Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.4.1 An H
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.4.1 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Appendix A: Lemmas Referred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Appendix B: Useful Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
B.1 Stability of TimeDelay Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
B.1.1 Stability Concept: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
B.1.2 LyapunovKrasovskii Stability Theorem: . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
B.2 Linear Matrix Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
B.3 The LMI Toolbox of Matlab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
B.4 An H
Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Appendix C: Simulation Diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
C.1 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 3 155
C.2 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 7 157
C.3 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 10 158
C.4 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 12 159
C.5 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 15 160
C.6 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 17 161
C.7 The Simulation Diagram of the Output Feedback Control . . . . . . . 162
C.8 The Simulation Diagram of the Robust Output Feedback Control . . 162
C.9 The Simulation Diagram of the Output Feedback H
Control . . . . 164
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
List of Tables
3.1 Comparison results about minimum of for various h. . . . . . . . . 86
3.2 The achieved minimum values of for various h . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
List of Figures
1.1 Oshore drill platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Oshore steel jacket platform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Steel jacket structure with an AMD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1 The displacement of the rst oor with no control and = 1.8 . . . . 28
3.2 The displacement of the second oor with no control and = 1.8 . . 28
3.3 The displacement of the third oor with no control and = 1.8 . . . 29
3.4 The displacement of the rst oor with no control and = 0.5773 . . 29
3.5 The displacement of the second oor with no control and = 0.5773 30
3.6 The displacement of the third oor with no control and = 0.5773 . 30
3.7 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.8 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.20) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.9 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.10 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.11 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.20) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.12 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.13 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.14 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.21) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.15 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.16 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.17 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.21) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.18 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.19 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.20 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.28) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.21 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.22 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.23 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.28) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.24 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.25 The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . 46
3.26 The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . 47
3.27 The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . 47
3.28 The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . 48
3.29 The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . 48
3.30 The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . 49
3.31 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.32 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.36) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.33 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.34 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.35 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.36) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.36 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.37 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.38 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.37) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.39 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.40 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.41 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.37) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.42 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.43 The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.44 The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.45 The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.46 The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.47 The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.48 The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.49 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.50 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.52) for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.51 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.52 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.53 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with
(3.52) for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
3.54 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.55 The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.56 The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.57 The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.58 The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.59 The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.60 The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.61 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.65)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.62 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.65) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.63 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.65) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.64 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.65)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.65 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.65) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.66 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.65) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.67 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.68)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.68 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.68) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.69 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.68) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.70 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.68)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.71 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.68) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.72 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.68) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.73 The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . 88
3.74 The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . 89
3.75 The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . 89
3.76 The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . 90
3.77 The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . 90
3.78 The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . 91
3.79 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.74)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.80 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.74) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.81 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.74) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.82 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.74)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.83 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.74) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.84 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.74) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.85 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.75)
for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.86 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.75) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.87 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.75) for = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.88 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.75)
for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.89 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.75) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.90 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.75) for = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
3.91 The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . 101
3.92 The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . 101
3.93 The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8 . . . . . . 102
3.94 The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . 102
3.95 The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . 103
3.96 The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773 . . . . 103
3.97 The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.80)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.98 The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.80) for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
3.99 The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.80) for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.100The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.80)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
3.101The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.80) for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.102The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.80) for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.1 The displacement of the rst oor when the output feedback con
troller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.2 The displacement of the second oor when the output feedback con
troller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.3 The displacement of the third oor when the output feedback con
troller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.4 The displacement of the rst oor when the output feedback con
troller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.5 The displacement of the second oor when the output feedback con
troller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.6 The displacement of the third oor when the output feedback con
troller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.7 The displacement of the rst oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.8 The displacement of the second oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.9 The displacement of the third oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.10 The displacement of the rst oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.11 The displacement of the second oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.12 The displacement of the third oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.13 The displacement of the rst oor when the robust H
output feed
back controller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.14 The displacement of the second oor when the robust H
output
feedback controller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.15 The displacement of the third oor when the robust H
output feed
back controller is used and = 1.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.16 The displacement of the rst oor when the robust H
output feed
back controller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.17 The displacement of the second oor when the robust H
output
feedback controller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.18 The displacement of the third oor when the robust H
output feed
back controller is used and = 0.5773 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
C.1 The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 3 . 155
C.2 The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 7 . 157
C.3 The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 12 159
C.4 The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 15 160
C.5 The simulation diagram of the output feedback control . . . . . . . . 163
C.6 The simulation diagram of the robust output feedback control . . . . 163
C.7 The simulation diagram of the output feedback H
control . . . . . . 164
List of Symbols
R
n
ndimension real space
R
mn
set of all real m by n matrices
L
2
[0, +) space of square integrable functions on [0, +)
A
T
(resp. x
T
) transpose of matrix A (resp. vector x)
x Euclidean norm of vector x
A norm of matrix A
A B B A is a symmetric positive semidenite matrix
P > 0 P is a symmetric positive denite matrix
P < 0 P is a symmetric negative denite matrix
I identity matrix of appropriate dimensions
denotes a symmetric term in a symmetric, i.e.
_
P W
Q
_
=
_
P W
W
T
Q
_
diag... denotes a blockdiagonal matrix
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Oshore Structures
The history of structural designs can be roughly divided into three eras: classical,
modern, and postmodern. Classical civil structural designs deal only with static
loads. The modern designs add specications on the dynamic response. Today, in
the postmodern era, major civil infrastructures must be designed to satisfy both
static and dynamic requirements in the presence of a specied class of environmental
loads. In practice, many civil structures, for example, vibratory platforms, bridges,
tall buildings, etc., are subjected to dierent types of environmental loading such as
strong winds, earthquake motions, etc., which induce severe vibration. Moreover,
excessive displacement and velocity of the structures endanger the safety. Since the
theory of structural vibration control was built, much attention has been paid on
this topic in the past decades. As a wellknown application, the oshore structure
has been widely investigated recently, see, for example, [32, 34, 35, 37, 54, 56, 61].
Oshore structures are a class of typical vibrating structures under external
loads, which have been widely applied as operating station for the oshore exploita
tion, oating breakwater, oshore shfarming platform and combination of the
entertainment facilities. They have evolved from very sti and relatively shallow
water structures in 1940s to very exible deepwater ones in recent years. Shortly
after the turn of this century, more than 6,500 oshore oil and gas installations
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1: Oshore drill platforms
have been set up around the world, in some 53 countries [72]. There are a number
of dierent types of permanent oshore platforms used for a particular range, see
Figure 1.1 [74]. The most common type is the steel tubular jacket type structure
which is one kind of xed platform. The steel structures are built on pile ground
work composed of welded steel pipes. These pipes with 1 to 2 meters diameter are
xed into the seabed and the depth up to 100 meters [73]. A drawing of steel jacket
structure is shown in Figure 1.2 [71].
Located in hostile marine environments, oshore structures are commonly equipp
ed with a helicopter pad, drilling derrick, cranes, oces and accommodations. They
are typically subjected to severe loads due to not only gravity and operating loads
but also winds, waves and also currents. And all these loads may induce the exces
sive vibration of the structures. Therefore, the risk of failure in these structures is
not only higher than other structures, but also the possibility of local or major dam
age and considerable human discomfort due to vibrations are more likely. To ensure
safety, the horizontal displacement of the structures needs to be limited. Moreover,
for the comfort of people who work on the platforms, acceleration also needs to be
1.1. OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 3
Figure 1.2: Oshore steel jacket platform
restricted.
Vibration control of oshore structures can be achieved by increasing the cross
sectional area of individual elements and/or adding bracing members to the frames,
so as to shift the natural frequencies away from the resonating of frequencies. How
ever, it will multiply cost for meeting excessive construction materials. An alter
native approach is to implement a passive or active damping method to regulate
the motion of structures. The passive approach requires the detailed understanding
of structural dynamics and materials properties. In [53], Patil and Jangid (2005)
studied the response of oshore steel jacket platforms installed with energy dissipa
tion devices such as viscoelastic, viscous and friction dampers. In [44], Lee et al.
(2006) presented a typical tensionleg type of oating platform incorporated with
the tuned liquid column damper (TLCD) device. Although passive control devices
can mitigate the vibration of oshore structures without requiring external energy,
the performance may be limited by the environment and choices of materials. On
the other hand, an active control mechanism can be eective over a wide frequency
range with desired reduction in the dynamic response. It requires sensors and ac
4 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
tuators connected through a feedback control. In [71], Zribi et al. (2004) presented
nonlinear and robust control schemes for oshore steel jacket platforms by using
Lyapunov theory and an optimal control approach. In [45], Li et al. (2003) devel
oped an H
2
control algorithm for controlling the lateral vibration of a jackettype
oshore platform by using an active mass damper (AMD). In [48], Ma et al. (2006)
studied the structural vibration control of the same platform as the one in [45], and
presented a feedback and feedforward optimal control (FFOC) law which was shown
more ecient than a classical state feedback optimal control (SFOC) in reducing the
displacement of the same platform. Based on the stochastic dynamic programming
principle and stochastic averaging method for quasiHamiltonian systems, Luo and
Zhu (2006) [47] proposed a nonlinear stochastic optimal control (NSOC) strategy
for oshore platforms under wave loading.
In a word, the oshore steel jacket platforms subject to wave forces have been
extensively investigated in recent years, and some nice fruits have been obtained on
this issue. However, all the studies aforementioned are under such an assumption
that the system model is exactly known, also, the delay eects have never been
considered in feedback channels. In fact, the delay and uncertainty are inevitably
encountered for a practical system in control process and signal processing elds
due to actuator speed limit of mechanical systems, transportation time and so on.
Their existences usually result in instability and degrade the performances of the
system under consideration. Therefore, it is of much more practical signicance to
investigate how the delay and uncertainty aect the oshore steel jacket platforms,
which motivates this thesis.
1.2. TIMEDELAY SYSTEMS 5
1.2 TimeDelay Systems
1.2.1 Stability Analysis
Consider the following system
_
x(t) = A
0
x(t) +Bx(t h)
x(t) = (t), t [h, 0]
(1.1)
where x(t) R
n
denotes the system state, h > 0 is a constant time delay and (t) is
an initial condition, which guarantees the existence and uniqueness of the solution
of (1.1).
As is well known, during the past decades, the study on stability for system (1.1)
has been attracted much attention, see, for example, [8, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 25,
26, 27, 31, 40, 46, 59, 60, 62, 69]. Two types of stability conditions have been formu
lated. One is delayindependent, while the other is delaydependent. As the names
imply, the former doesnt contain any delay information, while the later depends
on information of a delay. As expected, delaydependent stability criteria are less
conservative than delayindependent ones in applications. The achieved maximum
admissible upper bound (MAUB) of a delay then becomes a main performance index
to measure the conservatism of a delaydependent stability condition. The larger
MAUB, the less conservatism.
In the existing literature, there are two kinds of LyapunovKrasovskii function
als, i.e. complete LyapunovKrasovskii functionals and simple LyapunovKrasovskii
functionals, for estimating the maximum timedelay bound the system can tolerate
and still retain stability. Using the complete LyapunovKrasovskii functionals as
those in [17, 18, 19, 25, 26], one can obtain the maximum timedelay bound which
is very close to the analytical limit. Employing the simple LyapunovKrasovskii
functionals usually yields conservative results. However, the results based on the
simple LyapunovKrasovskii functionals can be easily applied to controller synthe
sis and lter design. Hence, it is still an attractive topic for nding some simple
6 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
LyapunovKrasovskii functionals, by which one can have less conservative results.
For comparison, we use a numerical example for system (1.1) with
A =
_
2 0
0 0.9
_
, B =
_
1 0
1 1
_
.
The analytical limit for stability for the numerical example is calculated to be
h
analytical
= 6.17258. In the existing literature, in order to derive a delaydependent
stability criterion, one transforms system (1.1) into a system with a distributed
delay, i.e.
x(t) = (A +B)x(t) B
_
t
th
[Ax() +Bx( h)]d. (1.2)
Choose a LyapunovKrasovskii function
V (t, x
t
) = x
T
(t)Px(t), P = P
T
> 0, (1.3)
and apply Razumikhin Theorem to obtain h
max
= 0.9041. As pointed out by Gu
et al. (2003) [19] (Example 5.3), for this example, the stability of system (1.1) is
equivalent to that of system (1.2). The conservatism of the result is due to the
application of the Razumikhin Theorem. For some systems (1.1) with dierent
systems matrices, the model transformation (1.2) may induce additional dynamics.
To reduce the conservatism, instead of transforming system (1.1) into (1.2), one
transforms it into
x(t) = (A +B)x(t) B
_
t
th
x()d. (1.4)
Then choosing a LyapunovKrasovskii functional
V (t, x
t
) = x
T
(t)Px(t) +
_
t
th
x
T
()Qx()d
+
_
0
h
_
t
t+
x
T
()B
T
RBx()dd, (1.5)
where P = P
T
> 0, Q = Q
T
> 0, R = R
T
> 0, and using the bounding technique
for some cross term yield h
max
= 4.3588 [52]. This result was also derived by
1.2. TIMEDELAY SYSTEMS 7
decomposing delayed term matrix as B = B
1
+ B
2
in [22]. In [8], the author
introduced a descriptor transformation
x(t) =y(t), (1.6)
y(t) =(A +B)x(t) B
_
t
th
y()d. (1.7)
A LyapunovKrasovskii functional was chosen as
V (t, x
t
)=
_
x(t)
y(t)
_
T
_
I 0
0 0
__
P
1
0
P
2
P
3
__
x(t)
y(t)
_
+
_
t
tr
x
T
()Qx()d +
_
0
r
_
t
t+
y
T
()A
T
d
RA
d
y()dd, (1.8)
where P
1
= P
T
1
> 0, Q = Q
T
> 0 and R = R
T
> 0. Use this model transformation
and bounding technique for cross terms [52] to obtain h
max
= 4.4721 in [9]. In [28],
the authors introduce some slack variables (freeweighting matrices) to derive the
same result.
In [27], the author avoided using model transformation on system (1.1) and
proposed the following LyapunovKrasovskii functional
V (t, x
t
) = x
T
(t)Px(t) +
_
t
th
x
T
()Qx()d
+
_
t
th
(h t +) x
T
()(hR) x()d, (1.9)
which is equivalent to
V (t, x
t
)=x
T
(t)Px(t) +
_
t
tr
x
T
()Qx()d +
_
0
r
_
t
t+
x
T
()(rR) x()dd (1.10)
where P = P
T
> 0, Q = Q
T
> 0 and R = R
T
> 0. Instead of using the bounding
technique for some cross term, the author used the following bounding
_
t
th
x
T
()(hR) x()d
_
x(t)
x(t h)
_
T
_
R R
R R
__
x(t)
x(t h)
_
(1.11)
to derive the maximum allowed delay bound as h
max
= 4.4721. Compared with
the above mentioned results, the most advantage of the result in [27] is that the
8 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
stability condition which was formulated in an LMI form, was very simple and
easily applied to controller design, and did only include the LyapunovKrasovskii
functional matrices variables P, Q and R, which means that no additional matrix
variable was involved. From the computation point of view, it is clear to see that
testing the result in [27] is less timeconsuming than some existing results in the
literature. However, the result h
max
= 4.4721 is not close enough to the analytical
limit h
analytical
= 6.17258 and work needs to be done to arrive at a value much closer
to the analytical limit. Therefore, the natural question is: How can one improve the
result by using simple LyapunovKrasovskii functionals? Answer to this question
will signicantly enhance the stability analysis and controller synthesis of timedelay
systems. It seems that using the existing simple LyapunovKrasovskii functionals
can not realize the outcome even if one introduces more additional matrices variables
apart from LyapunovKrasovskii functional matrices variables. One way to solve the
problem is to choose a new LyapunovKrasovskii functional. For this purpose, we
propose the following new simple LyapunovKrasovskii functional
V (t, x
t
) = x
T
(t)Px(t) +
_
0
h
2
_
t
t+s
x
T
()R x()dds
+
_
t
t
h
2
_
x(s)
x(s
h
2
)
_
T
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_ _
x(s)
x(s
h
2
)
_
ds (1.12)
where x
t
is dened as x
t
= x(t + ), [h, 0] and P = P
T
> 0, R = R
T
> 0,
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
=
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
T
> 0. Based on (1.12), one can have a delaydependent
stability criterion. Applying this new criterion, one obtains the maximum allowed
delay bound as h
max
= 5.7175, which signicantly improves the result h
max
= 4.4721
in the above mentioned references. One can clearly see that we have made a very
signicant step towards the analytical limit for stability of the system.
1.2.2 Robust Control
The robust control of a linear system with time delay is also an important problem
both in theory and in practice, much eort has been done on this topic, see, for
1.2. TIMEDELAY SYSTEMS 9
example, [5, 7, 13, 16, 24, 29, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 55, 57, 58, 64, 66, 67, 68] etc. For
simplicity, we consider the following system
_
x(t) = A
0
(t)x(t) +A
1
(t)x(t h) +B(t)u(t)
x(t) = (t), t [h, 0]
(1.13)
where u R
m
is the control input; the coecient matrices A
0
(t), A
1
(t), B(t) are
uncertain, which possibly belong to one of the following uncertainties.
Normbounded uncertainty
[A
0
(t) A
1
(t) B(t)] = [A
0
A
1
B] +DF(t)[E
0
E
1
E
b
] (1.14)
where A
0
, A
1
, B, E
0
, E
1
, E
b
are known real matrices with appropriate dimen
sions and F(t) is a unknown timevarying matrix satisfying F
T
(t)F(t) I.
Polytopic uncertainty
[A
0
(t) A
1
(t) B(t)]
_
q
i=1
i
[A
i
0
A
i
1
B
i
];
q
i=1
i
= 1,
i
0
_
(1.15)
where A
i
0
, A
i
1
, B
i
, (i = 1, 2, , q) are constant real matrices.
The basic robust control problem is to seek a suitable controller such that the
resulting closedloop system of (1.13) is asymptotically stable for all uncertainties
satisfying (1.14) or (1.15). To this aim, two control schemes are well used. One is
to design a state feedback controller as
u(t) = K
1
x(t) +K
2
x(t h) (1.16)
where K
1
, K
2
are called controller gains, which are to be determined. The other one
is to design a dynamic output feedback controller to stabilize the original system
(1.13). Assume the output of the system (1.13) is
y(t) = C
0
x(t) +C
1
x(t h) (1.17)
10 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
where C
0
and C
1
are constant real matrices with appropriate dimensions. The
dynamic output feedback controller is of form
_
x
c
(t) = A
c
x
c
(t) +B
c
y(t)
u(t) = C
c
x
c
(t) +D
c
y(t)
(1.18)
where A
c
, B
c
, C
c
, D
c
are controller parameters to be determined.
