Introduction To Geometric Nonlinear Control Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

Introduction to Geometric Nonlinear Control;
Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

W ito ld R espondek*
Laboratoire de Mathmatiques, IN S A de Rouen, France
Lectures given at the

S u m m e r School on Mathematical Control Theory
Trieste, 3-28 September 2001
LNS028004
*w respQ m sa-rouen.fr
A b stra ct
These notes are devoted to the problems of linearization, observ

ability, and decoupling of nonlinear control systems. Together with
notes of Bronislaw Jakubczyk in the same volume, they form an in
troduction to geometric methods in nonlinear control theory. In the
first part we discuss equivalence of control systems. We consider vari
ous aspects of the problem: state-space and feedback equivalence, local
and global equivalence, equivalence to linear and partially linear sys
tems. In the second part we present the notion of observability and
give a geometric rank condition for local observability and an algebraic
characterization of local observability. We discuss uniform observabil
ity, decompositions of nonobservable systems, and properties of generic
observable systems. In the third part we introduce the notion of invari
ant distributions and discuss disturbance decoupling and input-output
decoupling. Many concepts and results are illustrated with examples.
C ontents
1
In tro d u c tio n
173
F e e d b a c k lin e a r iz a tio n : a n i n t r o d u c t i o n
173
E q u iv a le n c e o f c o n tr o l s y s te m s
181
3.1 S tate space equivalence ........................................................................181
3.2 Feedback e q u iv a len c e ............................................................................... 184
F e e d b a c k l in e a r iz a tio n
186
4.1 S tatic feedback lin e a riz a tio n .................................................................186
4.2 R estricted feedback l in e a r i z a t i o n ....................................................... 192
4.3 P a rtia l linearization ............................................................................... 194
O b s e r v a b ility
196
5.1 N onlinear o b se rv a b ility ............................................................................196
5.2 Local d eco m p o sitio n s.............................................................................. 203
5.3 U niform observability ............................................................................205
5.4 Local observability: a necessary and sufficient condition . . . 206
5.5 Generic observability p r o p e r tie s ...........................................................207
D e c o u p lin g
210
6.1 Invariant d i s t r ib u t io n s ............................................................................211
6.2 D isturbance decoupling ........................................................................ 212
6.3 In p u t-o u tp u t d e c o u p lin g ........................................................................ 214
R eferen ces
219
173
Introduction
These notes, together w ith notes of Jakubczyk [26] of th e same volume,

form an in troduction to geom etric nonlinear control. Section 2 has an el
em entary and in troductory character. We form ulate th e problem of feed
back linearization, show why th e concept of Lie bracket appears naturally,
and give necessary and sufficient conditions for feedback linearization in the
single-input case. In Section 3 we introduce two concepts of equivalence of
control system s: sta te space equivalence and feedback equivalence. We also
sta te a result th a t any nonlinear control system is (locally) determ ined by
ite rate d Lie brackets of vector fields corresponding to constant controls. In
Section 4 we discuss various aspects of th e feedback linearization problem .
In particu lar, we consider th e m ulti-input as well as non control-affine sys
tem s and th e problem s of global feedback linearization, restricted feedback
linearization, and p a rtial linearization. Section 5 is concerned w ith th e con
cept of observability. We introduce observability rank condition and th en
discuss K alm an-like decom position of nonlinear non observable system s, uni
form observability, and generic properties of observable system s. Finally, in
Section 6 we introduce te concept of invariant and controlled invariant dis
trib u tio n s and, based on it, discuss solutions to th e disturbance decoupling
and in p u t-o u tp u t decoupling problem s.
We do not provide proofs of th e presented results and send th e reader to
th e literatu re on geom etric control theory (see th e list of references) and, in
particu lar, to m onographs [18], [23], [29], [37]. As a sm all recom pense , we
illu strate m any notions, concepts, and results by sim ple, m ainly m echanical,
examples.
Feedback linearization: an introduction
T he aim of th is prelim inary section is to introduce th e concept of feedback

linearization and a fundam ental geom etric tool of nonlinear control theory,
which is th e Lie bracket. Feedback linearization is a procedure of transform
ing a nonlinear system into th e sim plest possible form, th a t is, into a linear
system . Necessary and sufficient conditions for this to be possible will be
expressed using th e notion of Lie bracket, which is om nipresent in very m any
nonlinear control problem s.
T he problem of feedback linearization is to transform th e nonlinear con
174
W. Respondek
tro l system
X =
f(x ,u )
into a linear system of th e form

x = Ax + Bu
via a diffeomorhism
(x ,u ) = ($(a:), ^ ( x , )),
called feedback transform ation. We will s ta rt w ith an in troductory exam ple.
E x a m p le 2.1 Consider a nonlinear pendulum (rigid one-link m anipulator)
consisting of a m ass m w ith control torque u.
T he evolution of th e pendulum is described by th e Euler-Lagrange equa
tion w ith external force
m l 2 9 + m g l sin 9 = u .
We rew rite it as
9 =
dj =
uj
^ fs in 9 + ^ p .
Denote x \ = 9 and X2 = to and consider th e evolution of th e pendulum

on th e sta te space R2, th a t is x = (X I,X 2 )T E R2. We get th e system E
v ,
Xl
x2
=
=
x2
Q
'if
Replace th e control u by
u = m l 2u + m lg sinari,
which can be in terpreted as a transform ation in th e control space U depend
ing on th e sta te x C X . We get th e linear control system
XI
2
=
=
X2
u.
Using a sim ple transform ation in th e control space we th u s brought the

system into th e sim plest possible form: a linear one. Notice th a t th e families
of all trajectories of b o th system s coincide although they are param etrized
(w ith respect to th e control param eters u and u, respectively) in two different
ways.
Now fix an angle 9 q. T he goal is to stabilize th e system

around
(xiq ,X 2 o)t } where io= Go and X 20 = 0. Introduce new coordinates
xi
X2
=
=
175
xq
x i - a:io
x 2.
an d apply th e control
u = k i x i + k 2 x 2,
where hi, *2 are real param eters to be chosen. We get a closed loop system
described by th e system of linear differential equations
xi =
x2 =
x2
k lX l + k 2 x 2,
whose characteristic polynom ial is given by

p( A) = A2 A&2 ki.
Let Ai, A2 G C be any pair of conjugated complex num bers. Take
k\
k2
=
=
Â iA 2
Ai + A2 ,
th en th e eigenvalues of th e closed loop system are Ai and A2 . In particular,

by choosing Ai and A2 in th e left half plane we stabilize exponentially the
pendulum around an a rb itra ry angle 0 q and a stabilizing control can be taken
as
u = k i m l 2(xi xio) + k 2 m l 2 X 2 + m g l sinari.
Now fix for th e system E an initial point xq = (x iq 7 X2 o)t K2 and a
term inal point x t = ( it, 2t ) T G R 2 and consider th e problem of finding a
control u(t), 0 < i < T , which generates a tra jec to ry x (t), 0 < t < T , such
th a t a:(0) = xq and x ( T ) = x j \ T his is th e controllability problem, called
also motion planning problem. Due to th e above described linearization,
we get th e following sim ple solution of th e problem . Choose an arb itra ry
C 2-function ip(t), 0 < t < T , such th a t
<p(0) =
<p'(0 ) =
cp ( T ) =
ario
x 2o
x it
cp ' { T )
x 2t -
176
W. Respondek
and apply to th e system th e control

m
= <p"(t)
or, equivalently,
u(t) = m l 2 (p''(t) + m l g s m x i ( t ) .
Clearly, th e proposed control solves the m otion planning problem producing
a tra jec to ry th a t joins xq and x t
Now consider a single-input linear control system of th e form
A : .f
A x + bu,
where i 6 l P , ! i 6 l and assum e th a t A is controllable, th a t is

ran k ( 6 , A b , . . . , A n^ l b) = n.
Choose a linear function h = cx, w here c is a row vector, such th a t
cb = cAb = = c A n- % = 0
and
cA n- l b = d + 0,
whose existence follows im m ediately from th e controllability assum ption.
Introduce linear coordinates
Xl
X2
=
=
cx
cAx
rpYi
JU
---
-r-l ATi 1Jm

-- yt-il
U
We have
x\
X2
x n- \
xn
= cx
= cAx
= c A x + cbu
= c A 2x + cAbu
= 2
= is
= c A n^ 2x
= c A n^ 1x
= c A n~ l x + c A n^ 2bu
= cA nx + cA n^ l bu
= xn
= YH=i
+ du,
for some a* G R, for 1 < i < n. By introducing a new control variable

n
u = ^ aiXi + du,
i= 1
177
which can be viewed a t as a sta te depending transform ation in the control

space U, we bring any single-input controllable linear system into th e n-fold
integrator
Xi = X 2 , X 2 = 3, , Xni = Xn , Xn = U.
We will consider th e problem of w hether and when such a transform ation
is possible in th e nonlinear case. Consider a single-input control affine system
of th e form
E : x = f( x ) + g(x)u,
where x G X , an open subset of W 1, and / and g are C -sm ooth vector
fields on X .
Recall th a t L vip denotes th e derivative of a function ip w ith respect to a
vector field v, th a t is
n
L vip{x) =
j ^ - { x ) v i{ x ) .
i = l OXi
F ix a point xq E X and assum e th a t there exist a C -sm ooth function ip on

X such th a t (com pare th e linear case)
Lg(p = LgLfCp = = L g L n^ 2ip = 0
and
L gL nf l ip{x) = d(x),
where d(x) is a sm ooth function such th a t d ( x o) ^ 0. If around th e point
xq , th e functions cp, Lf(p, . . .
are independent (in th e sense th a t their
differentials are linearly independent around xq ), th en in a neighborhood V
of xq th e m ap
x i = 
= Lfip + uLgip
= <dL ^ 2 i p , x >
= < d L n^ l i p , x >
= L 7j ^ l cp + u L gL n^ 2ip =
= L'jip + u L gL n^ l ip
=
xn
L rjip + ud(x).
178
W. Respondek
By introducing a new control variable

U = UfLp + uLgl/J
ip,
which can be viewed a t as a transform ation in th e control space U, depending

nonlinearly on th e sta te x , we bring our single-input nonlinear system into
th e n-fold integrator
Xi =
X2, X2 =
3,
, X n i =
Xn , Xn =
U.
T he proposed m ethod works under two assum ptions. Firstly, we assum ed

th e existence of a function ip such th a t L gip = LgLfip = = L gL n^ ~2ip = 0.
Secondly, we assum ed th a t th e functions ip, Lfip, . . . , L n^ l ip are independent
in a neighborhood of xq . T he form er is a system of it 1 first order p a rtial
differential equations. In order to see it, let us consider th e two first equations
L gip = 0 and L gLfip = 0, which im ply th a t
LfLgip LgLfip = 0.
A lthough th e expression on th e left han d side involves a priori p a rtia l deriva
tives of order two, it depends on p a rtial derivatives of ip of order one only
an d a direct calculation shows th a t we can represent it as
LfLgip - L g L f ip = L y ig]<p,
where th e vector field [/, g] is given by
lf,g}(x) = D g ( x ) f ( x ) - D f ( x ) g ( x ) ,
where Dg(x) (resp. D f ( x ) ) stands for th e derivative a t x, th a t is, th e Jacobi
m atrix of th e m ap g : X > R" (resp. / : X > R "). We will call [ f , g ]
th e Lie bracket of th e vector fields / and g. We would like to em phasize two
im p o rtan t aspects of th e n atu re of Lie bracket. Firstly, it is a vector field,
because if we change coordinates th en th e Lie bracket is m ultiplied on the
left by th e Jacobi m atrix of th e derivative of th e coordinate change. This
shows its vector, i.e., contravariant, n ature. Secondly, a Lie bracket [/, g]
acts on a function ip by th e form ula L y ^ i p , th a t is, acts as a first order
differential operator. Notice th a t, as we have already said, th e expression
LfLgip LgLfip involves, a priori, second order derivatives of ip b u t all of
them are m ixed partials th a t m utually cancel due to Schwarz lemma.
179
Introduce th e n otation
ad f g = [/, g]
and, inductively,
ad3f+lg = [/, ad 3f g\,
for any integer j > 1. P u t a d g = g. It can be shown by an induction
argum ent th a t th e existence of a function ip such th a t L gip = L gLfip = =
L gL n^ 2ip = 0 is equivalent to th e solvability of th e following system of first
order p a rtial differential equations
L gip =
Ladjgip =
L &dnf 2 glP ~
0
0
(2 .1)
>
which in coordinates is expressed as

