High-Gain Observers

in Feedback Control
Application to Permanent
Magnet Synchronous Motors

Hassan K. Khalil

H
igh-gain observers
play an important
role in the design
of feedback con­­­­­
trol for nonli­­­
near systems. This ar­­­ticle
overviews the essentials
of this technique, start-
ing with motivating ex­­
amples that illustrate the
main features of high-
gain observers, with em-
phasis on the peaking
phenomenon and the role
of control saturation in
dealing with it. The obser­­
ver design for single-output
and multi-output systems is
presented along with the use of
the observer in feedback control.
A nonlinear separation principle
is discussed, and the use of an extend-
ed high-gain observer as a disturbance
estimator is covered. The most serious chal-
lenge in implementing high-gain observers is
the ­effect of measurement noise, which is covered
next. The article ends by presenting an experimental ap-
plication of the e­ xtended high-gain observer to speed control of a
permanent magnet synchronous motor (PMSM).

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MCS.2017.2674438

Date of publication: 18 May 2017

1066-033X/17©2017ieee JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  25

Motivating Examples h1 =
xu 1 , u 2, (3)
h2 = x
f
Example 1 then
Consider the system
fho = Fh + fBd, where F = ; E . (4)
- a1 1

- a2 0
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = z (x, u), y = x 1,
The matrix F is Hurwitz because a 1 and a 2 are positive. The
where x = col (x 1, x 2) is the state, u is the input, y is the matrices A o and F/f are related by the ­ similarity trans­
measured output, z is locally Lipschitz, and x (t) and u (t) formation (3). Therefore, the eigenvalues of A o are  1/f times
are bounded for all t $ 0 . An estimate of x, is obtained the eigenvalues of F. From (4) and the change of variables (3),
from the observer some important observations about the behavior of the
estimation error can be made. Using the bound
xto 1 = xt 2 + h 1 (y - xt 1), xto 2 = z 0 (xt , u) + h 2 (y - xt 1),
d #L x
u +M # L h +M
where z 0 (x, u) is a nominal model of z (x, u). We can take
z 0 = 0 , which simplifies the observer to a linear one. It is and the Lyapunov function V = h T Ph, where P is the solu-
assumed that tion of PF + F T P = - I , then

fVo = - h h + 2fh PBd

T T
z 0 (z, u) - z (x, u) # L x - z + M, (1)
2 2
# - h + 2fL PB h + 2fM PB h .
for some nonnegative constants L and M, for all (x, z, u) in
the domain of interest, where x = x T x. In the special For fL PB # 1 ,
4
case when z 0 = z and z is Lipschitz in x uniformly in u,
inequality (1) holds with M = 0. The estimation error 1 h 2
fVo # - + 2fM PB h .
xu = x - xt satisfies 2

xuo = A o xu + Bd (x, xu , u), (2) Therefore, (see [1, Th. 4.5])

-at/f
where h (t) # max " be h (0) , fcM ,,

Ao = ; E, B = ; E,
- h1 1 0
for all t $ 0 , for some positive constants a, b, c. From the
- h2 0 1
scaling (3),
and d (x, xu , u) = z (x, u) - z 0 (xt , u) . Equation (2) is viewed as
a perturbation of the linear system xuo = A o xu . In the absence h =
1 xu 2 + f 2 xu 2 # 1 xu 2 + xu 2 = 1 xu ,
1 2 1 2
f f f
of d, asymptotic error convergence is achieved by design-
ing H = col (h 1, h 2) such that A o is Hurwitz; that is, its which shows that
eigenvalues have negative real parts. In the presence of d,
H is designed with the additional goal of rejecting the xu 1 (t) # max " be -at/f xu (0) , f 2 cM ,, (5)
effect of d on xu . This is ideally achieved, for any d, if the
transfer function from d to xu , xu 2 (t) # max ' b e -at/f xu (0) , fcM 1, (6)
f

; E,
1 1 for all t $ 0 . Hence, xu 1 (t) and xu 2 (t) decay exponentially
G o (s) = 2
s + h1 s + h2 s + h1 fast and are ultimately bounded by f 2 cM and fcM , respec-
tively. The smaller f, the faster the rate of decay, which
is identically zero. While this is not possible, shows that for sufficiently small f the estimation error xu
max ~ ! R G o (j~) can be made arbitrarily small by taking is much faster than x. The ultimate bounds can be made
h 1 = ^a 1 f h, h 2 = ^a 2 f 2 h, for some positive constants a 1, a 2, ­a rbitrarily small by choosing f small enough. If M = 0,
and f, with f % 1 . With this choice of H, which is the case when z 0 = z , then xu (t) converges to zero
as t tends to infinity. Notice, however, that whenever
; E.
f f x 1 (0) ! xt 1 (0), h 1 (0) = O (1/f) [recall that a function f (f) is
G o (s) = 2
(fs) + a 1 fs + a 2 fs + a1 O (f n) if f (f) # kf n for some k > 0, where n can be positive
or negative]. Consequently, the solution of (4) contains a
Hence, lim f " 0 G o (s) = 0 . This disturbance-rejection prop- term of the form (1/f) e -at/f for some a > 0. While this
erty of the high-gain observer can be seen in the time exponential mode decays rapidly for small f, it exhibits
domain by scaling the estimation error. Let an impulsive-like behavior where the transient response

26  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017

 1 0.01
0.8 0 0
0.6 −10 0.005
−10
0.4 0
x̃1

−20

x˜2

x̃2

x̃2
−20
0.2
0 −30 −30 −0.005
−0.2 −40 −40 −0.01
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time Time Time Time
(a) (b) (c) (d)
ε = 0.1 ε = 0.01

FIGURE 1  A simulation of Example 1.

peaks to O (1/f) values before it decays rapidly toward xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = z (x, c (x)) .

zero. In fact, the function (a/f) e -at/f approaches an impulse
function as f tends to zero. This behavior is known as the
peaking phenomenon. It has a serious impact when the ob­ser­­
ver is used in feedback control, as shown in the next exam-
ple. Numerical simulation is used to illustrate the foregoing
observations. Consider the system
xo 1 = x 2,
xo 2 = - x 1 - 2x 2 + ax 21 x 2 + b sin 2t,
y = x 1,
with a = 0.25 and b = 0.2. It can be shown (see [1, Ex. 11.1])
that for all x (0) ! X = {1.5x 21 + x 1 x 2 + 0.5x 22 # 2 } , x (t) is
bounded. The high-gain observer
xto 1 = xt 2 + 2 (y - xt 1),
f
t t 21 xt 2 + bt sin 2t + 12 (y - xt 1)
xto 2 = - xt 1 - 2xt 2 + ax
f
is used with two different choices of the pair (at , bt ) . When
a = 0.25 and b = 0.2 are known, then at = 0.25 and bt = 0.2 .
This is a case with no model uncertainty and z 0 = z. The
other case is when the coefficients a and b are unknown. In
this case, at = bt = 0 . Figure 1 shows simulation results for
both cases. Figure 1(a) and (b) shows the estimation error xu
in the case at = a and bt = b, for two values of f. The error xu 2
illustrates the peaking phenomenon. Figure 1(c) and (d)
shows xu 2 for the uncertain-model case when at = bt = 0 . A
comparison of Figure 1(b) and (c) shows that the presence of
uncertainty has very little effect on the performance of the
observer. Figure 1(d) demonstrates that the ultimate bound
on the estimation error is of the order O (f).  9
To implement this control with output feedback, the high-
gain observer
xto 1 = xt 2 + (a 1 /f) (y - xt 1),
xto 2 = z 0 (xt , u) + (a 2 /f 2) (y - xt 1),
is used, where z 0 is a nominal model of z, and a 1, a 2, and
f are positive constants with f % 1. The previous example
showed that if inequality (1) holds over the domain of inter-
est, then for sufficiently small f, the estimation errors
xu 1 = x 1 - xt 1 and xu 2 = x 2 - xt 2 satisfy inequalities (5) and (6).
These inequalities show that reducing f diminishes
the effect of model uncertainty and makes xu much faster
than x. The bound on xu 2 demonstrates the peaking phe-
nomenon, namely, xu 2 might peak to O (1/f) values before it
decays rapidly toward zero. The peaking phenomenon
might destabilize the closed-loop system, which is illus-
trated by simulating the system
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = x 23 + u, y = x 1,
which can be globally stabilized by the state-feedback
controller
u = - x 32 - x 1 - x 2 .
The output-feedback controller is taken as
u = - xt 32 - xt 1 - xt 2,
xto 1 = xt 2 + (2/f) (y - xt 1),

Example 2 xto 2 = (1/f 2) (y - xt 1),

Consider the system
where z 0 = 0 . Figure 2 shows the performance of the closed-
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = z (x, u), y = x 1,
loop system under state and output feedback. Output feed-
where x = col (x 1, x 2) . Suppose u = c (x) is a locally Lip- back is simulated for three different values of f. The initial
schitz state-feedback controller that stabilizes the origin of conditions are x 1 (0) = 0.1, x 2 (0) = xt 1 (0) = xt 2 (0) = 0. Peaking
the closed-loop system is induced by [x 1 (0) - xt 1 (0)] /f = 0.1/f when f is sufficiently

JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  27

 0
−0.5 0.2
x1

−1 0
−1.5 −0.2

x1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 −0.4

0
1

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
0 0
−1 −10
x2

−2 −20

x2
−3 −30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 −40

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
0
−100 2000
−200 1000
u

−300

u
0
−400
−1000
0

1
01
02

03
04
05
06
07
08
09
0.

