Output Feedback Control of a Class of
Uncertain Systems Under
Control-derivative dependent disturbances

arXiv:1610.05847v1 [] 19 Oct 2016

M. Alamir ∗ J. Dobrowolski ∗∗ A. T. Mohammed ∗
∗

CNRS, University of Grenoble Alpes
(mazen.alamir(amgad.mohamed)@gipsa-lab.grenoble-inp.fr).
∗∗
Schneider Electric Industrie. 37 Quai Paul Louis Merlin. 38000
Grenoble (jean.dobrowolski@schneider-electric.com)
Abstract: This paper addresses the design of robust dynamic output feedback control for highly
uncertain systems in which the unknown disturbance might be excited by the derivative of the
control input. This context appears in many industrial problems such as the speed control of the
hydraulic turbines and the frequency stabilization in micro grids to cite but few examples. A key
feature that has to be carefully addressed in this context is that too agressive feedback might
lead to the loss of controllability and/or a significant drop in the closed-loop performance. The
paper formulates the problem, underlines its relevance and gives a rigorous solution in which
a dynamic output feedback is given together with a realistic set of sufficient conditions on
the controller’s parameters that enable to assess the behavior of the closed-loop under different
circumstances. A numerical example is given to illustrate the relevance of the proposed successful
design characterization.
Keywords: Robust Control, control-dependent uncertainties, low gain feedback.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper addresses the problem of output feedback design of dynamical systems showing the following features:
(1) There is a simple although uncertain relationship
between u and y (y is of relative degree 0). This simplicity suggests the use of appealingly simple feedback
design.
(2) However, a cautionless design of such a simple law
might excite some internal dynamics of the system
leading to oscillations and/or lack of controllability.
(3) In spite of this issue, the use of advanced observerbased nonlinear controller that would be designed
using the entire model in order to master the internal
dynamics is not welcomed by practitioners because
of its high complexity and the need to derive a tight
models of complex behaviors that are not always well
mastered. Moreover, the observer design is not always
easy nor the system is always observable.
These reasons make the framework addressed in the
present contribution appealing (when possible), namely,
keep simple control structure but set the parameters of
the simple control law in a sound and theoretically assessed way so that the above mentioned coupling issue is
appropriately addressed.
To the best of the authors knowledge, existing works
do not tackle the case of output feedback of uncertain
systems with control derivative-dependent uncertainties.

Typical classes of uncertainties that are commonly handled
are parametric uncertainties [Kar 1999], additive bounded
state-dependent uncertainties [Cheng 1998, Nunes et al.
2009] or nonlinear uncertainties with affine state dependent bounds [Li et al. 2016] to cite but few representative
references.
Works belonging to the model-free approach [Fliess and
Join 2013], while addressing higher relative degrees, are
also based on a representation of the unknown term to be
estimated that is not dependent on the control behavior
in a way that might enhance instable coupling.
This paper is organized as follows: First, the problem is
stated in section 2 and motivated through the description
of two industrial example (control of hydraulic turbines
and frequency stabilization in micro grids). Section 3 discusses the working assumptions. The main results regarding the successful feasibility bounds are given in Section
4. An illustrative example is given in Section 5. Finally,
Section 6 concludes the paper and gives some hints for
further investigation.
In the sequel, given a time interval I := [t1 , t2 ] and a
variable x, the boldfaced symbol x is used to denote the
profile x(t) t∈I of x over I when the later is known without ambiguity from the context. Otherwise the explicit
notation x(I) is used instead. Let xt := x(t) and if x
is scalar, let kxk∞ := supt∈I |x(t)|. The set of possible
profiles w of the exogenous uncertainty involved in (2) is
denoted by W.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
We consider uncertain dynamic systems of the form:
h
i
ẏ(t) = α(t) u(t) − g(t) + ℓ(t, η(t)))
(1)

