International Journal of Systems Science

ISSN: 0020-7721 (Print) 1464-5319 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsys20

Sensor fault estimation for Lipschitz nonlinear

systems in finite-frequency domain

Ying Gu & Guang-Hong Yang

To cite this article: Ying Gu & Guang-Hong Yang (2017): Sensor fault estimation for Lipschitz
nonlinear systems in finite-frequency domain, International Journal of Systems Science, DOI:
10.1080/00207721.2017.1334099

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2017.1334099

Published online: 31 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsys20

Download by: [Tufts University] Date: 01 June 2017, At: 02:31

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE, 
https://doi.org/./..

Sensor fault estimation for Lipschitz nonlinear systems in finite-frequency domain

Ying Gua,b and Guang-Hong Yangc,a
a
College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China; b School of Science, Dalian Jiaotong University, Dalian,
China; c State Key Laboratory of Synthetical Automation for Process Industries, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this study, the problem of sensor fault estimation observer design for Lipschitz nonlinear systems with Received  January 
finite-frequency specifications is investigated. First, the sensor fault is considered as an auxiliary state vec- Accepted  May 
tor and an augmented system is established. Then, by transforming the nonlinear error dynamics into a lin-
KEYWORDS
ear parameter varying system, a sufficient condition for the observer-error system with a finite-frequency Lipschitz nonlinear systems;
H performance is derived in terms of linear matrix inequalities (LMIs). Based on the obtained condition, fault estimation; observer
novel nonlinear observers are designed to simultaneously estimate the system states and the fault signals design; finite frequency;
and attenuate the disturbances in the finite-frequency domain. The proposed design method can provide linear matrix inequalities
less restrictive LMI conditions and get a better disturbance-attenuation performance when the frequency (LMIs)
ranges of disturbances are known beforehand. A numerical example is given to show the effectiveness and
superiority of the new results.

1. Introduction observer gain matrix. We cannot obtain satisfactory estimation

The issue of fault detection and isolation (FDI) for dynamic
systems has long been an important research area in the past
decades. It is known that faults may bring about performance
degradation or even severe damages of the systems. Therefore
in order to satisfy the increasing demands for safety and reli-
ability in industrial processes, it is crucial to detect and iden-
tify these faults at their earliest stages. As a result, more and
more attention has recently been paid to FDI, particularly for
state-space dynamical systems; for instance, see Chen and Pat-
ton (1999), Patton, Frank, and Clark (2000), Isermann (2006),
Alwi, Edwards and Tan (2011), Ding (2013) and the references
therein.
However, the exact information of the size of the fault can-
not be provided by FDI strategy only. The process to estimate
the magnitude of the fault is called fault estimation. Accurate
fault estimation alternately implies the occurrence and location
of a fault, and also forms an important basis for the fault tol-
erant control task. The well-known fault estimation methods
include the adaptive technique (Tan, Tao, & Qi, 2013; Wang &
Daley, 1996; Zhang, Polycarpou, & Parisini, 2010), sliding mode
observer approach using equivalent output injection signal to
explicitly reconstruct fault signals (Alwi & Edwards, 2014; Tan &
Edwards, 2003; Yan, Spurgeon, & Edwards, 2013; Zhang, Swain,
& Nguang, 2014), learning observer method (Ji, Chen, Zhang,
& Li, 2016; Polycarpou, 2001), the proportional and integral
observer method (Li & Zhu, 2015), high gain observers (Boizot,
Busvelle, & Gauthier, 2010; Ma & Yang, 2013), robust observer
(Gao & Ding, 2007a; Huang & Yang, 2014; Tabatabaeipour &
Bak, 2014) and so on. Sensors are thought to be more vulner-
able to damage than actuators. However, most of the proposed
approaches are not suitable to estimate sensor fault due to the
fact that the sensor fault will be amplified by the conventional
performance by using the conventional observer for the sys-
tems subject to sensor faults. Recently, the augmented descriptor
observer approach has been addressed in Gao and Ding (2007b),
Gao and Wang (2006), Liu, Cao, and Shi (2013) and Du, Jiang,
and Shi (2013). It has been proved to be an effective method to
estimate sensor fault.
The design of observers for nonlinear systems has become
an active research topic. As most physical systems are global,
or at least locally Lipschitz in practice, there has been consid-
erable interest in designing observers or filters for Lipschitz
systems. Many important results have been reported in the
literature, see for example Rajamani (1998), Darouach, Boutat-
Baddas, and Zerrougui (2011), Zhu and Han (2002), Zemouche
and Boutayeb (2006). In all these approaches, the provided syn-
thesis conditions are generally difficult to be satisfied for systems
with large values of Lipschitz constants. To overcome this prob-
lem, a linear parameter varying (LPV) approach is proposed to
express the nonlinear error dynamics as a convex combination
of known matrices with time varying coefficients (Zemouche &
Boutayeb, 2013). Due to the introduction of a less conservative
Lipschitz condition, the proposed design method can provide
less restrictive synthesis conditions than those reported in the
literature and avoids high gain.
It is worth noticing that all the mentioned observer design
approaches for Lipschitz nonlinear systems are considered in
the full frequency domain. However, in practice, the exter-
nal disturbances may belong to known finite frequency ranges
(Karam & McClellan, 1999; Preuss, 1989). It will be conser-
vative to design full frequency observers to estimate system
states and fault due to the overdesign. Fortunately, the Kalman–
Yakubovich–Popov (KYP) lemma is generalised in Iwasaki and
Hara (2005) to characterise frequency domain inequalities with

