Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

3 Aufrufe

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Textbook
- null
- Isermann
- comparison of tuning algorithms
- CLF-based. Tracking Control for UAV Kinematic Model With SAturation Constraints
- triboogy 2 andmech 4-2 electives question paper 2011
- [1]-sdarticle (10)
- Study of Control for the Automated Clutch
- Second International Conference on Control, Modeling and Computing (CMC - 2016)
- Hinf Delay Review
- A Recurrent Neural Network Based Real Time
- Chapter 7 diff eq sm
- Eee v Modern Control Theory [10ee55] Notes
- Improvement in the Performance of Online Control Applications and OptimizeIT ABB Suite for APC
- eth-8447-01
- Frst Order Tym Delay Systm
- Control_3_1
- Activity 03
- Chapter-3-Equilibrium-Solution-and-Stability-of-FO-DE.pdf
- Nonlinear Lect10

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

ISA Transactions

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Robust fuzzy Lyapunov stabilization for uncertain and disturbed

TakagiSugeno descriptors

T. Bouarar, K. Guelton

, N. Manamanni

CReSTIC, EA3804, University of Reims, Moulin de la House BP1039, 51687 Reims Cedex 2, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 17 November 2009

Received in revised form

15 June 2010

Accepted 23 June 2010

Available online 20 July 2010

Keywords:

TakagiSugeno

Redundancy

Descriptors

Robust fuzzy control

Non-quadratic

Fuzzy Lyapunov function

LMI

H

criterion

a b s t r a c t

In this paper, new robust H

considered. Based on Linear Matrix Inequalities, two different approaches are proposed. The first one

involves a classical closed-loop dynamics formulation and the second one a redundancy closed-loop

dynamics approach. The provided conditions are obtained through a fuzzy Lyapunov function candidate

and a non-PDC control law. Both the classical and redundancy approaches are compared. It is shown

that the latter leads to less conservative stability conditions. The efficiency of the proposed robust

control approaches for TS descriptors as well as the benefit of the redundancy approach are shown

throughanacademic example. Then, to showthe applicability of the proposedapproaches, the benchmark

stabilization of an inverted pendulum on a cart is considered.

2010 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the past three decades, TakagiSugeno (TS) fuzzy mod-

els [1] have attracted a great of deal interest in the control

community since they are able to approximate some nonlinear

systems based on fuzzy logic paradigm. Indeed, a TS fuzzy model

is a collection of a set of linear ones blended together by nonlinear

membership functions. Moreover, it is well known that an affine

nonlinear system can be exactly matched on a compact set of the

state space using for instance the sector nonlinearity approach [2].

The main interest of such an approach is that it allows extending

some of the linear control concepts to the case of nonlinear analy-

sis. Taking benefit of that property, TS models have been applied

invarious processes [36] and, regarding totheoretical results, sev-

eral works have dealt with stability analysis and controller de-

sign; see e.g. [711]. These are often based on the well-known

Parallel Distributed Compensation (PDC) paradigm[10] and stabil-

ity conditions are obtained from the Lyapunov theory in terms of

Linear or Bilinear Matrix Inequalities (LMI, BMI). Sufficient LMI sta-

bility conditions have been proposed using a quadratic Lyapunov

function (see e.g. [2,12] and the references therein). Nevertheless,

these studies lead to conservatismsince the existence of a common

E-mail address: kevin.guelton@univ-reims.fr (K. Guelton).

Lyapunov matrix has to be checked to ensure the stability of the

considered systems; see [13] for a review of the conservatism

sources. Many ways have been investigated to reduce the con-

servatism. Some of them propose to relax quadratic conditions

using transformations within the summation structure of the

closed-loop TS systems [14,15]. Some others propose to introduce

additional decision variables in the LMI problem [16,17]. More re-

cently, another type of Lyapunov function candidate has been pro-

posed. In this way, LMI stability conditions and controller synthesis

basedonthe piecewise Lyapunov functionhave beenproposed[18,

19] but remain irrelevant when analyzing a TS model obtained

from the sector nonlinearity approach [2]. With the same inten-

tion of reducing the conservatismof LMI conditions, non-quadratic

Lyapunov functions (NQLF) have beenconsideredfor non-PDCcon-

troller design in [2025]. Due to its adequacy with the sector non-

linearity approach, NQLF has proved a tremendous success with

the TS control community since they share the same fuzzy struc-

ture as the model to be analyzed.

The above referenced papers are mostly focusing on standard

TS systems (explicit systems) which remain to Ordinary Dif-

ferential Equations. A wider class of dynamical systems called

descriptors, are constituted by a set of Algebraic Differential Equa-

tions [2630]. These are useful to represent implicit or singular

systems as well as many physical systems like, for instance, me-

chanical [5,6,28] and electrical processes [29]. Despite numerous

works dealing with standard TS systems analysis, fewer stud-

ies have been done concerning TS descriptors. Therefore, some

0019-0578/$ see front matter 2010 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2010.06.003

448 T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

closed problems for standard systems are still open for descrip-

tors. Quadratic stability of such systems has been firstly studied

in [31,32]. Robust quadratic stability conditions for uncertain TS

descriptor systems have been proposed in terms of BMI [33] or

LMI [3436]. Some relaxed quadratic conditions introducing fuzzy

inferred slack variables have been proposed in [37]. And more re-

cently, with the intention to reduce the conservatism of LMI based

descriptor stability analysis, NQLF based analysis have been firstly

proposed in [38].

The purpose of this paper reaches two objectives. The first one is

to extend the previous works to robust fuzzy Lyapunov based non-

quadratic controller design for the class of uncertain and disturbed

TS descriptors. On the other hand, based on a redundancy prop-

erty, new approaches have been proposed to relax and reduce the

computational cost of LMI conditions for standard TS fuzzy mod-

els [39,40]. The main interest of such approaches is that they facil-

itate achieving LMI conditions since they avoid the appearance of

crossing terms in the closed-loop dynamics. Thus, the second con-

tributionof this paper aims at extending redundancy approaches to

the stability analysis and robust controller design of TS descrip-

tors. Moreover the superiority of redundancy approaches will be

demonstrated regarding to classical ones.

The paper is organized as follows. At first, the problem state-

ment of classical and redundancy closed-loop descriptor dynam-

ics, using a non-PDC control law, is proposed in the next section.

In Section 3, both the classical and redundancy non-quadratic ap-

proaches for non-PDC controller design are derived in terms of

LMI for the class of uncertain descriptors without external distur-

bances. Afterward, an H

extend the proposed results to robust controllers design ensuring

the attenuation of external disturbances. Finally, in the last section

two examples are provided. The first one considers an academic

nonlinear system devoted to compare the proposed classical and

redundancy approaches in terms of conservatism as well as to il-

lustrate the performances of the proposedrobust controller design.

The secondexample is devotedto showthe applicability of the pro-

posed approaches on a realistic nonlinear system. Therefore, the

study of the well-known benchmark of an inverted pendulum on

a cart is proposed.

2. Uncertain TS descriptor systems and problem statement

Let us consider the following bounded nonlinear uncertain and

disturbed descriptor systems represented by:

(E(x(t)) +E(x(t))) x(t) = (A(x(t)) +A(x(t)))x(t) +(B(x(t))

+B(x(t)))u(t) +W(x(t))(t) (1)

with x(t) R

n

, u(t) R

m

and (t) R

d

respectively the state,

the input and the unknown bounded external disturbances vec-

tors; E(x(t)) R

nn

, A(x(t)) R

nn

, B(x(t)) R

nm

and W(x(t))

R

dn

are norm bounded known nonlinear matrices describing

the nominal part of the considered system; E(x(t)) R

nn

,

A(x(t)) R

nn

and B(x(t)) R

nm

are unknown Lebesgue

measurable matrices describing the model uncertainties.

A convenient way to tackle the stabilization of (1) is to rewrite

it as a TS fuzzy model. There is many ways to obtain a TS model

from a nonlinear one. Note that a well-known systematic way to

write a TS model representing (1) is called the sector nonlinearity

approach [2]. It allows a TS model matching exactly a nonlinear

one on a compact set of the state space. In order to cope with

the nonlinear model structure (1), a TS fuzzy model of descriptor

systems has been firstly proposed in [31,32]. This one includes

specific membership structures respectively for the left and the

right hand side of the nonlinear descriptor model (1). In this case,

one can define respectively l and r the numbers of fuzzy rules in

the left and the right hand side of the resulting TS fuzzy descriptor

given by:

l

k=1

v

k

(z(t))(E

k

+E

k

(t)) x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z(t))((A

i

+A

i

(t))x(t)

+(B

i

+B

i

(t))u(t) +W

i

(t)) (2)

where v

k

(z(t)) 0, h

i

(z(t)) 0 are the membership functions

verifying the following convex sum properties

l

k=1

v

k

(z(t)) = 1

and

r

i=1

h

i

(z(t)) = 1, A

i

R

nn

, B

i

R

nm

and W

i

R

dn

are time invariant matrices, E

k

(t) R

nn

, A

i

(t) R

nn

and

B

i

(t) R

nm

are unknown Lebesgue measurable uncertainty

matrices bounded such that E

k

(t) = H

k

e

f

k

e

(t)N

k

e

, A

i

(t) =

H

i

a

f

i

a

(t)N

i

a

and B

i

(t) = H

i

b

f

i

b

(t)N

i

b

with H

k

e

, H

i

a

, H

i

b

, N

k

e

, N

i

a

and N

i

b

are known real matrices and f

k

e

(t), f

i

a

(t) and f

i

b

(t) are unknown

time varying normalized functions such that f

{i,k}T

{e,a,b}

(t)f

{i,k}

{e,a,b}

(t) I.

Remark 1. In this study, one assumes that (2) is regular and im-

pulse free [28].

Remark 2. For more details on the well-known TS fuzzy model

representation of nonlinear systems and how to obtain it, the

reader can refer to [2]. Moreover, an example is proposed in the

last section of this paper to illustrate how to obtain an uncertain

and disturbed TS fuzzy descriptor (2) from a nonlinear system of

the form (1) using the well-known sector nonlinearity approach.

A modified PDC (Parallel Distributed Compensation) control

law has been proposed for the quadratic stabilization of TS de-

scriptors [32]. In that case, the designed fuzzy controller shares

the same membership functions regarding to the considered fuzzy

model. Note that, in order to derive non-quadratic stability con-

ditions for standard TS fuzzy models, a Lyapunov dependent

nonlinear matrix must be introduced in the PDC scheme for LMI

purpose [20,24,33,39]. In the present study, to deal with TS fuzzy

descriptors non-quadratic stabilization, one proposes the follow-

ing modified non-PDC control law:

u(t) =

l

k=1

r

i=1

v

k

(z(t))h

i

(z(t))F

ik

_

l

k=1

r

i=1

v

k

(z(t))h

i

(z(t))X

1

ik

_

1

x(t) (3)

where F

ik

and X

1

ik

> 0 are real gain matrices with appropriate di-

mensions to be synthesized.