η̇(t) = E(η [t−τ,t] , u̇[t−τ,t] , w[t−τ,t] )
(2)
where y ∈ R and u ∈ [u, u] are the regulated output and
the control input respectively. g(·) is an unknown term
satisfying g(t) ∈ [g, g] with known bounds g and g. The
vector η ∈ Rnη represents internal states with dynamics
given by (2) in which E : Rnη × R× Rnw → Rnη is possibly
unknown map. the vector w ∈ Rnw represents exogenous
disturbances. Finally α(t) ∈ [α, ᾱ] is an unknown scalar
that might be time-varying, with known bounds α and ᾱ.
Let ∆u := ū − u and ∆g = ḡ − g denotes the admissible
excursion of the control input and the unknown term g
respectively.
Remark 1. Equation (2) is a rather general representation
that can encompasses time delayed systems, general partial differential equations to cite but few examples.
A careful examination of (1) clearly shows that the controllability of y can be guaranteed if one can enforce the
following inclusion:
h := g − ℓ(η) ∈ [u + ρ, u − ρ] ⊂ [u, ū]
(3)
for some ρ > 0 and if |u̇| can be taken arbitrarily high
since in this case, u can instantaneously dominate h and
consequently enforce any desired sign to ẏ. However, the
fact that the dynamic (2) of η depends on u̇ makes this
second condition unrealistic as a strong dynamics on u
(high u̇) can steer the system to regions where (3) is
violated leading to the loss of controllability and even
instability. This is precisely the issue that is investigated
in this contribution. Note that the absence of precise
knowledge of ℓ(·, ·), E(·, ·, ·), g(·) and α makes the problem
even more challenging as it prevents, for instance, the
reconstruction of η (from the only measured y) and the use
of the estimated values in the necessarily careful control
design. Moreover, the observability itself may not hold in
many situations.
In this paper, the following simple dynamic output feedback is considered

u = S λ(yd − y) + z
(4)
ż = λf (u − z)
(5)
where S is the saturation function that projects the argument inside [u, u] and yd is the constant set-point for
the regulated output y. This feedback is defined up to
the choice of the two positive parameters λf , λ > 0. The
problem addressed in this paper can be formulated as
follows:

Problem

Find a high level characterization of the
uncertainties and maps involved in (1)(2) and associated conditions on the
control parameters (λ, λf ) so that the
behaviour of the closed-loop system can
be conveniently/quantifiably assessed.

More precisely, the assessment of the closed-loop properties should be understood in the following sense:

(1) Asymptotic stability should be obtained in the absence of disturbance (w ≡ 0, g ≡ 0 and ℓ ≡ 0)
(2) A quantifiable bound can be given on the asymptotic
tracking error in the case where persistent dynamic g
and non vanishing disturbance w are present.
Before addressing the problem stated above, the following section underlines the relevance of the framework described by (1)-(2) by showing that it describes at least two
concrete industrial problems.
2.1 Relevance of the framwork
The framework described above fits at least two important
industrial problems that are briefly discussed here.
Control of hydraulic turbines
Efficient control of hydraulic turbines in the context of
Power Storage Plant (PSP) is gaining a renewed interest.
In this context, the hydraulic plant is used as a mean to
compensate for the intermittency of renewable sources of
energy [Connolly et al. 2012]. As such, the response time
of speed control is a key parameter that determines the
success of the whole power management system. In this
context, the regulated variable y is the rotational speed
Ω, the control u is the guiding vane’s opening γ while the
internal state η is the state of the penstock (flow rate and
pressure values inside the penstock) that drives the water
flow from the water reservoir to the turbine’s level. All
practitioners know [Zhou 2011] that the major obstacle
that limits high rotational acceleration of the turbine lies
in the induced oscillating pressure waves in the penstock.
When referring to the internal dynamic (2), the time laps
τ represent twice the time needed for the pressure wave
to travel the penstock’s length. These pressure oscillations
generate disturbing torque variations at the turbine’s level
that can go beyond what the controlled torque can compensate if the dynamics of the control is not monitored
appropriately. That is the reason why simple control laws
that are not carefully tuned against this phenomenon fail
to produce satisfactory results.
Distributed frequency-control in isolated micro grids
This is another example that falls into the framework
studied in this paper. Here the regulated variable is the
grid frequency f . The control input u is the sum of produced powers by the Gensets and the renewable sources
while the uncertainty w is the derivative of the load power
consumption. The internal dynamics is induced by the
flexibility of power transmission between Gensets following
sudden change in the load power demand. The need for a
distributed control design (in which only the frequency
measurement is used) emphasizes the need for simple
control laws that cannot afford the task of model-based
reconstruction of the internal dynamic (which needs both
observability and total knowledge of the model’s details).
This internal dynamics disturbs the commonly used [Zhao
et al. 2016, Xialing et al. 2014] power balance equation
f˙ = α(P − PL ) by an additional term such that:

f˙ = α(u − PL + Cη)

(6)

η̇ = Aη + B1 u̇ + B2 ṖL

(7)

which obviously takes the form (1)-(2) with w = ṖL .
Note that a 4th order dynamics is typically needed to
correctly represent the phenomena when only two Gensets
are simply considered.

contexts described in Section 2.1, the inequalities (9)-(10)
become true after a finite time 1 with:
Z t
eA(t−σ) B2 wσ dσ
(11)
c0 := ǫ + sup sup C
c1 := sup C
t≥0

The first unavoidable assumption is called the Control Authority Margin (CAM) assumption. It simply states that
u can ultimately dominates the unknown term g ∈ [g, ḡ]
alone with some margins, denoted by ̺+ > 0 and ̺− :
Assumption 3.1. (Control Authority Margin).
There exist two scalars ̺− > 0 and ̺+ > 0 such that:
(8)
ū ≥ ḡ + ̺+ and u ≤ g − ̺−
These different positive constants are shown in Figure 1.

w∈W t≥0

d1 := |CB1 | + sup CA
t≥0

u

g
̺−

ḡ
∆g

ū
̺+

Fig. 1. Definition of the different positive constants involved in the characterization of the actuator and the
unknown term g.
The next assumption characterizes the behavior of the
additional term ℓ involved in (1) under the dynamic (2)
for all possible disturbance profiles w ∈ W and all profiles
u:
Assumption 3.2. There exist positive scalars c0 , d0 > 0
and c1 , d1 > 0 such that, for all w ∈ W and all admissible
input profiles u (inside [u, ū]), the following inequality
holds:
|ℓ(t, η(t))| ≤ c0 + c1 ku̇[t−τ,t] k∞
(9)
|ℓ̇(t, η(t))| ≤ d0 + d1 ku̇[t−τ,t]k∞
(10)
Moreover, the evolution of the state η remains bounded
for any bounded profiles in kuk∞ and ku̇k∞ .
This assumption can be better understood if one considers
the case where the dynamics (2) is given by (7) in which
the matrix A is Hurwitz (open-loop stable internal dynamics). Indeed in this case, which holds for both industrial

B1 dσ

(12)

Z

t

eA(t−σ) B2 wσ dσ

(13)

eA(t−σ) B1 dσ

(14)

0

Z

t
0

In the case of hydraulic turbines, asymptotic stability
of the penstock dynamics comes from the fact that this
system is theoretically marginally stable but becomes
asymptotically stable by introducing a pre-compensator
in the definition of the flow rate feedback. The control u
discussed in this paper represent then the definition of the
remaining feed-froward term. As for the micro grids case,
the asymptotic stability comes from the use of the droop
frequency control as a first rapid loop on the top of which,
the control we are interested in amounts at translating the
droop curve vertically. This is obviously equivalent to an
action on the total produced power u.
In the sequel, the short notation ku̇k∞ is used for
ku̇[t−τ,t]k∞ as t is removed and τ is supposed to be fixed
once for all.