CONTACT Guang-Hong Yang yangguanghong@ise.neu.edu.cn

©  Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. GU AND G.-H. YANG

(semi)finite-frequency ranges in terms of LMIs. Based on the where x(t) ∈ Rn is the state vector, u(t) ∈ Rm is the control input
generalised KYP lemma, observer and controller designs in vector, d(t) ∈ Rl is the unknown bounded disturbance vector,
finite-frequency domain have received considerable attention f(t) ∈ Rq is the unknown fault vector, and y(t) ∈ Rp is the output
(Ding & Yang, 2010; Iwasaki & Hara, 2007; Iwasaki, Hara, & vector, respectively. Matrices A ∈ Rn × n , B ∈ Rn × m , Bd ∈ Rn × l ,
Fradkov, 2005; Li & Yang, 2014; Wang & Yang, 2008; Yang, Xia, G ∈ Rn × s , C ∈ Rp × n and Df ∈ Rp × q are real known constant
& Liu, 2011; Zhang, Jiang, Shi, & Xu, 2015). However, it is hard matrices. Moreover, Df is assumed to have full column rank, i.e.
to use these existing results for such kinds of systems due to the rank Df = q. The nonlinear function (t, x(t), u(t)) is assumed
Lipschitz function. To the best of our knowledge, there is no to be r -Lipschitz, i.e.:
result about the fault estimation for Lipschitz nonlinear systems
in the finite-frequency domain, which is a challenging issue and
motivates the present investigation. (t, x(t ), u(t )) − (t, x̂(t ), u(t )) ≤ r x(t ) − x̂(t ),
The main contribution of this paper is associated with the ∀(t, x, u), (t, x̂, u) ∈ R × Rn × Rm (2)
design of a robust H fault estimation observer design with
finite-frequency specifications for Lipschitz nonlinear systems.
First, the descriptor system method is used to extend the sen- where r is a known Lipschitz constant.
sor fault as an auxiliary state vector. Then, by transforming the
Remark 2.1: Note that the class of systems satisfying condition
nonlinear error dynamics into an LPV system, a sufficient con-
(2) includes a large variety of systems already studied in litera-
dition for the observer-error system with a finite-frequency H
ture, namely the class of Lipschitz nonlinear systems. When (t,
performance is derived in terms of LMIs. Based on the obtained
x(t), u(t)) is locally Lipschitz, all the results given in this paper
condition, nonlinear observers are designed to simultaneously
are valid in a neighbourhood of a nominal point.
estimate the system states and the fault signals by attenuating
external disturbances in the low-, middle- and high-frequency Remark 2.2: Note that the measured output with sensor fault in
domain to a desired level, respectively. Compared with the exist- Equation (1) is noise-free. This type of output can be found in
ing results in Zhang et al. (2014), Gao and Ding (2007b), Alwi Gao and Ding (2007b), Li and Zhu (2015), Liu et al. (2013), Du
and Edwards (2014), Tan and Edwards (2003), the proposed et al. (2013). The more general form of measurement output can
method can estimate the sensor fault for Lipschitz nonlinear sys- be described as y(t) = Cx(t) + Df f(t) + Dw w(t), where w(t) ∈ Rr
tems with large values of Lipschitz constants. No limitations or is the measurement noise and Dw ∈ Rp × r is a real known con-
previous information of the considered sensor fault is required. stant matrix. When measurement noise occurs in the output, the
Furthermore, once external disturbances belong to the certain solving technique in Gao and Ding (2007b) can be borrowed to
finite frequency range, the proposed method makes full use of deal with the problem: denote D̃ f = [ D f Dw ] ∈ R p×(q+r) , and
the frequency information of disturbances to reduce design con- f˜(t ) = [ f T (t ) w T (t ) ]T ∈ Rq+r , then the output equation can
servatism of the entire-frequency domain.
be written as y(t ) = Cx(t ) + D̃ f f˜(t ) which has the same form
The rest of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2
as Equation (1). So, in this paper, Equation (1) is selected as
gives the system description and the problem formulation. In
the measurement output equation. That is, the proposed sen-
Section 3, the LPV-based approach for Lipschitz systems is pro-
sor fault estimation method can be applied to solve the prob-
posed. An H fault estimation observer design condition in the
lem of fault estimation for the system with output measurement
finite-frequency domain is presented in Section 4. An example
noise.
is given in Section 5 to show the effectiveness of the proposed
method. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6. In order to estimate the state vector and sensor fault, the sen-
Notations: In this paper, the notations are standard. For a sor fault is considered as an auxiliary state vector and an aug-
matrix A, AT , A* , A denote its transpose, complex-conjugate mented system is constructed using the descriptor system tech-
transpose and orthogonal complement, respectively and A > nique. As a result, the nonlinear Lipschitz system with sensor
0(A < 0) means that it is positive definite (negative definite). fault is transformed as follows:
For a square matrix A, its Hermitian part is defined by He(A) :=

(A + A* ). He(A) = (A + A∗ )/2. The symbol  will be used in
˙ ) = Āx̄(t ) + B̄u(t ) + B̄d d(t ) + Ḡ(t, x(t ), u(t )) + D̄h h(t )
Ē x̄(t
some matrix expressions to denote the transposed elements in
the symmetric positions of a matrix. In is an identity matrix of y(t ) = C̄x̄(t ) (3)
ith

size n. es (i) = (0, . . . , 0, 1 , 0, . . . , 0 )
 
T
∈ Rs , s ≥ 1 is a vector of the
s components where
s
canonical basis of R .

2. System description and problem statement x̄(t ) = [xT (t ) hT (t )]T , h(t ) = D f f (t ),

     
I0 A 0 B
2.1. System description Ē = , Ā = , B̄ = ,
Consider the following nonlinear systems described by 00 0 −I 0
     
B G 0
B̄d = d , Ḡ = , D̄h = ,
ẋ(t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu(t ) + Bd d(t ) + G(t, x(t ), u(t )) 0 0 I

y(t ) = Cx(t ) + D f f (t ) (1) C̄ = C I . (4)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 3

In this study, the following observer for the system (3) is One can obtain the solution of the constraints (12) − (14) as
designed    
I 0 0
T= ,M = , N = T Ā − KC̄, L = NM + K
ż(t ) = Nz(t ) + T B̄u(t ) + T Ḡ(t, x̂(t ), u(t )) + Ly(t ) −C 0 I
ˆ ) = z(t ) + My(t )
x̄(t (16)
ŷ(t ) = Cx̂(t ) (5)
where K is a free matrix to be determined.
where z(t) ∈ Rn + p is an auxiliary state vector of the observer,
ˆ ) ∈ Rn+p is the estimation of x̄(t ) and N ∈ R(n + p) × (n + p) , T
x̄(t 2.2. Problem statement
∈ R(n + p) × (n + p) , L ∈ R(n + p) × p , M ∈ R(n + p) × p are the observer In this subsection, finite frequency H performance index
gains to be determined. which contains the frequency information of the disturbances is
defined for the purpose of fault estimation. Consider the follow-
Remark 2.3: The real estimation of f(t) is (DTf D f )−1 ing finite frequency interval for frequency w in disturbance:
ˆ ), where Df is assumed of full column rank.
DTf [0 p×n Ip ]x̄(t
We would like to emphasise that the considered fault may be in  := {w ∈ R|τ (w − 1 )(w − 2 ) ≤ 0} (17)
any form, such as constant or time varying.
where τ = +1 or −1, ϖ1 , ϖ2 are given real scalars, and used to
ˆ ); then it follows
Let the estimation error e(t ) = x̄(t ) − x̄(t describe the frequency range of disturbance d(t).
from (3) and (5) that Note that, when τ = +1, ϖ1 = −ϖ2 = ϖ0 ,  denotes the low
frequency range
e(t ) = x̄(t ) − z(t ) − MC̄x̄(t )
= (In+p − MC̄)x̄(t ) − z(t ). (6)  := {w ∈ R||w| ≤ 0 } (18)