n
r,
dip
( a d } g ) j = 0 , for 0 < j < n 2 ,
where (ad^c?)* denotes th e i-th com ponent, in th e coordinates (i, . . . ,x.vn) T

of th e vector field adjg.
It can be shown th a t th e requirem ent th a t th e differentials dLîp, for
0 < j < n 1 , where ip is a nontrivial solution of th e system ( 2 . 1 ), are
linearly independent a t xq is equivalent to th e linear independence of ad^g
a t ./(). for 0 < j < n l.
We will show th a t a necessary condition for th e above system of first
order P D E s to adm it a nontrivial solution is th a t for any 0 < i, j < n 2
th e Lie bracket [ad^g, ad^g] (x) belongs to th e linear space generated by
(a d jg ( x ), 0 < q < n 2}. In view of th e linear independence of th e ad^gs,
this is equivalent to th e existence of sm ooth functions dq such th a t
n -2
[aA)g,ad 3f g] = ] P a ^ a d |g > .
q=0
To prove it, assum e th a t there exists a vector field v of th e form v =
[ad^g, adj-g], for some 0 < i , j < n 2 , and a point x C X . such th a t
v (x) ^ span {ad^g(x), 0 < q < n 2}. We have
L v ip ^ [ a d ^ . a d ^ j ] ^ L - ^ g L ^ g i p L ^ g L ^ g i p
0.
180
W. Respondek
T he n vector fields v and ad^g, for ( ) < < / < it 2. are linearly independent
in a neighborhood of x E X and therefore th e only solutions of th e system
of n first order P D E s
f
L vip =
{ L *d?f g for 0 < i < n - 2 ,
are ip = co n stan t.
It tu rn s out th a t th e two above necessary conditions are also sufficient
for th e solvability of th e problem . Indeed, we have th e following result.
T h e o r e m 2 .2 There exist a local change of coordinates x = (f>{x) and a
feedback of the fo rm u = a ( x ) + (3(x)u, where (3(x) ^ 0,transforming,
locally around xq X , the nonlinear system
E : x = f (x) + g(x)u
into a linear controllable system of the form
A : x = A x + bu
i f and only i f the system E satisfies in a neighborhood o f xq :
(C l) g(x), a,dfg(x) , . . . , a d - 1g(:r) are linearly independent;
(C2) fo r any 0 < i , j < n 2, there exist smooth functions dq such that
n -2
[ad%
f g,a,d3f g] = ^ a * J ad jg.
9=0
T he condition (C2), called involutivity, is discussed in th e general context

in th e section devoted to Frobenius theorem of [26] in this volume and in the
context of feedback linearization in Section 4. It has a clear geom etric inter
p retation. If th e above defined system of P D E s L gip = = L &dn - 2 gip = 0
ad m its a nontrivial solution th en for any constant c 6 l th e equation ip = c
defines a hypersurface in X . T he vectors g(x), a,d/g(x) , . . . , ad n^ 2 g{x) form
a t any x G {ip(x) = c} th e tangent space to th a t hypersurface. In general,
such a hypersurface need not exist; th e involutivity condition (C2) gu aran
tees its existence.
Especially sim ple is th e p lan ar case, th a t is, n = 2, in which th e involu
tiv ity follows autom atically from th e linear independence condition.
181
C o r o lla r y 2 .3 A control-affine planar system

x = f ( x ) + g(x)u ,
where il2
,is locally feedback linearizable at
are independent at x q .
x q
i f and only i f g and a d g
E x a m p le 2 .4 (Exam ple 2.1 cont.) We have / = 2 g^ and g =

T hus th e vector fields g and ad g =
are independent and hence,
by C orollary 2.3, we can conclude feedback linearization of th e pendulum , a
p roperty which we have established by a direct calculation in E xam ple 2.1.
Equivalence of control system s
T he question of feedback linearization discussed in Section 2 is a subproblem

of a m ore general problem of feedback equivalence. In this section we study
equivalence of control system s. We s ta rt w ith sta te space equivalence in
Section 3.1 and th en we define feedback equivalence in Section 3.2. Various
aspects of th e problem of feedback linearization will be discussed in Section 4.
3 .1
S t a t e sp a c e e q u iv a le n c e
Two system s are state-space equivalent if they are related by a diffeomorphism (and th en also th eir trajectories, corresponding to th e sam e controls,
are related by th a t diffeom orphism ). A question of p articu lar interest is th a t
of w hen a nonlinear system is equivalent to a linear one. If this is th e case
th e nonlinearities of th e considered system are not intrinsic, they appear
because of a wrong choice of coordinates, and th e nonlinear system shares
all properties of its linear equivalent.
Consider a sm ooth nonlinear control system of th e form
E :
x = f ( x , u ),
where x G X , an open subset of R (or an n-dim ensional m anifold) and

u G U, an open subset of Rm (or an m -dim ensional m anifold). T he class
of adm issible controls U is fixed and VC C W C M , where VC denotes the
class of piece-wise constant controls w ith values in U and M th e class of
m easurable controls w ith values in U.
182
W. Respondek
Consider an o th er control system of th e sam e form w ith th e sam e control

space U and th e sam e class of adm issible controls U
S :
x = f ( x , u ),
where x G X , an open subset of W 1 (or an n-dim ensional m anifold) and

u G U. Analogously to th e transform ation
of a vector field g(-) by a
diffeom orphism $ , we define th e transform ation of / ( , ) by $ . P u t
( $ / ) ( ? , ) = m $ - l (P)) f ( $ - l (P),u).
We say th a t control system s S and S are state space equivalent (respec
tively, locally state space equivalent at points p and p ) if there exists a dif
feom orphism $ : X
X (respectively, a local diffeom orphism $ : Xo
X,
$ (p ) = p , where Xo is a neighborhood o f p ) such th a t
* ./ = /
Put
T = {fu \ u e U }
and
T = {fu \ u e U } ,
where f u =
and f u =
th a t is, T (resp. T ) stands for the
fam ily of all vector fields corresponding to constant controls of S (resp. of
S ). (Local) sta te space equivalence of S and S m eans sim ply th a t
$ * fu = fu
for any u e U ,
i.e., th a t $ establishes a correspondence betw een vector fields defined by

constant controls.
Recall th e notion of th e Lie algebra C of th e system , see th e section on
controllability and accessibility of [26] in this volume. Assum e d im (p ) =
dim (j5) = n, which implies th a t S and S are accessible a t p and p, respec
tively.
T he following observation shows th a t (local) sta te space equivalence is
very n atu ral.
P r o p o s it io n 3 .1 S and E are (locally) state space equivalent i f and only if
there exists a (local) diffeomorphism $ which (locally, in neighborhoods of p
and p ) preserves trajectories corresponding to the same controls () G U,
%. 6 .
183
fo r any () U and any t fo r which both sides exist, where 7 f( p ) (resp.

J tiP )) denotes the trajectory of E (resp. T,) corresponding to the control
function u(-) U and passing by p (resp. by p ) fo r t = 0 .
Introduce th e following no tatio n for left iterated Lie brackets
/ [ M lli2 ...U fc ]
[fui 1 [fu21
>[fuk-1 5 / t t f c ]
' ' ' ]]
and analogous for th e tilded family. In p a rticu la r /[M1] = f u i .

T he following result was established by K rener [32] (see also Sussm ann [42]).
T h e o r e m 3 .2 A ssum e that the systems E and E are analytic and that
dim C(p) = n and dim C(p) = n.
(i) E and E are locally equivalent at p and p i f and only i f there exists a
linear isomorphism of the tangent spaces F : TpX T p X such that
P f{uiU2--Mk ] (? ) = / [ 141U2Mfc](P ),
(3-1)
fo r any k > 1 and any 1 , . . . Uf. U.

(ii) Assume, moreover, that X and X are simply connected and that the
Lie algebras C and C of E and E, respectively, consist of complete
vector fields and satisfy Lie rank condition everywhere. I f there exist
points p X and p X and a linear isomorphism F : TpX ^ T p X
satisfying (3.1) then E and E are state space equivalent.
T his theorem shows th a t all inform ation concerning (local) behavior is
contained in th e values a t th e in itial condition of Lie brackets from C. In a
sense (iterative) Lie brackets form invariant (higher order) derivatives of the
dynam ics of th e system and in th e analytic case they com pletely determ ine
its local properties as (higher order) derivatives do for analytic functions.
Consider a control-affine system of th e form
m
Saff : i = f { x ) + Y ^ g i ( x )u ii= 1
D enote go = f . Using th e above theorem we o b tain th e following lineariza
tion result (com pare [38], [42]).
P r o p o s it io n 3 .3 Consider a control-affine analytic system E afj.
184
(i)
W. Respondek
The system E ag- is locally state space equivalent at p X to a linear

controllable system of the form
m
Ac :
x = Ax + c + Bu = Ax + c +
6** ,
x R ,
u Rm ,
i=l
a t xq
i f a n d o n ly i f
(E l) fan,
]](?) =
fo r any k > 2 and any 0 < ij < m , 1 < j < k, provided that at least
two i j s are different from zero and
(E2) dim span {ad^gdp) | 1 < i < m . 0 < j < n l}(p) = n.
(ii) The system E aff is locally state space equivalent at p X to a linear
controllable system of the form
m
A:
x = Ax + Bu = Ax +
6** ,
x I ,
u Rm ,
i=i
at 0 G R if and only i f H satisfies (E l), (E2) and f ( p ) = 0.
(iii) The system E afj is globally state space equivalent to a controllable linear
system A on R i f and only i f it satisfies (E l), (E2), there exists p
X such that f ( p ) = 0, the state space X is simply connected and,
moreover,
(E3) the vector fields f and g i , . . . ,g m are complete.
Recall th a t a vector field / is com plete if its flow 7 / (p) is defined for any
(t , p ) G R x X .
3 .2
F e e d b a c k e q u iv a le n c e
T he role of th e concept of feedback in control cannot be overestim ated and

is very well understood, b o th in th e linear and nonlinear cases. We would
like to consider it as a way of transform ing nonlinear system s in order to
achieve desired properties. W hen considering state-space equivalence the
controls rem ain unchanged. T he idea of feedback equivalence is to enlarge
state-space transform ations by allowing to transform controls as well and to
transform them in a way which depends on th e state: th u s feeding th e state
back to th e system .
Consider two general control system s E and E given respectively by x =
f ( x , u ), x X , u U and x = f ( x , u ), x X , -u U. Assum e th a t U and
185
U are open subsets of Rm . We say th a t S and S are feedback equivalent if

there exists a diffeom orphism x ' X x U ^ X x U of th e form
(x, u) = x ( x , u) = ($(ar), ^ ( x , u))
which transform s th e first system into th e second, i.e.,
D$ (x )f(x ,u ) = f($ (x ),* (x ,u ))Observe th a t $ plays th e role of a coordinate change in X and W, called
feedback transform ation, changes coordinates in th e control space in a way
which is sta te dependent.
W hen studying dynam ical control system s w ith param eters and th eir
bifurcations, th e situation is opposite: coordinate changes in th e param eters
space are state-independent, while coordinate changes in th e sta te space may
depend on th e param eters.
For th e control-affine case, i.e., for system s of th e form
m
Saff :
i = / O ) + ^ 2 g i(x)u i = f ( x) +g(x)u,
i= 1
where g = ( g \ , . . . ,g m ) and u = ( 1 , . . . , u rn)T , in order to preserve the

control affine form of th e system , we will restrict feedback transform ations
to control affine ones
u = ^ ( x , u ) = a ( x ) + $(x )u ,
where f3(x) is an invertible m x m m atrix and u = ( 1 , . . . , m)T . D enote
th e inverse feedback transform ation by u = a ( x ) + f3(x)u. T hen feedback
equivalence m eans th a t
/ = $ * ( / + ga)
and
g = $ * (# ),
where g = ( g i , . . . , g m ).
For control linear system s of th e form x = g (x )u = Y liL i g%ix )u %y (local)
feedback equivalence coincides w ith (local) equivalence of d istributions Q
spanned by th e vector fields <7*s.
186
W. Respondek
Feedback linearization
Since feedback transform ations change dynam ical behavior of a system they
are used to achieve some required properties of th e system . In Sections 6.2
and 6.3 we will show how feedback transform ations are used to synthesize
controls w ith decoupling properties. In this Section we will stu d y th e prob
lem of w hen a nonlinear system can be transform ed to a linear form via
feedback. A p a rticu la r case of feedback linearization of single-input control
affine system s has been discussed in Section 2. T he interest in feedback
linearization is two-fold. Firstly, if one is able to com pensate nonlinearities
by feedback th en th e m odified system possesses all control properties of its
linear equivalent and linear control theory can be used in order to stu d y it
a n d /o r to achieve th e desired control properties. T his shows possible engi
neering applications of feedback linearization, com pare Exam ple 2.1. From
m athem atical (or system theory) view point, if we would like to classify non
linear system s under feedback transform ations (which define a group action
on th e space of all system s) th en one of th e m ost n a tu ra l problem s is to
characterize those nonlinear system s which are feedback equivalent to linear
ones. In Section 4.1 we will stu d y feedback linearization of m ulti-input and
general nonlinear system s. In Section 4.2 we will consider linearization using
feedback which changes th e drift vector field only. Finally, in Section 4.3 we
will stu d y th e problem of finding th e largest possible linearizable subsystem
of th e given system .
4 .1
S t a t ic fe e d b a c k lin e a r iz a tio n
A general nonlinear control system

E : x = f ( x , u ),
is (lo ca lly a t ( x q 7u q )) fee d b a ck lin e a r iz a b le if it is (locally a t
equivalent to a controllable linear system Ac of th e form
( x q 7u q ))
feedback
Ac : x = A x + c + B u .
Recall the n otation
? = {iu I u e u } .
For any u G U, define th e following d istributions on X which will play the
187
fundam ental role in solving th e feedback linearization problem .

