53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control
December 15-17, 2014. Los Angeles, California, USA
Interval Observers Design for Singularly Perturbed Systems
B. YOUSFI, T. RAISSI, M. AMAIRI and M. AOUN
Abstract— This paper deals with interval observers design for
two-time singularly perturbed systems. The full-order system
is firstly decoupled into slow and fast subsystems. Then, using
the cooperativity theory, an interval observer is designed for
the slow subsystem assuming that the singular perturbed
parameter is uncertain. This decoupling leads to two observers
that estimate the lower and upper bounds for state values.
A numerical example shows the efficiency of the proposed
technique.
Keywords : Cooperativity, Interval observer, Singularly
perturbed systems, Stability.
I. I NTRODUCTION
The problem of robust state estimation is challenging
and can be encountered in many applications [1], [2].
In some situations, due to the presence of uncertainties
(parametric, disturbances and noises), the design of a
conventional observer, converging to the ideal value of the
state, cannot be ensured. In such a case, interval estimation
can be considered as an interesting alternative. By interval
estimation, we mean an observer that, using input-output
information, computes an interval containing all the state
values which are consistent with the measurements, the
model and the prior information about the uncertainties.
Several interval techniques for state estimation have been
proposed in the literature (the reader can refer to [3], [4], [5],
[6] and the references therein). Initially developed for Linear
Time-Invariant systems [7], [8], some design techniques
have been more recently proposed for Linear Time-Varying,
Linear Parameter-Varying or nonlinear systems [9], [10],
[11]. These techniques assume that the measurements are
taken as continuous-time data. In this case, two conventional
observers are designed to compute lower and upper bounds
for the domain of the state vector. This methodology ensures
the stability and the positivity (i.e. interval estimation)
properties of the observation error through a judicious
gain design and changes of coordinates [8], [10], [7]. In
several engineering applications in the fields of economics,
control theory, bifurcations and jump phenomena in electrical
circuits, systems can have multiple time scale dynamics
[12], [13], [14]. In order to deal with such systems, the
B. YOUSFI , M. AMAIRI and M. AOUN are with
Research Unit Modeling, Analysis and Control of Systems
(MACS) 06/UR/11-12, National Engineering School of Gabes,
University of Gabes, Tunisia yousfi.besma@gmail.com,
amairi.messaoud@ieee.org,mohamed.aoun@enig.rnu.tn
T. RAISSI is with Conservatoire National des Arts et Mtiers, Cedric-Lab,
Paris, tarek.raissi@cnam.fr
This work has been partially done within the MAGIC-SPS project
(Guaranteed Methods and Algorithms for Integrity Control and Preventive
Monitoring of Systems) funded by the French National Research Agency
(ANR) under the decision n ANR2011-INS-006.
978-1-4673-6090-6/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
ed licensed use limited to: MINISTERE DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR ET DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE. Downloaded on August 03,2021 at 22:19:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
singularly perturbed theory is often used to highlight the
decomposition of the system into various time scales. When
the singularly perturbed parameter is considered to be exactly
known, conventional techniques are able to perform state
estimation for the considered system. Nevertheless, this
assumption can be considered strong in several applications
such as prognosis and it is more natural to consider that
the singular perturbed parameter is unknown but it belongs
to an interval. The main contribution of this paper is
to extend interval observers to linear singularly perturbed
systems subject to parameter uncertainties. To the best of our
knowledge, this problem has not been fully considered. The
paper is organised as follows : basic notions about singularly
perturbed systems and the problem statement are given in
section II. The main results for deterministic, uncertain
and positive singularly perturbed systems are formulated in
section III. Finally, some numerical simulations are given
in section IV to illustrate the performances of the proposed
methodology.
II. T WO - TIME SCALES SINGULARLY PERTURBED
SYSTEMS
In many practical situations, systems can have multiple
time scale dynamics. In order to deal with such systems,
the singularly perturbed theory is often used to highlight
the decomposition of the system into various time scales.
The first difficult point of this modeling methodology is the
separation of the slow and fast dynamics. After the separation
of the multiple-time scale dynamics, a standard singularly
perturbed form which can be expressed by the following state
space representation is obtained [15]:
" #    
A11 A12 " # B1
 ẋ1 x1
=  A21 A22  +  B2  u