Assuming that there exists a matrix T ∈ R(n + p) × (n + p) such that where ϖ0 is assumed to be a known positive real scalar; when
τ = −1, ϖ1 = −ϖ2 = ϖ0 ,  denotes the high frequency range;
T Ē = In+p − MC̄ (7) when τ = +1, ϖ1 < ϖ2 ,  denotes the middle frequency range.
If we let r(t ) = C̃e(t ), where C̃ is the pre-specified weight
which is equivalent to matrix, we give the following definition on finite frequency H
  performance index for the error system (15).
 Ē
T M = In+p . (8) Definition 2.1: Letting γ > 0 be a given constant, then the
C̄
observer-error system (15) is said to have a finite frequency H
index bound γ , if under zero initial condition, the following
Using (8), the estimation error becomes
inequality
e(t ) = T Ē x̄(t ) − z(t ). (9)
+∞
+∞
rT (t )r(t )dt ≤ γ 2 d T (t )d(t )dt (19)
By taking into account (3), (5) and (8), the dynamics of the esti- 0 0
mation error is given by the following equation:
holds for all solutions of (15) with d(t) ∈ L2 such that
˙ ) − ż(t )
ė(t ) = T Ē x̄(t (10)
+∞
= Ne(t ) + (T Ā − NT Ē − LC̄)x̄(t ) + T B̄d d(t ) τ (1 e(t ) + jė(t ))(2 e(t ) − jė(t ))T dt ≤ 0 (20)
0
+ T D̄h h(t ) + T Ḡ((t, x(t ), u(t )) − (t, x̂(t ), u(t ))).
(11) where τ , ϖ1 and ϖ2 reflecting the frequency range of d(t) are
given in (17), and γ is a given real positive scalar which denotes
If one can make the following relations hold true, the worst case criterion for the effect of d(t) on the residual r(t).
Then the parameter γ is called the finite frequency H index
bound. The smaller the γ is, the smaller the influence of distur-
I = T Ē + MC̄ (12)
bance d(t) on the residual r(t).
0 = T Ā − NT Ē − LC̄ (13) Remark 2.4: Definition 2.1 is motivated by the work of Iwasaki
et al. (2005), which can be regarded as an extension of the stan-
0 = T D̄h (14) dard H performance. Note that, when τ = −1 and ϖ1 = ϖ2 =
0, the finite-frequency range reduces to full frequency and the
the dynamics of the state estimation becomes constraint (20) is automatically satisfied.
Remark 2.5: As stated in Iwasaki et al. (2005), the physical
ė(t ) = Ne(t ) + T B̄d d(t ) + T Ḡ((t, x(t ), u(t )) meaning of Definition 2.1 can become clear when special cases
− (t, x̂(t ), u(t ))). (15) are considered. For example, in the low frequency range, we
4 Y. GU AND G.-H. YANG

have τ = 1, ϖ1 = −ϖ2 = ϖ0 , which +∞implies that (20) is equiv- Lemma 3.2 (Zemouche & Boutayeb, 2013): Considering the
+∞
alent to 0 ė(t )ė(t )T dt ≤ 02 0 e(t )eT (t )dt. In this case, function  : Rn → Rn , the two following items are equivalent:
Definition 2.1 means that system (15) possesses property (19)
with respect to the disturbance d(t) that does not drive the states (a) Lipschitz property:  is r -Lipschitz with respect to its
too quickly where
 +∞ the bound on the quickness is given by ϖ0 in argument, i.e.:
+∞
the sense of 0 ė(t )ėT (t )dt ≤ 02 0 e(t )eT (t )dt.
(X ) − (Y ) ≤ r X − Y , ∀X, Y ∈ Rn . (25)
Remark 2.6: C̃ can be selected according to the design goal.
For example, if we only considered the fault reconstruction, we
(b) Reformulated Lipschitz property: for all i, j = 1, … , n,
would choose C̃ as there exist functions  ij : Rn × Rn → R and constants ri j
 and r̄i j , so that X, Y ∈ Rn ,
C̃ = 0q×n Iq .

n 
n
Now, the considered finite frequency fault estimation prob- (X ) − (Y ) = i j Hi j (X − Y ) (26)
lem is formulated as follows: i=1 j=1
Given the Lipschitz nonlinear system (1) and a prescribed
level of disturbance attenuation γ > 0, design a nonlinear 
and ri j ≤ i j ≤ r̄i j , where i j = i j (X Y j−1 , X Y j ) and
observer in the form of (5) such that for the error system (15),
the following specifications are satisfied: Hi j = en (i)eTn ( j).

(S.1) The error system (15) is asymptotically stable. By applying Lemma 3.2 on the function (t, x, u), there exist
(S.2) To reduce the effects of disturbances to the residual, sys-  ij , for all i = 1, … , s, j = 1, … , n, such that
tem (15) satisfies inequality
(t, x(t ), u(t )) − (t, x̂(t ), u(t ))

+∞
+∞ ⎛ ⎞
rT (t )r(t )dt ≤ γ 2 d T (t )d(t )dt (21)  s  n

0 0 =⎝ i j Hi j ⎠ (x(t ) − x̂(t ))
i=1 j=1
under constraint (20). ⎛ ⎞
s 
n
=⎝ i j Hi j ⎠ [In 0n×p ]e(t ) (27)
i=1 j=1

3. LPV-based approach for Lipschitz systems 

To facilitate the observer design, the following lemmas are pre-
sented and will be used in the later developments.
Lemma 3.1 (Zemouche & Boutayeb, 2013): Consider a function
and ri j ≤ i j ≤ r̄i j , where i j = i j (xx̂ j−1 , xx̂ j ) is defined as
in (24) by replacing  by  i (the ith component of ).
The new reformulated Lipschitz property uses the detailed
form of the nonlinear function to obtain lower and upper bound
 x1
 y1
for each of its component.
 : Rn → R. Then, for all X = ... ∈ Rn and Y = ... ∈ Rn ,
xn yn For simplicity, we introduce the notations
there exist functions  j : Rn × Rn → R, j = 1, … , n so that
θ (t ) ∈ = {θ (t )|θ (t )

n
= [11 , . . . , 1n , . . . , sn ]T , ri j ≤ i j ≤ r̄i j ,
(X ) − (Y ) =  j (X Y j−1 , X Y j )eTn ( j)(X − Y ). (22)
j=1 i = 1, . . . , s, j = 1, . . . , n}. (28)

where X Yi ∈ Rn is an auxiliary vector corresponding to X and Y From (15), (27) and (28), the estimation error dynamics (15)
as follows: becomes
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
y1 
s 
n
⎜ .. ⎟ ė(t ) = (T Ā − KC̄)e(t ) + T Ḡ ⎝ i j Hi j ⎠
⎜ . ⎟
⎜ ⎟ i=1 j=1
⎜ yi ⎟
X Y0
= X, X Yi = ⎜ ⎟
⎜ xi+1 ⎟ f or i = 1, . . . , n (23) [In 0n×p ]e(t ) + T B̄d d(t )
⎜ ⎟
⎜ . ⎟ = (Ā(θ (t )) − KC̄)e(t ) + T B̄d d(t )
⎝ .. ⎠
xn r(t ) = C̃e(t ) (29)

and which defines a LPV system where

 ⎛ ⎞
0 if xj = yj s 
n
 j (X Y j−1 , X Y j ) = (X Y j−1 ) − (X Y j ) i f (24) Ā(θ (t )) = T Ā + T Ḡ ⎝ i j Hi j ⎠ [In 0n×p ]. (30)
xj − yj x j
= y j
i=1 j=1
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 5