Notations. Along this paper, in order to improve the readability

of the involved mathematical expressions, the following notations

will be used. Let us consider, for i = 1, . . . , r and k = 1, . . . , l,

the scalar membershipfunctions h

i

(z(t)) andv

k

(z(t)), the matrices

Y

k

, G

i

, T

ik

and L

ijk

with appropriate dimensions, we will denote:

Y

v

=

l

k=1

v

k

(z(t))Y

k

,

G

h

=

r

i=1

h

i

(z(t))G

i

,

T

hv

=

l

k=1

r

i=1

v

k

(z(t))h

i

(z(t))T

ik

and

L

hhv

=

l

k=1

r

i=1

r

j=1

v

k

(z(t))h

i

(z(t))h

j

(z(t))L

ijk

.

As usual a star () indicates a transpose quantity in a symmetric

matrix.

Following previous studies on descriptor systems [3133], the

stability is investigating by considering an extended state vector

T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461 449

x(t) =

_

x

T

(t) x

T

(t)

_

T

. Thus (2) can be rewritten with the above-

defined notations as:

E x(t) = A

hv

x(t) +B

h

u(t) +W

h

(t) (4)

with

E =

_

I 0

0 0

_

, A

hv

=

_

0 I

A

h

+A

h

(t) E

v

E

v

(t)

_

,

B

h

=

_

0

B

h

+B

h

(t)

_

and W

h

=

_

0

W

h

_

.

Following the same way, the control law (3) can be rewritten as:

u(t) = K

hv

x(t) (5)

with K

hv

=

_

F

hv

(X

1

hv

)

1

0

_

.

Note that two ways are possible to express the closed-loop

dynamics. The first one, usually employed in previous studies [31

35,38], is called classical closed-loop dynamics in the present

study. That one is obtained by substituting (5) in (4) and is given

by:

E x(t) = (A

hv

B

h

K

hv

)x(t) +W

h

(t). (6)

In this paper, one proposes another way to express the closed-

loop dynamics of TS fuzzy descriptors. That one is called the

redundancy closed-loop dynamics. It is obtained by introducing

a virtual dynamics in the modified non-PDC control law(5). That is

to say, (5) can be rewritten as:

0 u(t) = u(t) +K

hv

x(t) (7)

where 0 R

mm

is a zero matrix.

Thus, considering a new extended state vector x(t) =

_

x

T

(t)

u

T

(t)

_

T

, combining (4) and (7), the redundancy closed-loop dyna-

mics can be expressed as:

x(t) =

A

hv

x(t) +

W

h

(t) (8)

with

E =

_

E 0

0 0

_

,

A

hv

=

_

A

hv

B

h

K

hv

I

_

and

W

h

=

_

W

h

0

_

.

Remark 3. Let us point out that the classical closed-loop dyna-

mics (6) involves crossing terms between the gain and the input

matrices K

hv

and B

h

which constitute a source of conservatism

when designing a fuzzy controller. For more details and a

complete review of conservatism sources, see [13]. Unlike the

classical closed-loop dynamics, the redundancy closed-loop dy-

namics (8) allows decoupling these matrices and so, it leads to

less conservatism. This point will be demonstrated and shown in

what follows. Moreover, note finally that, apart from our prelimi-

nary study [38], to the best of the authors knowledge, there are no

existing results in the literature for TS descriptor stabilization in

the non-quadratic framework.

The goal now is to provide Linear Matrix Inequalities (LMI) sta-

bility conditions allowing to design a controller (3) stabilizing (2).

In the following sections, both sufficient stability conditions us-

ing the classical closed-loop dynamics (6) and the redundancy

closed-loop dynamics (8) will be investigated, compared and dis-

cussed.

3. LMI based stabilization for uncertain and disturbed TS

descriptors

In this section, non-quadratic stability conditions will be

proposed using first the classical closed-loop dynamics (6), then

the redundancy closed-loop dynamics (8). The following lemma

will be useful to prove the LMI conditions proposed in the sequel.

Lemma 1 ([41]). For any real matrices X and Y with appropriate

dimensions, there exist a positive scalar such that the following

inequality holds:

X

T

Y +Y

T

X X

T

X +

1

Y

T

Y. (9)

3.1. Stabilization based on the classical closed-loop dynamics

LMI non-quadratic stability conditions have been firstly derived

froma fuzzy Lyapunov function (FLF) for uncertain TS descriptors

in our preliminary study [38] using a classical closed-loop

dynamics described by (6) without external disturbances ((t) =

0). In [24], LMI stability conditions of less conservatism have been

proposed for standard TS fuzzy systems in the non-quadratic

framework. Based on this approach, the following theorem

improved the LMI conditions proposed in [38] for uncertain TS

descriptor systems.

Theorem 1. Assume that z(t) = 1, . . . , r

h

(z(t))

and

= 1, . . . , l, v

(z(t))

globally asymptotically stable via the non-PDC control law(3), if there

exist the matrices X

1

jk

= (X

1

jk

)

T

> 0, X

3

ij

, X

4

ij

> 0 (or < 0), R

1

=

R

T

1

, R

2

= R

T

2

and F

jk

, the positive scalars

1

ijk

,

2

ijk

,

3

ijk

and

4

ijk

such

that the following LMIs are satisfied for all i, j = 1, . . . , r and k =

1, . . . , l:

ijk

< 0 (10)

X

1

jk

+R

1

0 (11)

X

1

jk

+R

2

0 (12)

where

ijk

is as given in Box I.

Proof. Let us consider the following candidate fuzzy Lyapunov

function (FLF):

V(x(t)) = x

T

(t)E(X

hhv

)

1

x(t). (13)

In what follows, for space convenience, the time t in a time varying

variable will be omitted when there is no ambiguity.

From (13), one needs:

E(X

hhv

)

1

= (X

hhv

)

T

E > 0. (14)

This condition leads, as classical for descriptor systems (see e.g.

[38]), to X

hhv

=

_

X

1

hv

0

X

3

hh

X

4

hh

_

with X

1

hv

= (X

1

hv

)

T

> 0. Moreover,

(X

hhv

)

1

exists if the matrix X

4

hh

is invertible, i.e. if X

4

hh

> 0 or

X

4

hh

< 0. Note that the fuzzy interconnection structure of X

1

hv

, X

3

hh

and X

4

hh

is chosen for LMI purpose (see below Eq. (22)).

Then, the closed-loop system (6) is stable if:

V(x) =

x

T

E(X

hhv

)

1

x +x

T

E(X

hhv

)

1

x +x

T

E

(X

hhv

)

1

x

< 0. (15)

According to (14) and (6), (15) yields:

(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

)

T

(X

hhv

)

1

+((X

hhv

)

1

)

T

(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

) +E

(X

hhv

)

1

x < 0. (16)

Multiplying left and right respectively by X

T

hhv

and X

hhv

, and

considering (14), (16) becomes:

X

T

hhv

(A

T

hv

K

T

hv

B

T

h

) +(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

)X

hhv

+E(X

hhv

)

(X

hhv

)

1

X

hhv

< 0. (17)

450 T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

ijk

=

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

(1,1)

ijk

() () () () 0

N

i

a

X

1

jk

1

ijk

I 0 0 0 0

N

i

b

F

jk

0

2

ijk

I 0 0 0

N

k

e

X

3

ij

0 0

3

ijk

I 0 0

(X

4

ij

)

T

+A

i

X

1

jk

E

k

X

3

ij

B

i

F

jk

0 0 0

(5,5)

ijk

()

0 0 0 0 N

k

e

X

4

ij

4

ijk

I

_

(1,1)

ijk

= X

3

ij

+(X

3

ij

)

T

_

r

=1

(X

1

k

+R

1

) +

l

=1

(X

1

i

+R

2

)

_

and

(5,5)

ijk

= (X

4

ij

)

T

E

T

k

E

k

X

4

ij

+

1

ijk

H

i

a

(H

i

a

)

T

+

2

ijk

H

i

b

(H

i

b

)

T

+

3

ijk

H

k

e

(H

k

e

)

T

+

4

ijk

H

k

e

(H

k

e

)

T

.

Box I.

Now, since

(X

hhv

)

1

=

d

dt

_

(X

hhv

)

1

X

hhv

_

(X

hhv

)

1

(X

hhv

)

1

=

(X

hhv

)

1

X

hhv

(X

hhv

)

1

+(X

hhv

)

1

X

hhv

(X

hhv

)

1

(X

hhv

)

1

= (X

hhv

)

1

X

hhv

(X

hhv

)

1

(18)

inequality (17) becomes:

X

T

hhv

(A

T

hv

K

T

hv

B

T

h

) +(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

)X

hhv

E

X

hhv

< 0 (19)

which can be extended, with the matrices defined in (4) and (5),

under the condition in Box II.

Applying Lemma 1, (20) is satisfied as in Box III.

Then, applying the Schur complement, one obtains the inequality

in Box IV.

Note that the minimal interconnection structure for (22) is a triple

sum (hhv). This justify the choice made on the interconnection

of the Lyapunov matrices X

1

hv

, X

3

hh

and X

4

hh

. Therefore, since the

membership functions verify the convex sum properties, one has:

X

1

hv

=

r

j=1

l

k=1

h

j

v

k

X

1

jk

+

r

j=1

l

k=1

h

j

v

k

X

1

jk

=

l

k=1

r

j=1

h

j

v

k

_

r

=1

X

1

k

+

l

=1

v

X

1

j

_

. (23)

Moreover, following the relaxation scheme proposed in [24], one

considers R

1

and R

2

real constant matrices. Therefore, one has

r

=1

h

(z(t))R

1

= 0 and

l

=1

v

(z(t))R

2

= 0 and so, without

loss of generality, (23) can be rewritten such that:

X

1

hv

=

l

k=1

r

j=1

h

j

v

k

_

r

=1

(X

1

k

+R

1

) +

l

=1

v

(X

1

j

+R

2

)

_

. (24)

Then, let us consider, for i = 1, . . . , r,

i

the lower bounds of

h

i

(z(t)) and, for k = 1, . . . , l,

k

the lower bounds of v

k

(z(t)), (24)

can be bounded such that:

X

1

hv

l

k=1

r

j=1

h

j

v

k

_

r

=1

(X

1

k

+R

1

)

+

l

=1

(X

1

j

+R

2

)

_

(25)

for which, the condition (11) and (12) are necessary.

Now, from (22) and (25), one has

V(x)

r

i=1

r

j=1

l

k=1

h

i

h

j

v

k

ijk

< 0 (26)

with

ijk

defined in (10).

Finally, (26) is sufficiently satisfied if (10) holds. That ends the

proof.

