On Observer-based Fault Detection for Nonlinear Systems
On Observer-based Fault Detection for Nonlinear Systems
theory [24]. Moreover, different cases for the application of the (5) is also called fault detection filter (FDF), where L is the observer
observer-based FD system are discussed. gain to be designed such that the FDF is stable and residual signal
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, needed pre- r (t ) satisfies
liminaries are introduced and the problems to be addressed are ∀u(t ), x(0), lim r (t ) = 0. (6)
formulated. Section 3 is devoted to the study on definitions and t →∞
existence conditions of observer-based FD systems. The integrated A norm of r (t ), typically L2 - or L∞ -norm, is adopted as residual
design of observer-based FD systems for affine nonlinear systems evaluation function, which is defined by
is proposed in Section 4, and different cases are addressed. In Sec- J = ∥r (t )∥ or J = ∥r (t )∥∞ . (7)
tion 5, examples are provided to illustrate the theoretical results.
Let Jth = supx0 ,w=0 J be the threshold, which is interpreted as the
Notations: Standard notation is adopted in this paper. In addi-
maximum influence of x(0) = x0 on the fault-free (w(t ) = 0)
tion, following definitions known in nonlinear stability theory are
residual vector r (t ). A simple form of detection logic is
used. R+ = [0, ∞). A function γ : R+ → R+ is said to be-
J > Jth =⇒ faulty
long to class K if it is continuous, strictly increasing, and satisfies
γ (0) = 0. A function β : R+ → R+ is said to belong to class L if detection logic: (8)
J ≤ Jth =⇒ fault-free.
it is continuous, strictly decreasing, and satisfies lims→∞ β(s) = 0.
In this paper, two essential nonlinear FD issues will be
A function φ(s, t ) : R+ × R+ → R+ is said to belong to class
addressed. The first one deals with definitions and the existence
KL if for each fixed t the function is of class K and for each fixed
conditions of observer-based FD systems for nonlinear systems (1).
s it is of class L. ∥ · ∥ stands for the Euclidean norm of a vector in
We will apply the well-established input–output stability theory
some Euclidean space; Br := {x ∈ Rn : ∥x∥ ≤ r for some r > 0}.
and the concept of weak detectability for nonlinear systems [26]
L2 (0, ∞) is the space P
∞ of functions u : R+ → R which are mea- to our study. It is worth to emphasize that our work is devoted to
surable and satisfy 0 ∥u(t )∥2 dt < ∞. L2,[0,τ ] -norm of u(t ) is de-
τ 1/2 the overall observer-based FD system with a residual generator,
fined and denoted by ∥uτ ∥2 = 0
∥u(t )∥2 dt , and ∥u∥∞ = an evaluator and a decision maker. The second issue is the design
ess sup {∥u(t )∥, t ≥ 0}. A function f : Rn → R is positive definite of nonlinear observer-based FD systems for affine systems (2). In
if f (x) > 0 for all x > 0, and f (0) = 0. By Vx,x̂ (x, x̂) we denote this work, the L2 -gain technique will serve as the investigation
tool [24]. We will propose a design scheme and apply it to different
Vx,x̂ (x, x̂) = Vx (x, x̂) Vx̂ (x, x̂)
design cases.
∂ V (x, x̂) ∂ V (x, x̂)
= . 3. On observer-based FD systems
∂x ∂ x̂
In this section, we introduce some basic definitions needed for
constructing a nonlinear observer-based FD system and study the
2. Preliminaries and problem formulation existence conditions.
Σ : ẋ = f (x, u), y = h(x, u) (1) For our purpose, we first introduce the configuration of the
where x ∈ Rn , u ∈ Rp , y ∈ Rm denote the state, output and observer-based FD systems to be addressed in this paper, which
input vectors, respectively. f (x, u) and h(x, u) are continuously consists of an observer-based residual generator, an evaluation
function and a decision maker.
differentiable nonlinear functions with appropriate dimensions.
