2016 American Control Conference (ACC)
Boston Marriott Copley Place
July 6-8, 2016. Boston, MA, USA
LPV-IO Controller Design: An LMI Approach
Simon Wollnack and Herbert Werner, Member IEEE
Abstract— Stability and L2 -performance of linear
parameter-varying (LPV) systems in input-output
(IO) form are considered. Based on our previous
results, novel linear matrix inequality conditions
are presented that allow to compute a stabiliz-
ing full-order LPV-IO controller which satisfies L2 -
performance constraints by means of a convex pro-
gram. The problem of dynamic parameter dependence
that usually hinders the derivation of practical stabil-
ity and performance conditions is avoided completely.
An illustrative example demonstrates the merits of
the proposed LMI conditions when applied to LPV-
IO controller synthesis.
I. INTRODUCTION
Over the last decades, significant research efforts have
been spent on the development of the linear parameter-
varying (LPV) system framework, resulting in numerous
publications and case studies, see e.g., [1]–[4]. Merits of
the LPV approach are that it allows to address analysis
and controller synthesis for nonlinear control systems in a
systematic, linear framework which has its roots in linear
time-invariant (LTI) system theory.
Usually, when LPV controller design is addressed for
LPV systems it is based on state-space (SS) model
representations. Only a few results have been reported in
the literature, that make use of LPV models described in
input-output (IO) form. However, it is due to complexity
issues and the occurrence of the dynamic-dependence
problem associated with LPV realization theory [5] that
prohibits LPV-SS identification for systems which in-
volve many inputs and outputs, are of high order and/or
include several scheduling parameters. In particular, it is
in general not possible to obtain observer and controller
canonical forms known from LTI theory without intro-
ducing dynamic-dependence on the scheduling parame-
ters. Thus, such LPV-SS realization applied to LPV-IO
models is to be deemed impractical. On the other hand,
identification of LPV models in IO form has become
an active field of research. Major advantages are that
identification of LPV-IO models with high order as well
as many scheduling parameters does not pose a difficulty.
Thus, to exploit the LPV-IO identification techniques it
is desirable to obtain adequate stability and performance
tests for LPV-IO models that also allow convex controller
synthesis in LPV-IO form. In [6], linear matrix inequality
S. Wollnack and H. Werner are with the Institute of Control
Systems, Hamburg University of Technology, Eissendorfer Str.
40, 21073 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: simon.wollnack@tuhh.de,
h.werner@tuhh.de)
978-1-4673-8682-1/$31.00 ©2016 AACC
(LMI) analysis conditions for robust stability of polyno-
mial IO matrices have been proposed based on additional
slack variables. However, controller synthesis can only
be turned into an LMI problem if this slack variable
matrix or so-called central polynomial matrix is known
a-priori and then fixed for synthesis. Searching over the
central polynomial matrix and controller variables turns
the problem non-convex.
By using a central polynomial slack variable, L2 -
performance conditions for closed-loop LPV-IO systems
with application to fixed-structure controller design have
been presented in [7] and [8]. Since fixed-structure con-
troller design is addressed, it does not come as a surprise
that such conditions are non-convex bilinear matrix in-
equality (BMI) conditions, when both, central polyno-
mial and controller variables are regarded to be free.
As another drawback, dynamic parameter dependence
in closed-loop models is neglected such that the stability
and L2 -performance conditions are only approximative.
Problems with dynamic parameter dependence of
polynomial coefficients are avoided completely in [9]
by using an implicit LPV-IO system representation for
fixed-structure LPV-IO controller design and therefore
stability and performance guarantees are maintained.
In this context Finsler’s Lemma is a useful tool for
handling both, implicit system or kernel representations,
see e.g. [10], [11] and explicit or image representations
[12]. It is used here to switch between kernel and image
representation of closed-loop LPV-IO interconnections
while maintaining static parameter dependence. This
allows us to derive our main contributions which are
convex stability and L2 -performance conditions that al-
low efficient computation of an LPV controller in IO
form. The usefulness of our results are twofold. Firstly,
they provide a convex solution to compute a stabilizing
controller and therefore allow a more systematic way
to address fixed-structure controller design in a second
