LECTURE NOTES

A Unification Between Partial Stability and Stability Theory

for Time-Varying Systems By VijaySekhar Chellaboina and Wassim M. Haddad

I
n many engineering applications, partial stability (stabil-
ity with respect to part of the systems states) is often
necessary. In particular, partial stability arises in the
study of electromagnetics [1], inertial navigation systems
[2], spacecraft stabilization via gimballed gyroscopes
and/or flywheels [3], combustion systems [4], vibrations in
rotating machinery [5], and biocenology [6], to cite but a
few examples. For example, in the field of biocenology in-
volving Lotka-Volterra predator-prey models of population
dynamics with age structure, if the birth rate of some of the
species preyed upon is left alone, then the corresponding
population increases without bound while a subset of the
prey species remains stable [6, pp. 260-269]. The need to
consider partial stability in the aformentioned systems
arises from the fact that stability notions involve equilib-
rium coordinates as well as a hyperplane of coordinates that
is closed but not compact. Hence, partial stability involves
motion lying in a subspace instead of an equilibrium point.
Additionally, partial stabilization, that is, closed-loop stabil-
ity with respect to part of the closed-loop systems state,
also arises in many engineering applications [3], [5]. Spe-
cifically, in spacecraft stabilization via gimballed gyro-
scopes, asymptotic stability of an equilibrium position of
the spacecraft is sought while requiring Lyapunov stability
of the axis of the gyroscope relative to the spacecraft [3]. Al-
ternatively, in the control of rotating machinery with mass
imbalance, spin stabilization about a nonprincipal axis of in-
ertia requires motion stabilization with respect to a
subspace instead of the origin [5]. Perhaps the most com-
mon application where partial stabilization is necessary is
adaptive control, wherein asymptotic stability of the
closed-loop plant states is guaranteed without necessarily
achieving parameter error convergence [7]-[9].
To further demonstrate the utility and need for partial
stability theory, we consider two simple examples. Spe-
B and the rotational rigid-body mode. The oscillator cart of
l r
A mass m and mass moment of inertia I located at a distance e
Motor
Figure 1. Slider-crank mechanism.
cifically, consider the equation of motion for the slider-
crank mechanism shown in Fig. 1 given by [10], [11]:
m( ( t ))&&( t ) + c( ( t ))& 2( t ) = u ( t ),
(0 ) = , &(0 ) = & t 0 ,
0 0, (1)
where
2
r cos sin
m( ) = mBr 2 + mAr 2 sin + ,
l 2 r 2 sin 2 (2)
r cos sin
c( ) = mAr 2 sin +
l 2 r 2 sin 2
l 2(1 2sin 2 ) + r 2 sin 4
cos + r ,
(l 2 r 2 sin 2 )3 / 2 (3)
and mA and mB are point masses, r andl are the lengths of the
rods, and u() is the control torque applied by the motor.
Now suppose we choose the feedback control law u = ( , & )
.
so that the angular velocity of the crank is constant; that is,
&( t ) a s t , w h e re > 0. T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t
( t ) = t as t . Furthermore, since m( ) and c( )
are functions of , we cannot ignore the angular position .
Hence, since does not converge, it is clear that (1) is unsta-
ble in the standard sense but partially asymptotically stable
with respect to & (see Definition 1 below).
Our next example involves a nonlinear system originally
studied as a simplified model of a dual-spin spacecraft to in-
vestigate the resonance capture phenomenon [12] and more
recently studied to investigate the utility of a rota-
tional/translational proof-mass actuator for stabilizing
translational motion [13]. The system (see Fig. 2) involves an
eccentric rotational inertia on a translational oscillator giving
rise to nonlinear coupling between the undamped oscillator
mass M is connected to a fixed support via a linear spring of
stiffness k. The cart is constrained to one-dimensional mo-
tion, and the rotational proof-mass actuator consists of a
from the carts center of mass. Lettingq, q, &
& , and denote the
translational position and velocity of the cart and the angular
position and velocity of the rotational proof mass, respec-
tively, the dynamic equations of motion are given by

Chellaboina (ChellaboinaV@missouri.edu) is with the Deaprtment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Missouri, Colum-
bia, MO 65211, U.S.A. Haddad is with the School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0150, U.S.A.