In the recent years, the robust control for system (1.13) has been widely inves
tigated based on linear matrix inequality technique and a lot of controller design
methods have been proposed. To mention it, the parameter tuning approach is ad
dressed to design a state feedback controller in [9, 67]. Since the parameter tuning
approach needs to restrict some matrix variables to some special structures, this
method usually leads to much conservative results. To achieve much better results,
Moon et al proposed an iterative algorithm to work out the controller parameters in
[49], which, recently, has been gained much attention in control synthesis, one can
see [16, 66] etc. On the other hand, dynamic output feedback control has also been
extensively studied [2, 29, 30, 37]. A projection approach has been a main tool to
obtain an output feedback controller, see, for example, [2, 30] and reference therein.
1.3 Signicance of This Thesis
Since humankind stepped into the 21st century, the need of energy has been
augmenting sharply. Therefore, accompanied by increasingly exhausted ter
restrial energy, more and more attention has been devoted into oshore energy
drilling. Meanwhile, oshore structures provide the necessary possibility for
such an eort. Nevertheless, comparing with terrestrial exploring platforms,
complex ocean environment brings much larger challenge to the safety of the
oshore structures. Specically, dynamic loading, such as earthquake, wind,
wave, deep water current and so on, can induce large motion of oshore plat
forms, further potentially endanger the safety and comfort of the platforms.
Hence, it is a meaningful research topic on how to control an oshore structure.
1.4. OUTLINE AND CONTRIBUTION OF THE THESIS 11
On the other hand, time delays are unavoidable for practical systems, and
their existences usually lead to instability or performance degradation of a
system. It is of great signicance to study the eect of time delays on an
oshore structure both in practice and in theory.
1.4 Outline and Contribution of the Thesis
In this thesis, the robust stability and control problem is investigated for oshore
steel jacket platforms subject to nonlinear waveinduced forces. In order to reduce
the internal oscillations of the platforms subject to irregular wave forces, two types of
control schemes are proposed, i.e. state feedback control and dynamic output feed
back control. Based on LyapunovKrasovskii stability theory, some delaydependent
stabilization criteria are obtained in terms of linear matrix inequalities. By employ
ing an iterative algorithm, the controllers are then easily obtained thanks to the
Matlab LMI Toolbox.
The outline of the thesis is given as follows:
In Chapter 2, a typical oshore steel jacket platform is described. After analyzing
its structure and parameter characteristics, a mathematical model is built, based
on which, two control strategies are introduced to reduce the internal oscillations in
the next sections.
In Chapter 3, a memory state feedback control is considered for the oshore steel
jacket platform with uncertainty. Firstly, a delaydependent stability condition is
obtained for a nominal closedloop system, based on which, the controller is then
designed by employing linearization approaches. The simulation results show that
internal oscillations are eectively reduced when this controller is applied to the
oshore steel jacket platform. Secondly, the above derivatives are successfully ex
tended to the system with either normbounded or polytopic uncertainties. Finally,
an H
control stabilization is also developed for this oshore platform, and some
12 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
delaydependent criteria are obtained in terms of LMIs, which guarantee the con
sidered system is asymptotically stable with a prescribed disturbance attenuation
level via a state feedback controller.
In Chapter 4, a memory dynamic output feedback control is studied for the
oshore steel jacket platform with uncertainties. A sucient condition for the ex
istence of such a controller is rst established for a nominal system. In virtue of a
projection theorem and a cone complementary linearization algorithm, a dynamic
output feedback controller is then designed, which can be easily solved by using the
Matlab LMI Toolbox. Simulation results illustrate that the dynamic output feed
back controller can more eectively reduce the internal oscillations of the oshore
platform subject to wave forces when the system outputs are adopted as feedback.
Then, these results are extended to suit for the uncertain system. Similar to the pre
vious chapter, the robust H
_
z
1
= 2
1
1
z
1
2
1
z
1
T
1
(F
a
F
AMD
) +f
t1
+f
t2
,
z
2
= 2
2
2
z
2
2
2
z
2
T
2
(F
a
F
AMD
) +f
t3
+f
t4
,
y = 2
T
T
( y
U
8
)
2
T
(y U
8
) +
1
m
T
u,
(2.1)
where z
1
and z
2
are the generalized coordinates of vibration modes 1 and 2, re
spectively; y is the horizontal displacement of the AMD;
1
and
2
are the natural
frequencies of the rst two modes of vibrations;
1
and
2
are the damping ratio in
the rst two modes of vibrations;
1
and
2
are the rst and second mode shapes
vectors, respectively; F
AMD
is the passive control force vector due to the AMD;
T
is the damping ratio of the AMD; C
T
, m
T
and K
T
are the damping, the mass and
the stiness of the AMD, respectively;
T
=
_
K
T
/m
T
is the natural frequency of
the AMD; U
8
is the horizontal displacement of joint 8 in the oshore structure; u is
the control action of the system; and f
t1
, f
t2
, f
t3
, f
t4
are the nonlinear selfexcited
hydrodynamic force terms [71].
The horizontal displacement of joint 8 in the oshore structure is
U
8
=
1
z
1
+
2
z
2
, (2.2)
where
1
and
2
are the contributions of the rst two mode shapes. Noting that
T
1
F
a
=
1
u ,
T
2
F
a
=
2
u, (2.3)
the control forces due to the AMD can explicitly be written as
_
T
1
F
AMD
=
1
[K
T
(y U
8
) +C
T
( y
U
8
)],
T
2
F
AMD
=
2
[K
T
(y U
8
) +C
T
( y
U
8
)]
(2.4)
The nonlinear selfexcited hydrodynamic force terms can be modeled by using
Morison equation.
Using Equations (2.1)(2.4), the equations of motion of a steel jacket platform
subjected to nonlinear selfexcited hydrodynamic forces can be written as
17
_
_
z
1
=2
1
1
z
1
2
1
z
1
1
K
T
(
1
z
1
+
2
z
2
) +
1
K
T
y
1
C
T
(
1
z
1
+
2
z
2
) +
1
C
T
y
1
u +f
t1
+f
t2
,
z
2
=2
2
2
z
2
2
2
z
2
2
K
T
(
1
z
1
+
2
z
2
) +
2
K
T
y
2
C
T
(
1
z
1
+
2
z
2
) +
2
C
T
y
2
u +f
t3
+f
t4
,
y =2
T
T
y + 2
T
T
(
1
z
1
+
2
z
2
)
2
T
y +
2
T
(
1
z
1
+
2
z
2
)
+
1
m
T
u.
(2.5)
Let x
1
(t) = z
1
(t), x
2
(t) = z
1
(t), x
3
(t) = z
2
(t), x
4
(t) = z
2
(t), x
5
(t) = y(t), and
x
6
(t) = y(t). The system (2.5) can be written as
x(t) = Ax(t) +Bu(t) +Fg(x, t) (2.6)
where
x(t) =
_
x
1
(t) x
2
(t) x
3
(t) x
4
(t) x
5
(t) x
6
(t)
T
, (2.7)
B =
_
0
1
0
2
0
1
m
T
T
, (2.8)
F =
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
_
T
, (2.9)
g(x, t) =
_
f
t1
+f
t2
f
t3
+f
t4
_
, (2.10)
and
A =
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
A
21
A
22
K
T
2
C
T
2
1
K
T
1
C
T
0 0 0 1 0 0
K
T
2
C
T
2
A
43
A
44
2
K
T
2
C
T
0 0 0 0 0 1
2
T
1
2
T
1
2
T
2
2
T
2
2
T
2
T
T
_
_
(2.11)
with A
21
=
2
1
K
T
2
1
, A
22
= 2
1
1
C
T
2
1
, A
43
=
2
2
K
T
2
2
, and A
44
=
2
2
2
C
T
2
2
.
Remark 1. The nonlinear term g(x, t) in (2.6) is uniformly bounded and it can be
assumed that the nonlinear term g(x, t) satises the following conebounding con
straint:
g(x, t) x(t) , (2.12)
18 CHAPTER 2. MODELING OF AN OFFSHORE STRUCTURE
where is a positive scalar.
For the purpose of simulation, the same systems parameters setting from Abdel
Rohman [1] is used for simulation studies. The data for the waves are H = 12.19m,
h = 76.2m, = 182.88m. The structure consists of cylindrical steel tube members.
The density of steel is 7730.7kg/m
3
; the density of water,
w
= 1025.6kg/m
3
. The
weight of the concrete deck carried by the steel members is 6672.3 10
3
N, and
U
ow
= 0.122m/ sec . The dimensions of the structural elements are given in Figure
1. The project areas, volumes, and masses of each member in the structure can
be found in [1]. Using these data, the wave force parameters at each joint can be
calculated [1].
The natural frequencies of the rst two modes of vibrations are
1
= 1.818rps
and
2
= 10.8717rps. The structural damping in each mode is considered to be
0.005, hence
1
=
2
= 0.005. The contribution of the rst two modes shapes are
1
= 0.003445 and
2
= 0.003463.
The TMD parameters are chosen to tune with the rst mode such that
T
=
1.8rps,
T
= 0.15 and K
T
= 1551.5, C
T
= 256.
Using the values of the parameters of the system, we nd that
A =
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
B =
_
0 0.003445 0 0.00344628 0 0.00213
T
.
In the following chapters, two kinds of control approaches, i.e. state feedback
control and dynamic output feedback control, will be proposed for the above oshore
steel jacket platform.
Chapter 3
State Feedback Control
For practical systems, time delay and uncertainty are unavoidable due to modeling
errors and data transmission, which usually result in instability and degrade per
formance of the corresponding systems. In this chapter, for an oshore steel jacket
platform, in order to eectively reduce the internal system oscillations, a memory
state feedback controller will be introduced. Based on LyapunovKrasovskii func
tional stability theory and some linearization methods, a memory state feedback
controller will be designed, under which, via numerical simulation, the considered
system can be eectively controlled, that is, the amplitudes of the internal oscilla
tions are greatly decreased.
In addition, robust and H
11
12
PF h(A +BK
1
)
T
22
0 hK
T
2
B
T
I hF
T
hR
1
_
_
< 0, (3.5)
:=
_
_
R M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0, (3.6)
where
11
:= P(A +BK
1
) + (A +BK
1
)
T
P
+Q+
2
I +M
T
1
+M
1
+hZ
1
,
12
:= PBK
2
M
T
1
+M
2
+hZ
2
,
22
:= QM
T
2
M
2
+hZ
3
.
Proof. Choose a LyapunovKrasovskii functional candidate as
V (x
t
) = x
T
(t)Px(t) +
_
t
th
x
T
(s)Qx(s)ds
+
_
0
h
d
_
t
t+
x
T
(s)R x(s)ds, (3.7)
where x
t
= x(t + ), [h, 0] and P > 0, Q > 0, R > 0 are to be determined.
Taking the derivative of V (x
t
) with respect to time t along the trajectory of system
22 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
(3.4) yields
V (x
t
) =2x
T
(t)P x(t) +x
T
(t)Qx(t)
x
T
(t h)Qx(t h)
+h x
T
(t)R x(t)
_
t
th
x
T
(s)R x(s)ds (3.8)
According to Lemma 3 (see Appendix A), for any M
i
, Z
j
(i = 1, 2, j = 1, 2, 3) with
appropriate dimensions, if (3.6) holds, then
_
t
th
x
T
(s)R x(s)ds
_
x(t)
x(th)
_
T
_
11
12
22
_ _
x(t)
x(th)
_
(3.9)
where
11
:= M
T
1
+M
1
+hZ
1
12
:= M
T
1
+M
2
+hZ
2
22
:= M
T
2
M
2
+hZ
3
In addition, noting from (3.2) that
0
2
x
T
(t)x(t) g
T
(x, t)g(x, t). (3.10)
Introducing a new vector
(t) = [x
T
(t) x
T
(t h) g
T
(x, t)]
T
and substituting (3.9) and (3.10) into (3.8) gives
V (t, x
t
)
T
(t) +h
T
R(t)
where
:=
_
_
11
12
PF
22
0
I
_
_
,
:= [A +BK
1
BK
2
F]
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 23
with
11
,
12
and
22
are dened in (3.5). Clearly, if the matrix inequalities (3.5)
and (3.6) hold, then using the Schur complement yields +h
T
R < 0. Therefore,
there exists a sucient small number > 0 such that
V (t, x
t
) x
T
(t)x(t) < 0
for x(t) ,= 0, which guarantees the asymptotical stability of the closedloop system
(3.4) by LyapunovKrasovskii stability theorem. This completes the proof.
Proposition 1 provides a delaydependent stability condition for system (3.4).
Clearly, this condition is nonlinear due to nonlinear terms, such as PBK
1
etc. Below,
in order to get controller gains K
1
and K
2
, we will propose two schemes to linearize
the matrix inequalities (3.5) and (3.6).
3.2.2 Controller Design
In this section, we are concerned with the controller design based on Proposition 1.
To this aim, an equivalent version of Proposition 1 is rst presented in the following.
Proposition 2. For some given positive scalars > 0 and h > 0, system (3.4) is
asymptotically stable if there exist matrices X > 0,
Q > 0,
R > 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
1
,
M
2
,
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of appropriate dimensions such that
:=
_
11
12
F hXA
T
+hY
T
1
B
T
X
22
0 hY
T
2
B
T
0
I hF
T
0
h
R 0
I
_
_
< 0 (3.11)
:=
_
_
X
R
1
X
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0 (3.12)
where
11
:= XA
T
+AX +BY
1
+Y
T
1
B
T
+
Q+
M
T
1
+
M
1
+h
Z
1
,
12
:= BY
2
M
T
1
+
M
2
+h
Z
2
,
22
:=
Q
M
T
2
M
2
+h
Z
3
.
Moreover, the controller gains are given by K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
24 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
Proof. Now, we will prove the matrix inequalities (3.5) and (3.6) are equivalent
to (3.11) and (3.12), respectively. In fact, noting that P > 0 in (3.5), then P is
invertible, dene
T
1
:= diagP
1
, P
1
, I, I
T
2
:= diagP
1
, P
1
, P
1
and set X = P
1
, Y
1
= K
1
P
1
, Y
2
= K
2
P
1
,
R = R
1
and
_
_
Q
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
:=
_
_
X 0 0
X 0
X
_
_
_
_
Q M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
_
_
X 0 0
X 0
X
_
_
then we have
T
T
1
T
1
=
_
11
+
2
X
2
12
F hXA
T
+hY
T
1
B
T
22
0 hY
T
2
B
T
I hF
T
h
R
_
_
T
T
2
T
2
=
where and are dened in (3.5) and (3.6), respectively. Thus, by the Schur
complement, one obtains
< 0
< 0
0
0
which completes the proof.
We are now in a position to design the desired controller. From Proposition 2,
matrix inequality (3.11) is linear on matrix variables, while (3.12) not. However,
only one nonlinear term, i.e. X
R
1
X, is included in (3.12). This means that only
if this term is linearized, then (3.12) is converted into an LMI. By employing the
Matlab LMI Toolbox, the controller can be easily solved out based on the LMIs. In
the following, two methods will be introduced to linearize this nonlinear term.
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 25
According to the fact that
X
R
1
X 2X
R, (3.13)
we have
_
_
X
R
1
X
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
_
_
2X
R
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
This leads to a controller design approach based on the solutions of two LMIs, which
is stated in the following.
Proposition 3. For some given positive scalars > 0 and h > 0, system (3.4)
with K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
is asymptotically stable if there exist matrices
X > 0,
Q > 0,
R > 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
1
,
M
2
,
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of appropriate dimensions such
that (3.11) and
_
_
2X
R
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0 (3.14)
Although Proposition 3 provides an approach to design a controller, the obtained
results are usually conservative since it requires 2X
R > 0, which is a restriction
on variables X and
R. To remove this constraint, we can introduce a new matrix
variable S > 0 such that
X
R
1
X S (3.15)
which is equivalent to
_
R
1
X
1
X
1
S
1
_
0 (3.16)
Following the above line yields the second method to design the suitable controller
of form (3.3), which is shown in the following proposition.
Proposition 4. For some given positive scalars > 0 and h > 0, system (3.4)
with K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
is asymptotically stable if there exist matrices
26 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
X > 0,
Q > 0,
R > 0, S > 0, A > 0,
1 > 0, o > 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
1
,
M
2
,
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of
appropriate dimensions such that (3.11) and
_
_
S
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0 (3.17)
XA = I,
R
1 = I, So = I. (3.18)
Clearly, Proposition 4 is a nonconvex feasibility problem due to the equality
constraints in (3.18). So it cannot be directly solved by using Matlab LMI Toolbox.
However, employing the cone complementary approach proposed in [4], we can con
vert the nonconvex feasibility problem into a nonlinear minimization one subject
to LMIs.
A Nonlinear Minimization Problem
Minimize Tr(XA +
R
1+So)
Subject to (3.11), (3.17) and
_
1 A
A o
_
0,
_
X I
I A
_
0,
_
R I
I
1
_
0,
_
S I
I o
_
0. (3.19)
Similar to [4], an iterative algorithm can be proposed to solve the above nonlinear
minimization problem, which is stated below.
Algorithm 2.1: Maximize h for a given scalar > 0.
Step 1 Choose a suciently small initial value h
ini
such that (3.11),(3.17)
and (3.19) are feasible. Set h
so
= h
ini
.
Step 2 Find a feasible set
(X
0
,
Q
0
,
R
0
, S
0
, A
0
,
1
0
, o
0
, Y
0
i
,
M
0
i
,
Z
0
j
(i = 1, 2, j = 1, 2, 3)) satisfy
ing (3.11),(3.17) and (3.19). Set l = 0.
Step 3 Solve the following LMI problem for the variables (X, A,
R,
1, S, o)
Minimize Tr(X
l
A +A
l
X +
R
l
1+
1
l
R +S
l
o +o
l
S)
Subject to (3.11), (3.17), (3.19)
Set X
l+1
= X, A
l+1
= A,
R
l+1
=
R,
1
l+1
=
1, S
l+1
= S, o
l+1
= o.
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 27
Step 4 If matrix inequality (3.12) is satised, then set h
so
= h
ini
and in
crease
ini
to some extent and go back to Step 2. If the condition
(3.12) is not satised within a specied number of iterations, then
exit, otherwise, set l = l + 1 and go to Step 3.
Remark 3. The proposed algorithm provides a procedure to obtain a suboptimal
upper bound h of delay size. It is worth noting that the inequality (3.12) is used as
the stopping criterion in the above algorithm since it is numerically very dicult to
exactly obtain the minimum value, 36, of Tr(X
l
A +A
l
X+
R
l
1+
1
l
R+S
l
o +o
l
S).