step. Secondly, it turns out that the full-order LPV-IO
controller which satisfies L2 -performance constraints de-
pends only statically on scheduling parameters, although
parameter-dependent Lyapunov functions are used.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II intro-
duces LPV-IO models and presents basic concepts to
derive the main results. In Section III, LMI synthesis
conditions for a stabilizing controller in LPV-IO form are
presented. Based on these results, LMI synthesis condi-
tions for L2 -performance are derived in Section IV. An
illustrative example is given in Section V and conclusions
are drawn in Section VI.
4617
 The following notation is used: for a symmetric matrix w1 e1 y
G
X, X < 0, X ≤ 0 denote negative definiteness and nega-
tive semi-definiteness and X > 0, X ≥ 0 denote positive
definiteness and positive semi-definiteness respectively.
The space of real symmetric matrices of size n is denoted K
u e2 w2
by Sn . The symbol I denotes the identity matrix and 0
a zero matrix of compatible dimensions. The symbol ? Fig. 1: Closed-loop interconnection
is used to denote terms required to make an expression
symmetric. Discrete time is denoted by t ∈ Z+ and q rep- That is, a dynamic parameter-dependent LPV differ-
resents the forward time-shift operator. ence equation depends not only on θ(t) but also on
P∞An inner product
on L2 is defined as hx(t), y(t)iL2 = t=0 x> (t)y(t). θ(t) shifted in time. The same notion is used to char-
acterize LPV-SS models. However, dynamic parameter
II. Preliminaries dependence significantly complicates stability analysis
Consider an LPV plant, described by the transfer and therefore is to be avoided. To point out the differ-
operator G(θ(t), q) : u → y which is represented by an ence between the LTI and the LPV case, the standard
LPV difference equation feedback loop shown in Fig. 1 is considered. Here, G =
na nb A−1 B represents the plant and K = A−1
K BK denotes the
X X
y(t) = Ai (θ(t))q −i y(t) + Bj (θ(t))q −j u(t), (1) controller described by
i=1 j=0 nKa
X nKb
X
−i
with A(θ(t), q) = I − Ai (θ(t))q −i and B(θ(t), q) =
P u(t) = AKi (θ)q u(t) + BKj (θ)q −j e2 (t), (2)
i=1 j=1
Bj (θ(t))q −j . Thus, we can write G(θ(t), q) =
P
A(θ(t), q)−1 B(θ(t), q). The signals y(t) : Z+ → Rny with AK = I − AKi (θ)q −i and BK = BKj (θ)q −j and
P P
and u(t) : Z+ → Rnu denote the measured output AK and BK are assumed to depend continuously on
and the input, respectively. The coefficient matrices θ. The transfer operator T : w2 → y is given by
−1
Ai (θ) : Rnθ → Rny ×ny and Bj (θ) : Rnθ → Rny ×nu are T = (I − GK) GK. For LTI systems G and K and
assumed to be continuous functions of the time-varying scalar denominator controller polynomial AK it holds
−1
parameter vector θ(t) = [θ1 (t) · · · θnθ (t)]> ∈ PΘ with that T = (AAK − BBK ) BBK = D−1 N and stability
θi (t) : Z+ → R for i = 1, . . . , nθ . The range of the can be analyzed by inspecting the zeros of det(D) =
parameter vector as well as upper and lower bounds on det(AAK − BBK ) or by using other polynomial stability
the parameter rates are defined by criteria, see e.g. [7] and [8]. However, for LPV systems G
and K
PΘ = {θ | − 1 ≤ θi ≤ 1, i = 1, . . . , nθ },
1. polynomial operators do not commute, i.e.,
P∆ = {δ | δi ≤ δi ≤ δi , i = 1, . . . , nθ }, BA−1 −1
K 6= AK B, even when AK , B are scalar,
where PΘ ⊂ Rnθ and P∆ ⊂ Rnθ with δ(t) = ∆θ(t) = 2. the product of two static parameter-dependent poly-
θ(t + 1) − θ(t). Note that by scaling we can easily obtain nomials will be dynamic parameter-dependent.
δ̃ ∈ P∆
˜ , with P∆˜ = {δ̃i : −1 ≤ δ̃i ≤ 1, i = 1, . . . , nθ }. In These facts prevent us from applying stability criteria
the following, to lighten the notation arguments are such as [7], [8] to analyze closed-loop stability for LPV
occasionally dropped if they are not needed or become systems described by LPV difference equations when
clear from the context. Representation (1) constitutes a interconnected as shown in Fig. 1.
parameter-dependent polynomial (in q) form in terms of
A. Implicit LPV-IO Representations
the operators A and B, where G does not have hidden
modes iff A and B are left coprime for all θ ∈ PΘ . As discussed in the previous section it is more difficult
for LPV systems to derive an LPV difference equation
Definition 1 (Dynamic Parameter Dependence) of the closed-loop dynamics. Moreover, the closed-loop
An LPV transfer operator G = A−1 B or its difference difference equation will in general be dynamic parameter-
equation representation is said to be dynamic parameter- dependent and is therefore not practical for stability
dependent if it takes the form analysis. An alternate description of the closed-loop be-
na havior is given by
X
Ai (θ(t−n− ), · · · , θ(t+n+ ))q −i y(t)
     