The matrix Ā(θ (t )) of the LPV system is an affine function of Q = QT such that τ Q  0 and
time-varying parameter θ (t). System (29) can be represented by
     T   
a convex combination of the vertices of where the vertices Si of N̄ T I N̄ T B̄d C̃ 0 C̃ 0
the polytope are defined such that Si = [Ai − KC̄, T B̄d , C̃], ∀i ∈  + <0 (33)
(T B̄d )T 0 I 0 0 I 0 I
[1, . . . , v], where v = 2sn . The polytopic coordinates are denoted
ρ(θ (t)) and vary into the convex set  
holds, where N̄ = vi=1 ρi (θ )[(Ai − KC̄)], =
[ P −−Q P + jc Q
−1 2 Q ] with ϖ 1 , ϖ 2 defined in (17), ϖ c = (ϖ 1 +
 = {ρ(θ (t ))|ρ(θ (t )) jc Q
ϖ2 )/2, = [ 0I 0
−γ 2 I ].
= [ρ1 (θ (t )), . . . , ρv (θ (t ))]T , ρi (θ (t )) ≥ 0,
 v
Proof: Inspired by (Iwasaki et al., 2005), pre- and postmultiply-
∀i, ρi (θ (t )) = 1}. (31) ing (33) by [eT (t) dT (t)] and its transpose, we have
i=1

 T  
d T r(t ) r(t )
Then, the polytopic LPV observer-error system with the time- (e (t )Pe(t )) + − tr[He((1 e(t )
varying parameter vector ρ(θ (t)) ∈  is given by dt d(t ) d(t )
+ jė(t ))(2 e(t ) − jė(t ))T )Q] ≤ 0. (34)
v

ė(t ) = ρi (θ (t ))[(Ai − KC̄)e(t ) + T B̄d d(t )] Integrating from t = 0 to  and using the stability property, we
i=1 have
r(t ) = C̃e(t ) (32)

+∞  T  
r(t ) r(t )
dt ≤ tr[He(S)Q] (35)
where Ai ∈ R(n + p) × (n + p) is a time invariant matrix defined for 0 d(t ) d(t )
the ith model.
Remark 3.1: Note that all the methods proposed for fault esti- where
mation by now try to deal with the term (t, x(t ), u(t )) −
+∞
(t, x̂(t ), u(t )) by using directly the Lipschitz property (Gao S= (1 e(t ) + jė(t ))(2 e(t ) − jė(t ))T dt. (36)
& Ding, 2007a, 2007b; Gao & Wang, 2006; Zhang et al., 2014). 0
As stated in Zemouche and Boutayeb (2013), the use of Lips-
chitz condition directly provides restrictive synthesis conditions By the Parseval’s theorem (Zhou & Doyle, 1998), we have
which are generally hard to be met for systems with large Lips-
chitz constants. The LPV approach takes into account the struc-
+∞
ture of the nonlinearity in detail and can guarantee nonrestric- (1 e(t ) + jė(t ))(2 e(t ) − jė(t ))T dt
0
tive synthesis conditions.
+∞
1
Remark 3.2: It is noted that the generalised KYP lemma has = (1 − w)(2 − w)ê(w)êT (w)dw (37)
2π −∞
been used in Iwasaki et al. (2005) to characterise frequency
domain inequalities with (semi)finite-frequency ranges in terms
where ê(w) is the Fourier transform of e(t), and hence S is Her-
of LMIs for linear time invariant systems. However, due to the
mitian and the bound on the right side of (35) becomes tr(SQ).
Lipschitz function, the result in Iwasaki et al. (2005) cannot be
Since τ Q  0, the bound tr(SQ) is nonpositive whenever τ S 
directly applied for such a class of nonlinear systems. In this
0 holds, then the proof is completed. 
section, by transforming the nonlinear observer-error dynamics
into an LPV system, the fault estimation problem of the class of Lemma 4.2 (Projection Lemma; Gahinet & Apkarian, 1994):
nonlinear systems (1) in finite-frequency domain can be trans- Given a symmetric matrix  and two matrices U, V, the
formed to the problem of H observer design of a class of LPV problem
systems (32) in finite-frequency domain.
 + U XV T + V X T U T < 0
4. Finite frequency robust H fault estimation
observer design is solvable with respect to decision matrix X if and only if
In the following, the H fault estimation observer design con-
T T
ditions with finite-frequency specifications will be presented. U ⊥ U ⊥ < 0, V ⊥ V ⊥ < 0 (38)

4.1. H performance in low-frequency domain
Lemma 4.1: Assume that the observer-error system (32) is
asymptotically stable. Letting γ > 0 be a given constant, then sys-
tem (32) has a finite frequency H performance (21) in finite-
frequency domain , if there exist symmetric matrices P = PT ,
= 0 and Y such that the
where U and V denote the orthogonal complement of U and V,
respectively.
Theorem 4.1: For a given constant γ > 0, the system (32) sat-
isfies the H performance (21) in low-frequency domain, if there
exist Pi = PiT , Qi = QTi > 0, W, det (W )
6 Y. GU AND G.-H. YANG

following inequality which is equivalent to

⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤ −Q P 0
−Qi Pi + W 0
⎣ P  2 Q + C̃T C̃ 0 ⎦
⎣  −i − T +  2 Qi + C̃T C̃ −W T T B̄d ⎦ < 0, 0
i 0
0 0 −γ 2 I
  −γ 2 I ⎛ ⎡ ⎤ ⎞
i = 1··· ,v (39)  v −I 
< He ⎝ ρi (θ ) ⎣(Ai − KC̄)T ⎦ W 0 I 0 ⎠ (45)
i=1 (T B̄d )T
where
 
holds. Define Q = vi=1 ρi (θ )Qi , P = vi=1 ρi (θ )Pi , Y =
i = ATi W − C̄T Y K T W , after some matrix manipulation, condition (39) is
obtained. Thus, (39) gives a sufficient condition for the observer-
error system with a finite-frequency H norm bound γ . 
holds. Then the observer gain matrix is given by K = W−1T YT .
Proof: Based on Lemma 4.1, system (32) has a finite frequency 4.2. Observer design in low-frequency domain
H performance index γ if (33) holds. While the disturbance Note that the observer design conditions given in the previous
d(t) belongs to the low frequency range, from (18), we have τ = subsection cannot ensure a stable system, so an additional con-
+1, ϖ1 = −ϖ2 = ϖ0 , ϖc = (ϖ1 + ϖ2 )/2 = 0. Substituting them straint should be added to guarantee the stability of system (32).
into  in (33), we have  = [ −Q P
P 02 Q ]. By simple matrix manip- Lemma 4.3: System (32) is asymptotically stable if there exist
ulation, the inequality (33) can be rewritten as matrices W, Y, P0i = P0iT > 0 such that

⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤    
0 P0i −W 
N̄ T B̄d −Q P 0 N̄ T B̄d < He T −qI pI , i = 1 · · · , v (46)
⎣I 0 ⎦ ⎣ P 02 Q + C̃T C̃ 0 ⎦⎣ I 0 ⎦<0 P0i 0 Ai W − C̄ Y
T

0 I 0 0 −γ 2 I 0 I
(40) where Y = KT W, p, q are arbitrary fixed real numbers satisfying
qp + pq < 0.

which has the same form of inequality (38) with Proof: From the Lyapunov stability theory, if there exists
P0 > 0 such that the following inequality
⎡ ⎤   
−Q P 0  0 P0 N̄
=⎣ P 02 Q + C̃T C̃ 0 ⎦. (41) N̄ T I <0 (47)
P0 0 I
0 0 −γ 2 I
holds, then system (32) is asymptotically stable.
 