The affine form of Σ , Definition 1. Given the nonlinear system (1), a system of the form
Σ : ẋ = a(x) + B(x)u, y = c (x) + D(x)u (2)
x̂˙ = φ(x̂, u, y) (9)
with a(x), B(x), c (x) and D(x) being continuously differentiable r = ϕ(x̂, u, y) (10)
and of appropriate dimensions, is a class of nonlinear systems
which are widely adopted in nonlinear system research. This class is called observer-based residual generator if it delivers a residual
of nonlinear systems can be considered as a natural extension of vector r satisfying that (i) for x̂(0) = x(0), ∀u, r (t ) ≡ 0 (ii) for
linear time-invariant (LTI) systems some w ̸= 0 in the faulty system (4), r (t ) ̸= 0.
In order to avoid loss of information about the faults, the
ẋ = Ax + Bu, y = Cx + Du (3)
residual vector has generally the same dimension like the output
where A ∈ Rn×n , B ∈ Rn×p , C ∈ Rm×n , D ∈ Rm×p . In the FD study vector. For the sake of simplicity, also considering the conditions
on LTI systems, faults are often modelled by extending (3) to (i) and (ii), we suppose that
with a threshold [25]. For LTI systems, the most widely applied type where α1 (∥r ∥) , α2 (∥r ∥) are some K -functions. Moreover, the
of residual generators is a full-order observer described by detection logic (8) will be used for decision making. To this end,
threshold setting is a major part of constructing an observer-based
x̂˙ = Ax̂ + Bu + Lr , r = y − ŷ, ŷ = C x̂ + Du. (5) FD system.
20 Y. Yang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 82 (2015) 18–25
Definition 2. Given the nonlinear system (1), a dynamic system is An immediate result of Theorem 1 is the following corollary,
called which can be used for the design of an L∞ observer-based FD
system.
• L∞ observer-based FD system, when it consists of the observer-
based residual generator (9) and (11), residual evaluation func- Corollary 1. Assume that system (1) is output re-constructible,
tion (12) and detection logic (8) with a corresponding threshold. x(0) − x̂(0) ≤ δo and the evaluation window is [t1 , t2 ], i.e. JE =
• L2 observer-based FD system, when it consists of the observer- ϕ1 (∥r (t )∥) , t ∈ [t1 , t2 ]. Then, an L∞ observer-based FD system
based residual generator (9) and (11), residual evaluation func-
can be built by (i) constructing residual generator (9) using φ being
tion (13) and detection logic (8) with a corresponding threshold.
defined in Definition 3 and(ii) setting the threshold Jth = β (δo , t1 ).
In the subsequent two subsections, we are going to study the
The proof follows
directly from
Theorem 1 and the definition of
existence conditions of the above two types of FD systems as well
KL-function β x(0) − x̂(0) , t , since
as the construction of the corresponding thresholds.
β x(0) − x̂(0) , t
Jth = max
∥x(0)−x̂(0)∥≤δo
3.2. On L∞ observer-based FD systems t ∈[t1 ,t2 ]
For our purpose, we first introduce the following definition,
=β x(0) − x̂(0) , min t = β (δo , t1 ) .
max
which is motivated by the so-called weak detectability given in [26]. ∥x(0)−x̂(0)∥≤δo t ∈[t1 ,t2 ]
The concept weak detectability is widely used in the study on the
stabilization of nonlinear systems by output feedback [27,28]. Corollary 1 reveals that if system (1) is output re-constructible,
a constant threshold can be found. On the other hand, such a
Definition 3. System (1) is said to be output re-constructible if setting could be too conservative. In order to improve the FD
there exist (i) a function φ : Rn × Rp × Rm → Rn and (ii) functions performance, the influence of the process input variables on the
V (x, x̂) : Rn × Rn → R+ , ϕi (·) ∈ K , i = 1, 2, 3, and positive residual vector should be generally taken into account. It will lead
constants δ, δu such that ∀x, x̂ ∈ Bδ , ∥u∥∞ ≤ δu to a so-called adaptive threshold, which allows a more efficient FD
than a constant one [25]. Moreover, considering that the L2,[0,τ ] -
ϕ1 (∥r ∥) ≤ V (x, x̂) ≤ ϕ2 x − x̂ , r = y − h(x̂, u)
(14) norm is often used for the residual evaluation purpose, we are
motivated to investigate the following detection scheme.