Remark 4. In previous works [38], one has considered:

X

1

hv

l

k=1

r

j=1

h

j

v

k

_

r1

=1

(X

1

k

X

1

rk

)

+

l1

=1

(X

1

j

X

1

jl

)

_

(27)

instead of (25) to derive LMI stability conditions. As shown in [24],

this kind of boundary remains conservative and may be easily

improved. Therefore, extending this works to descriptors systems,

Theorem 1 provides less conservative results since (25) obviously

include (27). Indeed, R

1

and R

2

being free slack matrices, (27) is a

particular case of (25) where R

1

= X

1

rk

and R

2

= X

1

jl

. Note also

that the quadratic cases [34,35,37] are included in Theorem 1 by

considering X

1

jk

= X

1

common matrix for all i, j and R

1

= R

2

=

X

1

.

Remark 5. For i = 1, . . . , r and k = 1, . . . , l, h

i

(z(t)) and

v

k

(z(t)) are required to be at least C

1

. This is obviously satisfied

for fuzzy models constructed via a sector nonlinearity approach [2]

if the system (1) is at least C

1

or, for instance when membership

functions are chosen with a smoothed Gaussian shape.

3.2. Stability conditions based on redundancy closed-loop dynamics

Now, LMI conditions for non-quadratic controller (3) design

for uncertain TS descriptor (2) (without external disturbances)

being established by Theorem 1 based on the classical closed-

loop dynamics (6) approach, one proposes to extend them by

considering the redundancy closed-loop dynamics (8). The result

is proposed in the following theorem.

Theorem 2. Assume that, z(t) {1, . . . , r}

h

(z(t))

(z(t))

system (2) (with (t) = 0) is globally asymptotically stable via

the non-PDC control law (3) if there exist, for i = 1, . . . , r and for

k = 1, . . . , l, the matrices X

1

jk

= (X

1

jk

)

T

> 0, X

4

ij

, X

5

ij

> 0 (or <

0), X

6

ij

, X

7

jk

, X

8

jk

, X

9

jk

> 0 (or < 0), R

1

= R

T

1

, R

2

= R

T

2

and F

ik

,

T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461 451

_

_

_

_

_

(X

3

hh

)

T

+X

3

hh

X

1

hv

()

_

_

_

(X

4

hh

)

T

+A

h

X

1

hv

E

v

X

3

hh

B

h

F

hv

+H

h

a

f

h

a

(t)N

h

a

X

1

hv

H

v

e

f

v

e

(t)N

v

e

X

3

hh

H

h

b

f

h

b

(t)N

h

b

F

hv

_

_

_

_

(X

4

hh

)

T

E

T

v

E

v

X

4

hh

(X

4

hh

)

T

(N

v

e

)

T

(f

v

e

)

T

(t)(H

v

e

)

T

H

v

e

f

v

e

(t)N

v

e

X

4

hh

_

_

_

< 0 (20)

Box II.

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

(X

3

hh

)

T

+X

3

hh

+(

1

hvv

)

1

(X

1

hv

)

T

(N

h

a

)

T

N

h

a

X

1

hv

+(

2

hhv

)

1

F

T

hv

(N

h

b

)

T

N

h

b

F

hv

+(

3

hhv

)

1

(X

3

hh

)

T

(N

v

e

)

T

N

v

e

X

3

hh

X

1

hv

_

_

_ ()

(X

4

hh

)

T

+A

h

X

1

hv

E

v

X

3

hh

B

h

F

hv

_

_

_

(X

4

hh

)

T

E

T

v

E

v

X

4

hh

+

1

hhv

H

h

a

(H

h

a

)

T

+

2

hhv

H

h

b

(H

h

b

)

T

+(

4

hhv

)

1

(X

4

hh

)

T

(N

v

e

)

T

N

v

e

X

4

hh

+

3

hhv

H

v

e

(H

v

e

)

T

+

4

hhv

H

v

e

(H

v

e

)

T

_

_

_

_

_

< 0 (21)

Box III.

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

X

3

hh

+(X

3

hh

)

T

X

1

hv

() () () () 0

N

h

a

X

1

hv

1

hhv

I 0 0 0 0

N

h

b

F

hv

0

2

hhv

I 0 0 0

N

v

e

X

3

hh

0 0

3

hhv

I 0 0

_

(X

4

hh

)

T

+A

h

X

1

hv

E

v

X

3

hh

B

h

F

hv

_

0 0 0

_

_

(X

4

hh

)

T

E

T

v

E

v

X

4

hh

+

1

hhv

H

h

a

(H

h

a

)

T

+

2

hhv

H

h

b

(H

h

b

)

T

+

3

hhv

H

v

e

(H

v

e

)

T

+

4

hhv

H

v

e

(H

v

e

)

T

_

_

()

0 0 0 0 N

v

e

X

4

hh

4

hhv

I

_

_

< 0 (22)

Box IV.

the positive scalars

1

ijk

,

2

ijk

,

3

ijk

,

4

ijk

,

5

ijk

,

6

ijk

and

7

ijk

such that the

following LMI conditions are satisfied for all i, j = 1, . . . , r and

k = 1, . . . , l:

ijk

< 0 (28)

X

1

jk

+R

1

0 (29)

X

1

jk

+R

2

0 (30)

where

ijk

is as in Box V.

Proof. Let us consider the following candidate fuzzy Lyapunov

function:

V (x(t)) = x

T

(t)

E

_

X

hhv

_

1

x(t) (31)

with

E

_

X

hhv

_

1

=

_

X

hhv

_

T

E > 0. (32)

Considering that x(t) =

_

x

T

(t) x

T

(t) u

T

(t)

_

T

, (32) imposes that

X

hhv

=

_

_

X

1

hv

0 0

X

4

hh

X

5

hh

X

6

hh

X

7

hv

X

8

hv

X

9

hv

_

_

with X

1

hv

=

_

X

1

hv

_

T

> 0.

Note that,

_

X

hhv

_

1

exists if (X

5

hh

> 0 or X

5

hh

< 0) and (X

9

hv

> 0 or

X

9

hv

< 0).

The TS descriptor (2) with (t) = 0 is stabilized by (3) if:

V(x) =

x

T

E

_

X

hhv

_

1

x + x

T

E

_

X

hhv

_

1

x

+ x

T

E

(

X

hhv

)

1

x < 0. (33)

Now, from (33), following the same path as for the proof of Theo-

rem1 (see Eqs. (15)(20)), after applying Lemma 1, one obtains the

inequality in Box VI.

(1,1)

,

(2,2)

and

(3,3)

in Box VI are defined as

follows:

(1,1)

= X

4

hh

+

_

X

4

hh

_

T

X

1

hv

+

_

1

hhv

_

1

_

X

1

hv

_

T

_

N

h

a

_

T

N

h

a

X

1

hv

+

_

2

hhv

_

1

_

X

4

hh

_

T

_

N

v

e

_

T

N

v

e

X

4

hh

+

_

3

hhv

_

1

_

X

7

hv

_

T

_

N

h

b

_

T

N

h

b

X

7

hv

,

(2,2)

= E

v

X

5

hh

_

X

5

hh

_

T

E

T

v

+B

h

X

8

hv

+

_

X

8

hv

_

T

B

T

h

+

1

hhv

H

h

a

_

H

h

a

_

T

+

_

2

hhv

+

4

hhv

_

H

v

e

_

H

v

e

_

T

+

_

3

hhv

+

5

hhv

_

H

h

b

_

H

h

b

_

T

+

_

4

hhv

_

1

_

X

5

hh

_

T

_

N

v

e

_

T

N

v

e

X

5

hh

+

_

5

hhv

_

1

_

X

8

hv

_

T

_

N

h

b

_

T

N

h

b

X

8

hv

+

6

hhv

_

H

v

e

_

T

H

v

e

+

7

hhv

(H

h

b

)

T

H

h

b

and

(3,3)

= X

9

hv

+(X

9

hv

)

T

+(

6

hhv

)

1

_

X

6

hh

_

T

(N

v

e

)

T

N

v

e

X

6

hh

+

_

7

hhv

_

1

(X

9

hv

)

T

_

N

h

b

_

T

N

h

b

X

9

hv

.

Then, applying the Schur complement, (34) becomes the inequality

in Box VII.

Now, similarly to the proof of Theorem 1 (see inequality (24)), X

1

hv

can be bounded such that:

X

1

hv

l

k=1

r

j=1

h

j

v

k

_

r

=1

_

X

1

k

+R

1

_

+

l

=1

_

X

1

j

+R

2

_

_

(36)

with, for = 1, . . . , r, = 1, . . . , l X

1

k

+R

1

0 and X

1

j

+R

2

0.

452 T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

ijk

=

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

(1,1)

ijk

() () () () 0 0 0 0 0

N

i

a

X

1

jk

1

ijk

I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N

k

e

X

4

ij

0

2

ijk

I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N

i

b

X

7

jk

0 0

3

ijk

I 0 0 0 0 0 0

(5,1)

ijk

0 0 0

(5,5)

ijk

() () () 0 0

0 0 0 0 N

k

e

X

5

ij

4

ijk

I 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 N

i

b

X

8

jk

0

5

ijk

I 0 0 0

(8,1)

ijk

0 0 0

(8,5)

ijk

0 0 X

9

jk

+(X

9

jk

)

T

() ()

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N

k

e

X

6

ij

6

ijk

I 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N

i

b

X

9

jk

0

7

ijk

I

_

(1,1)

ijk

= X

4

ij

+(X

4

ij

)

T

_

r

=1

(X

1

k

+R

1

) +

l

=1

(X

1

j

+R

2

)

_

,

(8,1)

ijk

= (X

6

ij

)

T

+F

ik

+X

7

jk

,

(5,1)

ijk

= A

i

X

1

jk

E

k

X

4

ij

+(X

5

ij

)

T

+B

i

X

7

jk

,

(8,5)

ijk

= (X

6

ij

)

T

E

T

k

+(X

9

jk

)

T

B

T

i

+X

8

jk

and

(5,5)

ijk

= E

k

X

5

ij

(X

5

ij

)

T

E

T

k

+B

i

X

8

jk

+(X

8

jk

)

T

B

T

i

+

1

ijk

H

i

a

(H

i

a

)

T

+(

2

ijk

+

4

ijk

)H

k

e

(H

k

e

)

T

+(

3

ijk

+

5

ijk

)H

i

b

(H

i

b

)

T

+

6

ijk

(H

k

e

)

T

H

k

e

+

7

ijk

(H

i

b

)

T

H

i

b

.

Box V.

_

_

(1,1)

() ()

A

h

X

1

hv

E

v

X

4

hh

+(X

5

hh

)

T

+B

h

X

7

hv

(2,2)

()

(X

6

hh

)

T

+F

hv

+X

7

hv

_

X

6

hh

_

T

E

T

v

+(X

9

hv

)

T

B

T

h

+X

8

hv

(3,3)

_

_

< 0 (34)

Box VI.

