2011 IEEE International Conference on SaA1.

3
Automation Science and Engineering
Trieste, Italy - August 24-27, 2011

Sliding Mode Observer for Switched Linear Systems

David Gómez–Gutiérrez, Sergej Čelikovský, Antonio Ramı́rez–Treviño,
Javier Ruiz-León and Stefano Di Gennaro

Abstract— This work is concerned with the design of an
observer for Switched Linear Systems (SLS) subject to an
unknown switching signal. The convergence of the proposed
SLS observer is proved, based on observability results for SLS,
for the following two cases. First, it is shown that if the discrete
state of the SLS is observable, then the observer estimates
the switching signal, even though the individual Linear System
(LS) may not be observable. And second, it is shown how the
observer may provide an estimate of the continuous variables,
even though the discrete state is unknown.
Index Terms— Switched systems, observability, observer de-
sign, sliding modes.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Hybrid dynamical Systems (HS) are formed by a collection
of continuous models switching among them, according to a
discrete rule, frequently modeled by a discrete event system.
This class of models captures the continuous and discrete
interaction that appears in complex systems like biological
networks, fault tolerant systems and chemical processes. Fre-
quently, when properties on the continuous dynamics of the
HS are investigated, a model with higher level of abstraction,
known as switched system, is considered by assuming an
exogenous and unpredicted switching signal, instead of a
known discrete event system. In Switched Linear Systems
(SLS) the system dynamics are represented by a collection of
Linear Systems (LS), together with an exogenous switching
signal determining at each time instant the evolving LS.
The need on the complete knowledge of the SLS state, for
the control and stabilization, has motivated the study of the
observability and the observer design in SLS. Depending on
the knowledge of the switching signal, two problems arise
in the reconstruction of the hybrid state: the estimate of the
continuous state, when the discrete evolution is known or
observable (see e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]), and the detection of
the evolving LS from the continuous measurements, when the
switching signal is unknown (see e.g. [5], [6], [7]). Necessary
and sufficient conditions for the observability in both cases
have been presented in the literature (see e.g. [1], [5] and [7]),
showing that if the switching signal is known, then the state
of the SLS can be estimated after a finite number of switches,
This work was supported by project No. 107195, CONACYT, Mexico.
D. Gómez–Gutiérrez, A. Ramı́rez-Treviño and J. Ruiz-León are with
CINVESTAV, Unidad Guadalajara, Mexico, email: {dgomez, art,
jruiz}@gdl.cinvestav.mx.
S. Čelikovský is with the Czech Technical University in Prague and with
the Institute of Information Theory and Automation Prague, Czech Republic,
email: celikovs@utia.cas.cz
S. Di Gennaro is with the Department of Electrical and Information
Engineering, and with the Center of Excellence DEWS, University of
L’Aquila, Italy, email: stefano.digennaro@univaq.it.
even if each LS is unobservable [1]. On the other hand, when
the switching signal is unknown, the observability of each LS
is not sufficient for the observability of the complete state.
In this case, the observability of the continuous and of the
discrete state have been shown to be independent [6].
As far as the observer design is concerned, if the switching
signal is known and the minimal dwell time is sufficiently
large, the observer can be designed simply by assigning the
corresponding Luenberger observer for the active LS [8].
Indeed, for arbitrary switchings, a sufficient condition is to
choose the gains of the observers such that there exists a
common quadratic Lyapunov function for the error dynamics.
The observer gains can be selected by solving a set of linear
matrix inequalities [9].
When the switching signal is unknown, the observer for
HS and SLS uses a location observer to select the proper con-
tinuous observer. In [10], the location observer corresponds
to the observer of the automaton that models the discrete
evolution, which only takes the discrete measurements. When
this is not sufficient, a residual generator can be designed to
detect a change in the continuous dynamics. However, the
distinguishability of the LS is not analyzed, and the analysis
of the residual generators has been made based on the input
and output matrices, and not on the system dynamics.
In [11], a class of SLS formed by two LS sharing the
same input matrix is considered. Since the evolving system
is unknown, the error dynamics are indirectly affected by the
input. Sufficient conditions for the global asymptotic stability
of the estimate error, formulated in terms of linear matrix
inequalities, have been derived for the case when the system
dynamics are continuous over the switching hyperplane.
In [12], a robust observer for switched autonomous non-
linear systems has been presented, where each autonomous
nonlinear system is locally observable and can be trans-
formed into an observable normal form. These forms differ
only for the last dynamic equation, which is treated as
a perturbation term, identifiable by the robust observer.
Based on this last dynamic equation, the robust observer
distinguishes the currently evolving nonlinear system, and
simultaneously estimates the continuous state.
In [13] the location observer takes only continuous mea-
surements and identifies the evolving system from a set of
non autonomous LS, with possible different input matrix. The
observer is formed by a set of Luenberger observers with
an associated robust differentiator, used to obtain the exact
error signal which updates the estimate. Using the results on
distinguishability for every state trajectory between LS, the
authors show the convergence of the observer. This, however,

978-1-4577-1732-1/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE 725

requires the observability of each individual LS.
In this paper an observer design for SLS under unknown
switching signal is proposed, where the state is estimated
based only on the continuous measurements. Unknown
switching signals arise, for instance, in fault tolerant systems
where the faults occur in an unknown and unpredictable
way. In addition, no discrete model or discrete sensors are
often available, and the faulty states need to be identified
from the continuous inputs and outputs. The SLS observer is
composed of a collection of finite time observers evolving
in parallel, one for each LS of the SLS. These observers are
designed to become a copy of its associated LS, whenever a
suitable error signal is equal to zero. Since the observability
of the continuous and of the discrete states are independent
concepts, the observer presented hereinafter is used to esti-
mate the SLS state in two cases. The first one is devoted to
the estimation of the discrete state, and the second one deals
with the estimation of the continuous state.
This work is organized as follows. In Section II the
notation and some preliminaries are presented. In Section III,
a review of the observability of SLS is presented. These
results are used to show the convergence of the observer
proposed in Section IV. Finally, in Section V conclusions
and some future work are presented.
II. N OTATION AND PRELIMINARIES
A. Linear systems
A LS Σ(A, B, C) or simply Σ is represented by
ẋ(t) = Ax(t) + Bu(t), y(t) = Cx(t)
where x ∈ X = Rn is the state vector, u ∈ U = Rp is
the control input, y ∈ Y = Rq the output signal and A, B,
C are constant matrices of appropriate dimensions. Through
the paper B stands for Im B and K for ker C.
TheTsupremal A-invariant subspace contained in K is
n

N = i=1 ker CAi−1 , where a subspace S ⊂ X is called
A-invariant if AS ⊂ S. Moreover, N is known as the
unobservable subspace of Σ(A, B, C).
A subspace V ⊂ X is said to be (A, B)-invariant if there
exists a state feedback u(t) = F x(t) such that (A+BF )V ⊂
V or equivalently if AV ⊂ V + B.
The class of (A, B)-invariant subspaces contained in a
subspace L ⊂ X is denoted by =(A, B; L). It is well known
that this class is closed under addition, hence, there exists
a supremal element denoted sup =(A, B; L). An algorithm
for computing sup =(A, B; L) is presented in [14].
The following result will be used afterwards.
Lemma 1: [14] Any state trajectory x(t), t ∈ [t0 , τ ] of
Σ completely belongs to a subspace L ⊆ X if and only if
x(t0 ) ∈ L and ẋ(t) ∈ L almost everywhere1 in [t0 , τ ].
1 In Rn , a property is said to hold “almost everywhere” or “for almost
every” if it only fails on a set of Lebesgue measure zero. In a function
space, a property is said to hold “for almost every ” if the set of exceptions
is a Haar null set, also known as a “shy set” [15]. For instance, every proper
subspace of the function space is a shy set [15].
726
B. Switched linear systems
A SLS Σσ(t) = hF, σi is a HS where F = {Σ1 , . . . , Σm }
is a collection of LS and σ : [t0 , ∞) → {1, . . . , m} is
a switching signal determining, at each time instant, the
evolving LS Σi ∈ F. The state equation of the SLS is
ẋ(t) = Aσ(t) x(t) + Bσ(t) u(t), x(t0 ) = x0
(1)
y(t) = Cσ(t) x(t), σ(t0 ) = σ0 .
where σ(t) is assumed to be unknown and generated exoge-
nously. Through this work we make the following assump-
tions on (1).
A. 1: The state velocity of the SLS (1) is uniformly
bounded, i.e. ∀t |ẋl (t)| < δl for l = 1, . . . , n.
A. 2: Let tk−1 and tk be two consecutive switching times.
Then tk − tk−1 > τd > 0. The time τd is known as the
minimum dwell time. A maximum dwell time, however, is
not considered. At the switching time tl the continuous state
on (1) is x(tl ) = x(t− l ).
The notation, y i (x0 , u[τ1 ,τ2 ] ) stands for the output y(t)
obtained when σ(t) = i, ∀t ∈ [τ1 , τ2 ] and the input u[τ1 ,τ2 ]
(i.e. the restriction of the functions u(t) to [τ1 , τ2 ]) is applied
to the system with initial condition x0 ∈ X .
C. The Super Twisting Algorithm
Let s(i) (x) be the i–th time derivative of the sliding mode
surface s(x), x ∈ X . The set Sr = {x : s(0) (x) = · · · =
s(r−1) (x) = 0} is said to contain an r–th order sliding
mode if there exists a vicinity P ⊆ X of Sr such that any
state trajectory (in Filippov’s sense) starting in P converge
to Sr in finite time [16]. One of the most frequently used
sliding mode algorithms is the Super Twisting (ST), which
is a second order sliding mode algorithm described by
ẋ = − υ − α|x|1/2 sign(x) + %(t)
(2)
υ̇ = −β sign(x)
where x is a scalar state variable, α, β ≥ 0 are gains to be
designed, υ is an auxiliary variable often used to estimate the
unknown differentiable function which satisfies |%̇(t)| ≤ C
for all t ≥ 0 and the function sign(·) is defined as,

1 if x > 0

sign(x) = −1 if x < 0
∈ [−1, 1] if x = 0

Thus, if α and β satisfy
β > 5C and 32C < α2 < 8(β − C) (3)
then (2) converges to x = ẋ = 0 in finite time [17].
Thus, after the finite time convergence τ1 , υ(t) = %(t). This
property allows to design step by step observers with finite
time convergence [18]. Details on the convergence analysis,
the proper choice of the gains α, β of (2), and the maximum
convergence time can be found in [17] and [19].
 III. O BSERVABILITY OF S WITCHED L INEAR S YSTEMS
In this section we review some of the main results on
observability of SLS of [5], [6] and [7]. This review is
mainly taken from [20], where the observability problem is
addressed using a geometric approach.
In the observability of SLS with unknown switching signal,
the aim is to be able of determining, either the continuous
or the discrete states, from the continuous measurements. In
addition, if no maximum dwell time is set, these states need
to be recovered even if no switch occurs in the system.
In order to present the conditions for the observability in
SLS let us introduce the following definitions.
Definition 2: The LS Σi and Σj are said to be
(u[τ1 ,τ2 ] , y[τ1 ,τ2 ] )-indistinguishable, if there exist x(t) and
x0 (t) such that y i (x(τ1 ), u[τ1 ,τ2 ] ) = y j (x0 (τ1 ), u[τ1 ,τ2 ] ).
Otherwise, Σi and Σj are said to be (u[τ1 ,τ2 ] , y[τ1 ,τ2 ] )-
distinguishable. The indistinguishability subspace, Wij ⊂
Xij of Σi , Σj is defined as

x0

∃u(t), τ > t0 such that
 [xT x0T ]T ∈ Wij is of the form x = x0 (i.e. Wij is
Wij = : . (4)
x00 yi (x0 , u[t0 ,τ ] ) = yj (x00 , u[t0 ,τ ] )
In [20], it has been shown that the indistinguishabil-
ity subspace, Wij is equal to the supremal (Aij , Bij )-
invariant subspace contained in Kij = ker Cij , denoted as
sup =(Aij , Bij ; Kij ), where

Ai 0
 
Bi

 
Aij = Bij = Cij = Ci −Cj .
0 Aj Bj
(5)
This implies that the extended LS Σij (Aij , Bij , Cij ), gives
zero output in the interval [τ1 , τ2 ] [7], where the state space
of the extended system Σij is Xij = Rn × Rn . We denote
by x0 and x(t), the initial state and the state trajectory of
the extended LS, respectively.
Clearly, the LS Σi and Σj are distinguishable for every
nonzero state trajectory iff Wij = 0, this condition implies
the observability of each LS. However, since the LS becomes
indistinguishable for a particular set of inputs [7], [20], less
restrictive conditions, not requiring the observability of each
LS, can be obtained by studying the observability for almost
every input.
A. Observability for almost every input
Clearly, an input u[τ1 ,τ2 ] can be used to make the LS
(u[τ1 ,τ2 ] , y[τ1 ,τ2 ] )-distinguishable iff u[τ1 ,τ2 ] steers every state
trajectory of Σij outside the indistinguishability subspace.
Then it follows from the LS theory that this holds iff Bij *
Wij [20], because otherwise, for every x0 ∈ Wij and every
u(t), ẋ(t) ∈ Wij and according to Lemma 1, the state
trajectory x(t) will completely belong to Wij regardless of
the applied input u(t).
Now, in order to show that if such an input exists then
almost every input can be used to ensure the distinguisha-
bility between Σi and Σj , assume that Bij * Wij and
let x0 ∈ Wij and u(t) = F x(t) + v(t) with F such that
727
(Aij + Bij F )Wij ⊂ Wij , then according to Lemma 1 the
set of inputs v(t)
{v(t) : ẋ(t) = (Aij + Bij F )x(t) + Bij v(t) ∈ Wij }. (6)
for which Σi and Σj may becomes indistinguishable is is
such that for all t, Bij v(t) ∈ Bij ∩ Wij Bij . Clearly,
this implies that (6) is contained in a proper subspace of
the function space V in which v(t) takes values, thus a shy
set with respect to V [15], which also implies that the set of
inputs u(t) for which the LS may become indistinguishable is
a shy set. Then Σi and Σj can be distinguishable for almost
every input. Thus, we can state the following proposition.
Proposition 3: If Bij * Wij then for almost every input
and for every nonzero time interval [τ1 , τ2 ], yi (t) 6= yj (t)
holds almost everywhere in [τ1 , τ2 ].
Thus, if the LS are distinguishable for almost every input
and yi (t̄) = yj (t̄) then yi (t̄+ ) 6= yj (t̄+ ).
If the LS are observable and distinguishable, then the
continuous state can also be estimated. However, if every
symmetric), then the continuous state trajectory for which
the LS become indistinguishable is the same in both systems
and the continuous state can be estimated even though the
LS are indistinguishable. From the previous discussion, the
next theorem follows easily.
Theorem 4: ([7], [6]) Let Σσ(t) = hF, σi be a SLS with
maximum dwell time τ = ∞. Then
1) The discrete states σ0 and σ(t) of Σσ(t) are observable
for almost every input iff ∀Σi , Σj ∈ F, Bij * Wij .
2) The continuous states x0 and x(t) of Σσ(t) are ob-
servable for almost every input iff each LS Σi ∈ F is
observable and ∀Σi , Σj ∈ F i 6= j, either Bij * Wij
or Wij is symmetric.
IV. O BSERVER D ESIGN
The SLS observer Σ̂σ̂(t) is composed of a collection of
finite time observers evolving in parallel, one for each LS
of the SLS, as depicted in Fig. 1. The SLS observer is used
to estimate the SLS state in two cases. If the discrete state
of the SLS is observable for almost every input, we show,
based on the distinguishability property and in the way that
the observers are designed, that only the observer associated
with the currently evolving system gives a suitable error
signal e(t), hereinafter defined, equal to zero in a non zero
interval. In this case the individual observers are designed
based only on the observable subsystem of its associated LS.
Thus an estimate of the discrete state is obtained, even if the
individual systems are not completely observable.
On the contrary, if the continuous state of the SLS is ob-
servable for almost every input, then more than one observer
can give e(t) = 0. However, we show that according to
the observability results, an estimate of the continuous state
of the SLS can be obtained from any observer with zero
e(t). Thus, the continuous state can be estimated, even if
the evolving system cannot be determined.
The finite time observer for each LS is based on the ST
algorithm, this observer is described in the following.
 SLS y(t)
A Super Twisting (ST) observer Σ̃, which is based on
u(t)
Σσ(t) the nonlinear observer proposed in [18], is designed for
the subsystem Σ̄o (Āo , B̄o , C̄o ) by associating to each scalar
state variables in each block the following 2–dimensional
differential equation
e1 (t)
Super-twisting based x̃˙ j =υj+1 + αj |εj |1/2 sign(εj ) + B̄j u
Decision σ̂(t)
observer for the LS x̂1 (t) Process υ̇j+1 = −βj sign(εj )
Σ1
if
for j = jk + 1, . . . , jk + rk − 1
ek (t) = 0 ∀t ∈ [τ1 , τ2 ]
with τ2 = τ1 + ,  ≈ 0. and (9)
em (t) then: while ek (t) = 0 x̃˙ j =ak (x̃o ) + ξk + αj |εj |1/2 sign(εj ) + B̄j u
Super-twisting based σ̂(t) = k x̂(t)
observer for the LS x̂m (t) x̂(t) = x̂k (t) ξ˙k = −βj sign(εj )
Σm
for j = jk + rk
where εj = υj − x̃j with υjk +1 = x̄jk +1 = yk . Taking
e(t) = [εT (t) ξ T (t)]T SLS Observer
x̃ = [x̃To x̃Tō ]T with x̃ō = 0, an estimate of x(t) is given by
Fig. 1. Sliding mode observer for SLS
x̂(t) = T x̃(t).
1) Convergence Analysis: The convergence of each vari-
able is shown to be achieved step by step. Let us illustrate
A. The Super Twisting Observer for Linear Systems this convergence for the first block, i.e. k = 1 and j1 = 0.
Under Assumption A.1, the state velocity is uniformly
Consider the LS Σ with observability matrix O(C, A) and
bounded, now assuming a proper choice of αj and βj ,
rank(O(C, A)) = r. Then, Σ can be transformed into the
j = 1, . . . , r1 , given by (3), in the first step take the error
observable/unobservable form with the observable subsystem
e1 = x̄1 − x̃1 and notice that ε1 = υ1 − x̃1 = e1 since
expressed in a multivariable observability form.
υ1 = x̄1 , thus the dynamic of e1 is
The corresponding similarity transformation is constructed
as follows [21]. Let {c1 , . . . , cR } be the linearly independent ė1 = x̄2 − υ2 − α1 |e1 |1/2 sign(e1 )
(10)
rows of C and let {c1 , . . . , cR , . . . , c1 Ar1 −1 , . . . , cR ArR −1 } υ̇2 = −β1 sign(e1 )
be the first r linearly independent rows, taken from top which corresponds to the ST algorithm described in (2).
to bottom, in the observability matrix O(C, A). Then, the Thus, e1 = ė1 = 0 and υ2 = x̄2 for all t > τ1 with τ1 a finite
T
similarity transformation is T with T −1 = TzT TwT where

T time. In the second step, take the error e2 = x̄2 − x̃2 and
Tz = (c1 )T · · · (c1 Ar1 −1 )T · · · (cR )T · · · (cR ArR −1 )T

notice that, since υ2 = x̄2 for all t > τ1 , ε2 = υ2 − x̃2 = e2 .
and Tw is composed by linearly independent rows from each Thus in e2 the ST algorithm appears and e2 = ė2 = 0 and
other and from the rows of Tz [21]. The integers {r1 . . . , rR } υ3 = x̄3 for all t > τ2 .
are known as the observability indices of the system Σ. This Following this procedure, in the last step er1 = ėr1 = 0
transformation leads to the similar system Σ̄ after a finite time τr1 . Thus, x̄r1 = x̃r1 = υr1 for all t > τr1
     and ξ1 = a1 (e) with e = [e1 · · · er ]T and ej = 0 for j ≤
Ā o 0 x̄ o B̄ o
x̄˙ = + u r1 . Thus, x̄j = x̃j = υj for all t > τr1 and j ≤ r1 . Since this
Ā21 Āō x̄ō B̄ō
  (7) occurs in each subsystem then after a finite time τk = τr1 +
 x̄o
· · · + τrR the state x̄o is estimated from x̃o = [x̃1 . . . x̃r ]T

ȳ = C̄ o 0
x̄ō with r = rank(O(C̄, Ā)).
where x = T x̄ and the state vector x̄o = [x̄1 · · · x̄r ]T Clearly, after the time τk , e = [e1 · · · er ]T = 0 and
represents the observable variables. The subsystem ak (e) = 0. Thus, ξ = [ξ1 · · · ξR ]T = 0. Notice that, with
Σ̄o (Āo , B̄o , C̄o ) is observable and is formed by R e(t) = [εT (t) ξ T (t)]T = 0 the observer of the LS Σj
subsystems of the form [21] becomes a copy of Σj , which produces the same input-output
signal that the evolving system, because e = 0 implies that
x̄˙ jk +1 = x̄jk +2 + B̄jk +1 u υj = x̃j for all j ≤ r and all t > τk .
x̄˙ jk +2 = x̄jk +3 + B̄jk +2 u Notice that, since this is a robust observer, an exact
.. continuous estimation may be obtained even if this observer
. (8)
x̄˙ jk +rk −1 =
x̄jk +rk + B̄jk +rk −1 u is used to estimate the state variables of a different LS.
x̄˙ jk +rk =
ak (x̄o ) + B̄jk +rk u However, the signal ξk , which could compensate possible
yk = x̄jk +1 model mismatching between the observer and the currently
Pk−1 evolving system, is used as a measure of the extra effort
where k = 1, . . . , R, jk = n=0 rn , with r0 = 0, ak (x̄o ) produced by this observer to maintain zero error.
is a linear combination of the observable variables which Lemma 5: ([12]) Given any finite time τ > 0 and any
contains the influence in the k-th block, of the state variables finite bound in x0 , the gains of the ST observer can be chosen
of the other blocks. such that the convergence time τk satisfies τk  τ .

728
This lemma implies that given a minimum dwell time τd ,
the ST observer can be designed to converge before τd .
B. The ST based observer for SLS
Definition 6: Let Σσ(t) = hF, σi be a SLS with minimum
dwell time τd . An observer Σ̂σ̂(t) for Σσ(t) is designed as
depicted in the Fig. 1, where :
• A ST observer described in (9) is designed, with upper
time convergence bound τk  τd , for each LS Σ ∈ F.
T T
• If for the observer Σ̃k , e(t) = [ε (t) ξ (t)] = 0 for
T So far, the behaviour of the observer before the first
all t ∈ [τk , τk + ] with  ≈ 0 then while e(t) = 0,
σ̂(t) = k and x̂(t) = Tk x̃(t).
• If the switching time tl is detected, the variables of each
observer Σ̃k are reinitialized as follows, if σ(t) = i in
[tl−1 , tl ) then for k = 1, . . . , m, x̃k (tl ) is reinitialized
as Tj−1 Ti x̃i (tl ), υlk as x̃kl for l = 1, . . . , r and ξlk as
zero for l = 1, . . . , R.
Lemma 7: Let Σi and Σj be two LS. Then, Σi and
Σj are (u[τ1 ,τ2 ] , y[τ1 ,τ2 ] )-distinguishable iff Σi and Σ̄j,o are
(u[τ1 ,τ2 ] , y[τ1 ,τ2 ] )-distinguishable.
Proof: The proof follows trivially.
Lemma 8: Let Σσ(t) be a SLS and Σ̂σ̂(t) its observer
and let σ(t) = i, ∀t ∈ [t0 , t1 ). Then, if Σi and Σj
are (u[τk ,t1 ) , y[τk ,t1 ) )-distinguishable then ej (t) 6= 0 almost
everywhere in [τk , t1 ). On the contrary, if Σi and Σj
are (u[τk ,t1 ) , y[τk ,t1 ) )-indistinguishable then ∀t ∈ [τk , t1 ),
ej (t) = 0.
Proof: Assume by contradiction that ej (t) = 0 for
all t ∈ [τk , t1 ) which implies that the ST observer of
Σj becomes a copy of Σ̄j,o and its observable variables
x̃jo (t) are such that y i (t) − y j (t) = Ci x(t) − Cj,o x̃jo (t) =
0 for all t ∈ [τk , t1 ). Therefore, by Lemma 7 Σi and
Σj are (u[τk ,t1 ) , y[τk ,t1 ) )-indistinguishable, which contradicts
the initial assumption. Thus, according to Proposition 3,
ej (t) 6= 0 almost everywhere in [τk , t1 ).
The second part of the theorem follows trivially.
Thus, we establish the following results.
Proposition 9: Let Σσ(t) be a SLS and let Σ̂σ̂(t) . Then
if the discrete state of Σσ(t) is observable for almost every
input under Assumptions A.1 and A.2 only the observer of
Σi will give e(t) = 0 for all t ∈ [τk , t1 ]. Furthermore only
ei (t) can be zero in a nonzero interval, and the index of the
evolving system can be obtained by the only observer giving
e(t) = 0 for all t ∈ [τk , τk + ], with  ≈ 0.
Proof: The proof follows from Lemma 8 and Proposi-
tion 3.
Proposition 10: Let Σσ(t) be a SLS and let Σ̂σ̂(t) be its
observer. Then if the continuous state of Σσ(t) is observable
for almost every input, under Assumptions A.1 and A.2 an
exact estimate of the continuous state is provided by any
observer that gives e(t) = 0 for all t ∈ [τk , τk + ].
Proof: Since the continuous state of the SLS is observ-
able for almost every input, then according to Lemma 4 each
pair of different systems are either distinguishable or their
indistinguishability subspace is symmetric. In the former,
according to Lemma 8 only the observer of Σi will give
e(t) = 0 for all t ∈ [τk , t1 ]. In the latter case, the symmetry
729
on Wij implies that, if x(t) of Σi and x0 (t) of Σj are
the state trajectories making the LS indistinguishable, then
x(t) = x0 (t). Thus, the observer of both LS will give
e(t) = 0 for all t ∈ [τk , τk + ], and any of these observers
provide an exact estimate of the continuous state, since
x(t) = Ti x̃(t) = Tj x̃0 (t).
C. Detection of the switching times and state reinitialization
of the observers
switching time has been described. In this subsection we
show how each switching can be detected and how to
completely estimate the switching signal.
Let us assume that the LS Σi is evolving and that at time
t1 a switching occurs from Σi to Σj . Then, the output of
the evolving state trajectory is y i (x0 , u[t0 ,t1 ) ) for t ∈ [t0 , t1 )
and y j (x(t1 ), u[t1 ,t2 ) ) for t ∈ [t1 , t2 ).
Thus, the switching time t1 can be detected iff every
indistinguishable state trajectory switch at time t1 , i.e. the
switching time cannot be detected iff
y i (x(t0 ), u[t0 ,t1 ) ) = y k (x0 (t0 ), u[t0 ,t1 ) )
(11)
y j (x(t1 ), u[t1 ,t2 ) ) = y k (x0 (t1 ), u[t1 ,t2 ) )
holds for some x0 (t0 ) and Σk , k ∈ {1, . . . , m}. Notice
that, while the state trajectory on the left switches at t1 ,
the state trajectory on the right remains on the LS Σk . Thus,
if these two trajectories are indistinguishable the switching
time cannot be detected. If in addition, the evolving system
Σi was detected before t1 , then k = i and (11) reduces to
y j (x(t1 ), u[t1 ,t2 ) ) = y i (x0 (t1 ), u[t1 ,t2 ) ). (12)
Notice that, if the discrete state of the SLS is observable
for almost every input, then Σi is detected before the first
switching time t1 and (12) does not hold because Σi and
Σj are distinguishable. Thus, after the switching time, Σi
cannot produce the same input-output information than Σj ,
and according to Lemma 8 and Proposition 3 after the
switching time the observer associated to Σi can no longer
give e(t) = 0. Thus, the switching time t1 can be detected
as established in the following lemma.
Lemma 11: Let Σσ(t) be a SLS and let Σ̂σ̂(t) . Then if
the discrete state of Σσ(t) is observable for almost every
input under Assumptions A.1 and A.2 the switching time is
detected as the time t > τd for which ei (t) is no longer zero.
In fact ei (t) 6= 0 almost everywhere in [t1 , t2 ). In a similar
way any subsequent switching time can be detected.
If the continuous state of the SLS is observable for almost
every input, not all the switching times are necessarily de-
tected. Fortunately, even if (11) does not hold, by Theorem 4
the continuous state of the switching and the non switching
trajectory in (11) are the same. Thus, even if the switching
time is not detected, the continuous estimate is obtained.
Now, if (11) does not hold for all Σk ∈ F, then the switching
time is detected, since all the observers with e(t) = 0 for all
t ∈ [t0 , t1 ), will be e(t1 ) 6= 0.
Notice that, in general, since the observers are constructed
based only on the observable subsystem of Σ̄k then after
the reinitialization x̃k (tl ) 6= x̄ko (tl ). Thus even though the
discrete state is observable, it takes a time, less than τk ,
to give the estimate of the next discrete state. However, if
the state variables of each observer Σ̄k , k = 1, . . . , m are
reinitialized based only on the state variables of the previous
LS Σi , then no convergence time is needed for the observer
associated with the evolving LS Σj , because x̂ko (tl ) = xio (tl ).
Thus, only ej will be zero for an interval [t1 , t1 + ], with
 ≈ 0 and the active state after the switching is obtained at
time t+ 1 . These cases are presented in the following theorems.
Theorem 12: Let Σσ(t) be a SLS, Σ̂σ̂(t) its observer and
let Ni = Nj ∀Σi , Σj ∈ F where Nk is the unobservable
subspace of Σk . Then if the discrete state of Σσ(t) is
observable for almost every input and if the state variables
of each observer Σ̃k are reinitialized as in Definition 6, then
for almost every input σ̂(t) = σ(t) for all t > τk .
Proof: According to Proposition 9 σ̂(t) = i ∀t ∈
[τk , t1 ) and from Lemma 11 each switching time is detected.
Now, let Tij = Tj−1 Ti be a non singular transformation such
that x̄j = Tij x̄i , it is easy to see that, since Ni = Nj
∀Σi , Σj ∈ F then Tij is of the form
   j    i 
∗ 0 x̃o ∗ 0 x̃o
Tij = and j = . J. Ruiz-León, “Observability of switched linear systems,” IEEE Trans-
∗ ∗ x̃ō ∗ ∗ x̃iō
Thus, if σ(t) = i ∀t ∈ [tl−1 , tl ) and σ(t) = j ∀t ∈ [tl , tl+1 )
then, at the switching time tl , the observable state variables
of Σj are a linear combination only of the variables that
were estimated by the previous observer. Thus, if the state
variables of each observer are reinitialized, as in Definition 6,
then x̃jo (tl ) = x̄o (tl ), with x̄o the observable states of the
evolving system Σj and, only the observer associated with
the evolving LS Σj will give ∀t ∈ [tl , tl+1 ), e = 0. Hence,
σ̂(t) = σ(t) for all t > τk .
Theorem 13: Let Σσ(t) be a SLS and let Σ̂σ̂(t) be its
observer. Then if the continuous state of Σσ(t) is observable
for almost every input and if the state variables of each
observer are reinitialized as in Definition 6, then for almost
every input x̂(t) = x(t) for all t > τk with τk a finite time.
Remark 14: In practice, where noise or a small model
mismatch is present, instead of detecting the evolving system
by the observer with e(t) = 0 a threshold ς may be
considered by detecting the evolving system if ke(t)k < ς
in a short interval. However, further investigation on the
conditions on the noise and the model mismatching, and its
relation with ς is required and is considered as future work.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, an observer design for SLS has been pre-
sented. This observer is capable of estimating, in finite time
and for a class of SLS, the continuous state of the SLS even
if the discrete state is not observable and vice versa. The
behavior of the observer has been analyzed in the switching
instants, showing how the switching times can be detected.
Two directions are considered for future work. The first
one deals with the extension of the proposed observer for
SLS under partially unknown inputs. i.e. perturbed systems.
The second one considers to include a Petri net model for
730
the discrete evolution of the HS, in order to study how the
estimate of the continuous observer can be used as additional
sensors for the Petri net to obtain observability after a finite
number of switches.
R EFERENCES
[1] Z. Sun, S. S. Ge, and T. H. Lee, “Controllability and reachability
criteria for switched linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 38, no. 5, pp.
775–786, 2002.
[2] A. Balluchi, L. Benvenuti, M. D. Di Benedetto, and A. L. Sangiovanni-
Vincentelli, “Observability for hybrid systems,” in Proceedings of the
42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2003, pp. 1159–
1164.
[3] E. De Santis and M. D. Di Benedetto, “Design of Luenberger-like
observers for detectable switching systems,” in Proceedings of the
2005 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control, 2005, pp.
30–35.
[4] A. Tanwani, H. Shim, and D. Liberzon, “Observability implies
observer design for switched linear systems,” in Hybrid systems:
computation and control. ACM, 2011, pp. 3–12.
[5] E. De Santis, M. D. Di Benedetto, and G. Pola, “On observability
and detectability of continuous-time linear switching systems,” in
Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
2003, pp. 5777–5782.
[6] M. Babaali and G. J. Pappas, “Observability of switched linear systems
in continuous time,” in Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, ser.
LNCS. Springer, 2005, pp. 103–117.
[7] D. Gómez-Gutiérrez, G. Ramı́rez-Prado, A. Ramı́rez-Treviño, and
actions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 127 – 135, 2010.
[8] W. Chen and S. Mehrdad, “Observer design for linear switched control
systems,” in Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 2004,
pp. 5796 – 5801.
[9] A. Alessandri and P. Coletta, “Switching observers for continuous-
time and discrete-time linear systems,” in Proceedings of the American
Control Conference, 2001, pp. 2516 –2521.
[10] A. Balluchi, L. Benvenuti, M. D. D. Benedetto, and A. L. Sangiovanni-
vincentelli, “Design of observers for hybrid systems,” in In Hybrid
Systems: Computation and Control, volume 2289 of LNCS. Springer-
Verlag, 2002, pp. 76–89.
[11] A. Lj. Juloski, W. P. M. H. Heemels, and S. Weiland, “Observer
design for a class of piecewise linear systems,” International Journal
of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 17, no. 15, pp. 1099–1239,
2007.
[12] J. Barbot, H. Saadaoui, M. Djemaı̈, and N. Manamanni, “Nonlinear
observer for autonomous switching systems with jumps,” Nonlinear
Analysis: Hybrid Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 537 – 547, 2007.
[13] F. Bejarano and L. Fridman, “Exact observer for switching linear
systems via super-twisting algorithm,” in Analysis and Design of
Hybrid Systems, 2009.
[14] G. Basile and G. Marro, Controlled and Conditioned Invariants in
Linear System Theory. Prentice Hall, 1992.
[15] B. R. Hunt, T. Sauer, and J. A. Yorke, “Prevalence: a translation-
invariant “almost every” on infinite-dimensional spaces,” Bulletin of
the American mathematical society, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 217–238, 1992.
[16] L. Fridman, “Sliding mode enforcement after 1990: main results and
some open problems,” in 11th IEEE Workshop on Variable Structure
Systems: Plenaries and Semiplenaries, 2010.
[17] A. Polyakov and A. Poznyak, “Reaching time estimation for “super-
twisting” second order sliding mode controller via Lyapunov function
designing,” Automatic Control, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 54, no. 8,
pp. 1951 –1955, 2009.
[18] T. Floquet and J. P. Barbot, “Super twisting algorithm-based step-
by-step sliding mode observers for nonlinear systems with unknown
inputs,” International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 38, no. 10, pp.
803–815, 2007.
[19] A. Polyakov and A. Poznyak, “Lyapunov function design for finite-
time convergence analysis: Twisting controller for second-order sliding
mode realization,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 444 – 448, 2009.
[20] D. Gómez-Gutiérrez, A. Ramı́rez-Treviño, J. Ruiz-León, and S. Di
Gennaro, “Observability of switched linear systems: A geometric
approach,” in Proceedings of the 49th IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, 2010.
[21] T. Kailath, Linear Systems. Prentice-Hall, 1980.