Virtual actuator for Lure systems with

Lipschitz-continuous nonlinearity
Jan H. Richter

Mara M. Seron

Jos A. De Don

Siemens AG, Industry Sector, Gleiwitzer Str. 555, 90475 Nrnberg,

Germany; email: janrichter@siemens.com

Centre for Complex Dynamic Systems and Control (CDSC), School of

Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The University of Newcastle,
Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
Abstract: In this paper, we extend virtual actuators to Lure systems with Lipschitz-continuous nonlinear
characteristic. Virtual actuators are used to recongure control laws after the occurrence of actuator
failures. They have been developed for linear, Hammerstein-Wiener, and piecewise ane systems and
are now made available for Lure systems. Lure systems, which consist of linear dynamics with nonlinear
internal feedback, are useful for representing, among others, mechanical systems with friction. We
provide sucient stability conditions for the recongured closed-loop system that are also useful for
nding the virtual actuator parameters, and evaluate the method by means of an example.
Keywords: Fault-tolerant control; recongurable control; virtual actuator; Lure systems
1. INTRODUCTION
In this paper, we extend virtual-actuator-based fault-tolerant
control to Lure systems. Control reconguration can be viewed
as an approach to create dependable systems by means of
appropriate feedback control. Its task is to respond to severe
component failures that break the control loop by restructuring
the control loop on-line, such that stability and performance
are recovered or gracefully degraded (Blanke et al., 2006). As
such, control reconguration is an active fault-tolerant control
methodology in the sense that it uses an estimate

f of the fault
f , which is obtained from a diagnosis component FDI (Fig. 1).
As opposed to passive fault-tolerant control approaches (Stous-
trup and Blondel, 2004), in recongurable control the controller
is changed to match the faulty plant.
The relevance of recongurable control is emphasized by its
strong appearance in the literature. Recongurable control
is, for instance, based on linear model following approaches
(Ciubotaru et al., 2006), on the input/output-behavior (Gao and
Antsaklis, 1992; Chen et al., 2002), on the generalized plant
transfer function (Jonckheere and Yu, 1999), on the closed-loop
eigenstructure (Ashari et al., 2005), on optimal control (Chen
and Saif, 2007), and on model predictive control (Maciejowski
and Jones, 2003). An approach based on invariant sets is de-
scribed in (Seron et al., 2012a) and references therein. Another
relatively new area is the use of unfalsied control for deciding
on the best recongured controller from a list of candidate
controllers (Ingimundarson and Snchez Pea, 2008).
The reconguration method presented here is based on the
fault-hiding paradigm, where the nominal controller is kept in
the loop by inserting a reconguration block between the faulty
plant and the nominal controller at reconguration time (Fig. 2).
The reconguration block is designed to hide the fault from the
controller and at the same time to ensure that the faulty plant
controlled by the nominal controller and the reconguration
block meets the nominal performance requirements. This fault-
hiding approach leads to the concept of virtual actuators in the
actuator fault case (Lunze and Steen, 2006; Steen, 2005;
Richter, 2011).
We assume in this paper that the model parameters of the
faulty system are provided on-line by a diagnosis component
(Stoustrup and Niemann, 2006). This assumption is justied
since 1) we present a fault diagnosis method for Lure systems
based on set separation principles in a companion paper at
this conference (Seron et al., 2012b), and since 2) smart self-
diagnosing actuators nowadays frequently report their health
status to the supervision level over modern eldbus systems
(Discenzo et al., 1999). The solvability of the reconguration
problems depends on the presence of analytical or physical
redundancy.
y
z
d
f
f
^
u r
Controller Plant
FDI Control reconfiguration
Execution
-
Supervision
Figure 1. Active fault-tolerant control scheme.
The novel contributions of this paper are the following. (1) We
dene the Lure virtual actuator and show that it satises the
fault-hiding constraint. (2) We provide a sucient condition for
the recongured closed-loop stability of Lure systems (Theo-
rem 1) and an algorithm for the online synthesis of the Lure
virtual actuator parameters. (3) We illustrate the viability of the
method by means of an example.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we dene
our notation. In Section 3, we dene system descriptions,
faults, and reconguration problems after actuator faults. The
stabilizing reconguration problem is solved in Section 4. An
example illustrates the feasibility of the approach in Section 5,
and the paper concludes in Section 6.
8th IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection,
Supervision and Safety of Technical Processes (SAFEPROCESS)
August 29-31, 2012. Mexico City, Mexico
978-3-902823-09-0/12/$20.00 2012 IFAC 222 10.3182/20120829-3-MX-2028.00038
2. NOTATIONS
The following notation is used throughout. Lower case bold let-
ters denote vectors (x) and capital bold letters denote matrices
( A). Linear time-invariant (LTI) dynamical systems are denoted
by
P
, where the subscript distinguishes dierent systems. The
symbol means equal by denition. R and C denote the real
and complex numbers, and R
+
[0, ), C

