INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE,

VOL. , NO. ,
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Robust output regulation by observer-based feedforward control

Joachim Deutscher
Lehrstuhl fr Regelungstechnik, Universitt Erlangen-Nrnberg, Erlangen, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, a new method for the design of disturbance and reference feedforward controllers with distur- Received May
bance observers is presented for systems, where the disturbance input location is unknown. The resulting Accepted July
controller achieves asymptotic tracking in the presence of the disturbances despite plant parameter varia-
KEYWORDS
tions and changing disturbance input locations, and is therefore robust. It is shown that the new controller Linear systems; output
design method is dual to Davisons approach for the application of the internal model principle. However, regulation; feedforward
different from the latter one, the new design procedure allows a simple and complete prevention of con- control; internal model
troller windup by driving the disturbance observer with the saturated input. Furthermore, a straightforward principle; windup prevention
separate reference channel design is possible in order to improve the tracking behaviour if the types of the
reference and the disturbance signals differ. A simple example demonstrates the advantages of the new
design method.

1. Introduction requires an involved modification of the compensator design.

A basic property of the controller is to stabilise the plant and to
achieve output regulation, i.e. the asymptotic tracking of refer-
ence inputs in the presence of disturbances. Typically, the system
parameters are not exactly known or may change in operation.
Therefore, the output regulation should be robust with respect
to model uncertainties that do not lead to an unstable closed-
loop system. This leads to the so-called robust output regulation
problem. If the exogenous signals can be described by a signal
model, then this problem can be solved by utilising the inter-
nal model principle. This has the additional advantage that the
disturbance rejection is independent from the disturbance input
locations. First, solutions of the robust output regulation prob-
lem for linear systems were given in Davison and Goldenberg
(1975) and Francis and Wonham (1976). Then, these results
were extended to nonlinear systems (see, e.g. Byrnes, Priscoli, &
Isidori, 1997; Huang, 2004). An overview of recent output regu-
lation results and its application to nonlinear systems, where, in
addition, the signal model is uncertain, can be found in Isidori,
Marconi, and Serrani (2003). In all these references, the con-
troller design is based on Davisons approach. This amounts to
determining a stabilising compensator for the plant, which is
augmented by a copy of the signal model driven with the track-
ing error. For the modelling of persistently acting and bounded
exogenous signals, the signal model has only eigenvalues on the
imaginary axis. Consequently, the resulting compensator also
has eigenvalues on the imaginary axis. Hence, if an input sat-
uration occurs, then the unstable open-loop system dynamics
govern the system behaviour. As a consequence, the compen-
sator states can attain large values. This may deteriorate the
closed-loop performance or may even lead to closed-loop insta-
bility and is called controller windup (see Hippe & Wurmthaler,
1999). Solutions to this windup problem for classical robust out-
put feedback regulators can be found in Hippe (2006), but this
Another problem of the classical controller design on the basis
of the internal model principle is that different forms of the ref-
erence inputs and the disturbances may result in an unsatisfac-
tory tracking performance. In Hippe (1992), a solution for this
problem was presented by designing a separate reference chan-
nel. This approach, however, utilises the polynomial approach
for state feedback control, which leads to involved polynomial
matrix operations.
This paper presents a new method for the compensator
design on the basis of the internal model principle that circum-
vents the above-mentioned drawbacks. It is shown that robust
output feedback regulators can also be obtained by designing
an observer-based feedforward controller, where the measure-
ment coincides with the output to be controlled. Since the result-
ing controller satisfies the internal model principle, the distur-
bance rejection is independent from the disturbance input loca-
tions. Therefore, the corresponding disturbance observer can
be designed for the plant augmented by an auxiliary distur-
bance model with fictitious disturbance input locations. Hence,
the disturbance input locations have not to be known for the
design. Furthermore, a suitable choice of the disturbance model
ensures that the internal model principle is valid. This approach
is based on an extension of the classical design method tracing
back to the work of Johnson (see Johnson, 1971), where lin-
ear systems are considered. These results were also applied to
classes of nonlinear systems for friction compensation (see, e.g.
Olsson, Astrm, de Wit, Gfvert, & Lischinsky, 1998), or for the
compensation of nonlinearities using nonlinearity estimation in
hydraulic systems (see, e.g. Yao, Jiao, & Ma, 2014a), DC motors
(see, e.g. Yao, Jiao, & Ma, 2014b) and in robotics (see, e.g. Hu
& Mller, 1996). However, with Johnsons approach, robust out-
put regulation cannot be achieved in general, because the inter-
nal model principle is not valid for the resulting closed-loop