Note that without this assumption, there is obviously
no means to guarantee bounded behavior of the output
tracking error and this, regardless of the control law being
used.
∆u

e

0

d0 := ǫ + sup sup CA

3. WORKING ASSUMPTIONS
In this section, the high level characterization that are
mentioned in the problem’s statement (Section 2) are
introduced. These characterizations delimit the class of
unknown dynamics and quantities for which the simple law
(4)-(5) can be appropriate provided that some conditions
on the choice of λ and λf are fulfilled. These conditions
are established in Section 4.

w∈W t≥0
0
Z t
A(t−σ)

4. SUFFICIENT CONDITIONS ON CONTROL
PARAMETERS AND ASSOCIATED BOUNDS ON
THE TRACKING ERROR
Let us first of all examine some properties of the signals
involved in the feedback laws (4)-(5).
Lemma 4.1. Under the feedback law (4)-(5), for all λ > 0
satisfying:
1
λ<
(15)
ᾱc1
the following inequality holds:


λᾱ β + c0 + λf ∆u
ku̇k∞ ≤ δu :=
(16)
1 − λᾱc1
where

(17)
β := ∆g + max ̺+ , ̺−
Proof. By the very definition (4), inequality (16) has to
be checked only inside the admissible domain as otherwise
u̇ = 0 and the inequality obviously holds. Now, when
the saturation constraint is not active, one obviously has
according to (4):
|u̇| ≤ λ|ẏ| + |ż|
(18)
but according to (1), it comes that:
h
i
|ẏ| ≤ ᾱ |u − g| + |ℓ|
(19)
an examination of Figure 1 clearly shows that:
o
n
|u − g| ≤ β := ∆g + max ̺+ , ̺−

therefore, using (20) and (9) in (19) gives:
h
i
|ẏ| ≤ ᾱ β + c0 + c1 ku̇k∞
1

(20)
(21)

beyond which the influence of the initial state that prevailed at the
beginning of the system’s first operation time becomes lower than ǫ.

≤ λf ∆u

z

(2) any dynamics starting in A− enters A0 in finite time.
(3) A0 is invariant.

z − λ(y − yd ) = ū

θ
≥ α(̺+ − |ℓ|)

A+

A0

z − λ(y − yd ) = u

≥ α(̺− − |ℓ|)
≤ λf ∆u

y − yd
A−

Fig. 2. Definition of the sets A+ , A− and A0 and disposition of the vector fields.
on the other hand, since z is a first order filtered version
of u, it comes that z ∈ [u, ū] and hence:
|ż| ≤ λf ∆u
(22)
using (20)-(21) in (18) leads to:
i
h
(23)
|u̇| ≤ λ ᾱβ + c0 + c1 ku̇k∞ + λf ∆u
which can be rewritten equivalently as follows:
(1 − λᾱc1 )ku̇k∞ ≤ λᾱ(β + c0 ) + λf ∆u
which gives obviously (16) if (15) is satisfied.

(24)
✷

In order to go further in the analysis of the closed-loop
behavior, the following sets are defined (see Figure 2):
A+ := {(y, z) | z − λ(y − yd ) ≥ ū}
(25)
(26)
A− := {(y, z) | z − λ(y − yd ) ≤ u}
A0 := {(y, z) | z − λ(y − yd ) ∈ (u, ū)}
(27)
Note that by definition, if (y, z) ∈ A+ then u = ū, if
(y, z) ∈ A− then u = u while if (y, z) ∈ A0 then the
control is not saturated, namely u = λ(yd − y) + z.
Based on these definitions, the following result can be
stated:
Lemma 4.2. (A0 is attractive and invariant).
If the following conditions hold:
• λ < 1/(ᾱc1 )
• λf and λ are such that
λf < λϕ(λ)

(28)

where:
c1 α i−1 h
(β + c0 )c1 ᾱ i
̺ − c0 − λ
α
1 − λᾱc1
1 − λᾱc1
(29)
where ̺ := min{̺− , ̺+ }, then the set A0 is attractive
and invariant for the closed-loop dynamics associated to
the control law (4)-(5) and to any constant desired value
yd .
h
ϕ(λ) := ∆u 1 +