Vx (x, x̂)f (x, u) + Vx̂ (x, x̂)φ(x̂, u, y) ≤ −ϕ3 x − x̂ .
(15)
ẋ = f (x, u), y = h(x, u), x̂˙ = φ(x̂, u, y), Vx (x, x̂)f (x, u) + Vx̂ (x, x̂)φ(x̂, u, h(x, u))
r = y − h(x̂, u) ≤ −ϕ1 (∥r ∥) + ϕ2 (∥u∥). (18)
with u as its input and r as output. Function V (x, x̂) satisfying Comparing Definitions 3 and 4, it becomes evident that
(14)–(15) can be understood as a variant of the IOS-Lyapunov condition (18) is generally weaker than the conditions given in
function [30]. In fact, the residual generation problem can also Definition 3.
be studied in the IOS context. The motivation of introducing The following theorem presents the major result of this sub-
the output re-constructability is that in the model-based FDI section, a sufficient condition for the existence of an L2 observer-
framework, the output estimate ŷ is called analytical redundancy, based FD system.
and residual generation is equivalent with building analytical
redundancy. Theorem 2. Assume that system (1) is weakly output re-constructible.
The following theorem presents a major property of an output Then, an L2 observer-based FD system can be realized using functions
re-constructible system, which provides us with a sufficient ϕ1 , ϕ2 and by (i) constructing residual generator according
τ to (9) and
condition for the existence of an L∞ observer-based FD system and (11), (ii) defining the evaluation function as J = 0 ϕ1 (∥r (t )∥) dt
the threshold setting. and (iii) setting the threshold
τ
Theorem 1. Assume that system (1) is output re-constructible. Then, Jth = ϕ2 (∥u∥) dt + γ̄o , γ̄o = sup {γ0 } ,
system (9) with (11) as its output delivers a residual vector r (t ), and 0 x(0),x̂(0) (19)
it holds
γo = V x(0), x̂(0) .
∥r (t )∥ ≤ β x(0) − x̂(0) , t
(16)
Proof. It follows from (18) that
where β x(0) − x̂(0) , t ∈ KL.
V̇ (x, x̂) ≤ −ϕ1 (∥r (t )∥) + ϕ2 (∥u∥) .
A similar proof can be found in [31,30] using IOS-Lyapunov
function, as pointed out in Remark 2. Thus, it is omitted here. As a result,
It is evident that for a given initial estimation error x(0) − x̂(0) τ τ
ϕ1 (∥r ∥) dt ≤ ϕ2 (∥u∥) dt + V (x(0), x̂(0)). (20)
lim β x(0) − x̂(0) , t = 0.
(17) 0 0
t →∞
Property (17) is similar to (6) in the LTI case. The theorem is thus proved.
Y. Yang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 82 (2015) 18–25 21
In theoretical study on norm-based residual evaluation, it is Definition 5. Given the nonlinear system (2), the NFDF (25)–(26)
the state of the art that the evaluation window is assumed to be is called L2 -NFDF if it satisfies that for some constant γu ≥ 0
infinitively large, i.e.
∞ ∞ ∥rτ ∥22 ≤ γu2 ∥uτ ∥22 + γo (27)
J = ϕ5 (∥r ∥) dt =⇒ Jth = ϕ4 (∥u∥) dt + γ̄o . (21)
0 0 where γo ≥ 0 is a (finite) constant for given x(0), x̂(0).