0272-1708/02/$17.002002IEEE
66 IEEE Control Systems Magazine December 2002
 [ ]
( M + m)q&&( t ) + me &&( t )cos ( t ) & 2( t )sin ( t ) + kq ( t ) = 0, addressing stability theory for autonomous and nonauto-
nomous systems within a unified framework.
(4)
Yet another application of partial stability theory is the ex-
&&( t ) + meq&&( t )cos ( t ) = 0, tra flexibility it provides in constructing Lyapunov functions
( I + me 2 ) (5)
for nonlinear dynamical systems. Specifically, generalizing
Lyapunovs stability theorem to include partial stability
where t 0, q (0 ) = q 0 , q&(0 ) = q&0 , (0 ) = 0 , and &(0 ) = & 0 . Note
weakens the hypotheses on the Lyapunov function (see The-
that since the motion is constrained to the horizontal plane,
orem 1), thus enlarging the class of allowable functions that
the gravitational forces are not considered in the dynamic
can be used in analyzing system stability. Perhaps the clear-
analysis. Analyzing (4), (5) (see Example 1 for details), it fol-
est example of this is the Lagrange-Dirichlet stability problem
lows that the zero solution (q ( t ),q&( t ), ( t ), &( t )) (0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ) to
[6] involving the conservative Euler-Lagrange system with a
(4), (5) is unstable in the standard sense but partially
& nonnegative-definite kinetic energy functionT and a positive-
Lyapunov stable with respect toq, q, & and (see Definition 1).
definite potential function U. In this case, the Lagrange-
Once again, standard Lyapunov stability theory cannot be
Dirichlet energy function V = T + U is only nonnegative-defi-
used to arrive at this result since the angular position of
nite and hence cannot be used as a Lyapunov function candi-
the rotational proof mass cannot be ignored from (4), (5)
date to analyze the stability of the system using standard
and ( t ) as t .
Lyapunov theory. However, the Lagrange-Dirichlet energy
Another important application of partial stability theory
function can be used as a valid Lyapunov function within par-
is the unification it provides between time-invariant stabil-
tial stability theory to guarantee Lyapunov stability of the
ity theory and stability theory for time-varying systems.
Lagrange-Dirichlet problem (see Example 2).
Specifically, in most nonlinear control textbooks, the pre-
In this article, we present partial stability theorems for
sentations on stability theory for nonlinear time-invariant
nonlinear dynamical systems and present a unification be-
systems and nonlinear time-varying systems are often sepa-
tween partial stability theory for autonomous systems and
rated, with the latter being labeled as an advanced topic on
stability theory for nonlinear time-varying systems. This
the subject. Furthermore, some textbooks (see, for exam-
unification allows for time-varying stability theory to be pre-
ple, [14, p. 82]) remark that time-varying systems can be eas-
sented as a special case of autonomous partial stability the-
ily handled as part of time-invariant systems by appending
ory so that time-varying and time-invariant stability theory
another state to represent time. Specifically, consider the
can be discussed in juxtaposition in a first course on nonlin-
time-varying nonlinear dynamical system given by
ear systems. Furthermore, partial stability theory is a funda-
mental topic of nonlinear system theory and should be part
x&( t ) = f ( t , x ( t )), x( t0 ) = x 0 , t t0 , (6)
of a nonlinear control course in its own right. Note that our
partial stability definitions are different from those given in
where x ( t ) R n , t t 0 , and f :[t 0 , t 1 ) R n R n . Now define
[3] and [15] in that we do not require the whole system ini-
x 1( ) = x ( t ) and x 2( ) = t , where = t t 0 , and note that the so-
tial condition to lie in a neighborhood of the origin. The defi-
lution x ( t ), t t 0 , to the nonlinear time-varying dynamical
nition used in this article is more closely related to the
system (6) can be equivalently characterized by the solution
notion of stability of sets [16], [17]. This alternative defini-
x 1( ), 0, to the nonlinear autonomous dynamical system
tion is key to providing the above unification. Finally, we

x& 1( ) = f ( x 2( ), x 1( )), x 1 (0 ) = x 0 , 0, (7)

x& 2( ) = 1, x 2 (0 ) = t 0 , (8) M

where x& 1() and x& 2() in (7) and (8), respectively, denote dif- k
ferentiation with respect to . However, in this case, stability I
results for time-invariant systems do not apply to the aug-
mented system (7), (8) since one of the states, namely, the
m
state x 2 representing time, is unbounded. As a consequence,
the presentation on autonomous and nonautonomous sta-
bility theory is often separated, and students are often puz-
zled as to whether the two theories are fundamentally
distinct or somehow connected. However, writing the x
time-varying nonlinear system (6) as (7), (8), it is clear that
partial stability theory provides a natural formulation for Figure 2. Rotational/translational proof-mass actuator.