Qj
A i(x ,u )
A 2 (x ,u )
= I m (x ,u )
ou
= A i ( x , u ) + span [T, A i] (x, u)
= A i ( x ,u ) + span {[fu,g] ( x ,u ) | f u G T ,
g G A i}
and, inductively,
Aj(x ,u )
= A j - i ( x , u ) + span [T, A j_ i] (x, u)

= A j - i ( x , u ) + span {[fu,g] ( x ,u ) | / G
g G A 5-_i}.
R e m a r k 4 .1 For th e linear system Ac we have

A | = Ijii I!
A j = Im ( B , . . . , A 1
1B
) , j > 0.
In the control-affine case, th e feedback linearization problem was solved

by Jakubczyk and R espondek [27], and independently by H unt and Su [22]
(see T heorem 4.5 below). In the general case we have th e follwing result.
T h e o r e m 4 .2 E is locally feedback linearizable at (xq , uq) if and only i f it
satisfies in a neighborhood of (xq , uq) the following conditions
(AO) A i does not depend on u,
(A I) dim A j ( x , u ) =const, j = l , . . . , n,
(A2) A j are involutive, j = l , . . . , n,
(A3) dim A(a:o 5 0 ) = n .
R e m a r k 4 .3 One can show th a t if A i is involutive, of constant rank, and
does not depend on u th en th e successive distrib u tio n s A j, for j > 2, do not
depend on u either. T hus we can check th e involutivity condition (A2) for
them for a single value u only (for exam ple for 0 ).
In applications, one is often interested in points of equilibria. D enote by
A a linear system of th e form
A : x = A x + Bu,
th a t is, th e system Ac w ith c = 0.
188
W. Respondek
C o r o lla r y 4 .4 E afj is locally feedback equivalent at (xq , uq) to a controllable

linear system A at (0,0) i f and only i f it satisfies the conditions (A0)-(A3)
and moreover f ( x o ,u o ) A i(x o ,u g )Consider feedback equivalence of linear controllable m ulti-input system s
A of th e form x = A x + B u (in th is case th e diffeom orphism $(a:) and feed
back ^ ( x , u) are taken to be linear w ith respect to th e sta te and control). As
shown by Brunovsky [5], com plete feedback invariants are th e dim ensions m j
of Im M . w here th e m ap M 1 :
>K is defined as [B, A B , . . . , A 1 l I f .
P u t no = 0 and n j = m j
for 1 < j < n. Define
Kj = max{n* | n* > j } .
(4.1)
Observe th a t k \ > > Krn and Y1T= l

= n - T he integers ;*, called
controllability (or Brunovsky) indices, form another set of com plete invari
ants of feedback equivalence of linear controllable system s.
Every controllable system A w ith indices k \ > > n m is feedback
equivalent to th e system
i i,j
i i , Ki
=
=
X ij+ i , for 1 < j < Ki - 1 ,

Ui ,
,4 2,
where 1 < i < m , called Brunovsky canonical fo r m , which consists of m

independent series of k* integrators.
Very often we deal w ith control-affine system s Eafj. To sta te a feedback
linearization result for Lag, we define th e following distributions
V l (x)
= span{gj(:r), 1 2. If th e dim ensions dj(x ) of

(x) are constant (see ( A l) and (B l)
below) we denote th em by dj and we define indices pj as follows. Define
do = 0 and p u t rj = dj d j - 1 for 1 < j < n . T hen (com pare (4.1))
Pj = max{r* | r* > j } .
(4.3)
If th e distrib u tio n s A j defined earlier in th is section are involutive, th en

they are feedback invariant. If, moreover, th e system is affine w ith respect to
controls then, clearly, A j = X>J , for j > 1 and, in particu lar, pi >> pm
are feedback invariant. In this case th e indices pj coincide w ith Kj , the
controllability indices of th e linear equivalent of E.
T he following result (see [27] and [22]) describes linearizable control-affine
system s.
189
T h e o r e m 4 .5 The following conditions are equivalent.

(i) E is locally feedback linearizable at x q 6 l n .
(ii) E satisfies in a neighborhood of x q
( A l) dim V 3 (x) =const, for 1 < j < n,
(A2) V 3 are involutive, for 1 < j < n,
(A 3) dim V n (xo) = n.
(iii) E satisfies in a neighborhood of x q
(B l) dim V 3 (x) =const, for 1 < j < n,
(B2) V pi ^
are involutive, for 1 < j < m ,
(B3) dim V p1 (xq) = n, where pi is the largest controllability index.

In th e single-input ease m = 1, th e condition (A3) (or,equivalently,
(B3)) states th a t g ( x o ) , . . . , a,d^l g(xo) are independent, which im plies th a t
all distrib u tio n s X>J , for 1 < j < n, are of constant rank. In th e following
Corollary of T heorem 4.5 we thus rediscover T heorem 2.2.
C o r o lla r y 4 .6 A scalar input system E is feedback linearizable i f and only
i f it satisfies
(C l) g (x o ) , . . . , a d - 1g(:ro) are independent,
(C2) V n -1 is involutive.
E x a m p le 4 .7 Consider th e following rigid two-link robot m anipulator (dou
ble pendulum); com pare, e.g., [6 ] or [37].
x1
x2
x2
M ^ l ( x l ) ( C ( x l , x 2) + k ( x 1)) + M ^ l ( x l )u ,
where 0 i and 6 2 represent th e angles (between th e horizontal and th e first

arm and betw een th e arm s) and x l = (^ 1 ,^ 2 ), x 2 = {0 1 , 6 2 ). T he con
tro l torques applied to th e joints are u = ( 1 , ^ 2 ) and th e positive definite
sym m etric m atrix M ( x l ) is given by
m i l 2 + m 2 l2 +
+ t 2m 2 l i h cos 6 2
m 2^| + ^ h h cos 6 2
+ m 2 h h cos 6 2
m 2l |
T he term k ( 6 ) represents th e gravitational force and th e term C ( 6 , 6 ) reflects

th e centripetal and Coriolis force.
190
W. Respondek
We have th a t V 1 = span {gfy} = span
-J-} is involutive and
dim V 2 ( x 1 , x 2) = 4. Hence th e double pendulum is feedback linearizable. A

linearizing feedback is given, e.g., by u = C ( x l , x 2) + k ( x l ) + M ( x l )u.
E x a m p le 4 .8 Consider th e following m odel of a perm anent m agnet stepper

m otor [46]
1
= K \ x \ + K 2 X%sin{KX4) + u\
X2
= ^K % x isin {K X 4) + K%X2 Cos{KX4) K ^ x s + K ^ s i n ^ K ^ x ^ ) t l / J
= x3 ,
K \ ./'2 +
K 2 X ^ C O . s ( K ^ X 4)
where x i , x 2 denote currents, X3 denotes th e ro to r speed and X4 its position,

J is th e ro to r inertia, and t l is th e load torque. We see th e distributions
V 1 = span{g|^-,
and V 2 = span{g|^-,
are involutive and th a t
dimX>3(:r) = 4 and th u s th e system is locally (and even globally!) feedback
linearizable.
E x a m p le 4 .9 T he goal of this exam ple is to show how to solve nonlinear

problem s by transform ing th e system to an equivalent linear system and
solving th e linear version of the problem for th e linear system . Consider the
following system
x
y
z
=
=
=
y + yz
z
-u + sina:,
where (x, y, z) R3. We w ant to stabilize it exponentially globally on R3.

Firstly, we show th a t th e system is feedback linearizable. To sim plify calcu
lations, replace / by f = f + ag = f (sin x )g = (y + y z , z, 0)T . We have
g = ( 0 ,0 ,1)T , a d j g = (y, 1,0)T , and [g, ad^g] = 0. Thus th e distributions
V 1 = s p a n { ^ } and V 2 = sp a n { y j^ +
are involutive. We seek for a
function ip whose differential anihilates V 2 which m eans to find a solution

of th e following system of 1-st order p a rtial differential equations (com pare
Section 2)
fI
{ y dx ^
^dz
dy
0u
u-
191
We conclude th a t ip can be an a rb itra ry function of x \

2
and we choose
ip = x
Therefore we p u t, see Section 2, x = x
y = Lfip = y,
z = L 2ip = z and, finally, u = u sin a:. T his yields th e following linear
system
x = y
y = z
z = u,
which we stabilize on R 3 globally and exponentially via a linear feedback of
th e form u = k x + ly + m z , w here th e m atrix
/ 0 1 0 \
0 0 1
\ k I m /
is H urw itz. Therefore th e nonlinear feedback
y2
u = k ( x ) + ly + m z sin
Li
stabilizes globally and asym ptotically on R 3 th e original system .
E x a m p le 4 .1 0 Consider th e following m odel of th e rigid body whose gas

jets control th e rotations around th e two first principal axes.
Wi
2
=
=
=
a\Ul2 Ul^ + 1
02 W1W3 + 2
a 3w1W2.
We have / = (aiw 2 W3 , a 2 u iw3, a 3 wiw2)T , 5 i = (1, 0 ,0)T and g>2 = ( 0 ,1 ,0)T .

We calculate a d / <71 = (0,0, a%ui2)T and a d / <72 = (0,0, a%uii)T . We thus
see th a t th e d istrib u tio n V 1 = span {<71, <72} = span-fg^-,
is always in
volutive and of rank two everywhere while V 2 = span {<71, g2, a d / <71, a d fg 2}
is of rank three if and only if 03 ^ 0 and either wi ^ 0 or 2 ^ 0. In the
first case we p u t >1 = a 3 uiiui2, u \ =
aia^w 2^ a 2 a 3 ui2 ui3 + 03^1 u 2),
an d u 2 = 02 ^ 1^3 + 2 and we get th e linear system
UJl
= 1
= 2
= >1 .
w3
In th e second case we we p u t >2 =

anologous way.
and define 1 and u 2 in an
192
W. Respondek
E x a m p le 4 .1 1 Consider th e following m odel of unicycle
ii
= u i cos 9
x2
= u 2 sin 9
= u2 ,
where ( x i , x 2 ,9) G R 2 x S 1. We have

gi = (cos 9, s in 9 , 0)T , g 2 = ( 0 ,0 ,1)T ,
thus [<71, g2\ = (sin 9, cos 9, 0)T and hence V 1 is not involutive: th e unicycle
is not sta tic feedback linearizable.
4 .2
R e s t r ic t e d fe e d b a c k lin e a r iz a tio n
Consider a control-affine system

and a feedback transform ation u =
a ( x ) + P (x )u which can be interpreted as an (affine) change of coordinates,
depending on th e state, in th e in p u t space. T he term 3 allows to choose
generators of th e d istrib u tio n V 1 = span {<71, . . . ,g m } whereas th e term a
changes th e drift / . R estricted feedback allows to transform th e drift / only
an d keeps th e g*s unchanged. More precisely, two control affine system s E afj
an d E aff are restricted feedback equivalent if there exist a diffeom orphism $
betw een th eir sta te spaces and a restricted feedback of th e form u = a ( x ) + u
such th a t
f = $ * ( f + ga)
and
ft =
(4.4)
for 1 < i < m .