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

(1,1)

hhv

() () () () 0 0 0 0 0

N

h

a

X

1

hv

1

hhv

I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N

v

e

X

4

hh

0

2

hhv

I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

N

h

b

X

7

hv

0 0

3

hhv

I 0 0 0 0 0 0

(5,1)

hhv

0 0 0

(5,5)

hhv

() () () 0 0

0 0 0 0 N

v

e

X

5

hh

4

hhv

I 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 N

h

b

X

8

hv

0

5

hhv

I 0 0 0

(8,1)

hhv

0 0 0

(8,5)

hhv

0 0 X

9

hv

+(X

9

hv

)

T

() ()

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N

v

e

X

6

hh

6

hhv

I 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N

h

b

X

9

hv

0

7

hhv

I

_

_

< 0 (35)

with

(1,1)

hhv

= X

4

hh

+

_

X

4

hh

_

T

X

1

hv

,

(5,1)

hhv

= A

h

X

1

hv

E

v

X

4

hh

+

_

X

5

hh

_

T

+ B

h

X

7

hv

,

(8,1)

hhv

= (X

6

hh

)

T

+ F

hv

+ X

7

hv

,

(8,5)

hhv

= (X

6

hh

)

T

E

T

v

+

_

X

9

hv

_

T

B

T

h

+ X

8

hv

and

(5,5)

hhv

= E

v

X

5

hh

_

X

5

hh

_

T

E

T

v

+ B

h

X

8

hv

+

_

X

8

hv

_

T

B

T

h

+

1

hhv

H

h

a

_

H

h

a

_

T

+

7

hhv

_

H

h

b

_

T

H

h

b

+

_

2

hhv

+

4

hhv

_

H

v

e

_

H

v

e

_

T

+

_

3

hhv

+

5

hhv

_

H

h

b

_

H

h

b

_

T

+

6

hhv

_

H

v

e

_

T

H

v

e

Box VII.

Thus, considering (35) and (36), the TS descriptor (2) with

(t) = 0 is stabilized by (3) if the LMI conditions of Theorem 2

hold. That ends the proof.

Remark 6. To ensure the stability of the considered closed-loop

dynamics, one has to check the existence of

X

hhv

=

_

X

1

hv

0

X

3

hh

X

4

hh

_

in Theorem 1 or

X

hhv

=

_

_

X

1

hv

0 0

X

4

hh

X

5

hh

X

6

hh

X

7

hv

X

8

hv

X

9

hv

_

_

in Theorem 2. Note that the redundancy closed-loop dynamics

approach is introducing some additional slack decision variables

leading to reduce the conservatism of LMI conditions rather than

classical closed-loop dynamics approach. Moreover, it can be

easily shown that the classical closed-loop dynamics approach

is a particular case of the redundancy closed-loop dynamics

one. Indeed, according to the fuzzy Lyapunov function (31) and

its symmetric condition (32), the matrices X

4

ij

, X

5

ij

, X

6

ij

, X

7

jk

, X

8

jk

and

X

9

jk

, for i, j = 1, 2, . . . , r and k = 1, 2, . . . , l, are slack (free of

choice) decision variables. Indeed, the only necessary condition for

(31) to be a Lyapunov candidate function is X

1

jk

= (X

1

jk

)

T

> 0 for

j = 1, 2, . . . , r and k = 1, 2, . . . , l. Thus, replacing the matrices

X

4

ij

, X

5

ij

and X

7

jk

respectively by X

3

ij

, X

4

ij

and F

jk

, then considering

T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461 453

X

6

ij

= 0, X

8

jk

= 0 and X

9

jk

= 0, one obtains the conditions of

Theorem 1 from the ones of Theorem 2.

Remark 7. Descriptor redundancy has been firstly used in [39] for

standard state space TS fuzzy models without uncertainties. In

that case, the authors show that it allows reducing the computa-

tional cost of LMI based design since it reduces the number of LMIs

regarding to classical approaches. Note that, when dealing about

descriptor systems with different membership structure for the

left and the right hand side of the TS fuzzy model, i.e. v

i

(z) =

h

i

(z), the number of LMI to be solved remains the same in both the

cases (Theorems 1 and2). Therefore, inthe present study, the bene-

fit of the descriptor redundancy is not to reduce the computational

cost but to reduce the conservatism.

4. H

The above LMI stability conditions, proposed in both the Theo-

rems 1 and 2, stand for (t) = 0. This section aims at extending the

previous results to robust non-PDC controller design for uncertain

and disturbed TS descriptors using an H

to stabilize (1) such that the influence of the external disturbance

(t) regarding to the state dynamics is minimized. To do so, let us

consider the following H

criterion:

_

t

f

t

0

x

T

(t)Qx(t)

2

_

t

f

t

0

T

(t)(t) 0 (37)

where t

0

is the initial time, t

f

is the final time, is the attenuation

level and Q > 0 is a weighting symmetric matrix.

Recall that two ways have been investigated for TS descriptors

stabilization. The first one involved the classical closed-loop

dynamics (6) considering the extended state vector x(t) =

_

x

T

(t) x

T

(t)

_

T

and the second one involved the redundancy

closed-loop dynamics (8) with the extended state vector x(t) =

_

x

T

(t) u

T

(t)

_

T

. Thus, once again, two paths can be prospected for

the H

4.1. H

dynamics

Let us consider the extended state vector x(t) = [x

T

(t) x

T

(t)]

T

,

the H

_

t

f

t

0

x

T

(t)Qx(t)

2

_

t

f

t

0

T

(t)(t) 0 (38)

with Q =

_

Q 0

0 0

_

.

A robust H

sidering the classical closed-loop dynamics (6) is summarized in

the following theorem.

Theorem 3. Assume that, z(t), = 1, . . . , r,

h

(z(t))

and = 1, . . . , l, v

(z(t))

systems (2) (with (t) = 0) is globally asymptotically stable via the

non-PDC control law(3) guaranteeing the H

performance , if there

exist the matrices X

1

jk

= X

1

jk

T

> 0, X

3

ij

, X

4

ij

> 0 (or < 0), R

1

=

R

T

1

, R

2

= R

T

2

, and F

jk

, the positive scalars =

2

,

1

ijk

,

2

ijk

,

3

ijk

,

4

ijk

such that the following LMIs are satisfied for all i, j = 1, . . . , r and

k = 1, . . . , l:

_

_

ijk

()

X

1

jk

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 W

T

i

0

Q

1

0

0 I

_

_

< 0 (39)

X

1

jk

+R

1

0 (40)

X

1

jk

+R

2

0 (41)

with

ijk

defined in Theorem 1.

Proof. The disturbed classical closed-loop dynamics (6) is stable

under the H

performance (38) if

V(x) +x

T

Qx

2

T

< 0 (see

Box VIII).

Multiplying (42) respectively left by diag

_

X

T

hhv

I

_

and right by

diag

_

X

hhv

I

_

, one obtains the inequality in Box IX.

Now, following the same path as for the proof of Theorem 1, after

applying the Schur complement and using the change of variable

=

2

, one obtains the conditions of Theorem 3. That ends the

proof.

4.2. H

loop dynamics

Now, let us consider the extended state vector x(t) =

_

x

T

(t)

x

T

(t) u

T

(t)

_

T

, the H

_

t

f

t

0

x

T

(t)

Q x(t)

2

_

t

f

t

0

T

(t)(t) 0 (44)

with

Q =

_

Q 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

_

.

A robust H

redundancy closed-loop dynamics is summarized in the follow-

ing theorem.

Theorem 4. z(t), = 1, . . . , r,

h

(z(t))

and = 1, . . . ,

l, v

(z(t))

(t) = 0) is globally asymptotically stable via the non-PDC control

law(3) guaranteeing the H

X

1

jk

= (X

1

jk

)

T

> 0, X

4

ij

, X

5

ij

> 0 (or < 0), X

6

ij

, X

7

jk

, X

8

jk

, X

9

jk

>

0 (or < 0), R

1

= R

T

1

, R

2

= R

T

2

and F

ik

the positive scalars =

2

,

1

ijk

,

2

ijk

,

3

ijk

,

4

ijk

,

5

ijk

,

6

ijk

and

7

ijk

such that the LMI conditions

in Box X are satisfied for all i, j = 1, . . . , r and for k = 1, . . . , l.

Proof. The redundancy closed-loop dynamics (8) subject to ex-

ternal disturbances is stable under the H

criterion (38) if

V( x) +

x

T

Q x

2

T

< 0, that is to say if:

_

A

T

hv

X

1

hhv

+(

X

1

hhv

)

T

A

hv

+

E

(X

hhv

)

1

+

Q ()

W

T

h

(

X

hhv

)

1

2

I

_

< 0. (48)

Multiplying (48) left and right respectively by

_

X

T

hhv

0

0 I

_

and

_

X

hhv

0

0 I

_

, one obtains the inequality in Box XI.

Now, following the same path as for the proof of Theorem 2,

after applying the Schur complement and using the change of vari-

able =

2

, one obtains the conditions of Theorem 4. That ends

the proof.

Remark 8. Following the same argument as given in Remark 6,

Theorem 3 is a particular case of Theorem 4. Therefore, LMI condi-

tions of Theorem 4 provide the less conservatism results. This will

be emphasis in the next section through an academic example.

Remark 9. The LMI conditions proposed in Theorems 14 are de-

pending on the lower bounds of

h

i

(z(t)) for i = 1, . . . , r and

v

k

(z(t)) for k = 1, . . . , l. It is often pointed out as a criticism to

fuzzy Lyapunov approach since these parameters may be difficult

to choose in practice. Note that a way has been proposed to com-

pute these bounds in the case of nominal standard state space TS

fuzzy models (without uncertainties nor disturbances) [20]. Nev-

ertheless, in the presence of uncertainties or external disturbances,

this methodology failed. Indeed, it is not possible to predict, priory

to the controller designed, the dynamical behavior of the uncer-

tain bounded variables and so their influences on the membership

function dynamics cannot be strictly investigated. In the case of

454 T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

_

(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

)

T

(X

hhv

)

1

+((X

hhv

)

1

)

T

(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

) +E

(X

hhv

)

1

+Q ()

W

T

h

(X

hhv

)

1

2

I

_

< 0 (42)

Box VIII.

_

X

T

hhv

(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

)

T

+(A

hv

B

h

K

hv

)X

hhv

+X

T

hhv

E

(X

hhv

)

1

X

hhv

+X

T

hhv

QX

hhv

()

W

T

h

2

I

_

< 0 (43)

Box IX.

_

_

ijk

()

X

1

jk

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 W

T

i

0 0 0 0 0

Q

1

0

0 I

_

_

< 0 (45)

X

1

jk

+R

1

0 (46)

X

1

jk

+R

2

0 (47)

Box X.

_

X

T

hhv

A

T

hv

+

A

hv

X

hhv

+

X

T

hhv

E

(

X

hhv

)

1

X

hhv

+

X

T

hhv

Q

X

hhv

()

W

T

h

2

I

_

< 0 (49)

Box XI.

non-quadratic stabilization subject to uncertainties and/or distur-

bances, what can be done is to assume wider values of the mem-

bership function derivative lower bounds regarding to the one

obtained in the nominal case (expected to include the uncertain

dynamics influences).