 −I
On the other hand Note that N̄ T I is the null space of N̄ T . According to
Lemma 4.2, (47) will be held if the following inequality
⎡ ⎤T ⎡ ⎤
I 0 I 0       
⎣0 0⎦ ⎣0 −Q 0 −I
0⎦ = < 0. (42) 0 P0
< He WR (48)
0 −γ 2 I P0 0 N̄ T
0 I 0 I

holds, where W is chosen as that in Theorem 4.3, and R = [−qI,

The following null space bases calculations yield pI], where p, q are arbitrary
 fixed real numbers satisfying qp
+ pq < 0. Define P0 = vi=1 ρi (θ )P0i , Y = K T W , after substi-
⎡ ⎤⊥ ⎡ ⎤⊥ ⎡ ⎤T tuting the corresponding matrices into (48), condition (46) is
−I   I 0 0
⎣ N̄ T ⎦ = N̄ T I 0 ⎣ obtained. Thus, (46) gives a sufficient condition for (47), which
, 0 0 ⎦ = ⎣I ⎦ .
(T B̄d )T 0 I guarantees the asymptotical stability of the observer-error sys-
(T B̄d )T 0 I 0
tem (32). The proof is complete. 
(43)
Based on Theorem 4.1 and Lemma 4.3, we get the H
observer design conditions for the Lipschitz nonlinear system
From Lemma 4.2, the following inequality is a sufficient condi-
(1) in low-frequency domain described as follows.
tion for (33)
Theorem 4.2: For a given constant γ > 0, if there exist Pi =
⎡ ⎤ PiT , Qi = QTi > 0, P0i = P0iT > 0, i = 1, . . . , v, W, det (W )
= 0
⎡ ⎤T
−I   T −I and Y such that the conditions (39) and (46) hold, then system
 − ⎣ N̄ T ⎦ W 0 I 0 − 0 I 0 W T ⎣ N̄ T ⎦ < 0 (32) is asymptotically stable with a given H performance in
(T B̄d )T (T B̄d )T low-frequency domain and the observer design is given as K =
(44) W−1T YT .
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 7

It is noted that when we set Q = 0 in , ϖ1 = ϖ2 = 0 in in full frequency domain by using directly the Lipschitz prop-
Lemma 4.1, condition (33) reduces to the standard H perfor- erty. The provided synthesis conditions are generally infeasi-
mance in full frequency, and the observer-error system (32) is ble for systems with large Lipschitz constants. By contrast, this
asymptotically stable with a given H performance in full fre- paper proposes a finite-frequency observer design method by
quency domain. using the LPV method for Lipschitz nonlinear systems. The
LPV method is based on an exact reformulation of the Lip-
Corollary 4.1: For a given constant γ > 0, system (32) satisfies
schitz property which leads to less restrictive LMI conditions
the H performance (21) in the entire-frequency domain, if there
and can provide solutions even for large Lipschitz constants.
exist P = PT > 0 and Y such that the following inequality
The knowledge of frequency ranges of disturbances is taken into
⎡ ⎤ account in observer design to reduce conservatism. The pro-
ϒi + ϒiT PT B̄d C̃T posed observer method can get a better disturbance attenua-
⎣  −γ 2 I 0 ⎦ < 0, i = 1 · · · , v (49) tion performance when the frequency ranges of disturbances are
  −I known in advance, and the advantage will be illustrated by an
example in the next section.
where
Remark 4.2: The sliding mode observer is proposed to deal with
the problem of fault reconstruction in Alwi and Edwards (2014),
ϒi = PAi − Y C̄ Tan and Edwards (2003). The sensor faults are treated as actu-
ator faults by the introduction of suitable filters. However, this
holds. Then the observer gain matrix is given by K = P−1 Y. approach has a strict constraint that the bounds of the faults are
known. Moreover, the process of selecting appropriate filters can
4.3. Observer design in middle- and high-frequency be time-consuming, and the additional filters tend to increase
domains the complexity of the fault estimation system. As mentioned in
The previous subsection presents the result of observer design in Alwi and Edwards (2014), the choice of the filters does have
the low-frequency domain. Similar to Theorem 4.2, the results a significant impact on the performance that can be achieved.
of observer design in middle-frequency and high-frequency Compared with Alwi and Edwards (2014), Tan and Edwards
domains can be derived. See the following two theorems. (2003), the method proposed in this paper can estimate the sen-
sor faults directly without any transformation and the bounds of
Theorem 4.3: For a given constant γ > 0, system (32) satis- the faults could be unknown.
fies the H performance (21) in middle-frequency domain, if
Remark 4.3: It is clear that the LPV method is computationally
there exist Pi = PiT , Qi = QTi > 0, P0i = P0iT > 0, W, det (W )
=
demanding. But, in spite of that, the LPV method provides less
0 and Y satisfying (46) and the following inequality
restrictive LMI synthesis conditions, as shown by the illustrative
⎡ ⎤ example. The cost of more demanding LMIs does not play an
−Qi Pi + jc Qi + W 0 important role on the feasibility of the proposed LMIs. Because
⎣  −i − Ti − 1 2 Qi + C̃T C̃ −W T T B̄d ⎦ < 0, the constant observer gain is computed off line for the proposed
  −γ 2 I method, whatever the time taken by Matlab to solve the LMIs
i = 1··· ,v (50) will have no effect on real-time application.