y(t) = A −B y B 0 w1
= (3)
k=1 −BK AK u 0 BK w2
nb
which corresponds to a so-called kernel representation of
X
+ Bj (θ(t−n− ), · · · , θ(t−n+ ))q −j u(t),
j=0 the closed-loop system and reflects the fact that (y, u)
has to satisfy
where n+ > 0 and/or n− > 0. If this is not the case, i.e.,   
it can be represented in the form of (1), it is called static A −B y
=0 (4)
parameter-dependent. −BK AK u

4618
for (w1 , w2 ) ≡ 0. In contrast to any explicit closed-
loop transfer operator that describes the input-output
behavior from inputs w1 or w2 to outputs y, u, e1 or e2 ,
both (3) and (4) depend only statically on the parame-
ter θ and lead therefore to more constructive stability
tests than analyzing stability of dynamic parameter-
dependent systems. Based on (3) we can write
     
Ā −B̄ ȳ B̄ 0 w̄1
= , (5)
−B̄K ĀK ū 0 B̄K w̄2
>
where ȳ, ū, w̄1 and w̄2 are given by ȳ = [y · · · q −ndy > >
ū = [u> · · · q −ndu u> ]> , w̄1 = [w1> · · · q −nb w1> ]> and w̄2 =
[w2> · · · q −nKb w2> ]> . Moreover, ndy = max(na , nKb ) and
ndu = max(nb , nKa ) and
Ā = [I −A1 (θ) · · · −Andy (θ)] ∈ Rny ×n̄y ,
B̄ = [0 B1 (θ) · · · Bndu (θ)] ∈ Rny ×n̄u ,
ĀK = [I −AK1 (θ) · · · −AKndu (θ)] ∈ Rnu ×n̄u ,
B̄K = [0 BK1 (θ) · · · BKndy (θ)] ∈ Rnu ×n̄y .
In case of order difference of A, . . . , BK , the correspond-
ing tails of the above defined matrices are filled with
zeros. Due to the continuity assumptions on Ā · · · B̄K
it is sufficient to analyze the autonomous part (4) to
guarantee stability of the closed-loop system, i.e.,
  
Ā −B̄ ȳ
= 0. (7)
−B̄K ĀK ū
| {z }
H Definition 2 (Asymptotic IO Stability)
Eq. (7) defines the closed-loop behavior by implicit dy-
namic constraints, which have been used already in [9]
to derive stability and quadratic performance conditions
with application to fixed-structure controller synthesis.
Equivalently, an image representation can be formulated
that turns out to be beneficial when full-order controller
design is addressed as will become clear in the following.
B. Explicit LPV-IO Representations
In this section, all feasible trajectories (y(t), u(t)) that
satisfy (7) are determined by the image of a matrix M
with maximal number of linear independent columns,
i.e., we have
 
ȳ
= Mn (8)
ū
such that H[ȳ > ū> ]> = HM n = 0, ∀n 6= 0. Here, (8) is
a so-called image representation of the unforced closed-
loop dynamics and from (7) it becomes clear that M =
H⊥ which is not unique. It has yet to be verified that
a matrix M can be found which is statically parameter-
dependent and does not complicate further analysis. Due
to the structure of the matrix H a suitable choice is given
by
 