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
Time
Time
SFB OFB ε = 0.01
OFB ε = 0.1 OFB ε = 0.005

FIGURE 3  A simulation of Example 2. Instability is induced by

FIGURE 2  A simulation of Example 2, with performance under peaking at f = 0.004 . x 1 (0) = 0.1; OFB f = 0.004. OFB: output
state feedback (SFB) and output feedback (OFB). x 1 (0) = 0.1. feedback.

small. Figure 2 shows a counterintuitive be­­havior as f
decreases. Since decreasing f causes the estimation error to
decay faster toward zero, the response under output feed-
back would be expected to approach the response under
state feedback as f decreases. Figure 2 shows the opposite
behavior, where the response under output feedback devi-
ates from the response under state feedback as f decreases.
This is the impact of the peaking phenomenon. Figure 2 also
shows the control u on a much shorter time interval to
exhibit peaking. This control peaking is transmitted to the
plant, causing the plant state to peak. Figure 3 shows that as
f is decreased to 0.004, the system has a finite escape time
shortly after t = 0.07.
The peaking phenomenon can be overcome by saturat-
ing the control outside a compact set of interest to create a
buffer that protects the plant from peaking. Writing the
closed-loop system under state feedback as xo = Ax and
solving the Lyapunov equation PA + A T P = - I yields
where sat ($) is the saturation function defined by
z if | z | # 1,
sat (z) = * -1 if z # - 1,
1 if z $ 1.
For all x (0) ! X , the saturated control produces the
same trajectories as the unsaturated one because for
x ! X,| u | 1 1 and the saturation is not effective. In output
feedback, the state x in the foregoing saturated control is
replaced by its estimate xt , namely,
u = sat (- xt 32 - xt 1 - xt 2) .
During the peaking period, the control saturates. Figure 4
shows the performance of the closed-loop system under
saturated state and output feedback. The control u is shown
on a shorter time interval that exhibits control saturation
during peaking. The peaking period decreases with f .

A=; E and P=; E.

0 1 1.5 0.5
-1 -1 0.5 1
Then, V (x) = x T Px is a Lyapunov function for xo = Ax and
Vo (x) = - x T x. Suppose all initial conditions of interest
belong to the set X = " V (x) # 0.3 , , then x (t) ! X for all
t $ 0 . It can be shown that max x ! X x 1 + x 2 # 0.6 and
max x ! X | x 2 | # 0.6 . Hence, u # x 2 3 + x 1 + x 2 # 0.816 .
Saturating u at ±1 results in the globally bounded state-
feedback controller
u = sat (- x 32 - x 1 - x 2),
The states x 1 and x 2 exhibit the intuitive behavior that
was expected earlier, namely, that the response under
output feedback approaches the response under state
feedback as f decreases. Note that f is decreased to 0.001,
beyond the value 0.004 where instability was detected in
the unsaturated case. Not only does the system remain
stable, but the response under output feedback is almost
indistinguishable from the response under state feed-
back. What is also interesting is that the region of attrac-
tion under output feedback approaches the region of
attraction under saturated state feedback as f tends to
zero, which is shown in Figures 5 and 6. Figure 5 shows

28  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017

the phase portrait of the closed-loop system under
u = sat (-x 32 - x 1 - x 2). It has a bounded region of attraction 0.1
enclosed by a limit cycle. Figure 6 shows that the intersec- 0.05

x1
0
tion of the boundary of the region of attraction under
−0.05
u = sat (-xt 32 - xt 1 - xt 2) with the x 1 – x 2 plane approaches the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
limit cycle as f tends to zero.
The behavior in Figures 4 and 6 is realized with any 0
globally bounded stabilizing function c (x). During the −0.05

x2
peaking period, the control c (xt ) saturates. Since the −0.1
peaking period shrinks to zero as f tends to zero, for suf- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ficiently small f the peaking period becomes so small
0.5
that the state of the plant x remains close to its initial 0
value. After the peaking period, the estimation error −0.5

u
becomes O (f) and the feedback control c (xt ) becomes −1
close to c (x). Consequently, the trajectories of the closed-

1
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
loop system under output feedback asymptotically ap­­
Time
proach its trajectories under state feedback as f tends
to zero. This leads to the recovery of the performance SFB OFB ε = 0.01
achieved under state feedback. The global boundedness OFB ε = 0.1 OFB ε = 0.001
of c (x) can be always achieved by saturating the state
feedback control, or the state estimates, outside a compact FIGURE 4  A simulation of Example 2, with performance under state
set of interest. 9 feedback (SFB) and output feedback (OFB) with saturation.
x 1 (0) = 0.1; saturated u.
The foregoing example shows that the design of the out-
put-feedback controller is based on a separation procedure,
whereby the state-feedback controller is designed as if the
2
whole state was available for feedback, followed by an
observer design that is independent of the state-feedback
control. By choosing f small enough, the output-feedback 1
controller recovers the stability and performance pro­
perties of the state-feedback controller, as discussed in 0
x2

“Separation Principle.”
−1
Observer Design
Consider a class of single-output nonlinear systems repre-
sented by −2
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
x1
wo = f0 (w, x, u), (7)
FIGURE 5  A simulation of Example 2. A phase portrait of the closed-
xo i = x i + 1 + } i (x 1, f, x i, u), for 1 # i # t - 1, (8)
loop system under u = sat (- x 32 - x 1 - x 2) .
xo t = z (w, x, u), (9)
y = x 1, (10)
1
where w ! R , and x = col (x 1, x 2, f, x t) ! R t form the state
vector, u ! R m is the input, and y ! R is the measured 0.5
output. Equations (7)–(10) cover two important classes of
nonlinear systems. The normal form of a single-input, 0
x2

­single-output nonlinear system having relative degree t is

a special case of (7)–(10) where } i = 0 for 1 # i # t - 1 , f0 is −0.5
independent of u, and z (w, x, u) = z 1 (w, x) + z 2 (w, x) u; see
“Relative Degree of Nonlinear Systems” for more details. −1
When w is absent, (8)–(10) reduce to −2 −1 0 1 2
x1
xo i = x i + 1 + } i (x 1, f, x i, u), for 1 # i # t - 1, (11)
FIGURE 6  A simulation of Example 2. The intersection of the region
xo t = z (x, u), (12) of attraction under output feedback with the x 1- x 2 plane for f = 0.08
y = x 1 . (13) (dashed) and f = 0.01 (dash-dot).

JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  29

 Separation Principle
T he separation principle for the stabilization of a dynamical
system at an equilibrium point is known in the context of
linear systems where the closed-loop eigenvalues under an
observer-based controller are the union of the eigenvalues
under state feedback and the observer eigenvalues; hence,
stabilization under output feedback can be achieved by solving
separate eigenvalue placement problems for the state feed-
back and the observer. Over the last two decades, there have
been several results that present nonlocal forms of the separa-
tion principle for classes of nonlinear systems. The first results
are for systems that can be represented in the form
xo = Ax + } (u, y), y = Cx,
with an observable pair (A, C) and known function }; see, for
example, [S1], [S2, Sec. 4.9], and [S3, Sec. 5.2]. For such sys-
tems, the observer
xto = Axt + } (u, y) + H ( y - Cxt )
results in the linear error dynamics xuo = (A - HC) xu , where xu = x - xt .
These results are extended to systems of the form
xo = Ax + } (u, y) + z (x, u), y = Cx,
by imposing a constraint on the Lipschitz constant of the Lip-
schitz function z; see, for example, [S4] and [S5]. For uni-
formly observable systems, separation results are achieved
by the use of high-gain observers as is in [S6]–[S9]. Sepa-
ration results using backstepping can be found in [S10]. For
a class of nonlinear systems with slope-restricted nonlin-
earities, separation results using the circle criterion and lin-
ear matrix inequalities are given in [S11]–[S14]. For special
classes of mechanical systems, separation results are given
in [S15]–[S17]. These results and others are reviewed in [S18]
and [S19].
It is important to emphasize that the separation principle in
the case of high-gain observers has a unique feature that does
not exist in other separation-principle results, linear systems
included, namely, the recovery of state trajectories by making
the observer sufficiently fast. This feature has significant prac-
tical implications because it allows the designer to create the
state-feedback controller to meet transient response specifica-
tions and/or constraints on the state or control variables. Next,
the control u and the function z 0 of (38) are made globally
bounded functions of xt by saturating xt and/or u outside a
compact set of interest. Then, the designer proceeds to tune
When the functions } i are sufficiently smooth, this system
is observable, uniformly in u, in the sense that the state x
can be uniquely expressed as a function y, yo , f, y (t - 1), u,
uo , f, u (t - 2). Under certain smoothness conditions, uniformly
30  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017
the parameter f by decreasing it monotonically to bring the tra-
jectories under output feedback close enough to the ones un-
der state feedback. This feature is achieved not only by making
the observer fast but by combining this property with the global
boundedness of u and z 0.
References
[S1] A. J. Krener and A. Isidori, “Linearization by output injection and
nonlinear observers,” Syst. Control Lett., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 47–52, 1983.
[S2] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems. 3rd ed. New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1995.
[S3] R. Marino and P. Tomei, Nonlinear Control Design. London: Pren-
tice Hall, 1995.
[S4] S. Raghavan and J. K. Hedrick, “Observer design for a class of
nonlinear systems,” Int. J. Control, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 515–528, 1994.
[S5] R. Rajamani, “Observers for Lipschitz nonlinear systems,” IEEE
Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 397–401, 1998.
[S6] J. P. Gauthier, H. Hammouri, and S. Othman, “A simple observer
for nonlinear systems application to bioreactors,” IEEE Trans. Automat.
Control, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 875–880, 1992.
[S7] A. Teel and L. Praly, “Global stabilizability and observability imply
semi-global stabilizability by output feedback,” Syst. Control Lett., vol.
22, no. 5, pp. 313–325, 1994.
[S8] A. N. Atassi and H. K. Khalil, “A separation principle for the stabi-
lization of a class of nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control,
vol. 44, no. 8, pp. 1672–1687, 1999.
[S9] M. Maggiore and K. Passino, “A separation principle for non-UCO sys-
tems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1122–1133, 2003.
[S10] M. Krstic, I. Kanellakopoulos, and P. Kokotović, Nonlinear and
Adaptive Control Design. New York: Wiley, 1995.
[S11] M. Arcak and P. Kokotovic, “Nonlinear observers: A circle crite-
rion design and robustness analysis,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 12, pp.
1923–1930, 2001.
[S12] X. Fan and M. Arcak, “Observer design for systems with multi­
variable monotone nonlinearities,” Syst. Control Lett., vol. 50, no. 4,
pp. 319–330, 2003.
[S13] M. Arcak, “Certainty-equivalence output-feedback design with
circle-criterion observers,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 50, no.
6, pp. 905–909, 2005.
[S14] B. Acikmese and M. Corless, “Observers for systems with nonlin-
earities satisfying incremental quadratic constraints,” Automatica, vol.
47, no. 7, pp. 1339–1348, 2011.
[S15] A. Loria and E. Panteley, “A separation principle for a class of Euler-
Lagrange systems,” in New Directions in Nonlinear Observer Design, H.
Nijmeijer and T.I. Fossen, Eds. (Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Sciences, vol. 244). London: Springer-Verlag, 1999, pp. 229–247.
[S16] A. Loria, T. I. Fossen, and E. Panteley, “A separation principle
for dynamic positioning of ships: theoretical and experimental results,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Tech., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 332–343, 2000.
[S17] Y. Su, P. C. Muller, and C. Zheng, “A simple nonlinear observer for
a class of uncertain mechanical systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Con-
trol, vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1340–1345, 2007.
[S18] A. E. Golubev, A. P. Krishchenko, and S. B. Tkachev, “Stabiliza-
tion of nonlinear dynamic systems using the system state estimates
made by the asymptotic observer,” Automat. Remote Control, vol. 66,
no. 7, pp. 1021–1058, 2005.
[S19] V. Andrieu and L. Praly, “A unifying point of view on output feed-
back designs for global asymptotic stabilization,” Automatica, vol. 45,
no. 8, pp. 1789–1798, 2009.
observable systems can be transformed into the form (11)–
(13), at least locally; see [2, Th. 4.1].
The motivating examples of the previous section show
that high-gain observers have two features. First, the
 Relative Degree of Nonlinear Systems [S2]

A nonlinear single-input, single-output system of the form An m-input, m-output nonlinear system of the form
m
|o = f (|) + g (|) u, y = h (|), |o = f (|) + / g i (|) u i, y i = h i (|),
i=1

has relative degree t in an open set R if, for all | ! R, for 1 # i # m , has vector relative degree {t 1, t 2, f, t m} in an
t-1
L g L if - 1 h (|) = 0, f o r i = 1, 2, f, t - 1 , a n d L g L f h (|) ! 0, open set R if, for all | ! R , L g j L kf - 1 h i (|) = 0, for 1 # k # t i - 1,
where L f h (|) = ^2h 2| h f is the Lie derivative of h with re- for all 1 # i # m and 1 # j # m , and the m × m matrix
spect to f. Under appropriate smoothness conditions on f, g, R t1 - 1 t1 - 1 V
S L g1 L f h 1 g g L gm L f h 1 W
and h, there is a change of variables that transforms a rela- S L g 1 L ft2 - 1 h 2 g g L g m L ft2 - 1 h 2 W
S W,
tive degree t system into the normal formal, at least locally. S h h h h W
Under some stronger conditions, the change of variables SL g 1 L tm - 1 h m g g L g m L tm - 1 h mW
f f
T X
holds globally. is nonsingular.

estimation error decays rapidly toward small (order O (f) ) have negative real parts. The functions } s1, f, } st - 1 are
values within a time interval that decreases toward zero as locally Lipschitz and satisfy, for all u ! U , both
f decreases. Second, the observer is robust with respect to
s
uncertain nonlinear functions. The task of this section is to } i (x 1, f, x i, u) = } i (x 1, f, x i, u), for all x ! X, (18)
design a high-gain observer for a nonlinear system of the
form (7)–(10), where f0, } 1, f, } t - 1, and z are locally Lip- and
schitz in their arguments, and w (t), x (t), and u (t) are
i
bounded for all t $ 0 . In particular, let w (t) ! W 1 R ,, s s
} i (x 1, f, x i, u) - } i (z 1, f, z i, u) # L i / xk - zk ,
x (t) ! X 1 R t, and u (t) ! U 1 R m, for all t $ 0 , for some k=1 
compact sets W, X, and U. The boundedness of (w, x, u) is for all x, z ! R t. (19)
needed because the system is operated in open loop;
boundedness is not required when the observer is studied The difference between (14) and (19) is that (14) holds for x
under feedback control. The fast decay of the estimation and z in a compact set, while (19) holds for all x and z. If
error can be achieved only in the estimation of x. There- the Lipschitz condition (14) holds globally, then } si = } i.
fore, the high-gain observer is a partial-state observer that Otherwise, } si is defined by saturating the x 1, f, x i
estimates only x, not the full state (w, x) . The robustness ­a rguments of } i outside the compact set X, which is
feature of the observer can be achieved only with respect done by choosing M i $ max x ! X x i and replacing x i by
to the nonlinearity z; therefore, } 1 to } t - 1 are assumed to M i sat (x i /M i); that is,
be known. Furthermore, it is required that, for any com-
pact set S 1 R t, the functions } 1 to } t - 1 satisfy the Lip- s
} i (x 1, f, x i, u) = } i ^ M 1 sat (x 1 /M 1), f, M i sat (x i /M i), u h.
schitz condition