December 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 67


stress that our aim in this article is to demonstrate that par-
tial stability and time-varying stability are derivable from
the same principles and can be introduced as part of the
same mathematical framework in a first course on nonlinear
systems without resorting to the more advanced notions of
the stability of sets.
Partial Stability of Nonlinear
Autonomous Systems
In this section, we establish definitions and notation and in-
troduce the notion of partial stability [3]. Let R denote the
set of real numbers, let R n denote the set of n 1real column
vectors, let denote an arbitrary spatial vector norm, let I n
denote the n n identity matrix, and let V ( x ) denote the
Frchet derivative of V at x. Furthermore, let C0 denote the
set of continuous functions and Cr denote the set of func-
tions with r continuous derivatives.
In this section, we consider the nonlinear autonomous
dynamical system
x& 1( t ) = f1( x 1( t ), x 2( t )), x 1(0 ) = x 10 , t I x 0 , (9)
x& 2( t ) = f2( x 1( t ), x 2( t )), x 2(0 ) = x 20 , (10)
where x 1 D R n1 , D is an open set with 0 D, x 2 R n 2 ,
f1:D R n 2 R n1 is such that, for every x 2 R n 2 , f1(0 , x 2 ) = 0
and f1(, x 2 ) is locally Lipschitz in x 1 , f2:D R n 2 R n 2 is such
that, for every x 1 D, f2( x 1 ,) is locally Lipschitz in x 2 , and
z z
||x01|| =
||x01|| =
x(t)
y1
y2
(a)
Figure 3. (a) Partial Lyapunov stability with respect to x 1 . (b) Partial asymptotic stability with respect to x 1 : x 1 = [ y1
and x = [ x 1T x 2 ]T .
68 IEEE Control Systems Magazine
Ix0 = [0 , x 0 ), 0 < x 0 , is the maximal interval of existence
for the solution( x 1( t ), x 2( t )), t I x 0 , to (9), (10). Note that un-
der the above assumptions, the solution ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) to (9),
(10) exists and is unique over I x 0 . See [18, p. 34] and [19, p. 68]
for a similar result and a proof. The following definition intro-
duces seven types of partial stability, that is, stability with re-
spect to x 1 , for the nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10).
Definition 1:
i) The nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is Lyapunov
stable with respect to x 1 if, for every > 0 and x 20 R n 2 ,
there exists = ( , x 20 ) > 0 such that x 10 < implies
that x 1( t ) < for all t 0 (see Fig. 3(a)).
ii) The nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is Lyapunov
stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 if, for every
> 0, there exists = ( ) > 0 such that x 10 < implies
that x 1( t ) < for all t 0 and for all x 20 R n 2 .
iii) The nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is asymptoti-
cally stable with respect to x 1 if it is Lyapunov stable
with respect to x 1 and, for every x 20 R n 2 , there exists
= ( x 20 ) > 0 s u c h t h a t x 10 < i m p l i e s t h a t
lim t x 1( t ) = 0 (see Fig. 3(b)).
iv) The nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is asymptoti-
cally stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 if it is
Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 and
there exists > 0 such that x 10 < implies that
lim t x 1( t ) = 0 for all x 20 R n 2 .
v) The nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is globally as-
ymptotically stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 if
it is Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20
and lim t x 1( t ) = 0 for all x 10 R n1 and x 20 R n 2 .
||x01|| =
||x01|| =
x(t)
y1
y2
(b)
y2 ]T , x 2 = z ,
December 2002
 vi) The nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is exponen-
tially stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 if there
exist scalars , , > 0 such that x 10 < implies that
x 1( t ) x 10 e t , t 0, for all x 20 R n 2 .
vii) The nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is globally
exponentially stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20
i f t h e re e x i s t s c a l a r s , > 0 s u c h t h a t
x 1( t ) x 10 e t , t 0, for all x 10 R n1 and x 20 R n 2 .
Next, we present sufficient conditions for partial stability of
the nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10). For the following result,
recall the definitions of class K and class K functions (see [18, p.
144] and [19, p. 135]) and define V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) =
V ( x 1 , x 2 )f ( x 1 , x 2 ),
where f ( x 1 , x 2 ) = [f1 ( x 1 , x 2 )f2 ( x 1 , x 2 )] , for a continuously
T T T
differentiable function V :D R n 2 R. Furthermore, we as-
sume that the solution ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) to (9), (10) exists and is
unique for all t 0. It is important to note that unlike standard
theory (see, for example, [19, Theorem 2.4]), the existence of
a Lyapunov function V ( x 1 , x 2 ) satisfying the conditions in
Theorem 1 is not sufficient to ensure that all solutions of (9),
(10) starting in D R n 2 can be extended to infinity since nei-
ther of the states of (9), (10) serve as an independent vari-
able. We do note, however, that continuous differentiability of
f1(,) and f2(,) provides a sufficient condition for the exis-
tence and uniqueness of solutions to (9), (10) for all t 0.
Theorem 1. Consider the nonlinear dynamical system
(9), (10). Then the following statements hold:
i) If there exists a continuously differentiable function
V :D R n 2 R and a class K function () such that
V (0 , x 2 ) = 0 , x 2 R n2 ,
( x 1 ) V (x 1 , x 2 ), ( x 1 ,x 2 ) D R n2 ,
V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) 0 , ( x 1 ,x 2 ) D R n2 ,
then the nonlinear dynamical system given by (9),
(10) is Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 .
ii) If there exists a continuously differentiable function
V :D R n 2 R and class K functions (),() satisfy-
ing (12), (13), and
V ( x 1 , x 2 ) ( x 1 ), ( x 1 ,x 2 ) D R n2 ,
then the nonlinear dynamical system given by (9), (10)
is Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 .
iii) If there exists a continuously differentiable function
V :D R n 2 R and class K functions (),(), () sat-
isfying (12), (14), and
V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) ( x 1 ), ( x 1 ,x 2 ) D R n2 ,
December 2002
then the nonlinear dynamical system given by (9),
(10) is asymptotically stable with respect to x 1 uni-
formly in x 20 .
iv) If D = R n1 and there exists a continuously differentia-
ble function V :R n1 R n 2 R, a class K function (),
and class K functions (),() satisfying (12), (14),
and (15), then the nonlinear dynamical system given
by (9), (10) is globally asymptotically stable with re-
spect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 .
v) If there exists a continuously differentiable function
V :D R n 2 R and positive constants , , , p 1 sat-
isfying
p p
x1 V ( x1 ,x2 ) x1 , ( x 1 ,x 2 ) D R n2 , (16)
V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) x 1 ,
p
( x 1 ,x 2 ) D R n2 , (17)
then the nonlinear dynamical system given by (9),
(10) is exponentially stable with respect to x 1 uni-
formly in x 20 .
vi) If D = R n1 and there exists a continuously differentia-
ble function V :R n1 R n 2 R and positive constants
, , , p 1satisfying (16) and (17), then the nonlinear
dynamical system given by (9), (10) is globally expo-
nentially stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 .
Proof:
i) Let > 0 be such that B ={x 1 R n1 : x 1 < } D, define
= ( ), and define D = {x 1 B : there exists x 2 R n 2
(11) such that V ( x 1 , x 2 ) < }. Since V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) 0, it follows
that V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) is a nonincreasing function of time
and hence D R n 2 is a positive invariant set with re-
(12) spect to (9), (10). Next, since V (,) is continuous and
V (0 , x 20 ) = 0, x 20 R n 2 , there exists = ( , x 20 ) > 0
such that V ( x 1 , x 20 ) < , x 1 B , and hence B D .
(13) Hence, for all ( x 10 , x 20 ) B R n 2 , it follows that
( x 1( t ) ) V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) V ( x 10 , x 20 ) < = ( ),
and thus x 1( t ) B , t 0, establishing Lyapunov sta-
bility with respect to x 1 .
ii) Let > 0 and let B and be given as in the proof of i).
Now, let = ( ) > 0 be such that ( ) = ( ). Hence, it
follows from (14) that for all ( x 10 , x 20 ) B R n 2 ,
(14)
( x 1( t ) ) V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) V ( x 10 , x 20 ) < ( ) = ( ),
and thus x 1( t ) B , t 0.
iii) Lyapunov stability uniformly in x 20 follows from ii).
Next, let > 0 and = ( ) > 0 be such that for every
x 10 B , x 1( t ) B , t 0 (the existence of such a ( , )
pair follows from uniform Lyapunov stability), and as-
(15) sume that (15) holds. Since (15) implies (13), it follows
IEEE Control Systems Magazine 69
 that for every x 10 B , V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) is a nonin-
p
x 1( t ) V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t ))
creasing function of time, and, since V (,) is bounded
t
from below, it follows from the Bolzano-Weierstass the- V ( x 10 , x 20 )e
,
orem [20] that there exists L 0 such that lim t > p

t

V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) = L. Now suppose for some x 10 B , ad x 10 e