We will be interested in equivalence to liner system s under such feedback
and we will call it restricted feedback linearization.
T he three m ain reasons to discuss restricted feedback linearization are as
follows. Firstly, it was B rocketts restricted feedback linearization result [3]
which begun an increasing interest in various kinds of feedback linearization
problem s for nonlinear system s. Secondly, there is a nice stochastic inter
p reta tio n of th e restricted feedback linearization [3]. Thirdly, it is relatively
easy, as we will show it, to proceed from local results to global ones.
Consider single-input system s of th e form
E afj : x = f ( x ) + g (x )u , x G X , G l ,
193
and stu d y th eir equivalence to linear single-input system s of th e form

A,; : x = A x + c + bu , x R -u R.
We have th e following result [1].
T h e o r e m 4 .1 2 E afj is locally restricted feedback linearizable at xq i f and
only i f it satisfies in a neighborhood of xq the following conditions
(RC1) g ( x o) , . . . ,a d -1 g(:ro) are independent.
(RC1) [a,djg, ad/#] C V n
f or any 0 < q ,r < n - 1 ,
R e m a r k 4 .1 3 Like in th e case of feedback linearization (com pare Corol

lary 4.4), afjf is restricted feedback equivalent a t xq to Ac, w ith c = 0, a t 0
if and only if f ( x 0) T>1 (xq).
In th e single-input case all linearizable system s are equivalent to the
Brunovsky canonical form (com pare (4.2))
ii
xn
=
=
x i+i , for 1 < i < n - 1 ,

u .
If afj is (locally) feedback linearizable, th en there are m any pairs (a , ft)

an d m any (local) diffeomorphism s which transform afj into its Brunovsky
canonical form. However, if we allow for restricted feedback only, th en a
transform ing afj into th e canonical form is unique and is given by
a = (-l)"-1L r 17,
(4-6)
where L / stands for th e Lie derivative along / and th e sm ooth function 7

is uniquely defined by
n
f =
i=i
T his observation is crucial for establishing th e following result on restricted
feedback linearization [9], [39].
T h e o r e m 4 .1 4 E is restricted feedback globally linearizable, that is, globally
equivalent via a restricted feedback to a linear system on R , i f and only if
it satisfies the conditions (RC1),(RC2) and, moreover,
(RC3) the vector fields f and g are complete, where f = f + g a and a is
defined by (4.6),
(RC4) the state space X is simply connected.
194
W. Respondek
E x a m p le 4 .1 5 (C ontinuation of Exam ples 2.1 and 2.4). We have / =

~
and 9 =
Therefore [adf g,g] = 0 and since g and
a d g are independent everywhere, th e system is restricted feedback lineariz
able. Indeed, it is im m ediate to see th a t th e feedback u = m g l sin B + u
brings th e system to a linear form (no action of diffeom orphism is needed).
T he nonlinear pendulum defined on S 1 x R 1 is globally equivalent to a linear

system evolving on S 1 x R 1. If we enlarge th e class of linear system s to
include system s of th e form x = A x + B u , w here each com ponent X{ of x is
either a global coordinate on R 1 or a global coordinate (angle) on 5 1, th en
T heorem 4.14 rem ains tru e if we drop th e assum ption (RC4). T his includes
m any m echanical control system s.
4 .3
P a r tia l lin e a r iz a tio n
T he linearizability conditions are restrictive (except for th e scalar in p u t affine

system s on th e plane, com pare C orollary 2.3). Given a nonlinearizable sys
tem it is therefore n a tu ra l to ask w hat is its largest linearizable subsystem .
C onsider a partially linear system Apart of th e form
,
p t '
/17
I <
Y J i}H
i2
/ 2( i \ i 2) + E r= i!7i!( i i , i 2) s ..
w ith x l , x 2 being possibly vectors. Recall th e notion of th e Lie ideal o of the

system (see [26] of this volum e), which is defined as th e Lie ideal generated
by g i , . . . , gm in , or, in other words, o = Lie {ad^ft | 1 0}.
W ith the help of Cq we define another Lie ideal by p u ttin g
2
= [o,o\ = { [ f i , f 2 \ | / i , / 2 e 0}.
It is 2 which contains all intrinsic nonlinearities not rem ovable by th e action

of diffeomorphism s as th e following result [40] shows.
T h e o r e m 4 .1 6 Consider a control affine system Saff.
(i) I f E afj is locally state space equivalent at xq to a partially linear system
Apart then dim 2 (x) < n in a neighborhood of x q .
(ii) A ssum e that Eaff satisfies dim o(o) = n and that dim 2(a:) =
a=const. in a neighborhood o f x q . Then E aff is locally state space
equivalent to a partially linear system Apart> such that the dimension
195
o f the linear subsystem is dim x l = n a and, moreover, the linear

subsystem is controllable.
C o r o lla r y 4 .1 7 Let an analytic system E ag- satisfies dim C q(xq ) = n. It is
locally state space equivalent at xq to a partially linear system Apart i f and
only if
dim C2(x o) < n.
Moreover, there exists a system Apart, with n a-dim ensional linear control
lable subsystem, where a = dim C2(x o), which is state space equivalent to
aff.
Now we consider th e problem of transform ing a nonlinear system to a p a r
tially linear one via feedback. T his problem has been studied and solved
in th e scalar-input case in [33] and in th e m ulti-input case in [34] and [40].
Recall th a t for a sm ooth d istrib u tio n V we denote by V its involutive clo
sure, th a t is, th e sm allest d istrib u tio n containing V and closed under th e Lie
bracket.
T h e o r e m 4 .1 8 Consider a single-input system Eaff.
(i) I f E afj is locally feedback equivalent at x q to a partially linear Apart
with p-dimensional linear controllable subsystem then
satisfies the
following conditions:
(P C I) g ( x o ) , . . . , adpj^ l (xo) are independent,
(PC2) dim V p l (x) < n in a neighborhood o f x o,
(PC3) a,dpf l g(x) $ V p^ l (x).
(ii) A ssum e that there exists an integer p such that d i m V p l (x)=const.
and that (P C I), (PC 2), (PC3) are satisfied. Then E afj is locally feed
back equivalent to a partially linear system Apart with p-dimensional
linear controllable subsystem, that is dim x 1 = p. Moreover, the largest
p satisfying the above conditions gives the largest dimension of linear
subsystem among all possible partial linearizations.
E x a m p le 4 .1 9 C onsider a sym m etric rigid body (two in ertia m om enta are
equal) w ith one p air of jets
u)i
=
=
0)3
aw 2^3 + e\u
1W3 + 62u
63 u
196
W. Respondek
C om pute g = ( e i , e 2 , e 3 )T , a d g = a(e 2W3 + 63012, 61013 63011, 0)T .

Hence for V 2 to be involutive, th a t is, [g, ad/g] = 2063 ( ^ 62 , 61 , 0 ) C V 2
sp a n { g ,ad /g } , we need either 63 = 0 or ei = 62 = 0. In th e form er case,
u>3 rem ains constant, in th e latte r, th e sym m etric spacecraft is controlled in
a sym m etric way: th e angular m om entum of th e je t is parallel to th e th ird
principal axis. Notice th a t for all values of th e control vector e = (ei, 62 , 63 )T ,
th e system is not feedback linearizable. Indeed, either V 2 is not involutive or
th e system is not accessible. O n th e other hand, for all values of th e control
vector field e ^ 0 , th e system contains a 2 -dim ensional linear subsystem for
an open and dense set of in itial conditions.
O bservability
In th is chapter we consider briefly th e concept of nonlinear observability. We

s ta rt w ith geom etric approach to th e observability problem and in Section 5.1
we sta te a sufficient condition, called observability rank condition, based on
successive Lie derivatives of th e o u tp u t along th e dynam ics. In Section 5.2 we
discuss (local) decom positions into observable and com pletely unobservable
p a rts which generalize th e classical K alm an decom position. T hen in Section
5.3 we consider th e problem of uniform observability, which m eans th a t we
can observe th e system for any in p u t. In Section 5.4 we give a necessary
an d sufficient condition for local observability. Finally, in Section 5.5 we
discuss generic properties: we give norm al forms for generic system s and
recall results concerning genericity of observability.
5 .1
N o n lin e a r o b s e r v a b ility
C onsider th e class of nonlinear system s w ith o u tp u ts (m easurem ents) of the

form
x = f ( x , u ),
y
H x ),
where x C X . u C V . y C Y . Here X , U, and Y are open subsets of K , Rm ,

an d Rp , respectively (or differentiable m anifolds of dim ensions n, to, and p,
respectively)1. T he m ap h : X ^ Y represents th e vector of p m easurem ents
(observations), w here h% C ( X ) , for 1 < i < p, and h = ( h i , . . . , hp)T .
1Except for th e second p a rt of Section 5.5, where we assum e U to be J m , w ith J being
a com pact subinterval of R,
197
T hroughout th is section, E will denote th e above described nonlinear system

w ith o u tp u t.
T he class of adm issible controls U is fixed and VC c W c M , w here VC
denotes th e class of piece-wise constant controls w ith values in U and M the
class of m easurable controls w ith values in U.
Let y denote th e space of absolutely continuous functions on X w ith
values in Y . For th e system E we define th e response m ap, called also input
output m ap,
: X x U >y ,
which to any initial condition </ C X and any adm issible control u(-) U
attaches th e o u tp u t of th e system
y q,uii) = y ( t , q , u ( - ) ) = h (x(t,q ,u (-))),
where x (t,q ,u ( -) ) denotes th e solution of x = f ( x , u ), for u(-) U, passing
th rough </. th a t is x (0 ,q ,u (-)) = q. T he control u(-) being defined on an
interval I u C R, such th a t 0 I u , we consider th e o u tp u t y(-) on th e m axim al
interval I y C I u C R on which it exists.
R oughly speaking, th e problem of observability is th a t of th e injectivity,
w ith respect to th e in itial condition, of th e response m ap.
We say th a t two states q i,q 2 X are indistinguishable, and we w rite
q\Iq2, if
yqi,u(t) = yq2 ,u(t),

for any u(-) U and any t for which b o th sides exist.
D e f in itio n 5.1 We call th e system E observable if for any two states q\, q2
X we have
q\Iq2 = > qi =
th a t is, if there exists an adm issible control u(-) U and a tim e t > 0 such
th a t
yqi,u(t) ~f~ yq2 ,u(t)m eaning th a t th e states qi and q2 are distinguishable.
D e f in itio n 5 .2 E is called locally observable a t q X if there is a neighbor
hood V of q such th a t for any </ C V . th e states q and q are distinguishable.
198
W. Respondek
Given a system E and an open set V C X , by th e restriction E |y we will

m ean a control system w ith th e sta te space V , defined by th e restrictions of
/ and h to V x U and V , respectively.
D efin itio n 5.3 E is called strongly locally observable a t a point q X if

there exists a neighborhood V of q such th a t th e restricted system E jy is
observable.
We would like to em phasize some features of th e introduced concepts of
observability. Strong local observability is a local concept in two aspects.
Firstly, strong local observability m eans th a t, in general, we are able to dis
tinguish neighboring points only. Secondly, we are able to do so considering
trajectories which stay close to th e initial condition. O f course, observability
im plies strong local observability a t any point (we can take V = X ), which,
in tu rn , im plies local observability a t any point (for each point we take the
neighborhood V existing due to th e strong local observability). In general,
th e reversed im plications do not hold, see Exam ples 5.6 and 5.7 below.
E xam p le 5.4 Consider a m echanical system evolving according to New

to n s law
1 = x 2
X2 =
U,
where x \ denotes th e position, x 2 th e velocity, and u is th e control force.

