Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE

International Conference on Control Applications

Trieste, Italy 1-4 September 1998

TA05

An Application of Robust Feedback Linearization

to a Ball and Beam Control Problem"
B. C. Chang

Harry Kwtany

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104
bchang@coe.drexel.edu

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104
hkwatnv~,coe.drexil.edu

Shr-Shiung Hu
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104
sr947cxk@~ost.drexel.edu

The paper is organized as follows.-Section'II briefly reviews

feedback input-output linearization and p -synthesis. The design
of the inner-loop feedback linearization controller and the outerloop ,U -synthesis controller will be presented in Sections 111 and
IV respectively. Section V includes the computer simulations of
the ball and beam tracking for p -synthesis and H , controllers.
Section VI is a conclusion.
11. Preliminaries
In this section, we will give a quick review of feedback
input-output linearization and ,U -synthesis.
Feedback Input-Output Linearization
The basic concept of feedback input-output linearization
[ 1,2] is briefly reviewed as follows. Consider a SISO nonlinear
dynamic system with the following form
x = f ( x ) + g(x)L'
(2-1)
y = h(x)
where x is the n x l system state, U is the control input, y is the
controlled output, and g, zl are smooth functions of x. Let
L;($) denote the kth order Lie derivative of the scalar function

Abstract
In this paper, we present how ,U-synthesis can greatly
improve the robustness against the inexact cancellation arising in
feedback input-output linearization of nonlinear systems. A
simulation of the nonlinear ball and beam tracking problem
illustrates that L,I -synthesis controllers can offer much better
robust stability and robust performance than H , controllers.
I. Introduction
Despite its limitations, feedback input-output linearization
[1,2] is one of the most important tools in nonlinear control
systems design. The technique is mainly based on the
cancellation of nonlinear terms in the plant dynamics by the
controller. Exact cancellation is impossible in practice because
of inaccurate measurements, plant uncertainties, and
disturbances. Although not much discussion related to the
robustness issue is available in the literature [3-5j, it is well
known that the inexact cancellation can greatly hamper the
application of the technique.
The approach can be practical if the robustness issues caused
by inexact dynamics cancellation and imperfect state estimation
can be properly addressed. The effect of inexact dynamics
cancellation can be expressed in terms of plant uncertainty or
norm bounded uncertain disturbance by which a ,U -synthesis [6141 or linear H , control problem [15-221 can be formulated to
address the robustness issue.
In [23],Hauser et. al. considered a nonlinear ball and beam
control problem in which they pointed out that the relative
degree [ 1,2] of the ball and beam system is not well defined and
thus not feedback input-output linearizable. To resolve this
difficulty, a feedback linearizable nonlinear model was used to
approximate the original ball and beam model. Although some
closed-loop tracking simulations with ideal controllers were
given to justify the approximation, no practical outer loop
controller design was employed to address the imperfect
dynamics cancellations caused by nonlinear plant uncertainties
and the inaccurate measurement of the state variables.
In this paper, we use Hauser el. al.'s approximate inputoutput linearization approach to design an inner-loop nonlinear
controller which approximately linearizes the input-output
relationship of the inner closed-loop system. Then an outer-loop
linear controller is designed based on ,U -synthesis approach to
achieve robust stability and robust performance. By computer
simulations, we find that p-synthesis controllers are able to
provide robust stability and robust performance for reasonably

@ (r) with respect to the vector field f ( x ) . The 1st order Lie
derivative is defined as:

am

LJ ($1 = < 4%
f >=- f ( x )
ax

(2-22)

and then higher order Lie derivatives are successively defined as

. (2-2b)
L; (4)= L,(L;-y@))= < dL;-l(@),f>
The relative degree of the system is defined as
r = inf(k I L, (L;?(/Z))# o 1
(2-3)
For the ball and beam example, the relative degree equals
the number of system states if an approximate model is used. In
this case, we can define the vector z that consists of

z k =L;?(h), k = 1 , 2 ,._.,r
and a coordinate transfohation x + z, that transforms
into
i =.Az + E [ a ( x )+ p ( x ) u ]
y = cz
where A, C, E are constant matrices, and Q(X) , p ( x ) are
as follows,