,

absurdum, L > 0 so that DL = {x 1 B : V ( x 1 , x 2 ) L for
all x 2 R n 2 } is nonempty and x 1( t ) DL , t 0. Thus, as and hence
in the proof of i ), there exists $ > 0 such that B$ DL .
1/p
Hence, it follows from (15) that for the given t

x 10 B \ DL and t 0, x 1( t ) x 10 e p
,

t
establishing exponential stability with respect to x 1
V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) = V ( x 10 , x 20 ) + V& ( x 1( s ), x 2( s ))ds
uniformly in x 20 .
0
t vi) The proof follows as in iv) and v).
V ( x 10 , x 20 ) ( x 1( s ) )ds Remark 1. By setting n1 = n and n2 = 0, Theorem 1 special-
0 izes to the case of nonlinear autonomous systems of the form
()
V ( x 10 , x 20 ) $ t . x& 1( t ) = f1( x 1( t )). In this case, Lyapunov (respectively, asymp-
totic) stability with respect to x 1 and Lyapunov (respectively,
asymptotic) stability with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 are
Letting t (V ( x 10 , x 20 ) L ) / ( $ ), it follows that equivalent to the classical Lyapunov (respectively, asymp-
V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) L, which is a contradiction. Hence, totic) stability of nonlinear autonomous systems. Further-
L = 0, and, since x 10 B was chosen arbitrarily, it fol- more, note that in this case there exists a continuously
lows that V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) 0 as t for all x 10 B . differentiable function V :D R such that (12), (14), (15)
Now, since V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) ( x 1( t ) ) 0, it follows hold if and only if V () is such that V (0 ) = 0, V ( x 1 ) > 0, x 1 0,
that ( x 1( t ) ) 0 or, equivalently, x 1( t ) 0 t , V ( x 1 )f1( x 1 ) < 0, x 1 0 [19]. In addition, if D = R n1 and there
establishing asymptotic stability with respect to x 1 . exist class K functions (),() and a continuously differen-
iv) Let > 0 be such that x 10 < . It now follows from (15) tiable functionV () such that (12), (14), (15) hold if and only if
that V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) is a nonincreasing function of time V () is such that V (0 ) = 0, V ( x 1 ) > 0, x 1 0, V ( x 1 )f1( x 1 ) < 0,
and hence x 1( t ) D =
{x 1 R n1 : there exists x 2 R n 2 x 1 0, and V ( x 1 ) as x 1 .
such that V ( x 1 , x 2 ) ( )}, t 0. Next, since () is a It is important to note that there is a key difference be-
class K function, it follows that there exists > 0 such tween the partial stability definitions given in Definition 1
that ( ) < ( ), and it follows from (14) that and the definitions of partial stability given in [3] and [15]. In
( x 1( t ) ) V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) ( ) < ( ), t 0. Hence, particular, the partial stability definitions given in [3] and
x 1( t ) B , t 0. Now, with = , the proof follows as in [15] require that both the initial conditions x 10 and x 20 lie in a
the proof of iii). neighborhood of the origin, whereas in Definition 1, x 20 can

v) Let > 0 and = ( ) be given as in the proof of i) . Now be arbitrary. As will be seen in the next section, this differ-
(17) implies that V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) 0, and hence it follows ence allows us to unify autonomous partial stability theory
that V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) is a nonincreasing function of time with time-varying stability theory. Lyapunov (respectively,
and D R n 2 D R n 2 is a positive invariant set with asymptotic) stability with respect to x 1 given in Definition 1
respect to (9), (10). Thus, it follows from (16) and (17) is referred to in [3] as x 1 -stability (respectively, x 1 -asymp-
that for all t 0 and ( x 10 , x 20 ) D R n 2 , totic stability) for large x 2 , whereas Lyapunov (respectively,
asymptotic) stability with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 2 given
in Definition 1 is referred to in [3] as x 1 -stability (respec-

V& ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) x 1( t ) V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) ,
p
tively, x 1 -asymptotic stability) with respect to the whole of

x 2 . Note that if a nonlinear dynamical system is Lyapunov
(respectively, asymptotically) stable with respect to x 1 in
which implies that the sense of Definition 1, then the system is x 1 -stable (re-
spectively, x 1 -asymptotically stable) in the sense of the defi-
nition given in [3] and [15]. Furthermore, if there exists a

t
continuously differentiable function V :D R n 2 R and a
V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) V ( x 10 , x 20 )e
.
class K function () (respectively, and class K function ())
such that V (0 ,0 ) = 0 and (12), (14) (respectively, (12), (14))
It now follows from (16) that hold, then the nonlinear dynamical system (9), (10) is x 1 -sta-

70 IEEE Control Systems Magazine December 2002

ble (respectively, x 1 -asymptotically stable) in the sense of Since
the definition given in [3]. It is important to note that the
condition V (0 , x 2 ) = 0, x 2 R n 2 , allows us to prove partial 2 min ( P( x 3 )) = M + m + I + me 2
stability in the sense of Definition 1. Finally, an additional dif-
( M + m I me 2 )2 + 4 m2 e 2 cos2 x 3 ,
ference between our formulation of the partial stability
problem and the partial stability problem considered in [3] (22)
and [15] is in the treatment of the equilibrium of (9), (10).
Specifically, in our formulation, we require the partial equi- 2 max ( P( x 3 )) = M + m + I + me 2
librium condition f1(0 , x 2 ) = 0 for every x 2 R n 2 , whereas in + ( M + m I me 2 )2 + 4 m2 e 2 cos2 x 3 ,
[3], [15], the authors require the equilibrium condition
f1(0 ,0 ) = 0 and f2(0 ,0 ) = 0. (23)
Next we provide a partial specialization of Theorem 1 it follows that min I 2 P( x 3 ) max I 2 , x 3 R, where
that is more in the style of the classical Lyapunov stability
result, which does not involve () and() class K functions. 2 min ( P( x 3 )) = M + m + I + me 2
Although this result is more restrictive, it may be more con- ( M + m I me 2 )2 + 4 m2 e 2 ,
venient for deducing partial stability. (24)
Corollary 1. Consider the nonlinear dynamical system
given by (9), (10). If there exists a continuously differentia-
ble, positive-definite function V :D R such that 2 max ( P( x 3 )) = M + m + I + me 2
+ ( M + m I me 2 )2 + 4 m2 e 2 .
(25)
V ( x 1 ) f 1 ( x 1 , x 2 ) 0 , ( x1 ,x2 ) D R ,n2
(18)
Hence, it follows that
then the nonlinear dynamical system given by (9), (10) is
Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 . If, in ad-
1 2 min
dition, there exists a class K function () such that
2
x1 +
2
( )
x 22 + x 42 V ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 )