s C Re(s) <
0. For a symmetric matrix A = A
T
, the notation A 0 ( A 0)
means that all eigenvalues of A are positive (negative). Like-
wise, the notation A 0 ( A 0) means that all eigenvalues of
A are non-negative (non-positive). Unless stated otherwise, all
vector norms are Euclidean.
3. RECONFIGURATION PROBLEM FOR LURE
SYSTEMS AFTER ACTUATOR FAILURE
3.1 Nominal Lure system and controller
The nominal Lure system
P
is given by

P
:
_

_
x(t) = Ax(t) + B
v
v(t) + Bu
c
(t) + B
d
d(t)
v(t) = (C
v
x(t))
y(t) = Cx(t)
z(t) = C
z
x(t)
(1)
x(0) = x
0
, where x(t) R
n
is the state, v(t) R
s
the feedback
input, u
c
(t) R
m
the control input, d(t) R
k
is a disturbance
input, y(t) R
r
the measured output, z(t) R
q
the control-
relevant output, A is the system matrix, B
v
the feedback input
matrix, B the control input matrix, B
d
the disturbance input
matrix, C the measured output matrix, and C
z
the relevant
output matrix. All matrices are of compatible dimensions. The
feedback signal v is obtained using the nonlinear characteristic
() : R
s
R
s
.
Assumption 1. (Lipschitz continuity). The characteristic is
globally Lipschitz, namely
L R
+
s.t. x, y : j(x) (y)j Ljx yj. (2)
The Lure system (1) is controlled by means of some given
nominal controller

C
:
_
x
c
(t) = f (x
c
(t), y(t), r(t)), x
c
(0) = x
c0
u
c
(t) = h(x
c
(t), y(t), r(t))
(3)
with the internal state x
c
R
n
c
and the reference input r R
r
.
Assumption 2. (Nominal closed-loop stability). The given nom-
inal closed-loop system (1), (3) is input-to-state stable w.r.t.
the inputs (r, d) and satises given application-specic require-
ments regarding the transient and steady-state response from
(r, d) to z.
Assumption 2 can be achieved by means of controller de-
sign techniques for Lure systems such as those described in
(van de Wouw et al., 2008; de Bruin et al., 2009) and the refer-
ences therein. The nominal closed-loop system is illustrated in
Fig. 2a).
3.2 Actuator failures and faults
Although we are primarily interested in actuator failures (i.e.
blockage), we dene more general actuator faults. All methods
presented below are applicable to the following denition of
faults.

Pf

Pr
d
z
f
u
f
y
f
u
c
y y
c
=
r
d z
!
u
c
y

C

C
r

P
d z
f
u
f
y
f

Cr
r

Pf
a) b) c)
Figure 2. a) Nominal closed-loop system, b) recongured
closed-loop system with new controller, c) recongured
closed-loop system for fault-hiding.
Denition 1. (Actuator faults). An actuator fault f is an event
that changes the nominal input matrix B R
(nm)
to the faulty
input matrix B
f
R
(nm)
of the same dimensions. In this paper,
we assume that faults appear abruptly and remain eective
once they have occurred. The pair ( A, B
f
) is assumed to be
stabilizable.
Faults change the nominal Lure system (1) to the faulty Lure
system