(2-4)
(2-1)
(2-5)
given

The nonlinear system (2-1) can be input-output linearized by

letting
. L1 = p - ' ( x ) [ L t + v - c r ( x ) j
(2-7)
which yields
i = ( A + EL)z + Ev

l a r g e p l a n t u n c e r t a i n t i e s a n d s t a t e v e c t o r m e a s u r e m e n t errors.
The simulations also show that ,U -synthesis controllers offer

much better closed-loop robust stability and performance than

H, controllers. Although a ,U -synthesis controller usually is of
'high order, it can be reduced tremendously without degrading
much of the performance.

y = cz

where L is a constant matrix to be chosen to place the

eigenvalues of A+EL.
p-Syn thesis
For the purpose of robust stability analysis, all the plant
uncertainties, structured or unstructured, unmodelled dynamics

* This research was supported in part by NASA Langley Research Center

under Contract NCC-1-224 and in part by the Boeing Company under
Contract NAS 1-20220.

0-7803-4104-X/98/$10.00 01998 IEEE

694

or parametric perturbations, can be described by the following

block diagram [7],

the D-K iteration algorithm usually does not give an optimal

solution, it has been satisfactory in many applications [6,13].
111. The Ball and Beam Problem

L__oo---l

I4...............................................

Fig. 2.1 M-A structure for robust stability analysis.

where A(s) =block diug [Al(s), A*($),...,A,,,(s)} and M(s) is the
nominal linear closed-loop system which includes the nominal
plant and the stabilizing controller.
Since M A (s) I S stable, due to the fact that both M and A are
stable, the closed-loop stability can be ensured if and only if
I + M A ( j u ) remains nonsingular at all frequencies and for all A
under consideration. With this M - A structure, the structured
singular value (SSV) of M , or p ( M ) [23] is defined as

p ( M ) = [min(S(A) : det(I +MA) = O}-'

V U E R,

Fig. 3.1 The ball and beam system.

Y is the position of the ball, 6 the angular
position of the beam, and z the torque applied to the beam. The
ball is assumed to roll without slipping on the beam. Let the
mass and moment of inertia of the ball be M and J,>,
respectively, the moment of inertia of the beam be J , the radius
of the ball be R, and the acceleration of gravity be G. Define the
state vector
x = [ x , x, x, x,]' = [ u i e 61'
(3-1)
Then the ball and beam system can be represented by the
following model [23],
= j ( x ) + g(X)u
(3-2a)
3' = 12 (x)
with
(3-2b)
f ( x ) = [ x z B ( x , x -Gsinx,)
~
x4 0IT

In Fig. 3.1,

(2-9)

The structured singular value p is a measure of the system

robust stability. A smaller p means better robust stability. The
value of ,U depends not only on M but also on the structure of
A. Ignoring the structure of uncertainties can result in an
unnecessarily conservative control system design.

&
I
2
M

+I

g(x) =io 0 0 11'

h(x) = x,
the torque

Fig. 2.2 M A structure with input w and output z.

Besides being a good measure of robust stability, the SSV
can be also used for robust performance. Consider the system
shown in Fig. 2.2, where M is the nominal closed loop system
which includes the nominal plant and a controller, and the A
with II All_ < 1 represents the system uncertainties. Robust
stability means that the closed-loop system remains stable for all
uncertainties with II A II_ < 1 and robust performance means that
the H , norm of the closed loop system from w to z remains less
than one for all uncertainties with II A II_ < 1. However, by the
following main-loop theorem, robust stability and robust
performance can be put together and measured by a single
structured singular value.
Theorem 2.1: (Main Loop Theorem) [6,9]:
Consider the block diagram in Fig. 2.3. The robust stability
and the robust performance can be guaranteed if and only if
p ( M ) < 1 for all w and for all diug{Al,A2}, where A,
represents performance block, and A, is a matrix with block
diagonal structure which represents the system uncertainties.