In practice, this is not realistic, since a large evaluation window It follows from (27) that by an L2 -NFDF the threshold can be,
generally results in a (considerably) delayed fault detection. In on the assumption that γo is bounded for all possible x(0), x̂(0), set
dealing with nonlinear FD, a large evaluation window also means equal to
a high threshold due to the dependence on u. Considering that a
fault may happen after the system is in operation for a long time, Jth = γu2 ∥uτ ∥22 + sup {γo } . (28)
for a large evaluation window the influence of w on J may be much x(0),x̂(0)
weaker than u on Jth . As a result, the FD performance can become
poor. For these reasons, in practice the evaluation function and It allows then the application of the following decision logic,
threshold are often defined by
J = ∥rτ ∥22 > Jth =⇒ faulty
to +τ to +τ (29)
J = ∥rτ ∥22 ≤ Jth =⇒ fault-free
J = ϕ5 (∥r ∥) dt =⇒ Jth = ϕ4 (∥u∥) dt + γ̄o (22)
to to
for a successful FD. Note that the L2 -NFDF, the residual evaluation
where γ̄o = supx(t0 ),x̂(t0 ) {γo } represents the maximum γo for all function (29) and threshold setting (28) build a special realization
(bounded) possible x(t0 ), x̂(t0 ). In Section 5, this aspect will be of the FD scheme presented in Section 3. In fact, we have the
illustrated by examples. following relations
In this section, we have derived the existence conditions for τ
two types of nonlinear observer-based FD systems. Although J = ∥r τ ∥ =2
2 ∥r (t )∥2 dt =⇒ ϕ1 (∥r ∥) = ∥r ∥2
the achieved results do not lead to a direct design of a 0
nonlinear observer-based FD system, they are fundamental for Jth = γu2 ∥uτ ∥ + sup {γo } =⇒ ϕ2 (∥u∥) = (γu ∥u∥)2
2
2
x(0),x̂(0)
the application of some established nonlinear techniques for FD
system design. For instance, inspirited by the T–S-Fuzzy controller where ϕ1 , ϕ2 are defined in Theorem 2. Next, we study the design
design for nonlinear systems [32], we are investigating Fuzzy of L2 -NFDF, which means the determination of gain matrix L(x̂) so
observer-based FD system design based on the conditions given that (27) holds. Let
in Theorems 1–2. A further interesting application aspect is the
integrated design of control and diagnosis systems. As well-known, ẋ 0
= ¯ (x, x̂) + G(x, x̂)u +
f
weak detectability is an essential condition for the parametrization x̂˙ L(x̂)r
and design of nonlinear stabilization controllers [28]. It is of
r = y − ŷ, ŷ = c (x̂) + D(x̂)u
reasonable interest to apply the relationship between weak
a(x) B(x)
detectability and output re-constructability to the study on the f¯ (x, x̂) = , G(x, x̂) = .
integrated design of fault detection and control as well as fault- a(x̂) B(x̂)
tolerant control systems [25].
4. Design of L2 -FD systems for affine systems Theorem 3. Given the system (2) and the NFDF (25)–(26). Suppose
that (i) there exists a constant γ > 0 so that
In this section, we address FD system design issues. For our T
γ 2 I − D(x) − D(x̂) D(x) − D(x̂) > 0
(30)
purpose, we consider the affine systems described by (2).
and set Θ (x, x̂) given by
4.1. A design method for L2 -NFDF T
γ 2 I − D(x) − D(x̂) D(x) − D(x̂) = Θ T (x, x̂)Θ (x, x̂)
(31)
It follows from (16) that x̂(t ) = x(t ) if x̂(0) = x(0), which means
in turn that for all u with Θ (x, x̂) = Θ T (x, x̂) being a p × p matrix, (ii) there exists
V (x, x̂) ≥ 0 that solves Hamilton–Jacobi inequality (HJI)
φ(x, u, c (x) + D(x)u) = a(x) + B(x)u. (23)
1 T
Vx,x̂ (x, x̂)f¯ (x, x̂) + c (x)c (x) − c T (x̂)c (x̂)
As discussed in [33], for affine systems (2), (9) can then be written 2
into
1 −1 T
+ w(x, x̂) Θ T (x, x̂)Θ (x, x̂) w (x, x̂) ≤ 0
(32)
x̂˙ = φ(x̂, u, y) = a(x̂) + B(x̂)u + l x̂, u, y − c (x̂) − D(x̂)u
(24) 2
w(x, x̂) = Vx,x̂ (x, x̂)G(x, x̂) + c T (x) D(x) − D(x̂)
(33)
with l x̂, u, y − c (x̂) − D(x̂)u satisfying l (x, u, y − c (x) − D(x)u)
= 0. For the sake of simplicity, we restrict our study in the sequel and(iii) there exists L(x̂) solving
to
Vx̂ (x, x̂)L(x̂) = c T (x̂). (34)
x̂˙ = a(x̂) + B(x̂)u + L(x̂) y − c (x̂) − D(x̂)u
(25)
Then, it holds
r = ϕ(x̂, u, y) = y − c (x̂) − D(x̂)u. (26)
We call (25)–(26) NFDF, which is similarly like the LTI-FDF (5). ∥rτ ∥22 ≤ γ 2 ∥uτ ∥22 + 2V (x(0), x̂(0)). (35)
22 Y. Yang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 82 (2015) 18–25
Proof. Considering example of the previous study. It is helpful to gain a deeper insight
into the addressed nonlinear FD problems.