We observe th e position
y = i-
T his system is clearly observable. Indeed, let y q,u (t) and yq,u(t) be the
o u tp u ts of th e system initialized, respectively, a t q = (x io ,X 2 o)T and at
q = (zioi% 2 o)T and governed by a control (). Assum e th a t y q,u(t) = yq,u(t)
for any t. T hen com paring a t t = 0 b o th sides of th e above equality as well
as derivatives a t t = 0 of b o th sides, we get io = io and X 20 = 20? which
proves th e observability.
Now assum e th a t, for th e sam e control system , we observe th e velocity
y = x 2.
T he system is not observable. Indeed, th e in itial conditions q = (x iq ,X 2 o)t
an d q = (xio ,X 2 o)T , such th a t io ^ 10 b u t X20 = 20 ? produce th e same
o u tp u t y(i) = J l u (s)ds + X 2 o- M echanically, this is obvious: we cannot
estim ate th e position if we observe th e velocity only.
199
E x a m p le 5.5 Consider th e linear oscillator (linear pendulum ) given by

ii
i'2
=
=
x2
-X l,
where x \ denotes th e position and x 2 th e velocity. Assum e th a t we observe

th e position
y = i-
T hen th e system is observable and, given th e o u tp u t function y(-), we can

deduce th e in itial condition (xiq 7 x 2 q)t by taking, like in E xam ple 5.4, the
o u tp u t and its first derivative w ith respect to tim e a t t = 0.
Now assum e th a t we observe th e velocity
V = x 2.
T his system is also observable and once again we can deduce th e initial
condition by looking a t th e values a t t = 0 of th e o u tp u t and its first tim e
derivative. T he reason for which observing th e velocity renders th e system
observable is th a t th e evolution of th e velocity x 2 depends on th e position
x \ y which is not th e case of th e system of Exam ple 5.4.
E x a m p le 5 .6 Consider th e unicycle
ii
x2
9
= i cos 9,
= isin0,
= u 2,
y\
y2
= x\
= x2
where (x i , x 2)t 6 1 x 1 is th e position of th e center of th e m ass of the

unicycle and 9 E S l is th e angle betw een th e horizontal and th e axis of the
unicycle. We observe th e position of th e center of th e mass.
T he unicycle is observable. To see it, consider th e o u tp u ts y q,u (t) and
yq,u (t) of th e system controlled by u(t) = ( i(i), u 2 (t))T , such th a t u \(t) = 1,
passing for t = 0 by q = ( x w , x 2 (h 6 o)T and q = ( io , 20 , ô)T , respectively.
Assum e th a t y q,u (t) = y q,u(t) Thus ario = iio , %2o = 20, and moreover
s in 9(t) = s in 0{i) and cos 6 {i) = cos 6 {i). Hence we conclude th a t 9q = 9q,
where 9q, 9q G S 1.
Now consider th e unicycle, w ith th e sam e observations yi = x \ and
y 2 = x 2y evolving on R3, th a t is, we consider 9 G R. It tu rn s out th a t
th e system is not observable. To see this, we will show th a t th e o u tp u ts
y q,u (t) and y q,u(t) of th e system coincide for q = ( x i o ,x 2 o,9q)t and q =
200
W. Respondek
( x i o ,x 2 o , 6 o)t such th a t x w = io, x 2o = 20 Land 90 = &o + 2kir. We have

9(i) = / 0* U2 (s)ds + 9q and 9(t) = / oi 2(s)efs + 0o an d hence 9(t) = 9(t) + 2k-K.
T hus sin 0 (i) = sin 0 (i) and cos 9{i) = cos 9{i) im plying th a t y q,u (t) = y q,u(t),
for any control u(-) G U and th e in itial conditions as above. In other words,
th e points q = (x iq 7 X2 o 7 9 q)t and q = (iio , 20 , ô)T such th a t io = iio?
% 20 = 20 ? and 9q = 9q + 2kir are indistinguishable. O f course, th e system is
strongly locally observable a t any q G R3.
E x a m p le 5 .7 Consider th e system
x = 0 , y = x2 ,
where x G R and y G R . T he system is not observable because th e initial
conditions xq and xq give th e sam e o u tp u t trajectories. T his system is
strongly locally observable a t any xq ^ 0. Notice th a t it is locally observable
a t any point, in p a rticu la r a t 0 G R2, although in any neighborhood of 0 there
are indistinguishable states. T his shows th a t local observability is indeed a
weaker p ro p erty th a n strong local observability.
We will give now a sufficient condition for strong local observability. To

this end, we will introduce th e following concepts.
D e f in itio n 5 .8 T he observation space of S is defined as
11
spav
I 1 0, 1 , . . . , * G 17},
where /() = / ( , % ) and L gip stands for th e Lie derivative of a sm ooth

function ip w ith respect to a sm ooth vector field g, i.e.,
L gip(x) = dip(x) -g(x).
Observe th a t H is th e sm allest linear subspace of C ( X ) containing the

observations h \ , . . . , h p and closed w ith respect to Lie differentiation by all
elem ents of T = { / ( , ) , G U}, i.e., all vector fields corresponding to con
sta n t controls. Using functions from H we define th e following codistribution
Ti = span {d<f> : <f>G H } .
Notice th a t, in general, Ti is not of constant rank.
201
In th e ease of control affine system s of th e form

f ( x ) + Y T = i 9i(x )u t
we have
= span | d L gjh L 9h hi : 1 < i < p, 0 <
ji
< mj ,
where gQ = f .
T he following result of H erm ann and K rener [21] gives a fundam ental
criterion for nonlinear observability.
T h e o r e m 5 .9 A ssum e that the system E satisfies
dim H iq) = n.
(5.1)
Then E is strongly locally observable at q.

T he condition (5.1) will be called observability rank condition. It can be
considered as a counterpart of th e accessibility and strong accessibility rank
conditions (see, e.g., th e survey [26] of this volume), although th e duality is
not perfect, as we will see in th e next exam ple.
E x a m p le 5 .1 0 T he converse of T heorem 5.9 does not hold (even in the
analytic case) as th e following sim ple exam ple shows. Consider
x = 0 , y = x3 ,
where x G R, y G R. O f course, th e system is strongly locally observable at
any i G R (even observable on R) b u t it does not satisfy th e rank condition
a t 0 G R, since we have Ti = sp a n { a;2cfcc }. T his shows also th a t th e rank
of Ti need not be constant. T his is to be com pared w ith th e accessibility
rank condition, which, in th e analytic case, is necessary and sufficient for
accessibility.
E x a m p le 5.1 1 C onsider a linear control system w ith o u tp u ts of th e form

x
Ax + B u ,
C x ,
202
W. Respondek
where x G W 1 , u G W n , y W . We have / = A x ,
= b/., for 1 < k < m ,
an d hi = C%x, for 1 < i < p, where C* denotes th e i-th row of th e m atrix C.
We calculate
L^hi = C iA 3x and L gkL ^hi = CiA^bkT hus 7i(q) = span {C* A 3 | 1 < i < p, 0 < j < n 1} and dim 7i(q) =
rank O, where O is th e K alm an observability m atrix
f
0=
CA
\ CAn-
.
1
Therefore a linear system satisfies th e observability rank condition if and

only if it satisfies K alm an observability condition rank O = n. In th is case,
as it follows from T heorem 5.9, th e system is strongly locally observable.
Moreover, we know from th e linear control theory, see e.g. [30], th a t the
system is observable. Indeed, th e response m ap R \ of th e linear system A
given by
y(t) = C x ( t ) = C e Atx o + f
C e A^ ~ s^B u(s)ds
Jo
an d associating to an initial condition xq th e o u tp u t trajectory, is affine w ith

respect to th e in itial condition xq and thus local injectivity im plies global
injectivity. Notice th a t observability properties of a linear system do not
depend on th e chosen control; indeed, they depend only on th e injectivity of
th e m ap
xq
i > C e Atx o-
In th e next exam ple we will show th a t this no longer tru e in th e nonlinear

case.
E x a m p le 5 .1 2 T he aim of th is exam ple is to show th a t, contrary to the

linear case, controls play an im p o rtan t role in th e nonlinear observability. In
general, there m ay exist controls which do not distinguish points nevertheless
th e system can be observable if other controls distinguish. To illu strate th a t
phenom enon, consider th e bilinear system
11
12 =
X2 X2u , y = x 1
0,
203
where ( x i , x 2 )r G M2. T his system is observable, because if we p u t u(t) = 0

we get an observable linear system . Notice, however, th a t th e constant
control u(t) = 1 does not distinguish xq and xq such th a t a?io = 10 and
X20 ~f~ 20 (we will come back to th is phenom enon in Section 5.3). O f
course, we can deduce strong local observability a t any point from th e rank
condition. Indeed, we have h = x i , f = x 2 - t ^ , and L f h = x 2. Hence
Ti = span{cfcci,cfcc2}-
E xam p le 5.13 Consider th e unicycle, see Exam ple, 5.6, for which we ob
serve i/i = x i and y 2 = x 2. We have hi = x i , h 2 = x 2, gi = c o s0-^ +
s in 0 g |^ , and g 2 = J j . Hence L gih \ = c o s9 and L gih 2 = s in 9. Thus
Ti = span { d x i , d x 2 , d s m 9 , dcos 9} im plying th a t dim H iq) = 3, for any
5 G K2 x S 1. Therefore th e unicycle satisfies th e observability rank condi
tion a t any point of its configuration space.
5 .2
L o c a l d e c o m p o s itio n s
Let us s ta rt
w ith linear system s of th e form

.
x
:
=
=
Ax + B u ,
Cx ,
where i G l " , G Rm , y E W . Denote by W , th e kernel of th e linear m ap

defined by th e K alm an observability m atrix O (see E xam ple 5.11). If A is
not observable th en we can find new coordinates ( x l , x 2)y w ith a;1 and x 2
being possibly vectors and dim x l = k, w here dim W = n k, such th a t
a- G W7 if and only if x = (0, x 2). T hen A reads
i1 =
x2 =
A lx l +
+
^421a:1 + ^422a;2 +
B lu ,
B 2u ,
= Clx l ,
where th e p air {Cl , A l ) is observable.

As a consequence, any two initial states whose difference is not in W are
distinguishable from each other, in particu lar, by m eans of th e o u tp u t pro
duced by th e zero in p u t. C ontrary, if th eir difference is in W , th en they are
indistinguishable. T he factor system A/ / , where I is th e indistinguishability
equivalence relation, is observable and is given by
A1 : x l = A l x l + B l u ,
y =
C lx l .
Geom etrically, A1 is obtained by factoring th e system th rough the subspace

W and th e factor system is well defined since W is invariant under A. A
204
W. Respondek
n a tu ra l question is w hether we can proceed sim ilarly for th e nonlinear system

E?
T h e o r e m 5 .1 4 Consider the nonlinear system E . A ssum e that the distribu
tion % is of constant rank equal to k locally around q. Then we have.
(i) The codistribution % is integrable and there exist local coordinates
( x l , x 2)T defined in a neighborhood V of q, with x l , x 2 possibly be
ing vectors, such that % = span { d x \ , . . . , x ^}.
(ii) In the local coordinates (x l 7 x 2)T , the system E takes the form
1
y = h l (xl ) ,
f 2 ( x l , x 2 ,u).
(iii) B y taking V sufficiently small, two pints q, q V are indistinguishable

fo r E jy i f and only i f q S q, where S q is the integral leaf, passing
through q, of the codistribution % restricted to V .
(iv) In V , factoring the system through the foliation of the integrable codis
tribution %, produces the strongly locally observable system E 1 which,
in (x l , x 2)T - coordinates, is given by
E 1 : ./1 =
/ 1(a:1,u ) ,
y = h 1 ( x 1).
T his result says th a t locally and under th e constant ran k assum ption,
th e leaves of th e foliation of th e integrable codistribution T consist of in
distinguishable points and th a t, on th e other hand, we can distinguish the
leaves.
From T heorem 5.14 we im m ediately get th e two following corollaries.
C o r o lla r y 5 .1 5 I f % is of constant rank in a neighborhood of q then the
following conditions are equivalent.
(i) E is locally observable at q.
(ii) E is strongly locally observable at q.
(iii) dim 7i(q) = n .
C o r o lla r y 5 .1 6 / / E is locally observable at any point of X then dim 'H{q) =
n, fo r q X ' , an open and dense subset of X .
An im p o rtan t case when th e observability rank is constant is given by the
following.
205
P r o p o s it io n 5 .1 7 A ssum e that an analytic control system E satisfies the