CONTACT Joachim Deutscher joachim.deutscher@fau.de

Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
796 J. DEUTSCHER

system. Moreover, this approach needs the knowledge of the
actual disturbance input locations for the design. The structure
of the new compensator has some advantages when compared to
Davisons approach. By driving the observer with the saturated
input, the unstable compensator can easily be stabilised in the
presence of input saturation. Thereby, the unstable signal model
is contained in the disturbance observer and therefore is also
stabilised. This completely removes the controller windup by a
very simple structural measure. Moreover, even global asymp-
totic stability of the closed-loop system with input saturation can
be systematically ensured by a suitable design of the state feed-
back gain. Another advantage of the proposed controller is that
a possibly worse reference tracking behaviour resulting from the
application of the internal model principle can be improved by
a very simple separate reference channel design.
It is demonstrated that the existence conditions for the pro-
posed robust output feedback regulator coincide with Davisons
classical approach and that the corresponding design effort of
both methods is the same. This implies that there exist two dif-
ferent solutions of the robust output regulation problem. In par-
ticular, the resulting compensators from the usual and from the
new approach are dual to each other. However, since the new
compensator is superior with respect to windup prevention and
the reference signal tracking, it should be preferred in applica-
tions.
The next section gives a formulation of the considered prob-
lem. Afterwards, the classical observer-based feedforward con-
troller for SISO systems is generalised to ensure robust out-
put regulation. This result is extended to MIMO systems in
the following sections. To this end, a short review of Davisons
approach is given in Section 4. The new robust output regulator
design is presented in Section 5, where the duality to Davisons
approach is used to verify the internal model principle. Subse-
quently, it is demonstrated that a straightforward separate ref-
erence channel design is possible for the new compensator. In
Section 6, controller windup is prevented by a straightforward
structural measure. A simple example illustrates the advantages
of the new controller design procedure.
the solutions of the signal model
v = Sv, v (0) = v 0 Rnv (3a)
d = Pd v (3b)
r = Pr v (3c)
(see, e.g. Knobloch, Isidori, & Flockerzi, 1993, Chapter 1).
In order to take bounded and persistently acting signals into
account, the eigenvalues of the matrix S Rnv nv are located
on the imaginary axis. This includes the modelling of, e.g. sinu-
soidal or step-like disturbances and reference signals.
The considered problem is to design a compensator that sta-
bilises the closed-loop system such that
lim (y(t ) r(t )) = 0, x(0) Rn , v (0) Rnv (4)
t
holds for all initial values of the compensator. This property has
to be robust with respect to plant parameter variations which
do not lead to an unstable closed-loop system. Furthermore, the
compensator design has to be independent from the disturbance
input locations described by the matrix G.
In the following, the posed robust output regulation problem is
solved by generalising the classical observer-based feedforward
controller. This has the advantage that the undesirable effects
caused by the input saturation (2) can be prevented by a sys-
tematic and very simple measure.
As the SISO case allows a very straightforward generalisation
of the observer-based feedforward controller to ensure robust
output regulation, it will be considered first.
3. Generalisation of observer-based feedforward
control for SISO systems
Consider the SISO system

x = Ax + bu + gd, x(0) = x0 Rn (5a)

2. Problem formulation
Consider a system in the state-space representation y = c x,
T
(5b)

x = Ax + Bu + Gd, x(0) = x0 Rn (1a) with the input u(t ) R and the measurable output y(t ) R.
The disturbance d(t ) R in (5a) is modelled by (3a) with d =
y = Cx, (1b) pT v. In order to asymptotically reject this disturbance, a feedfor-
ward of the signal model states v of (3a) along with a stabilising
with the saturated input u = sat(u) Rm , m 1, in which the state feedback
input saturation is defined by
u = kTx (x v ) + T v (6)
max
ui : ui > umax
i
sat(u) = ui : umin ui umax , umax > umin (2) is designed. It is well known that (, T ) in (6) have to be the
min i
min
i i i
ui : ui < ui , i = 1, 2, . . . , m. solution of the regulator equations

The measurable output y(t ) Rm coincides with the output to S A = g pT + b T (7a)

be controlled. The unmeasurable disturbance d(t ) Rl , l 1,
and the known reference input r(t ) Rm , can be described by cT  = 0T (7b)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 797

(see Knobloch et al., 1993, Theorem 1.3.1) that uniquely exists yielding the modified compensator
if
  v = Sv + lv (y cT x) (13a)
A sI
x = Ax + bu + g pT v + lx (y cT x)
b
det  0,
= s (S) (8) (13b)
cT 0
u= kTx (x v ) + v.
T
(13c)
(see Knobloch et al., 1993, Corollary A.1.2). Thereby, (S)
Since the input saturation of the plant and of the disturbance
denotes the spectrum of S. The feedback gain kTx in (6) is deter-
observer cancel in the corresponding observer error dynamics,
mined such that A bkTx is a Hurwitz matrix, which is possible
it reads
for (A, b) being controllable. In order to implement (6), a distur-
bance observer is designed, where the measurement coincides     
ev S lv cT ev
with the output to be controlled in (5b). This leads to the (clas- = , (14a)
ex A bkTx lx cT ex
sical) observer-based feedforward controller
with ev = v v and ex = x x so that the compensator (13)
v = Sv + lv (y cT x) (9a) is asymptotically stable. Hence, controller windup is systemati-
x = Ax + bu + g pT v + lx (y cT x)
cally prevented for this compensator with a very simple measure.
(9b)
In contrast, the controller windup prevention for the classical
u = kTx (x v ) + T v. (9c) approach of Davison requires a much more involved method
(see, e.g. Hippe, 2006). Therefore, the design of an observer-
For the corresponding observer design, the conditions based feedforward controller should be preferred for the solu-
(pT , S), (cT , A) observable and tion of the robust output regulation problem. However, different
from Davisons design method, the presented approach needs
 