V̇ (x, x̂) = Vx,x̂ (x, x̂) f¯ (x, x̂) + G(x, x̂)u
Recall that for the L2 -stable system (2) it holds [24] for some
+ Vx̂ (x, x̂)L(x̂) y − c (x̂) − D(x̂)u γ̄ ≥ 0, γu > γ̄ , γ̄o > 0, γo > 0
and (34), it holds ∥yτ ∥2 ≤ γ̄ ∥uτ ∥2 + γ̄o ⇐⇒ ∥yτ ∥22 ≤ γu2 ∥uτ ∥22 + γo . (37)
V̇ (x, x̂) = Vx,x̂ (x, x̂) f¯ (x, x̂) + G(x, x̂)u
This means that the original system (2) itself can also serve as
T
+ ŷ − D(x̂)u y − ŷ .
an NFDF. Using the process input and output variables u, y in the
threshold setting (28) and detection logic (29), an FD system is then
Note that built. On the other hand, since γu2 can be (very) large, this leads to
1 1 1 a high threshold setting. Consequently, the fault detectability may
∥r ∥2 = yT y + ŷT ŷ − ŷT y become poor. In order to improve the FD performance, we now
2 2 2
apply a simple residual generator defined by
1 11
∥y∥2 = ∥c (x)∥2 + ∥D(x)u∥2 + c T (x)D(x)u
2 2 2 Σk : x̂˙ = a(x̂) + B(x̂)u, r = y − c (x̂) − D(x̂)u. (38)
1 2 1 2 1
ŷ = c (x̂) + D(x̂)u2 + c T (x̂)D(x̂)u
T
Let γ 2 I − D(x) − D(x̂) D(x) − D(x̂) > 0 and set
2 2 2
and moreover T
γ 2 I − D(x) − D(x̂) D(x) − D(x̂) = Θ T (x, x̂)Θ (x, x̂).
1
Θ (x, x̂)u − Θ −T (x, x̂)w T (x, x̂)2
If there exists V (x, x̂) ≥ 0 that solves the HJI
2
γ2 1 1
c (x) − c (x̂)2
Vx (x, x̂)a(x) + Vx̂ (x, x̂)a(x̂) +
D(x) − D(x̂) u2
= ∥u∥2 −
2 2 2
1 −1 T 1 −1 T
− w(x, x̂)u + w(x, x̂) Θ T (x, x̂)Θ (x, x̂) w (x, x̂). + w(x, x̂) Θ T (x, x̂)Θ (x, x̂) w (x, x̂) ≤ 0
(39)
2 2
It turns out, by HJI (32), w(x, x̂) = Vx (x, x̂)B(x) + Vx̂ (x, x̂)B(x̂)
T
+ c (x) − c (x̂) D(x) − D(x̂)
V̇ (x, x̂) = Vx,x̂ (x, x̂) f¯ (x, x̂) + G(x, x̂)u
1 2 then we have
− ∥r ∥2 − ∥y∥2 + ŷ
2 ∥rτ ∥22 ≤ γ 2 ∥uτ ∥22 + 2Vx (x(0), x̂(0)). (40)
T
− D(x̂)u c (x) − c (x̂) + D(x) − D(x̂) u
The proof of (40) is straightforward and can be done as follows.
1 2 Consider
≤ − Θ (x, x̂)u − Θ −T (x, x̂)w T (x, x̂)
2
V̇ (x, x̂) = Vx (x, x̂)a(x) + Vx̂ (x, x̂)a(x̂)
γ2 1
+ Vx (x, x̂)B(x) + Vx̂ (x, x̂)B(x̂) u
+ ∥ u∥ 2 − ∥r ∥2
2 2
∥r ∥2 1
c (x) − c (x̂)2 + c (x) − c (x̂) T
γ2
1 =
≤ 2
∥ u∥ − ∥r ∥ .