Pf
:
_

_
x
f
(t) = Ax
f
(t) + B
v
v
f
(t) + B
f
u
f
(t) + B
d
d(t)
v
f
(t) = (C
v
x
f
(t))
y
f
(t) = Cx
f
(t)
z
f
(t) = C
z
x
f
(t),
(4)
x
f
(0) = x
0
. For example, columns of B
f
that correspond to
faulty or failed actuators are scaled or set to zero, respectively.
Zero columns of the matrix B
f
represent actuator blockage at
the operating point. To distinguish the faulty system behavior
fromthe nominal behavior, all signals that are aected by faults
are labeled by subscript f .
After the fault, the nominal controller (3) interconnected to the
faulty plant by means of the connections y = y
f
and u
c
= u
f
is
generally not suitable for controlling the faulty Lure system (4).
In particular, in the case of actuator failures, the loop is partially
opened. In the next section we seek a recongured controller
that stabilizes the faulty plant.
3.3 Lure virtual actuator
As a reconguration approach after actuator faults and failures,
we choose an extension of the virtual actuator where the recon-
gured controller is factored into the nominal controller and a
reconguration block. Keeping the nominal controller in the re-
congured closed-loop system has the practical advantage that
minimum-invasive control law adjustments can be formulated
as a reconguration goal, if so desired.
The reconguration block
R
is placed between the faulty
plant (4) and the nominal controller (3) as shown in Fig. 2c).
Together with the faulty plant (4), the reconguration block

R
forms the recongured plant
Pr
= (
Pf
,
R
) to which the
nominal controller (3) is connected via the signal pair (u
c
, y
c
)
(Fig. 2c)). To enable this idea, the reconguration block must
satisfy the following constraint.
Denition 2. (Strict fault-hiding constraint). Consider the nom-
inal system(1) and the faulty system(4). The recongured plant

Pr
satises the strict fault-hiding constraint, if there exists a
suitable particular initial condition

0
of the reconguration
block
R
such that the following relation holds:
t R
+
, d(t) = 0, u
c
(t) : y(t) y
c
(t) = 0.
SAFEPROCESS 2012
August 29-31, 2012. Mexico City, Mexico
223
The reconguration block
R
proposed in this paper is a Lure
virtual actuator

A
:
_

_
x

(t) = A

(t) + B
v
v

(t) + B

u
c
(t), x

(0) = x
0
v

(t) =
_
C
v
(x

(t) + x
f
(t))
_

_
C
v
x
f
(t)
_
u
f
(t) = Mx

(t) + Nu
c
(t)
y
c
(t) = y
f
(t) + Cx

(t)
A

A B
f
M, B

B B
f
N
(5)
(Fig. 3,
R
=
A
). The virtual actuator
A
, whose linear form
was introduced in (Steen, 2005), expresses the dierence
between nominal and recongured dynamics in its state x

and tries to keep this dierence small. The matrices M and

N are free design parameters that may be used to aect the
virtual actuator behavior. Note that the implementation of the
Lure virtual actuator requires the knowledge of the state x
f
of the faulty Lure system, which must either be measured or
estimated using an observer (observer design for Lure systems
is described e.g. in (Pavlov et al., 2006; Brogliato and Heemels,
2009; Seron et al., 2012b))
1
.
3.4 Fault-hiding property and nonlinear separation principle
In order to prove the strict fault-hiding constraint, the state
transformation x
f
(t) x(t) x
f
(t) + x

(t) is applied, after

which the recongured plant (4), (5) is described by
_

x(t)
x

(t)
_
=
_
A 0
0 A

_ _
x(t)
x

(t)
_
+
_
B
B

_
u
c
(t) +
_
B
v
v(t)
B
v
v

(t)
_
+
_
B
d
0
_
d(t) (6a)
x(0) = x
0
+ x
0
, x

(0) = x
0
(6b)
v(t) = (C
v
x(t)) (6c)
1
The preservation of stability after introducing an observer is expected but
must be analyzed separately; a generic discussion of the combination of
nonlinear virtual actuators with nonlinear observers is available in (Richter,
2011).
A
1/s C
C
z
B
d
d
B
f
x
f
v
f
u
f
z
f
y
f
Faulty plant
A
1/s C N
M
x
u
c
Lure virtual actuator
v
-
Nominal controller
r
y
c
Figure 3. Lure virtual actuator with recongured closed-loop
system.
v