V ( x 1 )f1( x 1 , x 2 ) ( x 1 ), ( x 1 ,x 2 ) D R n2 , (19)
1
x 12 + max x 22 + x 42 ,
2 2
( )
then the nonlinear dynamical system given by (9), (10) is as-
ymptotically stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in x 20 . More- which implies that V () satisfies (12) and (14). Now, since
over, if V :R n1 R is radially unbounded, then the system V& ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ) = 0, it follows from ii) of Theorem 1 that (4),
(9), (10) is globally asymptotically stable with respect to x 1 (5) is Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 , x 2 , and x 4 uni-
uniformly in x 20 . formly in x 3 . Furthermore, since the system involves a non-
Proof. The proof is a direct consequence of Theorem 1 linear coupling of an undamped oscillator with a rotaional
with V ( x 1 , x 2 ) replaced by V ( x 1 ). rigid-body mode, it follows that x 3( t ) as t .
Example 1. In this example, we use Theorem 1 to show Example 2. In this example, we apply Theorem 1 to a
that the rotational/translational proof-mass model (4), (5) is Lagrange-Dirichlet problem involving a conservative Eu-
partially Lyapunov stable with respect toq, q, & To show
& and . ler-Lagrange system with a nonnegative-definite kinetic en-
& &
this, let x 1 = q , x 2 = q , x 3 = , x 4 = and consider the ergy function T and a positive-definite potential function U.
Lyapunov function candidate Specifically, we consider the motion of the spherical pendu-
lum shown in Fig. 4, where denotes the angular position of
the pendulum with respect to the vertical z-axis and de-
notes the angular position of the pendulum in the x-y plane, m
V ( x1 ,x2 , x3 ,x4 ) =
denotes the mass of the pendulum, L denotes the length of
1
2
[ kx 12 + ( M + m)x 22 + ( I + me 2 )x 42 + 2mex 2 x 4 cos x 3 . ] the pendulum, k denotes the torsional spring stiffness, and g

denotes the gravitational acceleration. Definingq = [ ]T to be
& & T
(20) the generalized system positions and q& =[ ] to be the gen-
eralized system velocities, it follows that governing equa-
Note that V ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ) = (1 / 2)x 12 + (1 / 2)x~ T P( x 3 )x~, where tions of motion are given by the Euler-Lagrange equation
x~ = [x 2 x 4]T and
d L L
(q ( t ),q&( t )) (q ( t ),q&( t )) = 0 ,
M+m me cos x 3 dt q& q
P( x 3 ) = .
me cos x 3 I + me 2 q (0 ) = q 0 , q&(0 ) = q&0, t 0 ,
(21) (26)