 ẋ2

x2
µ µ µ (1)
" #
x


 1
 y = [C1 C2 ]


x2
where x1 (t) ∈ Rn1 , x2 (t) ∈ Rn2 , u(t) ∈ Rm , y(t) ∈
Rp , A11 , A12 , A21 , A22 , B1 , B2 , C1 , C2 are constant matrices
with appropriate dimensions and n = n1 + n2 is the global
order of the system. The state x1 contains the slow modes
while x2 includes its fast ones and 0 < µ ≪ 1 is a small and
positive parameter, called a singular perturbed parameter.
In order to obtain the standard singularly perturbed form,
the identification and separation of slow and fast dynamics
is the keypoint [16], [17], [18].
1637
 A. Block diagonalization reduction premise variables has been proposed by using a proportional
It has been shown in [19] that the system described by integral observer with unknown inputs.
equation (1) can be decomposed into two-time scales using When the parameter µ is exactly known, the techniques
the Chang transformation given by: cited below allow one to estimate the system state.
" # " #" # Nevertheless, usually it is not possible to characterize exactly
xs In1 + M K M x1 µ and it is more natural to assume that µ is uncertain and
= (2) 
xf K In2 x2 belongs to an interval µ, µ . The goal of the following
sections is to propose an interval observer which permits
where M, K are constant matrices with appropriate to estimate a feasible domain of the state vector even if µ is
dimensions and In1 , In2 denote the identity matrices with not exactly known.
dimensions n1 × n1 and n2 × n2 respectively. The following Lemma 1: [22] Let M be a Metzler matrix (all its off-
state space representation is then obtained: diagonal elements are nonnegative) and w a nonnegative
" # " vector. If x0 is nonnegative then ẋ = M x + w is a positive
#" # " #
ẋs Ã11 Ã12 xs B̃1
= +


 u (nonnegative) system.
 ẋf

Ã21 Ã22 xf B̃2
" # (3) Lemma 2: [22] Consider the system:
 h i xs
 y = C̃1 C̃2


 ė = N e + b(t), e(0) = e0 (10)
xf
n×n
If the matrix N ∈ R is Metzler and stable, and there
where exists a constant vector B ∈ Rn+ such that b(t) ≤ B, then the
A21 + µK(A11 − A12 K) − A22 K solution of the system (10) is upper bounded by the solution
Ã21 = (4) of the system ż = N z + B, z(0) = e0 , which admits a stable
µ
equilibrium eeq = −N −1 B.
and
A22 + µKA12 III. M AIN RESULTS
Ã12 = A12 − (A11 − A22 K)M + M ( ) (5)
µ A. Exact interval observers
Assuming µ very small, the matrices K (resp. M ) is First, consider the case of a known singular perturbed
determined by solving the equation Ã21 = 0 (resp. Ã12 = 0). parameter µ0 . The slow subsystem subject to additive
The approximated solutions are given by [20]: disturbances is given by the following equation:
(
K = A−1
22 A21 (6) ẋs = µ0 As xs + µ0 Bs u + σ
(11)
ys = Cs xs
M= −µA12 A−1
22 (7)
where the disturbances σ are assumed to be bounded, i.e.
Now, the decoupled singularly perturbed system initially σ ∈ [σ, σ]. It has been shown in [22] that an interval observer
modeled by equation (1) is given by [19]: can be designed for (11) if there exists a gain L such that
(µ0 As − LCs ) is Metzler and Hurwitz stable.
" # " #" # " #
ẋs As 0 xs Bs
= +


 u Proposition 1: Denote by xs and xs the lower and upper
 µẋf 0 A22 xf B2

" # (8) bound estimates of the state xs respectively. For any initial
 xs conditions of (11), xs (0) ≤ xs (0) ≤ xs (0) there exists an
 y = [Cs C2 ]