2
(36) 2 2
2 2 1 2
× D(x) − D(x̂) u + D(x) − D(x̂) u
Thus, by adopting the evaluation window [0, τ ], we finally have 2
1
∥rτ ∥22 ≤ γ 2 ∥uτ ∥22 + 2V (x(0), x̂(0)) Θ (x, x̂)u − Θ −T (x, x̂)w T (x, x̂)2
2
which completes the proof. γ2 1
D(x) − D(x̂) u2 − w(x, x̂)u
= ∥ u∥ 2 −
Theorem 3 provides us with an algorithm for the design of 2 2
an L2 -NFDF. It consists of (i) solving HJI (32) for V (x, x̂) and 1 −1 T
+ w(x, x̂) Θ T (x, x̂)Θ (x, x̂) w (x, x̂).
(ii) solving (34) for L(x̂). It is worth to notice that the solvability 2
of (32) and (34) leads to (36), which means that the affine system
It turns out
(2) is weakly output re-constructible, as discussed in Section 3.
If they are solvable, the following FD scheme can be applied: ∥r ∥2 γ2 1
c (x) − c (x̂)2
(i) run the residual generator (25)–(26), (ii) set Jth = γ 2 ∥uτ ∥22 + = ∥ u∥ 2 +
2 2 2
2V (x(0), x̂(0)) and (iii) set the decision logic (29). − Vx (x, x̂)B(x) + Vx̂ (x, x̂)B(x̂) u
It is worth to mention that the introduction of the threshold is to 1 −1 T
+ w(x, x̂) Θ T (x, x̂)Θ (x, x̂) w (x, x̂)
reduce false alarms. An alternative way is to apply decoupling tech-
2
nique to make the residual generator robust against uncertainty or
1 2
disturbance [8,25]. If an optimal decoupling can be achieved, the − Θ (x, x̂)u − Θ −T (x, x̂)w T (x, x̂) =⇒ V̇ (x, x̂)
threshold can be set very small so that a high fault detectability 2
becomes achievable. ∥r ∥2 γ2
≤− + ∥ u∥ 2 .
2 2
4.2. On FD schemes for L2 -stable systems
∥rτ ∥2 γ 2 ∥uτ ∥2
It yields 2 2 + V (x, x̂) ≤ 2
2
+ V (x(0), x̂(0)) and finally we
We now consider the NFDF design problem for a special class have (40).
of affine systems. We assume that (2) is L2 -stable. This work is We now compare the FD scheme based on (40) and the one
motivated by practical applications and can be considered as an given in (37). Recall that for the system (2), (37) holds only if
Y. Yang et al. / Systems & Control Letters 82 (2015) 18–25 23
[5] X. Zhang, M.M. Polycarpou, T. Parisini, Adaptive fault diagnosis and fault- [20] Z. Mao, B. Jiang, P. Shi, Protocol and fault detection design for nonlinear
tolerant control of MIMO nonlinear uncertain systems, Internat. J. Control 83 networked control systems, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II: Express briefs 56 (3)
(5) (2010) 1054–1080. (2009) 255–259.
[6] J. Bokor, G. Balas, Detection filter design for LPV systems—a geometric [21] M. Abid, W. Chen, S.X. Ding, A.Q. Khan, Optimal residual evaluation for
approach, Automatica 40 (3) (2004) 511–518. nonlinear systems using post-filter and threshold, Internat. J. Control 84 (3)
[7] S. Armeni, A. Casavola, E. Mosca, Robust fault detection and isolation for (2011) 526–539.
LPV systems under a sensitivity constraint, Internat. J. Adapt. Control Signal [22] A.Q. Khan, S.X. Ding, Threshold computation for fault detection in a class of
Process. 23 (1) (2009) 55–72. discrete-time nonlinear systems, Internat. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 25
[8] T. Floquet, J.P. Barbot, W. Perruquetti, M. Djemai, On the robust fault detection (5) (2011) 407–429.
via a sliding mode disturbance observer, Internat. J. Control 77 (7) (2004) [23] A.Q. Khan, M. Abid, S.X. Ding, Fault detection filter design for discrete-time
622–629. nonlinear systems—A mixed H− /H∞ optimization, Systems Control Lett. 67
[9] X.G. Yan, C. Edwards, Robust sliding mode observer-based actuator fault (2014) 46–54.
detection and isolation for a class of nonlinear systems, Int. J. Syst. Sci. 39 (4) [24] A. van der Schaft, L2—Gain and Passivity Techniques in Nonlinear Control,
(2008) 349–359. Springer, 2000.