Another way to cope with this problem is to provide a slightly

modified version of Theorems 13 or 4, but leading to quadratic

results. Indeed, to avoid appearance of the unknown membership

derivative bounds, one can set X

1

= R

1

= R

2

common in-

stead of X

1

hv

in the Lyapunov functions (13), respectively (31). Thus,

the terms

r

=1

(X

1

k

+ R

1

) +

l

=1

(X

1

i

+ R

2

) can be re-

moved from LMIs. This way has been firstly investigated in the

case of nominal TS descriptor stabilization in [37] but, obviously,

the obtained results are more conservative than non-quadratic ap-

proaches. Note finally that, a new way to deal with the problem of

membership function derivatives in a local view point have been

propose in [42]. Nevertheless, this promising result is, at this time,

only suitable for the stability analysis of standard TS systems

and need more investigation and research efforts before being ex-

tended to the case of TS descriptor based robust controller design.

5. Simulation results and discussion

In this section, two examples, a numerical one and a realistic

one, are proposed to show the efficiency of the above-proposed

results. The first one is devoted to show the benefit of the re-

dundancy approach regarding to classical ones in terms of con-

servatism. Thus, the feasibility fields and H

performances will be

investigated through an academic uncertain TS fuzzy descriptor.

Then, a second example is provided to showthe validity of the pro-

posed approaches on a realistic nonlinear system: an inverted pen-

dulum on a cart.

5.1. Example 1: conservatismcomparison of the proposed approaches

In order to compare the conservatism of the proposed ap-

proaches, let us consider the following academic nonlinear de-

scriptor system [34]:

E(x(t)) x(t) = A(x(t))x(t) +B(x(t))u(t) +W(t) (50)

with

E(x(t)) =

_

1 1

1 cos

2

x

2

(t)

_

,

B(x(t)) =

_

_

1 +

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

a cos

2

x

2

(t) 2

_

_

, W =

_

0.25 0.25

_

T

and

A(x(t)) =

_

_

_

_

0 cos

2

x

2

(t)

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

3

2

3 +b

_

1 +

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

_

sin x

2

(t)

x

2

(t)

_

_

.

Note that (50) contains one nonlinear term

e

(x

2

(t)) = cos

2

x

2

(t)

in its left hand side and three ones,

a1

(x

2

(t)) = cos

2

x

2

(t),

a2

(x

1

(t)) =

1

1+x

2

1

(t)

and

a3

(x

2

(t)) =

sin(x

2

(t))

x

2

(t)

in its right hand side.

Using the sector nonlinearity approach [2], x

1

(t) R and x

2

(t)

R, one can write:

e

(x

2

(t)) =

a1

(x

2

(t)) = cos

2

x

2

(t)

= (1 cos

2

x

2

(t)) 0 +cos

2

x

2

(t) 1 (51)

a2

(x

1

(t)) =

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

=

_

1

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

_

0 +

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

1 (52)

a3

(x

2

(t)) =

sin x

2

(t)

x

2

=

x

2

(t) sin x

2

(t)

x

2

(t)(1 )

+

sin x

2

(t) x

2

(t)

x

2

(t)(1 )

1 (53)

with = min

sin x

2

(t)

x

2

(t)

.

This leads to l = 2 and r = 8 for the left and the right part of

the TS fuzzy model. Then, to ensure the stability of the descriptor

T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461 455

system, lr(5r + 1) = 656 and 2lr(4r + 1) = 1056 LMI conditions

have to be verified respectively through the above-proposed Theo-

rems 1 and 2. Consequently, this lead to a high computational cost

making unfruitful a controller design fromLMI conditions with ac-

tual computers. In order to reduce this computational cost, some

nonlinear terms can be put into uncertainties. Indeed, it is possi-

ble to consider some nonlinear terms that are weakly influencing

the global dynamics as uncertainties. In this case, the stabilization

problemremains toa robust controller designleading toreduce the

number of fuzzy rules [35]. For example, we consider the nonlin-

ear terms depending on the state variable x

2

(t) as bounded uncer-

tainties. Thus, the nonlinear termto be split is

a2

(x

1

(t)) =

1

1+x

2

1

(t)

.

Thus, the descriptor (50) may be rewritten as an uncertain descrip-

tor such that:

(E +E(t)) x(t) =

2

i=1

h

i

(x

1

)((A

i

+A

i

(t))x(t)

+(B

i

+B

i

(t))u(t)) +W(t) (54)

with

h

1

(x

1

(t)) = 1

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

, h

2

(x

1

(t)) =

1

1 +x

2

1

(t)

,

E =

_

1 1

1

1

2

_

, A

1

=

_

_

_

0

1

2

3

2

3 +

b

2

(1 )

_

_,

A

2

=

_

_

_

0

1

2

3

2

3 +b(1 )

_

_, B

1

=

_

2

a

2

2

_

,

B

2

=

_

1

a

2

2

_

, E(t) =

_

_

0 0

0

1

2

f

1

(t)

_

_

,

A

1

(t) =

_

_

_

0

1

2

f

1

(t)

0 b

1 +

2

f

2

(t)

_

_,

A

2

(t) =

_

_

0

1

2

f

1

(t)

0 b(1 +)f

2

(t)

_

_

and

B

1

(t) = B

2

(t) =

_

0

a

2

f

1

(t)

_

.

According to (51) and (53), one can argue that, although the

descriptor (54) contains uncertainties, it is paradoxically repre-

senting exactly the nonlinear descriptor (50) with the nonlinear

functions f

1

(t) and f

2

(t) given by:

f

1

(t) = 2 cos

2

x

2

(t) 1 (55)

and

f

2

(t) =

1

1 +

_

1 +2

sin x

2

(t)

x 2

(t)

_

. (56)

Finally, in order to apply the LMI given in the above theorems, one

has to rewrite the uncertain matrix

E(t) = H

e

f

e

(t)N

e

, A

i

(t) = H

i

a

f

i

a

(t)N

i

a

et

B

i

(t) = H

i

b

f

b

(t)N

i

b

(57)

with

H

e

= H

i

a

=

_

1 0

0 1

_

, H

i

b

=

_

0

1

_

, N

e

=

_

0 0

0

1

2

_

,

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

b

-2

-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4 -3 -2 -1 0

a

1 2 3 4

Theorem 2

Theorem 1

Fig. 1. Feasibility fields obtained from Theorems 1 and 2 (Example 1).

N

1

a

=

_

_

_

0

1

2

0 b

1 +

2

_

_, N

2

a

=

_

0

1

2

0 b(1 +)

_

and

N

1

b

= N

2

b

=

1

2

a.

Note that now, considering the uncertain descriptor (54) and

solving Theorem 1 or 2, a controller design may be obtained with

respectively lr(5r +1) = 22 and 2lr(4r +1) = 36 LMI conditions.

Therefore, the computational cost is now reasonably reduced.

First of all, in order to illustrate the benefit in terms of conser-

vatism of the redundancy closed-loop dynamics based approach

regarding to the classical closed-loop dynamics ones, one pro-

poses to study the respective feasibility fields of Theorems 1 and 2

for a

_

4 4

_

, b

_

3.5 1

_

with

1

=

2

= 1. These are

presented in Fig. 1 and have been obtained using the Matlab LMI

Toolbox. As expected, the respective feasible area of Theorems 1

and 2 confirm Remark 6.

Note that, as shown in Fig. 1, a controller cannot be synthesized

for a = 3 and b = 0 from Theorem 1 when a solution exists

with Theorem 2. As for non-PDC controller design example, the

following matrices and scalars give this solution:

F

11

=

_

8.879 2.061

_

, F

21

=

_

9.0071 1.9393

_

,

R

1

=

_

46.5741 20.0709

20.0709 16.4484

_

,

X

1

11

= X

1

21

=

_

47.2233 20.4178

20.4178 16.6888

_

,

X

4

11

= X

4

12

=

_

5.0855 2.9506

0.3231 1.0085

_

,

X

4

21

= X

4

22

=

_

10.4604 6.9191

2.9734 1.1802

_

,

X

5

11

= X

5

12

=

_

11.6118 5.9041

6.7604 19.8665

_

,

X

5

21

= X

5

22

=

_

8.0278 1.1601

3.9982 15.7893

_

,

X

6

11

= X

6

12

=

_

3.4569

0.8358

_

, X

6

21

= X

6

22

=

_

3.5657

0.7555

_

,

X

7

11

= X

7

21

=

_

5.4111

1.1152

_

T

, X

8

11

= X

8

21

=

_

2.2428

3.1637

_

T

,

X

9

11

= X

9

21

= 0.2394,

1

111

=

1

121

= 0.3608,

456 T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time

6 7 8 9 10

0

0.5

u

(

t

)

1

x

2

(

t

)

-2

-1

0

1

-4

-2

x

1

(

t

)

0

Fig. 2. Evolution of the state vector (without external disturbance) and the control

signal (Example 1).

1

211

=

1

221

= 0.9369,

2

111

=

2

121

= 0.976,

2

211

=

2

221

= 1.7785,

3

111

=

3

121

= 10.5924,

3

211

=

3

221

= 4.6813,

4

111

=

4

121

= 4.1892,

4

211

=

4

221

= 4.7994,

5

111

=

5

121

= 6.5847,

5

211

=

5

221

= 3.7544,

6

111

=

6

121

= 0.935,

6

211

=

6

221

= 1.4624,

7

111

=

7

121

= 0.749 and

7

211

=

7

221

= 1.1434.

Fig. 2 shows the evolutions of the state vector andthe control signal

for the initial condition x(0) =

_

2 1.5

_

T

. Note that, as shown

in Fig. 3, the hypothesis made on lower bounds of membership

function derivatives are a posteriori verified in simulation since

min(

h

1

(x

1

(t))) = 0.2933 > 1 and min(

h

2

(x

1

(t))) =

0.8969 > 1.

Another way to confirm that the redundancy closed-loop

dynamics approaches are less conservative than classical closed-

loop dynamics ones is to compare there H

performances

regarding to external disturbances. Thus, the attenuation level

values have been computed from Theorems 3 and 4 for several

values of a

_

2 0

_

, with b = 0,

1

=

2

= 1 and

Q = I

22

. These are depicted in Fig. 4. As expected, the obtained

H

obtained from Theorem 3.

Then, as example of robust controller design, the following

solution of Theorem 4 has been found via the Matlab LMI Toolbox

for

1

=

2

= 1, a = 3, b = 0 and Q = I

22

. The following

matrices and scalars give that solution:

R

1

=

_

0.1585 0.0542

0.0542 0.0524

_

,

F

11

= F

21

=

_

0.0649 0.0216

_

,

X

1

11

= X

1

21

=

_

0.1585 0.0542

0.0542 0.0524

_

,

X

4

11

=

_

14.2628 0.0397

0.0126 0.0125

_

,

X

4

21

=

_

159.1288 0.0397

0.0126 0.0125

_

,

X

4

12

=

_

178.848 0.0817

0.0111 0.0177

_

,

1

0.5

0 d

h

1

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

-0.5

0.5

0

-0.5 d

h

2

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

-1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time

6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 3. Evolution of

h

1

(x

1

(t)) and

h

2

(x

1

(t)) (Example 1, controller designed from

Theorem 2).