~=2MxIx,x,+MG~,cosx,+(Mx~
+ J+J,,)u

(3-2~)
(3-2d)
(3-2e)

where

B := M /(J,>/ R 2 + M )
(3-20
The objective of the ball and beam control problem is to
design a controller so that the position of the ball will follow a
tracking signal that represents the desired trajectory of the ball.
The system is nonlinear and the set of ball equilibrium locations
is the straight line defined by the beam. First, in the rest of the
section, we will employ feedback linearization to design an
inner-loop nonlinear controller which render the input-output
relationship of the inner-loop approximately linear. Then, in the
next section, a p -synthesis outer-loop controller will be
designed to assure robust stability and robust performance.
As pointed out by Hauser et. al. [23], the relative degree of
the ball and beam system in (3-2) is not well defined. To be able
to employ feedback input-output linearization approach for the
nonlinear ball and beam control problem, the xp; term in (3-2b)
is ignored as suggested by [23].
With the coordinate
transformation x + z defined by the following
zi = X I , z2 =x2
(3-3)
z1 = -BG sin x3, z4 = -BGx4 cosx3
the approximate model of the ball and beam system, i.e., the
model of (3-2) with x,x,' term removed, can be rewritten as
z, =z2, 2 2 = z 3 , z 3 = z 4
(3-44
i4 = BGX: sin x, + (-BG cos x3)u := a ( x )+ p ( x ) u
and
(3-4b)
Y =z,
Let

Fig.z@w
2.3 Main Loop Theorem
The process of ,U-analysis is to rearrange a given closedloop system with uncertainties into an appropriate MA structure
and then compute the upper bound of the structured singular
value p for the M A structure. The process of p -synthesis, on
the other hand, is to design a controller K(s) such that the closedloop system M has a small upper bound of y with respect to the
given structure of A which includes the performance and the
plant uncertainty blocks. An existing algorithm for p -synthesis
is the D-K iteration algorithm 1141, which consists of the p analysis (D-Step) and the H , optimization (K-Step). Although

695

.............................

be tlie inner-loop controller, then the input-output relationship of

the inner closed-loop system becomes linear as shown in the
following,

z,= z 2 ,

j
.......,......

;.

z3 = z q

i q = -0.0024~1 -0.05~2-0.3523

- 24

.....,

0 ./ ............; w I

;.

Y..................................

(3-6a)

+v

:
:
.........

:*

i K ;

. -- :
.........................
.
i .............. i
:

................

/
I

w3

............

Fig. 4.2 Generalized plant for p -synthesis.

With the D-K iteration algorithm in Section 11, we first
obtained the H, controller K , ( s ) with the optimal H, norm
equal to 6.714. Since K , ( s ) ignores the structure information of
A and treats A as a full matrix, it gives a conservative solution
to the problem. Fig.4-3a shows the 5 plot and ,U plot of the
closed loop system.
.

. . . . . . "'

" ~ " ' ~ '

...............,
. .......................... ..........................
.::
.

-.............
t--7

y = 2,
(3-6b)
Recall that the success of feedback linearization approach
depends heavily on the dynamics cancellations. The functions
a(x) and p(x) computed based on tlie model may not be the
same as those i n the real world; furthermore, the measured state
variables are not the same as the actual state variables. In the
next section, an outer-loop ,U -synthesis controller will designed
to address these robustness issues.
IV. Robustness Considerations
In this section, we will formulate a ,U-synthesis control
problem so that an outer-loop linear controller can be
constructed to provide robust stability/performance against the
inexact dynamics cancellation arising in the inner-loop feedback
linearization design.
..................
.
.
CL
.......f 1 i1
I
..........

:
j ;w2
I"""""":......4 ._.,:

-........

and

61 I
..............................................................

o A ( - . . . -: w . . '

z2 = z 3 ,

[A,

5,

10

. .

" ' ~ ~ ' '

I00

I000

Fig. 4.3a b and p plots for the H _ control law.

As expected, ,U plot is lower than B plot, i.e., l / B < l / p ,
at each frequency. This implies that the allowable set of
structured uncertainties is larger than that of unstructured
uncertainties. Next we will continue the D-K iteration design.
After five iterations, the process converges to a controller K,(s)

YI

Y?

Fig. 4.1 Formulation of an outer-loop control problem.

In Fig. 4.1, PL stands for the linearized system (3-6). The
objective is to find a controller K so that the closed-lop system is
robustly stable and the displacement of the ball follows w 2 ,the
reference signal, as closely as possible. We is a weighting

which gives the 0 plot and p plot of 5,[&(s),K,(s)] in Fig.43b, where

~3[G, K ]

is lower linear fractional transformation.