[10] J. Zarei, M.A. Tajeddini, H.R. Karimi, Vibration analysis for bearing fault [25] S.X. Ding, Model-Based Fault Diagnosis Techniques—Design Schemes, Algo-
detection and classification using an intelligent filter, Mechatronics 24 (2) rithms and Tools, second ed., Springer-Verlag, London, 2013.
(2014) 151–157. [26] M. Vidyasagar, On the stabilization of nonlinear systems using state detection,
[11] S. Yin, G. Wang, H.R. Karimi, Data-driven design of robust fault detection IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 25 (3) (1980) 504–509.
system for wind turbine, Mechatronics 24 (4) (2014) 298–306. [27] D.-J. Pan, Z.-Z. Han, Z.-J. Zhang, Bounded-input-boundd-output stabilization
[12] J. Bokor, Z. Szabo, Fault detection and isolation in nonlinear systems, Annu. of nonlinear systems using state detectors, Systems Control Lett. 21 (3) (1993)
Rev. Control 33 (2) (2009) 113–123. 189–198.
[13] R. Seliger, P. Frank, Fault diagnosis by disturbance decoupled nonlinear [28] W.-M. Lu, A state-space approach to parameterization of stabilizing controllers
observers, in: Proc. of the 30th Conference on Decision and Control, 1991, for nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 40 (9) (1995) 1576–1588.
pp. 2248–2253. [29] K. Fujimoto, T. Sugie, State-space characterization of youla parametrization for
[14] H. Hammouri, M. Kinnaert, E.E. Yaagoubi, Observer-based approach to fault nonlinear systems based on input-to-state stability, in: Proc. of the 37th IEEE
detection and isolation for nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 44 Conference on Decision and Control, 1998, pp. 2479–2484.
(10) (1999) 1879–1884. [30] E. Sontag, Y. Wang, Lyapunov characterizations of input to output stability,
[15] P. Kabore, H. Wang, Design of fault diagnosis filters and fault-tolerant control SIAM J. Control Optim. 39 (1) (2001) 226–249.
for a class of nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 46 (11) (2001) [31] A.-R. Teel, L. Praly, A smooth Lyapunov function from a class-KL estimate
1805–1810. involving two positive semidefinite functions, Control Optim. Calc. Var. 29 (5)
[16] C.D. Persis, A. Isidori, A geometric approach to nonlinear fault detection and (2000) 313–367.
isolation, IEEE Trans. Automat. Control 46 (6) (2001) 853–865. [32] Q. Gao, G. Feng, Y. Wang, J. Qiu, Universal fuzzy controllers based on
[17] A.M. Pertew, H.J. Marquez, Q. Zhao, LMI-based sensor fault diagnosis for generalized T–S fuzzy models, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 201 (2012) 55–70.
nonlinear Lipschitz systems, Automatica 43 (8) (2007) 1464–1469. [33] E. Sontag, Y. Wang, Output-to-state stability and detectability of nonlinear
[18] X. Zhang, M.M. Polycarpou, T. Parisini, Fault diagnosis of a class of nonlinear systems, Systems Control Lett. 29 (5) (1997) 279–290.
uncertain systems with Lipschitz nonlinearities using adaptive estimation, [34] I. Karafyllis, C. Kravaris, Global exponential observers for two classes of
Automatica 46 (2) (2010) 290–299. nonlinear systems, Systems Control Lett. 61 (7) (2012) 797–806.
[19] X. He, Z. Wang, D. Zhou, Robust H∞ filtering for time-delay systems with [35] E. Sontag, Smooth stabilization implies coprime factorization, IEEE Trans.
probabilistic sensor faults, IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 16 (5) (2009) 442–445. Automat. Control 34 (4) (1989) 435–443.