i
} i (x 1, f, x i, u) - } i (z 1, f, z i, u) # L i / x k - z k , (14) The function } si satisfies (19) in view of (14) and the fact that
k=1 the saturation function is globally Lipschitz.
It is assumed that z 0 is locally Lipschitz in its argu-
for all x, z ! S and u ! U . The observer is taken as ments and

xto i = xt i + 1 + } si (xt 1, f, xt i, u) + aii (y - xt 1), for 1 # i # t - 1, z (w, x, u) - z 0 (z, u) # L x - z + M, (20)

f
(15)
at for all w ! W, x ! X, z ! R t , and u ! U . Because
xto t = z 0 (xt , u) + t (y - xt 1), (16)
f
z (w, x, u) - z 0 (z, u) = z (w, x, u) - z 0 (x, u) + z 0 (x, u) - z 0 (z, u),
where z 0 is a nominal model of z , f is a sufficiently small
positive constant, and a 1, f, a t are chosen such that the and z 0 (x, u) can be chosen to be globally Lipschitz in x
roots of by saturating its x -argument outside the compact set X,
(20) requires the modeling error z (w, x, u) - z 0 (x, u) to be
s t + a 1 s t - 1 + g + a t - 1 s + a t = 0, (17) bounded. When z 0 = 0, which would be a natural choice if

JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  31

no information is available on z, (20) holds with L = 0. On
the other hand, if z is known and either it is not function of
w or w is measured, z 0 can be taken to be equal to z with
the x-argument of z saturated outside X. In this case, (20)
holds with M = 0. The properties of the high-gain observer
are summarized in the following theorem; see [1, Lem. 11.3].
Theorem 1
Under the stated assumptions, there is f * ! (0, 1] such that
for 0 1 f # f *, the estimation errors xu i = x i - xt i, for 1 # i # t,
of the high-gain observer (15)–(16) satisfy the bound
b xu (0)
xu i # max ' i-1 e -at/f, f t + 1 - i cM 1, (21)
f
for some positive constants a, b, c.  G nates representing joint positions, u an m-dimensional con-
The two terms on the right-hand side of (21) show
bounds on the estimation error due to two sources. The
term (b/f i - 1) xu (0) e -at/f is due to the initial estimation error
xu (0) = x (0) - xt (0) . It exhibits the peaking phenomenon and
illustrates that the estimation error decays rapidly to small
values. In particular, given any positive constant K, it can
be seen that
b e -at/f # Kf, for all t $ T (f) def
= f ln c b t m . (22)
f
t-1
a Kf
Using l’Hôpital’s rule, it can be seen that lim f " 0 T (f) = 0.
The second term, f t + 1 - i cM, is due to the error in modeling
the function z. This error does not exist if the observer is
implemented with z = z 0.
The high-gain observer design can be extended to classes
of multi-output systems; see [3] and the references therein.
In the simplest case, the system is represented by
wo = f0 (w, x, u), (23)
xo = x i
j
i
j+1 , for 1 # j # t i - 1, 1 # i # p, (24)
i roots of
xo t i = z i (w, x, u), for 1 # i # p, (25)
i
yi = x , 1 for 1 # i # p, (26)
where
x i = col (x i1, x i2, f, x it i),
x = col (x 1, x 2, f, x p) ! R t,
t = t1 + g + tp .
The functions f0, z 1, f, z p are locally Lipschitz in their
arguments, and w (t) ! W 1 R ,, x (t) ! X 1 R t, and
u (t) ! U 1 R m, for all t $ 0 , for some compact sets W, X,
and U. Equations (23)–(26) describe p chains of integra-
tors with t i ­integrators in each chain whose states are
x i1, x i2, f x it i. The measured outputs are the states of the first
integrators of these chains. The p chains are coupled by the
32  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017
input to the last integrator in each chain, the function z i,
which could depend on all integrator states as well as the
state w and the input u. Without loss of generality, it is
assumed that each chain has at least two integrators; that is,
t i $ 2. A chain of a single integrator can be included in the
equation wo = f0.
The model (23)–(26) arises naturally in mechanical and
electromechanical systems, where displacement variables
are measured but their derivatives (that is, velocities and
accelerations) are not. For example, the nonlinear dynamics
of an m-link robot take the form [4], [5]
M (q) qp + C (q, qo ) qo + Dqo + g (q) = u, (27)
where q is an m-dimensional vector of generalized coordi-
trol (torque) input, and M (q) a symmetric positive-­definite
inertia matrix. The terms C (q, qo ) qo , Dqo , and g (q) account for
centrifugal/Coriolis forces, viscous damping, and gravity,
respectively. If the measured variables are the joint posi-
tions, (27) takes the form (24)–(26) with x i1 = q i, x i2 = qo i, t i = 2,
for i = 1, f, m, and the functions z i are
col (z 1, f, z m) = M -1 [u - Cqo - Dqo - g] .
The multivariable normal form of a nonlinear system having
a well-defined vector relative degree is a special case of
(23)–(26); see “Relative Degree of Nonlinear Systems [S2].”
A high-gain observer for the system (23)–(26) is
i
aj
xto ij = xt ij + 1 + j (y i - xt i1), for 1 # j # t i - 1, (28)
f
i
a ti
xto it i = z i0 (xt , u) + t i (y i - xt i1), (29)
f
for 1 # i # p , where f is a sufficiently small positive con-
stant and the positive constants a ij are chosen such that the
s t i + a i1 s t i - 1 + g + a it i - 1 s + a it i = 0,
are in the open left-half plane, for all i = 1, f, p. The func-
tion z i0 (x, u) is a nominal model of z i (w, x, u), which is
required to satisfy the inequality
z i (w, x, u) - z i0 (z, u) # L i x - z + M i, (30)
for all w ! W, x ! X, z ! R t, and u ! U. An extension of the
proof of Theorem 1 yields the following theorem.
Theorem 2
Under the stated assumptions, there is f * ! (0, 1] such that,
for 0 1 f # f *, the estimation errors xu ij = x ij - xt ij, for 1 # i # p
and 1 # j # t i, of the high-gain observer (28), (29) satisfy
the bound
 b xu (0) e -at/f jo = C (j, xt ), u = c (j, xt ), (37)
x ij - xt ij # max ' t max - t i + j - 1 , f t i - j + 1 cM max 1, (31)
f
where xt is generated by the high-gain observer
for some positive constants a, b, and c, where t max =
max {t 1, f, t p} and M max = max {M 1, f, M p} . G xto = Axt + Bz 0 (xt , u) + H (y - Cxt ) . (38)

Feedback Control The observer gain H is chosen as

Consider the multi-input, multi-output nonlinear system
H = block diag [H 1, f, H p],
wo = f0 (w, x, u), (32)
where the t i-dimensional column H i is
xo = Ax + Bz (w, x, u), (33)
i
i i
a t - 1 a it
H i = col c , 2 , f, t ii - 1 , t ii m,
y = Cx, (34) a1 a2
f f f f