A1 (θ) · · · Andy (θ) B1 (θ) · · · Bndu (θ)
 I 0 
M =

BK1 (θ) · · · BKndy (θ) AK1 (θ) · · · AKndu (θ)
0 I
It can be seen that if the matrix H is statically
parameter-dependent then this holds true for the matrix
M as well. Furthermore, the kind of parameter depen-
dence is untouched. Finally, M as well as H depend
affinely on the controller parameters.
In the sequel a result from linear algebra known as
Finsler’s Lemma is used to derive stability as well as
performance conditions, which is stated below.
Lemma 1 (Finsler’s Lemma [12])
y ] , Given Q ∈ Sn and R ∈ Rm×n such that rank(R) < n, the
following statements are equivalent:
i) x> Qx < 0, ∀x : Rx = 0, x 6= 0,
>
ii) R⊥ QR⊥ < 0,
(6a)
iii) ∃µ ∈ R : Q − µR> R < 0,
(6b)
iv) ∃F ∈ Rn×m : Q + F R + R> F > < 0.
(6c)
(6d) III. Stability
In this section we will make use of the image repre-
sentation (8) to obtain an LMI result for synthesizing a
controller in the form of (2). We stress that no IO model
approximations have been made to obtain closed-loop
descriptions that are practical for analysis and synthesis.
That is, (8) is exact in the sense that no dynamic
parameter dependence has been removed or neglected.
First, asymptotic IO stability is defined as follows.
The closed-loop interconnection described by (3) is said
to be asymptotically IO stable if for any scheduling tra-
jectory (θ(t), δ(t)) ∈ PΘ × P∆ and signal trajectories
(y(t), u(t), w1 (t), w2 (t)) satisfying (3) there exists a t0
with (w1 (t), w2 (t)) ≡ 0 for t > t0 such that (y(t), u(t)) →
0 for t → ∞.
For LPV Systems, IO stability of (7) or equivalently of
(8) can not be analyzed by inspecting pole locations
or via transfer functions. Thus, we will construct a
Lyapunov function for this purpose by writing the system
representation as an equivalent first order difference form
with state variables x.
In order to derive less conservative stability conditions
which take the parameter rate δ(t) = ∆θ(t) into account,
we introduce the following parameter-dependent Lya-
punov function
 
  ȳ
V (θ, ȳ, ū) = ? P (θ) Π1 , (9)
ū
where P (θ) : Rnθ → Snx , P (θ) > 0 for all θ ∈ PΘ . This
includes the so-called quadratic stability for LPV systems
if P is chosen to be parameter-independent. In (9),
x = Π1 [ȳ ū]> = diag(Π1y , Π1u )[ȳ ū]> denotes the latent
variable constructed from input-output signals, which
qualifies as a state vector if Π1 = diag(Π1y , Π1u ) is chosen
such that [y > (t−1) · · · y > (t−ndy )]> = Π1y ȳ and [u> (t−
1) · · · u> (t−ndu )]> = Π1u ū. It is readily verified that Π1?
4619
is of the form Π1? = [ 0 I ] with compatible dimensions. w1
In the same manner the Lyapunov difference ∆V (θ, ȳ, ū) y
can be formulated by noting that q x = Π2 [ ȳ ū ]> = B A−1
diag(Π2y , Π2u )[ ȳ ū ]> , where [y > (t) · · · y > (t−ndy+1)]> =
Π2y ȳ, [u> (t) · · · u> (t−ndu +1)]> = Π2u ū and Π2? is of
the form Π2? = [ I 0 ]. Consequently, we can write the K
Lyapunov difference in terms of input-output signals u u
w2
and y as follows
    Fig. 2: Closed-loop 2-DOF interconnection
  ȳ   ȳ
∆V (θ, ȳ, ū) = ? P (θ + δ) Π2 − ? P (θ) Π1 .
ū ū
Based on that, we can state the following. contains the controller variables. Consequently, a stabi-
lizing LPV-IO controller in the form of (2) can be found
Theorem 1
by solving an LMI problem of state feedback structure.
The closed-loop interconnection described by the kernel This can be done by either applying the Elimination
representation (7) or by the image representation (8) Lemma [4] to (11b) or by applying Schur’s complement
is asymptotically IO stable if there exists a symmetric and using a linearizing change of variables [13]. Thus, we
matrix valued mapping P (θ) such that obtain the following stability result.
P (θ) > 0, (10a) Theorem 2
 > " # 
> Π2 P (θ+δ) 0 Π2 The closed-loop interconnection described by the kernel
M M < 0, (10b)
Π1 0 −P (θ) Π1 representation (7) or by the image representation (8) is
asymptotically IO stable if there exist a symmetric matrix
for all (θ, δ) ∈ PΘ × P∆ or equivalently there exists a
valued mapping Q(θ) and a matrix Y (θ) such that
symmetric matrix valued mapping Q(θ) such that
Q(θ) > 0, (11a) Q(θ) > 0, (12a)
" #  
−Q(θ+δ) Â(θ)Q(θ) + BY (θ)

  Q(θ+δ) 0 I < 0, (12b)
? > 0, ? −Q(θ)
0 −Q(θ) (Π1 M )−> (Π2 M )>
(11b) for all (θ, δ) ∈ PΘ × P∆ .
for all (θ, δ) ∈ PΘ × P∆ .
If the conditions (12) have a feasible solution, then an
Proof: Asymptotic IO stability is implied if
LPV-IO controller K̄ is given by K̄ = Y (θ)Q(θ)−1 . Still
(a): V (θ, ȳ, ū) > 0 for Π1 [ȳ > ū> ]> 6= 0 and (b):
the LMI problem is infinite dimensional. However, by
∆V (θ, ȳ, ū) < 0 for all [ȳ > ū> ]> : H[ȳ > ū> ]> = 0,
using techniques such as gridding, i.e., checking (12) on
θ ∈ PΘ . (a) follows directly from (10a). Using Finsler’s
a dense parameter grid or applying the Full Block S-
Lemma (item (i) → (ii)) condition (b) is equivalent to
procedure [4], the infinite dimensional LMI problem can
(10b). Conditions (11) follow from duality. 
be turned into a finite set of LMI conditions.
Note that in this case Π1 M = (Π1 M )−1 = I. Never-
theless, the existence of (Π1 M )−1 is necessary for (10b) IV. L2 -Performance
to have a feasible solution. To obtain a convex synthesis
condition for a stabilizing LPV-IO controller in the form In this section, L2 -performance synthesis conditions
of (2) we employ the dual formulation (11) of (10). are derived in form of LMIs. The feedback interconnec-
Here, (11b) allows a convex synthesis approach since the tion including an LPV-IO controller K is considered as
closed-loop matrix Acl := Π2 M turns out to be shown in Fig. 2 which depicts a two-degree-of-freedom (2-
Acl = DOF) LPV-IO design with external disturbances w1 and
  w2 . In this context L2 -performance is defined as follows.
A1 (θ) · · · Andy (θ) B1 (θ) · · · Bndu (θ)
 I
 0 0 
 Definition 3

 I 0 0 
 A transfer operator G(θ(t), q) : w(t) → z(t) is said to
BK1 (θ) · · · BKndy (θ) AK1 (θ) · · · AKndu (θ)
  achieve L2 -performance of less or equal than γ if
 0 I 0 
0 I 0
    
z(t) −I 0 z(t)
, >0
w(t) 0 γ 2 I w(t) L
and can therefore be written as  + B K̄, where 2

 >
B = 0 ··· 0 I 0 ··· 0 and is satisfied for all w(t) ∈ L2 .
 
K̄ = BK1 (θ) · · · BKndy (θ) AK1 (θ) · · · AKndu (θ) The kernel representation of the feedback loop is readily

4620
 w1 of less than or equal to γ if there exists a symmetric matrix
y valued mapping P (θ) such that
B A−1
P (θ) > 0, (15a)
 > " # 
Π P (θ+δ) 0 Π2
Bu K Mp> 2 Mp
u w2 Π1 0 −P (θ) Π1
We  >   
zu > Πz I 0 Πz
ze +Mp Mp < 0, (15b)
Πw 0 −γ 2 I Πw
Fig. 3: Weighted closed-loop 2-DOF interconnection
for all (θ, δ) ∈ PΘ × P∆ . 
obtained as Note that (14) defines a first order difference form

  ȳ h i>
Ā −B̄ −I 0  ū 
  = 0. (Π2y ȳ)> (Π2u ū)> (Π2z z̄)> (Π2w w̄)> z > =
−B̄Ky −ĀK 0 −B̄Kw2 w̄1     
w̄2 Ã B̃ 0 0 I 0
 Ny 0 0 0  0 0
So far, no performance outputs have been considered.    
0 0
   
However, performance weights can be integrated by  B̃Ky ÃK B̃Ke B̃Kw2 
    
0 0
 Π1y ȳ
adding dynamic constraints. In order to penalize the  0 Nu 0 0 
   
control error e = w2 − y and the control effort u we can   Π1u ū  +  0 0  w1 ,
 −B̃ 0 Ã B̃e     
 e e
use the kernel representation that defines the closed-loop   Π1z z̄   0 0  w2
 0 0 Nz 0 

 
dynamics corresponding to the feedback interconnection  0 0 0 0  Π1w w̄ 0 I 
   
shown in Fig 3. It is given by  0
 0 0 Nw  
0 0

 0 0 [I 0] 0 
     
0 0
  ȳ
Ā −B̄ 0 0 −I 0  ū 
  0 B̃u 0 0 0 0
−B̄Ky ĀK −B̄Ke 0 0 −B̄Kw2   z̄e  (16)
    = 0,
 B̄e 0 Āe 0 0 −B̄e    z̄u 

0 −B̄u 0 I 0 0 w̄1  where the N? s are structured as N? = [I 0]. It can be seen
| {z } w̄2 that the upper part of the right hand side of (16) can be
Hp
written as Acl x+Bw w = (Â+Bu K̄)x+Bw w and is there-
(13) fore of state feedback structure. The lower part defines
where zu = z̄u and w1 = w̄1 . To simplify the following the performance outputs in the form of z = Cz x + Dw w.
exposition, we write the matrices Ā? and B̄? of G, K and However, (15b) is still quadratically dependent on K̄ and
We as Ā? = [I − Ã? ] and B̄? = [0 B̃? ]. Thus, we obtain therefore no LMI. Due to the problem structure, the
for the image representation, dual form of (15b) allows the following convex synthesis
  approach for an LPV-IO controller K̄.
à B̃ 0 I 0
   I 0 0 0 0  Theorem 4
ȳ 
 B̃Ky ÃK B̃Ke 0 B̄Kw2 

 ū    The closed-loop interconnection described by the kernel
   0
 z̄e   I 0 0 0  representation (13) or by the image representation (14)
  = −B̃e
 z̄u   0 Ãe 0  n.
B̄e  (14) is asymptotically IO stable and achieves L2 -performance
   0
w̄1   0 I 0 0 
 of less than or equal to γ if there exists a symmetric matrix
 0 B̄u 0 0 0  valued mapping Q(θ) and a matrix Y (θ) such that
w̄2  
 0 0 0 I 0 
0 0 0 0 I Q(θ) > 0, (17a)
| {z }  
Mp −Q(θ) 0 ? ?
2
 0 −γ I ? ? < 0,
Now, by taking Π1 = diag(Π1y , Π1u , Π1z , Π1w ) and Π2 = 
Â(θ)Q(θ) + Bu Y (θ) 0 −Q(θ+δ) 0 
diag(Π2y , Π2u , Π2z , Π2w ) structured as in the previous
Cz Q(θ) Dzw 0 −I
section and selecting performance outputs z = Πz z̄ and
(17b)
external inputs w = Πw w̄, we can state the following.
Theorem 3 for all (θ, δ) ∈ PΘ × P∆ . 
The closed-loop interconnection described by the kernel If the LMIs (17) have a feasible solution, then a static
representation (13) or by the image representation (14) parameter-dependent LPV-IO controller is given by K̄ =
is asymptotically IO stable and achieves L2 -performance Y (θ)Q(θ)−1 .

4621
 V. Example −37
In this section, we consider the example of a 2-DOF

y1 (deg)
−38
robotic manipulator to illustrate the proposed technique.
The continuous-time model with ny = 2, nu = 2 is taken
−39
from [14] and given by
M (y(t))ÿ(t) + c(ẏ(t)) + g(y(t)) = τ (t), (18) −40
6.8 6.85 6.9 6.95
75
where τ is the vector of control torques and y denotes
the vector of joint positions. Matrix M is the inertia 74

y2 (deg)
matrix, c is the vector of friction torques and g represents 73
gravitational torques. Coriolis and centrifugal torques are
neglected for the sake of simplicity. 72
By using a backward Euler discretization scheme with 71
sampling period T , (18) can be represented in discrete- 6.8 6.85 6.9 6.95
time LPV-IO form t
2
X Fig. 4: Ref.: ( ), LPV-IO: ( ), PD: ( ), LPV-SS: ( )
y(t) = Ai (θ(t))q −i y(t) + B0 (θ(t))u(t), (19)
i=1

as in (1), where θ = y. In this example it is assumed TABLE I: RMS error

that the range of operation is limited by θ1 ∈ [−45◦ 45◦ ] Controllers LPV-IO PD LPV-SS
and θ2 ∈ [−135◦ 135◦ ]. The closed-loop interconnection Joint space (deg) 0.04816 0.3525 0.05379
is chosen as in Fig. 3 discarding external inputs w1 . Here,
T 2 q −1 +T 2 q −2
We = 4 (1−2q −1 +q −2 ) I is used to equip the controller with

double integral action and Bu = 1.75(1−3q −1+3q −2−q −4 )I References

penalizes the control effort.
Choosing T = 0.001, a constant matrix Q and a
parameter-dependent matrix Y (θ) = Y0 +cos(θ2−θ1 )Y1 +
sinc(θ1 )Y2 + sinc(θ2 )Y3 , we compute an LPV-IO con-
troller by minimizing the performance index γ with the
help of the conditions (17). Since the LMI constraints
(17) are infinite dimensional due to the functional depen-
dence on the parameter θ, we simply grid the parameter
space into 36 grid points at which the constraints are
enforced.
The optimization yields a performance index γ ≈ 0.06.
Fig. 4 shows the simulated reference tracking (zoomed-
in) of the command trajectory that has already been used
in [14]. In addition a discrete-time PD controller and a
full-order LPV-SS controller are shown for comparison.
It is visible that the LPV-IO controller outperforms the
PD controller and achieves a similar performance as
the LPV-SS controller. This observation is supported
when the root mean square (RMS) tracking errors of the
different closed-loops are compared, see Table I.
VI. Conclusion
Based on our previous results, conditions have been
presented that allow to solve the stabilization problem
as well as the L2 -performance problem of an LPV-IO
closed-loop interconnection in terms of a convex LMI
problem of state feedback structure. Moreover, dynamic
parameter dependence of the LPV-IO closed-loop formu-
lation and in particular of the controller in LPV-IO form
have not been neglected, they simply do not occur. The
example of a 2-DOF robotic manipulator illustrates the
proposed approach.
[1] W. J. Rugh and J. S. Shamma, “A survey of research on gain-
scheduling,” Automatica, vol. 36, pp. 1401–1425, 2000.
[2] P. Apkarian, P. Gahinet, and G. Becker, “Self-scheduled H∞
control of linear parameter-varying systems: a design exam-
ple,” Automatica, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 1251–1261, 1995.
[3] A. Packard, “Gain scheduling via linear fractional transforma-
tions,” Systems and Control Letters, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 79–92,
1994.
[4] C. Scherer, “LPV control and full block multipliers,” Auto-
matica, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 325–485, 2001.
[5] R. Tóth, Modeling and Identification of Linear Parameter-
Varying Systems. Lecture Notes in Control and Information
Sciences, Vol. 403, Springer, 2010.
[6] D. Henrion, D. Arzelier, and D. Peaucelle, “Positive poly-
nomial matrices and improved LMI robustness condtions,”
Automatica, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1479–1485, 2003.
[7] W. Gilbert, D. Henrion, J. Bernussou, and D. Boyer, “Poly-
nomial LPV synthesis applied to turbofan engine,” Control
Engineering Practice, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1077–1083, 2010.
[8] D. Henrion, Robust control and linear parameter varying ap-
proach. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences,
Vol. 437, Springer, 2013, ch. Positive polynomial matrices for
LPV controller synthesis, pp. 88–96.
[9] S. Wollnack, H. Abbas, H. Werner, and R. Tóth, “Fixed-
structure LPV controller synthesis based on implicit input out-
put representations,” in 52nd IEEE Conference on Decision
and Control, 2013, pp. 2103–2108.
[10] J. D. Aplevich, Implicit Linear Systems. Lecture Notes in
Control and Information Sciences, Springer, 1991.
[11] S. Wollnack and H. Werner, “Distributed fixed-structure con-
trol of spatially interconnected systems,” in American Control
Conference (ACC), 2015, July 2015, pp. 1953–1958.
[12] M. C. de Oliveira and R. Skelton, Perspectives in Robust
Control. Springer, 2001, vol. 268, ch. Stability Tests for
Constrained Linear Systems, pp. 241–257.
[13] S. Boyd, L. E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, and V. Balakrishnan, Linear
Matrix Inequalities in System and Control Theory. SIAM,
Philadelphia, 1994, vol. 15.
[14] S. M. Hashemi, H. Abbas, and H. Werner, “Low-complexity
linear parameter-varying modeling and control of a robotic
manipulator,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 20, pp. 248–
257, 2012.

4622