(t) = (C
v
x(t)) (C
v
( x(t) x

(t))) (6d)
y
c
(t) = C x(t), z
f
(t) = C
z
x(t) C
z
x

(t). (6e)
This model shows that y
c
, the measured output made available
to the controller, depends only on the state x, which is gov-
erned by the nominal dynamics denoted by
P
(and completely
decoupled from the dierence system x

). Observing initial
conditions, y
c
(t) = y(t) follows for all t R
+
if x
0
= 0, which
proves that the Lure virtual actuator satises the strict fault-
hiding constraint. Due to Assumption 2, the interconnection
(
P
,
C
) is ISS.
The dierence system is, however, aected by the dynamics
of the state variable x through the variable v

(but not the

converse, which would contradict fault hiding). The nominal
closed-loop system (
P
,
C
) is connected in series to the dier-
ence system
A
, which implies that the series interconnection
theorem for input-to-state stable systems is applicable, where
the rst system
P
is ISS by Assumption 2 and it remains to
ensure by proper design that the dierence system is ISS w.r.t.
the inputs u
c
(t) and x(t).
4. STABILIZING VIRTUAL ACTUATOR DESIGN
4.1 Stability recovery
It remains to give sucient conditions for input-to-state stabil-
ity of the dierence system
A
w.r.t. its external inputs.
Theorem 1. (Global recongured closed-loop ISS). Consider
the faulty Lure system (4). The recongured closed-loop
system is globally ISS if there exists X = X
T
0 and Y such
that the matrix inequality
X + AX + XA
T
B
f
Y Y
T
B
T
f
+L
2

max
(X)

min
(X)
jB
v
j
2
2
jC
v
j
2
2
X 0 (7)
is satised, where M = YX
1
.
Proof. Due to Assumption 1, the dierence system (state x

)
is governed by a continuously dierentiable and globally Lips-
chitz continuous right-hand side, uniformly in time t. Accord-
ing to (Khalil, 2002, Lemma 4.6), stability of the unforced
dierence system is sucient also for global ISS of the forced
dierence system and the control input u
c
is, hence, omitted
from the following analysis, which can therefore be limited to
the autonomous sub-dynamics obtained by dropping u
c
.
Consider a quadratic Lyapunov function candidate
V(x

) = x
T

Px

(8)
with P = P
T
0 unknown and its time derivative

V(x

) = x
T

P x

+ x
T

Px

= x
T

P( A B
f
M)x

+ x
T

( A B
f
M)
T
Px

+ x
T

PB
v
((C
v
x) (C
v
( x x

)))
+ ((C
v
x) (C
v
( x x

)))
T
B
T
v
Px

. (9)
Further estimation is possible by observing the equivalence
between the following two inequalities
0 ( )
T
P( )

T
P +
T
P
T
P +
T
P, (10)
which is straightforward to verify by expanding and reorder-
ing the rst inequality. Application of the inequality of the
form (10) to Equation (9) with the substitutions = x

and
SAFEPROCESS 2012
August 29-31, 2012. Mexico City, Mexico
224
= B
v
((C
v
x) (C
v
( x x

))), and subsequent use of the

Lipschitz property (2) gives

V(x

) = x
T

P( A B
f
M)x

+ x
T

( A B
f
M)
T
Px

+ x
T

PB
v
((C
v
x) (C
v
( x x

)))
+ ((C
v
x) (C
v
( x x

)))
T
B
T
v
Px

x
T

P( A B
f
M)x

+ x
T

( A B
f
M)
T
Px

+ x
T

Px

+ ((C
v
x) (C
v
( x x

)))
T
B
T
v
PB
v
((C
v
x) (C
v
( x x

))) (11)
x
T

P( A B
f
M)x

+ x
T

( A B
f
M)
T
Px

+ x
T

Px

+ L
2

max
(P)

min
(P)
jB
v
j
2
2
jC
v
j
2
2
x
T

Px

. (12)
Thus, a sucient condition for

V to be negative is the satisfac-
tion of the matrix inequality
P( A B
f
M) + ( A B
f
M)
T
P + P
+L
2

max
(P)