-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1

a

-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Theorem 4

Theorem 3

Fig. 4. Comparison of attenuation levels for several values of parameter a (Example

1, Theorems 3 vs. 4).

X

4

22

=

_

178.746 0.0817

0.0111 0.0177

_

,

X

5

11

=

_

14.2343 14.2755

0.0207 0.1055

_

,

X

5

21

=

_

159.1002 159.1414

0.0207 0.1055

_

,

X

5

12

=

_

178.7551 178.7672

0.0054 0.0609

_

,

X

5

22

=

_

178.6532 178.6652

0.0054 0.0609

_

, X

6

11

= 10

5

_

4.093

1.087

_

,

X

6

21

= 10

5

_

4.062

1.087

_

, X

6

12

= X

6

22

= 10

5

_

4.214

0.938

_

,

X

7

11

= X

7

21

=

_

0.0649

0.0216

_

T

, X

8

11

= X

8

21

= 10

4

_

0.2684

0.3861

_

T

,

X

9

11

= X

9

21

= 2.5069 10

6

,

1

111

=

1

121

= 2.7341 10

6

,

1

211

=

1

221

= 1.6802 10

4

,

2

111

=

2

121

= 0.0045,

2

211

=

2

221

= 0.0095,

3

111

=

3

121

= 0.0983,

3

211

=

3

221

= 0.0492,

4

111

=

4

121

= 0.0204,

4

211

=

4

221

= 0.0198,

5

111

=

5

121

= 6.9223 10

5

,

T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461 457

0

-1

x

1

(

t

)

-2

x

2

(

t

)

0

-0.5

-1

u

(

t

)

0.4

0.6

0

0.2

-0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time

6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 5. Evolution of the state vector (with external disturbance) and the control

signal (Example 1).

1

0.5

0 d

h

1

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

-0.5

0.5

0

-0.5 d

h

2

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

-1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time

6 7 8 9 10

Fig. 6. Evolution of

h

1

(x

1

(t)) and

h

2

(x

1

(t)) (Example 1, controller designed from

Theorem 4).

5

211

=

5

221

= 3.3657 10

4

,

6

111

=

6

121

= 1.169 10

5

,

6

211

=

6

221

= 2.5353 10

4

,

7

111

=

7

121

= 8.0248 10

6

,

7

211

=

7

221

= 1.6947 10

4

and = 3.7166.

For simulation purpose, the external disturbance signal (t) has

been considered as a Gaussian random signal with a unit variance.

Considering the initial condition x(0) =

_

1.5 1

_

T

, Fig. 5

shows respectively the convergence of the state vector system, the

control signal. Once more, as shown in Fig. 6, the condition made

on

h

1

(x

1

(t)) and

h

2

(x

1

(t)) are a posteriori verified in simulation

since min(

h

1

(x

1

(t))) = 0.2737 > 1 and min(

h

2

(x

1

(t))) =

0.7509 > 1.

5.2. Example 2: stabilization of an inverted pendulum on a cart

Let us now consider the benchmark of an inverted pendulum

on a cart given by Fig. 7. The motion equations obtained from the

Newtons second law are given by [11]:

_

_

x

1

(t) = x

2

(t)

_

lm

_

1

3

+sin

2

x

1

(t)

_

+

4

3

lM

_

x

2

(t)

= (m+M)g sin x

1

(t) mlx

2

2

(t) sin x

1

(t) cos x

1

(t)

cos x

1

(t)u(t)

(58)

u(t)

M

Fig. 7. Inverted pendulum on a cart (Example 2).

where M = 1 kg and m = 0.1 kg are respectively the masses of

the cart and the pendulum, l = 0.5 m the length of the rod, x

1

(t)

is the angle that the pendulum makes with the vertical, x

2

(t) is

the pendulum angular velocity and g = 9.8 m s

2

is the gravity

constant.

Note that, the nonlinear term sin

2

x

1

(t) in the left hand side

of (58) is often neglected to derive a standard TS model with a

reduced number of rules to obtain a feasible solution of classi-

cal quadratic stability conditions [9,11,43]. In this paper, taking

benefit of a descriptor representation, one proposes to avoid this

approximation. Indeed, it is well known that descriptors are con-

venient for modelling mechanical systems [5,6]. Moreover, let us

consider that the velocity signal x

2

(t) is not available from mea-

surements. Then, as described in [11], the nonlinear function x

2

2

(t)

can be removed from the nominal part and put into the uncertain

part of the system. Thus, let us nowconsider x

2

2

(t)

2

with the

maximal angular velocity of the inverted pendulum, one can write

x

2

2

(t) = f (x

2

(t)) with f (x

2

(t)) =

x

2

2

(t)

2

and f

2

(x

2

(t)) 1. Thus,

the following uncertain descriptor matching the dynamical system

(58) can be considered:

E(x

1

(t)) x(t) = (A(x(t)) +A(x(t)))x(t) +B(x

1

(t))u(t) (59)

where x

T

(t) =

_

x

T

1

(t) x

T

2

(t)

_

T

is the state vector,

E(x

1

(t)) =

_

_

1 0

0 lm

_

1

3

+

e

(x

1

(t))

_

+

4

3

lM

_

_

,

A(x(t)) =

_

0 1

(m+M)g

1

a

(x

1

(t)) 0

_

,

A(x(t)) =

_

0 0

ml

2

f (x

2

(t))

1

a

(x

1

(t))

2

a

(x

1

(t)) 0

_

,

B(x

1

(t)) =

_

0

2

a

(x

1

(t))

_

with the nonlinear terms

e

(x

1

(t)) = sin

2

x

1

(t),

1

a

(x

1

(t)) =

sin x

1

(t)

x

1

(t)

and

2

a

(x

1

(t)) = cos x

1

(t).

Using the sector nonlinearity approach [2], a TS model can be

obtained as shown in [11] by splitting the above-defined nonlinear

terms. Note that for x

1

(t) =

2

, the system (58) is locally

uncontrollable thus the angular displacements will be reduced to

x

1

(t)

_

0

0

_

with

0

<

2

. Then, one can write:

e

(x

1

(t)) = sin

2

x

1

(t) = v

2

(x

1

(t)) 0 +v

2

(x

1

(t)) sin

2

0

(60)

with v

1

(x

1

(t)) =

sin

2

0

sin

2

x

1

(t)

sin

2

0

and v

2

(x

1

(t)) = 1 v

1

(x

1

(t)) =

sin

2

x

1

(t)

sin

2

0

,

1

a

(x

1

(t)) =

1

1

(x

1

(t)) 1 +

2

1

(x

1

(t))

sin

0

0

(61)

with

1

1

(x

1

(t)) =

0

sin x

1

(t)x

1

(t) sin

0

x

1

(t)(

0

sin

0

)

and

2

1

(x

1

(t)) = 1

1

1

(x

1

(t)) =

0

x

1

(t)

0

sin x

1

(t)

x

1

(t)(

0

sin

0

)

, and

458 T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

2

a

(x

1

(t)) = cos x

1

(t) =

1

2

(x

1

(t)) 1 +

2

2

(x

1

(t)) cos

0

(62)

with

1

2

(x

1

(t)) =

cos x

1

(t)cos

0

1cos

0

and

2

2

(x

1

(t)) = 1

1

2

(x

1

(t)) =

1cos x

1

(t)

1cos

0

.

Note that the shapes of

1

1

(x

1

(t)) and

1

2

(x

1

(t)) as well as

2

1

(x

1

(t)) and

2

2

(x

1

(t)) are closed on x

1

(t)

_

0

0

_

.

Therefore, the number of the right hand side rules of the obtained

TS descriptor can be reduced to r = 2 with h

1

(x

1

(t)) =

1

1

(x

1

(t)) = 1 h

2

(x

1

(t)) [11,43]. Consequently, an uncertain TS

descriptor matching (58) is given by:

2

k=1

v

k

(x

1

(t))E

k

x(t)

=

2

i=1

h

i

(x

1

(t))((A

i

+A

i

(x(t)))x(t) +B

i

u(t)) (63)

with

E

1

=

_

1 0

0

l

3

(m+4M)

_

,

E

2

=

_

_

1 0

0 l

_

m

_

1

3

+sin

2

0

_

+

4

3

M

_

_

_

,

A

1

=

_

0 1

g(m+M) 0

_

, A

2

=

_

0 1

g(m+M)

sin

0

0

0

_

,

B

1

=

_

0

1

_

, B

2

=

_

0

cos

0

_

,

A

1

(x(t)) =

_

0 0

ml

2

f (x

2

(t)) 0

_

,

A

2

(x(t)) =

_

0 0

ml

sin

0

0

cos

0

2

f (x

2

(t)) 0

_

and where the uncertain matrices can be rewritten such that

A

1

(x(t)) = H

1

a

f (x

2

(t))N

1

a

and A

2

(x(t)) = H

2

a

f (x

2

(t))N

2

a

with

N

1

a

= N

2

a

=

_

2

0

_

, H

1

a

=

_

0

ml

_

and

H

2

a

=

_

0

ml

sin

0

0

cos

0

_

.

From Eq. (63) and applying conditions of Theorem 2, a robust non-

PDC controller (3) can be designed to stabilize (58) with

0

=

22

45

and the maximal angular velocity = 3 rad/s. The following

results are obtained using Matlab LMI Toolbox for

1

= 0.3,

2

=

3,

1

= 0.3 and

2

= 2.7:

R

1

=

_

0.0556 0.1759

0.1759 0.5202

_

, R

2

=

_

0.06 0.1886

0.1886 0.5647

_

,

F

11

=

_

1.475 2.0576

_

, F

21

=

_

1.5078 1.0198

_

,

F

12

=

_

1.3436 2.2147

_

, F

22

=

_

1.3236 1.1014

_

,

X

1

11

=

_

0.1082 0.335

0.335 1.0654

_

,

X

1

21

=

_

0.0933 0.2891

0.2891 0.9219

_

,

X

1

12

=

_

0.1018 0.3142

0.3142 0.9897

_

,

1.5

1

0.5

x

1

(

t

)

0

-0.5

1

0

-1

x

2

(

t

)

-2

-3

u

(

t

)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Time

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

250

200

150

100

0

50

Fig. 8. States of the inverted pendulum on a cart and control signal (Example 2).