December 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 71

w h e re L(q ,q& ) = T (q ,q& ) U (q ) d e n o t e s t h e s y s t e m
Lagrangian, T (q ,q& ) =
(1 /2)m[( L& )2 + ( & L sin )2] denotes the
system kinetic energy, andU (q ) = mgL(1 cos) + (1 /2)k2 de-
notes the system potential energy. Equivalently, (26) can be
rewritten as
&&( t ) sin ( t )cos ( t )& 2( t ) + ( g /L )sin ( t ) = 0 ,
(0 ) = , &(0 ) = & ,
0 0
sin 2 ( t )&&( t ) + 2sin ( t )cos ( t )&( t )&( t ) + ( k /mL2 )( t ) = 0 ,
(0 ) = 0 , &(0 ) = &0 .
Next, consider the Lagrange-Dirichlet energy function
V (q ,q& ) = T (q ,q& ) + U (q ) and note that since the system ki-
netic energy function T (q ,q& ) is nonnegative definite in q, & the
&
function V (q ,q ) cannot be used as a Lyapunov function can-
didate to analyze the stability of the system using standard
Lyapunov theory. However, the Lagrange-Dirichlet energy
function V (q ,q& ) can be used as a valid Lyapunov function
within partial stability theory to guarantee partial Lyapunov
stability with respect to [ &]T . Specifically, let x 1 = [ &]T ,
let x 2 = &, and let
2
( x 1 ) = maxmgL(1 cos( x 1 ), k x 1 , mL2 x 1 ,
1 2 1
2 2
where x 1 = max{||,||,|&|}. Now, note that () is a class K
function andV ( x 1 , x 2 ) = V (q ,q& ) ( x 1 ). Furthermore, note
that V (0 , x 2 ) = 0, x 2 R, and V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) = 0. Now, it follows
from i) of Theorem 1 that the Euler-Lagrange system given
by (27), (28) is partially Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 .
Finally, it can be easily shown via simulations that the Eu-
ler-Lagrange system given by (27), (28) is not Lyapunov sta-
bility in the standard sense.
In the case of time-invariant systems, the Barbashin-
Krasovskii-LaSalle invariance theorem [18], [19] shows
z
k y
L
x L
Lsin
mg
Figure 4. Spherical pendulum.
72 IEEE Control Systems Magazine
that bounded system trajectories of a nonlinear dynamical
system approach the largest invariant set Mcharacterized
by the set of all points in a compact set D of the state space
where the Lyapunov derivative identically vanishes. In the
case of partially stable systems, however, it is not generally
clear how to define the set Msince V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) is a function of
both x 1 and x 2 . However, if V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) W ( x 1 ) 0, where
(27) W:D R is continuous and nonnegative definite, then a set
R M can be defined as the set of points whereW ( x 1 ) iden-
tically vanishes; that is, R = {x 1 D:W ( x 1 ) = 0}. In this case,
as shown in the next theorem, the partial system trajecto-
ries x 1( t ) approach R as t tends to infinity.
(28) Theorem 2. Consider the nonlinear dynamical system
given by (9), (10) and assume D R n 2 is a positive invariant
set with respect to (9), (10). Furthermore, assume there ex-
ist functions V :D R n 2 R, W ,W1 ,W2: D R such that
V (,) is continuously differentiable, W1() and W2() are con-
tinuous and positive definite, W() is continuous and
nonnegative definite, and, for all ( x 1 , x 2 ) D R n 2 ,
W1( x 1 ) V ( x 1 , x 2 ) W2( x 1 ), (29)
V& ( x 1 , x 2 ) W ( x 1 ). (30)
Then there exists D0 D such that for all ( x 10 , x 20 )
D0 R n 2 , x 1( t ) R ={x 1 D:W ( x 1 ) = 0} as t . If, in ad-
dition, D = R and W1() is radially unbounded, then for all
n1
( x 10 , x 20 ) R n1 R n 2 , x 1( t ) R ={x 1 R n1 :W ( x 1 ) = 0} a s
t .
Proof. Assume (29) and (30) hold. Then it follows from
Theorem 1 that the nonlinear dynamical system given by
(9), (10) is Lyapunov stable with respect to x 1 uniformly in
x 20 . Let > 0 be such that B D and let = ( ) > 0 be such
t h a t i f x 10 B , t h e n x 1( t ) B , t 0. N o w, s i n c e
V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) is monotonically nonincreasing and bounded
from below by zero, it follows from the Bolzano-Weierstrass
theorem [20] that lim t V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )) exists and is finite.
Hence, since for every t 0,
W ( x ( ))d V&( x ( ), x ( ))d
t t
1 1 2
0 0
= V ( x 10 , x 20 ) V ( x 1( t ), x 2( t )),
it follows that lim t W ( x 1( ))d exists and is finite. Next,
t
0
since x 1( t ) is uniformly continuous and W() is continuous
on a compact set B , it follows that W ( x 1( t )) is uniformly
continuous at every t 0. It now follows from the Barbalats
lemma [19] thatW ( x 1( t )) 0 as t . Finally, if in addition
D = R n1 andW1() is radially unbounded, then, as in the proof
of iv) of Theorem 1, for every x 10 R n1 there exists , > 0
such that x 10 B and x 1( t ) B , t 0. The proof now follows
by repeating the above arguments.
December 2002
 Remark 2. Theorem 2 shows that the partial system tra- x& 1( t ) = f1( x 1( t ), x 2( t )), x 1(0 ) = [q 0 ,q&0]T , t 0, (34)
jectories x 1( t ) approach R as t tends to infinity. However,
since the positive limit set of the partial trajectory x 1( t ) is a
subset of R, Theorem 2 is a much weaker result than the x& 2( t ) = 1, x 2(0 ) = 0. (35)
standard invariance principle wherein one would conclude
that the partial trajectory x 1( t ) approaches the largest in- To examine the stability of this system, consider the
variant set M contained in R. This is not generally true for Lyapunov function candidate V ( x 1 , x 2 ) = x 1T P( x 2 )x 1 , where
partially stable systems since the positive limit set of a par-
tial trajectory x 1( t ), t 0, is not an invariant set. However, in k + 3 + sin( x 2 ) 1
P( x 2 ) = .
the case where f1(, x 2 ) is periodic, almost periodic, or as- 1 1
ymptotically independent of x 2 , then an invariance principle
for partially stable systems can be derived. This result is be-
Note that since
yond the scope of this article and will be presented in a fu-
ture article.
x 1T P1 x 1 V ( x 1 , x 2 ) x 1 P2 x 1 , ( x1 ,x2 ) R 2 R , (36)
Stability Theory for Time-Varying Systems
In this section, we use the results of the previous section to where
prove the classical results on Lyapunovs direct method for
nonlinear time-varying systems, thereby providing a unifi- k + 2 1
P1 =
cation between partial stability theory for autonomous sys- 1 1
tems and stability theory for time-varying systems. First,
however, we provide an example to demonstrate the utility and
of Theorem 1 for analyzing time-varying systems. Spe-
cifically, we consider the spring-mass-damper system with k + 4 1
P2 = ,
time-varying damping coefficient given by
1 1

q&&( t ) + c( t )q&( t ) + kq ( t ) = 0 , it follows that V ( x 1 , x 2 ) satisfies (11) and (16) with D = R 2

q (0 ) = q 0 , q&(0 ) = q&0 , t 0. and p = 2. Next, since
(31)

This is an interesting system to analyze since physical intu-

&
ition would lead one to surmise that if c( t ) > 0, t 0, then V ( x 1 , x 2 ) = x 1 [ R + R1( x 2 )] x 1 x 1 Rx 1 max{k 11
T T 2
, } x1 ,
the zero solution (q ( t ),q&( t )) (0 ,0 ) to (31) is asymptotically (37)
stable since we have constant dissipation of energy. How-
ever, this is not the case. A simple counterexample (see
w h e re R = diag[k 11 , ] > 0 a n d R1( x 2 ) = diag[1 + cos( x 2 ),
[21]) is c( t ) = 2 + e t , k = 1, and q(0 ) = 2, and q&(0 ) = 1, which
1 + sin( x )], it follows from v) and vi) of Theorem 1 that the
givesq ( t ) = 1 + e t , t 0, and henceq ( t ) 1as t . This is
2
dynamical system (34), (35) is globally exponentially sta-
due to the fact that damping increases so fast that the sys-
ble uniformly in x 20 or, equivalently, the linear time-vary-
tem halts at q = 1. To analyze (31) using Theorem 1, we con-
ing system (32), (33) is globally uniformly exponentially
sider c( t ) = 3 + sin t and k > 1. Now, (31) can be equivalently
stable.
written as
To concretize the above observations, consider the non-
linear time-varying dynamical system
z& 1( t ) = z 2( t ), z 1(0 ) = q 0 , t 0, (32)
x&( t ) = f ( t , x ( t )), x ( t 0 ) = x 0 , t t 0 , (38)