Note that K , ( s ) gives much better ,U than K , (s) .

function for the tracking error, usually a low-pass filter; W,, is a

weighting function for the measurement noise, usually a highpass filter. The combination of W, and A , represents the plant
uncertainty, and usually W, is a high-pass filter.
W e , W,,, and W, are weighting functions chosen by the
designers such that the design specifications can be met. We
choose them as follows.
We =- 0.3
y , =10 w,=100(s + 100)
(4- 1)
s + 0.03
s+10000
We is a low-pass filter to emphasize the tracking accuracy at low

108

_ _ _ _ _ _ l _ l _ _

0I 1

frequencies. W,, is for measurement noises, and W, is for plant

uncertainties including the inexact cancellation caused by
modeling error or state vector measurement error in the innerloop.
Combining the plant, fL,and the weighting functions W e ,
W,,, and W,, we have the generalized plant C in Fig. 4.2. A i is
a 1x1 plant uncertainty block, and A2 a 2 x 1 fictitious
performance block.
With the D-K iteration algorithm i n Section 11, we first
obtained the H , controller K , ( s ) with tlie optimal H, norm
equal to 6.714. Since K , ( s ) ignores the structure information of
A and treats A as a full matrix, it gives a conservative solution
to the problem. Fig.4-3a shows the B plot and p plot of the
closed loop system.

10 Frequency (radk)
I00

1000
1

Fig. 4.3b 5 and p plots for the K, (s) p -synthesis control.

In tlie D-K iteration, we choose the order of the scaling
function D ( s ) to be 2 which implies that 6(s), and hence
K , ( s ) , are of order 10. K,(s) has ten Hankel singular values as
follows: 6 58e+4 6 27e+4 5 75e+4 1.89e+4 8 40e+3 4.34e+3
3 47e+3 7 47et2 5 45e-3 4 29e-3 It is easy to see that
K , ( s ) can be reduced to an gLh order controller K,(s) by
truncating its balanced realization. The ,U plots for tlie closedloop systems 3 [G(s),K , (s)] and &Tr[G(s),K , (s)] are shown in
Fig. 4.4. The fact that the two plots coincide together reveals
that K,(s) is an excellent approximation of K , (3).
I5

0'
0.I

'

'

"""'

'

'

"""'

10

100

1000

Fig. 4.4 p plots for the closed-loop systems 3,[G(s),K, (s)]

and Zr[C(s), K r (s)] .

696

0.6 I

Time response simulation for the closed-loop system with

the reduced p -synthesis controller K , (s) will be given in the
next section.
V. Time Response Simulations
The simulation diagram is shown in Fig. 5.1 in which the
plant:

response

20

10

40 seconds

30

Fig. 5.2a Tracking response for the closed-loop system with

reduced-order p -synthesis controller K,(s) when
A,,, =O and A, =O.
is not ignored in simulation;
Note that the term Bx,~,'
furthermore, we assume there is a perturbation tenn A,, sin t in

Next, besides the plant perturbation term Bx,~:, we assume

that the measurement errors i n (5-2) are 0.2sinlOt and the
sinusoidal perturbation i n (5-1) is 0.3sin t , i.e., A,,, =0.2 and

the plant. The measured state vector contains measurement

errors as follows,

loop feedback linearization is Tar from perfect. Fig.5.2b shows

AI = x,
A,. = x,
. + A,,?
... sin 1Ot,

'

i = 2,3,4

A,,=0.3. In this case, the dynamics cancellation in the innerthat the reduced-order p -synthesis outer-loop controller K,(s)
provides excellent robust tracking performance. The
perturbations and measurement errors have only slight effect on
the tracking response.

(5-2)

06

04
02

-0.2

Fig. 5.1 Simulation diagram.

The coordinate transformation A -+2 is defined by the
fol I owi ng
21 =A,, 22 = A 2

i3= -BG sin i 3 ,z14

= -BGi4 cos A3

IO

20

30

40

seconds

Fig. 5.2b Tracking response for the closed-loop system with

reduced- order p -synthesis controller K,(s) when
A,,,=0.2 and A,,=0.3.