asymptotically convergent interval observer {xs , xs } given

xf
by:
where As = A11 −A12 A−1 −1
22 A21 , Bs = B1 −A12 A22 B2 and
(
−1 ẋs = (µ0 As − LCs )xs + µ0 Bs u + Lys + σ
Cs = C1 − C2 A22 A21 . (12)
ẋs = (µ0 As − LCs )xs + µ0 Bs u + Lys + σ
B. Problem statement
if (µ0 As − LCs ) is Metzler and Hurwitz.
By taking τ = µt , consider a slow subsystem defined by
Proof: Let’s show that the errors e = xs − xs and
its state space representation:
( e = xs − xs are positive.
ẋs (τ ) = µAs xs (τ ) + µBs u(τ ) ė = ẋs − ẋs = (µ0 As − LCs )(xs − xs ) + (σ − σ)
(9)
ys (τ ) = Cs xs (τ ) = (µ0 As − LCs )e + w
where xs ∈ Rn1 is the state, ys ∈ Rp is the output. ė = ẋs − ẋs = (µ0 As − LCs )(xs − xs ) + (σ − σ)
The observer design of the considered system has been
= (µ0 As − LCs )e + w
extensively studied in the literature [21], [16]. In [21], a
method for designing a composite observer for the original where w = σ − σ ≥ 0 and w = σ − σ ≥ 0.
full-order model has been developed. Since (µ0 As − LCs ) is assumed to be Metzler and by
In [16], a state estimation of two-time scale systems construction w and w are positive, then if xs (0) and xs (0)
represented under a multiple model form with unmeasurable are chosen such that e(0) and e(0) are positive, the errors

1638

ed licensed use limited to: MINISTERE DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR ET DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE. Downloaded on August 03,2021 at 22:19:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 e(t) and e(t) stay positive ∀t ≥ t0 . In addition since where:
(i)
 
(µ0 As − LCs ) is stable, then e and e are also stable. 

  (Bs ) > 0 and ui > 0

Remark 1: Even if the system (11) is observable, it is not µ(Bs )(i) if or




always possible to compute a gain L such that (µ0 As −LCs )
 
(i)
(Bs ) < 0 and ui < 0

 
(i)
is stable and Metzler. In recent works [8], [3] and [23], it Bmin (u, Bs ) =  (i)
has been shown that it is possible to relax this assumption  (Bs ) > 0 and ui < 0

 

 µ(B )(i) if

or
by means of a change of coordinates z = T xs with 

 s
a nonsingular matrix T such that the matrix T (µ0 As −

(i)

(Bs ) (i) < 0 and ui > 0
 
LCs )T −1 is Metzler. 


  (Bs ) > 0 and ui > 0

(i)
 µ(Bs ) if  or

B. Robust interval observers



(i)
(Bs ) < 0 and ui < 0
 
In the following, µ is considered as an unknown-but-

(i)
  Bmax (u, Bs ) = (i)
bounded parameter with known bounds (i.e µ ∈ µ, µ > 0).

 (Bs ) > 0 and ui < 0

 
Denote by |x| the Euclidean norm for a vector x ∈ Rn .

(i)


 µ(Bs ) if or
For a measurable and locally essentially bounded input

 
(i)

(Bs ) < 0 and ui > 0
 
u : R+ → R, the symbol kuk[t0 ,t1 ] denotes its L∞ norm
where the upper index i for a matrix Bs denotes the i-th
: kuk[t0 ,t1 ] = ess sup {|u(t)| , t ∈ [t0 , t1 ]}. The set of all
column of the matrix, and the lower index i for a vector u
inputs u with the property kuk 6 ∞ is denoted as L∞ .
returns the i-th element of the vector. Let ϕ = µL,
For a matrix A ∈ Rn×n the vector of its eigenvalues is
denoted aspλ(A), kAkmax = maxi=1,...,n,j=1,...,n |Ai,j | and ϕ(L, ys )ys 6 ϕys 6 ϕ(L, ys )ys (15)
kAk2 = maxi=1,...,n λi (AT A), the relation kAkmax ≤
kAk2 ≤ n kAkmax is satisfied between these norms. For where:
(i)
 
two vectors x1 , x2 ∈ Rn or matrices A1 , A2 ∈ Rn×n , the 
  (L) > 0 and (ys )i > 0

relations x1 ≤ x2 and A1 ≤ A2 should be understood
 (i)
 µ(L) if  or



elementwise. The relation P ≺ 0 (P  0) means that the 
(i)
(L) < 0 and (ys )i < 0

 
matrix P ∈ Rn×n is negative (positive) definite. Given a ϕ(i) (L, ys ) = (i)

matrix A ∈ Rm×n , define A+ = max{0, A}, A− = A+ − A  (L) > 0 and (ys )i < 0

 

µ(L)(i) if

(similarly for vectors) and denote the matrix of absolute 

 or
values of all elements by |A| = A+ + A− .
 