X

1

22

=

_

0.0914 0.2817

0.2817 0.8896

_

,

X

4

11

=

_

0.6147 0.9096

0.112 2.8622

_

,

X

4

21

=

_

0.5816 0.322

1.151 2.5666

_

,

X

4

12

=

_

0.6183 0.8664

0.4252 2.5754

_

,

X

4

22

=

_

0.5837 0.7587

0.3231 2.2787

_

,

X

5

11

=

_

0.424 26.9125

0.2065 27.4997

_

,

X

5

21

=

_

0.4253 136.5096

1.3246 630.7598

_

,

X

5

12

=

_

0.4307 1.1393

0.0157 0.234

_

,

X

5

22

=

_

0.4293 4.5445

0.016 22.7317

_

,

X

6

11

=

_

27.1604

30.4524

_

, X

6

21

=

_

135.4293

627.9584

_

,

X

6

12

=

_

27.1626

29.3792

_

, X

6

22

=

_

135.4257

629.0272

_

,

X

7

11

=

_

25.6606 28.3998

_

,

X

7

21

=

_

136.9023 630.0584

_

,

X

7

12

=

_

25.818 28.2431

_

,

X

7

22

=

_

136.7577 630.1559

_

,

X

8

11

=

_

27.174 20.0822

_

,

X

8

21

=

_

135.4446 429.7812

_

,

X

8

12

=

_

27.171 21.4204

_

,

X

8

22

=

_

135.4292 461.3108

_

,

X

9

11

= 0.784, X

9

21

= 0.7742, X

9

12

= 0.8145,

X

9

22

= 0.7986,

1

111

= 2.5757,

1

112

= 2.8348,

T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461 459

1.5

1

0.5

d

h

1

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

0

-0.5

3

2

1

d

v

1

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

0

-1

0 0.5 1

Time

1.5 2

1

0

-1

d

h

2

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

-2

-3

0 0.5 1

Time

1.5 2

1

0

-1

d

v

2

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

-2

-3

0 0.5 1

Time

1.5 2 0 0.5 1

Time

1.5 2

Fig. 9. Membership function derivatives evolutions (Example 2).

0.2

0

-0.2

x

1

(

t

)

-0.4

-0.6

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

1.5

1

0.5

x

2

(

t

)

0

-0.5

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

5

0

-5

u

(

t

)

-10

-15

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Time

Fig. 10. States of the externally disturbed inverted pendulumon a cart and control

signal (Example 2).

1

121

= 2.4544,

1

122

= 2.8265,

1

211

= 2.3822,

1

212

= 2.5864,

1

221

= 2.2067,

1

222

= 2.5428

and finally

s

ijk

= 1.5833 for i, j, k = 1, 2 and s = 2, . . . , 7.

A simulation is proposed in Fig. 8 for the initial condition

x

T

(0) =

_

1 1

_

T

. The lower bounds of the membership func-

tion derivatives are shown in Fig. 9. This allows verifying the hy-

pothesis made for the controller since one always has v

1

(x

1

(t))

1

, v

2

(x

1

(t))

2

,

h

1

(x

1

(t))

1

,

h

2

(x

1

(t))

2

.

Now, in order to show the benefit of the proposed H

robust

controller design methodology, one proposes to minimize the

influences of external disturbances on the system (58). Therefore,

the considered TS descriptor (63) can be extended to an uncertain

and disturbed one such that:

2

k=1

v

k

(x

1

(t))E

k

x(t) =

2

i=1

h

i

(x

1

(t))((A

i

+A

i

(x(t)))x(t)

+B

i

u(t)) +W(t) (64)

where (t) is anexternal disturbance andW =

_

0.5

0

_

is a weighting

matrix related to the transfer of the disturbance to the systems

states.

A non-PDC controller (3) is design from Theorem 4 with the

parameter

0

=

22

45

, the maximal angular velocity = 3 rad/s

and the weighting matrix Q = I

22

. The following results are

obtained using Matlab LMI Toolbox for

1

= 1.5,

2

= 3,

1

=

0.3 and

2

= 1.8:

R

1

=

_

0.2637 0.594

0.594 4.6789

_

, R

2

=

_

0.2868 0.7354

0.7354 0.6298

_

,

F

11

=

_

5.5557 697.8622

_

,

F

21

=

_

5.6152 612.1218

_

,

F

12

=

_

4.9294 712.552

_

,

F

22

=

_

4.8915 617.9565

_

,

X

1

11

=

_

0.3665 0.9861

0.9861 4.3226

_

,

X

1

21

=

_

0.3318 0.9077

0.9077 3.9894

_

,

X

1

12

=

_

0.3261 0.8982

0.8982 3.8838

_

,

X

1

22

=

_

0.3199 0.8694

0.8694 3.6645

_

,

X

4

11

=

_

33.8138 0.8758

4.5238 164.4794

_

,

X

4

21

=

_

33.7267 1.8331

1.4872 163.014

_

,

460 T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

Time

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Time

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0.4

0.3

0.2

d

h

1

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

0.1

0

-0.1

2

1.5

1

d

v

1

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

0.5

0

-0.5

Time

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0.5

0

-0.5

d

v

2

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

-1

-1.5

-2

Time

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

d

h

2

(

t

)

/

d

(

t

)

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Fig. 11. Membership function derivatives evolutions with external disturbances (Example 2).

X

4

12

=

_

33.7845 7.83

1.9401 74.3159

_

,

X

4

22

=

_

33.6988 4.9996

0.142 72.5163

_

,

X

5

11

=

_

33.1228 0.9827

3.7463 68.0491

_

,

X

5

21

=

_

33.166 3.615

1.2391 61.0384

_

,

X

5

12

=

_

33.1896 3.2086

4.2722 26.0719

_

,

X

5

22

=

_

33.2178 1.5456

1.7548 26.158

_

,

X

6

11

=

_

3.2988

326.9778

_

, X

6

21

=

_

4.5287

334.366

_

,

X

6

12

=

_

3.2983

236.8412

_

, X

6

22

=

_

4.5382

244.0597

_

,

X

7

11

=

_

2.2926 372.9012

_

, X

7

21

=

_

1.0487 365.4295

_

,

X

7

12

=

_

1.5698 383.8648

_

, X

7

22

=

_

0.413 376.1634

_

,

X

8

11

=

_

3.2503 161.9123

_

, X

8

21

=

_

4.5588 166.2511

_

,

X

8

12

=

_

3.2869 169.4526

_

, X

8

22

=

_

4.563 174.304

_

,

X

9

11

= 65.8333, X

9

21

= 65.9864, X

9

12

= 66.5649,

X

9

22

= 66.6869,

1

111

= 136.0795,

1

112

= 133.8833,

1

121

= 133.8167,

1

122

= 133.4936,

1

211

= 132.6845,

1

212

= 128.6769,

1

221

= 130.5547,

1

222

= 130.3676,

s

ijk

= 132.4891

for i, j, k = 1, 2 and s = 2, . . . , 7, the attenuation level =

0.8832.

For simulation purpose, we choose as external disturbances

a white noise with a unit covariance, i.e. (t) = rand(1, 1),

the states of the disturbed inverted pendulum on a cart and the

control signal are shown in Fig. 10 for the initial condition x(0) =

_

0.5 1.35

_

T

. Once again, as shown in Fig. 11, the made on

the lower bounds of the membership function derivatives are

verified. Indeed, it can be noticed that one always has v

1

(x

1

(t))

1

, v

2

(x

1

(t))

2

,

h

1

(x

1

(t))

1

,

h

2

(x

1

(t))

2

.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, a robust stabilization of uncertain and disturbed

TS fuzzy descriptors has beeninvestigated throughnon-quadratic

fuzzy Lyapunov function. Using a non-PDC control scheme, LMI

based design have been proposed following two different ap-

proaches. The first one involves classical closed-loop dynamics for-

mulation and the second one a redundancy closed-loop dynamics

approach. These results have also been extended to robust con-

troller design regarding to external disturbances by the use of a

H

have been compared considering the class of uncertain and dis-

turbed TS descriptors. Indeed, using the redundancy closed-loop

dynamics based approach allows introducing new slack variables

in the LMI conditions leading to less conservatism. This has been

confirmed through an academic example as well as in simulation

of a stabilized inverted pendulum on a cart showing the efficiency

of the proposed robust controller design methodologies.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the GIS 3SGS within the COSMOS2

project and the Rgion Champagne-Ardenne within the CPER

MOSYP. The authors would like to thank Ms. Sa Rhee Zumethou

and Mr. Yan Hamard for their remarks and supporting comments.

References

[1] Takagi T, Sugeno M. Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to

modelling and control. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 2000;15(1):11632.

[2] Tanaka K, Wang HO. Fuzzy control systems designand analysis. Alinear matrix

inequality approach. New York: Wiley; 2001.

[3] Tanaka K, Othake H, Wang HO. A practical design approach to stabilization of

a 3-DOF RC helicopter. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 2004;12(2):31525.

T. Bouarar et al. / ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461 461

[4] Khiar D, Lauber J, Floquet T, Colin G, Guerra TM, Chamaillard Y. Robust

TakagiSugeno fuzzy control of a spark ignition engine. Control Eng Pract

2007;15(12):144656.

[5] Guelton K, Delprat S, Guerra TM. An alternative to inverse dynamics joint

torques estimation in human stance based on a TakagiSugeno unknown

inputs observer in the descriptor form. Control Eng Pract 2008;16(12):

141426.

[6] Schulte H, Guelton K. Descriptor modelling towards control of a two link

pneumatic robot manipulator: a TS multimodel approach. Nonlinear Anal

Hybrid Syst 2009;3(2):12432.

[7] Chang WJ, Yeh YL, Tsai KH. Covariance control with observed-state feedback

gains for continuous nonlinear systems using TS fuzzy models. ISA Trans

2004;43(3):38998.

[8] Wu SM, Sun CC, Chang WJ, Chung HY. TS region-based fuzzy control with

multiple performance constraints. ISA Trans 2007;46(1):8593.

[9] Wang HO, Tanaka K, Griffin MF. An approach to fuzzy control of nonlinear

systems: stability and the design issues. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 1996;4(1):

1423.

[10] Ho HF, Wong YK, Rad AB. Adaptive fuzzy approach for a class of uncertain

nonlinear systems in strict-feedback form. ISA Trans 2008;47(3):28699.

[11] Mansouri B, Manamanni N, Guelton K, Kruszewski A, Guerra TM. Output

feedback LMI tracking control conditions with H

disturbed TS models. Inform Sci 2009;179(4):44657.

[12] Sala A, Guerra TM, Babuska R. Perspectives of fuzzy systems and control.

In: 40th anniversary of fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2005;153(3):

43244 [special issue].

[13] Sala A. On the conservativeness of fuzzy and fuzzy-polynomial control of

nonlinear systems. Annu Rev Control 2009;33(1):4858.

[14] Tuan HD, Apkarian P, Narikiyo T, Yamamoto Y. Parameterized linear matrix

inequality techniques infuzzy control design. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2001;9(2):

32432.

[15] Ario C, Sala A. Relaxed LMI conditions for closed-loop fuzzy systems with

tensor product structure. Eng Appl Artif Intell 2007;20(8):103646.

[16] Liu X, Zhang Q. New approaches to H

observers for fuzzy TS systems via LMI. Automatica 2003;39(9):157182.

[17] KimE, Lee H. Newapproaches to relaxed quadratic stability condition of fuzzy

control systems. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2007;8(5):52334.

[18] Johansson M, Rantzer A, Arzen KE. Piecewise quadratic stability of fuzzy

systems. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 1999;7(6):71322.