Now, for designing the sensor fault reconstruction observer

where
i = ATi W − C̄T Y.
Then the observer gain matrix is given by K = W−1T YT .
Theorem 4.4: For a given constant γ > 0, system (32) satis-
fies the H performance (21) in high-frequency domain, if there
exist Pi = Pi , Qi = Qi > 0, W, det (W )
= 0 and Y satisfying
T T
(46) and the following inequality
⎡ ⎤
Qi + W + W T Pi − W T Ai + Y T C̄ −W T T B̄d
⎣  C̃T C̃ − 02 Qi 0 ⎦ < 0,
  −γ 2 I
i = 1 · · · , v.
Then the observer gain matrix is given by K = W−1T YT .
Remark 4.1: For the problem of robust sensor fault estimation
observer design for Lipschitz nonlinear systems, see, e.g. Gao
and Ding (2007b). Note that the existing observers are designed
in finite-frequency domain, one can follow the following design
procedure:
Step 1: Compute matrices T and M based on (16).
Step 2: Compute  ij , ri j , r̄i j , i = 1, . . . , s, j = 1, . . . , n based
on (24).
Step 3: Construct LMIs (39) (or (50) or (51)) and (46), and solve
them to obtain W and Y; if there is a solution , then
it means that the observer exists. Subsequently, we can
compute K by K = W−1T YT . Otherwise, the observer
dose not exist.
Step 4: Compute matrices N and L based on (16).
Consequently, observer matrices N, T, L and M are all com-
(51) puted, and the sensor fault reconstruction observer in the struc-
ture of (5) can be constructed.
5. An illustrative example
To demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of the pro-
posed method, we provide the following example.
8 Y. GU AND G.-H. YANG

Table . H performance γ for Example.

0.3
Approach Frequency range Performance

0.2 Theorem . High frequency γ =.

Corollary . Full frequency γ =.
0.1

0 ⎡ ⎤
1 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ 0 1 0 0 0 0⎥
−0.1 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 1 0 0 0⎥
T =⎢⎢ 0
⎥,
−0.2 ⎢ 0 0 1 0 0⎥ ⎥
⎣ −1 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦
−0.3 0 −1 0 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 0 0 0
Time(s) ⎢0 0⎥ ⎢0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢0 0⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Figure . Disturbance. M=⎢ ⎥, L = ⎢0 0⎥
⎢0 0⎥ ⎢0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣1 0⎦ ⎣0 0⎦
Consider the plant (1) with parameters as follows: 0 1 0 0
⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤ −1.8453 0.2573 0 0.1000 −0.3453 −0.0427
−1.5 0.3 0 0.1 ⎢−0.0649 −0.7105 0.1000 0 0.0351 −0.1105⎥
⎢−0.1 −0.6 0.1 ⎢ ⎥
0 ⎥ ⎢ 0.3139 0.0012 −0.4000 0.1139 0.0012 ⎥
A=⎢ ⎣ 0.2
⎥,
N=⎢
0 ⎥.
0 −0.4 0 ⎦ ⎢−0.4503 2.3744 0 −0.8000 −0.3503 2.1744 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
−0.1 0.2 0 −0.8 ⎣ 1.1031 −0.2563 0 −0.1000 −0.3969 0.0437 ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
−1 1.2 0.0656 −0.2478 −0.1000 0 −0.0344 −0.8478
 
⎢−1⎥ ⎢−0.2⎥ 1 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
B = ⎣ ⎦ , Bd = ⎣ ⎥ , C= , D f = I.
0.5 −1 ⎦ 0 1 0 0 Table 1 shows the minimum H performance γ based on
1 0.1 the approaches given in Theorem 4.4 and Corollary 4.1, it can
be seen that the proposed observer in finite-frequency domain
It is assumed that the external disturbance signal is in high can guarantee a smaller optimal H performance index over the
frequency range and is greater than ϖ0 = 5 rad/s, which is shown one in full frequency domain.
in Figure 1. Two cases are considered. In simulation, the sensor fault f(t) = [f1 (t), f2 (t)]T is consid-
Case 1: ered as follows:
⎡ ⎤
1 0 !
  0, t<2
⎢0 0 ⎥ 0.6cos(x1 + x2 ) f1 (t ) =
G=⎣ ⎢ ⎥ , (t, x, u) = 0.2(t − 1) + 0.5, t ≥ 2
0 0⎦ −3.33sin(x3 ) ⎧
0 1 ⎨ 0, t<8
f2 (t ) = cos(0.5π (t − 4)) + 0.2, 8 ≤ t ≤ 20
⎩
According to Lemma 3.2, the Lipschitz constant of this sys- 0.25, t > 20
tem is r = 3.33. Applying the LPV solution, we obtain  1j = 0
for all j = 3, 4,  2j = 0 for all j = 1, 2, 4 and −0.6   11  0.6, One can see that the bound of the considered fault could be
−0.6   12  0.6, −3.33   23  3.33. Choosing unknown, so the fault estimation design in Alwi and Edwards
(2014), Tan and Edwards (2003) cannot be suitable for this

C̃ = 02×4 I2 system to achieve fault estimation. Let the initial conditions
be selected as x(0) = (0.5, −0.1, 0.3, 0.2)T and z(0) = (0, 0,
and solving (46) and (51), one can obtain γ = 0.2451. Then, by 0, 0, 0, 0)T . The simulation results are shown in Figures 2
using K = W−1T YT , one can compute and 3. Figure 2 depicts the fault f(t) and its estimate fˆ(t ) by
⎡ ⎤ Theorem 4.4. Figure 3 depicts the fault f(t) and its estimate fˆ(t )
0.3453 0.0427 by Corollary 4.1.
⎢−0.0351 0.1105 ⎥ It follows from Figures 2 and 3 that the proposed nonlin-
⎢ ⎥
⎢−0.1139 −0.0012⎥ ear observer in finite-frequency domain is more insensitive to
K=⎢
⎢ 0.3503
⎥
⎢ −2.1744⎥⎥ the disturbance and has better performance to estimate the sen-
⎣ 0.3969 −0.0437⎦ sor fault than the one in full frequency domain. The simula-
0.0344 0.8478 tion results exhibit well estimate operation in finite-frequency
domain.
Through the condition in (16), the observer gains are computed It is noted that the proposed approach avoids the high gain
as follows: and allows to obtain a solution even if the considered system has
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 9

7 7
f1 (t) f2 (t)
f1 (t) f2 (t) ˆ ˆ
h̃ 1.5
1.5 1 (t) h̃ 2 (t)
fˆ1 (t) fˆ2 (t) 6
6

5 5 1
1

4 4

0.5
0.5
3
3

2 0
2 0

1
1
−0.5
−0.5
0
0

−1 −1
−1 −1 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Time(s) Time(s)
Time(s) Time(s)
Figure . Sensor fault f(t) and the estimate of the combined signal h̃(t ) by
Figure . Sensor fault f(t) and its estimate fˆ(t ) by Theorem .. Theorem ..