A sI g the knowledge of the disturbance input locations, i.e. of g in
det  0,
= s (S) (10) (5) (cf. (7a) and (13b)). This is no problem since (13) satisfies
cT 0
the internal model principle and therefore achieves output reg-
ulation independent from the disturbance input locations. As a
are sufficient and necessary for an arbitrary observer eigen-
consequence, one can consider the plant
value assignment (see OReilly, 1980). In order to investigate
the robustness of the output regulation, introduce the change of
coordinates x = Ax + gu + g f d + (g g f )d, x(0) = x0 Rn
(15a)
x = x v, (11) y = cT x, (15b)

with the fictitious disturbance input vector g f Rn and design

with  satisfying (7). By making use of (5) and (7), the compen-
sator (9) can be represented by
     
v S lv cT v lv
= +
x A bkx (lx lv )cT x lx lv
T
0 S A = b(pT + T )
u = v
T
kTx x .
Obviously, the eigenvalues of the signal model (3a) are part of
the compensator eigenvalues (see (12a)). If the compensator is
designed such that the resulting closed-loop system is asymptot-
ically stable, then these eigenvalues cannot be compensated by
invariant zeros of the compensator because they lie on the imag-
inary axis. Otherwise, the unstable pole-zero cancellation would
lead to closed-loop poles on the imaginary axis and thus to an
unstable closed-loop system. Consequently, the observer-based
feedforward controller (9) achieves robust output regulation (4)
as it satisfies the internal model principle (see Chen, 1984, Theo-
rem 922, p. 497).
If input saturation becomes active, then the closed-system
dynamics is governed by the open-loop system. Hence, the
unstable open-loop behaviour of (12) can lead to windup effects
that may deteriorate the closed-loop dynamics. This can easily
be circumvented by inserting the input saturation (2) in (9b),
the observer-based feedforward controller on the basis of gf .
Since this vector can be chosen freely, it is reasonable to set gf =
 b in order to simplify the regulator equations
y
(16a)
(12a) c =0
T T
(16b)
(12b)
(see (7)). Obviously, they have the unique solution  = 0 and
T = pT . Hence, the generalised observer-based feedforward
controller
v = Sv + lv (y cT x) (17a)
x = Ax + bu + bpT v + lx (y cT x) (17b)
u = pT v kTx x (17c)
is obtained, that can be determined without the knowledge of g.
This compensator exists for a controllable and observable plant
(5) if, in addition, (pT , S) is observable and (8) holds. The latter
result follows from (10), when taking g gf = b into account.
In the following, this approach is generalised to MIMO sys-
tems. Thereby, the duality of the new approach with respect to
the classical approach of Davison is used to determine the gener-
alised observer-based feedforward controller. To this end, Davi-
sons approach is shortly reviewed in the next section.
798 J. DEUTSCHER

4. Davisons approach for output regulation 5.1. Disturbance rejection

When using Davisons approach for output regulation, plant (1) is In order to achieve robust disturbance rejection by feedforward
augmented by m signal models (3a) (see Davison & Goldenberg, control, introduce m copies of the signal model (3a) and con-
1975) that are driven by the elements yi ri , i = 1, 2, , m, of sider system (1) in the form
the tracking error y r. This leads to the augmented plant
v = S v , v (0) = v 0 Rmnv (23a)
v i = Sv i + byi (yi ri ), v (0) =
i
v 0i R ,
nv
i = 1, 2, . . . , m x = Ax + Bu + BQv + (GPd BQ)v , x(0) = x0 Rn
(18a) (23b)
x = Ax + Bu, x(0) = x0 Rn (18b) y = Cx (23c)
y = Cx. (18c)
with

The following lemma states the conditions for the controlla-

Pd = Pd 0 , Q = bdiag(qT1 , qT2 , . . . , qTm ). (24)

bility of this system.
Lemma 4.1 (Controllability of the augmented plant): The aug-
mented plant (18) is controllable if and only if (A, B) is control-
lable, (S, byi ), i = 1, 2, , m, are controllable and no invariant
zero of (C, A, B) is an element of the spectrum (S).
Proof: The proof can be found in Davison and Goldenberg
(1975). 
If the conditions of Lemma 4.1 are satisfied, then there exists
a state feedback
u = Rv v Rx x,
with v = col(v 1 , v 2 , . . . , v m ) that stabilises the augmented
plant (18) and thus achieves robust output regulation (see
Davison & Goldenberg, 1975). Since the states x are typically not
available for measurement, a state observer
x = Ax + Bu + L(y Cx), x(0) = x0 Rn
Therein, v = col(v 1 , v 2 , . . . , v m ) is utilised and the matrix Q
has to be chosen appropriately. This generalises the previous
result (15) to MIMO systems, where the input matrix character-
ising the fictitious disturbance input location is set equal to B.
However, different from the SISO case, the disturbance model
(3a) appears m times (see (23a)) so that a disturbance observer
for this system and thus the corresponding compensator con-
tains m signal models. This is a prerequisite to fulfill the internal
model principle (see Desoer & Wang, 1978; Francis & Wonham,
1976). Furthermore, the special form of Q in (24) follows from
the requirement of duality to the classical approach of Davison,
(19)
which will be shown in the sequel. After choosing Q, the input
Qv* can be regarded as a disturbance with known signal form
and input location so that a disturbance feedforward controller
with disturbance observer can be designed. It will be proved as
in the SISO case that the resulting compensator is robust and
thus also rejects all disturbances with the same signal form inde-
pendent from the actual disturbance input location. As a conse-
quence, the design is independent from G in (1a). For system
(20)
(23), the state feedback