accessibility Lie rank condition everywhere on X . Then % is of constant rank
on X . In particular, the system is locally observable at q (or, equivalently,
strongly locally observable at q) i f and only i f dim Tiiq) = n.
To illu strate th e decom position result of this section we consider the
following example.
E x a m p le 5 .1 8 C onsider th e unicycle, see Exam ple 5.6, for which we m ea
sure th e angle 9 only, th a t is h = 9. We have L gih = L g2h = 0. Thus
Ti = span {d9} defines th e foliation
{9 = c o n s t.} ,
whose leaves consist of indistinguishable points. Indeed, if 9q = 9q th en
th e points q = (xio 7 X2 o,Go)t and q = (i i o, 20,ô)T are indistinguishable.
T he obvious reason for this is th a t th e evolution of th e observed variable
y(t) = 9(t) is independent of th a t of x \( t ) and x 2 (t).
5 .3
U n ifo r m o b s e r v a b ility
In Exam ple 5.12 we pointed out th a t for observable nonlinear system s there
m ay exist controls th a t render th e system unobservable. In th is section we
describe a class of system s, for which all controls distinguish points.
D e f in itio n 5 .1 9 T he system E is called uniformly observable, w ith respect
to th e inputs, if for any two states q i,q 2 X , such th a t qi ^ q>2 > and any
control u(-) U
yqi,u(t) 7^ yq%,u(t)E is uniformly locally observable a t q X , if there exists a neighborhood V
of q, such th a t E restricted to V is uniform ly observable.
E x a m p le 5 .2 0 Exam ple 5.12 illustrates th e existence of nonlinear system s
th a t are not uniform ly observable. A nother exam ple is th e unicycle, see
Exam ple 5.6, for which we observe y \ = x 2 and j/2 = 2 - T he system
is observable, nevertheless, for th e control u \(t) = 0, any two points q =
O io, 20 , 90)T and q = ( i0, 20, ô)T , such th a t zio = 10 and x 2o = x 2o are
indistinguishable.
206
W. Respondek
O f course, linear observable system s are uniform ly observable. We will

describe now a class of nonlinear uniform ly observable system s. Consider a
single-input single-output control-affine system of th e form
L a f f
x
y
=
=
f { x ) + g(x)u
h(x),
where x E X , u E R , y E R and / , g are sm ooth vector fields on X .

T he following result is due to G au th ier and B ornard [14].
T h e o r e m 5 .2 1 For the system
we have:
(i) I f afjf is uniformly locally observable at any q E X , then around any
point of on an open and dense submanifold X ' of X there exist lo
cal coordinates ( x i , . . . , x n)T in which the system takes the following
normal form
xi
X2
=
=
x2
x3
+ ugi(xi),
+ ug2(x i , x 2)
y = xi
(U O )
Xni
Xn
En
=
I- ugni ( x i , . . . , x nij
f n (x i,...,X n)
Ugn ( x i , . . . , x n )
(ii) I f afjf admits, locally at q, the fo rm (UO) then it is uniformly locally

observable at q.
(iii) A necessary and sufficient condition fo r afj to admit locally at q the
normal fo rm (UO) is that dim span {d h , . . . , dLn^ l h}{q) = n and that
in a neighborhood of q
[Djid] C D j ,
fo r any 1 < j < n, where D j = ker { d h , . . . , dL 3^ l h}.
5 .4
L o c a l o b se r v a b ility : a n e c e s s a r y a n d s u ffic ie n t c o n d itio n
Recall th a t th e H erm ann-K rener observability ran k condition gives only a

sufficient condition for (strong) local observability (com pare Exam ple 5.10).
Following Bartosiewicz [1] we will provide in this section a necessary and
sufficient condition for local observability.
Consider a nonlinear system E and assum e th a t it is analytic, th a t is, X
is an analytic m anifold, th e vector fields f u are analytic and h is an analytic
m ap.
We s ta rt w ith th e following sim ple observation.
207
P ro p o sitio n 5.22 T h e p o in ts q\ a n d q2 are in d istin g u ish a b le i f a n d o n ly i f

f o r a n y <f> 7i w e h a ve <f>(qi) = <f>(q2)-
Introduce now th e o b s e r v a tio n algebra of S . It is th e sm allest subalgebra

over R of C W( X ) , th e algebra of analytic functions on X , which contains hi
an d is closed under Lie derivatives w ith respect to f u, u e U . We denote it
by H a - Observe th a t H ,\ consists of all elem ents of H and of all constant
functions.
For x G X , by O x we denote th e algebra over R of germ s of analytic
functions a t x . D enote by m x th e unique m axim al ideal of O x . It consists
of all germ s th a t vanish a t x . For ./ C X we define I x to be th e ideal in
O x generated by germ s of those functions from H a which vanish a t x . O f
course, I x C m x . T h e real ra dical of an ideal I in a com m utative ring R is
V i = { a G R | a 2m + bf-\
G I for some m > 0, k > 0, b i , . . . ,bf. G R } .
Clearly, th e real radical is an ideal.
T h eorem 5.23 T h e s y s te m E is locally observable a t x i f a n d o n ly i f
E xam p le 5.24 We can easily see th a t for th e system x = 0 , y = x 3

(com pare Exam ple 5.10), which is clearly locally observable a t any x G R,
we have
= m x for any x G R, in particu lar, for x = 0.
5 .5
G e n e r ic o b s e r v a b ility p r o p e r tie s
In this section we discuss th e problem of w hat observability properties are

shared by generic control system s. We consider C -W hitney topology for
sm ooth system s. Recall th a t a sequence of sm ooth function ipn on a m anifold
X converges in C -W hitney topology to a sm ooth function ip if there exists a
com pact subset C C X such th a t th e all derivatives i p ff, for i > 0, converge
uniform ly on C to th e corresponding
and (pn = (p on X \ C, for all
n sufficiently large. In th e case of a com pact sta te space X, it is ju st the
topology of C uniform convergence on X. We s ta rt by presenting results
of Jakubczyk and Tchon [28] who classified uncontrolled observed dynam ics
208
W. Respondek
of th e form
x
y
=
=
f(x) ,
h(x),
where x C X and y R, / is a sm ooth vector field and h is a sm ooth Un

valued function. Let E denote th e fam ily of all system s E of th e above form
equipped w ith th e C 00-W hitney topology.
T h eorem 5.25 There exists an open and dense subset So C S such that
any E G So is locally equivalent at any q X to one of the following normal
forms.
(i) ///(< ?) ^ 0 then E is equivalent to
=
a^+1 + X 2 x { ~ 1 Hb x rx i + r](x2 ,
f(x)
f i ( x u . . . , x n) J ^ - ,
h(x)
n ),
(5.2)
(5.3)
where 0 < r < n, and f i and ij are C-functions of the indicated

arguments such that /i( 0 ) > 0.
(ii) ///(< ?) = 0 then E is locally equivalent to
h(x)
f(x)
=
=
x\ + c ,
d
d
x 2 l - + --- + x n OXi
OXn
(5.4)
d
+ f n (x i , . . . , x n) ~ ,
i
oxn
(5.5)
where c is aconstant and f n is a C-function such that f n (0) = 0.

In th e item (i) above, if r = 1 we can always take h = x f + r) while for
r = 0 we take h = x i + c
Observe th a t in th e case (i), for th e tim e-rescaled system
= j ^ f ( x ),
where dr = f \ { x { i ) ) d i y we have ar*(r)=constant, for 2 < i < n, and thus in
th e new tim e scale
y( r ) = h ( x ( r )) = r r+1 + x 2r r_1 + x rT + c,
where x 2 = c2 , . . . 7 x n = cn and c are constants. It follows th a t,
firstly,
responses are polynom ial w ith respect to th e new tim e r , w ith a t m ost r
different local extrem e points. Secondly, there are always initial conditions,
close to q, producing y( r ) w ith r different local extrem a.
For system s which are not generic b u t satisfy th e observability ran k con
dition, an analogous norm al form can be established.
209
T h eorem 5.26 I f E satisfies the observability rank condition at q then it is

locally equivalent either to the fo rm (5.4)-(5.5) i f f ( q) = 0 or, otherwise, to
one of the following normal form s
h(x)
a^+1 + (pr-ix ^
f{x)
f i ( x i , . . . , Xn )~ ^~ ,
b (pixi + 4>q + c,
(5.6)
(5.7)
where r > 0, and fa are C-functions of x 2 , . . . , x n , fo r 0 0.
If r = 1 we can always take h = x \ + (f)2 , while for r = 0 we take h = x 1 + c.
We end up th is chapter by sta tin g some results of G authier and K upka
devoted to th e genericity of uniform observability. Consider an observed
sm ooth control system of th e form
s
% = f { x , u ),
y = h(x, u)
where x G X , u G U, and y G Y . Notice th a t we assum e th e o u tp u t

y = h(x, u) to depend explicitly on th e control u.
Recall th a t for th e system E we define th e response m ap, called also
in p u t-o u tp u t m ap
Rs : X x U ^ y 7
which to any initial condition xq G X and any adm issible control u(-) G U
attaches th e o u tp u t of th e system
y ( t , x 0 ,u(-)) = h ( x ( t , x 0 ,u (-)),u (t)).
T he control u(-) being defined on an interval 0 G I u C R, we consider the
o u tp u t y(-) on th e m axim al interval I y C I u C R on which it exists.
In th e rem aining p a rt of th is section, we will assum e th a t th e sta te space
X is a com pact m anifold and U = J m, w here J is some com pact interval of
R. We denote by E th e class of such system s equipped w ith th e topology of
C uniform convergence on X x I m .
For any C ^-function w(t) of tim e we will denote w k (t) = ( w ( t ) , w ' ( t ) , ,
w W ()). For th e system E , for any integer k and for a C ^-differentiable input
u(t), we define th e fc-prolongation of th e response m ap as
210
W. Respondek
th a t is, as th e vector form ed by th e o u tp u t and its first k derivatives w ith

respect to tim e t.
For an open subset W of R9 (or a differential m anifold), and for a C kdifferentiable function w of I C R into W , such th a t 0 G I , we denote by
j kw th e fc-jet a t 0 G R of w. We will denote by J kW th e space of fc-jets at
0 G R of m aps from I into W . Now we consider th e fc-jet
j kR s : X x J k U > J kY
of th e m ap
defined by
j kR x ( x o , j ku ) = j ky,
where j ky = y k (0), y k (t) = R ^ ( x o , u k (t)), and u(t) is any C^-control such

th a t u k (0) = j ku.
T he following fundam ental result has been proved by G authier and K upka
[16], [17], [18],
T h eorem 5.27 A ssum e p > m , that is, the number of outputs is greater
than that of inputs. Fix a sufficiently large positive integer k.
(i) The set of systems such that j kR ^ ( - , j ku) is an imm ersion of X into
R ^ +1), fo r all j k u G J k U , contains an open dense subset of E.
(ii) The set of systems E such that j kR s ( - , j ku) is an embedding of X into
RpO+i) , fo r all j ku G J k U , is a residual subset of E.
(iii) For any compact subset C of J k U , the set of systems E such that
j kR ^ ( - , j ku) is an embedding, fo r all j ku G C, is open dense in E.
T he above result im plies th a t, in th e case p > m , th e set of system s
th a t are observable for all C k in p u ts is residual, th a t is, it is a countable
intersection of open dense sets. If a bound on th e derivatives of th e controls is
given a-priori, th a t is | u W (t) |< M , for some constant M and any 0 < i < k.
th en th is set is open dense. If th e num ber of o u tp u ts is not greater th a n
th a t of controls all statem ents of th e above theorem are false.
D ecoupling
In this section we show how sta tic feedback allows to transform th e dynam ics
of a nonlinear system in order to achieve desired decoupling properties. In
Section 6.1 we will introduce a crucial concept of invariant distributions. In
Section 6.2 we consider disturbance decoupling while in Section 6.3 we deal
w ith in p u t-o u tp u t decoupling.
6 .1
211
In v a ria n t d is tr ib u tio n s
Consider a sm ooth nonlinear control system of th e form

:
x = g0( x ) + Y ^ g i ( x )u i = go(x ) + g(x ) u 7
i=1
where x G X , u G Rm , g = ( g i , . . . ,g m ) and u = ( u i , . . . , u m)T . Notice th a t
for sim plicity we denote th e drift of th e system by / = go
A d istrib u tio n V is called invariant for if
[gi, T> C V .
for 0 < i < m .
If a d istrib u tio n is not invariant for E it m ay becom e invariant under a

suitable feedback m odification. A d istrib u tio n V is called controlled invari
ant if there exists an invertible feedback of th e form
u = a ( x ) + (3(x)u,
/?() invertible,
such th a t V is invariant under th e feedback m odified dynam ics

