Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

ISA Transactions 49 (2010) 447461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect


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

controller design methodologies for TakagiSugeno (TS) descriptors is


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

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 26 91 32 61; fax: +33 3 26 91 31 06.


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

criterion is employed in Section 4 to


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))

. The uncertain TS descriptor (2) is


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))

and {1, . . . , l}, v

(z(t))

. The uncertain TS descriptor


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

based fuzzy controller design


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

criterion. The goal is


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

analysis of the closed-loop dynamics.


4.1. H

non-PDC controller design based on the classical closed-loop


dynamics
Let us consider the extended state vector x(t) = [x
T
(t) x
T
(t)]
T
,
the H

criterion (37) can be rewritten as:


_
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

non-PDC controller (3) design methodology con-


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))

. The uncertain TS descriptor


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

non-PDC controller design based on the redundancy closed-


loop dynamics
Now, let us consider the extended state vector x(t) =
_
x
T
(t)
x
T
(t) u
T
(t)
_
T
, the H

criterion (37) can be rewritten as:


_
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

non-PDC controller design methodology based on the


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))

. The uncertain TS descriptor 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
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

performances from Theorem 4 are always better than the one


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

criterion. Then, both the classical and redundancy approaches


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

criterion for uncertain and


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

controller design based on fuzzy


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

control for nonlinear descriptor systems.


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

control for TakagiSugeno fuzzy descriptor


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.