has to be designed for (18). Therein, the observer gain L lead- u = Qv Kx x (25)
ing to asymptotically stable observer error dynamics exists if (C,
A) is observable. Combining (19) and (20) yields the observer- asymptotically rejects the known disturbance if A BKx is a
based compensator in the output feedback form Hurwitz matrix (cf. (17c)). This requirement can be ensured by
a suitable feedback gain Kx if (A, B) is controllable. In order to
       
v S 0 v B By y implement the state feedback (25), the disturbance observer
= + y
x BRv A BRx LC x L 0 r
v = S v + Lv (y Cx), v (0) = v 0 Rmnv (26a)
(21a)
  x = Ax + Bu + BQv + Lx (y Cx), x(0) = x0 Rn

v
u = Rv Rx (21b) (26b)
x

for robust output regulation when introducing is used (cf. (17a) and (17b)). The next lemma states the existence
conditions for this observer.
Lemma 5.1 (Observability of the augmented plant): The
S = bdiag(S, . . . , S), By = bdiag(by1 , by2 , . . . , bym ). (22)
matrix pair
  
5. Output regulation using a generalised
S 0
0 C , (27)
observer-based feedforward controller BQ A
Similar to SISO systems, the solution of the disturbance rejection
problem is the starting point for the definition of the generalised is observable if and only if (C, A) is observable, (Q, S* ) is observable
observer-based feedforward controller in the MIMO case. and no invariant zero of (C, A, B) is an element of (S).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 799

Proof: The proof can be found in OReilly (1980, Proof: Insert (28c) in (1a) to obtain x = (A BKx )x +
Theorem 1).  BKx (x x) + (GPd BQ)v + BQ(v v ) after a simple
rearrangement. With (23a)(23b) and (28a)(28b), the dynam-
Due to the special form of S* in (22) and Q in (24), this lemma ics of ev = v v and ex = x x read
implies that qTi , i = 1, 2, , m, in (24) have to be chosen such
that the pairs (qTi , S) are observable.       
ev S Lv C ev 0
When implementing (25) with the state estimates of the = + v . (31)
ex BQ A LxC ex GPd BQ
observer (26), the generalised observer-based feedforward con-
troller This yields the closed-loop system with the state xcl =
col(v , x, ev , ex ) and xcl = Acl xcl , where
v = S v + Lv (y Cx), v (0) = R v 0 mnv
(28a)

x = Ax + Bu + BQv + Lx (y Cx), x(0) = x0 Rn   GPd BQ
S 0
(28b) Acl = , A21 = 0 (32)
A21 A22
GPd BQ
u = Qv Kx x (28c)
and
results (cf. (17)). In order to investigate the relationship of this

compensator with the compensator (21) resulting from Davi- A BKx BQ BKx
sons approach, insert (28c) in (28b) yielding the dynamic output A22 = 0 S Lv C . (33)
feedback 0 BQ A LxC
      
v S Lv C v L
= + v y (29a) Thus, the separation principle follows from the lower block tri-
x 0 A BKx LxC x Lx angular structure of the matrix in (32) and the upper block tri-
  angular matrix in (33). 

v
u = Q Kx . (29b)
x Another important property of the compensator (28) is the
robust asymptotic rejection of the disturbances modelled by (3a)
By determining the corresponding dual system and (3b). For this, the internal model principle has to be satis-
  fied (see Francis & Wonham, 1976). This is a direct consequence
    