= 9o(x) + Y ^ 9 i ( x ) u i ,
%=1i
i=
th a t is,
[gh V\ C V ,
for 0 < i < in.. where
g0 = g0 + got,
g = gj3 .
E xam p le 6.1 In th e case of a linear system of th e form

A : x = A x + Bu,
i G f 1,
u G Rm .
a subspace V C K is said to be invariant for A if A V C V . We say th a t V

is controlled invariant (or (A, B )-invariant) if there exists a linear feedback
of th e form u = F x + G u such th a t
(A + B F ) V C V.
Observe th a t in th e linear case (A, B )-invariance does not depend on G so
one can take G = Id or G -noninvertible.
212
W. Respondek
One can cheek by a direct calculation th a t (A, B ) -invariance is equivalent

to
A V C V + Im B .
(6.1)
We refer to [45] for an extensive treatm en t of th e concept of invariance in

th e linear case.
P u t Q = span {g\ , . . . , grn}. In th e nonlinear case, controlled invariance of
a d istrib u tio n V implies th e following p roperty of local controlled invariance
(com pare (6.1))
[(/,:. P] C V + Q. for 0 < i < m .
For involutive d istributions th e converse holds locally under regularity as
sum ptions, see [20],[25],[35].
P ro p o sitio n 6.2 A ssum e that the distributions V , Q, and V fl Q are of

constant rank. I f V is involutive and locally controlled invariant then it is
controlled invariant, locally at any point x X .
6 .2
D is tu r b a n c e d e c o u p lin g
In th is Section we apply th e concept of controlled invariant distrib u tio n s to

solve th e nonlinear disturbance decoupling problem . Consider th e following
nonlinear system w ith o u tp u t affected by disturbances d = (d\ , . . . , <4)T ,
which are assum ed to be bounded m easurable R* -valued functions of tim e.
rn
Sdjst ,
gQ(x) + Y ^ 9 i(x )ui + Y ^ Q i ( x )di = 9o(x ) + g (x )u + q(x)d

i= 1
i= 1
H x) ,
where x X , u Rm , y W , and d R k . All d a ta are sm ooth, i.e.,

f , g u - - - , g m e V ( X ) , hi C ( X ) , where h = ( h i , . . . , hp)T , and
q i , . . . , q k G V ( X ) . We denote q = ( q i , . . . , q k ) and call th em disturbance
vector fields.
We say th a t th e disturbance decoupling problem, shortly D D P , is solvable,
if there exists an invertible feedback of th e form u = a ( x ) + f3(x)u such th a t
th e o u tp u t y(t) = h(x(t)) of th e feedback m odified system
m
X = go(x ) + 2^sr*(s) + ^ 2 Qi(x)di

i= 1
i=l
213
does not depend on th e disturbances d(t). By th e la tte r we m ean th a t

y(t, q, u(-),d(-)) = y(t, q, (), <*()),
for any initial condition q X , any control u(-) U, and any disturbances
d(-) and d(-).
P u t Q = s p a n { g i , . . . ,qk}- T he following result has been proved by
Isidori et al [25].
T h eorem 6.3 I f D D P is solvable then there exists an involutive controlled

invariant distribution V such that
Q C V C ker dh.
T his result suggests th e following approach to DDP. Look for th e m axi

m al controlled invariant d istrib u tio n in ker dh and check w hether it contains
Q. In general, however, such a m axim al d istrib u tio n m ay not exist. M ore
over, even if it exists and contains th e disturbance vector fields it is not
necessarily tru e th a t D D P is solvable. O n th e other hand there always ex
ists V*, th e maximal locally controlled invariant distribution in ker dh, which
leads to th e following solution of D D P (see [20] and [25]).
T h eorem 6.4 A ssum e that the distributions V*, V* fl Q, and Q are of con
stant rank. I f
QcV*,
then D D P is solvable, locally, around any point of X .
T he stru c tu re of th e decoupled system can be described as follows. Let
(a, 3) be an invertible feedback which locally renders the d istrib u tio n V*
invariant (it always exists under the regularity assum ptions of T heorem 6.4,
see P roposition 6.2). Let x = ( x l , x 2) be local coordinates, w ith a;1, x 2 being
possibly vectors, such th a t V* = s p a n { g |j} . T hen th e feedback m odified
system reads as
E dist :
i1
x2
y
=
=
=
9o(x l ) + 9 1 ( x l )u
g l ( x l , x 2) + g 2 ( x l , x 2)u + q 2 ( x 1 , x 2)d
h l (xl ) ,
where / = / + g a and g = g/3. Now it is clear, com pare Section 5.2, th a t the
o u tp u t y(t) of th e system does not depend on d(t) since th e la tte r affects the
a;2-p art of th e system only which, in tu rn , is not observed by th e o u tp u t y.
214
W. Respondek
E xam p le 6.5 Consider th e linear system w ith disturbances

x
y
-A-dist
=
=
Ax + Bu + Ed
Cx ,
where x K , u Rm , y W , d R k , and d denotes th e disturbances.

D D P is solvable if and only if Im E C V"!. where V* is th e largest controlled
invariant subspace in ker C (com pare [45]).
E xam p le 6.6 Consider a particle of unit m ass m oving on th e surface of a

cylinder according to a po ten tial force given by th e po ten tial function V (see
[37])
qi
= pi
= P2
^
= ~ ^(Q uQ 2 ) + u p2 = - f ^ ( g i , 2 ) + d ,
where (qi,q 2 iPi->P2 ) T ( S l x K). Let th e o u tp u t be given as y = q\. We
can see th a t V* = span { ^
. Moreover, th e disturbance vector field
^
6 .3
V* and hence D D P is solvable by th e feedback u =
? 2 ) + u.
I n p u t - o u t p u t d e c o u p lin g
Consider a sm ooth nonlinear control affine system w ith o u tp u ts of th e form
sS~
x
V
=
=
f ( x ) + Y 7 = i u i9i(x )
h(x),
where x X , u Rm , and y R p.
We say th a t th e input-output decoupling problem (called also 1-0 de
coupling problem or noninteracting problem) is solvable for E if there ex
ists an invertible feedback of th e form u = a( x) + f3(x)u such th a t the
feedback m odified system x = f ( x ) + Y1 T=i
w ith y = h(x), where
/ = / + got, g = gfiy satisfies
y(kt) _
(br 1 < i < p.
(6.2)
for suitable nonnegative integers k i. Observe th a t we assum e th a t th e in p u t

o u tp u t m ap of th e m odified system is linear. Therefore there is no lose of
generality in assum ing th e form (6.2) because if th e transfer m atrix of the
in p u t-o u tp u t response is diagonal (which is th e usual definition of noninter
acting) we can always achieve (6.2) by applying a suitable linear feedback.
215
Fix an initial condition xq X . For each o u tp u t channel we define its

relative degree pi, called also characteristic number, to be th e sm allest integer
such th a t for any neighborhood VXQ of xq
L gjL pf - l hi(x) + 0,
for some 1 < j < to and for some x Vxo. By L ph we will m ean th e vector
of p sm ooth functions whose -entry is L pi h i.
Define th e (p x to) decoupling m atrix D ( x ), denoted also by L gL ph ,
whose (,j)-e n try is
L gjL f - l hi(x).
T h eorem 6 .7 Consider a control affine system S aff(i) The system Lag is input-output decouplable at xq via an invertible
feedback of the fo rm u = a( x) + 3(x)u i f and only if
ra,nkD(xo) = p .
(ii) Moreover, fo r the square system, i.e., m = p, the feedback
u = - ( L gL pf l h ) - l L pf h + [hgL pf l h ) - l u
(6.3)
yields y \kt^ = Ui, where hi = pi, fo r 1 < i < p.
R em ark 6.8 Inverting form ula (6.3), we get th e following expression for
th e new controls
m
Ui
= L pihi + Y ^ U j L gjL pf^ l hi,

3=1
for 1 <
i < m = p. An analogous form ula holds also in th e non-square case.
Indeed, if th e system satisfies th e decoupling condition rankD (a:o) = P?th en
we can assum e after a p erm u tatio n of controls, if necessary, th a t th e first p
colum ns of th e m atrix D ( x o) are independent. T hen a decoupling feedback
can be taken as
u,i
u,i
=
=
L f h i + jyjL i u j L g X f ^ h i ,
Ui,
for 1 < i < p,

for p + 1 < i < to.
216
W. Respondek
E xam p le 6.9 Consider th e following rigid two-link robot m anipulator or,

in other words, double pendulum , (see [37], com pare also Exam ple 4.7)
i1 =
x2
x2
M ( x 1 ) ^ 1 ( C ( x l , x 2) + k ( x 1)) + M ( x l ) ^ l u ,
where x l = 6 = (9 i,9 2)t , x 2 = 6 = {9i,92)t y u = ( u i , u 2)t . T he term k{9)

represents th e gravitational force and th e term C{ 9 , 9) reflects th e centripetal
an d Coriolis forces, and th e positive definite sym m etric m atrix M ( x l ) is
given by
m i l 2 + m 2 l 2 + m 2 l 2 + 2 m 2 h l 2 cos 9 2
m 2 l 2 + f n 2 h l 2 cos 9 2
m 2 l 2 + rn 2 lil 2 cos 9 2
m 2 l2
As the o u tp u ts we take th e cartesian coordinates of th e endpoint

Vi
V2
= h i ( 9 i ,9 2)
= h 2 (9 i,9 2)
=
=
h sin ^ i + l 2 sin(9i + 92)

h c o s 9 i + l 2 cos(9i + 92).
By a direct com putation we get pi = p 2 = 2 and ran k D( x ) = 2 if and only

if h l 2 sin 9 2 ^ 0. T hus th e system is in p u t-o u tp u t decouplable if 9 2 ^ ki r,
th a t is, we have to exclude configurations a t which th e two robot arm s are
parallel.
E xam p le 6.10 Consider the unicycle (com pare Exam ples 4.11 and 5.6) and
assum e th a t we observe th e x i -cartesian coordinate and th e angle 9
ii
x2
9
=
=
=
ui cos 9
i sin 9
u2
yi
xi
y2
9.
T he control u 2 has a direct im pact on th e second com ponent y 2 of th e o u tp u t

as well as, through cos 9, on th e first com ponent. T hus th e system is not
in p u t-o u tp u t decoupled b u t it can be decoupled via a static feedback. We
obviously have pi = p 2 = 1 and th e decoupling m atrix is
cos 9
0 \
1) '
Therefore th e system is in p u t-o u tp u t decouplable a t all points such th a t

9 ^ | + kn.
217
E xam p le 6.11 C onsider th e sam e dynam ics of th e unicycle and suppose

th a t th is tim e we observe x \ and X2
x\
= u\ cos 9
= ui sin 9
= 2-
yi
V2
=
=
x\
Obviously, we have pi = p 2 = 1 b u t this tim e th e decoupling m atrix

D = i
cos 9
- a
sin 0
0
n
u
is of rank one everywhere and th u s th e system is not
1 -0
decouplable.
If th e system is 1 -0 decouplable th en it is straightforw ard to calculate

V*, th e m axim al locally controlled invariant d istrib u tio n in ker dh (com pare
Section 6.2 and, consequently, solve th e D D P problem .
P ro p o sitio n 6.12 Consider the system Edist- A ssum e that the undisturbed
system, that is, when di = 0, fo r 1 < i < k, is input-output decouplable.
Then
(i) V* = V , where V = span {dL ^hi, 1 < i < p, 0 < j < pi 1}.
(ii) I f moreover, Q C V 1' then the D D P problem is solvable and the feed
back (6.4) simultaneously decouples the disturbances and renders the
system input-output decoupled and input-output linear.
E xam p le 6.13 To illu strate th is result let us consider th e following m odel
of th e unicycle. We suppose th a t th e dynam ics is affected by a disturbing
ro tatio n (of un unknow n varying stren g th d(t)) and th a t we m easure the
angle and th e square of th e distance from th e origin:
1
2
=
=
=
i cos 9 + X2 d
i sin 9 x \ d
U2
yi
xf + x\
y2
9.
T he decoupling m atrix is
'
2a; i cos 9 + 2./'2 sin 9