(5-3)

For the purpose of comparison, we will design an H _

controller and compare its tracking performance and robustness
handling ability with t h e p -synthesis controller. The controller
K , ( s ) , obtained in the first iteration of D-K algorithm, indeed is
an H , controller based on the weighting functions (4-1). The
tracking error for this controller K , ( s ) is unacceptable. In order
to achieve a decent tracking performance for H , controller, we
modify the weighting functions as follows,
+ 100)
w,=- O . 3
w,,
=O.OOl
wA -- slO(s
+ 10000000 (5-5)
s + 0.03
A 61h-order H , controller K _ (s) is designed based on the block
diagram in Fig. 4.1 with the weighting functions in (5-1). Now,
we will replace the K,(s) in the simulation diagram of Fig. 5.1
by K _ ( s ) and repeat what we just did for the p -synthesis
controller.
Again, firstly we assume that A,8, and A,, in (5-2) and (5-1)
are zero; that means no measurement errors and no sinusoidal
plant perturbations. The only perturbation considered in the first
simulation is the term Bx,x: that we ignored in the design
model. The tracking signal is assumed 0 . 3 1 -e-') which can be
regarded as the output of the low-pass filter 1/(s + 1) driven by a
step function. Fig.5.2a shows the tracking response of the ball
position for the closed-loop system with the H , controller

The demultiplexer Demix extracts 2, and

the vector

'

2, components out of
2 in which 2, stands for r, the position of the ball,

and 2, = -BGsin 2, where A, is 6 , the angular position of the

beam, contaminated with measurement error. The inner-loop
feedback linearization nonlinear controller is described by the
following,
1
U =-[-a(;)-&
-0.352, -0.052, -0.0024z1, +VI
(5-4)
P(3
where p(A) = -BGcosi3, and a ( i )= BGi: sin A3. The outer-

loop linear controller K , ( s ) , of gLhorder, was designed in the

previous section by p -synthesis and model reduction.
In the simulation, the system parameters are chosen the same
as those in [23]: M = 0.05 kg, R = 0.01 m, J = 0.02 kg in2, J,, =
0.000002 kg m 2 , G = 9.81 d s 2 , and thus, B = 0.7143. First of
all, we assume'that A,,, and A,, i n (5-2) and (5-1) are zero; that
means no measurement errors or sinusoidal plant perturbations.
The only perturbation considered in the first simulation is the
term Bx,xi that we ignored in the design model. The tracking
signal is assumed 0.5(1-e-') which can be regardcd as a
combination of low frequency signals or as the output of the
low-pass filter I/(s+l) driven by a step function. Fig.5.2a
shows the tracking response of the ball position for the closedloop system with reduced-order p -synthesis controller K,(s) .
We can see that the tracking error is very small.

K _ ( s ) . Although the tracking ability of the H , controller is

not as good as the ,U -synthesis controller, its tracking response
is close to the reference signal.

69 7

0.6 I

reference

- response
I

10

20

30

40 seconds

Fig. 5.321 Tracking response for the closed-loop system with

U , controller K _ ( s )when A,,t=0 and A , =O.

40 seconds

Fig. 5.3b Tracking response for the closed-loop system with

H _ controller K _ ( s ) when A,,,=0.02 and A,,=0.3.
Next, besides the plant perturbation term B x , x i , we assume
that the measurement error in (5-2) is 0.02sinlOt and the
sinusoidal perturbation in (5-1) is 0.3sin t , i.e., A,,,=0.02 and
A,=0.3. Fig.5.3b shows that the tracking error grows without
bound as time increases. Note that the measurement error in the
simulation of p -synthesis controller is 10 times larger; still, the
system remains stable and has excellent robust performance as
shown in Fig. 5.2b. From the comparison, we see that the p synthesis controller provides much better robust stability and
robust performance than the U , controller.
VI. Conclusions
In this paper, we applied approximate feedback linearization
to take care of the nonlinearity of the ball and beam control
system. Then p -synthesis was employed to address the
robustness issues arising in linearization process due to inexact
dynamics cancellation. Computer simulations revealed that p synthesis controllers are able to provide robust stability and
robust performance for reasonably large plant uncertainties and
state vector measurement errors. The simulations also show that
p -synthesis controllers offer much better closed-loop robust
stability and performance than H , controllers
References
A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control SJwterizs, 3rd ed. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1995.
H. Nijmeijer and A.J. van der Schaft, Nonlinear D.ynanzical
Control Systems, Springer-Verlag, 1990
Shankar Sastry, John Hauser, and Petar Kokotovic, "Zero
Dynamics of Regularly Perturbed Systems May Be
Singularly Perturbed," System & Control Letters 13 (1989)
299-31 4.
Sastry, S.S., and Kokotovic, P.V., "Feedback Linearization
in the Presence of Uncertainties," Int. J. Adapt. Contr. &
Signal Processing, Vol. 2, pp 327-346, 1988.
F. Esfandiari and H. Khalil, "Output Feedback
Stabilization of Fully Linearizable Systems," Zrzt. J. Corztr.,