(i)

 (L)(i) < 0 and (ys )i > 0
 
Lemma 3: [6] Let x ∈ Rn be a vector variable, x 6 x 6 x 
for some x, x ∈ Rn and A ∈ Rm×n be a constant matrix,


  (L) > 0 and (ys )i > 0

(i)
µ(L) if or

then



 
A+ x − A− x 6 Ax 6 A+ x − A− x (i)
(L) < 0 and (ys )i < 0

 
Lemma 4: [6] Let A 6 A 6 A for some A, A, A ∈ Rn×n ϕ(i) (L, ys ) =  (i)
 (L) > 0 and (ys )i < 0

and x 6 x 6 x for x, x, x ∈ Rn , then

 
µ(L)(i) if

+ −
 or
A+ x+ − A x− − A− x+ + A x− 6 Ax


 
(i)

(L) < 0 and (ys )i > 0
 
+ −
6 A x+ − A+ x− − A x+ + A− x− where the upper index i for a matrix L denotes the i-th
Since ys = Cs xs , the system (9) can be rewritten as column of the matrix, and the lower index i for a vector ys
follows: returns the i-th element of the vector.
ẋs = µ((As − LCs )xs + Bs u + Lys ) (13) Using Lemma 4 and the inequality ψ 6 ψ 6 ψ the
following relation is obtained:
If the matrix (As − LCs) is Metzler then µ(As − LCs ) is
+ −
also Metzler ∀ µ ∈ µ, µ . ψ + x+ − − + −
s − ψ xs − ψ xs + ψ xs 6 ψxs
(16)
Let ψ = µ(As − LCs ), ψ 6 ψ 6 ψ where: 6 ψ x+
+ + − + − −−
s − ψ xs − ψ xs + ψ xs
(
µ(As − LCs )i,i if (As − LCs )i,i > 0 Then, an interval observer structure for the system (13) can
(ψ)i,i =
µ(As − LCs )i,i if (As − LCs )i,i < 0 be given by:
 + + − − +
ẋs = ψ x+
( − −
µ(As − LCs )i,i if (As − LCs )i,i > 0  s − ψ xs − ψ xs + ψ xs + Bmax (u, Bs )u
(ψ)i,i =


µ(As − LCs )i,i if (As − LCs )i,i < 0  +ϕ(L, y )y

s s
+ − − −
 ẋs = ψ + x+ − +
s − ψ xs − ψ xs + ψ xs + Bmin (u, Bs )u
and (ψ)i,j = µ(As − LCs )i,j , (ψ)i,j = µ(As − LCs )i,j ,



+ϕ(L, ys )ys

i 6= j.
(17)
+
Bmin (u, Bs )u(t) 6 µBs u(t) 6 Bmax (u, Bs )u(t), ∀t ≥ 0 Note that due to presence of x+
s , x−
s , xs and x−
s , the interval
(14) observer is a globally Lipschitz nonlinear system.