min
(P)
jB
v
j
2
2
jC
v
j
2
2
P 0. (13)
By pre- and post-multiplication with the matrix P
1
from left
and right (a congruence transformation) and substitution of X =
P
1
, Y = MX, one obtains the equivalent matrix inequality (7)
as a sucient condition for quadratic stability of the unforced
dierence system, which is easily extended to an ISS Lyapunov
function of the forced dierence system.
Remark 1. (Conditioning the solution). For all numerical pur-
poses, the inequality (7) should be complemented with an opti-
mization objective that prefers solutions X with small condition
number over solutions with large condition number, such as
minimize
t>0,s>0,X=X
T
0,Y
t s
subject to
s I X t I
X + AX + XA
T
B
f
Y Y
T
B
T
f
+
t
s
L
2
jB
v
j
2
2
jC
v
j
2
2
X 0
Remark 2. (Linear matrix inequality). The inequality (7) can
be turned into a linear matrix inequality (LMI) which is better-
suited to numerical solution by xing the variables s and t of
Remark 1 to constant values s

, t

and iteratively solving the

resulting LMI feasibility problem
nd X = X
T
0, Y (14)
subject to
s

I X t

I (15)
AX + XA
T
B
f
Y Y
T
B
T
f
+
_
1 +
t

L
2
jB
v
j
2
2
jC
v
j
2
2
_
X 0 (16)
for various t

> s

> 0. A practical way for choosing these

parameters is, for example, to start with s

0
= t

0
= 1, and to
decrement by the rule s

i+1
s

i
/2 and increment by the rule
t

i+1
2 t

i
until feasible solutions are found.
4.2 Algorithm for Lure virtual actuator synthesis
The stabilizing design of the Lure virtual actuator (5) is summa-
rized in Algorithm 1 where, for the sake of completeness, the
models (1) and (4) are used to describe the relevant closed-loop
systems. In experiments, these models are replaced by the real
plant.
In order to implement the Lure virtual actuator, the indicated re-
quired matrix parameters and the function must be provided.
Algorithm 1 Stabilizing Lure virtual actuator synthesis
Require: A, B, B
v
, C, C
v
,
1: Initialize the nominal closed-loop system (1), (3), (5) with
B
f
= B, M = 0, N = I, x(0) = x
0
, x

(0) = 0
2: repeat
3: Run nominal closed-loop system
4: until fault f detected and isolated
5: Construct B
f
, update virtual actuator (5)
6: Set s

0
:= t

0
:= 1, i := 0
7: repeat
8: Solve feasibility problem (14)(16) with s

:= s

i
and
t

:= t

i
for X and Y
9: s

i+1
:= s

i
/2 and t

i+1
:= 2 t

i
10: until problem (14)(16) is feasible
11: Update virtual actuator (5) with M = YX
1
and arbitrary
N
12: Run recongured closed-loop system (3), (4), (5)
Result: Input-to-state stable recongured closed-loop system
Remark 1. (Convergence time). There is no a priori guarantee
for convergence of this algorithm. In other words, there might
be fault cases where problem (14)(16) is infeasible.
5. EXAMPLE
Consider the small-scale model of a mechanical drilling gear
described in (Doris, 2007; van de Wouw et al., 2008) and
illustrated in Fig 4. The gear consists of a long thin drilling shaft
with two drive motors at the upper end and a drilling head on
the lower end. The state vector x =
_

u

l
_
T
used to describe
the drilling gear consists of the relative angular displacement
between the lower and upper ends in rad, the rotation speed
u
of the upper shaft end, and the rotation speed
l
of the lower
shaft end, both measured in rad/s.
w
l
w
u
Motor
Drill-Head
Figure 4. Illustration of the drilling gear.
Around an operating point x = (0, 4.4, 4.4)
T
, the drilling gear
is well described by the Lure system
A =
_

_
0 1 1

J
u

1
J
u
(b
u
b
u
+ b
a
)
b
a
J
u
k

J
l
b
a
J
l
1
J
l
(m b
a
)
_

_
B =
_

_
0
k
m
J
u
0
0 0.8
k
m
J
u
0
_

_
T
, B
v
=
_
0 0
1
J
l
_
T
C
v
=
_
0 0 1
_
, C = I
3
, C
z
= C
SAFEPROCESS 2012
August 29-31, 2012. Mexico City, Mexico
225
15 10 5 0 5 10 15
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5