Proof. The steps of the proof are the following:
(1) any dynamics starting in A+ enters A0 in finite time.

proof of (1). Assume that (y, z) ∈ A+ (see Figure 2.
Examination of the vector field (see Figure 2) suggests
that the result would be proved if one can prove that the
following inequality holds:
|ż| < λ|ẏ|
(30)
On the other hand we know that |ż| ≤ λf ∆u while |ẏ| ≥
α(̺+ − |ℓ|). Now using the inequality (9), the inequality
(30) would be satisfied if the following condition holds:


λf ∆u < α ̺+ − (c0 + c1 ku̇k∞ ) λ
(31)
and since λ < 1/(ᾱc1 ) the inequality (16) of Lemma 4.1
holds, therefore, (30) would be satisfied if the following
inequality holds:
##
"
"


λᾱ β + c0 + λf ∆u
+
λf ∆u < α ̺ − c0 + c1
λ (32)
1 − λᾱc1
which is equivalent to (after straightforward manipulations):
h
c1 α i−1 h +
(β + c0 )ᾱλ i
λf < ∆u 1 +
̺ − c0 − c1
αλ
1 − λαc1
1 − λᾱc1
(33)
proof of (2). Following exactly the same arguments, it
can be shown that A0 is attractive for any initial condition
in A− provided that the following condition holds:
h
c1 α i−1 h −
(β + c0 )ᾱλ i
λf < ∆u 1 +
̺ − c0 − c1
αλ
1 − λαc1
1 − λᾱc1
(34)
Combining the more restrictive of the two conditions (33)
and (34) obviously leads to (29).
Proof of (3). This simply comes from the fact that the
flows ẋ and ż are continuous (in y and z) and it has
just been shown that the vector fields on the intersection
boundaries A+ ∩ A0 and A− ∩ A0 does strictly enter inside
the set A0 . Therefore A0 is invariant.
✷
Now regarding the existence of λ, λf > 0 that satisfy the
conditions of Lemma 4.2, one has the following result:
Lemma 4.3. (Existence of λ, λf ). If the following condition holds:
c0 < ̺ := min{̺− , ̺+ }
(35)
then there exists λ∗ > 0 such that for all λ < λ∗ , there
exists λf > 0 such that the pair (λ, λf ) satisfies the
requirements of Lemma 4.2. More precisely, λ∗ is solution
of:


1
|
inf ϕ(λ) ≥ 0
(36)
λ∗ = sup σ ≤
ᾱc1
λ∈(0,σ)
Proof. This is because, thanks to (35), ϕ(·) satisfies:
min{̺− , ̺+ } − c0
ϕ(0) =
>0
(37)
∆u (1 + c1 )
and since ϕ is a continuous function of λ inside (0, ᾱc1 1 ),
there exists λ∗ ∈ (0, ᾱc1 1 ) such that for all λ ∈ (0, λ∗ ),
ϕ(λ) > 0 hence there exists λf > 0 satisfying (29).
✷
Based on the result of Lemma 4.2, it comes out that the
asymptotic behavior of the closed-loop is only determined
by the behavior of the system under the non-saturated

control law u = λ(yd −y)+z. But this feedback law leads to
a dynamics (inside A0 ) that can be written in the following
form:


  
−αλ α y − yd
ẏ
(38)
=
−λf λ 0 z − h
ż
where h is the unknown dynamics given by:
h = g − ℓ(η)
(39)
and using the following notation:


−αλ α
(40)
ey := y − yd ; ez := z − h ; A0 :=
−λf λ 0
the dynamics (38) becomes:
   
 
0
e
ėy
= A0 y −
ez
ėz
ḣ

(41)

