Chapter 7

Backstepping Control

N THIS CHAPTER , we address the problem of boundary stabilization of hyperbolic

I systems of balance laws by full state feedback and by dynamic output feedback
in observer-controller form. We consider only the case of systems of two balance
laws as in Section 5.3. The control design problem is solved by using a backstep-
ping method where the gains of the feedback laws are solutions of an associated
system of linear hyperbolic PDEs. The backstepping method for hyperbolic PDEs
was initially introduced by Krstic and Smyshlyaev (2008a), Krstic and Smyshlyaev
(2008b), and Smyshlyaev et al. (2010). This chapter is essentially based on Vazquez
et al. (2011) and Coron et al. (2013).

7.1 Motivation and Problem Statement

We have seen in Section 5.3 that there is always a proper coordinate transformation
such that any system of two linear balance laws can be written in the general form

@t S1 C 1 .x/@x S1 C a.x/S2 D 0;
t 2 0; C1/; x 2 0; L; (7.1)
@t S2  2 .x/@x S2 C b.x/S1 D 0;

where 1 , 2 are in C1 .0; LI RC / and a, b are in C1 .0; LI R/. This system is here
considered under the boundary conditions

S1 .t; 0/ D u.t/; S2 .t; L/ D  S1 .t; L/; t 2 0; C1/; (7.2)

where  is a real constant. This is a control system where u.t/ 2 R is the command
signal. From Section 5.6, we know that, if this system is open-loop unstable, there
is a limitation to the stabilization with a static boundary output feedback (i.e., a

Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 219

G. Bastin, J.-M. Coron, Stability and Boundary Stabilization of 1-D Hyperbolic
Systems, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and Their Applications 88,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-32062-5_7
220 7 Backstepping Control

feedback of the state values at the boundaries only): there is a maximal length L
above which the stabilization by a static boundary output feedback is impossible.
In this chapter, we show how this limitation can be bypassed by using a dynamic
boundary output feedback in the so-called observer-controller form. In a first
step, we design a full-state feedback control law. Then we design a boundary
feedback state observer. Finally the stabilizing output feedback controller is built
by combining both designs.
We define a linear reference model of the following form:

@t S1? C 1 .x/@x S1? D 0;

t 2 0; C1/; x 2 0; L; (7.3)
@t S2?  2 .x/@x S2? D 0;

with boundary conditions

S1? .t; 0/ D kS2? .t; 0/; S2? .t; L/ D  S1? .t; L/; t 2 0; C1/; (7.4)

where k is a tuning parameter selected such that jk j < 1. According to Theo-
rem 2.4, this reference model is exponentially stable for the L2 -norm. The design
method is then to seek a feedback control law which transforms the closed loop
system into this reference model (which, for this reason, is also called target system
in the literature).

7.2 Full-State Feedback

We introduce the vector and matrix notations

   ?
S S
S, 1 ; S? , 1? ;
S2 S2
   
1 .x/ 0 0 a.x/
.x/ , ; M.x/ , :
0 2 .x/ b.x/ 0

With these notations, the system (7.1) is written

St C .x/Sx C M.x/S D 0: (7.5)

The state transformation (called backstepping transformation) is then defined as

follows:
Z L
S? .t; x/ , S.t; x/  P.x; /S.t; /d; (7.6)
x
7.2 Full-State Feedback 221

where the map P W X ! M2;2 , with X , f.x; /I 0 6 x 6  6 Lg. The map
S.t; :/ 7! S? .t; :/ is a Volterra transformation of the second kind. The transformation
is linear, continuous, and bijective from L2 ..0; L/I R2 / into L2 ..0; L/I R2 /, see
Volterra (1896) and Evans (1910).
Using (7.5) and (7.6), we have
Z L
St .t; x/ D S?t .t; x/ C P.x; /St .t; /d
x

Z L  
D S?t .t; x/  P.x; / ./Sx .t; / C M./S.t; / d
x

Z L  
D S?t .t; x/ C P .x; /./ C P.x; /x ./  P.x; /M./ S.t; /d
x

 P.x; L/.L/S.t; L/ C P.x; x/.x/S.t; x/:

(7.7)
Moreover, using again (7.6), we have
Z L
Sx .t; x/ D S?x .t; x/ C Px .x; /S.t; /d  P.x; x/S.t; x/: (7.8)
x

Hence, from (7.5) and (7.7), (7.8), we get

Z L
S?t .t; x/ C .x/S?x .t; x/ D E1 .x/S.t; x/ C E2 .t; x/  E3 .x; /S.t; /d;
x

with

E1 .x/ , M.x/ C P.x; x/.x/  .x/P.x; x/;

E2 .t; x/ , P.x; L/.L/S.t; L/;

E3 .x; / , P .x; /./ C .x/Px .x; / C P.x; /x ./  P.x; /M./:

We denote
 
p00 p01
P, :
p10 p11

Let us now show how the map P can be selected such that E1 D 0, E2 D 0, and
E3 D 0. We see that E1 D 0 is equivalent to

a.x/ b.x/
p01 .x; x/ D ; p10 .x; x/ D : (7.9)
1 .x/ C 2 .x/ 1 .x/ C 2 .x/
222 7 Backstepping Control

Using the boundary condition S2 .t; L/ D  S1 .t; L/, we have E2 .t; x/ D 0 if

p00 .x; L/1 .L/   p01 .x; L/2 .L/ D 0;
(7.10)
p10 .x; L/1 .L/   p11 .x; L/2 .L/ D 0:
Then, in order to have E3 .t; x/ D 0, the matrix function P.x; / is defined as the
solution, in the domain X , f.x; /I 0 6 x 6  6 Lg, of the matrix hyperbolic
partial differential equation

P .x; /./ C .x/Px .x; / C P.x; /x ./  P.x; /M./ D 0 (7.11)

under the boundary conditions (7.9) and (7.10). The well-posedness of the sys-
tem (7.9), (7.10), and (7.11) is established in Vazquez et al. (2011) for  0.
In the special case where  D 0, the reference model is modified as follows:
@t S1? C 1 .x/@x S1?  g.x/S2? .L; t/ D 0;

@t S2?  2 .x/@x S2? D 0;

where the function g.x/ has to be selected adequately, see Vazquez et al. (2011).
From now on, we assume that  0.
Let us now look at the boundary conditions for S? . From the definition (7.6) of
the state transformation and using the boundary condition (7.2), we have

S2? .t; L/ D  S1? .t; L/;

Z L  
S1? .t; 0/ D u.t/  p00 .0; /S1 .t; / C p01 .0; /S2 .t; / d;
0
Z L  
S2? .t; 0/ D S2 .t; 0/  p10 .0; /S1 .t; / C p11 .0; /S2 .t; / d:
0

In order to realize the dissipative boundary condition (7.4), the feedback control law
is defined as

Z 
L 
u.t/ D kS2 .t; 0/ C p00 .0; /  kp10 .0; / S1 .t; /
0
  
C p01 .0; /  kp11 .0; / S2 .t; / d; (7.12)

where k is a tuning parameter selected such that jk j < 1. Hence this control law
exponentially stabilizes the control system (7.1), (7.2). In the special case of a dead-
beat control (i.e., k D 0), the steady state is reached in finite time
Z  
L
1 1
tF D C d:
0 1 ./ 2 ./
7.3 Observer Design and Output Feedback 223

Obviously, from (7.12), the practical implementation of this feedback control law
needs the on-line knowledge of the full state S.t; x/ on 0; L. In the next section,
we shall see how this knowledge can be provided by a state-observer that uses a
boundary on-line measurement of S2 .t; 0/ only.

7.3 Observer Design and Output Feedback

The objective is now to design an observer for the on-line estimation of S.t; x/.
Assuming that the output S2 .t; 0/ is measured on-line, the observer is a copy of the
system (7.1) with additional so-called output injection terms:
 
b  .x/  
St .t; x/ C .x/b
Sx .t; x/ C M.x/b
SC 1 S2 .t; 0/  b
S2 .t; 0/ D 0 (7.13)
2 .x/

with the boundary conditions

b
S1 .t; 0/ D u.t/; b
S2 .t; L/ D b
S1 .t; L/: (7.14)

In these equations, the estimates are denoted by a hat accent while 1 .x/ and 2 .x/
are the output injection gains. We define the estimation errors

e
S1 , S1  b
S1 ; e
S2 , S2  b
S2 :

Then the so-called error system is obtained by subtraction of the observer equa-
tions (7.13) from the system equations (7.5):

St .t; x/ C .x/e
e Sx .t; x/ C M.x/e
S  N.x/e
S.t; 0/ D 0; (7.15)

with boundary conditions

e
S1 .t; 0/ D 0; e
S2 .t; L/ D e
S1 .t; L/: (7.16)

The matrix N.x/ is defined as

 
0 1 .x/
N.x/ , : (7.17)
0 2 .x/

In order to find the output injection gains i .x/, we use a backstepping transforma-
tion of the following form:
Z x
e
S.t; x/ , S] .t; x/ C e
P.x; /S] .t; /d: (7.18)
0
224 7 Backstepping Control

where S] .t; x/ is the state of the following reference model:

] ]
@t S1 C 1 .x/@x S1 D 0;

] ]
@t S2  2 .x/@x S2 D 0;
] ]
S1 .t; 0/ D 0; S2 .t; L/ D  S1 .t; L/:

Using (7.15) and (7.18), we have

Z x
e ]
St .t; x/ D St .t; x/ C e ]
P.x; /St .t; /d
0
Z x
] e
D St .t; x/  P.x; /./S]x .t; /d: (7.19)
0

Moreover, using again (7.18), we have

Z x
e
Sx .t; x/ D S]x .t; x/ C Px .x; /S] .t; /d C e
e P.x; x/S] .t; x/: (7.20)
0

Hence, from (7.15), (7.19), and (7.20), we get

Z x Z x
e ] ] ]
A.t; x/ C P.x; /A.t; /d D E1 .x/S] .t; x/ C E2 .t; x/  E3 .x; /S] .t; /d;
0 0

with
]
A.t; x/ , St .t; x/ C .x/S]x .t; x/

]
E1 .x/ , e
P.x; x/.x/  .x/e
P.x; x/  M.x/;

]
E2 .t; x/ , .N.x/  e
P.x; 0/.0//S] .t; 0/;

]
E3 .x; / , P .x; /./ C e
P.x; /x ./ C M.x/e
P.x; / C .x/e
Px .x; /:

Denoting
 
e pQ 00 pQ 01
P, ;
pQ 10 pQ 11

let us now show how the map e

P and the output gains i .x/ can be selected such that
] ] ] ]
E1 D 0, E2 D 0, and E3 D 0. We see that E1 D 0 is equivalent to

a.x/ b.x/
p01 .x; x/ D ; p10 .x; x/ D : (7.21)
1 .x/ C 2 .x/ 1 .x/ C 2 .x/
7.3 Observer Design and Output Feedback 225

] ]
Using the boundary condition S1 .t; 0/ D 0, we see that E2 .t; x/ D 0 if
 
0
.N.x/  e
P.x; 0/.0// D 0 for any S2 .t; 0/;
S2 .t; 0/

and therefore if the output injection gains are chosen such that

1 .x/ D 2 .0/Qp01 .x; 0/; 2 .x/ D 2 .0/Qp11 .x; 0/: (7.22)

] ]
Moreover, in order to satisfy the boundary condition S2 .t; L/ D  S1 .t; L/, we impose

pQ 10 .L; / D  pQ 00 .L; /; pQ 11 .L; / D  pQ 01 .L; /: (7.23)

]
Then, in order to have E3 .t; x/ D 0, the matrix function e
P.x; / is defined as the
solution, in the domain XQ , f.x; /I 0 6 x 6  6 Lg, of the matrix hyperbolic
partial differential equation

e
P .x; /./ C e
P.x; /x ./  M.x/e
P.x; / C .x/e
Px .x; / D 0 (7.24)

under the boundary conditions (7.21) and (7.23). The well-posedness of the
system (7.21), (7.23), (7.24) is established in Vazquez et al. (2011).
The exponential stability of the error system (7.15) follows. This implies that the
state estimate bS.t; x/ exponentially converges to the real state S.t; x/, and even in
finite time in the special case where  D 0.
A stabilizing output feedback controller is then obtained by combining the full
state feedback controller (7.12) and the observer (7.13) as

Z 
L 
u.t/ D kS2 .t; 0/ C p00 .0; /  kp10 .0; / bS1 .t; /
0
  
C p01 .0; /  kp11 .0; / b
S2 .t; / d; (7.25)

and we have the following stability theorem.

Theorem 7.1. Consider the system (7.1) with boundary condition (7.2), control
law (7.25), and initial condition So 2 L2 ..0; L/I R2 /. Then, for any k such that
jk j < 1, there exist  > 0 and C0 > 0 such that

kS.t; :/kL2 ..0;L/IR2 / 6 C0 et kSo kL2 ..0;L/IR2 / ; 8t 2 0; C1/:

Furthermore, the equilibrium S D 0 is reached in finite time when  D 0. t

u
226 7 Backstepping Control

7.4 Backstepping Control of Systems of Two Balance Laws

In this section, we briefly examine how the backstepping control approach can be
extended to the nonlinear case, with a local stability property. We consider a general
system of two balance laws in quasilinear form:

Zt C A.Z; x/Zx C B.Z; x/ D 0; (7.26)

where Z W 0; L  0; C1/ ! R2 and

A W R2  0; L ! M2;2 .R/; B W R2  0; L ! R2 ;

A.Z; x/ and B.Z; x/ are twice continuously differentiable w.r.t. Z and x;

A.0; x/ D diag f1 .x/; 2 .x/g with i .x/ > 0 and B.0; x/ D 0 8x 2 0; L:

Remark that these assumptions imply that Z  0 may be a steady state of the
system. With the notation Z , .Z1 ; Z2 /T , the system (7.26) is considered under
boundary conditions of the following form:

Z1 .t; 0/ D u.t/; Z2 .t; L/ D G.Z1 .t; L//; (7.27)

where the map G is assumed to be twice differentiable with G.0/ D 0. The

system (7.26), (7.27) is an open-loop control system when u.t/ 2 R is an exogenous
command signal.
In order to design a backstepping observer-controller, we first rewrite the
quasilinear system in a form which is, up to the nonlinear terms, identical to (7.1),
(7.2). For that, we introduce the notation
" #
@B 1 .x/ 1 .x/
.0; x/ , D .x/
@Z 2 .x/ 2 .x/

and we use the transformation (5.27):

!
'1 .x/ 0
S.t; x/ D .x/Z.t; x/ with .x/ , (7.28)
0 '2 .x/

where the functions '1 and '2 are given by (5.26). Then, it can be shown (for details
see Coron et al. (2013)) that the quasilinear system (7.26) is written as follows in
the S coordinates:

St C .x/Sx C M.x/S C f .S; x/ D 0 (7.29)

7.5 References and Further Reading 227

where
! !
1 .x/ 0 0 a.x/
.x/ , ; M.x/ , ;
0 2 .x/ b.x/ 0
'1 .x/ '2 .x/
a.x/ , 1 .x/; b.x/ , 2 .x/;
'2 .x/ '1 .x/

and
h i  
f .S; x/ , .x/ A.1 .x/S; x/  .x/ @x 1 .x/S

C B.1 .x/S; x/  .x/1 .x/S:

In the S coordinates, the boundary conditions (7.27) are then written

S1 .t; 0/ D u.t/; S2 .t; L/ D  S1 .t; L/ C g.S1 .t; L//; (7.30)

with

'2 .L/ 0 S1
, G .0/ and g.S1 / , '2 .L/G. /   S1 :
'1 .L/ '1 .L/

It is clear that, in these equations, the nonlinear terms satisfy f .0; x/ D 0, g.0/ D 0,
and g0 .0/ D 0. Then we see that the linear parts of (7.29) and (7.30) are indeed
identical to the linear system equations (7.1) and (7.2) in Section 7.1.
Therefore, it is quite natural to apply the linear observer-controller designed in
the previous sections to the quasi-linear system case and to get a local stability
property in H 2 -norm in the same vein as what has been done in Section 6.2. The
details of the analysis can be found in Coron et al. (2013).

7.5 References and Further Reading

Backstepping is a technique originally developed from 1990 for designing stabiliz-

ing controls for nonlinear dynamical systems, see, e.g., Coron (2007, Section 12.5)
and the tutorial textbook by Krstic et al. (1995).
The first extensions to PDEs were published by Coron and dAndra-Novel
(1998) for the beam equation and by Liu and Krstic (2000) for discretized PDEs.
Later on, Krstic and his collaborators introduced a modification of the method by
means of an integral Volterra transformation of the second kind. This invertible
transformation maps the original PDE control system into a reference system which
is exponentially stable (and the exponential decay can be made arbitrarily fast by
choosing suitably the reference system). In this framework, the first backstepping
228 7 Backstepping Control

designs were proposed for the heat equation in Liu (2003) and Smyshlyaev and
Krstic (2004). The applications to wave equations appeared later in Krstic et al.
(2008), Smyshlyaev and Krstic (2009), Smyshlyaev et al. (2010). An excellent
introduction to the backstepping method for PDEs is the book Boundary control of
PDEs: A course on backstepping designs by Krstic and Smyshlyaev (2008b).
In this chapter we have only considered systems of two hyperbolic balance laws.
More general systems have also been considered in the literature: linear systems
with only one negative characteristic velocity in Di Meglio et al. (2013), systems of
three linear balance laws in Hu and Di Meglio (2015), systems of n linear balance
laws in Hu et al. (2016), and systems of n nonlinear balance laws in Hu et al.
(2015b). Note that in all these papers the reference models (target systems) need
to be more complicated than in this chapter.
Let us finally mention the following interesting contributions on the backstepping
approach for hyperbolic systems.
An extension of backstepping to Navier-Stokes two-dimensional time-varying
problems can be found in Vazquez et al. (2008)
In some cases it is useful to use more general integral transformations than
integral Volterra transformations of the second kind: see Smyshlyaev et al. (2009)
for an Euler-Bernoulli beam equation and Coron and L (2014) for a Korteweg-
de Vries equation.
In the special case of systems of two linear balance laws, it is possible to find
the exact analytical solution to a Goursat PDE system governing the kernels of a
backstepping-based boundary control law that stabilizes the system, see Vazquez
and Krstic (2013).
The backstepping method can also be extended to design adaptive output feed-
back controllers for hyperbolic systems with the goal of disturbance rejection,
see Aamo (2013), or to account for unknown parameters, see Bernard and Krstic
(2014).
In Lamare et al. (2015a), the backstepping method is used for trajectory
generation and the design of PI controllers for 2  2 linear hyperbolic systems
with nonuniform coefficients.