1639

ed licensed use limited to: MINISTERE DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR ET DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE. Downloaded on August 03,2021 at 22:19:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 Theorem 1: Assume that there exists a gain L such as ξ T Z T Zξ + γ 2 δ T δ
As − LCs is Metzler, then the solutions of (17) satisfy ≤ −ξ T Qξ − ξ T Z T Zξ + γ 2 δ T δ
where existence of Q ∈ R2n1 ×2n1 , Q = QT ≻ 0
xs (t) 6 x(t) 6 xs (t), ∀t > 0 (18) follows from the Riccati matrix inequality introduced in the
provided that xs (0) 6 xs (0) 6 xs (0). If there exist P ∈ theorem’s conditions. Then xs (t) and xs (t) stay bounded for
R2n1 ×2n1 , P = P T ≻ 0 and γ > 0 such that the following all t ≥ 0, and the transfer δ → Zξ has an L∞ gain less than
Riccati matrix inequality is verified γ.
GT P + P G + 2γ −2 P 2 + γ 2 η 2 I2n1 + Z T Z ≺ 0,
s×2n1 C. General Case
where η = 2n1 ψ − ψ max " , Z ∈ R # , 0 < s ≤ 2n1 and
+ −
ψ −ψ The matrix (As − LCs ) is not always Metzler. Actually,
G= − + ,
−ψ ψ the existence of a nonsingular matrix T is required such that
then xs , xs ∈ Ln∞1 . the matrix T (As − LCs )T −1 is Metzler.
 Then, µT (As −
Proof: The proof is similar to the one of Theorem 1 LCs )T −1 is also Metzler ∀ µ ∈ µ, µ . Indeed, introducing
in [24]. Consider the dynamics of interval estimation errors the new variable z = T xs , the system (13) can be presented
e = xs − xs and e = xs − xs , one can write: as follows:
+ + − − +
ė = ψ x+ − −
s − ψ xs − ψ xs + ψ xs + Bmax (u, Bs )u +
(
ż = µ(T (As − LCs )T −1 z + T Bs u + T Lys )
ϕ(L, ys )ys − µ(As − LCs )xs − µBs u − µLys (19)
+ − y = Cs T −1 z
ė = µ(As − LCs )xs + µBs u + µLys − ψ + x+ s + ψ xs +
− −
ψ − x+
s − ψ xs − Bmin (u, Bs )u − ϕ(L, ys )ys z
where ψ z 6 µT (As − LCs )T −1 6 ψ , Bmin z
(u, Bs )u :=
By construction of relations (14),(15) and (16), e(t) and e(t) +
[T Bmin (u, Bs ) − T Bmax (u, Bs )] u 6 µT Bs u(t) 6
−
are nonnegative, let’s show that the variables xs (t) and xs (t)
[T + Bmax (u, Bs ) − T −Bmin (u, Bs )] u := Bmax
z
(u, Bs )u,
stay bounded for all t ≥ 0 in (17). The equation (17) can be z +
ϕ (L, ys )ys := T ϕ(L, ys ) − T ϕ(L, ys ) ys
−
6
rewritten as follows:
+ −
ẋs = ψ xs −ψ xs +f (xs , xs )+Bmax (u, Bs )u+ϕ(L, ys )ys µT Lys 6 T + ϕ(L, ys ) − T − ϕ(L, ys ) ys := ϕz (L, ys )ys .
+
ẋs = ψ xs −ψ − xs +f (xs , xs )+Bmin (u, Bs )u+ϕ(L, ys )ys Then, the interval observer (17) can be rewritten for the
where: system (19) as follows:
f (xs , xs ) = ψ + x− − − + −
s − ψ xs , f (xs , xs ) = ψ xs − ψ xs ,
− −  z+ z−
+ −  ż = ψ z + − ψ z+ z − − ψ z + + ψ z− z − + Bmaxz
(u, Bs )u
ψ+ = ψ − ψ+ , ψ− = ψ − ψ− .


z

+ϕ (L, ys )ys

which is not a cooperative system and the variables xs , xs are



z+ − z− −

z+ + z− + z
interrelated, but the inputs Bmin (u, Bs )u + ϕ(L, ys )ys and

 ż = ψ z − ψ z − ψ z + ψ z + Bmin (u, Bs )u


Bmax (u, Bs )u+ϕ(L, ys )ys in these subsystems are bounded +ϕz (L, ys )ys
by construction, and boundedness of xs , xs is predefined by 
 + −
 xs = M z − M z

the linear part and the functions f , f . To prove boundedness


+

 xs = M z − M − z

of the solutions of the observer (17), let’s introduce the 


following system 
M = T −1
(20)
ξ˙ = Gξ + φ(ξ) + δ
Theorem 2: Given a nonsingular matrix T such that
where T (As −LCs )T −1 is Metzler, then the solutions of (20) satisfy
" # " #
xs f (xs , xs )
ξ= , φ(ξ) = , z(t) 6 z(t) 6 z(t), ∀t > 0 (21)
xs f (xs , xs )
and δ ∈ L∞2n1
is an auxiliary input representing the influence provided that z(0) 6 z(0) 6 z(0). If there exist P ∈
of ϕ(L, ys )ys , ϕ(L, ys )ys and Bmin (u, Bs )u, Bmax (u, Bs )u. R2n1 ×2n1 , P = P T ≻ 0 and γ > 0 such that the following
Since |φ(ξ)| ≤ η |ξ|, the function φ is globally Lipschitz. Riccati matrix inequality is verified
Indeed, GT1 P + P G 1 + 2γ −2 P 2 + γ 2 η 2 I2n1 + Z1T Z1 ≺ 0,
z
where η = 2n1 ψ − ψ z , Z1 ∈ Rs×2n1 , 0 < s ≤ 2n1
" #
x− ψ −ψ +
 − 
s max
φ(ξ) = S , S= + and
x− ψ −ψ −
" #
s ψ z+ −ψ z−
G1 = z− z+ ,
then, |φ(ξ)| ≤ kSk 2 |ξ|. By
definition, kSk2 ≤ 2n1 kSkmax −ψ ψ
and kSkmax ≤ ψ − ψ max . Let’s consider a Lyapunov then z, z, xs , xs ∈ Ln∞1 .
function V = ξ T P ξ, whose time derivative takes the form: Proof: With the new coordinates, the observer (20) is
V̇ = ξ T G T T