v (S )T 0 v QT of the duality to the classical approach of Davison, which is the
= + y result of the next theorem.
x CT LTv AT CT LTx KxT BT x KxT
Theorem 5.3 (Internal model principle): Assume that (qTi , S),
(30a)
  i = 1, 2, , m, are observable and the closed-loop system consist-
T T
v ing of the plant (1) and the compensator (28) yields an asymp-
u = Lv Lx (30b)
x totically stable closed-loop system in the nominal case. Then, the
compensator (28) ensures the internal model principle, i.e. robust
up to the minus sign (see, e.g. OReilly, 1983, Chapter 1.3.3) and asymptotic disturbance rejection is achieved.
comparing the result with (21) for r = 0, the duality to the clas- Proof: The dynamic output feedback (30) results from apply-
sical approach of Davison becomes apparent, which is the result ing Davisons approach to the dual of (18), when using the
of the next theorem. duality relations of Theorem 5.1. Furthermore, these relations
Theorem 5.1 (Duality): The design of the compensators (21) and also imply that the existence of this compensator is ensured
(29) are dual, i.e. the duality relations ST S, CT B, LTv Rv , if the existence conditions of the new approach are satisfied.
AT A, LTx Rx , KxT L and QT By hold. Thus, the compensator (30) ensures the internal model prin-
ciple in the dual case leading to the transfer behaviour u(s) =
It is easy to verify that by applying this theorem, the existence 1
N (s)D1
det(sIST ) c c (s)y(s), in which the polynomial matrices
conditions, i.e. Lemma 4.1 and 5.1, of the compensators (21) and det(sI ST )Dc (s) and Nc (s) are right coprime (see Desoer &
(29) can be converted into each other. Furthermore, the condi- Wang, 1978). Therefore, no zero of det(sI ST ) is cancelled
tions that the plant has to satisfy for the design, i.e. (A, B) con- by the transmission zeros of the compensator, i.e. the zeros
trollable, (C, A) observable and no invariant zero of (C, A, B) in of det Nc (s). A comparison of (29) and (30) shows that the
(S), are in both cases the same. transfer matrix of (29) results by transposition of (30). Con-
The duality shown in Theorem 5.1 also suggests that proper- sequently, the transfer behaviour of (29) has the general form
ties of the compensators (21) and (29) coincide. The next theo- u(s) = det(sIS)
1
(DTc (s))1 NcT (s)y(s), in which det(sI S)DTc (s)
rem demonstrates that the design of the latter can also be based
and NcT (s) are left coprime so that no zero of det(sI S) is com-
on the separation principle.
pensated by transmission zeros of the compensator. Since the
Theorem 5.2 (Separation principle): The eigenvalues of the closed-loop system with this controller is asymptotically stable,
closed-loop system comprising the plant (1) and the compensator no invariant zero of (C, A, B) is an element of (S) so that no can-
(28) are given by the eigenvalues of A BKx and of the observer cellation between zeros of det(sI S) and the invariant zeros of
(28a)(28b). the plant (1) occurs. Then, Chen (1984, Theorem 922, p. 497)
800 J. DEUTSCHER
implies that (29) ensures the internal model principle for the cor-
responding closed-loop system.  sponding Kx can be found if (A, B) is controllable. The next the-
5.2. Robust reference signal tracking
A direct consequence of Theorem 5.3 is that replacing y in (28a)
and (28b) by the tracking error y r also ensures robust asymp-
totic tracking of the reference signals r modelled by (3a) and (3c)
(see Chen, 1984, Theorem 922, p. 497). Thus, robust output
regulation (4) is achieved by the resulting compensator.
5.3. Nonrobust separate reference channel design
In some applications, it may be desirable to assign an indepen-
dent dynamics for the tracking of constant reference inputs with
respect to each output, i.e. to inputoutput decouple the refer-
ence transfer behaviour. This, in general, is not possible, when
using the robust reference signal tracking of the previous sec-
tion. Furthermore, if the form of the reference signal r differs
from the signal form of the disturbance d, e.g. if the tracking
of constant reference signals and the rejection of sinusoidal dis-
turbances is required, the approach in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 also
ensures the tracking of sinusoidal reference signals. As a conse-
quence, the frequency response of the resulting reference trans-
fer behaviour has phase zero and gain one not only for 0 Proof: By introducing er = x vr , evd = v d v d and ex =
but also at the frequency of the sinusoidal. This may give rise
to all-pass portions in the reference transfer behaviour and thus
worsen the tracking performance. In order to solve these prob-
lems, a separate reference channel can be designed, which is very
simple for the proposed approach in comparison to Davisons
approach. Since the resulting reference transfer behaviour is
nonrobust, this leads to a trade-off between an improved ref-
erence transfer performance and nonrobustness.
Assume that the reference signal r can be modelled by the
signal process
v r = Sr v r , v r (0) = v r,0 Rnr (34a)
r = Pr v r (34b)
with (Pr , Sr ) observable and the disturbances d are described by
v d = Sd v d , v d (0) = v d,0 Rnd (35a)
d = Pd v d , (35b)
where (Pd , Sd ) is observable. Furthermore, replace the state feed-
back (25) by
u = Qv d Kx (x v r ) + v r , (36)
in which v d (t ) Rmnd is the state of = v d
with Sd v d
= Sd
bdiag(Sd , . . . , Sd ). In (36),
the matrices  and  are the solu-
tion of the regulator equations
Sr A = B (37a)
C = Pr (37b)
and Kx is chosen such that A BKx is a Hurwitz matrix.
Thereby, the solution (, ) of the regulator equations (37)
exists uniquely if no invariant zero of (C, A, B) is an element
of (Sr ) (see, e.g. Huang, 2004, Theorem 1.10) and the corre-
orem shows that this modification achieves an asymptotic track-
ing of the reference signal modelled by (34) without exciting
the disturbance models (35) of the compensator in the reference
behaviour.
Theorem 5.4 (Separate reference channel for reference signal
tracking): Assume that the homogeneous error system (31) is
asymptotically stable and that A BKx is a Hurwitz matrix.
Then, the compensator
v d = Sd v d + Lv (y Cx), v d (0) = v d,0
Rmnd (38a)
x = Ax + Bu + BQv d + Lx (y Cx), x(0) = x0 Rn
(38b)
u= Qv d Kx (x v r ) + v r (38c)
achieves robust rejection of the disturbances modelled by (35). Fur-
thermore, a nonrobust tracking of the reference signals described
by (34) is achieved, where the disturbance models (35a) contained
in the compensator (38) are not excited in the reference behaviour.
x x, the result er = (A BKx )er + BQevd + BKx ex (Sr
A B)v r for v d = 0 (i.e. in the disturbance free case) is
obtained from (1a), (34a) and (38c). This yields the closed-loop
system xc = Acl xcl with the state xcl = col(er , evd , ex ) and
A BKx BQ BKx
Acl = 0 Sd Lv C (39)
0 BQ A LxC
in view of (31) and (37a). The output tracking error is ey =
y r = Cer + (C Pr )vr yielding ey = Cer , when utilis-
ing (1b), (34b) and (37b). Since the homogeneous error sys-
tem (31) is asymptotically stable and A BKx is a Hurwitz
matrix, Acl in (39) is also a Hurwitz matrix implying asymptotic
reference tracking. In the reference behaviour, evd (0) = 0 and
ex (0) = 0 hold so that in view of (39) the dynamics of the track-
ing error ey are described by er = (A BKx )er with ey = Cer .
Hence, the disturbance models in (38a) do not affect the refer-
ence behaviour. The resulting asymptotic reference tracking is
no longer robust, since it is only achieved by the feedforward
part vr in (36). However, since (38) coincides with (28) for vr =
0 and v replaced by v d , robust asymptotic rejection of the dis-
turbances d modelled by (35) is still ensured. 
Usually, the state vr of the reference signal model (34) is not
available for measurement. However, because (Pr , Sr ) is observ-
able by assumption, the reference observer
v r = Sr v r + Lr (r Pr v r ), v r (0) = v r,0 Rnr (40)
can be designed to reconstruct vr . Compared to the compensator
achieving a robust reference behaviour (see Section 5.2), the
order of the compensator (38) with (40) is reduced by (m 1)nr ,
since only one reference signal model (34a) has to be realised in
(40). Furthermore, for constant reference signals, r = vr holds
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 801