z& 2( t ) = kz 1( t ) c( t )z 2( t ), z 2(0 ) = q&0 , (33) where x ( t ) D R n , t t 0 , 0 D, f :[t 0 , t 1 ) D R n is such

where z 1 = q and z 2 = q&. Next, let n1 = 2, n2 = 1, x 1 = [z 1 , z 2]T ,
x 2 = t , f1( x 1 , x 2 ) = [x 1T v , x 1T h( x 2 )]T , and f2( x 1 , x 2 ) = 1, where
h( x 2 ) = [k , c( x 2 )]T andv = [0 , 1]T . Now the solution x ( t ), t 0,
to the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (32), (33) is
equivalently characterized by the solution x 1( t ), t 0, to the
nonlinear autonomous dynamical system
that f (,) is jointly continuous in t and x and for every
t [t 0 , t 1 ), f ( t ,0 ) = 0 and f ( t ,) is locally Lipschitz in x uni-
formly in t for all t in compact subsets of [0 , ). Note that un-
der the above assumptions, the solution x ( t ), t t 0 , to (38)
exists and is unique over the interval [t 0 , t 1 ) [18], [19]. The
following standard definition provides seven types of stabil-
ity for the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38).

December 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 73

 Definition 2 [18]:
i) The nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38) is
Lyapunov stable if, for every > 0 and t 0 [0 , ), there
exists = ( , t 0 ) > 0 such that x 0 < implies that
x ( t ) < for all t t 0 .
ii) The nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38) is
uniformly Lyapunov stable if, for every > 0, there ex-
ists = ( ) > 0 such that x 0 < implies that x ( t ) <
for all t t 0 and for all t 0 [0 , ).
iii) The nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38) is
asymptotically stable if it is Lyapunov stable and, for
every t 0 [0 , ), there exists = ( t 0 ) > 0 such that
x 0 < implies that lim t x ( t ) = 0.
iv) The nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38) is
uniformly asymptotically stable if it is uniformly
Lyapunov stable and there exists > 0 such that
x 0 < implies that lim t x ( t ) = 0 for all t 0 [0 , ).
v) The nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38) is
globally uniformly asymptotically stable if it is uni-
formly Lyapunov stable and lim t x ( t ) = 0 for all
x 0 R n and t 0 [0 , ).
vi) The nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38) is
(uniformly) exponentially stable if there exist scalars
, , > 0 s u c h t h a t x0 < implies that
x ( t ) x 0 e t , t t 0 , and t 0 [0 , ).
vii) The nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (39) is
globally (uniformly) exponentially stable if there exist
scalars , > 0 such that x ( t ) x 0 e t , t t 0 , for all
x 0 R n and t 0 [0 , ).
Next, using Theorem 1, we present sufficient conditions
for stability of the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system
(38). For the following result, define
V V
V& ( t , x ) =
( t ,x ) + ( t , x )f ( t , x ),
t x
for a given continuously differentiable functionV :[0 , )
D R.
Theorem 3. Consider the time-varying dynamical system
given by (38). Then the following statements hold.
i) If there exist a continuously differentiable function
V :[0 , ) D R and a class K function () such that
V ( t ,0 ) = 0 , t [0 , ),
( x ) V ( t , x ), ( t , x ) [0 , ) D,
V& ( t , x ) 0 , ( t , x ) [0 , ) D,
then the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system
given by (38) is Lyapunov stable.
ii) If there exist a continuously differentiable function
V :[0 , ) D R and class K functions (),() satisfy-
ing (40), (41), and
74
V ( t , x ) ( x ), ( t , x ) [0 , ) D, (42)
then the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system
given by (38) is uniformly Lyapunov stable.
iii) If there exist a continuously differentiable function
V :[0 , ) D R and class K functions (),(), ()
satisfying (40), (42), and
V& ( t , x ) ( x ), ( t , x ) [0 , ) D, (43)
then the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system
given by (38) is uniformly asymptotically stable.
iv) If D = R n and there exist a continuously differentiable
function V :[0 , ) R n R, a class K function (),
class K functions (),() satisfying (40), (42), and
and (43), then the nonlinear time-varying dynamical
system given by (38) is globally uniformly asymptoti-
cally stable.
v) If there exist a continuously differentiable function
V :[0 , ) D R and positive constants , , , p such
that p 1 and
p p
x V ( t ,x ) x , ( t , x ) [0 , ) D,
(44)
V& ( t , x ) x ,
p
( t , x ) [0 , ) D,
(45)
then the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system
given by (39) is uniformly exponentially stable.
vi) If D = R n and there exist a continuously differentiable
function V :[0 , ) R n R and positive constants
, , , p 1satisfying (44) and (45), then the nonlinear
time-varying dynamical system given by (38) is glob-
ally uniformly exponentially stable.
Proof. First note that requiring the existence of a
Lyapunov function V :[0 , ) D R satisfying the condi-
tions above, it follows from Theorem 2.4 of [19] that there
exists a unique solution to (38) for all t 0. Next, let n1 = n,
n2 = 1, x 1( t t 0 ) = x ( t ), x 2( t t 0 ) = t , f1( x 1 , x 2 ) = f ( t , x ), and
f2( x 1 , x 2 ) = 1. Now note that with = t t 0 , the solution x ( t ),
(39) t t 0 , to the nonlinear time-varying dynamical system (38)
is equivalently characterized by the solution x 1( ), 0, to
the nonlinear autonomous dynamical system
(40)
x& 1( ) = f1( x 1( ), x 2( )), x 1(0 ) = x 0 , 0 ,
(41) x& 2( ) = 1, x 2(0 ) = t 0 ,
where x& 1() and x& 2() denote differentiation with respect to .
Furthermore, note that since f ( t ,0 ) = 0, t 0, it follows that
f1(0 , x 2 ) = 0 for every x 2 R n 2 . Now the result is a direct con-
sequence of Theorem 1.
IEEE Control Systems Magazine December 2002
 In light of Theorem 3, it follows that Theorem 1 can be
trivially extended to address partial stability for time-vary-
ing dynamical systems by simply appending another state
to represent time. Of course, in this case, it is important to
note that partial stability may be uniform with respect to ei-
ther or both x 20 and t 0 .
Conclusion
A unification between partial stability theory for autono-
mous systems and stability theory for nonlinear time-vary-