[19] Ji Z, Zhou Y, Shen Y. Stabilization of a class of fuzzy control systems via

piecewise fuzzy Lyapunov function approach. In: Proc. ACC07, American

control conference. 2007.

[20] Tanaka K, Hori T, Wang HO. A multiple Lyapunov function approach to

stabilization of fuzzy control systems. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2003;11(4):

5829.

[21] Guerra TM, Vermeiren L. LMI based relaxed non quadratic stabilizations for

non-linear systems in the TakagiSugenos form. Automatica 2004;40(5):

8239.

[22] Rhee BJ, Won S. A newLyapunov function approach for a TakagiSugeno fuzzy

control system design. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2006;157(9):121128.

[23] Feng G. A survey on analysis and design of model-based fuzzy control systems.

IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2006;14(5):67697.

[24] Mozelli LA, Palhares RM, Souza FO, Mendes EMAM. Reducing conservativeness

in recent stability conditions of TS fuzzy systems. Automatica 2009;45(6):

15803.

[25] Ding B, Sun H, Yang P. Further studies on LMI-based relaxed stabilization

conditions for nonlinear systems in TakagiSugenos form. Automatica 2006;

42(3):5038.

[26] Luenberger DG. Dynamic equation in descriptor form. IEEE Trans Automat

Control 1977;AC-22:31221.

[27] Louis FL. A survey of linear singular systems. J Circuits Syst Comput 1986;5(1):

336.

[28] Dai L. Singular control systems. Lecture notes in control and information

sciences, Berlin: Springer; 1989.

[29] Campbell SL. Singular systems of differential equations II. Research notes in

mathematics, London: Pitman Publishing Inc.; 1982.

[30] Wang HS, Yung CF, Chang FR. H

Lecture notes in control and information sciences, London: Springer-Verlag;

2006.

[31] Taniguchi T, Tanaka K, Yamafuji K, Wang HO. Fuzzy descriptor systems:

stability analysis and design via LMIs. In: Proceedings of the 1999 American

control conference. 1999.

[32] Taniguchi T, Tanaka K, Wang HO. Fuzzy descriptor systems and nonlinear

model following control. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2000;8(4):44252.

[33] Ma BP, Sun J. Robust stabilization of uncertain TS fuzzy descriptor systems.

In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international conference on machine learning

and cybernetics. 2004.

[34] Bouarar T, Guelton K, Mansouri B, Manamanni N. LMI stability condition for

uncertain descriptors. In: Proceedings of the international conference on fuzzy

systems. FUZZ-IEEE. 2007.

[35] Bouarar T, Guelton K, Manamanni N. LMI based H-infinity controller design

for uncertain TakagiSugeno descriptors subject to external disturbances. In:

Proceedings of the 3rd IFACworkshoponadvancedfuzzy/neural control. 2007.

[36] Yoneyama J, Ichikawa A. H

systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE int. conf. syst. man cybem. 1999.

[37] Guerra TM, Bernal M, Kruszewski A, Afroun M. A way to improve results for

the stabilization of continuous-time fuzzy descriptor models. In: Proceedings

of the 46th IEEE conference on decision and control. 2007.

[38] Bouarar T, Guelton K, Manamanni N, Billaudel P. Stabilization of uncertain

TakagiSugeno descriptors: a fuzzy Lyapunov approach. In: Proceedings of the

16th mediterranean conference on control and automation. IEEE MED 2008.

2008.

[39] Tanaka K, Ohtake H, Wang HO. A descriptor system approach to fuzzy control

systemdesignvia fuzzy Lyapunov functions. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2007;15(3):

33341.

[40] Guelton K, Bouarar T, Manamanni N. Robust dynamic output feedback fuzzy

Lyapunov stabilization of TakagiSugeno systemsa descriptor redundancy

approach. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 2009;160(19):2796811.

[41] Zhou K, Khargonekar PP. Robust stabilization of linear systems with norm-

bounded time-varying uncertainty. Systems Control Lett 1988;10(1):1720.

[42] Guerra TM, Bernal M. A way to escape from the quadratic framework. In:

Proceedings of the international conference on fuzzy systems. FUZZ-IEEE.

2009.

[43] Guerra TM, Vermeiren L. Stabilit et stabilisation partir de modles flous.

In: Foulloy L, Galichet S, Titli A, editors. Commande Floue 1: de la stabilisation

la supervision. Traits IC2, Paris: Hermes Lavoisier; 2001. p. 5998.

- TextbookHochgeladen vonraa2010
- nullHochgeladen vonapi-26191239
- IsermannHochgeladen vonkushagra002
- comparison of tuning algorithmsHochgeladen vonNaveen Kumar Viswanathan
- CLF-based. Tracking Control for UAV Kinematic Model With SAturation ConstraintsHochgeladen voncolmenares7
- triboogy 2 andmech 4-2 electives question paper 2011Hochgeladen vonRajesh Jasti
- [1]-sdarticle (10)Hochgeladen vondaniedb
- Study of Control for the Automated ClutchHochgeladen vonRajan Gupta
- Second International Conference on Control, Modeling and Computing (CMC - 2016)Hochgeladen vonCS & IT
- Hinf Delay ReviewHochgeladen vonhamhms
- A Recurrent Neural Network Based Real TimeHochgeladen vonSampad Pradhan
- Chapter 7 diff eq smHochgeladen vonfallenskylark
- Eee v Modern Control Theory [10ee55] NotesHochgeladen vonJeyanthi Ganesan
- Improvement in the Performance of Online Control Applications and OptimizeIT ABB Suite for APCHochgeladen vonquinteroudina
- eth-8447-01Hochgeladen vonAlexandreSidant
- Frst Order Tym Delay SystmHochgeladen vonAnupama V Kumar
- Control_3_1Hochgeladen vonrostamkola1229
- Activity 03Hochgeladen vonkenneth
- Chapter-3-Equilibrium-Solution-and-Stability-of-FO-DE.pdfHochgeladen vonOguzhan Kaya
- Nonlinear Lect10Hochgeladen vonWin Alfalah Nasution
- %28sici%291099-1115%28200003%2F05%2914%3A2%2F3%3C201%3A%3Aaid-acs577%3E3.0.co%3B2-uHochgeladen vonHoucine Rahal
- ProgramHochgeladen vonKishan Chowhan
- Lecture 3Hochgeladen vonPreeti Kumari
- PID functions and responsesHochgeladen vonjustin
- [B.5] Strong Stability of Internal System Descriptions IJCHochgeladen vonMohamed Abdou
- Curso PID MateriasHochgeladen vonsergio
- springerHochgeladen vonSabaMannan123
- Three Tank System-1Hochgeladen vonj udayasekhar
- Stiction WebHochgeladen vonthiru
- Problemas Corriente ElectricaHochgeladen vonWilson Lawrente

- position control hydraulic cylinder with microcontrollerHochgeladen vonamin342
- MME20110200006_58202599.pdfHochgeladen vonamin342
- Combining State-Dependent Riccati Equation (SDRE) methods with Model Predictive Neural Control (MPNC).pdfHochgeladen vonamin342
- 1995__Removal of SiO2 Particles With an Ejector Venturi ScrubberHochgeladen vonamin342
- EjectorsHochgeladen vonashirwad shetty
- 1978__Edible Oil DeodorizationHochgeladen vonamin342
- Model for Calculating Steam Ejector PerformanceHochgeladen vonMuhammad Khurram
- Metrological recording of deformation development - HBM.pdfHochgeladen vonamin342
- High Precision Position Control of Electro-Hydraulic Servo SystemHochgeladen vonamin342
- 1938__Continuous Deodorization of Edible OilsHochgeladen vonamin342
- 2000__Calibration of Displacement Sensors Up to 300um With Nanometre Accuracy and Direct Traceability to a Primary Standard of LengthHochgeladen vonamin342
- Digital ProjectHochgeladen vonamin342
- APPLICATION OF SELF-TUNING FUZZY PID CONTROLLER ON INDUSTRIAL HYDRAULIC ACTUATORHochgeladen vonamin342
- Fuzzy Control Systems Design and AnalysisHochgeladen vonNathanael KO Jali Gojali
- Synchronization Motion Control for Quad-Cylinder Lift Systems With Acceleration CouplingHochgeladen vonamin342
- 06Dec_VonheederHochgeladen vonamin342
- hpdeHochgeladen vonamin342
- 05-KolondzovskiHochgeladen vonamin342
- Finite Element Tutorial_BiologyHochgeladen vonDr. Ir. R. Didin Kusdian, MT.

- 9780273709688_sm09Hochgeladen von'Tan Swat Yin'
- Exam 2 Practice Problems Part 2 SolutionsHochgeladen vonAbdul Quader
- Inflation.pdfHochgeladen vonRuskin Patel
- Nonmetricity and the Riemann-Christoffel TensorHochgeladen vonweylguy
- GuideHochgeladen vonRob Wheeler
- MatrixHochgeladen vonBoobalan R
- Wifi Offset Dish 1-95Hochgeladen vonClarence Ch
- Linearizing Certain Family of Nonlinear Differential EquationsHochgeladen vonhumejias
- Mathematical Introduction to Conformal Field TheoryHochgeladen vonMateus
- COPO_SSCE1993_201617ipohHochgeladen vonSiva Guru
- F. J. Lin- Reduced phase spaces in molecular dynamics: Coupling of overall rotation and internal motions in a generalized Eckart frameHochgeladen vonMaxnamew
- Animating the Lorenz System in 3DHochgeladen vongatitahanyou
- planimeterHochgeladen vondukenmarga
- Modal Verbs - TEXTHochgeladen vonBerlinghiero1
- Derivation of Planetary Orbit EquationHochgeladen vonSudeepSah
- Vector Model for Orbital Angular MomentumHochgeladen vonAgrupación Astronomica de Alicante
- 41 - Interaction of Radiation with Matter.pdfHochgeladen vonUltrazord
- 45717_03.pdfHochgeladen vonLeandro Landgraf
- Caffarelli Golse Guo Kenig Vasseur Nonlinear Partial Differential EquationsHochgeladen vonGabriel Fernández Calvo
- Manifold[1]Hochgeladen vonSmain Kouadik
- newton.pdfHochgeladen vonدعاء فاروق
- Solution 2Hochgeladen vonprof.tobes
- 5_33_exp2bHochgeladen vonSreedevi Krishnakumar
- Molecular Orbital Theory the Best of Both HandoutHochgeladen vonAbdul Mueez Lone
- Stress, Strain and Deformation in SolidsHochgeladen vonBalajee Mech
- Hw3_2016 flight mechanicsHochgeladen vonSerdar Bilge
- Calc4 Practice Final AnswersHochgeladen vonTrucTran
- Class Test Mathematics # (Sir Ijaz Sb)Hochgeladen vonQaisar Riaz
- Disproof of Bell's Theorem [ by Joy Christian ( page 7 of arXiv:1501.03393 ) ]Hochgeladen vonJorgenNesh
- Sommerfeld Theory of MetalsHochgeladen vonZamzam