(see (34b)) so that the reference observer (40) is not needed and d
the compensator order is thus reduced by m.
If the reference transfer behaviour has to be specified, then u u x = Ax + B u + Gd y
the state feedback (25) is replaced by - y = Cx

u = Qv d Kx x + Mr. (41)

Therein, the feedback gain Kx and the matrix M Rmm can be Rx

determined to achieve a desired reference transfer behaviour
1 Rv
y(s) = C(sI A + BKx ) BMr(s). (42)
Thus, by utilising the classical approach of FalbWolovich, a
diagonal reference transfer matrix is attainable for stably decou-
plable system (1). In addition, the disturbances modelled by (35)
are robustly rejected by the corresponding compensator, which
is the result of the next theorem.
Theorem 5.5 (Separate reference channel for reference transfer
matrix design): Assume that the homogeneous error system (31)
is asymptotically stable and that A BKx is a Hurwitz matrix.
Then, the compensator
v d = Sd v d + Lv (y Cx), v d (0) = v d,0
Rmnd (43a)
x = Ax + Bu + BQv d + Lx (y Cx), x(0) = x0 Rn
(43b)
u = Qv d Kx x + Mr (43c)
achieves the nonrobust reference transfer behaviour (42) and the
robust rejection of the disturbances modelled by (35).
Proof: A simple calculation shows that the closed-loop system
takes the form
generalised observer-based feedforward controller, as the dis-
x A BKx BQ BKx x BM
ev = 0 Sd Lv C evd + 0 r turbance observer contains the whole compensator dynamics.
d
ex 0 BQ A Lx C ex 0 By feeding the limited input signal u into this observer, only
(44a)
y = Cx (44b)
with evd = v d v d and ex = x x for the disturbance free case,
i.e. v d (t ) 0. This directly implies that the closed-loop system
has the reference transfer behaviour (42). This system property
cannot be robust, since the feedforward part, i.e. the matrix M
in (41), is designed on the basis of the (nominal) plant. Further-
more, the compensator (43) coincides with (38) for vr (t) 0 and
r(t) 0. Hence, the robust rejection of the disturbances mod-
elled by (35) follows from the proof of Theorem 5.4.
6. Controller windup prevention
If the input saturation (2) becomes active, the closed-loop sys-
tem behaves as if it would be open so that its behaviour depends
on the plant and on the controller open-loop dynamics. Thus, if
the compensator is open-loop unstable, its states may attain large
amplitudes possibly leading to a deterioration of the control per-
formance or even to instability of the closed-loop system (see,
e.g. Hippe, 2006). Since this is caused by the controller states, it
is called controller windup in Hippe and Wurmthaler (1999). For
Davisons approach, the input saturation can be incorporated by
x
x = Ax + bu + L(y C x)
v ey - r
v = S v + By ey
compensator
Figure . Classical approach of Davison for robust output regulation.
a feedback of the limited input signal u into the observer, which
leads to the compensator
v = S v + By ey (45a)
x = Ax + Bu + L(y Cx) (45b)
u = Rv v Rx x (45c)
shown in Figure 1. Thereby, the limited input signal u is gen-
erated by the compensator so that the plant input saturation
remains inactive. Therefore, it is omitted in Figure 1. However,
this only stabilises the observer dynamics contained in the com-
pensator. The unstable signal model dynamics are still present in
the open-loop system and can lead to a windup of the controller.
Therefore, an additional measure is necessary in order to com-
pletely remove the undesired effects caused by input saturation
(see Hippe, 2006).
In contrast, controller windup can easily be prevented for the
its asymptotically stable dynamics appear in the open-loop sys-
tem and thus controller windup is completely prevented. This
leads to the generalised observer-based feedforward controller
with windup prevention
v = S v + Lv (ey Cx) (46a)
x = Ax + Bu + BQv + Lx (ey Cx) (46b)
u = Qv Kx x, (46c)
that is depicted in Figure 2.
 For the separate reference channel design (see Section 5.3),
the controller windup is also prevented for the compensators
(38) and (43) by feeding the saturated input u into the corre-
sponding disturbance observer. This is due to the fact that the
resulting compensator is also open-loop asymptotically stable in
the presence of input saturation so that the controller windup
does not occur.
If there are still windup effects present after controller
windup prevention, then this can only be attributed to the plant
and is therefore called plant windup (see Hippe, 2006). Then, the
stability of the closed-loop system can be investigated by repre-
senting it as a feedback loop consisting of a linear system and an
802 J. DEUTSCHER

