,0)) P J x x , , , , ,
= +
`
/ (F61)

Dynamic Expansion
If ( ) J x is singular, we may be able to add some dynamic compensators to
extend the state to provide a nonsingular J as shown in the following example.

Example F5:

1 1
2 1
2
(cos )
(sin )
x u
x u
u
`
`
`
,
1
2
x
x x
(
(
=
(
(

,
1 1
2 2
y x
y
y x
=
(
=
(
=

Then,
1 1 1 1
2 2 1 2
(cos ) 1
(sin ) 1
y x u r
y x u r
= = =
= = =
` `
` `

cos 0
( )
sin 0
J x

(
=
(

which is singular and we cannot use the I/O feedback linearization law.

Let us try to extend system states by letting

3 1 3 1 3
, x u x u u = =
` `
=
Then,
1 3
2 3
2
3 3
(cos )
(sin )
x x
x x
u
x u
`
`
`
`
,
1 1
2 2
y x
y x
=
=

Thus,

1 1 3
(cos ) y x x = =
` `

1 3 3
(sin ) (cos ) y x x = +
` `` `

2 3 3 1
(sin ) (cos ) 2 u x u r = + =

2 3 2 3 2
(cos ) (sin ) 2 y x u u r = + =
``

and
3 2 1
3 3 2
( )
(sin ) cos
(cos ) sin
J x
x u y
x u y

( ( (
=
( ( (
+

``
``
_

Note
2 2
3 3 3
( ) (sin ) (cos ) J x x x x = =

J (x) is nonsingular for any x that
3
0 x = which indicates that we can apply the
I/O feedback control law to linearize the system since
1 2
4 . r r n + = =

2 1
3
( )
u
J x v
u
(
=
(

1 1
2 2
y v
y v
=
``
``

Remark:
Instead of synthesizing a control law for the physical input
1
u directly, the
above dynamic expansion treats its changing rate as the fictitious control
input instead. The resulting control action is thus smoother.

Q: Is it good to cancel nonlinearity?

Keep in mind that canceling all nonlinearities may not be a good idea. We
should try to preserve the good nonlinearities as illustrated below.

Example F6:
3
, 0, 0 x ax bx u a b = + > >
`

For stabilization purpose, the nonlinearity
3
bx is helpful and should not be
cancelled.

Limitations of Feedback Linearization

Aside from the need for precise knowledge of system nonlinearities and
parameters, the basic philosophy of feedback linearization that is to cancel all
the nonlinear terms of the system might not be a good idea in some
applications at all. The motivation to do so has been pure mathematically
driven; linearize the system to make it more tractable and to use the relatively
well-developed linear control theory. From a performance viewpoint, a
nonlinear term could be good or bad and the decision whether we should
use feedback to cancel a nonlinear term is, in reality, problem dependent as in
the above example.

Stabilization via Feedback Linearization

Consider the following partially feedback linearizable system:

1
( , )
, ,
( )[ ( )]
o
f
x y
A B x u x
q q q
| o
=
(
= =
(
= + +

`
`
, (F62)

where (A, B) is controllable and ( ) 0 x | = . Assume (0,0) 0,
o
f = i.e., the origin
is an equilibrium point. We want to stabilize the system around the origin.

I/O Feedback Linearization Law:

1
( ) ( ) , u x x v A Bv
v K
o |

= + = +
=
`
(F63)

where K is chosen that A BK is Hurwitz.

CL System:

( , )
( )
o
f
A Bk
q q

=
`
`
(F64)

Lemma F1 [Lemma 13.1 of REF1]:
The origin of (F64) is locally asymptotic stable if the origin of ( ,0)
o
f q q =
`

is asymptotic stable (i.e., the system is of minimum phase).

Proof of Lemma F1:
By converse Lyapunov Theorem 4.16, as the origin of zero dynamics is
asymptotic stable,
1
( ) 0 V q - > such that

( )
1
3
( )
( ,0)
o
V
f
q
q o q
q
c
s
c

where
3
o is a class function. Let 0
T
P P = > that

( ) ( )
T
P A BK A BK P I + =

Now consider
1
( , ) ( ) , 0
T
V V c P c q q = + >

which is positive definite (why?). Then,

| |
( )
1
2
1 1
( , )
2
( ,0) ( , ) ( ,0)
2
T T
o
T
o o o
T
V c
V f P P
P
V V c
f f f
P
q
q

q q q
q q

c
(
= + +

c
c c
= + +
c c
` ` `


Within a sufficient small neighborhood of the origin of ( , ) 0 q =

| |
1
( , ) ( ,0)
o o
V
f f c
q
q q
q
c
s
c

3
max
( )
2 ( )
c
V c
P
q
o q
s +
`

which is negative definite for
max
2 ( )
c
c
P
q
>

This proves that the origin of ( , ) q system (F64) is locally asymptotically
stable. #

Lemma F2 [Lemma 13.2 of REF1]

The origin is globally asymptotic stable if the system ( , )
o
f q q =
`
is
input-to-state stable.

Note:
Input-to-state stability of ( , )
o
f q q =
`
does not directly follow from globally
exponential stability of the origin of zero dynamics ( ,0)
o
f q q =
`
, unless
( , )
o
f q is globally Lipschitz in ( , ) q , which is sometimes referred to as
linear growth condition.

Example F6:
2
, v v k
q q q

= +
= =
`
`

The origin of zero dynamics
q q =
`
globally exponentially stable.
But since
2
( , )
o
f q q q = + is not globally Lipschitz, we cannot conclude
that interval dynamics is input-to-state stable. In fact, it is true that internal
dynamics is not input-to-state stable.
We can obtain the region of attraction of the above system as follows. Let
, q = , Then,
( ) ( )
2
2
(1 ) k k , q q q , , q q
= + = + = + + +
` `
`

Its origin 0 , = is locally asymptotically stable but not globally asymptotically
stable as 1 k , = + is another equilibrium point. As 0, 0 1 k ,, , < = < +
`
,
the exact region of attraction of the origin is given by
{ }
: 1 k , , < + , which
expands as k increases. In fact, by choosing k large enough, we can include
any compact set in the region of attraction. Thus, the feedback control law
v k = achieves semi-global stabilization of the original nonlinear system.

Peaking Phenomenon of Linear System and Nonlinear Growth of Internal
Dynamics

If the origin of the zero-dynamics ( ,0) f
q
q q =
`
is globally asymptotically
stable, one might think that the original system (F62) can be globally
stabilized, or at least semi-globally stabilized by designing the linear feedback
control v k, = to assign the eigenvalues of
( )
A BK far to the left in the
complex plane so that , decays to zero arbitrarily fast to make the actual
internal dynamics ( , ) f
q
q q , =
`
approaching the well-behaved zero-dynamics
( ,0) f
q
q q =
`
quickly. It may even appear that this strategy is the one used to
achieve semi-global stabilization in Example F6. Unfortunately, the following
example shows that why such strategy may fail due to the so-called peaking
phenomenon of the linear system and the possibility of finite-escape time of
the nonlinear internal dynamics.

Example F7:
System
3
2
1 2
2
1
(1 )
2
v
q , q
, ,
,
= +
`
`
`

which has a globally asymptotically stable zero dynamic of
3
1
2
q q =
`
.

I/O Feedback Control:

2 2
1 2
2 , [ , 2 ] v k k K K k k , , , = = =

2
0 1
2
A BK
k k
(
=
(

has two identical poles at
1,2
k =
( )
2
(1 )
( ,0)
(1 )
kt kt
A BK t
kt kt
kt e te
t e
k t e kt e

(
+
u = =
(

which converges to zero arbitrarily fast as k . However, notice that the
(2, 1) element of the state transient matrix contains a quadratic function of k
and it can be shown that the absolute value of this element,
2 kt
k t e
, reaches
a maximum value of
k
e
at
1
t
k
= . This means that while , can be made to
decay to zero arbitrarily fast by choosing k large, its transient behavior may
exhibit a peak of the order of k for certain initial conditions (in this case,
2
( ) t , peaks for non-zero initial condition of
1
(0)). , Such a phenomenon is
known as the peaking phenomenon. The interaction of the peaking with the
nonlinear growth of the internal dynamics could destabilize the system as
illustrated below. For example, for the initial condition of
1
(0) , (0) 1,
o
q q , = =
2
(0) 0, , = we have,
2
2 2,1
( ) ( ,0)
kt
t t k t e ,

= u =
and the internal dynamics become
2 3
1
(1 )
2
kt
k t e q q
=
`

During the peaking period, the coefficient of
3
q is positive, causing ( ) t q to
grow in a rate more than exponential. Eventually, the coefficient of
3
q will
become negative, but that may not happen soon enough due to the finite
escape time of the nonlinear internal dynamics. Indeed, the exact solution
2 2
2
2
( )
1 [ (1 ) 1] ( )
o o
kt
o
t
t kt e t
q q
q
q |
= =
+ + +

shows that if
2
1
o
q > , the above solution will have a finite escape time if k is
chosen large enough (as the denominator ( ) t | is positive at 0, (0) 1 t | = = ,
and for large enough k , ( ) t | become zero after some finite time t).

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
( ) 1 [ (1 ) 1], 2, 10
kt
o o
t t kt e k | q q
= + + + = =
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
( ) 1 [ (1 ) 1], 2, 10
kt
o o
t t kt e k | q q
= + + + = =

References
[REF1] Khalil, H. K. (2002), Nonlinear Systems, Third edition, Prentice-Hall.

ME677c9 FeedbackLinearization T

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ME677c9 FeedbackLinearization T

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Feedback Linearization Lecture Notes by B.

= + + + is Hurwitz. In summary, a control law

. The Lie bracket of two vector

S-ar putea să vă placă și