2
)
Figure 5. Nonlinear friction characteristic.
with the parameter values k

= 0.075 Nm/rad, k
m
=
4.3228 Nm/V, J
u
= 0.4765 kgm
2
, J
l
= 0.035 kgm
2
, b
u
=
2.4245 kgm
2
/(rad s), b
u
= 0.0084 kgm
2
/(rad s), b
a
= 0.1 is a
damping coecient, and m = 0.1 Nms/rad. The characteristic
is shown in Fig. 5, with the steepest part around -1.5 modelled
by the Lipschitz constant L = 10.
The drilling gear is controlled by the nominal state-feedback
controller
K =
_
15.9 1.57 27.6
0 0 0
_
described in (Doris, 2007) that uses only the rst of the two
drive motors and achieves the control objective of stabilization
of the equilibrium without steady-state oscillations.
The considered fault scenario f is the complete failure of the
rst drive motor at t
f
= 0.5 s, which necessitates a control
reallocation to the second drive motor which is weaker and has
a smaller eect on the shaft. The fault changes the input matrix
to
B
f
=
_
0 0 0
0 0.8
k
m
J
u
0
_
T
.
The Lure virtual actuator, which has been inserted into the loop
from plant startup, is automatically redesigned as soon as a
diagnostic algorithm reports the fault at t = t
f
+
D
with the
diagnosis delay
D
= 0.5 s in this example. The LMI solutions
and the obtained gains of the Lure virtual actuator are
X =
_

_
0 0.0004 0
0.0004 0.0992 0.001
0 0.001 0
_

_
Y =
_
0 0 0
0.0002 1.8875 0.0007
_
and
M = 10
_
0 0 0
44696 6 16238
_
N =
_
0 0
1.25 1
_
.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.5
1
1.5
2

,
r
a
d
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
6
4
2
0
2

u
,
r
a
d
/
s
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1
0
1
2
3

l
,
r
a
d
/
s
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
6
4
2
0
2
u
f
1
,
u
c
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
Ti me t i n s
u
f
2
,
u
c
2
Figure 6. Closed-loop behavior of controlled drill systembefore
fault and after fault event and recongurations by means of
Lure virtual actuator.
The resulting closed-loop behavior before, during and after the
fault event is shown in Fig. 6, with the drill rod angle and the
top and bottom rotational speeds
u
and
l
shown on top and
the drive motor voltages on the bottom. The time t
f
= 0.5 s of
fault occurrence is marked by a red line in the gure, and the
reconguration time t
f
+
D
= 1 s is marked by a magenta line.
It is clearly visible that prior to fault occurrence (t < t
f
), the rod
is driven by the rst motor only, whereas the virtual actuator
takes the second motor into operation during reconguration
a short while after t
f
. The control commands u
c
issued by
the controller are shown in grey, and the real control input
after translation by the virtual actuator is shown in black. All
signals are stable and the angular displacement converges to
zero, while the upper and lower angular velocities converge to
their operating points.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the Lure virtual actuator has been introduced.
Constructive and numerically checkable conditions for stabi-
lizing control reconguration based on a Lipschitz property of
the Lure nonlinearity were given and combined into an online
algorithm. The method was demonstrated by means of an ex-
ample.
Interesting topics for future work are the consideration of per-
formance recovery, explicit combination with set-invariance-
SAFEPROCESS 2012
August 29-31, 2012. Mexico City, Mexico
226
based fault diagnosis methods in the spirit of (Seron et al.,
2012a), and the extension to internal faults that modify the Lure
nonlinearity.
REFERENCES
Ashari, A.E., Sedigh, A.K., and Yazdanpanah, M.J. (2005).
Recongurable control system design using eigenstructure
assignment: static, dynamic and robust approaches. Int. J.
Control, 78(13), 100516.
Blanke, M., Kinnaert, M., Lunze, J., and Staroswiecki, J.
(2006). Diagnosis and Fault-Tolerant Control. Springer,
2nd edition.
Brogliato, B. and Heemels, W.P.M.H. (2009). Observer design
for Lure systems with multivalued mappings: a passivity
approach. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, 54(8), 1996
2001.
Chen, S., Tao, G., and Joshi, S. (2002). On matching conditions
for adaptive state tracking control of systems with actuator
failures. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 47(3), 473478.
Chen, W. and Saif, M. (2007). Adaptive actuator fault detection,
isolation and accommodation in uncertain systems. Int. J.
Control, 80(1), 4563.
Ciubotaru, B., Staroswiecki, M., and Christophe, C. (2006).
Fault tolerant control of the Boeing 747 short-period mode
using the admissible model matching technique. In Proc. 6th
IFAC Sympos. Fault Detect., Superv. and Safety for Techn.
Processes. Beijing, China.
de Bruin, J.C.A., Doris, A., van de Wouw, N., Heemels,
W.P.M.H., and Nijmeijer, H. (2009). Control of mechanical
motion systems with non-collocation of actuation and fric-
tion: a Popov criterion approach for input-to-state stability
and set-valued nonlinearities. Automatica, 45, 405415.
Discenzo, F.M., Unsworth, P.J., Loparo, K.A., and Marcy, H.O.
(1999). Self-diagnosing intelligent motors: a key enabler for
nextgeneration manufacturing systems. In IEE Colloquium
on Intelligent and Self-Validating Sensors, 3/13/4. Oxford,
UK.
Doris, A. (2007). Output-feedback design for non-smooth
mechanical systems: Control synthesis and experiments. Phd
thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Den Dolech 2,
5600 MB Eindhoven.
Gao, Z. and Antsaklis, P.J. (1992). Recongurable control
system design via perfect model following. Int. J. Control,
56(4), 783798.
Ingimundarson, A. and Snchez Pea, R.S. (2008). Using the
unfalsied control concept to achieve fault tolerance. In
Proc. 17th IFAC World Congress, 123642. Seoul, Korea.
Jonckheere, E.A. and Yu, G.R. (1999). Propulsion control of
crippled aircraft by H