Based on this observation, the main result of the paper
can be derived:
Proposition 4.1. (Main result).
If the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) Assumptions 3.1-3.2 hold,
(2) c0 < min{̺− , ̺+ },
(3) λ ∈ (0, λ∗ ) and λf < λϕ(λ) where λ∗ solves (36) in
which ϕ is given by (29).
(4) the unknown term g satisfies |ġ| ≤ δg

then the tracking error ey satisfies the following inequality:
δg + d0 + d1 δu
lim |y(t) − yd | ≤
(42)
t→∞
λλf
where δu > 0 is the constant given by (16).
Proof. Under the Assumption of the proposition, the conditions of Lemma 4.2 (by definition of λ∗ ) hold. Therefore,
the closed-loop trajectories lie ultimately inside A0 and the
dynamics (41) persistently prevails after a finite time. This
means that one has asymptotically:




Z t
0
ey (t)
A0 (t−σ)
dσ
(43)
e
→
ez (t)
ḣ(σ)
0
Focusing on ey and taking the worst case leads to:
Z t
lim |ey (t)| ≤
C1 eA0 (t−σ) C2 dσ max |ḣ(σ)| (44)
t→∞

σ∈[0,t]

0

T

where C1 := (1, 0) and C2 = (0, 1) . This gives, because
A0 is invertible [see (40)]:
lim |ey (t)| ≤ C1 A−1
0 C2 max |ḣ(σ)|

t→∞

σ∈[0,t]

(45)

Now by definition (39) of h, the fact that |ġ| ≤ δg and (16)
of Lemma 4.1:
max |ḣ(σ)| ≤ δg + d0 + d1 δu
(46)
σ∈[0,t]

Moreover, simple computations show that C1 A−1
0 C2 =
1/(λλf ) which obviously gives the result.
✷
5. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE

where A, B1 , B2 and C are given by:
" #
#
" #
"
0
0.1
−3.4 −1 −0.5
A = 0.25 −1.7 0.5 ; B1 = 0 ; B2 = 0.2
0
0
1.2 2.75 −3.6
0
1]
C = [1
while the delay τ = 10 is used. The unknown signal g(t)
is given by:
g(t) := 1 − 0.3 cos(0.1t) − 0.1 sin(0.2t + π/6);
(47)
Therefore, the bounds g = 0.5 and ḡ = 1.5 can be used
(∆g = 1). Moreover, the bound on the derivative of g is
δg = 0.05. Therefore, considering control saturations given
by u = −1 and ū = 3 leads to ̺− = 1.5 and ̺+ = 1.5,
̺ = 1.5 and ∆u = 4. The bounds α = 0.1, ᾱ = 0.3 are
supposed to hold while a true value α = 0.2 is used in the
simulations. We consider as admissible set W to be the
set of all disturbances that are bounded by w̄ = 0.1. For
simulation, the disturbance signal w(t) = w̄ sin(t) is used.
Computation of (11)-(14) gives:
c0 = 0.05 c1 = 0.07 ; d0 = 0.2 ; d1 = 0.42
(48)
Using these values in the definition of ϕ(·) and λ∗ leads
to the evolution of ϕ(λ), the bound on the asymptotic
tracking error and the bound λϕ(λ) on the values of λf
are depicted in Figure 3 where it can be inferred that
λ∗ = 17.18. Note that the upper bound 1/(ᾱc1 ) ≈ 47.4 in
this example meaning that in this example, λ∗ is limited
by the need for a positive sign of ϕ.
Figure 4 shows the behavior of the closed-loop system
when the value λ(1) = 17 ∈ (0, λ∗ ) is adopted together
with λf = 0.95λϕ(λ) ≈ 0.0102 satisfying (28). This Figure
shows quite good closed-loop behavior with the tracking
error asymptotically below its theoretical bound a while
after the set-point gets constant.
On the other hand, Figure 5 shows the behavior of the
closed-loop system when λ(2) = 10λ(1) is used (with the
same value of λf . The closed-loop clearly shows that the
trajectories are no more adequately attracted to a small
neighborhood of the desired values. This is mainly due to
the high excursion of the internal state η which leads to
high value of ℓ that breaks the attractiveness of the tight
neighborhood of yd . This excursion has to be compared to
the rather moderate one which can be observed on Figure
4. This clearly shows that a rationalized choice of (λ, λf )
is a key step in the success of the simple control law (4)-(5)
for this particular class of systems.
6. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORKS
In this paper, the problem of dynamic output feedback
of systems with control-derivative dependent uncertainties
is analyzed. High level characterization of the involved
map is given so that a successful tuning of a simple
feedback law is given together with an upper bound on the
output tracking error. A natural extension of this work is
a concrete application to the realistic examples described
in the paper.