ing systems was presented. These results provide a
framework for addressing time-varying systems as a special
case of autonomous systems by appending another state to
represent time.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the National Science
Foundation under Grant ECS-9496249, the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research under Grant F49620-001-0095, and the
UM Research Board under Grant UMRB-00-068. The authors
would like to thank Prof. D.S. Bernstein for several stimulat-
ing discussions, which revealed that time-varying stability
theory can be addressed as a special case of partial stability,
and the associate editor for several helpful suggestions for
improving the original manuscript.
References
[1] V.I. Zubov, The Dynamics of Controlled Systems. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola,
1982.
[2] V.A. Sinitsyn, On stability of solution in inertial navigation problem, in
Certain Problems on Dynamics of Mechanical Systems (in Russian), Izd. MAI:
Moscow, 1991, pp. 46-50.
[3] V.I. Vorotnikov, Partial Stability and Control. Boston: Birkhuser, 1998.
[4] E. Awad and F.E.C. Culick, On the existence and stability of limit cycles for
longitunical acoustic modes in a combustion chamber, Comb. Scien. Tech.,
vol. 46, pp. 195-222, 1986.
[5] K.-Y. Lum, D.S. Bernstein, and V.T. Coppola, Global stabilization of the
spinning top with mass imbalance, Dynamics and Stability of Systems, vol. 10,
pp. 339-365, 1995.
[6] N. Rouche, P. Habets, and M. Lalog, Stability Theory by Liapunovs Direct
Method. New York: Springer, 1977.
[7] K.S. Narendra and A.M. Annaswamy, Stable Adaptive Systems. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1989.
[8] J. Hong and D.S. Bernstein, Adaptive stabilization of nonlinear oscillators
using direct adaptive control, Int. J. Contr., vol. 74, pp. 432-444, 2001.
[9] W.M. Haddad and T. Hayakawa, Direct adaptive control for nonlinear un-
certain systems with exogenous disturbances, Int. J. Adap. Contr. Sig. Pro-
cess., vol. 16, pp. 151-172, 2002.
[10] J. Hong, Experimental implementation of fixed-gain and adaptive con-
trol, Ph. D. dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, 1998.
[11] D.S. Bernstein, From infancy to potency: Lyapunovs second method
and the past, present, and future of control theory, presented at the IEEE
Conf. Decision and Control, Orlando, FL, Dec. 2001.
[12] R.H. Rand, R.J. Kinsey, and D.L. Mingori, Dynamics of spinup through
resonance, Int. J. Nonlinear Mech., vol. 27, pp. 489-502, 1992.
[13] R.T. Bupp and D.S. Bernstein, A benchmark problem for nonlinear and
robust control, Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 8, pp. 307-310, 1998.
[14] S.H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Books, 1994.
December 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine
[15] V.V. Rumyantsev, On the stability of motion with respect to part of the
variables, Vestnik Moskov. Univ. Ser. Mat. Mekh. Fiz. Astron. Khim., vol. 4, pp.
9-16, 1957.
[16] V.I. Zubov, Methods of A.M. Lyapunov and Their Applications. Groningen,
Netherlands: Noordhoff, 1964.
[17] K. Peiffer and N. Rouche, Liapunovs second method applied to partial
stability, J. Mcanique, vol. 8, pp. 323-334, 1969.
[18] M. Vidyasagar, Nonlinear Systems Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1993.
[19] H.K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[20] H.L. Royden, Real Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1988.
[21] J. Terjeki and L. Hatvani, On asymptotic halting in the presence of vis-
cous friction, Prikl. Mat. Mekh., vol. 46, pp. 20-26, 1982.
VijaySekhar Chellaboina received the B.Tech. degree in
mechanical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy, Madras, in 1991; the M.S. degree in mechanical engineer-
ing from Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, in 1993;
and the Ph.D. degree in aerospace engineering from Georgia
Institute of Technology, Atlanta, in 1996. From 1997 to 1999 he
served as a research associate in the School of Aerospace En-
gineering at Georgia Institute of Technology. Since 1999 he
has been a member of the faculty of the Department of Me-
chanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Mis-
souri, Columbia, as an assistant professor. He has written
more than 120 journal and conference articles. His recent re-
search is concentrated on nonlinear robust and adaptive con-
trol, hierarchical nonlinear switching control, hybrid and
impulsive control for nonlinear systems with combined logi-
cal and continuous processes, and nonlinear analysis and
control for biological and physiological systems.
Wassim M. Haddad received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. de-
grees in mechanical engineering from Florida Institute of
Technology, Melbourne, in 1983, 1984, and 1987, respec-
tively. From 1987 to 1994 he was a consultant for the Struc-
tural Controls Group of the Government Aerospace Systems
Division, Harris Corporation, Melbourne, FL. In 1988 he
joined the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Depart-
ment at Florida Institute of Technology where he founded
and developed the Systems and Control Option within the
graduate program. Since 1994 he has been with the School of
Aerospace Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology,
where he is a professor. His research contributions in linear
and nonlinear dynamical systems and control are docu-
mented in more than 370 archival journal and conference
publications. His recent research is concentrated on nonlin-
ear robust and adaptive control, saturation control, hierar-
chical nonlinear switching control, hybrid and impulsive
control for nonlinear systems with combined logical and
continuous processes, and nonlinear analysis and control
for biological and physiological systems. He is an NSF Presi-
dential Faculty Fellow, a member of the Russian Academy of
Nonlinear Sciences, and a coauthor of the book Hierarchical
Nonlinear Switching Control Design with Applications to Pro-
pulsion Systems (Springer-Verlag, 2000).
75