model matching. IEEE Trans. Contr.

Syst. Technol., 7(2), 142159.
Khalil, H.K. (2002). Nonlinear Systems. Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 3rd edition.
Lunze, J. and Steen, T. (2006). Control reconguration
after actuator failures using disturbance decoupling methods.
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 51(10), 15901601.
Maciejowski, J.M. and Jones, C.N. (2003). MPC fault-tolerant
ight control case study: Flight 1862. In Proc. 5th Sympos.
Fault Detect., Superv. and Safety for Techn. Processes, M1-
C1, 121126. Washington D.C., USA.
Pavlov, A., van de Wouw, N., and Nijmeijer, H. (2006). Uni-
form output regulation of nonlinear systems. Systems &
Control: Foundations and Applications. Birkhuser.
Richter, J.H. (2011). Recongurable Control of Nonlinear
Dynamical Systems a fault-hiding approach, volume 408
of LNCIS. Springer.
Seron, M.M., De Don, J.A., and Richter, J.H. (2012a). Fault
tolerant control using virtual actuators and set-separation
detection principles. Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control,
22(7), 709742.
Seron, M.M., De Don, J.A., and Richter, J.H. (2012b). Set-
based actuator fault diagnosis in Lure systems. In Proc. 8th
IFAC Symposium on Fault Detection, Supervision and Safety
of Technical Processes. IFAC, Mexico City, Mexico.
Steen, T. (2005). Control Reconguration of Dynamical
Systems: Linear Approaches and Structural Tests, volume
320 of LNCIS. Springer.
Stoustrup, J. and Blondel, V.D. (2004). Fault tolerant control:
A simultaneous stabilization result. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, 49(2), 305310.
Stoustrup, J. and Niemann, H. (2006). Active fault diagnosis by
temporary destabilization. In Proc. 6th IFAC Sympos. Fault
Detect., Superv. and Safety for Techn. Processes. Beijing,
China.
van de Wouw, N., Doris, A., de Bruin, J.C.A., Heemels,
W.P.M.H., and Nijmeijer, H. (2008). Output-feedback con-
trol of Lure-type systems with set-valued nonlinearities: a
Popov-criterion approach. In Proc. 2008 American Control
Conference. Seattle, WA, USA.
SAFEPROCESS 2012
August 29-31, 2012. Mexico City, Mexico
227