P + P G ξ + 2ξ P [φ(ξ) + δ] similar to (17). By introducing the estimation errors e = z−z
≤ ξ T GT P + P G ξ + 2γ −2 ξ T P 2 ξ + γ 2 φ(ξ)T φ(ξ) +
 
and e = z − z, it is easy to show that their dynamics are
γ 2δT δ  Metzler and stable as presented in the proof of Theorem 1.
≤ ξ T GT P + P G + 2γ −2 P 2 + γ 2 η 2 I2n1 + Z T Z ξ −


1640

ed licensed use limited to: MINISTERE DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR ET DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE. Downloaded on August 03,2021 at 22:19:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 D. Nonnegative systems the power and the velocity are respectively 246 kilowatts and
Assume that the considered system (9) is nonnegative 600 tr/mn [25]. It is modeled by:
(xs (t) > 0, ∀t > t0 ). As in the previous subsections, the       
system (9) can be rewritten as: ẋ1 −200 0 −827.6 x1 1655.2 0
( ẋ2 = 400 −20 −1652  x2  +  0 0 u
ẋs = (µAs − LCs )xs + µBs u + Lys + σ ẋ3 0 0.02065 0 x3 0 −0.005
(22)   
ys = Cs xs 1 0 0 x1
y=0 1 0 x2  (25)
where L ∈ Rn1 ×p and the disturbances σ are assumed to be 0 0 1 x3
bounded, i.e. σ ∈ [σ, σ] . The following relations are used
(A1 ): ∀t ≥ 0, xs (t) ∈ Ln∞1 ; let As 6 µAs 6 As where where the states x1 , x2 and x3 represent respectively the
∀i, j ∈ [1, n(1 ]: voltage, current and speed of rotation. The controls u1 and
µ(As )i,j if (As )i,j ≥ 0 u2 represent the rotation nominal speed and the load torque
(As )i,j =
µ(As )i,j if (As )i,j < 0 respectively.
( The Jordan representation for the system (25) is given by:
µ(As )i,j if (As )i,j ≥ 0
(As )i,j =
µ(As )i,j if (As )i,j < 0
" # " #
−200.18 0 0 118.0902 −0.0015
Ẋ= 0 −15.3722 0 X + 95.5324 −0.0299 u
0 0 −4.4385 55.4494 −0.0617
(A2 ): Let Bmin u(t) 6 µBs u(t) 6 Bmax u(t) and Bmin ∈ " #
n1 ×m 13.9885 0.3175 −0.4875
R+ ∀t ≥ 0.
y= −31.0236 52.7212 −24.7614 X (26)
To indicate respectively that the state xs (t) of the system 0.0032 −0.0708 0.1152
(22) is bounded, the term µBs belongs to a known bounded
interval [Bmin , Bmax ] for all t ≥ 0 and µBs , Bmax ∈ The eigenvalues of the state matrix are: -200.18, -15.3722
n1 ×m n1 ×m
R+ . Note that the condition µBs ∈ R+ is required and -4.4385.
for the system (22) to be nonnegative. Then, an interval The biggest (resp. smallest) real part of eigenvalues
observer structure for the nonnegative system (22) can be correspond to the slowest (resp. fastest) dynamic. For better
built as: condition for the state matrix of the system, a permutation
is performed between variables such as: Z = HX where
(
ẋs = (As − LCs )xs + Bmax u + Lys + σ  
(23) 0 1 0
ẋs = (As − LCs )xs + Bmin u + Lys + σ
H =  0 0 1, X = (x1 , x2 , x3 )T and the new state vector
 