6 5
7 f(t) w(t)
f1 (t) f2 (t)
1.5 fˆ(t) ŵ(t)
fˆ1 (t) fˆ2 (t) 4
6 5

3
5 1 4

2
4
3
0.5
1
3
2
0
2 0
1
−1
1
−0.5 0 −2
0

−1 −3
−1 −1 0 5 10 0 5 10
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 Time(s) Time(s)
Time(s) Time(s)

Figure . Sensor fault f(t), measurement noise w(t) and their estimates by
Figure . Sensor fault f(t) and its estimate fˆ(t ) by Corollary .. Theorem ..

a large value of the Lipschitz constant. It is worth to notice that Meanwhile, the measurement noise w(t) can be reconstructed
conditions in Gao and Ding (2007b), Darouach et al. (2011) are as
hard to be met and there is no feasible solution if the Lipschitz  
ŵ(t ) = 0r×q Ir (D̃Tf D̃ f )−1 D̃Tf 0 p×n ˆ )
Ip x̄(t
constant is higher than one.
Remark 5.1: When the effect of noise is considered in this case,  T  T
Let D f = 1 0 and Dw = 0 1 in this case. The initial
according to Remark 2.2, y(t) = Cx(t) + Df f(t) + Dw w(t). By the
conditions are selected as x(0) = ( − 0.1, 0.9, 0.4, 2)T and z(0) =
proposed sensor fault estimation method, the system state vec-
(0.1, 0.3, −0.2, 0.5, −0.2, 0.4)T . The fault f(t) is assumed to be
tor x(t) and the combined signal h̃(t ) = D̃ f f˜(t ) = D f f (t ) +
Dw w(t ) can be estimated simultaneously. Suppose that inde- !
0, t<2
pendent zero mean Gaussian noise with variance 5 × 10−4 is f (t ) =
5(1 − e−0.8(t−2) ), t ≥ 2
added at each measurement channel in the simulation. The esti-
mate of h̃(t ) is shown in Figure 4. Making comparison between
and w(t) is the band-limited white-noise signal with noise power
Figures 2 and 4, one can see that noise is overlaid on the recon-
being 0.15. Simulation results of sensor fault and measurement
struction signal. Even though the accurate estimate of f(t) cannot
noise are shown in Figure 5. From which, it can be observed that
be obtained, satisfactory estimation performance is achieved.
the fault and measurement noise can be estimated well by the
If the matrix D̃ f is of full column rank, the sensor fault can
proposed method if the full column rank condition is satisfied.
be reconstructed as
It should be noted that Gao (2015) has proposed a method
  that can simultaneously estimate the sensor fault and measure-
fˆ(t ) = Iq 0q×r (D̃Tf D̃ f )−1 D̃Tf 0 p×n ˆ )
Ip x̄(t ment noise without the full column rank condition. In this
10 Y. GU AND G.-H. YANG
Table . Comparison of the H performance γ for different r.
Values of r
Theorem .
Corollary .
The method in Gao and Ding (b)
method, the measurement noise is also considered as an aux-
iliary state vector besides the sensor fault. The reconstruction of
the augmented state vector is realised by synthesising descriptor
system theory and LMI technique. It is encouraged to extend
the presented results to the case that the matrix D̃ f is not of full
column rank, which will be studied further in our future work.
Case 2:
⎡ ⎤
0
⎢0⎥ r x3
G=⎢ ⎥
⎣0⎦ , (t, x, u) = 5 1 + x2 , r > 0
3 Ying Gu received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in math-
1 ematics from Northeast Normal University, China,
This case shows the quantitative comparison between the
proposed method and the method in Gao and Ding (2007b). r
is used to boost the comparison. According to Lemma 3.2, the
Lipschitz constant of the nonlinearity is r = r/5. Applying the
LPV solution, we obtain  1j = 0 for all j = 1, 2, 4, −r/40 
 13  r/5. The aim here consists in finding the larger Lips-
chitz constant tolerated by each method. Different values of r are
considered and the corresponding performance indexes γ are
given in Table 2. From Table 2, we can observe that when r >
4/5 = 0.8, there is no feasible solution using the method in Gao
and Ding (2007b) and when r > 123.1/5 = 24.62, there is no
feasible solution using the proposed method. That is, the pro-
posed method can tolerate Lipschitz constants of not more than
24.62 while the method in Gao and Ding (2007b) can only tol-
erate Lipschitz constants of not more than 0.8. Therefor, the
proposed method can be used to estimate the sensor fault for
Lipschitz nonlinear systems with large values of Lipschitz con-
stants. In the case of quantitative analysis, the design with finite-
frequency specifications can achieve a smaller H performance
index when both of the two methods have feasible solutions, so
the proposed method is less conservative than the existing one.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, a finite frequency fault estimation approach for
Lipschitz nonlinear systems has been investigated. Based on the
LPV formulation of the error dynamics for Lipschitz nonlin-
ear systems, a new observer design method has been proposed
which makes full use of the frequency information of distur-
bances to reduce design conservatism. The proposed method
provides solutions even for large Lipschitz constants. The H
observer design conditions are obtained in the formulation of
LMIs. Finally, simulation results are presented to verify the effec-
tiveness of the proposed method.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors for
their useful comments and suggestions.
r=. r=. r= <r. r >.
. . . γ . No solution
. . . γ  . No solution
. . . No solution No solution
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported in part by the Funds of National Science of China
[grant number 61420106016], [grant number 61621004]; and the Research
Fund of State Key Laboratory of Synthetical Automation for Process Indus-
tries [grant number 2013ZCX01-01].
Notes on contributors
in 2001 and 2005, respectively. Currently, she is pur-
suing the Ph.D. degree in control theory and control
engineering from Northeastern University, China.
Her research interests include fault detection, non-
linear systems and networked control systems.
Guang-Hong Yang received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees from Northeast University of Technol-
ogy, Liaoning, China, in 1983 and 1986, respec-
tively, and the Ph.D. degree in Control Engineer-
ing from Northeastern University, China (formerly,
Northeast University of Technology), in 1994. He
was a Lecturer/Associate Professor with Northeast-
ern University from 1986 to 1995. He joined the
Nanyang Technological University in 1996 as a Post-
doctoral Fellow. From 2001 to 2005, he was a Research Scientist/Senior
Research Scientist with the National University of Singapore. He is currently
a Professor at the Colleg of Information Science and Engineering, North-
eastern University. His current research interests include fault-tolerant con-
trol, fault detection and isolation, non-fragile control systems design, and
robust control. Dr. Yang is an Associate Editor for the International Journal
of Control, Automation, and Systems (IJCAS), the International Journal of
Systems Science (IJSS), the IET Control Theory & Applications, and the
IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.
References
Alwi, H., & Edwards, C. (2014). Robust fault reconstruction for linear
parameter varying systems using sliding mode observers. International
Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 24(14), 1947–1968.
Alwi, H., Edwards, C., & Tan, C. P. (2011). Fault detection and fault-tolerant
control using sliding modes. London: Springer-Verlag.
Boizot, N., Busvelle, E., & Gauthier, J. P. (2010). An adaptive high-gain
observer for nonlinear systems. Automatica, 46(9), 1483–1488.
Chen, J., & Patton, R. J. (1999). Robust model-based fault diagnosis for
dynamic systems. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Darouach, M., Boutat-Baddas, L., & Zerrougui, M. (2011). H observers
design for a class of nonlinear singular systems. Automatica, 47(11),
2517–2525.
Ding, D. W., & Yang, G. H. (2010). Fuzzy filter design for nonlinear systems
in finite-frequency domain. IEEE Transations on Fuzzy Systems, 18(5),
935–945.
Ding, S. X. (2013). Model-based fault diagnosis techniques: Design schemes,
algorithms and tools, second edition. London: Springer-Verlag.