where u ! R m is the control input, y ! R p is measured
­o utputs, and w ! R , and x ! R t constitute the state
vector. The t # t matrix A, the t # p matrix B, and the 
p # t matrix C, given by A = block diag [A 1, f, A q], B =
block diag [B 1, f, B p], C = block diag [C 1, f, C p], with
R0 1 g g 0VW
S
S0 0 1 g 0W
A i = SS h h WW , domain of interest and globally bounded in x. Moreover,
S0 g g 0 1W
S0 g g g 0Wt i # t i
T X
B i = 60
T
g g 0 1@1 # t i ,
C i = 61 0 g g 0@1 # t i ,
where t = t 1 + g + t p , represent p chains of integrators.
Equations (33) and (34) are the same as (24)–(26) but written
in a more compact form. The functions f0 and z are locally
Lipschitz in their arguments for (w, x, u) ! D w # D x # R m,
where D w 1 R , and D x 1 R t are domains that contain their
respective origins. Moreover, f0 (0, 0, 0) = 0 and z (0, 0, 0) = 0.
The goal is to design an output-feedback controller to
stabilize the origin. A two-step approach is used to design
the output-feedback controller. First, a partial state-feed-
back controller that uses the measurement of x is designed
to asymptotically stabilize the origin. Then, a high-gain
observer is used to estimate x from y. The state-feedback
controller is allowed to be a dynamical system of the form
jo = C (j, x), (35a)
u = c (j, x), (35b)
where c and C are locally Lipschitz functions in their argu-
ments over the domain of interest and globally bounded
functions of x. Moreover, c (0, 0) = 0 and C (0, 0) = 0. A
static state-feedback controller u = c (x) is viewed as a
special case of (35) by dropping (35a). For convenience, the
closed-loop system under state feedback is written as
.
X = f (X), (36)
where X = col (w, x, j). The output-feedback controller is
f is a small positive constant to be specified, and the posi-
tive constants a ij are chosen such that the roots of
s t i + a i1 s t i - 1 + g + a it i - 1 s + a it i = 0
are in the open left-half plane, for all i = 1, f, p. The func-
tion z 0 (x, u) is a nominal model of z (w, x, u) , which is
required to be locally Lipschitz in its arguments over the
z 0 (0, 0) = 0 . The separation principle is stated in the follow-
ing theorem; see [6, Th. 14.6].
Theorem 3
Consider the closed-loop system of the plant (32)–(34) and the
output feedback controller (37), (38). Suppose the origin of (36)
is asymptotically stable and R is its region of attraction. Let S
be any compact set in the interior of R and Q be any compact
subset of R t. Then, given any n 2 0, there exist f * 2 0 and
T * 2 0, dependent on n, such that for every 0 1 f # f * , the
solutions (X (t), xt (t)) of the closed-loop system, starting in
S # Q, are bounded for all t $ 0 and satisfy
X (t) # n and xt (t) # n, for all t $ T *, (39)
X (t) - X r (t) # n, for all t $ 0, (40)
where X r is the solution of (36), starting at X (0). Moreover,
if the origin of (36) is exponentially stable, then the origin of
the closed-loop system is exponentially stable and S # Q is
a subset of its region of attraction. G
Theorem 3 shows properties of the output feedback con-
troller when f is sufficiently small. First, it shows that the
trajectories are bounded. Second, (39) shows that the trajec-
tories can be brought to an arbitrarily small neighborhood
of the origin by choosing f small enough. Third, (40) shows
that the solution X (t) under output feedback approaches
the solution X r (t) under state feedback as f tends to zero.
Fourth, the output-feedback controller recovers the region
of attraction of the state-feedback controller in the sense
that the foregoing three properties hold for any compact
set in the interior of the region of attraction. Finally, the

JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  33

­ utput-feedback controller recovers exponential stability
o 2z
when the origin under state feedback is exponentially
stable. As a corollary of the theorem, it is clear that if the
state-feedback controller achieves global stabilization with
local exponential stability, then for sufficiently small f, the
output feedback controller achieves semiglobal stabiliza-
tion with local exponential stability because, in this case,
the set S can be chosen arbitrarily large.
The Extended High-gain Observer
For the two-dimensional system of Examples 1 and 2,
the second-order observer estimates x 1 and its derivative
xo 1 = x 2. If an estimate of the second derivative xp 1 = xo 2 was
available, it would have provided an estimate of the func-
tion z, which could play an important role in control
design. In particular, if z is a disturbance term, the observer
acts as a disturbance estimator. Disturbance estimators are
widely used in feedback control; see [7] for a comprehen-
sive coverage of the topic, and see also [8] and [9] for the use
of disturbance estimators in active disturbance rejection
control. An observer that estimates the function z is called
extended high-gain observer. It is illustrated in the next exam-
ple, which is followed by an application to feedback linear-
ization in the presence of uncertainty.
Example 3
Consider the system
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = z (t, x) + u, y = x 1,
where z (t, x) is unknown. Suppose z (t, x) is continuously
differentiable and z and its partial derivatives are bounded
on compact sets of x for all t $ 0. The goal is to design an
output-feedback controller to stabilize the origin using the
measured output y. Set v = z (t, x) and rewrite the system as
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = v + u, y = x1 .
Had x and v been measured, the control could have
been taken as u = - v - x 1 - x 2, which would result in the li­­
near system
xo = ; E x = Ax.
0 1 def
-1 -1
The system above is called the target system, and its solu-
tion is the target response. In actuality, x and v are not
measured; the only measured signal is y. To design an
observer that estimates x and v, the dynamics of the
system are extended by treating v as an additional state.
The extended system is given by
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = v + u, vo = } (t, x, u), y = x 1,
where
34  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017
2z 2z
} (t, x, u) = + x + [z (t, x) + u] .
2t 2x 1 2 2x 2
The function } is unknown but, due to the robustness of
high-gain observers, a third-order observer can be built to
estimate x and v. The observer is taken as
xto 1 = xt 2 + (a 1 /f) (y - xt 1),
xto 2 = vt + u + (a 2 /f 2) (y - xt 1),
vto = (a 3 /f ) (y - xt 1),
3
where a 1 = a 2 = 3 and a 3 = 1 are chosen such that the roots
of s 3 + a 1 s 2 + a 2 s + a 3 = 0 are assigned to be at –1. With the
estimates xt and vt available, the output-feedback controller
is taken as
t t t
u = M sat c - v - x 1 - x 2 m .
M
The control is saturated to deal with the peaking phenom-
enon. The saturation level M satisfies M 2 max x ! X, t $ 0
- z (t, x) - x 1 - x 2 , where X is a compact positively in­­
variant set of the target system. To analyze the closed-loop
system, let h 1 = (x 1 - xt 1)/f 2, h 2 = (x 2 - xt 2)/f, and h 3 = v - vt ,
to obtain
fho 1 = - a 1 h 1 + h 2,
fho 2 = - a 2 h 1 + h 3,
fho 3 = - a 3 h 1 + f} (t, x, u),
where } (t, x, u) is bounded on compact sets of x. Let
x (0) ! X 0, where X 0 is a compact set in the interior of X,
then there exists T (f) 2 0, with lim f " 0 T (f) = 0, such that
x (t) ! X for all t $ 0 and h (t) = O (f) for all t $ T (f). There-
fore, for t $ T (f),
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = - x 1 - x 2 + O (f),
which shows that the closed-loop system under output
feedback recovers the performance of the target system for
sufficiently small f. To illustrate the performance recovery,
reconsider the system
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = x 32 + u, y = x 1,
from Example 2 but suppose that the term x 32 is unknown
to the designer. The target system xo = Ax has a Lyapunov
function V (x) = x T Px, where P is the solution of the Lyapu-
nov equation PA + A T P = - I. Recall from Example 2 that
X = {V (x) # 0.3} is a positively invariant set of the target
system and max x ! X - x 23 - x 1 - x 2 # 0.816. With M = 1,
the output-feedback controller is
u = sat (- vt - xt 1 - xt 2) .
Figure 7 shows the response of the target system and the
closed-loop system under output feedback for three values 0.15
of f. The initial conditions are x 1 (0) = 0.1, x 2 (0) = xt 1 (0) = 0.1
xt 2 (0) = vt (0) = 0. The response of the closed-loop system 0.05

x1
approaches the target response as f decreases. 0
As a variation on the theme of this simulation, let the
−0.05
system be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = x 32 + sin t + u, y = x1 . 0.1

0
The observer and output-feedback controller remain the

x2
same, except that the saturation level M is chosen to sat- −0.1
isfy M 2 max x ! X - x 23 - x 1 - x 2 + 1 = 1.816. With M = 2, the
−0.2
controller is 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
t t t
u = 2 sat c - v - x 1 - x 2 m . Target ε = 0.1
2
ε = 0.01 ε = 0.001

The simulations in Figure 8 are carried out under the same

FIGURE 7  A simulation of Example 3 when z (t, x) = x 32 .
initial conditions, and they confirm the same trend in
Figure 7. Comparison of the two figures shows that, when
f = 0.001, the response is almost the same whether the
0.4
unknown function is x 32 or x 32 + sin t . 9
The approach taken in Example 3 can be developed for a 0.2
fairly general class of feedback-linearizable systems; see 0
x1