Proposition 2: If (A1 ) and (A2 ) are satisfied and the 1 0 0
matrix (As )i,j > (LCs )i,j ∀i, j ∈ {1, n1 }, i 6= j and Z = (x2 , x3 , x1 )T = (z1 , z2 , z3 )T .
(As − LCs ) is Hurwitz, then the solutions of (22) and (23) Hence, the first two states represent the slow dynamics of
satisfy the system while the third represents the fast one.
0 6 xs (t) 6 xs (t) 6 xs (t), ∀t > 0 (24) The introduction of the perturbation parameter of time scales
(ratio of the slow largest eigenvalue in absolute value and fast
provided that xs (0) 6 xs (0) 6 xs (0). eigenvalue in absolute value µ0 = 0.0768 ) shows the model
Proof: The dynamics of the interval estimation error as a singularly perturbed form:
e = xs − xs is described by:
  "−15.3722 0 0
#  "
95.5324 −0.0299
#
ė=(As − LCs )xs + Bmax u + Lys + σ − (µAs − LCs )xs ẋs xs
= 0 −4.4885 0 + 55.4494 −0.0617 u
−µBs u − Lys − σ ẋf 0 0 −15.4
xf
9.0679 −0.0001
" # 
=(µAs − LCs )(xs − xs ) + (As − µAs )xs + (Bmax − µBs )u 0.3175 −0.4875 13.9885
xs
y= 52.7212 −24.7614 −31.0236 (27)
+(σ − σ) −0.0708 0.1152 0.0032
xf
=(µAs − LCs )e + w
where xs = (z1 , z2 )T and xf = z3 . xs ∈ R2 represents the
where w = (As − µAs )xs + (Bmax − µBs )u + (σ − σ). slow states, xf ∈ R represents the fast state, u ∈ R2 and
Under (A1 ), (A2 ) and xs ≥ 0, w is nonnegative for all y ∈ R3 .
t ≥ 0. If the matrix (As −LCs ) is Metzler, then (µAs −LCs )
Now, consider the slow subsystem:
is also Metzler. Thus, e(t) is nonnegative. In addition, since
(µAs − LCs ) is Hurwitz, then e is stable. similarly, we can     
−15.3722 0 95.5324 −0.0299
prove that e(t) = xs − xs is nonnegative and stable. 

 ẋs = µ 0 −4.4385 xs + µ 55.4494 −0.0617 u

" #
IV. N UMERICAL SIMULATIONS 0.3175 −0.4875
 y = 52.7212 −24.7614 x

 s
 s
Given a DC motor with external excitation, controlled in −0.0708 0.1152
velocity by a proportional controller. The nominal values of (28)

1641

ed licensed use limited to: MINISTERE DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR ET DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE. Downloaded on August 03,2021 at 22:19:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio
 Let µ0 = 0.0768, the model becomes: [3] M. Moisan, O. Bernard, and J.-L. Gouzé, “Near optimal interval
    observers bundle for uncertain bioreactors,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 1,
−1.1804 0 7.3358 −0.0023 pp. 291–295, 2009.
ẋs = x + u
0 −0.3408 s 4.2579 −0.0047 [4] O. Bernard and J.-L. Gouzé, “Closed loop observers bundle for
  uncertain biotechnological models,” Journal of process control,
0.3175 −0.4875 vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 765–774, 2004.
ys = 52.7212 −24.7614 xs (29) [5] M. Moisan and O. Bernard, “Robust interval observers for uncertain
−0.0708 0.1152 chaotic systems,” in 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
San Diego, CA, USA, 2006, pp. 3712–3717.
 µ is not exactly known and
Now assume that the parameter [6] D. Efimov, L. Fridman, T. Raı̈ssi, A. Zolghadri, and R. Seydou,
 “Interval estimation for lpv systems applying high order sliding mode
belongs to the interval µ, µ = [0.03, 0.2]. The observer techniques,” Automatica, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 2365–2371, 2012.
interval of system can be presented
  in the form (23) for [7] C. Combastel and S.-A. Raka, “A stable interval observer for lti
−0.4612 0 −3.0744 0 systems with no multiple poles,” in World Congress, vol. 18, no. 1,
As = , As = , 2011, pp. 14 335–14 341.
0 −0.1332 0 −0.8877
    [8] F. Mazenc and O. Bernard, “Interval observers for linear time-invariant
19.1065 − 0.0009 2.8660 − 0.0060 systems with disturbances,” Automatica, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 140–147,
Bmax = , Bmin = 2011.
11.0899 − 0.0019 1.6635 − 0.0123
 T [9] L. Jaulin, “Nonlinear bounded-error state estimation of continuous-
−16.9447 − 11.4784 time systems,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1079–1082, 2002.
and L =  0.3527 0.0729  . [10] T. Raissi, D. Efimov, and A. Zolghadri, “Interval state estimation for a
4.1027 2.7792 class of nonlinear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 260–265, 2012.
The results of interval simulations for the variables of slow
[11] T. Raıssi, N. Ramdani, and Y. Candau, “Set membership state and
subsystem are given in fig. 1 and fig. 2 where the dashed parameter estimation for systems described by nonlinear differential
lines correspond to upper and lower bounds of observer equations,” Automatica, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 1771–1777, 2004.
and the continuous line correspond to actual state. The [12] E. Fridman, “State-feedback h∞ control of nonlinear singularly
perturbed systems,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
simulation results show that the upper and lower bounds of Control, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 1115–1125, 2001.
interval observer converge to a domain containing the actual [13] S. S. Sastry and C. A. Desoer, “Jump behavior of circuits and systems,”
state xs . IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1109–
1124, 1981.
8
[14] E. L. Reiss, “A modified two-time method for the dynamic transitions
xs of bifurcation,” SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, vol. 38, no. 2,
xs
6
pp. 249–260, 1980.
Amplitude