Du, D. S., Jiang, B., & Shi, P. (2013). Sensor fault estimation and accom-
modation for discrete-time switched linear system. IET Control Theory
and Applications, 8(11), 960–967.
Gahinet, P., & Apkarian, P. (1994). A linear matrix inequality approach
to H control. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control,
4(4), 421–448.
Gao, Z. W. (2015). Fault estimation and fault-tolerant control for discrete-
time dynamic systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
62(6), 3874–3884.
Gao, Z. W., & Ding, S. X. (2007a). Actuator fault robust estimation and fault-
tolerant control for a class of nonlinear descriptor systems. Automatica,
43(5), 912–920.
Gao, Z. W., & Ding, S. X. (2007b). Sensor fault reconstruction and sensor
compensation for a class of nonlinear state-space systems via a descrip-
tor system approach. IET Control Theory and Applications, 1(3), 578–
585.
Gao, Z. W., & Wang, H. (2006). Descriptor observer approaches for
multivariable systems with measurement noises and application in
fault detection and diagnosis. System and Control Letters, 55(4), 304–
313.
Huang, S. J., & Yang, G. H. (2014). Fault tolerant controller design for T-
S fuzzy systems with time-varying delay and actuator faults: A k-step
fault-estimation approach. IEEE Transations on Fuzzy Systems, 22(6),
1526–1540.
Isermann, R. (2006). Fault diagnosis systems: An introduction from fault
detection to fault tolerance. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Iwasaki, T., & Hara, S. (2005). Generalized KYP lemma: Unified frequency
domain inequalities with design applications. IEEE Transations on
Automatic Control, 50(1), 41–59.
Iwasaki, T., & Hara, S. (2007). Feedback control synthesis of multiple fre-
quency domain specifications via generalized KYP lemma. Interna-
tional Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 17(5–6), 415–434.
Iwasaki, T., Hara, S., & Fradkov, A. L. (2005). Time domain interpretations
of frequency domain inequalities on (semi) finite ranges. System and
Control Letters, 54(7), 681–691.
Ji, Q. X., Chen, W., Zhang, Y. C., & Li, H. Y. (2016). Integrated design of fault
reconstruction and fault-tolerant control against actuator faults using
learning observers. International Journal of Systems Science, 47(16),
3749–3761.
Karam, L. J., & McClellan, J. H. (1999). Chebyshev digital FIR filter design.
Signal Process, 76, 17–36.
Li, X. H., & Zhu, F. L. (2015). Simultaneous time-varying actuator and sen-
sor fault reconstruction based on PI observer for LPV systems. Interna-
tional Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing, 29, 1086–1095.
Li, X. J., & Yang, G. H. (2014). Fault detection in finite frequency domain
for Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy systems with sensor faults. IEEE Transations
on Cybernetics, 44(8), 1446–1458.
Liu, M., Cao, X. B., & Shi, P. (2013). Fault estimation and tolerant control
for fuzzy stochastic systems. IEEE Transations on Fuzzy Systems, 21(2),
221–229.
Ma, H. J., & Yang, G. H. (2013). Residual generation for fault detection and
isolation in a class of uncertain nonlinear systems. International Journal
of Control, 86(2), 263–275.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 11
Patton, R. J., Frank, P. M., & Clark, R. N. (2000). Issues of fault diagnosis for
dynamic systems. London: Springer-Verlag.
Polycarpou, M. M. (2001). Fault accommodation of a class of multivariable
nonlinear dynamical systems using a learning approach. IEEE Transa-
tions on Automatic Control, 46(5), 736–742.
Preuss, K. (1989). On the design of FIR filters by complex Chebyshev
approximation. IEEE Transations on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Pro-
cessing, 37(5), 702–712.
Rajamani, A. (1998). Observers for Lipschitz nonlinear systems. IEEE Tran-
sations on Automatic Control, 43(3), 397–401.
Tabatabaeipour, S. M., & Bak, T. (2014). Robust observer-based fault esti-
mation and accommodation of discrete-time piecewise linear systems.
Journal of the Franklin Institute, 351(1), 277–295.
Tan, C. P., & Edwards, C. (2003). Sliding mode observers for robust detec-
tion and reconstruction of actuator and sensor faults. International
Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 13(5), 443–463.
Tan, C. P., Tao, G., & Qi, R. (2013). A discrete-time parameter estimation
based adaptive actuator failure compensation control scheme. Interna-
tional Journal of Control, 86(2), 276–289.
Wang, H., & Daley, S. (1996). Actuator fault diagnosis: An adaptive
observer-based technique. IEEE Transations on Automatic Control,
41(7), 1073–1078.
Wang, H., & Yang, G. H. (2008). A finite frequency domain approach to
fault detection for linear discrete-time systems. International Journal of
Control, 81(7), 1162–1171.
Yan, X. G., Spurgeon, S. K., & Edwards, C. (2013). State and parameter
estimation for nonlinear delay systems using sliding mode techniques.
IEEE Transations on Automatic Control, 58(4), 1023–1029.
Yang, H. J., Xia, Y. Q., & Liu, B. (2011). Fault detection for T-S fuzzy discrete
systems in finite-frequency domain. IEEE Transations on Systems, Man,
and Cybernetics-Part B, Cybernetics, 41(4), 911–920.
Zemouche, A., & Boutayeb, M. (2006). Observer design for Lipschitz non-
linear systems: The discrete-time case. IEEE Transations on Circuits and
Systems II: Express Briefs, 53(8), 777–781.
Zemouche, A., & Boutayeb, M. (2013). On LMI conditions to design
observers for Lischitz nonlinear systems. Automatica, 49(2), 585–
591.
Zhang, J., Swain, A. K., & Nguang, S. K. (2014). Simultaneous robust
actuator and sensor fault estimation for uncertain non-linear Lip-
schitz systems. IET Control Theory and Applications, 8(14), 1364–
1374.
Zhang, K., Jiang, B., Shi, P., & Xu, J. (2015). Analysis and design of robust
H fault estimation observer with finite-frequency specifications for
discrete-time fuzzy systems. IEEE Transations on Cybernetics, 45(7),
1225–1235.
Zhang, X. D., Polycarpou, M. M., & Parisini, T. (2010). Fault diagnosis of a
class of nonlinear uncertain systems with Lipschitz nonlinearities using
adaptive estimation. Automatica, 46(2), 290–299.
Zhou, K. M., & Doyle, J. C. (1998). Essentials of robust control. New Jersey,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zhu, F. L., & Han, Z. (2002). A note on observers for Lipschitz nonlin-
ear systems. IEEE Transations on Automatic Control, 47(10), 1751–
1754.