d in which A is a Hurwitz matrix. In the following, a compensator

is determined that ensures the tracking of constant reference sig-
u u x = Ax + B u + Gd y nals r(t) = r0 , r0 R2 , t 0, and the rejection of sinusoidal dis-
- y = Cx turbances d(t) = d0 sin (2t + 0 ), d0 , 0 R, t 0. This leads
to the signal model (3) with

0 1 0

Kx
x
S = 4 0 0 , Pd = 1 0 0 , Pr = 0 0 1 .
x = Ax + B u + BQv + Lx (ey C x)
0 0 0
v v = S v + Lv (ey C x) ey - r
Q (51)

compensator
The system has an input saturation characterised by the lim-
its umax
1 = umin 1 = 87 and umax
2 = umin
2 = 80 (see (2)). For
Figure . Robust output regulation using generalised observer-based feedforward
control. the solution of this output regulation problem, a generalised
observer-based feedforward controller (28) is designed with
ey = y r (see Figure 2). By choosing qTi = [0 1 1], i = 1, 2,
input saturation, i.e. by considering a Lure type problem (see, e.g.
the pairs (qTi , S) are observable (see Theorem 5.3) so that Q can
Khalil, 2002, Section 7.1). In order to determine the correspond-
be obtained from (24). In order to complete the compensator
ing transfer function of the linear part, consider (1a), (28c) and
design, the feedback gain Kx is chosen to place all closed-loop
(31) for v* (t) 0 to obtain
eigenvalues at s = 14 and the observer gains

x A 0 0 x B
ev = 0 Lv C ev + 0 u (47a)
S 0.4464 0.0695
0.9185 0.1221
ex 0 A LxCBQ ex 0
1.2157 0.1736
Lv = 106
0.0434 0.2163
and

x
u = Kx Q Kx ev . (47b) 0.0567 0.3845
ex 0.0938 0.5434

0.0029 0.0007
Using uL = u, the transfer behaviour of the linear part is 0.1112 0.0232

2.1977 0.4119
uL (s) = Kx (sI A)1 Bu(s). (48) Lx = 104
0.0006 0.0020
(52)

0.0173 0.0712
With this, the results in Hippe and Deutscher (2009, Theorem
0.2190 1.2917
4.3) can be applied to investigate the global asymptotic stabil-
ity of the nonlinear closed-loop system. Moreover, a system-
assign the eigenvalue set = { 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
atic design of a globally stabilising Kx is possible for asymptoti-
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21} to the disturbance observer
cally stable plants by making use of the positive real lemma (see
(28a) and (28b). The resulting compensator achieves robust
Hippe & Deutscher, 2009, Theorem 4.3). It should be noted that
tracking and asymptotic rejection of both constant and sinu-
this approach, in general, is not possible for Davisons classical
soidal signals.
design method. This is due to the fact that the internal model
For v(0) = [0 45 0]T , the simulation of the corresponding
always leads to a linear part which is not asymptotically stable
closed-loop system leads to the disturbance behaviour shown
(see Figure 1).
in the left-hand side of Figure 3. Without windup preven-
tion, the unstable controller leads to oscillations of the outputs.
7. Example In contrast, if the controller windup is prevented by driving
Consider system (1) with the disturbance observer with the saturated inputs, then well-
damped transients result. For larger disturbance amplitudes,
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 input saturation causes instability of the closed-loop system
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
without windup prevention. In contrast, the designed controller
1 3 3 1 1 0 1 0
A=
0
, B= with windup prevention ensures a stable closed-loop dynam-
0 0 0 1 0

0
0 ics even for these disturbances. Furthermore, these results con-
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 firm that the resulting compensator achieves robust asymptotic
1 2 1 1 3 3 0 1 disturbance rejection, since the actual disturbance input loca-
(49) tion is not used in the design. The corresponding reference
and behaviour with this windup prevention measure leads to the
  closed-loop responses at the right-hand side of Figure 3. Due
3 0 0 1 0 0
C= , to the tracking of sinusoidal reference signals, this compensator
1 0 0 4 0 0

T leads to unsatisfactory reference transients, since the reference
G = 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 , (50) frequency response has gain one and zero phase additionally for
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 803

disturbance behaviour tracking behaviour

0.15 1.2

0.1 1

0.05 0.8

0 0.6

y1

y1
-0.05 0.4

-0.1 0.2

-0.15 0

-0.2 -0.2
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3

0.06 0.5

0.04
0
0.02

0
y2

y2
-0.5
-0.02

-0.04
-1
-0.06

-0.08 -1.5
0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
t t
Figure . Left: disturbance behaviour without windup prevention (dotted) and with windup prevention (solid). Right: reference step response to r (t) = (t) and r = (t)
with windup prevention, robust design (dotted) and nonrobust separate reference channel design (solid).