[10] for a multi-input, multi-output generalization. Con- −0.2

sider a single-input, single-output nonlinear system in the −0.4
(globally defined) normal form 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
0.4
wo = f0 (w, x, d), (41)
0.2
xo = Ax + B 6b (w, x, d) + a (w, x, d) u@, (42)
0
x2

y = Cx, (43)
−0.2
−0.4
where the triple (A, B, C) represents a chain of n integrators, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
w ! R , and x ! R n are the state variables, u ! R is the con- Time
trol input, y ! R is the measured output, and d ! R m is a Target ε = 0.1
disturbance input. Then the following is assumed. ε = 0.01 ε = 0.001

Assumption 1 FIGURE 8  A simulation of Example 3 when z (t, x) = x 32 + sin t.

d (t) belongs to a known compact set D 1 R m and do (t)
is bounded. Assumption 3
There exists a radially unbounded positive-definite function
Assumption 2 V0 (w) such that for all x ! R n, w ! R m, and d ! D,
The (possibly unknown) nonlinear functions a (·), b (·) ,
2V 0
and f0 (·) satisfy the conditions that 1) a (·) and b (·) are (w) f0 (w, x, d) # 0, for w $ | (x, d),
2w
continuously differentiable with locally Lipschitz deri­
vatives, 2) a (·) $ a 0 with a known a 0 2 0, and 3) f0 (·) is where | (x, d) is a nonnegative continuous function.
locally Lipschitz. Assumption 3 ensures that the system wo = f0 (w, x, d),
The goal is to design an output-feedback controller to with input (x, d), is bounded-input, bounded-state stable.
asymptotically regulate the output y (t) to zero, for all ini- Had (w, x, d) been available for feedback and the functions
tial states in a given compact set, while meeting certain a (·) and b (·) been known, the feedback linearization
requirements on the transient response. The design is pur-
sued for minimum-phase systems for which Assumption 3 - b (w, x, d) + v
u= ,
is satisfied. a (w, x, d)

JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  35

 To protect the system from peaking in the observer’s transient response,
the control is saturated outside a compact set of interest.

would have reduced the input-output model to solution of the Lyapunov equation Ps (A - BK) + (A - BK) T
Ps = - I. Define the compact set X c by
xo = Ax + Bv, y = Cx. (44)
X c = {V0 (w) # c 0 + a (c)} # {Vs (x) # c} .
The auxiliary control v would then be designed as v = - Kx,
where K is chosen using a linear control-design method, Any compact subset of R m # R n can be included in the inte-
such as pole placement or the linear-quadratic regulator, to rior of X c by choosing c large enough. Let
make (A - BK) Hurwitz and shape the transient response;
- b (w, x, d) + z (x)
see, for example, [11]. While such a design is not realizable, M 2 (w,xmax . (50)
)!X , d!D
c a (w , x , d )
its performance can be recovered by using an extended
high-gain observer. Toward that end, define the target Saturating the control at ! M yields at the output-feedback
system as controller

.
x * = (A - BK) x *, x * (0) = x (0).(45) u = M sat (c (xt , vt ) /M), (51)

Augmenting an additional integrator to the chain of inte- where c (·) is defined by (49). Let
grators in (41)–(43), a high-gain observer of the extended
a (w, x, d) - at (x)
system is designed as ka = max ,
(w, x) ! X c, d ! D at (x)
an + 1
xto = Axt + B 6vt + bt (xt ) + at (xt ) u@ + H (f) (y - Cxt ), (46)
G (s) = ,
sn + 1 + a1 sn + g + an + 1
vto = (a n + 1 /f
n+1
) (y - Cxt ), (47)
and G 3 = max ~ G (j~) . Because G (0) = 1, G 3 $ 1. It can
be verified that G 3 = 1 if all the poles of G (s) are real. The
where at (·) $ a 0 2 0 and bt (·) are twice continuously differen- proofs of the following two theorems can be found in [12].
tiable, globally bounded functions that model a (·) and b ($),
respectively, H = col ^a 1 /f, f , a n /f n h, the a 1, f, a n, a n + 1 Theorem 4
are chosen such that the polynomial s n + 1 + a 1 s n + g + a n + 1, Consider the closed-loop system formed by the plant (41)–
is Hurwitz, and f 2 0 is a small parameter. (43), the observer (46), (47), and the controller (51). Suppose
From high-gain observer theory, it is anticipated that Assumptions 1–3 are satisfied,
H (f) (y - Cxt ) will be O (f) after a short transient period. Then,
ka 1 1 , (52)
(46) can be viewed as a perturbation of G 3

xto = Axt + B 6vt + bt (xt ) + at (xt ) u@, (48)
which can be made to coincide with the target system (45)
by taking
- vt - bt (xt ) - Kxt def
u= = c (xt , vt ). (49)
at (xt )
To protect the system from peaking in the observer’s tran-
sient response, the control is saturated outside a compact
set of interest. Using Assumption 3, it can be shown that
there exist a constant c 0 $ 0 and a class K 3 function a (·)
such that, for any positive constant c, {V0 (w) # c 0 + a (c)}
is a positively invariant set of wo = f0 (w, x, d) for all x (t) !
{Vs (x) # c} and d (t) ! D, where Vs (x) = x T Ps x is a Lyapu-
nov function for the target system (45) in which Ps is the
the initial states of the observer belong to a compact
subset of R n + 1, and the initial states of the plant belong
to a compact set in the interior of X c. Then, given any
n 2 0, there exist f* 2 0 and T * 2 0, dependent on n,
such that, for every 0 1 f # f *, all trajectories are bounded
and satisfy
x (t) - x* (t) # n, for all t $ 0 (53)
and
x (t) # n, for all t $ T *. (54)
 G
Remark 1
Condition (52) can be always satisfied by the appropriate
choice of at and the observer eigenvalues if an upper bound

36  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017

 There is also a tradeoff between the fast reconstruction of the states
versus the steady-state error due to measurement noise.
on a (w, x, d) is known. Let a u $ max {(w, x) ! X c, d ! D} a (w, x, d).
Taking at 2 a u ensures that k a 1 1. Assigning the observer
eigenvalues to be real results in G 3 = 1; hence k a G 3 1 1.
Theorem 4 ensures only practical regulation because it
shows that the ultimate bound on the regulation error y
can be made arbitrarily small by choosing f small enough.
Theorem 5 shows that if d is constant then, under addi-
tional conditions, the controller provides integral action
that ensures regulation of y (t) (in fact, the whole vector
x (t) ) to zero even when the model uncertainty does not
vanish at x = 0.
Theorem 5
Consider, under the assumptions of Theorem 4, the closed-
loop system formed by (41)–(43), (46), (47), and (51). Suppose
that d is constant, f0 (w, 0, d) is continuously differentiable
in w, 0 = f0 (w, 0, d) has a unique solution w ss = w ss (d) for
each d ! D, w = w ss is an exponentially stable equilibrium
point of wo = f0 (w, 0, d), and, with g = w - w ss, the system
go = f0 (g + w ss, x, d) is input-to-state stable with respect to
the input x uniformly in d ! D. Then, there exists f* 2 0
such that, for 0 1 f # f*, x (t) converges to zero as t " 3. G
Measurement Noise
Example 4
Reconsider Example 1 when the measurement y is cor-
rupted by bounded noise v; that is,
xo 1 = x 2, xo 2 = z (x, u), y = x 1 + v,
and let v (t) # N. Equation (4) becomes
fho = Fh + fBd -
1 Ev, where E = ;a 1E
f a2
and the inequality satisfied by Vo becomes
fVo # -
1 h 2
+ 2fM PB h +
2N PE h .
2 f
Therefore, the ultimate bound on xu is
xu # c 1 Mf + c 2 N , (55)
f
for some positive constants c 1 and c 2. Equation (55) shows
a tradeoff between model uncertainty and measurement
noise. An illustration of the ultimate bound in Figure 9
shows that decreasing f reduces the ultimate bound until
the value f 1 = c 2 N/ (c 1 M) is reached; reducing f beyond
this point increases the ultimate bound. The high-gain
observer is effective when the ratio N/M is relatively small
so that f can be chosen to attenuate the effect of uncer-
tainty and make the observer sufficiently fast. Even if there
were no model uncertainty, that is, M = 0, N still needs to
be relatively small so the observer can be designed to be
sufficiently fast without bringing the ultimate bound on
the estimation error to unacceptable levels. 9
For a -dimensional observer, the ultimate bound on
t
the estimation error takes the form [13]
xu # c 1 Mf + c 2t N
- 1 , (56)
f
which shows that the effect of measurement noise is aggra-
vated as the dimension of the observer increases. When the
observer is used in feedback control, as in (37)–(38), the dif-
ference between the trajectories under output and state
feedback, that is, | - | r , satisfies an ultimate bound in
the form of (56). Measurement noise puts a lower bound on
f so that | - | r cannot be made arbitrarily small, as in
(40) of Theorem 3.
There is also a tradeoff between the fast reconstruction
of the states versus the steady-state error due to measure-
ment noise. As seen in earlier sections, choosing f small
enough causes the estimation error to decay arbitrarily fast,
which results in the performance recovery property. One
idea to deal with this tradeoff is to use a smaller f during
the transient period to achieve fast decay of the estimation
error, and once the estimation error has reached a steady-
state threshold, change to a higher value of f to reduce the
effect of measurement noise. This idea has been explored
using gain switching [13], nonlinear gain [14], and gain
adaptation [15]. In many experimental applications of high-
gain observers, low-pass filters are used to filter out the
ε c1 M + c2 N/ε
ε1 ε
FIGURE 9  An illustration of the bound (55).
JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  37
 The control algorithm consists of three parts: fast inner current loops,
speed and disturbance estimation using the measured position via an
extended high-gain observer, and speed regulation via feedback linearization.