0
0
1
an d is of ran k two a t any point away from N = { ( x \ , X 2 , 9 ) | a;ico s0 +

a;2 sin 9 = 0 } . Notice th a t N consists of points where th e direction of the
218
W. Respondek
unicycle is perpendicular to th e ray from th e origin passing th rough the

center of th e unicycle. At points of (M2 x S 1) \ N , th e system is in p u t
o u tp u t decouplable and, moreover, V = span { x \ d x \ + x 2 d x 2 , dB}. T he
vector field q =
is annihilated by V and th u s the feedback

1 = (2a;i cos
+ 2 x 2 sin 0 ) ^ l u \ and 2 = 2 decouples th e disturbances from

th e o u tp u t yielding an 1 - 0 decoupled and 1 - 0 linear system expressed, in
(R, (p, 0)-coordinates, where R = r 2 = x 2 + x \ , x \ = r cos (p, X 2 = r s in <p, by
6
R
cp
9
= u\
= 2 1 tan (0 - ip) - d
= 2
yi
= R
y2
T he disturbance d does not affect th e o u tp u t (2/ 1 , 2/2 ) = (-R, 0).
219
R eferences
[1] Z. Bartosiewicz, Local observability of nonlinear system s, Syst. Contr.
Lett. 25 (1995), 295-298.
[2] B a ttilo tti, N onintem cting Control with Stability fo r Nonlinear System s,
Springer-Verlag, London, 1994.
[3] R. W . B rockett, Feedback invariants for nonlinear system s, IF A C
Congress 6 , Helsinki, 1978, 1115-1120,.
[4] R. W . B rockett, A sym ptotic stability and feedback stabilization, in Dif
ferential Geometric Control Theory, R. W . B rockett, R. S. M illm an, and
H. J. Sussm ann (eds.), B irkhuser, Boston, 1983, 181-191.
[5] P. Brunovsky, A classification of linear controllable system s, Kybernetica 6 (1970), 173-188.
[6] J. J. Craig, Introduction to Robotics, Mechanics and Control, Addison
Wesley, Reading, 1986.
[7] P. E. Crouch and B. B onnard, An appraisal of linear analytic system
theory w ith applications to a ttitu d e control, E S A E S T E C Contract
reprint (1980).
[8] P. E. Crouch, Spacecraft a ttitu d e control and stabilization: applications
of geom etric control theory to rigid body m odels, I E E E Tr. Aut. Contr.
A C -29 (1984), 321-331.
[9] W . P. Dayawansa, W . M. Boothby, and D. Elliot, G lobal sta te and
feedback equivalence of nonlinear system s, Syst. Contr. Lett. 6 (1985),
229-234.
[10] J. Descusse and C. H. Moog, D ecoupling w ith dynam ic com pensation
for strong invertible affine nonlinear system s, Int. J. Control 43 (1985),
1387-1398.
[11] S. Diop and M. Fliess, On nonlinear observability, in Proc. of the l si
ECC, Herms, Paris, 1991, 152-157.
[12] S. Diop and M. Fliess, N onlinear observability, identifiability, and p er
sistent trajectories, Proc. of the 30th CDC, 1991, 749-719.
220
W. Respondek
[13] S. Diop and Y. W ang, Equivalence of algebraic and local generic ob

servability, Proc. of the 30th CDC, 1993, 2864-2865.
[14] J. P. G authier and G. B ornard, O bservability for any u (t) of a class of
nonlinear system s, I E E E Tr. Automat. Contr. 26 (1981), 922-926.
[15] J. P. G authier, H. H am m ouri, and S. O thm an, A sim ple observer
for nonlinear system s, applications to bioreactors, I E E E Tr. Automat.
Contr. 37 (1992), 875-880.
[16] J. P. G authier and I. K upka, G enericity of observability and th e exis
tence of asym ptotic observers, in Geometry in Nonlinear Control and
Differential Inclusions, B. Jakubczyk, W . Respondek, and T . Rzezuchowski (eds.), B anach C enter Publications vol. 32, W arsaw, 1995, 227
244.
[17] J. P. G authier and I. K upka, O bservability for system s w ith m ore o u t
p u ts th a n in p u ts and asym ptotic observers, Matematische Zeitschriften
223 (1996), 47-78.
[18] J. P. G authier and I. K upka, Deterministic Observation Theory and
Applications, Cam bridge U niversity Press, N.Y., 2001.
[19] I. J. H a and E. G. G ilbert, A com plete characterization of decoupling
control laws for a general class of nonlinear system s, I E E E Tr.. Aut.
Contr. A C -3 1 (1986), 823-830.
[20] R. M. H irschorn, (A ,B )-invariant d istributions and disturbance decou
pling of nonlinear system s, S I A M J. Contr. Optimiz. 19 (1981), 1-19.
[21] R. H erm ann and A. J. K rener, N onlinear controllability and observabil
ity, I E E E Trans. Aut. Contr. A C - 22 (1977), 728-740.
[22] L. R. H unt and R. Su, Linear equivalents of nonlinear tim e varying
system s, Proc. o f the M T N S , S anta M onica, 1981, 119-123.
[23] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems, 3rd edition, Springer-Verlag,
London, 1995.
[24] A. Isidori and J. W . Grizzle, Fixed m odes and nonlinear noninteracting
control w ith stability, I E E E Tr. Aut. Contr. A C -3 3 (1988), 907-914.
221
[25] A. Isidori, A. J. K rener, C. G ori Giorgi, and S. Monaco, Nonlinear

decoupling via feedback: a differential geom etric approach, I E E E Trans.
Aut. Contr. A C -2 6 (1981), 331-345.
[26] B. Jakubczyk, In troduction to geom etric nonlinear control; C ontrolla
bility and Lie bracket, this volume.
[27] B. Jakubczyk and W . Respondek, O n linearization of control system s,
Bull. Acad. Polonaise Sci., Ser. Sci. Math., 28 (1980), 517-522.
[28] B. Jakubczyk and K. Tchon, Singularities and norm al forms of observed
dynam ics, Math. Control Signal Systems 2 (1989), 19-31.
[29] V. Jurdjevic, Geometric Control Theory, Studies in Advanced M ath.,
52, Cam bridge U niversity Press, N.Y., 1997.
[30] T . K ailath, Linear Systems, Prentice-H all, Englewood Cliffs, N J, 1980.
[31] A. J. K rener, O n th e equivalence of control system s and linearization
of nonlinear system s, S I A M J. Contr. 11 (1973), 670-676.
[32] A. J. K rener, A generalization of Chow s theorem and th e bang-bang
theorem to nonlinear control system s, S I A M J. Contr. 12 (1974), 43-52.
[33] A. J. K rener, A. Isidori, and W . Respondek, P a rtia l and robust lin
earization by feedback, Proc. 22nd CDC, San Antonio, (1983), 126-130.
[34] R. M arino, O n th e largest feedback linearizable subsystem , Syst. Contr.
Lett. 7, (1986), 345-351.
[35] H. Nijm eijer, C ontrolled invariance for affine control system s, Int. J.
Contr. 34 (1981), 824-833.
[36] H. Nijm eijer and W . Respondek D ynam ic in p u t-o u tp u t decoupling of
nonlinear control system s, I E E E Trans. Aut. Contr. A C -3 3 , 1988,
1065-1070.
[37] H. N ijm eijer and A. J. van der Schaft, Nonlinear Dynamical Control
Systems, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.
[38] W . Respondek, G eom etric m ethods in linearization of control system s,
in Mathematical Control Theory, Cz. Olech, B. Jakubczyk, and J.
Zabczyk (eds.), B anach C enter P ublications, vol. 14, PW N -Polish Sci
entific Publishers, W arsaw, 1985, 453-467.
222
W. Respondek
[39] W . Respondek, G lobal aspects of linearization, equivalence to polyno

m ial forms and decom position of nonlinear control system s, in Algebraic
and Geometric Methods in Nonlinear Control Theory, M. Fliess and M.
Hazewinkel (eds.), Reidel, D ordrecht, 1986, 257-284.
[40] W . Respondek, P a rtia l linearization, decom positions and fibre linear
system s, in Theory and Applications of Nonlinear Control System s, C.I.
Byrnes and A. L indquist (eds.), N orth-H olland, A m sterdam , 1986, 137
154.
[41] H. J. Sussm ann, O rbits of families of vector fields and integrability of
distributions, Trans. A m . Math. Soc. 180 (1973), 171-180.
[42] H. J. Sussm ann, Lie brackets, real analyticity, and geom etric control, in
Differential Geometric Control Theory, R. W . B rockett, R. S. M illm an,
and H. J. Sussm ann (eds.), B irkhauser, Boston, 1983, 1-116.
[43] H. J. Sussm ann and V. Jurdjevic, C ontrollability of nonlinear system s,
J. Diff. Eqs. 12 (1972), 95-116.
[44] A. J. van der Schaft, L inearization and in p u t-o u tp u t decoupling for
general nonlinear system s, Syst. Contr. Lett. 5 (1984), 27-33.
[45] W . M. W onham , Linear Multivariable Control: A Geometric Approach,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979.
[46] M. Zribi and J. Chiasson, E xact linearization control of a PM stepper
m otor, Proc. Am erican Control Conference, P ittsb u rg h , 1989.

Introduction To Geometric Nonlinear Control Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Introduction To Geometric Nonlinear Control Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Introduction to Geometric Nonlinear Control;

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

Laboratoire de Mathmatiques, IN S A de Rouen, France

Lectures given at the

These notes are devoted to the problems of linearization, observ

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

These notes, together w ith notes of Jakubczyk [26] of th e same volume,

Feedback linearization: an introduction

T he aim of th is prelim inary section is to introduce th e concept of feedback

into a linear system of th e form

Denote x \ = 9 and X2 = to and consider th e evolution of th e pendulum

Using a sim ple transform ation in th e control space we th u s brought the

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

Now fix an angle 9 q. T he goal is to stabilize th e system

whose characteristic polynom ial is given by

th en th e eigenvalues of th e closed loop system are Ai and A2 . In particular,

and apply to th e system th e control

where i 6 l P , ! i 6 l and assum e th a t A is controllable, th a t is

-r-l ATi 1Jm

for some a* G R, for 1 < i < n. By introducing a new control variable

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

which can be viewed a t as a sta te depending transform ation in the control

F ix a point xq E X and assum e th a t there exist a C -sm ooth function ip on

defines a local diffeomorphism , or, in o ther words, a local coordinate system .

By introducing a new control variable

which can be viewed a t as a transform ation in th e control space U, depending

T he proposed m ethod works under two assum ptions. Firstly, we assum ed

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

which in coordinates is expressed as

( a d } g ) j = 0 , for 0 < j < n 2 ,

where (ad^c?)* denotes th e i-th com ponent, in th e coordinates (i, . . . ,x.vn) T

T he condition (C2), called involutivity, is discussed in th e general context

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

C o r o lla r y 2 .3 A control-affine planar system

i f and only i f g and a d g

E x a m p le 2 .4 (Exam ple 2.1 cont.) We have / = 2 g^ and g =

Equivalence of control system s

T he question of feedback linearization discussed in Section 2 is a subproblem

where x G X , an open subset of R (or an n-dim ensional m anifold) and

Consider an o th er control system of th e sam e form w ith th e sam e control

where x G X , an open subset of W 1 (or an n-dim ensional m anifold) and

i.e., th a t $ establishes a correspondence betw een vector fields defined by

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

fo r any () U and any t fo r which both sides exist, where 7 f( p ) (resp.

' ' ' ]]

and analogous for th e tilded family. In p a rticu la r /[M1] = f u i .

fo r any k > 1 and any 1 , . . . Uf. U.

The system E ag- is locally state space equivalent at p X to a linear

T he role of th e concept of feedback in control cannot be overestim ated and

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

U are open subsets of Rm . We say th a t S and S are feedback equivalent if

where g = ( g \ , . . . ,g m ) and u = ( 1 , . . . , u rn)T , in order to preserve the

A general nonlinear control system

Linearization, Observability, Decoupling

fundam ental role in solving th e feedback linearization problem .

= A j - i ( x , u ) + span [T, A j_ i] (x, u)

R e m a r k 4 .1 For th e linear system Ac we have

In the control-affine case, th e feedback linearization problem was solved

C o r o lla r y 4 .4 E afj is locally feedback equivalent at (xq , uq) to a controllable

Observe th a t k \ > > Krn and Y1T= l

X ij+ i , for 1 < j < Ki - 1 ,

where 1 < i < m , called Brunovsky canonical fo r m , which consists of m

= span{gj(:r), 1 < i < m }