Let us consider the uncertain system given by (1)-(2) in
which the internal dynamic (2) is given by:

REFERENCES

η̇(t) = Aη(t) + B1 ku̇[t−τ,t]k∞ + B2 w
ℓ(η) = Cη

Cheng, C.F. (1998). Output feedback stabilization for
uncertain systems: constrained riccati approach. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 43(1), 81–84.

4

·10

101
100

10

2
0
−2

10−1

5
0
5
10
15
20
Asymptotic bound on |ey | for λf = 0.95λ ∗ ϕ(λ)

10−2
10−3

0
0

100 200 300 400

4

100
0

5
10
15
Upper bound λ ∗ ϕ(λ) on λf

20

0

0

−2

−0.2
5

10

15

20

λ
Fig. 3. (top) Evolution of ϕ(λ) given by (29). (Middle)
Asymptotic bound on the output tracking error ey [see
(42)]. (Bottom) Upper bound λϕ(λ) on the control
parameter λf [see (33)].

|ey |

y and yd
101
100

10

10−1
5

10−2
10−3

0
100 200 300 400

10−4

0

time
u(t)
4

100 200 300 400
time
ℓ(t)

8
6

2

4

0

2
0

100 200 300 400
time

0

0

100 200 300 400
time

Fig. 4. Behavior of the closed-loop system for the choice
(λ(1) , λf ) = (17, 0.0102) meeting the theoretical
bounds.

time
ℓ(t)

6
4
2
0

100 200 300 400
time

0

100 200 300 400

8

2

0.2

−2

0

time
u(t)

102

0

ey

y and yd

Evolution of ϕ(λ) vs λ

−2

0

0

100 200 300 400
time

Fig. 5. Behavior of the closed-loop system for the choice
(λ(2) , λf ) = (170, 0.0102) that violate the prescribed
bounds.
Connolly, D., Lund, H., Mathiesen, B., Pican, E., and
Leahy, M. (2012). The technical and economic implications of integrating fluctuating renewable energy using
energy storage. Renewable Energy, 43, 47–60.
Fliess, M. and Join, C. (2013). Model-free control.
arXiv:1305.7085v2.
Kar, I. (1999). Design of static output feedback controller
for uncertain systems. Automatica, 35(1), 169 – 175.
Li, G., Lin, Y., and Zhang, X. (2016). Adaptive output
feedback control for a class of nonlinear uncertain systems with quantized input signal. International Journal
of Robust and Nonlinear Control.
Nunes, E.V.L., Hsu, L., and Lizarralde, F. (2009). Global
exact tracking for uncertain systems using outputfeedback sliding mode control. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 54(5), 1141–1147.
Xialing, X., Jianghui, X., Youping, X., Ruyu, B., Hui, L.,
Tao, L., and Jing, Y. (2014). Research on the dynamic
frequency characteristic of large-scale power grid considering the action of power system splitting and load
shedding. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on power systems technology (powercon 2014).
Zhao, J., Lyu, X., Fu, Y., Hu, X., and Li, F. (2016).
Coordinated microgrid frequency regulation based on
dfig variable coefficient using virtual inertia and primary frequency control. IEEE Transactions on Energy
Conversion, 31(3), 833–845.
Zhou, J.X. (2011). Analytical study on possible selfexcited oscillation in s-shaped regions of pump-turbines.
Proc. IMech, 225, 1132–1142.