Remark 4. Based on Proposition 1, two controller design schemes are proposed, i.e.
the Controller Design from Proposition 3 and the Controller Design from Proposition
4. In general, the former scheme can tolerate a larger upper bound h than the later
one. Moreover, when these two schemes are applied to the oshore structure in
(2.6), even for the same admissible bound h, the obtained controller gain by the
later is smaller than that by the former, which is shown in the next section.
3.2.3 Simulation Results
In the previous section, a memory state feedback controller is introduced to control
an oshore structure platform and two controller design schemes are proposed. Now,
we aim to show the eectiveness of the proposed methods via numerical simulations.
For simulation to the oshore structure platform (2.6), two cases of wave fre
quency are taken into consideration, = 1.8 rps and = 0.5773 rps. We set
= 0.1. In the sequel, we compare the state curves under controller (3.3) with
h = 0.1 by two schemes with those by no control.
The responses of the oshore structure with no control are shown in Figures 3.1
 3.6. The uncontrolled lateral displacements of the three oors of jacket for =
1.8 and = 0.5773 are shown in Figures 3.13.3 and Figures 3.33.6, respectively.
Clearly, for = 1.8, the oscillation amplitudes of the three oors range from 2.25
28 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
First floor No Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.1: The displacement of the rst oor with no control and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Second floor No Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.2: The displacement of the second oor with no control and = 1.8
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 29
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Third floor No Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.3: The displacement of the third oor with no control and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
First floor No Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.4: The displacement of the rst oor with no control and = 0.5773
30 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Second floor No Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.5: The displacement of the second oor with no control and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Third floor No Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.6: The displacement of the third oor with no control and = 0.5773
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 31
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
First floor State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.7: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Second floor State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.8: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 1.8
32 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.9: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.10: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 0.5773
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 33
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.11: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.12: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.20)
for = 0.5773
34 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
First floor State Feedback Control (Nonlinear Minimization)
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.13: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Second floor State Feedback Control (Nonlinear Minimization)
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.14: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 1.8
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Third floor State Feedback Control (Nonlinear Minimization)
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.15: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor State Feedback Control (Nonlinear Minimization)
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.16: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 0.5773
36 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor State Feedback Control (Nonlinear Minimization)
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.17: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor State Feedback Control (Nonlinear Minimization)
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.18: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.21)
for = 0.5773
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 37
ft to 2.25 ft, from 2.5 ft to 2.5 ft, and from 2.6 ft to 2.6 ft, respectively. The
responses for = 0.5773 oscillate within the range of 1.5 ft, 1.6 ft and 1.7 ft peak
to peak, respectively (see Figures 3.2  3.4).
However, under the controller (3.3), the amplitudes of displacements for both
= 1.8 and = 0.5773 can be eectively controlled. In fact, for the Controller
Design from Proposition 3, the controller gains K
1
and K
2
in (3.3) are given by
K
s1
:
_
K
1
= [0.3168 0.0612 4.8474 0.3767 0.1314 0.3290] 10
4
K
2
= [0.0359 0.0061 1.3969 0.0348 0.1165 0.0597] 10
4
(3.20)
The responses of the oshore structure under controller K
s1
are also given in Figures
3.7  3.12. Compared with Figures 3.1  3.6, clearly, the displacements of the three
oors are greatly decreased. When the system reaches a steady state, the amplitudes
are just 14%, 16% and 16% of those with no control for = 1.8, respectively. For
= 0.5773, the amplitudes of displacement are also decreased, which can be seen
from Figures 3.10  3.12. (See Appendix C.1 for the simulation diagram)
Next, we will show the eectiveness of the Controller Design from Proposition
4. The obtained controller gains by this scheme are
K
s2
:
_
K
1
= [0.9575 0.6353 0.1208 1.7778 1.1862 1.4151] 10
3
K
2
= [0.0012 0.0022 0.0348 0.0008 0.0003 0.0021]
(3.21)
Obviously, compared with the Controller Design from Proposition 3, the gains of
K
s2
are much smaller than those of K
s1
, which means that the Controller Design
from Proposition 4 requires less energy than the Controller Design from Proposition
3 to control the oshore structure. On the other hand, Figures 3.13  3.18 plot the
response curves of oshore structure by K
s2
, from which it is not dicult to see
that these amplitudes are little smaller than those in Figures 3.7  3.12, respectively.
From the view of both energy consumption and the decrease of internal oscillation,
the Controller Design from Proposition 4 is more eective than the Controller De
sign from Proposition 3. (The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from
38 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
Proposition 4 is similar to that of the Controller Design from Proposition 3. Its
omitted.)
3.2.4 An Improved DelayDependent Stabilization Crite
rion
In the previous section, Proposition 1 provides a delaydependent stability condition
for system (3.4) by using a widely employed LyapunovKrasovskii functional (LKF)
(3.7). As pointed out in [46], it seems impossible to reduce the conservatism of the
obtained delaydependent stability conditions by using this LKF. In this section,
we introduce a new LKF, by which a less conservative delaydependent stability
criterion is obtained. Interestingly, based on this new stability condition, the result
ing controller can control the oshore structure more eectively than the Controller
Design from Proposition 3.
The new LKF candidate is given as
V (x
t
) = x
T
(t)Px(t) +
_
0
h
2
ds
_
t
t+s
x
T
()R x()d
+
_
t
t
h
2
_
x(s)
x(s
h
2
)
_
T
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_ _
x(s)
x(s
h
2
)
_
ds (3.22)
where P, Q
1
, Q
2
, Q
3
, R R
n
, P > 0, Q =
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
> 0, R > 0 to be deter
mined.
Similar to Proposition 1, the following proposition can be easily obtained, the
proof is omitted.
Proposition 5. For some given positive scalars and h, system (3.4) is asymptot
ically stable if there exist matrices P > 0, Q =
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
> 0, R > 0 and M
i
, Z
j
(i = 1, 2, j = 1, 2, 3) of appropriate dimensions such that
_
11
12
PBK
2
PF
h
2
(A +BK
1
)
T
22
Q
2
0 0
Q
3
0
h
2
K
T
2
B
T
I
h
2
F
T
h
2
R
1
_
_
< 0, (3.23)
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 39
_
_
R M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0, (3.24)
where
11
:= P(A +BK
1
) + (A +BK
1
)
T
P +Q
1
+
2
I +M
T
1
+M
1
+
h
2
Z
1
,
12
:= Q
2
M
T
1
+M
2
+
h
2
Z
2
,
22
:= Q
3
Q
1
M
T
2
M
2
+
h
2
Z
3
.
In order to show the less conservatism of Proposition 5, we take a well known
example from [22].
Example 1. Consider a linear system with a time delay
x(t) =
_
2 0
0 0.9
_
x(t) +
_
1 0
1 1
_
x(t h) (3.25)
References [10, 28, 62, 65, 69] calculated the maximum admissible upper bound
(MAUB) of delay h, and the obtained results were all the same, i.e. 4.4721. However,
Proposition 5 can achieve a much larger MAUB, i.e. 5.7175, which suciently shows
the less conservatism of the new delaydependent stability criterion by employing
the new LKF (3.22).
Similarly, we can also design a state feedback controller based on Proposition 5.
For simplicity, we just give the same scheme as Proposition 3 and the other design
scheme like Proposition 4 is omitted.
Proposition 6. For some given positive scalars and h, system (3.4) with K
1
=
Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
is asymptotically stable if there exist matrices X > 0,
Q =
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
> 0,
R > 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
1
,
M
2
,
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of appropriate dimensions such
that
_
11
12
BY
2
F
h
2
(XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
) X
22
Q
2
0 0 0
Q
3
0
h
2
Y
T
2
B
T
0
I
h
2
F
T
0
h
2
R 0
I
_
_
< 0, (3.26)
40 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
_
_
2X
R
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0. (3.27)
where
11
:= AX +BY
1
+XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
+
Q
1
+
M
T
1
+
M
1
+
h
2
Z
1
,
12
:=
Q
2
M
T
1
+
M
2
+
h
2
Z
2
,
22
:=
Q
3
Q
1
M
T
2
M
2
+
h
2
Z
3
.
Proposition 6 provides another design scheme based on a new delaydependent
stability condition. It is interesting that, for the oshore structure, the obtained
controller (3.3) by the Controller Design from Proposition 6 is more eective than
K
s1
by the Controller Design from Proposition 3. To show this, using the same
setting as the Controller Design from Proposition 3, that is, h = 0.1 and = 0.1,
the controller gains are given by
K
s3
:
_
K
1
= [1.3364 0.3302 3.3623 1.5286 0.7710 1.1746] 10
3
K
2
= [5.1730 1.0975 75.1301 1.4988 2.7732 6.7567]
(3.28)
The responses of the oshore structure via controller (3.3) with K
s3
are shown in
Figures 3.19  3.24. (The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Propo
sition 6 is similar to that of the Controller Design from Proposition 3. Its omitted.)
Comparing with Figures 3.7  3.12 by the Controller Design from Proposition 3, we
nd that
the oscillation amplitudes of the jacket platform for = 0.5773 are almost the
same as those by the Controller Design from Proposition 3;
the oscillation amplitudes for = 0.5773 are little worse than those by the
Controller Design from Proposition 3, but control results are also good; and
the controller gain is greatly reduced;
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 41
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor Improved State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.19: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor Improved State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.20: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 1.8
42 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Third floor Improved State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.21: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor Improved State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.22: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 0.5773
3.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 43
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor Improved State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.23: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Third floor Improved State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.24: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.28)
for = 0.5773
44 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
which are enough to illustrate the validity and superiority of the Controller Design
from Proposition 6.
3.3 Uncertain Systems
In the previous section, we discussed the controller design for a nominal oshore
structure system and three schemes have been derived to reduce the internal oscilla
tions. However, when the system matrices are subject to uncertainties, the obtained
results fail to this situation. As is well known, depending on the uncertainty type, we
can have dierent results. In this section, we will consider two types of uncertainties,
one is a normbounded uncertainty and the other polytopic uncertainty.
3.3.1 A NormBounded Uncertainty
For the normbounded uncertainty, it is assumed that
[A(t) B(t)] = [A B] +LG(t)[E
a
E
b
] (3.29)
where A, B, L, E
a
and E
b
are constant matrices with appropriate dimensions, and
G(t) is a timevarying real matrix with Lebesguemeasurable elements satisfying
G
T
(t)G(t) I, t. (3.30)
The closedloop system of (3.1) with (3.29) connecting (3.3) is then given by
_
_
x(t) = [(A +BK
1
) +LG(t)(E
a
+E
b
K
1
)]x(t)
+ [BK
2
+LG(t)E
b
K
2
]x(t h) +Fg(x, t),
x(t) = (t), t [h, 0],
(3.31)
Based on Lemma 2 (see Appendix A), we have
Proposition 7. For some given positive scalars and h, system (3.31) with (3.30)
is robustly stable if there exist matrices X > 0,
Q > 0,
R > 0, and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
1
,
M
2
,
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 45
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of appropriate dimension such that (3.14) and
_
11
12
F hXA
T
+hY
T
1
B
T
X L (E
b
Y
1
+E
a
X)
T
22
0 hY
T
2
B
T
0 0 Y
T
2
E
T
b
I hF
T
0 0 0
h
R 0 hL 0
I 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0, (3.32)
where
11
,
12
and
22
are dened in (3.11). Moreover, the controller gains are
given by K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
Proof. According to Proposition 3, if (3.11) and (3.14) holds, system (3.4) is asymp
totically stable. Replacing A and B in (3.11) with A+LG(t)E
a
and B +LG(t)E
b
,
respectively, we nd that (3.11) for system (3.31) with (3.30) is equivalent to the
following
+H
1
G(t)N
1
+H
T
1
G
T
(t)N
T
1
< 0 (3.33)
where
H
1
= [L
T
0 0 hL
T
0]
T
N
1
= [E
b
Y
1
+E
a
X E
b
Y
2
0 0 0]
and
is dened in (3.11). By Lemma 2 (see Appendix A), (3.33) holds for any G(t)
satisfying (3.30) if and only if there exists a positive number > 0 such that
+H
1
H
T
1
+
1
N
T
1
N
1
< 0. (3.34)
Applying the Schur complement to (3.34) yields (3.32). This completes the proof.
Similarly, the following result is straightforward from Proposition 6.
Proposition 8. For some given positive scalars and h, system (3.31) with (3.30)
is robustly stable if there exist matrices X > 0,
Q
1
> 0,
Q
2
> 0,
Q
3
> 0,
R
1
> 0,
46 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
R
2
> 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
1
,
M
2
,
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of appropriate dimensions such that (3.27)
and
_
11
12
BY
2
F
15
X L
18
22
Q
2
0 0 0 0 0
Q
3
0
h
2
Y
T
2
B
T
0 0 Y
T
2
E
T
b
I
h
2
F
T
0 0 0
h
2
R 0
h
2
L 0
I 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0, (3.35)
where
15
=
h
2
(XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
),
18
= (E
b
Y
1
+E
a
X)
T
.
and
11
,
12
,
22
are dened in (3.26). Moreover, the controller gains are given by
K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
3.3.2 Simulation Results
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
First floor Uncontrolled System with Uncertainty
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.25: The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the system
with normbounded uncertainties and = 1.8
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 47
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Second floor Uncontrolled System with Uncertainty
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.26: The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Third floor Uncontrolled System with Uncertainty
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.27: The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 1.8
48 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
First floor Uncontrolled System with Uncertainty
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.28: The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the system
with normbounded uncertainties and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Second floor Uncontrolled System with Uncertainty
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.29: The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 0.5773
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 49
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Third floor Uncontrolled System with Uncertainty
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.30: The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with normbounded uncertainties and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
First floor Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.31: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 1.8
50 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.32: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.33: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 1.8
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 51
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
First floor Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.34: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.35: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 0.5773
52 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.36: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.36)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
First floor Improved Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.37: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 1.8
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 53
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor Improved Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.38: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor Improved Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.39: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 1.8
54 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
First floor Improved Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.40: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Improved Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.41: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 0.5773
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 55
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Improved Robust State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.42: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.37)
for = 0.5773
Now, for the oshore structure system, suppose the system matrices are subject
to normbounded uncertainties. Then we will show, via numerical simulation, the
eectiveness of the proposed methods  Propositions 7 and 8. The system matrices
are assumed to be of the form (3.29) with
L = [0 0 0.001 0 0 0.01]
T
,
E
a
= [1 0 0 0 0 0],
E
b
= 0.
The wave frequency is also separated to two cases: 1.8 rps and 0.5773 rps, and
h = 0.1, = 0.1.
Figures 3.25  3.30 plot the states of the uncertain system without control. Its
easy to see that the oscillation amplitudes are dierent from those of the system
with no uncertainty, see Figures 3.1  3.6, especially for the responses for = 1.8
(see Figures 3.25  3.27). That is, the uncertainty brings much inuence to internal
oscillations of the oshore structures, so it is of much signicance in practice to take
the uncertainty into account.
56 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
By the Controller Design from Proposition 7 deriving from Propositions 7, the
controller gains can be obtained as
K
s4
:
_
K
1
= [0.2555 0.1584 1.6036 0.1897 0.1050 0.1216] 10
4
K
2
= [0.3045 0.0542 1.4487 0.0115 0.0394 0.1280] 10
3
(3.36)
Figures 3.31  3.36 show all the states of the uncertain system by the Controller
Design from Proposition 7. (The simulation diagram is shown in Appendix C.2.)
Comparing with Figures 3.25  3.30, we nd that the responses of the platform are
controlled in reasonable scopes instead of devastatingly drastic oscillations. In fact,
it is clear from Figures 3.31  3.33 that the amplitudes of the platform for = 1.8
are about only 14% of those shown in Figures 3.25  3.27. For = 0.5773, from
Figures 3.34  3.36, the internal oscillations induced by wave and the uncertainty are
also reduced, the amplitudes of the displacement of three oors are decreased from
1.5 ft (in Figure 3.28) to 1.2 ft (in Figure 3.34), from 1.6 ft (in Figure 3.29) to 1.3
ft (in Figure 3.35) and from 1.8 ft (in Figure 3.30) to 1.4 ft (in Figure 3.36), peak
to peak, respectively. These gures attest the eectiveness of the design control
technique in reducing the uncontrolled responses.
On the other hand, the Controller Design from Proposition 8 deriving from
Propositions 8 yields the controller gains as
K
s5
:
_
K
1
= [1.6666 0.4307 5.8123 2.0646 0.6845 1.4603] 10
3
K
2
= [89.7419 5.3661 703.9537 11.9643 40.3774 83.3679]
(3.37)
The state responses of the system under study via a memory controller by the
Controller Design from Proposition 8 are shown in Figures 3.37 3.40, from which, we
can see that the internal oscillations are almost the same as those by the Controller
Design from Proposition 7. However, it is clear that the gain K
s5
is much smaller
than K
s4
, which means the Controller Design from Proposition 8 is more ecient
and economical than the Controller Design from Proposition 7 in the sense of energy
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 57
consumption. (The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition
8 is similar to that of the Controller Design from Proposition 7. Its omitted.)
3.3.3 A Polytopic Uncertainty
For the polytopic uncertainty, (A(t), B(t)) in (3.1) is assumed to be bounded by a
given convex bounded polyhedral domain , i.e.
(A(t), B(t)) :=
_
q
j=1
j
(A
j
, B
j
),
q
j=1
j
= 1,
j
0
_
(3.38)
The closedloop system of (3.1) with (3.38) under controller (3.3) becomes
_
_
_
x(t) = [A(t) +B(t)K
1
]x(t) +B(t)K
2
x(t h) +Fg(x, t),
x(t) = (t), t [h, 0],
(3.39)
Following the ideas in [50, 51], we choose a parameterdependent Lyapunov
Krasovskii functional candidate as
V (x
t
) =
q
j=1
[x
T
(t)
j
P
j
x(t) +
_
t
th
x
T
(s)
j
Q
j
x(s)ds
+
_
0
h
d
_
t
t+
x
T
(s)
j
R
j
x(s)ds]
=
q
j=1
V
j
(x
t
). (3.40)
where x
t
= x(t + ), [h, 0] and P
j
> 0, Q
j
> 0, R
j
> 0 are to be determined.
Then we have
Proposition 9. The system (3.1) with (3.38) is robustly stable if there exist matrices
P
j
> 0, Q
j
> 0, R
j
> 0, M
1j
, M
2j
, Z
1j
, Z
2j
, Z
3j
and N of appropriate dimensions,
such that
j
:=
_
11j
12j
13j
N
T
F
22j
N
T
B
j
K
2
N
T
F
33j
0
I
_
_
< 0 (3.41)
and
_
_
R
j
M
1j
M
2j
Z
1j
Z
2j
Z
3j
_
_
0, (3.42)
58 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
hold for j = 1, 2, , q, where
11j
= Q
j
+
2
I +M
T
1j
+M
1j
+hZ
1j
+N
T
(A
j
+B
j
K
1
) + (A
j
+B
j
K
1
)
T
N,
12j
= P
j
N
T
+ (A
j
+B
j
K
1
)
T
N,
22j
= hR
j
N
T
N,
13j
=M
T
1j
+M
2j
+hZ
2j
+N
T
B
j
K
2
,
33j
=M
T
2j
M
2j
+hZ
3j
.
Proof. Taking the derivative of V (x
t
) with respect to time t along the trajectory of
system (3.39) yields
V (x
t
) =
q
j=1
V
j
(x
t
) (3.43)
where
V
j
(x
t
) = 2x
T
(t)
j
P
j
x(t) +x
T
(t)
j
Q
j
x(t) x
T
(t h)
j
Q
j
x(t h)
+h x
T
(t)
j
R
j
x(t)
_
t
th
x
T
(s)
j
R
j
x(s)ds (3.44)
By Lemma 3 (see Appendix A), for any matrices M
1j
, M
2j
and Z
1j
, Z
2j
, Z
3j
, if (3.42)
is true, then so is the following
_
t
th
x
T
(s)
j
R
j
x(s)ds
j
_
x(t)
x(t h)
_
T
_
M
T
1j
+M
1j
M
T
1j
+M
2j
M
T
2j
M
2j
_ _
x(t)
x(t h)
_
+h
j
_
x(t)
x(t h)
_
T
_
Z
1j
Z
2j
Z
3j
_ _
x(t)
x(t h)
_
, (3.45)
Similar to [28], for any N with appropriate dimensions, it is clear from (3.39) that
the following is true
0 = 2x
T
(t)N
T
[ x(t) + (A(t) +B(t)K
1
)x(t) +B(t)K
2
x(t h) +Fg(x, t)]
Noting that (3.38), we have
0 = 2
q
j=1
j
x
T
(t)N
T
[ x(t) + (A
j
+B
j
K
1
)x(t) +B
j
K
2
x(t h) +Fg(x, t)] (3.46)
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 59
In addition, from (3.2)
0
2
x
T
(t)x(t) g
T
(x, t)g(x, t) (3.47)
Substituting (3.44), (3.45), (3.46), (3.47) into (3.43) gives
V (x
t
)
q
j=1
T
(t)
j
(t)
where
j
is dened in (3.41) and
T
(t) = [ x
T
(t) x
T
(t) x
T
(t h) g
T
(x, t) ]
Thus, if (3.41) and (3.42) hold for j = 1, 2, , q, then there exists a > 0 such
that
V (x
t
) x(t)
2
< 0 for x(t) ,= 0, which guarantees that system (3.39) is
robustly stable for polytopic uncertainty (3.38). This completes the proof.
The following proposition provides a controller design method for system (3.39)
with polytopic uncertainty (3.38).
Proposition 10. The system (3.39) with (3.38) is robustly stable if there exist
matrices
P
j
> 0,
Q
j
> 0,
R
j
> 0,
M
ij
,
Z
kj
,
N and Y
i
of appropriate dimensions,
where i = 1, 2, j = 1, 2, ...q, k = 1, 2, 3, such that the following LMIs hold for
j = 1, 2, ...q :
(j) :=
_
11
12
13
F
N
T
22
B
j
Y
2
F 0
33
0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0, (3.48)
_
_
R
j
M
1j
M
2j
Z
1j
Z
2j
Z
3j
_
_
0, (3.49)
where
11
=
Q
j
+
M
T
1j
+
M
1j
+h
Z
1j
60 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
+A
j
N +B
j
Y
1
+ (A
j
N +B
j
Y
1
)
T
,
12
=
P
j
N + (A
j
N +B
j
Y
1
)
T
,
22
= h
R
j
N
N
T
,
13
=
M
T
1j
+
M
2j
+h
Z
2j
+B
j
Y
2
,
33
=
M
T
2j
M
2j
+h
Z
3j
.
Moreover, the controller gains are given by K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
Proof. From Proposition 9, if (3.41) and (3.42) hold, system (3.39) with (3.38) is
robustly stable. In addition, from (3.41), noting that N is invertible. Pre and
postmultiplying both sides of matrix inequality (3.41) by
diag
_
_
N
T
_
1
,
_
N
T
_
1
,
_
N
T
_
1
, I
_
,
and its transpose, respectively, yields
(j) =
_
11
12
13
F
22
B
j
K
2
N
1
F
33
0
I
_
_
< 0 (3.50)
where
11
=
_
N
T
_
1
Q
j
N
1
1
+
2
_
N
T
_
1
N
1
+
_
N
T
_
1
M
T
1j
N
1
+
_
N
T
_
1
M
1j
N
1
+h
_
N
T
_
1
Z
1j
N
1
+ (A
j
+B
j
K
1
)N
1
+
_
N
T
_
1
(A
j
+B
j
K
1
)
T
,
12
=
_
N
T
_
1
P
j
N
1
N
1
+
_
N
T
_
1
(A
j
+B
j
K
1
)
T
,
22
= h
_
N
T
_
1
R
j
N
1
N
1
_
N
T
_
1
,
13
=
_
N
T
_
1
M
T
1j
N
1
+
_
N
T
_
1
M
2j
N
1
+h
_
N
T
_
1
Z
2j
N
1
+B
j
K
2
N
1
,
33
=
_
N
T
_
1
M
T
2j
N
1
_
N
T
_
1
M
2j
N
1
+h
_
N
T
_
1
Z
3j
N
1
.
Meanwhile, pre and postmultiplying both sides of matrix inequality (3.42) by
diag
_
_
N
T
_
1
,
_
N
T
_
1
,
_
N
T
_
1
_
,
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 61
and its transpose, respectively, yields
_
_
_
N
T
_
1
R
j
N
1
_
N
T
_
1
M
1j
N
1
_
N
T
_
1
M
2j
N
1
_
N
T
_
1
Z
1j
N
1
_
N
T
_
1
Z
2j
N
1
_
N
T
_
1
Z
3j
N
1
_
_
0.
Let
_
N
T
_
1
Q
j
N
1
=
Q
j
,
_
N
T
_
1
P
j
N
1
=
P
j
,
_
N
T
_
1
R
j
N
1
=
R
j
,
_
N
T
1
_
1
Z
1j
N
1
=
Z
1j
,
_
N
T
_
1
Z
2j
N
1
=
Z
2j
,
_
N
T
_
1
Z
3j
N
1
=
Z
3j
,
_
N
T
_
1
M
1j
N
1
=
M
1j
,
_
N
T
_
1
M
2j
N
1
=
M
2j
,
N
1
=
N, K
1
N
1
= Y
1
,
K
2
N
1
= Y
2
.
Applying the Schur complement to (3.50), we obtain (3.49) and (3.48). This com
pletes the proof.
3.3.4 Simulation Results
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
First floor Uncontrolled System with Polytopic Type Uncertainty
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.43: The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the system
with polytopic uncertainties and = 1.8
Lets consider the closedloop system (3.39) with
A(t) = A + A, B(t) = B, (3.51)
62 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
Second floor Uncontrolled System with Polytopic Type Uncertainty
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.44: The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
Third floor Uncontrolled System with Polytopic Type Uncertainty
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.45: The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 1.8
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 63
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
First floor Uncontrolled System with Polytopic Type Uncertainty
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.46: The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the system
with polytopic uncertainties and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Second floor Uncontrolled System with Polytopic Type Uncertainty
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.47: The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 0.5773
64 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Third floor Uncontrolled System with Polytopic Type Uncertainty
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.48: The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system with polytopic uncertainties and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
First floor Robust State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type Uncertainties)
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.49: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties)
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 65
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Second floor Robust State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type Uncertainties)
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.50: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor Robust State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type Uncertainties)
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.51: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties)
66 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Robust State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type Uncertainties)
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.52: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Robust State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type Uncertainties)
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.53: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties)
3.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 67
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Robust State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type Uncertainties)
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.54: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.3) with (3.52)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties)
where A, B dened in (2.6) and
A =
_
_
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
_
_
with
1
_
0.09, 0.09
,
2
_
0.15, 0.15
.
Clearly, (3.39) with (3.51) is a system with polytopic uncertainty, with four
vertices as (A
j
, B) (j = 1, 2, 3, 4), where
A
1
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
68 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
A
2
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
A
3
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
A
4
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
As previously presented, two cases of the wave frequency are taken into consid
eration as 1.8 rps and 0.5773 rps, and the value of is 0.1. In the following, we
compare the simulation result when u(t) = 0 with that via memory controller (3.3)
with h = 0.1.
Figures 3.43  3.48 show the states of the system with polytopic type uncertainty
when no control is added. For = 1.8, the displacements of the three oors are
between 4 ft and 4 ft (see Figures 3.43  3.45). Figures 3.46  3.48 show that the
amplitudes of the responses are about 2.6 ft peak to peak. Recalling Figures 3.1 
3.6, we can see how the uncertainty badly degrades the performance of the oshore
structure system. However, the memory state feedback controller (3.3) based on
Proposition 10 can be used to eectively control this uncertain system. To see this,
the controller gains are given as
K
s6
:
_
K
1
= [0.2266 0.0659 1.1847 0.2477 0.0463 0.1982] 10
4
K
2
= [18.5225 12.7426 169.8950 16.7815 6.8169 19.5826]
(3.52)
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 69
The state responses of the controlled system are demonstrated in Figures 3.49 
3.54. They are the displacements of the three oors for = 1.8 and = 0.5773 in
sequence. (The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 10 is
similar to that of the Controller Design from Proposition 8 except the denitions
of fcn. See Appendix C.3 for their denitions.) From Figures 3.49  3.51, we nd
that responses of these oors, for = 1.8, oscillate between 0.3 ft and 0.35 ft,
between 3.2 ft and 3.9 ft, and between 0.35 ft and 0.41 ft, respectively, which are
merely about 10% of the corresponding responses of the uncontrolled system (see
Figures 3.43  3.45). The amplitudes of the displacement for = 0.5773 shown
in Figures 3.52  3.54 are reduced to 1.2 ft, 1.3 ft and 1.4 ft peak to peak, which
obtain 40% decrease compared with Figures 3.46  3.48. Under the actions of the
designed controller, the maximum amplitudes of the three oors are reduce into an
acceptable scope successfully.
3.4 State Feedback H
Control
In this section, we focus on an H
_
x(t) = A(t)x(t) +B(t)u(t) +Fg(x, t) +B
w
(x, t),
z(t) = C
z
x(t),
x(t) = (t), t 0
(3.53)
where x(t) R
n
is the state vector, u(t) R
m
is the control, z(t) R
r
is the con
trolled output, w(t) R
l
is the external disturbance, which belongs to L
2
[0, +),
g(x, t) R
p
is the nonlinear selfexcited hydrodynamic force vector, which is uni
formly bounded and satises the following conebounding constraint:
g(x, t) x(t) , (3.54)
where is a positive scalar; (t) denotes an initial condition; F, B
w
, and C
z
are
constant real matrices with appropriate dimensions, A(t) and B(t) are system ma
70 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
trices, which may be timevarying, but are known to belong to a certain compact
set , that is,
(A(t), B(t)) R
n(n+m)
The goal of the section is to develop an H
controller
u(t) = K
1
x(t) +K
2
x(t h), (3.55)
where K
1
and K
2
are constant matrices, which are to be determined, delay h is
assumed to be constant satisfying h > 0, such that
(i) the following closedloop system
_
_
x(t) = (A(t) +B(t)K
1
)x(t) +B(t)K
2
x(t h)
+Fg(x, t) +B
w
(t),
z(t) = C
z
x(t),
x(t) = (t), t 0
(3.56)
with (t) = 0 is asymptotically stable; and
(ii) under the condition (t) = 0, the H
performance
z(t)
2
(t)
2
of the closedloop system (3.56) is guaranteed for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, +) and
a prescribed > 0.
In what follows, rst, we will consider an H
CONTROL 71
_
_
x(t) = (A +BK
1
)x(t) +BK
2
x(t h)
+Fg(x, t) +B
w
(t),
z(t) = C
z
x(t),
x(t) = (t), t 0
(3.57)
Choose a LyapunovKrasovskii functional candidate as
V (x
t
) = x
T
(t)Px(t) +
_
t
th
x
T
(s)Qx(s)ds +
_
0
h
d
_
t
t+
x
T
(s)R x(s)ds,
where P, Q, R R
nn
, P > 0, Q > 0 and R > 0.
Proposition 11. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (3.57) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, +),
if there exist matrices P > 0, Q > 0, R > 0 and M
1
, M
2
, Z
1
, Z
2
, Z
3
of appropriate
dimensions such that
:=
_
11
12
PF PB
w
h(A +BK
1
)
T
22
0 0 hK
T
2
B
T
I 0 hF
T
2
I hB
T
w
hR
1
_
_
< 0, (3.58)
_
_
R M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0, (3.59)
where
11
= P(A +BK
1
) + (A +BK
1
)
T
P +Q
+
2
I +M
T
1
+M
1
+hZ
1
+C
T
z
C
z
,
12
= PBK
2
M
T
1
+M
2
+hZ
2
,
22
= (1 d)QM
T
2
M
2
+hZ
3
.
Proof. Firstly, we consider the asymptotic stability of system (3.57) with (t) = 0.
When (t) = 0, system (3.57) is degraded to system (3.4). According to Proposition
1, if the linear matrix inequalities (3.5) and (3.6) hold, system (3.4) is asymptotically
stable. Therefore, if (3.5) and (3.6) hold, system (3.57) with (t) = 0 is asymptot
ically stable. Clearly, (3.6) is the same as (3.59), and (3.58) implies (3.5) by the
72 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
Schur complement. Then, if (3.58) and (3.59) hold, system (3.57) with (t) = 0
is asymptotically stable. So, in the following, we only need to prove the H
per
formance z(t)
2
(t)
2
is guaranteed for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, +) under
zero initial condition. For this, taking the derivative of V (x
t
) with respect to time
t along the trajectory of system (3.57) yields
V (x
t
) =2x
T
(t)P x(t) +x
T
(t)Qx(t) x
T
(t h)Qx(t h)
+h x
T
(t)R x(t)
_
t
th
x
T
(s)R x(s)ds (3.60)
Introducing a new vector
T
(t) =
_
x
T
(t) x
T
(t h) g
T
(x, t)
T
(t)
.
by using Lemma 3 (see Appendix A) and noting that (3.54), after simple manipu
lation, we have
V (x
t
) +z
T
(t)z(t)
2
T
(t)(t)
T
(t)
_
+h
T
R
(t) (3.61)
where
:=
_
11
12
PF PB
w
22
0 0
I 0
2
I
_
_
,
:=
_
A +BK
1
BK
2
F B
w
with
11
,
12
,
22
being dened in (3.58).
Obviously, if (3.58) is feasible, then applying the Schur complement gives +
h
T
R < 0, which leads to
V (x
t
) +z
T
(t)z(t)
2
T
(t)(t) 0. (3.62)
Integrating both sides of (3.62) from 0 to yields
_
0
_
z
T
(t)z(t)
2
T
(t)(t)
dt V (x
t
)[
t=0
V (x
t
)[
t=
.
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 73
Under zero initial condition (t) = 0, one has V (x
t
)[
t=0
= 0, thus
_
0
_
z
T
(t)z(t)
2
T
(t)(t)
dt 0,
which means z(t)
2
(t)
2
. This completes the proof.
Proposition 11 provides a bounded real lemma for system (3.57), which can
ensure that the system is not only asymptotical stability but also of a prescribed
disturbance attenuation level . In order to solve out the controller gains K
1
and
K
2
, similar to proof procedure of Propositions 2 and 3, we have
Proposition 12. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (3.57) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ),
if there exist matrices X > 0,
Q > 0,
R > 0 and Y,
M
1
,
M
2
,
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of appro
priate dimensions such that LMIs
_
11
12
F B
w
h(XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
) X XC
T
z
22
0 0 hY
T
2
B
T
0 0
I 0 hF
T
0 0
2
I hB
T
w
0 0
h
R 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0 (3.63)
_
_
2X
R
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0. (3.64)
where
11
= XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
+AX +BY
1
+
Q+
M
T
1
+
M
1
+h
Z
1
,
12
= BY
2
M
T
1
+
M
2
+h
Z
2
,
22
=
Q
M
T
2
M
2
+h
Z
3
.
Moreover, the controller gains are given by K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
74 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
First floor Uncontrolled System with Disturbance
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.55: The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the system
under disturbance and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Second floor Uncontrolled System with Disturbance
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.56: The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 1.8
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 75
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Third floor Uncontrolled System with Disturbance
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.57: The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
First floor Uncontrolled System with Disturbance
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.58: The displacement of the rst oor when no control is used to the system
under disturbance and = 0.5773
76 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Second floor Uncontrolled System with Disturbance
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.59: The displacement of the second oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Third floor Uncontrolled System with Disturbance
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.60: The displacement of the third oor when no control is used to the
system under disturbance and = 0.5773
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 77
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
First floor H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.61: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.65)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Second floor H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.62: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.65) for = 1.8
78 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Third floor H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.63: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.65)
for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
First floor H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.64: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.65)
for = 0.5773
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 79
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Second floor H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.65: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.65) for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.66: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.65)
for = 0.5773
80 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
3.4.2 Simulation Results
Now, we will show the validity of the proposed method for the oshore structure sys
tem when there exists an external disturbance. For simulation, the wave frequency
is still set to be 1.8 or 0.5773 rps. Let = 0.1, = 3 and
B
w
=
_
1 0 0.1 0 0 0
T
,
C
z
=
_
0 0.5 0 0 0 0
T
.
When u(t) = 0, i.e. no control is added to the oshore platform, in this case,
Figures 3.55  3.60 depict the response of all the states of the system. The displace
ments for = 1.8 are drawn in Figures 3.55  3.57, respectively, and in Figures 3.57
 3.58 for = 0.5773. Its easy to see that the external disturbance signicantly
inuences the amplitudes of the system. However, under memory controller (3.55)
with h = 0.1, the system can be eectively controlled. In fact, by Proposition 12,
the controller gains are given by
K
s7
:
_
K
1
= [0.3770 0.2423 4.6490 0.4048 0.0828 0.1934] 10
4
K
2
= [273.8290 30.0347 812.6438 21.0510 15.0692 42.9539] 10
3
(3.65)
The state responses of the controlled system are shown in Figures 3.61  3.66.
(The simulation diagram is described in Appendix C.4.) It is clear from Figures
3.61  3.63 that the amplitudes of displacement for = 1.8 are reduced to 0.4
ft, 0.45 ft and 0.5 ft peak to peak, which are only about 10% of the uncontrolled
responses of the system. From Figures 3.64  3.66, we nd that the responses for for
= 0.5773 oscillate between 0.35 ft and 0.35 ft, between 0.38 ft and 0.4 ft, and
between 0.4 ft and 0.42 ft, respectively, which are decreased about 45%. Therefore,
the simulation results have shown that the obtained controller has well reduced the
internal oscillations of the oshore structure subject to the external disturbance.
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 81
3.4.3 An Improved Controller Design Scheme
As shown in the previous section, by employing the new LKF (3.22), we can obtain a
less conservative delaydependent criterion. It is interesting that, based on this new
condition, the resulting controller can act on the oshore structure more eciently.
In what follows, we also extend this LFK (3.22) to construct an H
controller for
the oshore structures.
By choosing the LFK (3.22), an improved delaydependent stability criteria can
be formulated as follows.
Proposition 13. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (3.57) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ),
if there exist matrices X > 0,
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
> 0,
R > 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
i
,
Z
j
(i = 1, 2,
j = 1, 2, 3) of appropriate dimensions such that
_
11
12
BY
2
F B
w
h
2
(XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
) X XC
T
z
22
Q
2
0 0 0 0 0
Q
3
0 0
h
2
Y
T
2
B
T
0 0
I 0
h
2
F
T
0 0
2
I
h
2
B
T
w
0 0
h
2
R 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0, (3.66)
_
_
X
R
1
X
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0, (3.67)
where
11
:=AX +BY
1
+XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
+
Q
1
+
M
T
1
+
M
1
+
h
2
Z
1
,
12
:=
Q
2
M
T
1
+
M
2
+
h
2
Z
2
,
22
:=
Q
3
Q
1
M
T
2
M
2
+
h
2
Z
3
.
Proof. Since the proof is similar to that of Proposition 11, it is thus omitted.
Noting that
X
R
1
X 2X
R,
82 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
then a sucient condition, which is in the form of LMIs, can be obtained in the
following.
Proposition 14. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (3.57) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ),
if there exist matrices X > 0,
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
> 0,
R > 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
i
,
Z
j
(i = 1, 2,
j = 1, 2, 3) of appropriate dimensions such that (3.66) and
_
_
2X
R
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0.
Moreover, the controller gains are given by K
1
= Y
1
X
1
, and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
3.4.4 Simulation Results
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
First floor Improved H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.67: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.68)
for = 1.8
Here, we compare the obtained performances of the oshore structure by two
control schemes: the Controller Design from Proposition 12 and the Controller
Design from Proposition 14. Under the same parameter values as the Controller
Design from Proposition 12, the achieved controller gains by the Controller Design
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 83
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Second floor Improved H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.68: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.68) for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Third floor Improved H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.69: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.68)
for = 1.8
84 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
First floor Improved H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.70: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.68)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Second floor Improved H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.71: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.68) for = 0.5773
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 85
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Third floor Improved H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.72: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.68)
for = 0.5773
from Proposition 14 are given by
K
s8
:
_
K
1
= [0.8389 0.3904 5.7361 0.2219 0.0080 0.3967] 10
4
K
2
= [0.6931 0.0413 2.8987 0.0654 0.0795 0.2371] 10
3
(3.68)
The simulation results of the oshore structure by the Controller Design from
Proposition 14 (K
s8
) are shown in Figures 3.67  3.72. Comparing Figures 3.67 
3.72 with Figures 3.61  3.66, we nd internal oscillations of the three oors by the
Controller Design from Proposition 14 are almost the same as the Controller Design
from Proposition 12. (The simulation diagram is similar to that of the Controller
Design from Proposition 12. So its omitted.)
However, we calculate the achieved minimum H
controllers are designed, which can not only ensure the asymptotical stability
and guarantee a prescribed H
_
x(t) =[A+BK
1
+LG(t)(E
a
+E
b
K
1
)]x(t)+[BK
2
+LG(t)E
b
K
2
]x(t h)
+Fg(x, t) +B
w
(t),
z(t) =C
z
x(t),
x(t) =(t), t [h, 0]
(3.69)
Based on Lemma 2 (see Appendix A) and following the proofs of Propositions
12 and 14, the results below are not dicult to obtain. The proofs str omitted.
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 87
Proposition 15. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (3.69) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ),
if there exist > 0 and matrices X > 0,
Q > 0,
R > 0 and Y,
M
1
,
M
2
,
Z
1
,
Z
2
,
Z
3
of appropriate dimensions such that
_
11
12
F B
w
1
X XC
T
z
L
2
22
0 0
h
2
Y
T
2
B
T
0 0 0 Y
T
2
E
T
b
I 0
h
2
F
T
0 0 0 0
2
I
h
2
B
T
w
0 0 0 0
h
2
R 0 0
h
2
L 0
I 0 0 0
I 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0, (3.70)
_
_
2X
R
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0, (3.71)
where
1
:= h(XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
),
2
:= (E
b
Y
1
+E
a
X)
T
,
and
11
,
12
,
22
are dened in (3.63). Furthermore, the controller gains are given
by K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
Proposition 16. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (3.69) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ),
if there exist matrices X > 0,
_
Q
1
Q
2
Q
T
2
Q
3
_
> 0,
R > 0 and Y
1
, Y
2
,
M
i
,
Z
j
(i = 1, 2,
j = 1, 2, 3) of appropriate dimensions such that
_
11
12
BY
2
F B
w
3
X XC
T
z
L
4
22
Q
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q
3
0 0
h
2
Y
T
2
B
T
0 0 0 Y
T
2
E
T
b
I 0
h
2
F
T
0 0 0 0
2
I
h
2
B
T
w
0 0 0 0
h
2
R 0 0
h
2
L 0
I 0 0 0
I 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0 (3.72)
88 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
_
_
2X
R
M
1
M
2
Z
1
Z
2
Z
3
_
_
0. (3.73)
where
3
:= h(XA
T
+Y
T
1
B
T
),
4
:= (E
b
Y
1
+E
a
X)
T
,
and
11
,
12
,
22
are dened in (3.66). Moreover, the controller gains are given by
K
1
= Y
1
X
1
, and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
3.4.7 Simulation Results
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
First floor Uncontrolled Uncertain System under Disturbance
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.73: The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8
Now, we show the validity of Propositions 15 and 16. Consider system (3.57)
with the parameters: = 0.1, = 3, h = 0.1 and
B
w
=
_
1 0 0.1 0 0 0
T
,
C
z
=
_
0 0.5 0 0 0 0
,
L =
_
0 0 0.001 0 0 0.01
T
,
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 89
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Second floor Uncontrolled Uncertain System under Disturbance
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.74: The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Third floor Uncontrolled Uncertain System under Disturbance
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.75: The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8
90 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
First floor Uncontrolled Uncertain System under Disturbance
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.76: The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Second floor Uncontrolled Uncertain System under Disturbance
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.77: The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Third floor Uncontrolled Uncertain System under Disturbance
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.78: The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
normbounded uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
First floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.79: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.74)
for = 1.8
92 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Second floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.80: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.74) for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Third floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.81: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.74)
for = 1.8
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 93
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
First floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.82: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.74)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.83: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.74) for = 0.5773
94 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.84: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.74)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
First floor Improved Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.85: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.75)
for = 1.8
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 95
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Second floor Improved Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.86: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.75) for = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Third floor Improved Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.87: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.75)
for = 1.8
96 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor Improved Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.88: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.75)
for = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Improved Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.89: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.75) for = 0.5773
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 97
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Improved Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.90: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.75)
for = 0.5773
Ea =
_
1 0 0 0 0 0
;
The other parameter values can be found in Chapter 2.
When u(t) = 0, Figures 3.73  3.78 depict the responses of all the states of
the uncertain system for dierent wave frequencies. Comparing with Figures 3.1 
3.6, which are for the nominal system, we nd that the responses of the uncertain
system become more drastic. For example, the amplitudes of the displacement for
= 0.5773 has increased by nearly 13% (see Figure 3.73  3.75). So, its necessary
to take measures to cripple such passive eects and constrain the oscillations of the
states.
However, based on Propositions 15 and 16, the obtained controllers can eec
tively control the uncertain system, which are shown in the following.
By solving LMIs (3.70) and (3.71), the Controller Design from Proposition 15
gives the controller gains as
K
s9
:
_
K
1
= [0.1941 0.1424 1.9398 0.3026 0.1145 0.0999] 10
4
K
2
= [0.2640 0.0649 2.0823 0.0230 0.0326 0.1235] 10
3
(3.74)
98 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
The simulation diagram is shown in Appendix C.5. And the state responses of
system (3.57) under the Controller Design from Proposition 15 are shown in Figures
3.79  3.84. Comparing Figure 3.79 with Figure 3.73, we nd that the curve, which
indicates the displacement of the rst oor under control, oscillates in a range about
from 0.25 ft to 0.3 ft, not in the other range from 2.4 ft to 2.4 ft any longer when
no control is applied. Similarly sharp decrease occurs to the displacements of the
second and third oors (see Figures 3.80 and 3.81). Comparing with Figures 3.76
 3.78, their oscillation amplitudes in Figures 3.82  3.84 are reduced from 1.7 ft to
1.2 ft, from 1.8 ft to 1.4 ft and from 1.9 ft to 1.5 ft peak to peak, respectively, which
obtain nearly 30% reduction. These results show that the servo under the Controller
Design from Proposition 15 motivates the AMD to vibrate in some scope, so that
the internal oscillations of the oshore structure can be restrained successfully.
On the other hand, by LMIs (3.72) and (3.73), the Controller Design from Propo
sition 16 gives the controller gains as
K
s10
:
_
K
1
= [0.9159 0.3360 6.4051 0.2540 0.0617 0.3493] 10
4
K
2
= [0.8114 0.0912 2.8218 0.0571 0.0593 0.2468] 10
3
(3.75)
The state responses under the Controller Design from Proposition 16 are shown in
Figures 3.85  3.90. Comparing Figures 3.85  3.90 with Figures 3.79  3.84, we
nd the internal oscillations of the oshore structure under the Controller Design
from Proposition 16 are slightly weaker than those under the Controller Design
from Proposition 15. Taking the displacement of the rst oor for = 1.8 as an
example, the amplitude is 0.35 ft peak to peak under the Controller Design from
Proposition 16, but 0.55 ft under the Controller Design from Proposition 15. (The
simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 16 is similar to that
of the Controller Design from Proposition 15, so its omitted.)
As a byproduct, we compare the achieved H
CONTROL 99
For dierent values of h, the obtained minimum H
j=1
j
(A
j
, B
j
),
q
j=1
j
= 1,
j
0
_
(3.76)
System (3.53) with (3.76) under controller (3.55) becomes
_
_
x(t) = [A(t) +B(t)K
1
]x(t) +B(t)K
2
x(t h) +Fg(x, t) +B
w
(t),
z(t) = C
z
x(t),
x(t) = (t), t [h, 0]
(3.77)
Based on a parameter LyapunovKrasovskii functional approach, we have the
following conclusion. The proof is similar to that in Propositions 9 and 10.
Proposition 17. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (3.77) with
polytopic uncertainty (3.38) is asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ), if there exist matrices
P
j
> 0,
Q
j
> 0,
R
j
> 0,
100 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
M
1j
,
M
2j
,
Z
1j
,
Z
2j
,
Z
3j
,
N and Y
1
, Y
2
of appropriate dimensions such that
_
11
12
13
F B
w
N
T
N
T
C
T
z
22
B
j
Y
2
F B
w
0 0
33
0 0 0 0
I 0 0 0
2
I 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0 (3.78)
_
_
R
j
M
1j
M
2j
Z
1j
Z
2j
Z
3j
_
_
0 (3.79)
hold for j = 1, 2, , q, where
11
=
Q
j
+
M
T
1j
+
M
1j
+h
Z
1j
+A
j
N +B
j
Y
1
+ (A
j
N +B
j
Y
1
)
T
,
12
=
P
j
N +(A
j
N +B
j
Y
1
)
T
,
22
=h
R
j
N
N
T
,
13
=
M
T
1j
+
M
2j
+h
Z
2j
+B
j
Y
2
,
33
=
M
T
2j
M
2j
+h
Z
3j
.
Moreover, the controller gains are given by K
1
= Y
1
X
1
and K
2
= Y
2
X
1
.
3.4.9 Simulation Results
Consider the closedloop system (3.77) with the following parameter matrices
A(t) = A + A, B(t) = B,
where A, B dened in (2.6) and
A =
_
_
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
_
_
with
1
_
0.09, 0.09
,
2
_
0.15, 0.15
.
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 101
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
First floor Uncontrolled Polytopic Type Uncertain System under Disturbace
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.91: The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
Second floor Uncontrolled Polytopic Type Uncertain System under Disturbace
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.92: The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8
102 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
Third floor Uncontrolled Polytopic Type Uncertain System under Disturbace
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.93: The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
First floor Uncontrolled Polytopic Type Uncertain System under Disturbace
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.94: The displacement of the rst oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 103
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Second floor Uncontrolled Polytopic Type Uncertain System under Disturbace
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.95: The displacement of the second oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Third floor Uncontrolled Polytopic Type Uncertain System under Disturbace
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.96: The displacement of the third oor of the uncontrolled system with
polytopic type uncertainties under disturbance and = 0.5773
104 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
First floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type)
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.97: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.80)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Second floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type)
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.98: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.80) for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties)
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 105
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Third floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type)
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.99: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.80)
for = 1.8 (polytopic uncertainties)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type)
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.100: The displacement of the rst oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.80)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties)
106 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type)
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.101: The displacement of the second oor via the controller (3.55) with
(3.80) for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Third floor Robust H
inf
State Feedback Control (Polytopic Type)
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 3.102: The displacement of the third oor via the controller (3.55) with (3.80)
for = 0.5773 (polytopic uncertainties)
3.4. STATE FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 107
Clearly, (3.77) with (3.51) is a system with polytopic uncertainty, with four vertices
as (A
j
, B
j
) (j = 1, 2, 3, 4), where B
j
= B and
A
1
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
A
2
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
A
3
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
;
A
4
=
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0.09 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0.15 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454
_
_
.
Let h = 0.1, = 3, = 0.1, and
B
w
=
_
1 0 0.1 0 0 0
T
,
C
z
=
_
0 0.5 0 0 0 0
.
When u(t) = 0, that is, no control is added into the system, Figures 3.91 
3.96 demonstrate the responses of all the states of the system with polytopic type
uncertainty. Comparing with Figures 3.1  3.6, we can see the duplex inuences
of ploytopic type uncertainty and disturbance to the system. For example, the
amplitude of the displacement of the rst oor for = 1.8 has increased by nearly
40% (see Figure 3.91); and even the displacement of the rst oor for = 0.5773
108 CHAPTER 3. STATE FEEDBACK CONTROL
has also increased by about 12% (see Figure 3.94). Therefore, its necessary to
take measures to weaken the eect brought by uncertainty and disturbance, and to
reduce the internal oscillations induced by wave forces. For this aim, a robust H
state feedback controller based on Proposition 17 is proposed. The gains are given
by
K
s11
:
_
K
1
= [7.1284 0.9221 8.8308 0.1684 0.6949 2.7038] 10
4
K
2
= [247.1548 79.4067 534.3352 6.2850 29.7022 116.5531]
(3.80)
The state responses of the system with polytopic uncertainties by controller
(3.55) with K
s11
are shown in Figures 3.97  3.102. (The simulation diagram of the
Controller Design from Proposition 17 is similar to that of the Controller Design
from Proposition 15 except the denitions of fcn. See Appendix C.6 for details.)
Compared with Figures 3.91  3.96, the oscillation amplitudes of the three oors
for = 1.8 and = 0.5773 decrease sharply. In fact, from Figures 3.91  3.93,
for = 1.8, the amplitudes of the three oors are only 6% of those in Figures
3.97  3.99). Also, from Figures 3.100  3.102, its easy to see that the oscillation
amplitudes of the displacements reduce from 1.7 ft to 1 ft, from 1.9 ft to 1.1 ft and
from 2 ft to 1.2 ft peak to peak, respectively. All these have illustrated that the
controller (3.3) with K
s11
can reduce the internal oscillations and ensure the safety
and comfort of the oshore structure with polytopic uncertainty.
3.5 Conclusion
In order to eectively reduce the internal system oscillations, when the system states
are adopted as feedback, a memory state feedback approach is, for the rst time,
proposed in this chapter for an oshore steel jacket platform. Based on Lyapunov
Krasovskii stability theory, some delaydependent robust stability criteria for the
closedloop system have been obtained, where two classes of uncertainties, namely,
normbounded uncertainty and polytopic uncertainty, are taken into account. Then,
3.5. CONCLUSION 109
these criteria are used to design the desired controllers incorporating with some ma
trix techniques. Simulation results suciently show the eectiveness of the proposed
memory controllers on the oshore structures. On the other hand, by introducing
a new LyapunovKrasovskii functional, an improved delaydependent stability con
dition is obtained, which is less conservative than those in the literature. Finally,
robust H
control for the oshore system has also been investigated, and an H
controller has been designed, which guarantees the system is asymptotically stable
with a prescribed H
performance.
Chapter 4
Dynamic Output Feedback
Control
In Chapter 3, the state feedback control for the oshore steel jacket platform was
considered when the system states are adopted as feedback. However, if the systems
outputs are taken as feedback, we can design a dynamic output feedback controller
to reduce the internal systems oscillations, which motivates the study in this chap
ter. Based on LyapunovKrasovskii stability theory and a project theorem, some
sucient conditions for the existence of dynamic output feedback controllers will be
obtained, which are in terms of the solutions of a set of linear matrix inequalities.
Moreover, a robust H
_
x(t) = (A + A)x(t) +Bu(t) +Fg(x, t)
y(t) = Cx(t)
x(t) = (t), t 0
(4.1)
where x(t) R
n
is the state vector, u(t) R
m
is the control, y(t) R
q
is the
measurement output, g(x, t) R
p
is the nonlinear selfexcited hydrodynamic force
112 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
vector, which is uniformly bounded and satises the following conebounding con
straint:
g(x, t) x(t) , (4.2)
where is a positive scalar; A, B, C, and F are constant real matrices with appro
priate dimensions, A represents normbounded uncertainty of the following form
A(t) := LG(t)E
a
, (4.3)
where G(t) is an uncertainty matrix bounded by I, i.e.
G
T
(t)G(t) I, t, (4.4)
Assume that the outputs of system (4.1) are adopted as feedback, under which
we will design a dynamic output feedback controller as
_
(t) = A
K
(t) +B
K
y(t h)
u(t) = C
K
(t) +D
K
y(t h)
(4.5)
where (t) R
k
is the state of the controller, A
K
, B
K
, C
K
and D
K
are matrices to
be determined and h is a constant timedelay, such that the closedsystem combined
by (4.1) and (4.5) is asymptotically stable.
Introducing an augmented vector
(t) := [x
T
(t)
T
(t)]
T
then the closedloop system combined by (4.1) and (4.5) is given by
(t) = (A
0
+ A
0
)(t) +A
1
E(t h) +E
T
Fg(x, t) (4.6)
where
A
0
:=
_
A BC
K
0 A
K
_
, A
0
:=
_
A 0
0 0
_
, A
1
:=
_
BD
K
C
B
K
C
_
, E :=
_
I
nn
0
nk
_
T
. (4.7)
Let
K :=
_
D
K
C
K
B
K
A
K
_
4.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 113
and
A
00
:=
_
A 0
0 0
_
, B
00
:=
_
B 0
0 I
_
, C
00
:=
_
C
0
_
, D
00
=
_
0 0
0 I
_
. (4.8)
Then, the matrices A
0
, A
1
, A
0
can be restated as
A
0
= A
00
+B
00
KD
00
,
A
1
= B
00
KC
00
,
A
0
= E
T
LG(t)E
a
E. (4.9)
In the following, rstly, we will discuss the dynamic output feedback control
for the nominal system of (4.1), then the obtained results will be extended to suit
for the uncertain system (4.1). Finally, the H
11
PA
1
+E
T
R PE
T
F hA
T
0
E
T
R
QR 0 hA
T
1
E
T
R
I hF
T
R
R
_
_
< 0 (4.11)
where
11
:= PA
0
+A
T
0
P +E
T
(QR +
2
I)E.
Proof. Choose a Lyapunov functional candidate as
V (
t
) =
T
(t)P(t) +
_
t
th
T
(s)E
T
QE(s)ds
114 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
+h
_
0
h
ds
_
t
t+s
T
()E
T
RE ()d, (4.12)
where
t
= x(t+), [h, 0] and P > 0, Q > 0, R > 0 to be determined. Taking
the derivative of V (t,
t
) with respect to t along the trajectory of (4.10) yields
V (
t
) = 2
T
(t)P (t)
+
T
(t)E
T
QE(t)
T
(t h)E
T
QE(t h)
+h
2
T
(t)E
T
RE (t) h
_
t
th
T
()E
T
RE ()d. (4.13)
By Lemma 1 (see Appendix A), one obtains
h
_
t
th
T
()E
T
RE ()d
_
(t)
E(t h)
_
T
_
E
T
RE E
T
R
R
_ _
(t)
E(t h)
_
. (4.14)
Noting (4.2), we have
T
(t)E
T
E(t) g
T
(x, t)g(x, t) 0. (4.15)
Let
T
(t) =
_
T
(t)
T
(t h)E
T
g
T
(x, t)
. (4.16)
Combining (4.13) with (4.14) and (4.15), yields
V (t, x
t
)
T
(t)
_
+h
2
T
R
_
(t)
where
:=
_
_
11
PA
1
+E
T
R PE
T
F
QR 0
I
_
_
:=
_
EA
0
EA
1
F
with
11
being dened in (4.11). If (4.11) is feasible, then +h
2
T
R < 0 by the
Schur complement. So there exists a scalar > 0 such that
V (
t
) (t)
2
< 0
for (t) ,= 0, which guarantees the closedloop system (4.10) is asymptotically stable.
This completes the proof.
4.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 115
Proposition 18 provides a delaydependent stability criterion for the nominal
system (4.10), from which, however, the controller parameters cannot be directly
obtained. In order to solve out the controller parameters, we will follow the lines in
[30], and a parameterized controller design is presented in terms of a set of LMIs,
which is stated in the following.
4.2.2 Controller Design
To solve out the controller parameters, by substituting (4.9) into (4.11), after simple
algebraic manipulation, (4.11) can be rewritten as
+ K
T
+ K
T
T
< 0 (4.17)
where
:=
_
11
E
T
R PE
T
F hA
T
00
E
T
R
QR 0 0
I hF
T
R
R
_
_
:= diagP, I, I, hR
:=
_
B
T
00
0 0 B
T
00
E
T
T
:=
_
D
00
C
00
0 0
T
with
11
:= PA
00
+A
T
00
P +E
T
(QR +
2
I)E
From Lemma 4, inequality (4.17) is solvable for some K if and only if
1
(
)
T
< 0 (4.18)
)
T
< 0 (4.19)
where
and
and
can be chosen as
=
_
_
W
T
2
0 0 0 W
T
3
0 0 I 0 0
0 0 0 I 0
_
_
T
116 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
=
_
_
I 0 0 0 0
0 0 W
T
1
0 0
0 0 0 I 0
0 0 0 0 I
_
_
T
. (4.20)
In order to simplify (4.18) and (4.19), P and P
1
can be partitioned as
P =
_
Y N
N
T
_
, P
1
=
_
X M
M
T
_
, (4.21)
where X, Y R
nn
, M, N R
nk
, means irrelevant matrix, and positive denite
matrices X, Y satisfy
_
X I
I Y
_
0. (4.22)
Substituting (4.8) and (4.21) into (4.18) and (4.19), then (4.18) is equivalent to
:=
_
_
11
W
T
2
XR (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)F
QR 0
I
_
_
< 0 (4.23)
where
11
:= W
T
2
[AX +XA
T
+X(QR +
2
I)X]W
2
+W
T
2
XA
T
W
3
+W
T
3
AXW
2
h
2
W
T
3
R
1
W
3
and (4.19) is equivalent to
:=
_
11
RW
1
Y F hA
T
R
W
T
1
(QR)W
1
0 0
I hF
T
R
R
_
_
< 0 (4.24)
where
11
:= Y A +A
T
Y +QR +
2
I
In summary, based on Proposition 18 and above analysis, an existence sucient
condition of parameterized controllers of form (4.5) is obtained, which is stated as
Proposition 19. Let W
1
and [W
T
2
W
T
3
]
T
be the orthogonal complements of C
T
and
[B
T
B
T
]
T
, respectively. For given scalars > 0 and h > 0, the dynamic output
4.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 117
feedback control problem for system (4.10) is solvable if there exist real matrices
X > 0, Y > 0, Q > 0 and R > 0 of appropriate dimensions such that (4.22), (4.23)
and (4.24) are feasible.
Noting that Proposition 19 does not present the computation of the controller
itself, but the existence of parameterized controllers. Moreover, the obtained matrix
inequalities are not linear due to such terms as XQX in
11
. In order to compute the
desired controller, rst, we convert the nonconvex feasibility problem of Proposition
19 into a nonlinear minimization problem subject to LMIs by employing a cone
complementary linearization algorithm in [4]. For this aim,
Pre and postmultiplying both sides of in (4.23) by T
T
:= diagI, X, I, I
and its transpose, respectively, yields
T
T
T =
_
_
11
W
T
2
XRX (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)F
XQX XRX 0
I
_
_
< 0 (4.25)
Introducing new matrix variables S > 0 and Z > 0 such that XRX S and
XQX Z, then since
_
W
T
2
XRXW
2
W
T
2
XRX
XRX
_
=
_
W
T
2
I
_ _
XRX XRX
XRX XRX
_ _
W
2
I
_
=
_
W
T
2
I
_ _
I I
0 I
_ _
0 0
0 XRX
_ _
I 0
I I
_ _
W
2
I
_
_
W
T
2
I
_ _
I I
0 I
_ _
0 0
0 S
_ _
I 0
I I
_ _
W
2
I
_
=
_
W
T
2
SW
2
W
T
2
S
S
_
.
Therefore, if XRX S > 0 and XQX Z > 0, then (4.25) is implied by
_
_
11
W
T
2
S (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)F
Z S 0
I
_
_
< 0 (4.26)
where
11
:=W
T
2
[AX +XA
T
+X(Q+
2
I)X S]W
2
118 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
+W
T
2
XA
T
W
3
+W
T
3
AXW
2
h
2
W
T
3
R
1
W
3
By the Schur complement, (4.26) is equivalent to
_
11
W
T
2
S (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)F W
T
2
X W
T
2
X
Z S 0 0 0
I 0 0
Q
1
0
I
_
_
< 0 (4.27)
where
11
:=W
T
2
[AX +XA
T
S]W
2
+W
T
2
XA
T
W
3
+W
T
3
AXW
2
h
2
W
T
3
R
1
W
3
On the other hand, applying the Schur complement gives
XRX S
_
R X
1
X
1
S
1
_
0 (4.28)
XQX Z
_
Q X
1
X
1
Z
1
_
0 (4.29)
Let
R = R
1
,
X = X
1
,
S = S
1
,
Z = Z
1
,
Q = Q
1
.
then a new sucient condition for the existence of the dynamic output feedback
controller is derived as follows.
Proposition 20. Let W
1
and [W
T
2
W
T
3
] be the orthogonal complements of C
T
and
[B
T
B
T
]
T
, respectively. For given scalars > 0 and h > 0, the dynamic output
feedback control problem for system (4.10) is solvable if there exist real matrices
X > 0, Y > 0, Q > 0, R > 0,
R > 0,
X > 0, S > 0,
S > 0, Z > 0,
Z > 0 and
11
W
T
2
S (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)F W
T
2
X W
T
2
X
Z S 0 0 0
I 0 0
Q 0
I
_
_
< 0 (4.30)
4.2. NOMINAL SYSTEMS 119
_
R
X
X
S
_
0 (4.31)
_
Q
X
X
Z
_
0 (4.32)
R
R = I, X
X = I, S
S = I, Z
Z = I, Q
Q = I (4.33)
where
11
:= W
T
2
[AX +XA
T
S]W
2
+W
T
2
XA
T
W
3
+W
T
3
AXW
2
h
2
W
T
3
RW
3
.
Clearly, matrix inequalities (4.22),(4.24), (4.30)(4.32) are all linear on matrix
variables, while (4.33) are a set of equality constraints. Fortunately, these con
straints can be converted into a nonlinear minimization problem subject to LMIs by
employing the Cone Complementary Problem (CCP) proposed in [4]. The key idea
of the CCP can be stated as: if the LMI
_
S I
I
S
_
0
is feasible on the n n matrix variables S > 0 and
S > 0, then Tr(S
S) n, and
Tr(S
S) = n if and only if S
_
0.9739 0.2793 0.0131 0.3556 0.1356 0.4666
0.2793 6.3799 0.4450 0.5945 0.3318 2.1322
0.0131 0.4450 0.3279 0.1595 0.0184 0.2631
0.3556 0.5945 0.1595 37.1101 0.2603 0.3984
0.1356 0.3318 0.0184 0.2603 1.2820 0.3217
0.4666 2.1322 0.2631 0.3984 0.3217 2.0653
_
_
Y =
_
_
0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0159 0.0142
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0056 0.0013
0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0011 0.0052
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0002
0.0159 0.0056 0.0011 0.0002 7.6689 0.8761
0.0142 0.0013 0.0052 0.0002 0.8761 2.6154
_
_
10
5
R =
_
_
34.3152 2.1196 2.4177 0.3390 7.6227 1.1103
2.1196 10.8303 3.4722 0.4904 1.7991 3.4295
2.4177 3.4722 19.9992 0.2347 2.3994 7.0451
0.3390 0.4904 0.2347 0.3808 0.2910 0.6780
7.6227 1.7991 2.3994 0.2910 43.4562 0.9818
1.1103 3.4295 7.0451 0.6780 0.9818 26.8163
_
_
124 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
Q =
_
_
1.0733 0.0616 0.4189 0.0096 0.3589 0.4931
0.0616 0.2663 0.1686 0.0206 0.0827 0.0228
0.4189 0.1686 3.7791 0.0488 0.2449 0.6789
0.0096 0.0206 0.0488 0.0278 0.0049 0.0417
0.3589 0.0827 0.2449 0.0049 0.7836 0.3673
0.4931 0.0228 0.6789 0.0417 0.3673 1.1980
_
_
Then, from (4.35) we obtain
M =
_
_
0.1846 0.0274 0.4305 0.2927 0.3011 0.7769
0.7583 0.0636 0.2661 0.1514 0.5419 0.1834
0.0862 0.0212 0.5942 0.4188 0.3304 0.5954
0.0320 0.2172 0.5690 0.7923 0.0158 0.0106
0.3395 0.8567 0.1906 0.0770 0.3235 0.0621
0.5170 0.4622 0.1753 0.2870 0.6338 0.0662
_
_
N =
_
_
0.0464 0 0 0 0 0
0.0063 0.0054 0 0 0 0
0.0144 0.0061 0.0001 0 0 0
0.0008 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0 0
6.4494 8.6021 0.0039 0.0203 0.0456 0
7.5054 2.6504 0.0100 0.0043 0.0027 0.0098
_
_
10
5
Finally, a desired output feedback controller is thus obtained as (4.5) with
A
K
=
_
_
25.9976 2.3183 20.2489 22.8328 4.1473 4.9736
12.8569 2.0863 8.3747 9.4323 1.7165 2.0621
34.1903 20.8718 22.8694 35.8562 4.5279 5.5525
34.4200 16.2495 9.9625 16.9789 5.1585 6.5080
4.4404 7.5349 24.6161 34.1852 0.6353 0.2529
63.9004 23.7410 3.1931 11.2750 7.7576 17.4902
_
_
B
K
=
_
_
0.0002 0.0227 0.0014
0.0055 0.0097 0.0019
1.0327 1.1987 0.0571
0.6641 0.9038 0.0182
0.2092 0.5066 0.1348
6.4840 2.1548 1.6073
_
_
C
K
=
_
4.0071 0.5979 3.1251 3.5246 0.6401 0.7672
10
4
D
K
=
_
11.4847 33.9770 0.2274
.
See Appendix C.7 for the simulation diagram. Under the obtained output feedback
controller, the simulation results of the state response of the system are given in
Figures 4.1  4.6, from which, it is clear that the internal oscillations are eectively
controlled. For example, the amplitude of vibration of the third oor for = 1.8
4.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 125
has decreased by about 73% (compare Figure 4.3 with Figure 3.3). Figures 4.4  4.6
have plotted the states for = 0.5773. In a word, under the operation of design
control scheme, the responses of the platform have reduced greatly as compared
with the uncontrolled case.
4.3 Uncertain Systems
Now, we consider system (4.1) with normbounded uncertainty (4.3).
Based on Proposition 20, replacing A in (4.24) and (4.30) with (A + A), we
nd that (4.24) and (4.30) for (4.1) are, respectively, equivalent to the following
conditions:
+
1
G(t)
2
+
T
2
G
T
(t)
T
1
< 0 (4.37)
and
+
3
G(t)
4
+
T
4
G
T
(t)
T
3
< 0. (4.38)
where
1
: =
_
L
T
Y 0 0 hL
T
R
T
,
2
: =
_
E
a
0 0 0
3
: =
_
L
T
(W
2
+W
3
) 0 0 0
T
,
4
: =
_
E
a
XW
2
0 0 0
.
Using Lemma 2 (see Appendix A), (4.37) and (4.38) hold for any G(t) satisfying
(4.4) if and only if there exist positive scalers > 0 and > 0 such that
+
1
T
1
+
1
2
T
2
< 0 (4.39)
and
+
3
T
3
+
1
T
4
4
< 0. (4.40)
126 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
which, by the Schur complement, can be represented as
_
11
RW
1
Y F hA
T
R Y L E
T
a
W
T
1
(QR)W
1
0 0 0 0
I hF
T
R 0 0
R hRL 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0, (4.41)
_
11
W
T
2
S
13
W
T
2
X W
T
2
X
16
W
T
2
XE
T
a
Z S 0 0 0 0 0
I 0 0 0 0
Q 0 0 0
I 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0 (4.42)
where
13
= (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)F,
16
= (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)L, and
11
,
11
are dened in (4.24)
and (4.30), respectively.
Therefore, nonlinear minimization problem (4.34) can be modied to design a
robust controller for system (4.1), which is stated as
Minimize Tr(
XX +
RR +
QQ+
ZZ +
SS)
Subject to (4.22), (4.31), (4.32), (4.41), (4.42), and
_
R I
I
R
_
0,
_
X I
I
X
_
0,
_
Q I
I
Q
_
0,
_
Z I
I
Z
_
0,
_
S I
I
S
_
0.
(4.43)
4.3.1 Simulation Results
For comparison, we set h = 0.02, = 0.1 and
L =
_
0 0 0.001 0 0 0.01
T
,
E
a
=
_
1 0 0 0 0 0
.
Comparing Figures 3.1  3.6 with Figures 3.25  3.30, we nd that the states of the
system with uncertainty become more oscillatory than that of the system with no
uncertainty, that is, uncertainty indeed degrades the system performance. In the
following, assume that the outputs are adopted as feedback, we will design a robust
4.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 127
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
First floor Robust Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.7: The displacement of the rst oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Robust Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.8: The displacement of the second oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 1.8
128 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Third floor Robust Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.9: The displacement of the third oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
First floor Robust Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.10: The displacement of the rst oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 0.5773
4.3. UNCERTAIN SYSTEMS 129
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Robust Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.11: The displacement of the second oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Robust Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.12: The displacement of the third oor when the robust output feedback
controller is used and = 0.5773
130 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
dynamic output feedback controller to reduce the oscillations. Solve the nonlinear
minimization problem (4.43), and also from (4.35), we have
X =
_
_
0.9819 0.2382 0.0238 0.3716 0.1554 0.4042
0.2382 6.5575 0.4362 1.4347 0.3511 2.1516
0.0238 0.4362 0.3181 0.1429 0.0246 0.2561
0.3716 1.4347 0.1429 35.2285 0.2669 0.8984
0.1554 0.3511 0.0246 0.2669 1.1753 0.2491
0.4042 2.1516 0.2561 0.8984 0.2491 1.9786
_
_
Y =
_
_
0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0071 0.0065
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0026 0.0005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0002 0.0026
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
0.0071 0.0026 0.0002 0.0001 4.0692 0.2670
0.0065 0.0005 0.0026 0.0001 0.2670 1.3051
_
_
10
6
Q =
_
_
1.0335 0.0693 0.4557 0.0160 0.3563 0.4699
0.0693 0.2377 0.1407 0.0244 0.0960 0.0379
0.4557 0.1407 4.0913 0.0655 0.2813 0.7205
0.0160 0.0244 0.0655 0.0388 0.0088 0.0609
0.3563 0.0960 0.2813 0.0088 0.8355 0.3745
0.4699 0.0379 0.7205 0.0609 0.3745 1.2169
_
_
R =
_
_
72.1236 4.2052 6.7008 0.7737 12.4381 1.1549
4.2052 22.4673 4.9218 1.5549 2.8950 7.4955
6.7008 4.9218 40.1781 0.4039 6.5749 11.3553
0.7737 1.5549 0.4039 1.4329 0.5770 2.0732
12.4381 2.8950 6.5749 0.5770 87.3544 1.2388
1.1549 7.4955 11.3553 2.0732 1.2388 53.6202
_
_
M =
_
_
0.1665 0.0607 0.3505 0.3426 0.2964 0.8003
0.7573 0.0185 0.2809 0.0707 0.5477 0.2057
0.0852 0.0124 0.5787 0.5200 0.2718 0.5599
0.1822 0.2983 0.6476 0.6769 0.0181 0.0025
0.3097 0.8618 0.2054 0.0910 0.3277 0.0594
0.5123 0.4051 0.0432 0.3752 0.6562 0.0124
_
_
N =
_
_
0.0215 0 0 0 0 0
0.0025 0.0025 0 0 0 0
0.0073 0.0032 0.0002 0 0 0
0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0 0
2.6908 4.5215 0.0007 0.0157 0.0532 0
3.7994 1.3809 0.0068 0.0084 0.0032 0.0117
_
_
10
6
4.4. OUTPUT FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 131
Then, the dynamic output feedback controller is given as
A
K
=
_
_
47.6189 2.6575 50.7682 46.8550 8.5812 11.0558
21.1351 0.0906 19.8367 18.2366 3.4111 4.3565
60.4355 20.3676 0.3215 3.6266 7.3594 9.7559
91.0058 11.1410 52.5115 48.5904 14.3507 18.6228
4.2809 9.5237 34.0269 38.1094 1.1880 1.6500
135.8845 14.4186 85.6415 65.9191 22.4684 37.1408
_
_
,
B
K
=
_
_
0.0245 0.0163 0.0106
0.0271 0.0003 0.0060
1.3555 1.5639 0.0810
1.1833 1.4937 0.0743
0.5561 0.9351 0.0981
12.6807 3.7234 2.3869
_
_
,
C
K
=
_
7.4312 0.1929 7.9140 7.3066 1.3380 1.7214
10
4
,
D
K
=
_
13.7838 30.8852 7.8082
Control
In this section, we consider an H
_
x(t) = (A + A)x(t) +Bu(t) +Fg(x, t) +B
w
(x, t)
y(t) = Cx(t)
z(t) = C
z
x(t)
x(t) = (t), t 0
(4.44)
where z(t) R
t
is the controlled output, w(t) R
l
is the external disturbance,
which belongs to L
2
[0, +), B
w
, and C
z
are constant real matrices with appropriate
132 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
dimensions. Introducing a augmented vector
(t) := [x
T
(t)
T
(t)]
T
then the closedloop system combined by (4.44) and (4.5) is given by
_
_
(t) = (A
0
+ A
0
)(t) +A
1
E(t h)
+E
T
Fg(x, t) +E
T
B
w
(x, t)
z(t) = C
z
E(t)
(4.45)
where A
0
, A
0
, A
1
, E are dened in (4.7).
The aim below is to seek an H
_
(t) = A
0
(t) +A
1
E(t h(t)) +E
T
Fg(x, t)
+E
T
B
w
(t),
z(t) = C
z
E(t).
(4.46)
Now, choose a LyapunovKrasovskii functional candidate as
V (x
t
) =
T
(t)P(t) +
_
t
th
T
(s)E
T
QE(s)ds
+h
_
0
h
ds
_
t
t+s
T
()E
T
RE ()d (4.47)
where P > 0, Q > 0, R > 0, then we have
Proposition 21. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (4.46) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ),
4.4. OUTPUT FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 133
if there exist real matrices P > 0, Q > 0 and R > 0 of appropriate dimensions such
that
=
_
11
PA
1
+E
T
R PE
T
D PE
T
B
w
hA
T
0
E
T
QR 0 0 hA
T
1
E
T
I 0 hF
T
2
I hB
T
w
R
1
_
_
< 0 (4.48)
where
11
= A
T
0
P +PA
0
+E
T
(QR)E +
2
E
T
E +E
T
C
T
z
C
z
E.
Proof. From Proposition 18, if (4.11) holds, (4.10) is asymptotically stable. By the
Schur complement, (4.48) implies (4.11). Therefore, system (4.46) is asymptotically
stable if (4.48) holds. In the sequel, we only prove that z(t)
2
(t)
2
is
guaranteed for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ) if (4.48) is feasible. To see this, taking
the time derivative of V (x
t
) in (4.47) along the trajectory of (4.46) yields
V (x
t
) = 2
T
(t)P (t) +
T
(t)E
T
QE(t)
T
(t h)E
T
QE(t h)
+h
2
T
(t)E
T
RE (t) h
_
t
th
T
()E
T
RE ()d. (4.49)
Dene
T
(t) =
_
T
(t)
T
(t h)E
T
g
T
(x, t)
T
(t)
.
By applying Lemma 1 (see Appendix A), we have
V (x
t
)
2
T
(t)(t) +z
T
(t)z(t)
T
(t)[
+h
2
T
R](t), (4.50)
where
:=
_
11
PA
1
+E
T
R PE
T
D PE
T
B
w
QR 0 0
I 0
2
I
_
_
:= [EA
0
EA
1
F B
w
]
If matrix inequality (4.48) holds, then
+ h
2
T
R < 0 by the Schur complement,
thus
V (x
t
)
2
T
(t)(t) +z
T
(t)z(t) < 0. (4.51)
134 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
Integrating both sides of (4.51) from 0 to yields
_
0
[z
T
(s)z(s)
2
T
(s)(s)]ds < V (x
t
)[
t=0
V (x
t
)[
t=
. (4.52)
Under the zero initial condition, we have
_
0
[z
T
(s)z(s)
2
T
(s)(s)]ds < 0. (4.53)
That is, z(t)
2
(t)
2
. This completes the proof.
For the uncertain system (4.45), based on Proposition 21, we also have
Proposition 22. For some given positive scalars , and h, system (4.45) is
asymptotically stable and satises z(t)
2
(t)
2
for all nonzero (t) L
2
[0, ),
if there exist > 0, real matrices P > 0, Q > 0, and R > 0 of appropriate dimen
sions such that
_
11
PA
1
+E
T
R PE
T
D PE
T
B
w
hA
T
0
E
T
PE
T
L E
T
E
T
a
QR 0 0 hA
T
1
E
T
0 0
I 0 hF
T
0 0
2
I hB
T
w
0 0
R
1
L 0
I 0
I
_
_
< 0 (4.54)
where
11
is dened in (21).
Similar to Proposition 20, the H
CONTROL 135
where
1
:=
_
1
RW
1
Y F Y B
w
hA
T
R Y L E
T
a
W
T
1
(QR)W
1
0 0 0 0 0
I 0 hF
T
R 0 0
2
I hB
T
w
R 0 0
R L 0
I 0
I
_
2
:=
_
2
W
T
2
S
3
4
5
W
T
2
XE
T
a
W
T
2
X W
T
2
X W
T
2
C
Z
Z S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I 0 0 0 0 0 0
2
I 0 0 0 0 0
I 0 0 0 0
I 0 0 0
Q 0 0
I 0
I
_
_
with
1
:= Y A +A
T
Y +QR +
2
I,
2
:= W
T
2
[AX +XA
T
S]W
2
+W
T
2
XA
T
W
3
+W
T
3
AXW
2
h
2
W
T
3
RW
3
,
3
:= (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)F,
4
:= (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)B
w
,
5
:= (W
T
2
+W
T
3
)L.
The controller parameters can be obtained similar to that proposed in the pre
vious section and thus it is omitted.
4.4.1 Simulation Results
To show the validity of the proposed approach, let h = 0.02, = 0.1, = 2, and
B
w
=
_
1 0 0.1 0 0 0
T
,
C
z
=
_
0 0.5 0 0 0 0
,
L =
_
0 0 0.001 0 0 0.01
T
,
E
a
=
_
1 0 0 0 0 0
.
136 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor Robust H
inf
Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.13: The displacement of the rst oor when the robust H
output feedback
controller is used and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Second floor Robust H
inf
Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.14: The displacement of the second oor when the robust H
output
feedback controller is used and = 1.8
4.4. OUTPUT FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 137
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Third floor Robust H
inf
Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.15: The displacement of the third oor when the robust H
output feed
back controller is used and = 1.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
First floor Robust H
inf
Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
F
i
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.16: The displacement of the rst oor when the robust H
output feedback
controller is used and = 0.5773
138 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Second floor Robust H
inf
Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
S
e
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.17: The displacement of the second oor when the robust H
output
feedback controller is used and = 0.5773
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Third floor Robust H
inf
Output Feedback Control
Time(sec)
T
h
i
r
d
F
l
o
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
(
f
t
)
Figure 4.18: The displacement of the third oor when the robust H
output feed
back controller is used and = 0.5773
4.4. OUTPUT FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 139
Figures 3.73  3.78 have showed the responses of all the states of the uncertain system
under the external disturbance (no control). In order to weaken the passive eects of
the uncertainty and the external disturbance, and constrain the internal oscillations
inducd by the wave forces, we design a robust H
_
0.8920 0.2880 0.0132 0.3571 0.0960 0.6045
0.2880 6.4149 0.4542 0.0103 0.4285 2.3598
0.0132 0.4542 0.3101 0.1612 0.0227 0.2586
0.3571 0.0103 0.1612 35.1609 0.2893 0.1598
0.0960 0.4285 0.0227 0.2893 1.3604 0.3514
0.6045 2.3598 0.2586 0.1598 0.3514 2.3298
_
_
Y =
_
_
0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.0047
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0019 0.0001
0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0000 0.0002 0.0022
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001
0.0049 0.0019 0.0002 0.0001 3.1825 0.2232
0.0047 0.0001 0.0022 0.0001 0.2232 1.0495
_
_
10
5
Q =
_
_
1.4201 0.1067 0.6063 0.0118 0.5036 0.8241
0.1067 0.2436 0.1599 0.0211 0.1548 0.1000
0.6063 0.1599 4.2173 0.0508 0.2548 0.7412
0.0118 0.0211 0.0508 0.0348 0.0003 0.0430
0.5036 0.1548 0.2548 0.0003 0.8050 0.4481
0.8241 0.1000 0.7412 0.0430 0.4481 1.3537
_
_
R =
_
_
95.5147 5.7053 10.1872 0.7876 20.6250 5.8309
5.7053 23.5080 5.2679 1.3370 4.2067 7.4061
10.1872 5.2679 39.7708 0.2020 5.9512 11.0128
0.7876 1.3370 0.2020 1.3087 0.7261 1.5579
20.6250 4.2067 5.9512 0.7261 88.8340 0.9066
5.8309 7.4061 11.0128 1.5579 0.9066 52.7852
_
_
M =
_
_
0.1896 0.0095 0.3789 0.2279 0.1773 0.8585
0.7648 0.0119 0.2059 0.1664 0.5674 0.1512
0.0770 0.0151 0.6787 0.4336 0.3522 0.4702
0.0382 0.1938 0.5269 0.8266 0.0054 0.0058
0.2963 0.8609 0.2071 0.0809 0.3445 0.0547
0.5329 0.4700 0.1814 0.2062 0.6354 0.1264
_
_
140 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC OUTPUT FEEDBACK CONTROL
N =
_
_
0.0171 0 0 0 0 0
0.0014 0.0025 0 0 0 0
0.0067 0.0029 0.0001 0 0 0
0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0 0
2.4977 4.0859 0.0044 0.0075 0.0225 0
3.3454 1.2286 0.0016 0.0065 0.0032 0.0048
_
_
10
5
and the H
controller is given by
A
K
=
_
_
55.1086 4.5678 31.6434 39.9572 8.6959 10.6959
25.0105 2.9557 13.0193 16.3788 3.6237 4.4169
71.1069 25.0372 6.3232 18.0134 10.9393 13.0617
61.1169 13.9139 13.1385 14.4612 9.7647 11.7560
29.4671 11.3510 13.1744 30.4525 9.7332 3.7473
176.8769 8.5685 96.8820 84.4714 37.1686 62.9122
_
_
B
K
=
_
_
0.0697 0.0159 0.0205
0.0337 0.0023 0.0082
2.3202 1.9839 0.1448
1.3075 1.2734 0.0815
1.9676 1.3790 0.4734
44.3579 7.3372 9.3754
_
_
C
K
=
_
9.4697 1.0410 5.4371 6.8718 1.4942 1.8343
10
4
D
K
=
_
25.1348 37.7031 15.4304
See the simulation diagram in Appendix C.9. Figures 4.13  4.18 show the state
responses of the controlled system. From Figures 4.13  4.15, for = 1.8, the
displacements have decreased by about 80% (See Figures 3.73  3.75). Compared
Figures 4.16  4.18 with Figures 3.76  3.78, the amplitudes of vibration for =
0.5773 achieve about 35% decrease. All these have shown that the proposed H
controller,
the resulting closedloop system is not only asymptotically stable but also with a
prescribed disturbance attenuation level. The simulation results have shown the
validity of the proposed method.
On the other hand, we proposed a new LyapunovKrasovskii functional to study
the stability for systems with time delay. With its help, a new delaydependent
stability criterion has been obtained, which has been shown to be less conservative
than those in the literature. Furthermore, based on this criterion, a memory state
feedback controller for the oshore structure has also been designed. It has been
found that the controller, which is of less gain, can eectively ensure safety and
comfort of the oshore structure.
Future work
Accompanied by the sharply increase of energy need, oshore structures are de
veloping into deeper and deeper ocean, which have to meet steeply growing menaces,
such as wave, wind, current, earthquake, etc. How these adverse factors eect the
oshore deepwater platforms needs to be further investigated in the future.
In this thesis, memory controller design is proposed to reduce the internal os
cillations of an oshore structure. However, oshore structures are only a small
piece of a cake in structural vibration control area. How to extend this line to other
civil structures to constrain server vibration induced by environmental loads is a
challenging topic in our future work.
Finally, as we know, network based control has emerged as a topic of signicant
interest in the control community in the recent years due to its more advantages,
such as low cost, high reliability and simple installation, etc. How to introduce the
network to an oshore structure and how to more eectively control this structure
145
are the main aim to study in the future.
Appendix A
Lemmas Referred
Lemma 1. [27] For any constant matrix W R
nn
, W = W
T
> 0, scalar > 0,
and vector function x : [, 0] R
n
such that the following integration is well
dened, then
_
0
x
T
(t +)W x(t +)d (A.1)
_
x
T
(t) x
T
(t )
_
_
W W
W W
__
x(t)
x(t )
_
. (A.2)
Lemma 2. [63]Given matrices Q = Q
T
, H, E and R = R
T
> 0 of appropriate
dimensions,
Q+HFE +E
T
F
T
H
T
< 0
for all F satisfying F
T
F R, if and only if there exists some > 0 such that
Q+HH
T
+
1
E
T
RE < 0.
Lemma 3. [69]Let x(t) R
n
be a vectorvalued function with rstorder continuous
derivative entries. Then, the following integral inequality holds for any matrices X,
M
1
, M
2
R
nn
, and Z R
2n2n
, and a scalar function h := h(t) 0:
_
t
th
x
T
(s)X x(s)ds
T
(t)(t) +h
T
(t)Z(t)
where
:=
_
M
T
1
+M
1
M
T
1
+M
2
M
T
2
M
2
_
,
148 APPENDIX A. LEMMAS REFERRED
(t) :=
_
x(t)
x(t h)
_
,
_
X Y
Z
_
0
with
Y :=
_
M
1
M
2
.
Lemma 4. [14] Consider a symmetric matrix R
nn
and two matrices and
with column dimension n. Then there exists a matrix of compatible dimensions
such that
+
T
+
T
T
< 0
if and only if (
)
T
< 0 and (
)
T
< 0, where
and
denote the
orthogonal complements of and , respectively.
Appendix B
Useful Theories
B.1 Stability of TimeDelay Systems
This part is borrowed from [19]. A timedelay system can be described by a retarded
functional dierential equation as:
x(t) = f(t, x
t
), (B.1)
with
x(t) = (t), t
_
t
0
r, t
0
, (B.2)
where x(t) R
n
, f : RC R
n
and () is the initial condition function of (B.1).
x() = x(t+), r 0. (B.1) indicates that the derivative of the state variables
x at time t depends on t and x() for t r t.
B.1.1 Stability Concept:
For the system described by (B.1), the trivial solution x(t) = 0 is said to be stable
if for any t
0
R and any > 0, there exists a = (t
0
, ) > 0 such that x
t
0

c
<
implies x(t) < for t t
0
.
It is said to be asymptotically stable if it is stable, and for any t
0
R and
any > 0, there exists a
a
=
a
(t
0
, ) > 0 such that x
t
0

c
<
a
implies
lim
t
x(t) = 0.
150 APPENDIX B. USEFUL THEORIES
It is said to be uniformly stable if it is stable and = (t
0
, ) can be chosen
independently of t
0
.
It is uniformly asymptotically stable if it is uniformly stable and there exists
a
a
> 0 such that for any > 0, there exists a T = T(
a
, ), such that
x
t
0

c
< implies x(t) < for t t
0
+T and t
0
R.
It is globally (uniformly) asymptotically stable if it is (uniformly) asymptoti
cally stable and
a
can be an arbitrarily large, nite number.
B.1.2 LyapunovKrasovskii Stability Theorem:
Suppose f : R C R
n
in (B.1) maps (bounded sets in C) into a bounded sets
in R
n
, and that u, v, w are continuous nondecreasing functions, where additionally
u(s) and v(s) are positive for s > 0, and u(0) = v(0) = 0. If there exists a continuous
dierentiable functional V : R C R
n
such that
u((0)) V (t, ) v ((0)
c
) ,
and
V (t, ) w((0)),
then the trivial solution of (B.1) is uniformly stable. If w(s) > 0 for s > 0, then it
is uniformly asymptotically stable. If, in addition, lim
s
u(s) = , then it is globally
uniformly asymptotically stable.
B.2 Linear Matrix Inequalities
This part is borrowed from [3]. A strict linear matrix inequality (LMI) has the
general form of
F(x) F
0
+
m
i=1
x
i
F
i
> 0, (B.3)
where x =
_
x
1
x
2
x
m
_
R
m
is a vector consisting of m variable, and the
symmetric matrices F
i
= F
T
i
R
n
, i = 0, 1, . . . , m are m+1 given constant matrices.
B.3. THE LMI TOOLBOX OF MATLAB 151
An LMI may also be nonstrict, where > is replaced by . Notice that the
variables appear linearly on the left hand side of the inequality. The basic LMI
problem is to nd whether or not there exists an x R
m
such that (B.3) is satised.
An LMI is an ane inequality constraint on the design variables. Specications
such as regional pole placement, robust stability, LQG performance, or RMS gain
attenuation can be expressed as LMIs.
In many practical problems, the parameters may appear nonlinearly in their most
natural form. So some important techniques can be applied to transform them into
an LMI form. The popular one is as follows.
Schur Complement: For matrices A, B, C, the inequality
_
A B
B
T
C
_
> 0
is equivalent to the following two inequalities
A > 0,
C B
T
A
1
B > 0.
B.3 The LMI Toolbox of Matlab
This part is borrowed from [15]. Commercial software of the LMI control toolbox is
a set of tools for use with Matlab. It provides stateoftheart optimization routines
to solve linear matrix inequalities. It also includes specialized tools for LMIbased
analysis and design of control systems.
In the past few years, LMI solvers have emerged as powerful tools to solve convex
optimization problems that arise in many analysis and design applications, such as
control, identication, ltering, and structural design. While the toolbox emphasis
is on control, its LMI capabilities make it useful in any area where LMI techniques
are applicable.
The toolbox provides a fully integrated generalpurpose environment for specify
152 APPENDIX B. USEFUL THEORIES
ing and solving LMI problems. It oers a powerful and userfriendly environment for
developing LMIbased applications. The toolbox uses a structured representation
of LMI constraints that boosts eciency and minimizes memory requirements.
The commands or functions which are often used in the research include:
Setlimis: initialize the LMI description.
Lmivar: dene a new matrix variable.
Lmiterm: specify the term content of an LMI.
Feasp: compute a solution to the feasibility problem.
Mincx: compute a solution to the optimization problem.
Gevp: generalize eigenvalue minimization under LMI constraints.
Example 2. Find a symmetric matrix P satisfying the LMIs
A
T
1
P +PA
1
< 0,
A
T
2
P +PA
2
< 0,
A
T
3
P +PA
3
< 0,
P > I. (B.4)
where
A
1
=
_
1 2
1 3
_
, A
2
=
_
0.8 1.5
1.3 2.7
_
, A
3
=
_
1.4 0.9
0.7 2
_
.
The Matlab program can be written as follows to solve this question.
setlmis([])
P=lmivar(1,[2 1])
lmiterm([1 1 1 P],1,A1,s) % LMI #1
lmiterm([2 1 1 P],1,A2,s) % LMI #2
B.4. AN H
CONTROL 153
lmiterm([3 1 1 P],1,A3,s) % LMI #3
lmiterm([4 1 1 P],1,1) % LMI #4: P
lmiterm([4 1 1 0],1) % LMI #4: I
lmis=getlmis
[tmin, xfeas]=feasp (lmis)
Though running this program, if it can be found that a tmin < 0, the LMIs (B.4)
are solvable. The answer is P =
_
270.8 126.4
126.4 155.1
_
.
B.4 An H
Control
H
norm:
G
sup
(G(j))
sup : the least upper bound
: the greatest singular value
H
Control Problem
This part is borrowed from [70]. Consider a system described by the block
diagram
The plant G and controller K are assumed to be realrational and proper. It
will be assumed that state space models of G and K are available and that their
154 APPENDIX B. USEFUL THEORIES
realizations are assumed to be stabilizable and detectable. z, w, u, v are controlled
output, external disturbance, output vector, control vector, respectively.
Optimal Control: nd all admissible controllers K(s) such that the closeloop
transfer function T
wz
(s) from the external disturbance w to controlled output z
satises that T
wz
(s)
is minimized.
However, in practice it is often not necessary and sometimes even undesirable
to design an optimal controller, and it is usually much cheaper to obtain controllers
that are very close in the norm sense to the optimal ones, which will be called
suboptimal controllers.
Suboptimal H
< .
Appendix C
Simulation Diagrams
C.1 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller
Design from Proposition 3
Figure C.1: The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 3
In Figure C.1, Embedded MATLAB Function fct, dct is dened as follows:
function ftt = fct(u)
t=u(1);
x=u(2:7);
w=1.8;
if t==0
156 APPENDIX C. SIMULATION DIAGRAMS
ali=0;
a2i=0;
else
ali=x(2);
a2i=x(4);
end c2=1.694*cos(w*t)(0.30419e2*ali0.44904e2*a2i);
c3=4.25*cos(w*t)+0.24(0.32902e2*ali0.15346e2*a2i);
c4=11.67*cos(w*t)+0.4(0.3445e2*ali+0.34628e2*a2i);
c6=1.694*cos(1.5708w*t)(0.30419e2*ali0.44904e2*a2i);
c7=4.25*cos(1.5708w*t)+0.24(0.32902e2*ali0.15346e2*a2i);
c8=11.67*cos(1.5708w*t)+0.4(0.3445e2*ali+0.34628e2*a2i);
f2=808.071*abs(c2)*c2+6799.929*sin(w*t);
f3=1247.282*abs(c3)*c3+26899.393*sin(w*t);
f4=439.214*abs(c4)*c4+27017.722*sin(w*t);
f6=808.071*abs(c6)*c6+6799.929*sin(1.5708w*t);
f7=1247.282*abs(c7)*c7+26899.393*sin(1.5708w*t);
f8=439.214*abs(c8)*c8+27017.722*sin(1.5708w*t);
ft1=0.30419e2*f20.329e2*f30.3445e2*f4;
ft2=0.30419e2*f60.329e2*f70.3445e2*f8;
ft3=0.44904e2*f20.15346e2*f3+0.34628e2*f4;
ft4=0.44904e2*f60.15346e2*f7+0.34628e2*f8;
ftt=[0;ft1+ft2;0;ft3+ft4;0;0];% wave frequency
%end fct
function dtt = dct(u)
x=u(1:6); dt1=0.30419e2*x(1)0.44904e2*x(3);
dt2=0.32902e2*x(1)0.15346e2*x(3);
dt3=0.3445e2*x(1)+0.34628e2*x(3); dtt=[dt1;dt2;dt3];
C.2. THE SIMULATION DIAGRAM OF THE CONTROLLER DESIGN FROM
PROPOSITION 7 157
%end dct
Note: The denition of function fct, dct are also used in the later simulations
throughout this thesis.
C.2 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller
Design from Proposition 7
Figure C.2: The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 7
In Figure C.2, Embedded MATLAB Function fcn is dened as follows:
function y = fcn(u,v,Gt)
A=[ 0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454 ];
B=[0;0.003445; 0;0.00344628;0;0.00213];
158 APPENDIX C. SIMULATION DIAGRAMS
L=[0;0;0.001;0;0;0.01];
Ea=[1,0,0,0,0,0];
A2=L*Gt*Ea; %the normbounded uncertainties
A3=(A+A2);
K1 =1.0e+004 *[0.2555 0.1584 1.6036 0.1897 0.1050 0.1216];
K2 =1.0e+003 *[0.3045 0.0542 1.4487 0.0115 0.0394 0.1280]; %controller gains
y=(A3+B*K1)*u+B*K2*v;
G(t) is used to output a uniformly distributed random signal ranging between
10 and 10.
Embedded MATLAB Functions fct, dct are the same as those described in Ap
pendix C.1.
C.3 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller
Design from Proposition 10
See Figure C.2. Embedded MATLAB Function fcn in the Controller Design from
Proposition 10 is dened as follows:
function y = fcn(u,v,Gt)
A=[ 0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454 ];
B=[0;0.003445; 0;0.00344628;0;0.00213];
L = [0;0;3;0;0;0];
Ea=[1,0,0,0,0,0];
L1 = [0;0;0;0;5;0];
C.4. THE SIMULATION DIAGRAM OF THE CONTROLLER DESIGN FROM
PROPOSITION 12 159
Ea1=[0,1,0,0,0,0];
A2=L*Gt*Ea;
A3=L1*Gt*Ea1; %the polytopic uncertainties
K1 =1.0e+004 *[0.2266 0.0659 1.1847 0.2477 0.0463 0.1982];
K2 =[18.5225 12.7426 169.8950 16.7815 6.8169 19.5826]; % h=0.1,
mu=0.1;contrller gains
y=(A+A2+A3+B*K1)*u+B*K2*v; %end fcn
G(t) is used to output a uniformly distributed random signal ranging between
0.03 and 0.03.
Embedded MATLAB Functions fct, dct are the same as those described in Ap
pendix C.1.
C.4 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller
Design from Proposition 12
Figure C.3: The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 12
See Figure C.3, where w(t) is used to output a uniformly distributed random
signal ranging between 100 and 100, which is treated as the external disturbance.
160 APPENDIX C. SIMULATION DIAGRAMS
Embedded MATLAB Functions fct, dct are the same as those described in Ap
pendix C.1.
C.5 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller
Design from Proposition 15
Figure C.4: The simulation diagram of the Controller Design from Proposition 15
The simulation diagram is depicted in Figure C.4, where Embedded MATLAB
Function fcn is dened as follows:
function y = fcn(u,v,Gt)
A=[ 0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454 ];
B=[0;0.003445; 0;0.00344628;0;0.00213];
L=[0;0;0.001;0;0;0.01];
C.6. THE SIMULATION DIAGRAM OF THE CONTROLLER DESIGN FROM
PROPOSITION 17 161
Ea=[1,0,0,0,0,0];
A2=L*Gt*Ea; %the normbounded uncertainties
A3=(A+A2);
K1 =1.0e+004 *[0.1941 0.1424 1.9398 0.3026 0.1145 0.0999];
K2 =1.0e+003 *[0.2640 0.0649 2.0823 0.0230 0.0326 0.1235]; % h=0.1,
mu=0.1;contrller gains
y=(A3+B*K1)*u+B*K2*v; %end fcn
w(t) is used to output a uniformly distributed random signal ranging between
100 and 100, which is treated as the external disturbance; G(t) is used to output a
uniformly distributed random signal ranging between 10 and 10.
Embedded MATLAB Functions fct, dct are the same as those described in Ap
pendix C.1.
C.6 The Simulation Diagram of the Controller
Design from Proposition 17
See Figure C.4, where Embedded MATLAB Function fcn in the Controller Design
from Proposition 17 is described as follows:
function y = fcn(u,v,Gt)
A=[ 0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0 0 0 1 0 0
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454 ];
B=[0;0.003445; 0;0.00344628;0;0.00213];
L = [0;0;3;0;0;0];
Ea=[1,0,0,0,0,0];
162 APPENDIX C. SIMULATION DIAGRAMS
L1 = [0;0;0;0;5;0];
Ea1=[0,1,0,0,0,0];
A2=L*Gt*Ea;
A3=L1*Gt*Ea1; %the polytopic uncertainties
K1 =1.0e+004 *[7.1284 0.9221 8.8308 0.1684 0.6949 2.7038];
K2 =[247.1548 79.4067 534.3352 6.2850 29.7022 116.5531]; % h=0.1,
mu=0.1;contrller gains
y=(A+A2+A3+B*K1)*u+B*K2*v; %end fcn
w(t) is used to output a uniformly distributed random signal ranging between
100 and 100, which is treated as the external disturbance; G(t) is used to output a
uniformly distributed random signal ranging between 0.03 and 0.03.
Embedded MATLAB Functions fct, dct are the same as those described in Ap
pendix C.1.
C.7 The Simulation Diagram of the Output Feed
back Control
The simulation diagram is depicted in Figure C.5.
C.8 The Simulation Diagram of the Robust Out
put Feedback Control
The simulation diagram is depicted in Figure C.6, where Embedded MATLAB Func
tion fcn is dened as follows:
function y = fcn(u,Ft)
A=[ 0 1 0 0 0 0
3.3235 0.0212 0.0184 0.0030 5.3449 0.8819
0 0 0 1 0 0
C.8. THE SIMULATION DIAGRAM OF THE ROBUST OUTPUT
FEEDBACK CONTROL 163
Figure C.5: The simulation diagram of the output feedback control
Figure C.6: The simulation diagram of the robust output feedback control
164 APPENDIX C. SIMULATION DIAGRAMS
0.0184 0.0030 118.1385 0.1117 5.3468 0.8822
0 0 0 0 0 1
0.0114 0.0019 0.0114 0.0019 3.3051 0.5454 ];
L=[0;0;0.001;0;0;0.01];
Ea=[1,0,0,0,0,0];
A2=L*Ft*Ea; %the normbounded uncertainties
y=(A+A2)*u;%end fcn
F(t) is used to output a uniformly distributed random signal ranging between 10
and 10.
Embedded MATLAB Functions fct, dct are the same as those described in Ap
pendix C.1.
C.9 The Simulation Diagram of the Output Feed
back H
Control
Figure C.7: The simulation diagram of the output feedback H
control
The simulation diagram is shown in Figure C.7, where Embedded MATLAB
Functions fct, dct are the same as those described in Appendix C.1, and Embedded
C.9. THE SIMULATION DIAGRAM OF THE OUTPUT FEEDBACK H
CONTROL 165
MATLAB Functions fcn is the same as that described in Appendix C.8. And w(t)
is used to output a uniformly distributed random signal ranging between 100 and
100. F(t) is used to output a uniformly distributed random signal ranging between
10 and 10.
References
[1] M. AbdelRohman, Structural control of a steel jacket platform, Structural
Engineering and Mechanics, 4, (1996) 125138.
[2] U. Baser and B. Kizilsac, Dynamic Output Feedback H
control: constant
and timevarying delays, International Journal of Control, 76 (2003) 4860.
[11] E. Fridman and U. Shaked, Parameter dependent stability and stablization of
uncertain timedelay systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48,
(2003) 861866.
[12] E. Fridman, A. Seuret and J.P. Richard, Robust sampleddata stabilization of
linear systems: an input delay approach, Automatica, 40, (2004) 14411446.
[13] Y. S. Fu, Z. H. Tian and S. J. Shi, Output feedback stabilization for a class
of stochastic timedelay nonlinear systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 50, (2005) 847851.
[14] P. Gahinet and P. Apkarian, A linear matrix inequality approach to H
control,
International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 4, (1994) 421448.
[15] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A. J. Laub, and M. Chilali, LMI Control Toolbox
for Use with MATLAB. The MathWorks, Inc. 3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA;
1995.
[16] H. J. Gao, C. H. Wang and L. Zhao, Comments on An LMIBased Approach
for Robust Stabilization of Uncertain Stochastic Systems with TimeVarying
Delays, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 48, (2003) 20732074.
REFERENCES 169
[17] K. Gu, Discretized LMI set in the stability problem of linear uncertain time
delay systems. International Journal of Control, 68, (1997) 923934.
[18] K. Gu, A further renement of discretized Lyapunov functional method for the
stability of timedelay systems. International Journal of Control, 74, (2001)
967976.
[19] K. Gu, V.L. Kharitonov and J. Chen, Stability of timedelay systems. Boston:
Birkh auser, Boston, USA.
[20] X.P. Guan and C.L. Chen, Delaydependent guaranteed cost control for TCS
fuzzy systems with timedelays, IEEE Transactions Fuzzy System, 12, (2004)
236249.
[21] Q.L. Han, On delaydependent stability for neutral delaydierential sys
tems, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science,
11, (2001) 965976.
[22] Q.L. Han, Robust stability of uncertain delaydierential systems of neutral
type, Automatica, 38, (2002) 719723.
[23] Q.L. Han, On robust stability of neutral systems with timevarying discrete
delay and normbounded uncertainty, Automatica, 40, (2004) 10871092.
[24] Q.L. Han, A descriptor system approach to robust stability of uncertain neutral
systems with discrete and distributed delays, Automatica, 40, (2004) 17911796.
[25] Q.L. Han, X. Yu and K. Gu, On computing the maximum timedelay bound for
stability of linear neutral systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
49, (2004) 22812286.
[26] Q.L. Han, On stability of linear neutral systems with mixed timedelays: a
discretized Lyapunov functional approach, Automatica, 41, (2005) 12091218.
170 REFERENCES
[27] Q.L. Han, Absolute stability of timedelay systems with sectorbounded non
linearity, Automatica, 41, (2005) 21712176.
[28] Y. He, M. Wu, J.H. She, and G.P. Liu, Parameterdependent Lypunov func
tional for stability of timedelay systems with polytopictype uncertainties,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 49, (2004) 828832.
[29] L.R. Jesus and P. Allan E., Output feedback stabilizing controller for time
delay systems, Automatica, 36, (2000) 613617.
[30] E. T. Jeung, J. H. Kim and H. B. Park, H
control of discretetime
linear systems with timevarying delays in state, Automatica, 35, (1999) 1587
1591.
[37] S. H. Kim, S. B. Choi, S. R. Hong and M. S. Han, Vibration control of a exible
structure using a hybrid mount, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences,
46, (2004) 143157.
[38] D. K. Kim, P. G. Park and J. W. Ko, Outputfeedback H
control of systems
over communication networks using a deterministic switching system approach,
Automatica, 40, (2004) 12051212.
[39] O. M. Kwon and J. H. Park, On improved delaydependent robust control for
uncertain timedelay systems, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 49,
(2004) 19911995.
[40] V. Kolmanovskii and J. P. Richard, Stability of some linear systems with delays,
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44, (1999) 984989.
[41] B. Lee and J. G. Lee, Robust stability and stabilization of linear delayed systems
with structured uncertainty, Automatica, 35, (1999) 11491154
[42] Y. S. Lee, Y. S. Moon, W. H. Kwon and P. G. Park, Delaydependent robust
H
control for uncertain systems with a state delay, Automatica, 40, (2004)
6572.
[43] Y. S. Lee, Y. S. Moon, W. H. Kwon and P. G. Park, Delaydependent robust
H
control of uncertain
linear statedelayed systems, Automatica, 35, (1999) 13131321.
[59] V. Suplin, E. Fridman and Uri Shaked, H
control for systems with timevarying delays, Automatica, 42, (2006) 343348.
[67] D. Yue, Robust stabilization of uncertain systems with unknown input delay,
Automatica, 40, (2004) 331336.
[68] D. Yue and Q.L. Han, Delayed feedback control of uncertain systems with
timevarying input delay, Automatica, 41, (2005) 233240.
[69] X. M. Zhang, M. Wu, J. H. She and Y. He, Delaydependent stabilization of
linear systems with timevarying state and input delays, Automatica, 41, (2005)
14051412.
[70] K. Zhou, J. C. Doyle and K. Glover, Robust Optimal Control. PrenticeHall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ; 1996.
[71] M. Zribi, N. Almutairi, M. AbdelRohman and M. Terro, Nonlinear and robust
control schemes for oshore steel jacket platforms, Nonlinear Dynamics, 35,
(2004) 6180.
[72] http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web sites/989/oshore/platintr.htm
(Access Date: March 15, 2006 5:30 p.m.).
[73] http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web sites/989/oshore/steel.htm (Ac
cess Date: March 16, 2006 2:33 p.m.).
REFERENCES 175
[74] http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/extraction oshore.htm (Access Date:
2006 1:33 p.m.).