vol. 56, no. 5 , pp 1007-1039, 1992.

J. Doyle, Lectures Notes, ONWHoneywell Workshop on
Advances in Multivariable Control, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, Oct. 1984.
J. C. Doyle, "Analysis of Feedback Systems with
Structured Uncertainties," IEE Proceedings, Vol. 129 Pt.D,
No.6, 1982, pp. 242-250.

A. K. Packard, M. K. H. Fan, and J. C. Doyle, "A Power

Method for the Structured Singular Value," Proceedings of
27th Corference on Decision and Control, Dec. 1988.
[9] J. C. Doyle, A. K. Packard, and K. Zhou, "Review of
LIT'S, LMI's, and ,U ," Proceedings of30th Conference on
Decision and Control, Dec. 1991.
[IO] R. S. Sezginer and M. L. Overton, " The Largest Singular
exA0e-' .
Value of
is Convex on Convex Sets of Commuting
Matrices," IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC35, pp.229-230, Feb. 1990.
[11] M. K. H. Fan, and A. L. Tits, "Characterization and
efficient computation of the structured singular value,"
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-31, pp.734743, Aug. 1986.
[I21 M. K. H. Fan, and A. L. Tits, "M-form numerical range
and the computation of the structured singular value,"
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-33, pp.284289, Mar. 1988.
[I31 X. P. Li, J. C. Chen, S. S. Banda, and B. C. Chang, "An
Application of p -Synthesis to a Robust Flight Control
Problem," Proceedings of the 12th IFAC World Congress
1993.
[14] G.J. Balas, J.C. Doyle, K. Glover, A. Packard, and R.
Smith, p -Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox,
The
Mathworks, Inc., MA, MUSYN Inc., MN.
[ 1.51 G. Zames, "Feedback and Optimal Sensitivity: Model
Reference Transformations, Multiplicative Seminorms, and
Approximate Inverses," IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, Vol. AC-26, 1981, pp. 301-320.
[ 161 B. A. Francis, A Course in U _ Control Theory, SpringerVerlag, 1987.
[ 171 K. Glover, "All Optimal Hankel-norm Approximations of
Linear Multivariable Systems and Their L- -error Bounds,"
International Joiirnal of Control, Vol. 39, No. 6, 1984.
[18] B. C. Chang and J. B. Pearson, "Optimal Disturbance
Reduction i n Linear Multivariable Systems," IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. AC-29, Oct.
1984.
[I91 J. C. Doyle, K. Glover, P.P. Khargonekar, and B.A.
Francis, "State-space Solutions to Standard U , and H ,
Control Problems," lEEE Transactions on Automatic
CotWol, Vol. AC-34, NO. 8, Aug. 1989.
[20] K. Glover and J. Doyle, "State-space formulae for all
stabilizing controllers that satisfy an L, -norin bound and
relations to risk sensitivity," System Control Letters, Vol.
11, pp. 167-172, 1988.
[21] X. P. Li, and B. C. Chang, S. S. Banda, and H. H. Yeh, "
Robust Control Systems Design Using U , Optimal
Theory," AIAA Journal of Guidance, Control and
Dyzaniics, Aug. 1992.
[22] X. P. Li, and B. C. Chang," On Convexity of H _ Riccati
Solutions and its Applications," IEEE Transaction on
Automatic Control, Vol. AC-38, No. 6, pp.963-966, June
1993.
[23] J. Hauser, S. Sastry, and P. Kokotovic, "Nonlinear Control
via Approximate Input-Output Linearization: The Ball and
Beam Example," IEEE Transaction Automatic Control,
Vol. AC-37, No. 3, pp. 392-398, March 1992.

[8]

698