= 2 though only the tracking of constant reference signals is 8. Concluding remarks

required. The state feedback design on the basis of the positive real lemma
In order to avoid this problem, a second compensator (43) is is, in general, conservative and thus may lead to slow closed-
determined. This one achieves the decoupled reference transfer loop dynamics. This can be circumvented by introducing an
behaviour additional dynamic element, which provides additional design
  freedom in order to achieve a desired closed-loop behaviour.
2744
(s+14)3
0 Thereby, the techniques presented in Hippe (2006) are directly
y(s) = 2744 r(s) (53)
0 (s+14)3
applicable for the new approach. In order to analyse the closed-
loop stability in the presence of exogenous signals, the results in
by a separate reference channel design (see Theorem 5.5). Utilis- Saberi, Stoorvogel, and Sannuti (2000) for the semi-global stabil-
ing the approach of Falb and Wolovich (1967), the correspond- isation may be utilised. Furthermore, it would be interesting to
ing feedback gain Kx and a prefilter M are obtained with A BKx investigate whether and to which amount the presented results
being a Hurwitz matrix. Thereby, the same disturbance model as can also be extended to nonlinear systems.
for the first compensator is used, i.e. The proposed robust regulator shares the same design
effort as the classical approach of Davison. Therefore, the new
  approach is also feasible in practice. In many applications, input
0 1

Sd = , Pd = 1 0
4 0
so that the compensator (43) also robustly rejects the corre-
sponding sinusoidal disturbances. In order to ensure compara-
bility of the results obtained from the compensators, the state
feedback gain Kx and the observer gains Lv , Lx are the same in
both designs. The second compensator achieves the same dis-
turbance behaviour as the first compensator because both com-
pensators coincide for vr (t) 0 and r(t) 0. In contrast to the
first compensator, the separate reference channel design has the
advantage that the disturbance observer and thus the sinusoidal
disturbance models do not affect the tracking behaviour. Fur-
thermore, the dynamics of each reference channel can be speci-
fied independently by (53). This yields the fast and well-damped
reference response in Figure 3 on the right-hand side.
(54) saturation has to be taken into account. For this, the new con-
troller design method provides a systematic and simple solution,
which also contributes to its practical applicability.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Byrnes, C.I., Priscoli, F.D., & Isidori, A. (1997). Output regulation for uncer-
tain nonlinear systems. Boston, MA: Birkhuser.
Chen, C. (1984). Linear system theory and design. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Davison, E.J., & Goldenberg, A. (1975). Robust control of a general
servomechanism problem: The servo compensator. Automatica, 11,
461471.
804 J. DEUTSCHER
Desoer, C.A., & Wang, Y.T. (1978). On the minimum order of a robust ser-
vocompensator. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 23, 7073.
Falb, P., & Wolovich, W. (1967). Decoupling in the design and synthesis of
multivariable control systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
12, 651659.
Francis, B.A., & Wonham, W.M. (1976). The internal model principle of
control theory. Automatica, 12, 457465.
Hippe, P. (1992). Design of MIMO compensators for systems with unmea-
surable disturbances: The polynomial case. Automatica, 28, 10031009.
Hippe, P. (2006). Windup in control its effects and their prevention.
London: Springer-Verlag.
Hippe, P., & Deutscher, J. (2009). Design of observer-based compensators.
London: Springer-Verlag.
Hippe, P., & Wurmthaler, C. (1999). Systematic closed-loop design in the
presence of input saturations. Automatica, 35, 689695.
Hu, R., & Mller, P.C. (1996). Independent joint control: estimation and
compensation of coupling and friction effects in robot position control.
Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 15, 4151.
Huang, J. (2004). Nonlinear output regulation. Philadelphia, PA: SIAM.
Isidori, A., Marconi, L., & Serrani, A. (2003). Robust autonomous guidance.
London: Springer-Verlag.
Johnson, C.D. (1971). Accomodation of external disturbances in linear reg-
ulator and servomechanism problems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 16, 635644.
Khalil, H. (2002). Nonlinear systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Knobloch, H., Isidori, A., & Flockerzi, D. (1993). Topics in control theory.
Basel: Birkhuser.
Olsson, H., Astrm, K., de Wit, C.C., Gfvert, M., & Lischinsky, P. (1998).
Friction models and friction compensation. European Journal of Con-
trol, 4, 179195.
OReilly, J. (1980). Further comments on Minimal-order observers for lin-
ear multivariable systems with unmeasurable disturbances. Interna-
tional Journal of Control, 31, 605608.
OReilly, J. (1983). Observers for linear systems. London: Academic Press.
Saberi, A., Stoorvogel, A., & Sannuti, O. (2000). Control of linear systems
with regulation and input constraints. London: Springer-Verlag.
Yao, J., Jiao, Z., & Ma, D. (2014a). Extended-state-observer-based output
feedback nonlinear robust control of hydraulic systems with backstep-
ping. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 61, 62856293.
Yao, J., Jiao, Z., & Ma, D. (2014b). Adaptive robust control of DC motors
with extended state observer. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electron-
ics, 61, 36303637.