Impulsive observer-based control for linear systems

using irregularly sampled measurements

Yassine Khaled, Jean-Pierre Barbot, Krishna Busawon, Djamila Benmerzouk

To cite this version:

Yassine Khaled, Jean-Pierre Barbot, Krishna Busawon, Djamila Benmerzouk. Impulsive
observer-based control for linear systems using irregularly sampled measurements. IEEE
AFRICON 2013, Sep 2013, Mauritius, Mauritius. <hal-00923640>

HAL Id: hal-00923640

https://hal.inria.fr/hal-00923640
Submitted on 3 Jan 2014

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access Larchive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
destinee au depot et `a la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publies ou non,
emanant des etablissements denseignement et de
recherche francais ou etrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou prives.
 Impulsive observer-based control for linear systems
using irregularly sampled measurements
Y. Khaled1,2 , J-P. Barbot1,3 , K. Busawon4 and D. Benmerzouk2
1 ECS-Lab
ENSEA, 6 Avenue du Ponceau, 95014 Cergy-Pontoise, France
2 Department of Mathematics, Tlemcen University, Algeria
3 EPI Non-A, INRIA Lille, Nord-Europe
4 Northumbria University, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Email: krishna.busawon@unn.ac.uk

AbstractIn this paper, we consider the issue of stabilizing
a class of linear systems using irregular sampled output mea-
surements. For this purpose, we design a standard linear state
feedback controller and an impulsive observer to provide an
estimate the non-measured states, which are subsequently fed
back in the control algorithm. We consider linear systems that
can be decomposed, via a change of coordinates, into their
respective measured and unmeasured dynamics. We consider
the two cases whereby the unmeasured subspace is stable and
unstable respectively. In the case where the unmeasured subspace
is stable, we employ a standard impulsive observer coupled with a
continuous linear feedback control. Next, when the unmeasured
subspace is unstable, we employ two cascaded observers - an
impulsive and a Luenberger observer - in conjunction with a
linear feedback control. In order to prove the stability of the
overall closed-loop system we proposed a practical stability result
for a class of linear impulsive systems. Some simulation results
are presented to show the performance of the observer-based
control. Finally, some conclusions are drawn.
Index Termsobserver-based control, discrete measurement,
impulsive systems
I. I NTRODUCTION
In many practical control applications, we are faced with
the issue of controlling a continuous-time system with mea-
surements available at discrete instants of time. When faced
with such a situation, one can attempt to discretise the system
if the output is sampled fast enough; so that the discretised
differential equation describing the system gives a good rep-
resentation of the original continuous system. One can then
employ a discrete output feedback controller or a discrete
observer-based controller to control the system. However, in
the case where the measurements are irregularly spaced such
discretisation is not possible. Such is the case for chemical
processes in general, whereby the output measurements are
available in discrete time and the time intervals between the
samples are not necessarily regularly spaced or constant. In
such a case, one has to find alternative means to control these
systems.
In this paper, we propose an observer-based control design
methodology for a class of linear systems with irregularly
sampled output measurements. More precisely, we consider
the following class of systems:
{
x(t) = F x(t) + Gu(t)
(1)
y(tk ) = Hx(tk )
where x(t) Rn is the state, u(t) Rm is the input and
y(tk ) Rp is the output. The matrices F , G and H are
constant and of appropriate dimension. Moreover, the system
is assumed to be detectable and stabilizable. We assume that
there exists a linear transformation z = T x that permits to
transform system (1), into the following system:
z1 (t) = A11 z1 (t) + A12 z2 (t) + B1 u(t)
z2 (t) = A22 z2 (t) + B2 u(t) (2)
y(tk ) = z1 (tk )
where z(t) = (z1T , z2T )T with A11 Rpp , A12 Rp(np) ,
A22 R(np)(np) , B1 Rpm , B2 R(np)m and A22
Hurwitz continuous.
We consider the two cases where the matrix A22 is stable
and unstable respectively. In the case where A22 is stable, we
design an impulsive observer, which is basically a copy of
the system with an appropriate reset function. Additionally,
we employ a continuous linear feedback in order to design
an observer-based control for the system. This effectively
shows that a separation principle is possible in that case. In
the case where A22 is not stable the observer design is not
trivial. For this, we employ two cascaded observers composed
of a Luenberger and an impulsive observer. The reason for
including a Luenberger observer is to able to modify the
eigenvalues of A22 via its output correction term.
The result obtained is also valid in the case where output
sampling frequency is smaller than the Nyquist-Shannon sam-
pling frequency; i.e. in the case of sparse measurements (see
eg. [1] [2]). Effectively, this work shows that it is possible to
guaranty closed loop stability under sparse measurement (see
e.g. [3]).
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section a sta-
bility result with respect to impulsive systems is presented.This
stability result is then used in the subsequent sections to prove
the stability of the overall closed-loop system. Additional
results on different types of stability of impulsive systems can
be found in [4], [5], [6], [7] and [2]. In Section 3, an observer- 1) A22 is a continuous Hurwitz matrix; that is its eigen-
based control is proposed for the case where the unmeasured values have strictly negative real part.
subspace is stable; i.e. A22 is stable. The case where the 2) ReA11 t 2 < 1, for all t [0, max [> 0.
unmeasured subspace is unstable is considered in Section 4. Then, > 0, the state of system (3) converges to a ball of
In Section 5, an example is given in order to highlight the radius (practical stability).
efficiency of the proposed observer based control scheme.
Finally, the paper ends with some conclusions and perspectives Proof: First, the solution of (3) for t [t+
k , tk+1 ] with the
for future research work. +
initial time t0 = tk is given by
II. P RACTICAL STABILITY FOR A CLASS OF IMPULSIVE t
A11 (ttk ) +
x1 (t) = e x1 (tk ) + eA11 (t ) A12 x2 ( )d (5)
tk
SYSTEM
and
In this section, we are going to give some conditions under
x2 (t) = eA22 (ttk ) x2 (t+
k) (6)
which a class of linear impulsive systems is practically stable.
More precisely, we consider the following class of linear Replacing (6) in (5), we obtain, at t = tk+1 :
impulsive systems:
x1 (tk+1 ) = eA11 k x1 (t+ )
tk+1 k

x 1 (t) = A11 x1 (t) + A12 x2 (t); t = tk
eA11 (tk+1 ) A12 eA22 ( tk ) x2 (t+


x 2 (t) = A22 x2 (t) + k )d
(3)
x1 (t+ k ) = Rx1 (tk )
tk
+


x2 (tk ) = x2 (tk ) where k = tk+1 tk .
Consider the following Lyapunov function:
where x(t) Rn , A11 Rpp , A12 Rp(np) , A22
R(np)(np) and R Rpp . The sampling sequence tk V (x) = V1 (x1 ) + V2 (x2 )
T = {ti : i N} R. We assume that there exists max and with
min with max > min > 0 such that i > 0
2
V1 (x1 ) = xT1 x1 = x1
ti + min < ti+1 < ti + max. (4) 2
V2 (x2 ) = xT2 x2 = x2 .
The above strict inequality permits to exclude the Zeno phe-
nomena since system (3) is essentially a particular class of Starting with V2 (x2 ), we get
hybrid systems [8]. V2 (x2 (t+ +
( )
V2 (x2 (tk )) = k+1 )) V2 x2 (tk )
Additionally, we define:
V2 (x2 (tk+1 )) V2 x2 (t+
( )
= k)
x(t+
k) , lim x(tk + h) = eA22 k x2 (t+ )2 x2 (t+ 2
k )
h0
( A22 2 k ) +
x(t
k) , lim x(tk h) = x(tk ) e k
1 V (x2 (tk ))
h0

Throughout the paper, we assume that the system (3) verifies Since the matrix A22 is Hurwitz continuous, this implies that
the sufficient conditions for the existence of solution [7]. eA22 k is a discrete Hurwitz matrix and therefore
Before stating the main stability result of this section, we eA22 k 2 < 1
recall some important results and definitions. First, recall
that if A Rnn is a discrete Hurwitz matrix (that is, all Consequently,
eigenvalues are strictly inside the unit circle of the complex V2 (x2 (tk )) < 0 (7)
plane) then limk Ak = 0. Additionally, there exist at least This inequality ensures the uniform asymptotic convergence
a matrix norm , such that A < 1. of x2 to zero (uniformly with respect to x1 ).
Next, we recall that: Therefore, > 0 there exists h such that:
Definition 1. [4] The system (3) is said to be:
1) Practically stable with respect to (, ) if given (, ) k > h , x2 (tk ) < . (8)
with 0 < < , we have that x(t0 ) < implies Now, for the Lyapunov function V1 , we have
x(t) < , t > t0 for some t0 R.
2) Uniformly practically stable with respect to (, ), if 1) V1 (x1 (tk )) = V1 (x(t+ +
k+1 )) V1 (x(tk ))
holds for every t0 R. = V1 (Rx1 (tk+1 )) V1 (x1 (t+
k ))
3) Practically asymptotically stable with respect to (, ),
if 1) holds and limt x(t) = 0. By replacing the above expression of x1 (tk+1 ), we get:
V1 ReA11 k x1 2 x1 2
t
We can now state the following: +R tkk+1 eA11 (tk+1 ) A12 eA22 ( tk ) d x2 2
Theorem 1. Assume that system (3) verifies the following (ReA11 k 2 1)V1 (x1 )
t
conditions: +A12 2 x2 2 tkk+1 ReA11 (tk+1 ) 2 eA22 ( tk ) 2 d
 Since A22 is Huzwitz continuous and that from the second is practically asymptotically stable.
condition ReA11 (tk+1 ) 2 < 1 for all [tk , tk+1 [, we
have: t Proof: By setting e1 = z1 z1 , e2 = z2 z2 , we obtain:
V1 (ReA11 k 2 1)V1 (x1 ) + A12 2 x2 2 tkk+1 d ( ) ( )( )
e 1 A11 A12 e1
(ReA11 k 2 1)V1 (x1 ) + k A12 2 x2 2 =
e 2 0 A22 e2
So, from (8) we have
> 0, h > 0, k > h : x2 (tk ) < . On the other hand, by expanding the closed-loop system (12)
Now, choose > 0 and define V1,min = min V1 (x1 ). Then, we obtain
x1 = z = (A BK) z + BKe
(ReA11 k 2 1)V1 min
for all x1 (k) > and k < , we where
A12
have:
( )
A11 B1 K1 A12 B1 K2
V1 (x1 (tk )) < 0 A pp = (A BK) =
B2 K1 A22 B2 K2
( )
Owing to the fact that > 0 can be arbitrarily chosen, the B K
2 1 B K
1 2
Bpp = BK =
only constraint on k is ReA11 k 2 < 1. Consequently (7) B 2 K1 B 2 K 2
and the previous inequality imply that h such that k > h The reset function becomes:
we have V (x1 (tk ), x2 (tk )) < 0 if x1 > .
This completes the proof of Theorem 1. e1 (t+
k ) = Re1 (tk )

III. C ASE 1: STABLE UNMEASURED SUBSPACE The overall state dynamics and observation error dynamics can
Consider system (2) and assume that the matrix A22 is be written as
( ) ( )( )
Hurwitz continuous. e A 0 e
=
In a compact form system (2) is written as: z Bpp App z
{
= Az(t) + Bu(t)
z(t) with the following reset function:
(9)
y(tk ) = Cz(tk )
e1 (t+

k) e1 (tk )
e2 (t+ )
( ) ( ) [ ]
A11 A12 B1 R 0 e2 (tk )
where A = , B = and C = k
z1 (t+ ) = 0 I2np z1 (tk )

0 A22 B2 k

z2 (t+
( )
Ip 0 with Ip being the p-dimensional identity matrix. k) z2 (tk )
Remark 1: Note that the above assumption that there exists The observation error dynamics has exactly the same form
a linear transformation z = T x that permits to transform as system (3) and is independent of zi , so e is practically
system (1), into (2) is not too restrictive, because if ker{H} asymptotically stable. Now, again from the theorem 1 for all
is included on the stable subspace of F , it is always possible > 0 h > 0 such that ei (k) < . Now setting V3 (z) ,
to select a part of the output y(tk ) as the considered output, 2
z T z = z and proceeding in the same way as for the proof
in order to obtain the system (2) under the transformation of Theorem 1 , we obtain:
z = T x.
V3 (z(tk )) = V3 eApp k z(tk )
(
We design an observer for system (2) as follows: tk+1 )
App (tk+1 )
z1 (t) = A11 z1 (t) + A12 z2 (t) + B1 u(t) + e Bpp e( )d
tk



z2 (t) = A22 z2 (t) + B2 u(t) (10) V3 (x1 (tk ))
+
1 (tk ) = R
z z1 (tk ) + (Ip R)z1 (tk )

As k > h : e2 < , we have:


y(tk ) = z1 (tk )
where R Rmn is the reset matrix, such that V3 eApp k z2
tk+1
R = diag{r1 , .., rp }, with ri ] 1, 1[, for i = 1, .., p. + eApp (tk+1 ) Bpp d 2 z2
As a result, a linear observer based feedback is given by: tk
(
z1 (t)
) (ReApp k 2 1)V3 (x1 )
u(t) = K z , (K1 , K2 ) (11) tk+1
z2 (t)
+ ReApp (tk+1 ) Bpp eA22 ( tk ) 2 d x2 2
where K Rmn is chosen such that (A BK) is stable. tk
(eApp k 2 1)V3 (z(k))
tk+1
Theorem 2. Assume that there exists max and min with
+Bpp 2 eApp (tk+1 ) 2 d
max > min > 0 such that i > 0, ti + min < ti+1 < tk
ti + max. Then, the closed-loop system:
This ensures the practical stability and completes the proof of
= Az(t) BK z(t) = (A BK) z(t) + BKe(t) (12)
z(t) Theorem 2.
 IV. C ASE 2: UNSTABLE UNMEASURED SUBSPACE that for any initial condition (0) such that (0) < max ,

the original systems state z converges to z < and the
Consider again system (2) and assume that the matrix A22 2
+
is unstable. extended state at each sampling time tk converge into a set
Remark 2. As in the previous section, that there exists a B , { : < }, ifthe following conditions are verified:

linear transformation z = T x that permits to transform system A22 M 0 M
(1), into (2) is not too restrictive in this case either. This is i) the matrix 1 = 0 A11 L1 A12 is a
because it is always possible to consider only one part of the 0 L2 A22
output y as a considered output, in order to obtain the system continuous Hurwitz matrix.
(2) under the transformation z = T x. However, in some cases, ( ii) the control )matrix 2 =
A11 B1 K1 A12 B1 K2
this output restriction can destroy the system detectability and is a continuous Hurwitz
B2 K1 A22 B2 K2
then the basic assumption for considering only detectable and
matrix.
stabilizable system is violated.
The observer-based control for system (2) is quite different Proof: One can check that
to the one proposed in the previous section as far as the
observer part is concerned. In fact, we employ two cascaded e1 (t+
k ) = Re1 (tk )
observers - an impulsive and a Luenberger observer. More
2
precisely, Now, we define a Lyapunov function V1 (e1 ) , eT1 e1 = e1
, we obtain
V1 (e1 (t+ k+1 ))
z (t) = A z (t) + A z (t) + B u(t) = V1 (ReA11 k e1 (t+
tk+1 A (t )
k ) + tk e 11 k+1 A12 e2 ( )d )

1 11 1 12 2 1

z2 (t) = A22 z2 (t) + M (2 (t) z2 (t)) + B2 u(t) + +
Assuming that [tk , tk+1 [, e2 ( ) < max (this will

1 (t) = A11 1 (t) + A12 2 (t) + L1 ( z1 (t) 1 (t)) + B 1 u(t) be proved later in the proof), with the same arguments as for
2 (t) = A22 2 (t) + L2 ( Theorem 1, we have:

z1 (t) 1 (t)) + B2 u(t)

z1 (t+ z1 (tk ) + (Id R)z 1 (tk ) V1 (e1 (t+ e1 2

A11 k
) = R k+1)) Re

k
(13) t
+R tk eA11 (tk+1 ) A12 eA22 ( tk ) max d 2
k+1

where K Rmn , with R = diag{ r1 , .., rn1 } and 1 < (ReA11 k 2 )V1,max
ri < 1, for i = 1, . . . , n1 and M , L1 and L2 are matrices of t
+A12 2 max tkk+1 ReA11 (tk+1 ) 2 eA22 ( tk ) 2 d
appropriate dimensions.
As for the controller, we employ a linear control as before: with V1,max , max {V1 (e1 )}. It is always possible to
e1 =max
find R such that:
( )
z1 (t)
u(t) = K z , (K1 , K2 ) (14)
z2 (t) ( )2
V1 (x1 (t+ k+1 )) <

or (tk+1 ) < (16)
whereby the estimated state variables z1 and z2 are issued from 4
the generalized cascaded impulsive observer. Note that the above inequality is verified by R = 0 and, by
Denote , (eT1 , eT2 , T1 , T2 , z1T , z2T )T with ei = zi zi and continuity, also by a neighborhood of R = 0. Setting 2 ,
i = z . Then, one can show that: (eT2 , T1 , T2 , z1T , z2T )T and using the Lyapunov function V2 ,
(
e 1
) (
A11 A12
)(
e1
) (
0
) T2 P2 2 , with P2 a symmetric positive definite (SPD) matrix,
= + we have:
e 2 0 A22 M e2 M 2
V 2 = A2 2 + B 2 e 1 T P2 2
[ ]
and
+T2 P2 A2 2 + B 2 e1
( ) ( )( ) ( ) [ ]
1 A11 L1 C A12 1 L1 e 1
= +
2 L2 C A22 2 L2 e 1
with
Additionally, the the closed-loop system via the observer is [
1 0
]
given by: A 2 =
3 2
( ) ( )( )
z1 B 2 K 1 B 1 K2 e1
= (15) where
z2 B 2 K 1 B 2 K2 e2 (
1 K2 0 0
B
)
(
A11 B1 K1 A12 B1 K2
)(
z1
) 3 = 2 K2 0 0
+ B
B2 K1 A22 B2 K2 z2
and B 2 = [0T , LT , LT , (B1 K1 )T , (B2 K2 )T ]T . Conditions i)
1 2
We are now able to state the main result of this section: and ii) of Theorem 3 ensure that A2 is a continuous Hurwitz
Theorem 3. Assume that system (2) satisfies Assumption matrix. Consequently, there exists an SPD matrix P2 such that
2 and consider the closed-loop system (15). Then, for all AT P2 + P2 A2 = Id . Consequently,
2
max > 0 and > 0 with max > , there exist a maximum
sampling period max > 0 and at least a reset matrix R such V 2 = 2 2 + 2B2 e1 P2 2

Considering the fact that 2 and for e1 ( )2

2 4
by continuity of e1 between [tk , tk+1 ], then there exists max
such that [tk , tk + max ], we have:
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

V 2 = 2 2 + 2B2 e1 P2 2

Therefore, X2 converges to and e1 (tk ) converges to ( )2
2( 4
)2 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

and hence (tk ) converges to + and z converges to

2 4
.
2
This ends the proof of Theorem 3. 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
25 30 35 40

V. S IMULATION RESULTS
Fig. 1. System states with sampling period k = 0.4
Let us consider the following linear triangular system:


x 1 = 2x1 + x2 + 3x3 + u
x 2 = x2 + x3

(17)

x 3 = x3 u
y(tk ) = x1 (tk )
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Here, we have
( )
A11 = 2, A12 = 1 3 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
( )
1 1
A22 =
0 1
It can be seen that the matrix A22 is unstable. We are 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
25 30 35 40

therefore in the Case 2 whereby the unmeasured subspace is

unstable. The main objective is stabilise system (17) using an Fig. 2. System states with sampling period k [0.3s, 0.6s]
observer-based linear control law u = k1 x 1 k2 x
2 k3 x
3 .
Here we choose k1 = 48, k2 = 30 and k3 = 55. In
this case, all the eigenvalues will be located at 2 and 1 in respectively to the states x1 , x2 and x3 of the system. It should
the left-half complex plane. We design a cascaded observer of be noted that the coupling matrix M , plays a very important
the form (13), by choosing the parameters as follows: For the role, permitting the stabilisation of the system (17).
impulsive observer and in order to ensure the convergence of
the observer
( ( )as follows R = 0,
the)observer gains is designed VI. C ONCLUSION
5 0 6
M = , L1 = 6 and L2 = . The parameters In this paper, we have shown that it is possible to design
0 0 0
of observer control satisfy the conditions of Theorem 3, with an observer-based control for a class of linear systems using
the corresponding matrix of observer is discrete measurements with a variable sampling period. The
key idea is to employ an impulsive observer coupled with an
4 1 0 5 0 appropriate linear feedback control whenever the unmeasured
0 1 0 0 0
subspace is stable. Otherwise, one has to employ two cascaded
1 = 0 0 4 1 3 observers in conjunction with a linear feedback control when
0 0 6 1 1 the unmeasured subspace is unstable. A practical stability
0 0 0 0 1 result has been proposed to prove the stability of the closed-
and the corresponding matrix of control is loop systems. Simulation results on an academic example has
shown good performance of the observer-based control. Future
48 31 58 works will consist in extending the proposed results to some
2 = 1 1 0 classes of nonlinear systems.
30 56 48
R EFERENCES
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 shows the performance of the observer
(13) with two different periods of measure; the first k = 0.4s [1] T. Raff and F. Allgower, An impulsive observer that estimates the exact
state of a linear continuous-time system in predetermined finite time,
is fixed and the second k [0.3s, 0.6s] is variable. The initial Control and Automation, MED07, 2007.
conditions are chosen as follows: x(0) = (0.1, 0.1, 0.1), [2] G. Zheng, Y. Orlov, W. Perruquetti and J.P. Richard, Finite time observer-
z(0) = (1, 0.6, 0.5). based control of linear impulsive systems with persistently acting impact,
18th IFAC World Congress, pp.2442-2447, 2011.
Fig 3 show that with a variable sampling period k [3] E. Candes and M. B. Walkin, An introduction to compressive sampling,
[0.3s, 0.6s], the estimated states x1 , x
2 and x 3 converges IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 21-30, 2008.
 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)

Fig. 3. The error of observation with sampling period k [0.3s, 0.6s]

[4] I. Stamova, Stability analysis of impulsive functional differential equa-

tions, De Gruyter, vol. 9, 2009.
[5] W. Haddad, V. Chellaboina and S. Neresov, Impulsive and hybrid dy-
namical systems: stability, dissipativity and control, Princeton University
Press, 2006.
[6] L. Hettel, J. Daafouz, S. Tarbouriech and C. Prieur, Reset control systems:
stabilization by nearly-periodic reset, IFAC World Congress, 2011.
[7] V. Lakshimkantham, D. Bainov and P. Simeonov, Theory of impulsive
diffrential equations, World Scientific Pub Co Inc. 1989.
[8] B. Brogliato, Nonsmooth mechanics:models, dynamics and control,
Springer Verlag, Ed., London, 1999.
[9] Y. Khaled, J-P. Barbot, D. Benmerzouk and K. Busawon, A new type
of impulsive observer for hyperchaotic systems, IFAC Conference on
Analysis and Control of Chaotic Systems, CHAOS 2012, Cancun, Mexico,
2012.