xs
4 [15] D. Naidu, “Singular perturbations and time scales in control theory
2
and applications: an overview,” Dynamics of Continuous Discrete and
Impulsive Systems Series B, vol. 9, pp. 233–278, 2002.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 [16] A. M. Nagy-Kiss, B. Marx, G. Mourot, G. Schutz, and J. Ragot, “State
Time (sec)
estimation of two-time scale multiple models with unmeasurable
premise variables. application to biological reactors,” in proc. of 49th
Fig. 1. Current evolution IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2010, pp. 5689–
5694.
15
xs [17] N. Vora, M.-N. Contou-Carrere, and P. Daoutidis, “Model reduction
xs
10 of multiple time scale processes in non-standard singularly perturbed
Amplitude

xs
form,” in Model Reduction and Coarse-Graining Approaches for
5 Multiscale Phenomena. Springer, 2006, pp. 99–113.
[18] V. Van Breusegem and G. Bastin, “Reduced order dynamical
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 modelling of reaction systems: a singular perturbation approach,” in
Times (sec)
proc. of the 30th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control. IEEE,
1991, pp. 1049–1054.
Fig. 2. Rotation speed evolution [19] N. Prljaca and Z. Gajic, “General transformation for block
diagonalization of multi time-scale singularly perturbed linear
systems,” in American Control Conference, 2007. ACC’07. IEEE,
V. C ONCLUSION 2007, pp. 1670–1675.
[20] P. Kokotovic, H. K. Khali, and J. O’reilly, Singular perturbation
In this paper, an interval approach has been developed methods in control: analysis and design. Siam, 1987, vol. 25.
for the state estimation of singularly perturbed systems. Two [21] J. O’REILLY, “Full-order observers for a class of singularly perturbed
cases are considered: general singularly perturbed systems linear time-varying systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 30,
no. 5, pp. 745–756, 1979.
and nonnegative ones. For both cases a methodology is
[22] J.-L. Gouzé, A. Rapaport, and M. Z. Hadj-Sadok, “Interval observers
proposed for designing observers that ensures guaranteed for uncertain biological systems,” Ecological modelling, vol. 133,
bounds on the estimated states and their stability. Efficiency no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2000.
of the proposed observers is shown on numerical simulations. [23] F. Mazenc, T. N. Dinh, and S. I. Niculescu, “Interval observers for
discrete-time systems,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear
In further works, the proposed methodology will be used for Control, 2013.
model-based prognosis. [24] S. Chebotarev, D. Efimov, T. Raı̈ssi, and A. Zolghadri, “Interval
observers for continuous-time lpv systems with l1 /l∞ performance,”
R EFERENCES Automatica, revised.
[25] A. Tellili, M. N. Abdelkrim, and M. Benrejeb, “Model-based fault
[1] H. Nijmeijer and T. I. Fossen, New directions in nonlinear observer
diagnosis of two-time scales singularly perturbed systems,” in proc.
design. Springer, 1999, vol. 244.
Communications and Signal Processing, International Symposium on
[2] G. Besançon, “Nonlinear observers and applications,” of Lecture Notes
Control. IEEE, 2004, pp. 819–822.
in Control and Information Sciences, vol. 363, 2007.

1642

ed licensed use limited to: MINISTERE DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR ET DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE. Downloaded on August 03,2021 at 22:19:00 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictio