IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO.

3, MARCH 1998

III. CONCLUSION
We have presented a new type of approximate solution for nonlinear optimal control problems by making use of the concept of
pseudolinearization. This approximation is expected to be less local
than the standard linear-quadratic approximation about a single equilibrium, as is indicated by the relationship between the corresponding
control laws as well as a comparison of the corresponding closedloop stability properties. Certainly this expectation is illustrated by
our examples. Also, the available computational tools for Riccati
equations and the method for computing 8(x) via splines in [1]
indicate that in computational difficulty our approach is somewhere
between solving the linear-quadratic problem at a single equilibrium
and a direct attack on the HamiltonJacobi equation.
For simplicity we have considered only single-input systems.
Extensions to the multi-input case can be pursued without conceptual
difficulty, though the details of assumptions and notations become
unwieldy. Similarly, we have considered only the smooth (C ) case,
though it is not difficult to relax assumptions at least to a setting
consistent with C 2 solutions of the HamiltonJacobi equation.
Finally, we note that the (exact) feedback linearization transformation can be used in a similar way. The associated linear-quadratic
problem leads to an exact representation for the solution of the
HamiltonJacobi equation that reads much like Theorem 2.3 with an
even more constrained performance index. Efforts to obtain results for
more useful forms of J lead to a mild generalization of [5] involving
a specific and somewhat simple form of HamiltonJacobi equation.
These issues are discussed in [6]. Also, transformations (feedback
and coordinate change) yielding exact inputoutput linearization
and inputoutput pseudolinearization can be considered. The results
involve algebraic Riccati equations of dimension equal to the plant
relative degree. However, the form of the performance indexes
is, again, highly constrained by plant data. Furthermore, stability
hypotheses on the plant zero dynamics are required both to ensure
meaningful performance indexes and to conclude closed-loop stability
properties.

REFERENCES
[1] S. A. Bortoff, Approximate state-feedback linearization using spline
functions, in Proc. American Control Conf., Baltimore, MD, 1994, pp.
17021706.
[2] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
[3] D. L. Lukes, Optimal regulation of nonlinear dynamical systems,
SIAM J. Contr., vol. 7, pp. 75101, 1969.
[4] C. Reboulet and C. Champetier, A new method for linearizing nonlinear
systems: The pseudo-linearization, Int. J. Contr., vol. 40, pp. 631638,
1984.
[5] W. J. Rugh, System equivalence in a class of nonlinear optimal control
problems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. AC-16, pp. 189194,
1971.
[6] H. Tan and W. J. Rugh, Pseudolinearization and exact linearization
transformations in nonlinear optimal control, Dept. Electrical and
Computer Eng., Johns Hopkins Univ., Tech. Rep. JHU-95-26,1995.
Available URL http://www.ece.jhu.edu/reports/techreps/95-26.ps.
[7] J. Wang and W. J. Rugh, On the pseudo-linearization problem for
nonlinear systems, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 12, pp. 161167, 1989.
) optimal control of
[8] A. J. van der Schaft, Relations between (
a nonlinear system and its linearization, in Proc. 30th IEEE Conf.
Decision and Control, Brighton, U.K., 1991, pp. 18071808.

H1

391

A New Approach to Dynamic Feedback Linearization

Control of an Induction Motor
John Chiasson

AbstractA new approach to dynamic feedback linearization control

of an induction motor is given. Previously, it has been shown that the
dynamic model of an induction motor, consisting of speed, stator currents,
and rotor fluxes, is dynamically feedback linearizable [1]. However, the
controller and transformation were valid only as long as the motor
torque was nonzero and the methodology required switching between
two computationally complex transformations. Here it is shown that
by considering the direct-quadrature model of the induction motor, a
single dynamic feedback linearizing transformation exists and is valid
(essentially) as long as the (magnitude of the) rotor flux is nonzero.
Furthermore, the resulting control computations are well within the
capabilities of contemporary microprocessor technology.
Index TermsDynamic feedback linearization, induction motor.

I. INTRODUCTION
The work here is to consider the use of the differential-geometric
approach of dynamic feedback linearization to a nontrivial physical
system, the induction motor. It is well known that the induction motor
is not (static) feedback linearizable [6]. The interest here is to show
that input-to-state linearization can be achieved for speed control of
an induction motor, where the singularity condition is essentially that
the flux be nonzero, which is not unlike the requirements for other
methods such as inputoutput linearization.
In a series of papers by Charlet et al. [22][24] it was shown
that multi-input systems could become (static) feedback linearizable
from input to state after the addition of an integrator to one of the
inputs. That such an approach was possible with the induction motor
was considered in [1]. There, a fifth-order state-space model of the
induction motor in the so-called a-b coordinate system [16] was
considered in which the inputs consisted of the two stator voltages
uSa ; uSb , and the state variables consisted of the two stator currents
iSa ; iSb , the two rotor fluxes Ra ; Rb , and the speed !. Using this
model, it was shown that the induction motor is dynamically feedback
linearizable, that is by adding an integrator to one of the two inputs
of the induction motor, the resulting sixth-order system was then
(static) feedback linearizable [1]. However, this control structure had
drawbacks: 1) a nonsingular feedback linearizing transformation was
shown to exist only as long as the electromagnetic torque produced
by the motor was nonzero; 2) the control structure required switching
between two different transformations to avoid the singularities in the
transformations; and 3) the transformations and the required feedback
cancellations were computationally prohibitive.
The drawbacks enumerated above make the dynamic feedback
linearization approach in [1] infeasible. In this work, a single dynamic
feedback linearization transformation and controller are constructed
whose singularity is easily avoided and whose required computations
are well within the limits of current microprocessor technology. The
key to this alternative approach is to start with a model of the
induction motor in the direct-quadrature (d-q ) coordinate system
rather than in the a-b coordinates. Of particular significance is that
Manuscript received December 5, 1995; revised April 29, 1996. This work
was supported in part by the University of Pittsburgh.
The author is with ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation, Pittsburgh PA 15236
USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9286(98)01381-6.

00189286/98$10.00 1998 IEEE

392

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH 1998

the input voltages vd ; vq are obtained from the stator voltages uSa ;
uSb of the a-b coordinate system by a rotation through the angle
 = Tan01 ( Rb = Ra ). It is then shown that the addition of an
integrator added to the direct axis input results in a single feedback
linearizing transformation for speed control with the controller and
transformation being nonsingular as long as (essentially) the flux
2 + 2 is nonzero. This singularity condition
magnitude d =
Ra
Rb
is simple to avoid and is common to the standard field-oriented
controller [3], the inputoutput linearization controller [5][7], as
well as being required for controllability in the passivity-based
controllers [15][18]. The feedback cancellations required by the
dynamic feedback linearization controller are computable in real-time
using contemporary microprocessor technology.
It is also shown that if an integrator is added to the quadrature axis
input (rather than the direct axis), then the position  may be included
in the model, and the resulting seventh-order model is feedback
linearizable. However, this transformation and the corresponding
controller are nonsingular only if the electromagnetic torque  =
J d iq is nonzero which, in particular, would require there be a
nonzero load-torque on the motor in order to hold the position 
at any fixed value. Interestingly, the feedback cancellations required
are significantly less than that required when the integrator is in the
direct axis integrator.
The crucial difference in this approach from that of [1] is that the
inputs here are first put through the (nonlinear) d-q transformation,
and then an integrator is added to d axis input. It is this input
transformation that allows a simplification of the (dynamic) feedback
linearizing transformation and controller.
Before proceeding with the results, it is interesting to point out
that the use of dynamic state feedback for the induction motor was
first considered by De Luca, where full linearization of the induction
motor electrical dynamics was achievable under the assumption that
the motor speed was constant [11]. In [12], again with the speed
considered to be a slowly varying parameter, De Luca showed that
dynamic nonlinear state feedback could be used to inputoutput
linearize the induction motor. In [12] the outputs were chosen as
the flux magnitude and torque, and simulation indicated that the zero
dynamics were stable. Further interesting work along these lines is
given in [13] and [14].

II. THE DIRECT-QUADRATURE MODEL OF THE INDUCTION MOTOR

The a-b model (which is a two-phase equivalent model of threephase motor) of the induction motor is given by [3], [6], [7]

d!=dt = ( Ra iSb 0 Rb iSa ) 0 L =J

diSa =dt = 0 iSa +  Ra + np ! Rb + uSa =(LS )
diSb =dt = 0 iSb +  Rb 0 np ! Ra + uSb =(LS )
d Ra =dt = 0 Ra 0 np ! Rb + MiSa
d Rb =dt = 0 Rb + np ! Ra + MiSb
(1)
where uSa ; uSb are the stator phase voltages, iSa ; iSb are the stator
phase currents, Ra ; Rb are the rotor fluxes (rotated to the stator
frame), and ! is the rotor speed. RS is the stator phase resistance,
LS is the stator phase inductance, RR is the rotor phase resistance,
LR is the rotor phase inductance, M is the coefficient of mutual
inductance, J is the rotor moment of inertia, L is the load-torque,
 = 1 0 M 2 =LS LR is the leakage factor, TR = LR =RR is the
rotor time constant,  = 1=TR ; np is the number of pole-pairs,  =
2
LS ) +
np M=(JLR );  = M=(LS LR ); and = M 2 RR =(LR

RS =(LS ):

As pointed out in [6], the direct-quadrature (d-q ) model can be

viewed as applying the nonlinear coordinate transformation

!=!
 = Tan01 ( Rb = Ra )
id = cos()iSa + sin()iSb
iq = 0 sin()iSa + cos()iSb

d=

2 + 2
Ra
Rb

(2)

to (1) along with defining a new set of inputs

vd = + cos()uSa + sin()uSb
vq = 0 sin()uSa + cos()uSb :

(3)

This transformation of the voltages (as well as the transformation of the currents) is referred to as the direct-quadrature or d-q
transformation. In this new coordinate system, (1) becomes

d!=dt =  d iq 0 L =J
d d =dt = 0 d + Mid
did =dt = 0 id + M d =(LR LS ) + np !iq
2
+ Miq
d + vd =(LS )
diq =dt = 0 iq 0 Mnp ! d =(LR LS )
0 np !id 0 Miq id = d + vq =(LS )
d=dt = np ! + Miq = d :

(4)

A standard approach for simplifying (4) for the design of the speed
control loop is to use inner proportional plus integral (PI) current
loops to achieve current-command. That is, choose the inputs as

vd = KDP (idr 0 id ) + KDI

vq

KQP (iqr 0 iq ) + KQI

dr 0 id ) dt

(i

qr 0 iq ) dt

(i

(5)

where idr and iqr are the reference (desired) currents for id and
iq , respectively. Proper choice of the gains (specifically, high-gain
feedback) results in id ! idr and iq ! iqr fast enough that the
current dynamics can be ignored [4], [7]. That is, (4) can then be
replaced (approximated) by the following reduced-order model:

d!=dt =  d iqr 0 L =J
d d =dt = 0 d + Midr
d=dt = np ! + Miqr = d

(6)

where idr ; iqr are now the inputs.

III. DYNAMIC FEEDBACK LINEARIZING TRANSFORMATIONS
It has been pointed out in [6] that (1) is not feedback linearizable,
and therefore neither is the model (4). It is also easy to check that
the reduced-order model (6) with inputs idr ; iqr and state variables
!; d ;  is also not feedback linearizable. The concept of dynamic
feedback linearization has been proposed and developed in [22][24],
[29]. Specifically, it has been shown that for a dynamic system which
is not feedback linearizable, the addition of integrators in the inputs
can result in the higher order system being feedback linearizable.
This phenomenon occurs only in multi-input systems as a singleinput system is dynamically feedback linearizable, if and only if it is
(statically) feedback linearizable [23].
As the induction motor model is a multi-input system which is not
feedback linearizable, it is natural to ask if it is dynamically feedback
linearizable. As previously noted, the a-b model was used in [1] where
it was shown that a dynamic feedback linearizing transformation

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH 1998

exists as long at the torque  = J( Ra iSb 0 Rb iSa ) was

nonzero. The feedback structure in [1] required switching between
two computationally complex controllers to avoid singularities in
the controller. On the other hand, the torque expression in the d-q
system is simply J d iq leading one to conjecture that the dynamic
feedback linearizing transformation and controller might also be
simpler in form if developed in this coordinate system. This is
indeed shown to be the case as the resulting controller no longer
requires switching between two different transformations and the
computational requirements are significantly reduced. In addition, if
the integrator is added to the d axis, the singularity condition no
longer requires that the torque be nonzero.
In the rest of this work, it is assumed that all of the state variables
are available for feedback and all of the motor parameters including
the load-torque L are constant and known. Realistically, this is not
true since the fluxes Ra ; Rb are not usually measured nor is the
load-torque typically known. However, there are now well-known
reliable methods to estimate the fluxes [3], [19]. Furthermore, using
the estimates of the fluxes, an estimate of the torque is available
which can then be used to provide an accurate estimate of the loadtorque using observer theory (see, e.g., [8]). Finally, there are several
techniques to estimate the motor parameters. For a classical approach
(locked-rotor test, no-load test, etc.) see [20], while for some modern
approaches using least-squares methods see [9], [21].
The issue of showing a priori stability when the state variables
are not assumed known but replaced by their estimates is not
considered here. That is, it is assumed that if the fluxes are estimated,
then the estimation error is sufficiently small to be neglected. One
advantage of the passivity-based controllers proposed by Ortega and
his coworkers [15][18] is that global closed-loop stability can be
guaranteed a priori where the desired flux is used instead of the
estimated flux.
Notation: Let h(x) : <n ! < be a scalar function, then the
@h ; 1 1 1 ; @h ]: Let f (x) : <n ! <n ;
gradient is defined as dh [ @x
@x
n
n
g (x) : < ! < be vector functions and define the Lie bracket as
@f
@g
k01
n
k
[f; g ]
[f; adf g ]. Finally, let
@x g 0 @x f 2 < and adf g
the Lie derivative of the scalar function h with respect to the vector
field f be written as Lf (h) hdh; f i where h1; 1i denotes the dual
product of the covector dh and the vector f .
A. Integrator in the d Axis
Consider the addition of an integrator in the d axis of (6). That is,
let x1 = !; x2 = d ; x3 =  and x4 = idr ; dx4 =dt = v1 ; v2 = iqr
so that (6) becomes

dx1 =dt = x2 v2 0 L =J

dx2 =dt = 0x2 + M x4
dx3 =dt = np x1 + M v2 =x2
dx4 =dt = v1 :

393

The conditions for feedback linearization are well known [27], [28],
and it is straightforward to check that (7) does indeed satisfy these
conditions. The set of software programs CONDENS [25] written in
MACSYMA [26] was used to check the conditions. The Kronecker
indexes are 1 = 2; 2 = 2: Although CONDENS was unable to
construct the feedback linearizing transformation, it is straightforward
to do this (see [27] and [28]) by solving for h1 (x); h2 (x) satisfying

dhi [g1
for i = 1; 2 and
det

with

f (x) =

0x2 + M x4
np x1
0

x2
g2

M=x2
0

2 <4 :

g1

adf g2 ]
0

hdhi ; adf g2 i]

hdh1 ; adf g1 i hdh1 ; adf g2 i 6= 0:

hdh2 ; adf g1 i hdh2 ; adf g2 i

In this case, a solution set is

y1

y2

h1 (x) = x2

h2 (x) = x1 0 x22 x3 =M:

The feedback linearizing transformation is then

z1
z2
z3
z4

T1 (x) = h1 (x) = x2
= T2 (x) = Lf h1 (x) = 0x2 + M x4
2
= T3 (x) = h2 (x) = x1 0 x2 x3 =M
= T4 (x) = Lf h2 (x)
2
= 0 2x2 x3 (0x2 + M x4 ) + np x 2 x1
=

M

0 L =J

(8)

where Lf (1) denotes the Lie derivative with respect to f . In these

new coordinates, the system equations become

dz1 =dt = z2

dz2 =dt = L2f h1 (x) + v1 Lg

dz3 =dt = z4

dz4 =dt = L2f h2 (x) + v1 Lg

Lf h1 + v2 Lg Lf h1
Lf h2 + v2 Lg Lf h2

where

L2f h1 (x) = 0(0x2 + M x4 )

L2f h2 (x) = 02Mx3 x24 + 6x2 x3 x4 0 4np x1 x2 x4
2
2
2
+ 04x2 x3 + 4np x1 x 2 M + L np x 2

and

(MJ )

Lg Lf h1 = M Lg Lf h1 = 0 Lg Lf h2 = 02x2 x3
Lg Lf h2 = 02(0x2 + M x4 ) 0 2 np x32 (M ):

Application of the feedback

v1
v2
(7)

0
0
0
1

Lg Lf h1 Lg Lf h1 01
Lg Lf h2 Lg Lf h2

u1 0 L2f h1 (x)
u2 0 L2f h2 (x)

results in two decoupled second-order linear systems

dz1 =dt = z2
dz2 =dt = u1
dz3 =dt = z4
dz4 =dt = u2 :

f (x) + g1 v1 + g1 v2

0L =J

g2

hdhi ; adf g1 i

= [0

More compactly, (7) may be written as

dx
dt

adf g1

(9)

The controller is singular when

Lg Lf h1 Lg Lf h1
Lg Lf h2 Lg Lf h2
2
3
= 02M(0x2 + M x4 ) 0  np x 2 = 0:

det

Rewriting this singularity condition in the dq coordinates we have

0(2M) d

d =dt

0 2 np

d = 0:

394

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH 1998

It is easily seen to be avoided by choosing, for example, the input

u1 to regulate d to a positive constant so that d d =dt = 0. During
field-weakening [3], where d is reduced at higher speeds to avoid
voltage saturation, the condition just restricts how fast d can be
reduced, i.e.,

0d

d =dt > 0

np
2M

np
= 0 2JR
R

d:

=
=

d0

!base
d0 j!j

for j! j < !base

for j! j  !base :

Now, as

d0 !base d! > 0
2

=0

d j!j = d0 !base

dt

n2p
2JRR

2RR rated

n2

p d0 !base

= h1 (x) = x1
y2 = h2 (x) = x3 :
The feedback linearizing transformation is then

z1
z2
z3
z4

d:

B. Integrator in the q Axis

It is of interest to consider adding an integrator in the q axis of (6)
rather than the d axis. To proceed, let x1 = !; x2 = d ; x3 =  and
x4 = iqr ; dx4 =dt = v2 ; v1 = idr so that (6) becomes

dx1 =dt = x2 x4 0 L =J

dx2 =dt = 0x2 + M v1
dx3 =dt = np x1 + M x4 =x2
dx4 =dt = v2 :
More compactly, (14) may be written as

dx
dt

= f (x) + g1 v1 + g1 v2

(14)

= T1 (x) = h1 (x) = x1
= T2 (x) = Lf h1 (x) = x2 x4 0 L =J
= T3 (x) = h2 (x) = x3
= T4 (x) = Lf h2 (x) = np x1 + M x4 =x2 :

(15)

In these new coordinates, the system equations become

dz1 =dt = z2

dz2 =dt = L2f h1 (x) + v1 Lg

Lf h1 + v2 Lg Lf h1

dz4 =dt = L2f h2 (x) + v1 Lg

Lf h2 + v2 Lg Lf h2

dz3 =dt = z4

(13)

holds during field-weakening. For a 500-Hp motor with rated torque

of 2000 N-m, typical values of the parameters are np = 2; !base =
100 rads/s, RR = :2
; d0 = 7:5 Wb [30]. With these values, (13)
is d > :27 Wb. During field-weakening the flux would never get
this low as (11) would require a motor speed that is ten times greater
than the base speed.
In the case of start-up of the motor, i.e., when the flux is brought up
from zero to its nominal value, the singularity cannot be encountered
as d d =dt > 0.
Note from (8) that none of the state variables zi are linearly related
to the speed ! . Consequently, d=dt = ! is not a linear function of
the zi so that the position cannot be appended to (9) without losing
linearity of the system. That is, if d=dt = ! = x1 is appended
to (7), then it is straightforward to show that the resulting system is
not feedback linearizable. A similar situation arises in the case of a
shunt-connected dc motor [2].

0
0

y1

As d!=dt < rated =J , (12) is satisfied as long as

d>

M

Again using CONDENS [25], it is found that (14) is feedback

linearizable with Kronecker indexes 1 = 2; 2 = 2. In this case, a
solution set is easily found to be

(12)

g1

0
0 2 <4 :
g2 =
0
1

= constant, this can be rewritten as

n2 d0 !base
d!
< p
dt
2JRR d :

x2 x4 0 L =J
0x2
;
np x1 + M x4 =x2

(11)

For speeds below the base speed !base , d d =dt = 0 and (10) is
clearly satisfied. Above the base speed, (10) becomes

d d
dt

f (x) =

(10)

However, this singularity is not encountered in the normal operation

of a typical motor. For example, let d be specified by the standard
field-weakening reference as

with

where

L2f h1 (x) = 0x2 x4

L2f h2 (x) = np x2 x4 + 2 M (x4 =x2 ) 0 np L =J
and

Lg Lf h1 = M x4 ; Lg Lf h1 = x2
Lg Lf h2 = 02 M 2 x4 x22 ; Lg Lf h2 = M=x2 :
Application of the feedback

v1
v2

01
= LLgg LLff hh12 LLgg LLff hh12

u1 0 L2f h1 (x)
u2 0 L2f h2 (x)

results in two decoupled second-order systems as in the d axis case.

This controller is singular when

det LLgg LLff hh12 LLgg LLff hh12 = 22 M 2 (x4 =x2 ) = 0:
This singularity condition is comparable to the condition that the
torque  = J d iq = Jx2 x4 6= 0 given in [1]. However, in
contrast to [1], the approach here requires only a single transformation
and controller with relatively little feedback computation. The significant drawback here is the requirement that the quadrature current be
nonzero ( d > 0 is straightforward to maintain and is common to
other controllers [7], [3], [5], [6]). Consequently, to use this controller
would require switching to another control strategy when it is desired
to change the sign of the torque.
By appending d=dt = ! = x1 to (14), it is straightforward to
check that the fifth-order system is feedback linearizable. In fact,
adding the state variable z0 =  to the transformation (15) gives
a feedback linearizing controller for position control. However, to
avoid the singularity of the controller, it is still required that iq 6= 0.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH 1998

C. Dynamic Feedback Linearization of the Full-Order d-q Model

The dynamic feedback linearization of the full-order d-q model
is similar to the reduced-order cases presented. Consequently, the
results are just summarized.
1) Integrator in the d Axis: Letting x1 = !; x2 = d ; x3 =
id ; x4 = iq ; x5 = ; x6 = vd ; dx6 =dt = u1 ; u2 = vq in (4) results in
a sixth-order system which is feedback linearizable. The Kronecker
indexes are 1 = 3; 2 = 3 and the output maps are the same as in
the reduced-order case, that is

y1

y2

h1 (x) = x2

h2 (x) = x1 0 x22 x5 =M:

The feedback linearizing transformation is then z = T (x) =

2
T : <6 !
2
(h1 (x); Lf h1 (x); Lf h1 (x); h2 (x); Lf h2 (x); Lf h2 (x))
6
< , and the controller is singular when 02M(0x2 + M x4 ) 0
2 np x32 = 0 as in the reduced-order case.
2) Integrator in the q Axis: Letting x1 = !; x2 = d ; x3 =
id ; x4 = iq ; x5 = ; x6 = vq ; dx6 =dt = u2 ; u1 = vd in (4) results in
a sixth-order system which is feedback linearizable. The Kronecker
indexes are 1 = 3; 2 = 3 and the output maps are the same as in
the reduced-order case; that is

y1

h1 (x) = x1

y2

h2 (x) = x5 :

The feedback linearizing transformation is then z = T (x) =

2
2
T : <6 !
(h1 (x); Lf h1 (x); Lf h1 (x); h2 (x); Lf h2 (x); Lf h2 (x))
<6 and the controller is singular when 22 M 2 (x4=x2 ) = 0 as
in the reduced-order case. Finally, as x1 = ! , one can define x0 = 
and append dx0 =dt = ! = x1 to the system resulting in a seventhorder system which is feedback linearizable with the same singularity
condition.
IV. SUMMARY

AND

395

can be easily avoided in any application as well as having minimal

computational requirements. In this regard, it has recently been shown
by Martin and Rouchon [32] that the dynamic feedback linearizability
of the induction motor is simply a result of the system being flat [31]
with the feedback transformation in the q axis shown above equivalent
to choosing  and the slip  0 np ! as the flat outputs. Consequently,
it now seems that choosing the transformation to avoid singularity
problems really comes down to choosing the right outputs rather
than inputs and state variables!
Finally, it should be noted that there are passivity-based controllers
that are free of singularities [15][17]. However, the requirement that
the flux be nonzero to avoid a singularity is not very constraining as
this is a basic requirement for the motor to produce torque, that is,
to make it a controllable system.
APPENDIX A
DYNAMIC FEEDBACK LINEARIZATION OF THE
a-b REDUCED-ORDER INDUCTION MOTOR MODEL
In [1], the dynamic feedback linearization was carried out using
the a-b model in voltage-command mode, that is with (1). In order
to have a comparison with the reduced-order (current-command) d-q
model (6) used in this paper, a reduced-order (current-command) a-b
model is briefly considered here.
With proper choice of the gains, application of the PI current
controllers

uSa

KAP (iSar 0 iSa ) + KAI

uSb

KBP (iSbr 0 iSb ) + KBI

(iSar

0 iSa ) dt

(iSbr

0 iSb ) dt

(16)

to (1) forces iSa ! iSar ; iSb ! iSbr sufficiently fast that the
following current-command model:

d!=dt = ( Ra iSbr 0 Rb iSar ) 0 L =J

d Ra =dt = 0 Ra 0 np ! Rb + M iSar
d Rb =dt = 0 Rb + np ! Ra + M iSbr

CONCLUSION

In regards to speed control of an induction motor, it has been shown

that, by the addition of an integrator in d axis, dynamic feedback
linearization is a feasible option. In particular, a single controller and
transformation exist with their singularities avoided by essentially
requiring that the magnitude of the flux be bounded above zero.
Furthermore, both the transformation and controller computations are
within the capabilities of current microprocessor technology.
It was also shown that if an integrator is added to the q axis
rather than the d axis, the induction motor is (dynamically) feedback
linearizable even with position included in the model. The transformation and required feedback cancellations are significantly simpler
than their d axis counterparts. However, the controller is singular
when the quadrature current iq = 0 (implying the motor torque is
zero) which limits its use in practice.
An interesting observation can be made when comparing this
approach to dynamic feedback linearization of the induction motor to
that of the approach given in [1]. Specifically, in the present work, the
inputs of the a-b model were first put through a nonlinear transformation (rotated through the angle  by a cosinesine transformation),
and then an integrator was added to the d axis input. In [1], however,
the integrator was added directly to an input of the a-b model. This
simple difference led to the present controller not only being greatly
simplified in terms of computations, but having a singularity condition
which can be easily avoided in practice. It is well known that feedback
linearizing transformations are not unique, nor, for that matter, are
dynamic feedback linearizing transformations. As a consequence,
interesting theoretical issues arise in characterizing/determining the
classes of both input and state transformations so that one (or more)
can be found that have either no singularities or singularities that

(17)

can be used to design the speed control loop.

Remark: The use of (17) relies of course on how well the current
controllers (16) work. In this case, the currents iSa ; iSb can vary
at quite high frequencies, making it difficult for the controllers (16)
to track them. For example, with a machine having three pole-pairs
(np = 3) and running at a constant speed of (say) 3000 rpm, the
currents are required to oscillate at 150 Hz. In contrast, if the motor
is going at any constant speed, the currents id ; iq must be constant,
which is quite easy for the controller (5) to enforce.
System (17) is not feedback linearizable. Letting x1 = !; x2 =
Ra ; x3 = Rb ; x4 = iSar ; dx4 =dt = v1 ; iSbr = v2 , (17) becomes

dx
dt
where

f (x) =

f (x) + g1 v1 + g1 v2

0x3 x4 0 L =J
M x4 0 np x1 x3 0 x2
;
np x1 x2 0 x3
0

x2
g2

M

g1

0
0
0
1

2 <4 :

Again using CONDENS [25], it is found that this system is

feedback linearizable with Kronecker indexes 1 = 2; 2 = 2. The

396

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH 1998

feedback linearizing transformation is then

z1
z2
z3
z4

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

T1 (x) = h1 (x) = x2
= T2 (x) = Lf h1 (x) = M x4 0 np x1 x3 0 x2
= T3 (x) = h2 (x) = x1 0 x2 x3 =(M )
= T4 (x) = Lf h2 (x) = 02x3 x4 + 2x2 x3 =M
2
2
+ np x1 x3 0 x2 (M ) 0 L =J:
=

The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments and Prof. A. De Luca for making reprints of his
work available to the author.
REFERENCES
(18)

In these new coordinates, the system equations become

dz1
dt
dz2
dt
dz3
dt
dz4
dt

= z2
=

L2f h1 (x) + v1 Lg Lf h1 + v2 Lg Lf h1

= z4
=

L2f h2 (x) + v1 Lg Lf h2 + v2 Lg Lf h2

(19)

where

L2f h1 (x) = npx23 x4 0 2 M x4 + 2np x1 x3 0 n2p x21 x2 + 2 x2

L

+ (L =J )np x3
2
2
f h2 (x) =  np x3 x4 x3
2
4np x1 x3

0
0

0 x22

(M )

0 M + 4x3 (x4 0 x2 =M )
0x4 + x1 x3 np =(M ))
0 (L =J )(np=M ) x23 0 x22
x22

+ 4np x1 x2 (

and

Lg Lf h1 = M Lg Lf h1 = 0np x2 x3 0 M np x1
Lg Lf h2 = 02x3
Lg Lf h2 = 02M x4 + 2npx1 x3 + 2x2
2
2
2
+  np x2 x3 0 x2 (M ):
The singularity condition is
det

Lg Lf h1 Lg Lf h1
Lg Lf h2 Lg Lf h2
2 2
2
2
2
2
= 02 M x4 0  np x2 x2 + x3 + 2 Mx2
2 2
2
2
2
2
= 02 M iSa 0  np Ra Ra + Rb + 2 M
= 0:

Ra
(20)

Condition (20) does not lend itself to any kind of simple characterization that would give insight into avoiding it. However, if
an integrator is added to the input iSbr (rather than iSar ), that is,
x1 = !; x2 = Ra ; x3 = Rb ; x4 = iSbr ; dx4 =dt = v2 ; iSar = v1 ,
then a transformation analogous to (18) and a system analogous to
(19) results with the corresponding singularity condition being

022 M 2 iSb 0 2 np
Multiplying (20) by
2

Rb

Ra + Rb

Rb and (21) by

+ 2

M Rb

= 0:

(21)

Ra results in

M 2 ( Ra iSb 0 Rb iSa ) = 0:

That is, a necessary condition for both controllers to be simultaneously singular is that the motor torque be zero. Thus, as long as the
motor torque is not zero, one of the two transformations is valid.
As in [1], this would still require switching between two relatively
complex controllers and, of course, would not provide control with
zero torque. Upon comparison with the d axis controller, it is seen
that this controller is overly complicated and restrictive.

[1] J. Chiasson, Dynamic feedback linearization of the induction motor,

IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 38, pp. 15881594, Oct. 1993.
[2] J. Chiasson and M. Bodson, Nonlinear control of a shunt DC motor,
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 38, pp. 16621665, Nov. 1993.
[3] W. Leonhard, Control of Electrical Drives. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1990.
[4] R. Lessmeier, W. Shumacher, and W. Leonhard, Microprocessorcontrolled AC drives with synchronous or induction motors: Which is
preferable?, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. IA-22, Sept./Oct. 1986.
[5] Z. Krzeminski, Nonlinear control of the induction motor, in Proc. 10th
IFAC World Congr., Munich, Germany, 1987, pp. 349354.
[6] R. Marino, S. Peresada, and P. Valigi, Adaptive input-output linearizing
control of induction motors, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 38, Feb.
1993.
[7] M. Bodson, J. Chiasson, and R. Novotnak, High-performance induction
motor control via input-output linearization, IEEE Contr. Syst., vol. 14,
pp. 2533, Aug. 1994.
, Nonlinear speed observer for high-performance induction mo[8]
tor control, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 42, pp. 337342, Aug.
1995.
[9] J. Stephan, M. Bodson, and J. Chiasson, Real-time estimation of
induction motor parameters, IEEE Trans. Ind. Applicat., vol. 30, pp.
746759, May/June 1994.
[10] M. Bodson, J. Chiasson, and R. Novotnak, A systematic approach to
selecting flux references for torque maximization in induction motors,
IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 13, pp. 388397, Dec. 1995.
[11] A. De Luca and G. Ulivi, Full linearization of induction motors via
nonlinear state-feedback, in Proc. 26th Conf. Decision and Control,
Los Angeles, CA, Dec. 1987.
, Dynamic decoupling of voltage frequency controlled induction
[12]
motors, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences of 8th Int.
Conf. Analysis and Optimization of Systems, Nice, France, June 1988,
vol. 111, pp. 127137.
, Design of an exact nonlinear controller for induction motors,
[13]
IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 34, pp. 13041307, Dec. 1989.
, The design of linearizing outputs for induction motors, in Proc.
[14]
1st IFAC Symp. Nonlinear Control Systems Design (NOLCOS89), Capri,
Italy, pp. 363367.
[15] R. Ortega, C. Canudas, and S. I. Seleme, Nonlinear control of induction
motors: Torque tracking with unknown load disturbance, IEEE Trans.
Automat. Contr., vol. 38, pp. 16751680, Nov. 1993.
[16] G. Espinosa-Perez and R. Ortega, An output feedback globally stable
controller for induction motors, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 40,
pp. 138143, Jan. 1995.
[17] R. Ortega and D. Taoutaou, Indirect field-oriented speed regulation for
induction motors is globally stable, IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec., vol. 43, pp.
340341, Apr. 1996.
[18] R. Ortega, P. Nickalsson, and G. Espinosa-Perez, On speed control of
induction motors, Automatica, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 455460, Mar. 1996.
[19] G. C. Verghese and S. R. Sanders, Observers for flux estimation in
induction machines, IEEE Trans. Ind. Elec., vol. 35, pp. 8594, Feb.
1988.
[20] P. C. Sen, Principles of Electric Machines and Power Electronics. New
York: Wiley, 1989.
[21] M. Velez-Reyes and G. Verghese, Decomposed algorithms for speed
and parameter estimation in induction machines, in Proc. IFAC Nonlinear Control Systems Design Symp., Bordeaux, France, 1992, pp.
156161.
[22] B. Charlet, J. Levine, and R. Marino, Two sufficient conditions
for dynamic feedback linearization, in Analysis and Optimization of
Systems, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 111,
A. Bensoussan and J. L. Lions, Eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
, On dynamic feedback linearization, Syst. Contr. Lett., vol. 13,
[23]
pp. 143151, 1989.
, Sufficient conditions for dynamic feedback linearization, SIAM
[24]
J. Contr. Optim., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 3857, Jan. 1991.
[25] O. Akhrif and G. L. Blankenship, Symbolic computations in differential geometry applied to nonlinear control systems, in Frontiers in

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUTOMATIC CONTROL, VOL. 43, NO. 3, MARCH 1998

[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]

Applied Mathematics, Symbolic Computation Application to Scientific

Computing, SIAM, 1989.
MACSYMA Reference Manual, Symbolics, Inc. 1988.
A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, 2nd ed. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1989.
H. Nijmeijer and A. J. van der Schaft, Nonlinear Dynamical Control
Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990.
A. Isidori, Control of nonlinear systems via dynamic state feedback,
Algebraic and Geometric Methods in Nonlinear Control Theory, M.
Hazelwinkle and M. Fliess, Eds. New York: Reidel, pp. 121145.
P. Krause, Analysis of Electric Machinery. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1986.
M. Fliess, J. Levine, P. Martin, and P. Rouchon, Flatness and defect of
nonlinear systems: Introductory theory and applications, Int. J. Contr.,
vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 13271361, 1995.
P. Martin and P. Rouchon, Two remarks on induction motors, to be
published.

Observers for Lipschitz Nonlinear Systems

Rajesh Rajamani

Index Terms Conditioning of eigenvectors, Lipschitz nonlinearity,

nonlinear systems, observer design.

I. INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we present some new results on designing observers
for the class of nonlinear systems described by
(1a)
(1b)

where 8(x; u) is a Lipschitz nonlinearity with a Lipschitz constant

, i.e.,

k8(x; u) 0 8(^x; u)k2  kx 0 x^k:

x is bounded. Thus, the class of systems covered by this paper is

fairly general, with the linearity assumption being made only on the
output vector y .
The observer will be assumed to be of the form
x^_ = Ax
^ + 8(^x; u) + L[y 0 C x^]:

(2)

The estimation error dynamics are then seen to be given by

x~_ = (A 0 LC )~
x + [8(x; u) 0 8(^
x; u)]

where x
~

(3)

= x 0 x^.

II. BACKGROUND RESULTS

This section presents results available in literature for the above
class of nonlinear systems. Comments on the practical use of these
results and on their accuracy are included. The following sections
then develop new results and a systematic procedure for observer
design for the same class of systems.
We first present Thaus well-known result in this area [14].
Theorem 1 [14]: If a gain matrix L can be chosen such that

min (Q)
(4a)
2max (P )
where (A 0 LC )T P + P (A 0 LC ) = 0Q, then (2) yields asymp <

AbstractThis paper presents some fundamental insights into observer

design for the class of Lipschitz nonlinear systems. The stability of the
nonlinear observer for such systems is not determined purely by the eigenvalues of the linear stability matrix. The correct necessary and sufficient
conditions on the stability matrix that ensure asymptotic stability of the
observer are presented. These conditions are then reformulated to obtain
a sufficient condition for stability in terms of the eigenvalues and the
eigenvectors of the linear stability matrix. The eigenvalues have to be
located sufficiently far out into the left half-plane, and the eigenvectors
also have to be sufficiently well-conditioned for ensuring asymptotic
stability. Based on these results, a systematic computational algorithm
is then presented for obtaining the observer gain matrix so as to achieve
the objective of asymptotic stability.

x_ = Ax + 8(x; u)
y = Cx

397

totically stable estimates for (1).

The ratio in (4a) is maximized when Q = I [10]. The problem is
then reduced to that of choosing L to satisfy

1
2max (P )
where (A 0 LC )T P + P (A 0 LC ) = 0I .
<

However, choosing the observer gains so as to satisfy (4b) is

not straightforward. For instance, merely placing the eigenvalues
of (A 0 LC ) far into the left half-plane will not ensure that (4b)
is satisfied. There is no clear relation between the eigenvalues of
(A 0 LC ) and max (P ).
Thaus result, therefore, merely serves as a method for checking
stability once the gain matrix L has already been chosen. It is not
useful from the point of view of the observer design task.
The observer design problem has been considered by several other
researchers in literature. Raghavan [11] has proposed the following
design algorithm for choosing L to ensure stability.
For some small " check if the Riccati equation

AP

+ P AT + P

Manuscript received June 6, 1996.

The author is with the University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
(e-mail: rajamani@vehicle.me.berkeley.edu).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0018-9286(98)01382-8.

2I

0 1" C T C

+ I + "I = 0

(5a)

has a positive definite solution P . If it does, then a choice of

L=

(1c)

To begin with, note that any nonlinear system of the form x_ =

f (x; u) can be expressed in the form of (1a), as long as f (x; u)
is differentiable with respect to x. To ensure that (1c) is satisfied,
many nonlinearities can be regarded as Lipschitz, at least locally. For
instance, the sinusoidal terms usually encountered in many problems
in robotics are all globally Lipschitz. Even terms like x2 can be
regarded as Lipschitz, provided we know that the operating range of

(4b)

1 T
2" P C

(5b)

is shown to stabilize the error dynamics (3).

However, the algorithm does not succeed for all observable (A; C )
and unfortunately does not provide insights on what conditions the
matrix (A 0 LC ) must satisfy for ensuring stability. We have seen
that placing the eigenvalues of (A 0 LC ) far into the left half-plane
certainly does not do the job.
Zaks [15] suggested design procedure is directly related to the
matrix (A 0 LC ).
A choice of L such that

00189286/98$10.00 1998 IEEE

min (A 0 LC ) >

(6)