high-frequency components of the noise; an analysis of this where k p and k i are the proportional and integral gains,
scheme is presented in [16]. Low-pass filtering is also a fea- respectively. Substituting u d and u q into (57) shows that e d
ture of the high-gain observer with limited gain power of and e q satisfy
[17]. For a system of relative degree t, this observer has
dimension 2 (t - 1). For t 2 2, the extra dynamics act as a de d = x di dref + R
x i - e d - xn p ~ (i qref - e q) - 1 x d,
low-pass filter. dt dt R + k p d ref R + kp

de q di qref (58)
x =x + R i qref - e q + xn p ~ (i d ref - e d)
Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor dt dt R + kp

The mathematical model of a PMSM in the rotor frame of - 1 x q + k m ~,
reference is [18] R + kp R + kp (59)

L di d = - Ri d + n p L~i q + u d, where x = L/(R + k p), x d = k i # e d , and x q = k i # e q. By proper

dt
choice of the gains k p and k i, the voltage constraint can be
di q
L = - Ri q - n p L~i d - k m ~ + u q, met while making the time constant x small enough so that
dt
e d and e q become much faster than the other state variables.
J d~ = k m i q - D~ - TL, Singular perturbation theory [19] can be used to reduce the
dt
order of the model by replacing e d and e q by their quasi-
di = ~, (57) steady-state values, obtained by setting x = 0 in (58) and
dt
(59). The resulting reduced-order model is
where i is the rotor position, ~ is the rotor speed, i d and u d
are the direct axis current and voltage, respectively, i q and dx d = k i (
Ri d ref - x d), (60)
dt R + kp
u q are the quadrature axis current and voltage, respec-
dx q
tively, and TL is a load torque. The parameters L, R, n p, k m, = k i (Ri qref + k m ~ - x q), (61)
dt R + kp
J, and D are the stator inductance, stator resistance,
number of pole pairs, rotor magnetic flux linkage, moment d~ = ai - c~ + nx - 1 T , (62)
q ref q
dt J L
of inertia, and damping coefficient, respectively. The goal is
di = ~, (63)
to design a feedback controller, using only the measure- dt
ment of i, i d, and i q, to regulate the speed ~ to a reference
signal ~ ref in the presence of both unknown bounded load where i d ref and i qref are viewed as the control inputs, and the
TL and parameter uncertainty. This is to be done while parameters a, c, and n are defined by
shaping the speed transient response and meeting the con-
straints u 2d + u q2 # V max
2
and i 2d + i q2 # I max
2
. a = k p n, c = k m n +
D, n = km .
J J (R + k p)
The control algorithm consists of three parts, fast inner
current loops, speed and disturbance estimation using the Note that i is measured and x d and x q are available for feed-
measured position via an extended high-gain observer, back because they are integrations of e d and e q, which are
and speed regulation via feedback linearization. The fast defined in terms of the measured currents i d and i q. Since
current loops are made possible by the smallness of the i d ref does not affect the speed regulation, it is set to zero; (60)
electrical time constant L/R and the use of proportional- shows that x d (t) converges to zero. What remains is to design
integral controllers. Define the current tracking errors e d a feedback controller for i qref to regulate the speed ~ to ~ ref.
and e q by e d = i d ref - i d and e q = i qref - i q, where i d ref and i qref Since the load TL is unknown and the parameters a, c, and
are the direct and quadrature current reference signals, n are uncertain, (62) can be rewritten as
respectively. The control inputs u d and u q are
d~ = ati - c~ t + nt x q + v,
q ref
dt
u d (t) = k p e d (t) + k i #0 e d (m) dm,
t

where at, ct, and nt are the nominal values of a, c, and n,

u q (t) = k p e q (t) + k i # e q (m) dm,
t

0 respectively, and

38  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017

 t ref + (k ~ - ct) et ~ - nt x q - vt E,
i qref = 1t ; ref + c~
v = (a - at) i q ref - (c - ct ) ~ + (n - nt ) x q -
1T . d~
J L a dt

Had ~ and v been available for feedback, feedback linear- where et ~ = ~ ref - ~t .
ization could have been used to regulate the speed tracking An analysis of the closed-loop system shows that
error e ~ = ~ ref - ~ to zero while shaping its transient re­­ e ~ (t) - e )~ (t) can be made arbitrarily small for all t $ 0 by
sponse. In particular, taking choosing f and x/f sufficiently small; see [20] or [21] for
the details of the closed-loop analysis. The need for a small
ratio x/f is expected because of the model-order reduction
t ref + (k ~ - ct) e ~ - nt x q - vE
i qref = 1t ; ref + c~
d~
a dt that is performed before the observer design.
The controller was tested experimentally using the
yields the target system setup shown in Figure 10 from [20], which provides more
details on the experimental setup. Figures 11–13 are also
de*~
= - k ~ e ~* , from [20]. The nominal parameters of the surface-mount
dt
PMSM are shown in Table 1. The controller parameters are
whose transient response is shaped by choosing the posi- k p = 20, k i = 1200, k ~ = 25 , and f = 0.01 . The nominal
tive gain k ~. The choice of k ~ is limited by the current con- value of x is 2.145 # 10 -4, so that x/f = 2.145 # 10 -2. The
straint. Now, the extended high-gain observer experiment was conducted at a sampling frequency of
10  kHz and a 2500 pulse/r incremental encoder mounted
dit = ~t + a 1 (i - it), on the motor’s shaft. The electric currents are measured
dt f
with Hall effect sensors. The control algorithm is imple-
d~t = ati - c~ t t + nt x q + vt + a22 (i - it), mented using a National Instruments Real-Time system.
q ref
dt f
Three sets of experimental results are shown. In the first
dvt = a 3 (i - it),
dt 3 case, the motor is at standstill and not loaded when a step
f
command of 100 rad/s is applied at t = 0.1 s Figure 11(a)
is used to estimate ~ and v by ~t and vt , respectively. The shows the commanded speed, the target speed, and the
gains a i are taken as a 1 = a 2 = 3 and a 3 = 1 to assign the motor speed from simulation and experiment. Figure 11(b)
roots of s 3 + a 1 s 2 + a 2 s + a 3 = 0 to be at –1. Condition (52) is shows the error between the actual and target speeds, as
satisfied provided (a - at)/at 1 1. With ~ and v replaced obtained from simulation and experiment. The second case
by their estimates, the output-feedback controller is given by is similar to the first one except that the motor parameters

D-Link

ua
idref ud
+ PI dq
– ub PWM Three-Phase
Controller Inverter
ωref iqref uq
+ Feedback +
+ PI abc uc
– Linearization –

id ia Hall Effect
abc Current Sensor
ib –
iq –
dq ic Hall Effect
Current Sensor
Estimated
Disturbance
∧ Extended High-Gain θ
ω Optical Encoder
Observer

PMSM

FIGURE 10  A block diagram of the controller. (Figure used with permission from [20].)

JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  39

 100
Speed (rad/s)

120

50 115
110

Speed (rad/s)
0 105
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Time (s) 100

Commanded Speed Target Speed 95

Simulation Speed Experimental Speed 90
(a) 85
e∗ω – eω (rad/s)

2 80
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 Time (s)
–2
FIGURE 13  The experimental speed of the permanent magnet syn-
–4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 chronous motor under load. (Figure used with permission from [20].)
Time (s)
Target Speed-Simulation Speed
Target Speed-Experimental Speed
Table 1 Parameters of the permanent magnet synchronous
(b)
motor.
FIGURE 11  A simulation and experimental speed of the permanent
magnet synchronous motor using nominal parameters. (Figure Parameter Value
used with permission from [20].)
Rated voltage 200 VacL-L
Rated current 5.1 A

100 Rated torque 3.18 N.m

Speed (rad/s)

Rated speed 3000 r/min

50
Inductance L 4.47 mH
0 Per phase winding 0.835 X
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
resistance R
Time (s)
Torque constant k m 0.859 V·s
Commanded Speed Target Speed
Simulation Speed Experimental Speed 4
Number of pole pairs n p
(a)
Viscosity coefficient B 0.0011 N $ m $ s
10 rad
e∗ω – eω (rad/s)

Moment of inertia J 0.0036 kg·m2

0

–10 controller achieves speed regulation with a transient res­­

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
ponse very close to the target response even in the presence
Time (s)
of 20% error in the parameters. Moreover, the motor speed
Target Speed-Simulation Speed
Target Speed-Experimental Speed is regulated to the desired setpoint when an unknown load
(b) is applied, following a short transient. During this tran-
sient, the motor speed dropped to about 90 rad/s when the
FIGURE 12  A simulation and experimental speed of the permanent load was applied and increased to about 108 rad/s when it
magnet synchronous motor with a 20% increase in the nominal was removed.
parameters. (Figure used with permission from [20].)

used in the controller design are 20% higher than the
nominal parameters in Table 1. The results are shown in
Figure  12. Finally, Figure 13 shows the motor speed in a
case where the motor is rotating at a constant speed of
100 rad/s and a load of about 2 N.m is applied at t = 0.1 s
and removed at t = 0.7 s. The three figures show that the
Conclusions
This article presented the essential ideas about high-gain
observers and their use in nonlinear feedback control and
gave an experimental example of their application in elec-
tric drives. For a survey of the vast literature on high-gain
observers and the history of their use in feedback control,
the reader is referred to the survey [22].

40  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  »  JUNE 2017

 This article presented the essential ideas about high-gain observers
and their use in nonlinear feedback control and gave an experimental example
of their application in electric drives.
Acknowledgments
The application to the PMSM was done at Michigan State
University by Abdullah Alfehaid under the supervision
of Elias Strangas. The author’s work on high-gain observ-
ers has been sponsored by the National Science Foun-
dation under several grants, and the most recent one is
ECCS-1128476.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Hassan K. Khalil (khalil@egr.msu.edu) received the B.S.
and M.S. degrees from Cairo University, Egypt, in 1973
and 1975, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree from the Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, in 1978, all in elec-
trical engineering. Since 1978, he has been with Michigan
State University (MSU), where he has been the University
Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer En-
gineering since 2003. He has consulted for General Mo-
tors and Delco Products and published several papers on
singular-perturbation methods and nonlinear control. He
is the author of Nonlinear Control (Pearson, 2015), Nonlinear
Systems (Macmillan, 1992; Prentice Hall, 1996 and 2002)
and coauthor of Singular Perturbation Methods in Control:
Analysis and Design (Academic, 1986; SIAM, 1999). He was
named IEEE Fellow in 1989 and International Federation
of Automatic Control (IFAC) Fellow in 2007. He received
the 1989 IEEE Control Systems Society (CSS) George S.
Axelby Outstanding Paper Award, the 2000 American
Automatic Control Council (AACC) Ragazzini Educa-
tion Award, the 2002 IFAC Control Engineering Textbook
Prize, the 2004 AACC O. Hugo Schuck Best Paper Award,
the 2009 Alliances for Graduate Education and the Profes-
soriate (AGEP) Faculty Mentor of the Year Award, and the
2015 IEEE CSS Bode Lecture Prize. At MSU he received
the 1983 Teacher Scholar Award, the 1994 Withrow Distin-
guished Scholar Award, and the 1995 Distinguished Fac-
ulty Award. He was associate editor of IEEE Transactions
on Automatic Control, Automatica, and Neural Networks and
editor of nonlinear systems and control for Automatica. He
was registration chair of the 1984 Conference on Decision
and Control, finance chair of the 1987 American Control
Conference (ACC), program chair of the 1988 ACC, and
general chair of the 1994 ACC. He can be contacted at
Michigan State University, Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, 428 S. Shaw Lane, East Lansing,
MI 48824 USA.
References
[1] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Control. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2015.
[2] J.-P. Gauthier and I. Kupka, Observability and Observers for Nonlinear
­Systems. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001.
[3] H. F. Grip and A. Saberi, “High-gain observer design for multi-output
systems: Transformation to a canonical form by dynamic output shaping,”
Int. J. Robust Nonlin. Control, vol. 24, pp. 1016–1042, 2014.
[4] L. Sciavicco and B. Siciliano, Modeling and Control of Robot Manipulators,
2nd ed. London, U.K.: Springer-Velag, 2000.
[5] M. W. Spong, S. Hutchinson, and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Modeling and
­Control. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.
[6] H. K. Khalil, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2002.
[7] S. Li, J. Yang, W.-H. Chen, and X. Chen, Disturbance Observer-Based
­Control: Methods and Applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 2014.
[8] Z. Gao. “Active disturbance rejection control: A paradigm shift in feed-
back control system design,” in Proc. American Control Conf., Minneapolis,
MN, 2006, pp. 2239–2405.
[9] J. Han, “From PID to active disturbance rejection control,” IEEE Trans.
Ind. Electron., vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 900–906, 2009.
[10] L. Wang, A. Isidori, and H. Su, “Output feedback stabilization of non-
linear MIMO systems having uncertain high-frequency gain matrix,” Syst.
Control Lett., vol. 83, pp. 1–8, Sept. 2015.
[11] H. Kwakernaak and R. Sivan, Linear Optimal Control Systems. New York:
Wiley, 1972.
[12] L. B. Freidovich and H. K. Khalil, “Performance recovery of feedback-
linearization-based designs,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 53, no. 10,
pp. 2324–2334, 2008.
[13] J. H. Ahrens and H. K. Khalil, “High-gain observers in the presence of
measurement noise: A switched-gain approach,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 4,
pp. 936–943, 2009.
[14] A. A. Prasov and H. K. Khalil, “A nonlinear high-gain observer for
systems with measurement noise in a feedback control framework,” IEEE
Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 569–580, 2013.
[15] R. G. Sanfelice and L. Praly, “On the performance of high-gain observ-
ers with gain adaptation under measurement noise,” Automatica, vol. 47, no.
10, pp. 2165–2176, 2011.
[16] K. Khalil, “Analysis of the use of low-pass filters with high-gain observ-
ers,” in Proc. 10th IFAC Symp. Nonlinear Control Systems, NOLCOS, Monterey,
CA, 2016, pp. 488–492.
[17] D. Astolfi and L. Marconi, “A high-gain nonlinear observer with lim-
ited gain power,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 3059–3064,
2015.
[18] J. Chiasson, Modeling and High-Performance Control of Electric Machines.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2005.
[19] P. V. Kokotović, H. K. Khalil, and J. O’Reilly, Singular Perturbations Meth-
ods in Control: Analysis and Design. New York: Academic, 1986. Republished
by SIAM, 1999.
[20] A. A. Alfehaid. (2015). Speed control of permanent magnet synchro-
nous motor using extended high-gain observer [Online]. Master’s thesis,
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing. Available: http://gradworks.umi
.com/16/05/1605326.html
[21] A. A. Alfehaid, E. G. Strangas, and H. K. Khalil. “Speed control of per-
manent magnet synchronous motor using extended high-gain observer,”
in Proc. American Control Conf., Boston, MA, 2016, pp. 2205–2210.
[22] H. K. Khalil and L. Praly, “High-gain observers in nonlinear feedback
control,” Int. J. Robust. Nonlin. Control, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 993–1015, 2014.

JUNE 2017  «  IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE  41