This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# www.ietdl.

org

Published in IET Control Theory and Applications

Received on 10th January 2011

Revised on 7th November 2011

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

ISSN 1751-8644

Adaptive observer design for the uncertain

Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy system with output disturbance

T. V. Dang

1

W.-J. Wang

1

L. Luoh

2

C.-H. Sun

3

1

Department of Electrical Engineering, National Central University, JhongLi 32001, Taiwan

2

Department of Electrical Engineering, Chung Hua University, Hsin-Chu 10608, Taiwan

3

Department of Mechanical and Electro-Mechanical Engineering, Tamkang University, Tamsui, Taipei County 25137,

Taiwan

E-mail: wjwang@ee.ncu.edu.tw

Abstract: The study proposes an adaptive fuzzy observer for the uncertain Takagi–Sugeno (T–S) fuzzy system with output

disturbance. First, an augmented fuzzy model is built by integrating the system state and the output disturbance together as

new variables. Then, the desired adaptive fuzzy observer is designed to estimate the unavailable system state and the unknown

output disturbance simultaneously. Based on Lyapunov theory and linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) tools, two main conditions

are derived under which the fuzzy observer is designed. Finally, the procedure of the observer design is summarised and the

effectiveness of the designed observer is demonstrated with a numerical example.

1 Introduction

The design of observers for state estimation plays an

important role in the automatic control domain with

various areas of application. Besides, several issues require

system’s state reconstruction, such as designing a state

feedback control law [1] or constructing a diagnosis system

under supervisory [2] and reconﬁguring the system with

appearance of failures [3]. Diverse approaches for the

observer design have been proposed, such as transfer

function methods, geometric-observers, differential algebraic

models and singular value decomposition [4–6].

In practical control problems, it is unavoidable to include

uncertain parameters and output disturbances because

of modelling error, measurement error and linearisation

approximation. Hence, it is necessary to design a robust

observer which ensures the exactness of state estimate

between the states of dynamical systems and observer in

the presence of the uncertainties. Therefore the problem of

robust state observer design for dynamical systems with

uncertainty has received considerable attention of many

researchers, and many approaches to design a robust state

observer have been developed in the past decades.

Among the solutions to the problem of the state

estimation, the most famous estimator is the Luenberger’s

observer [7]. The Luenberger’s observer bases on the

synthesis of a static gain which is synthesised to stabilise

the state estimation error and to guarantee its asymptotic

convergence. However, the existence of disturbance or

uncertain causes a bad reconstruction of the state’s system.

Other solutions as the proportional integral (PI) observer

design [8] or the proportional multiple-integral observer

design [9] permits us to attenuate either measurement

noise or modelling error. Unfortunately, a conventional

PI observer cannot provide a satisfactory estimation

performance when the output disturbance occurs in the plant.

The same drawback of the conventional observer is pointed

out in [8, 9], that is the output disturbance will be ampliﬁed

by the conventional observer gain matrix.

Fuzzy technique has been widely used in modelling

and controlling non-linear systems. The fuzzy control with

IF-THEN rules can combine with the other control methods

to reach the some difﬁcult control objective, because of its

capability of modelling complex non-linear systems [10–15].

Among various kinds of fuzzy models, Takagi–Sugeno (T–

S) fuzzy model [16] is one of the most popular classes

of fuzzy model. It has recently gained much popularity

because of their special rule, consequent structure and

successful application in a functional approximation and

system analysis. Therefore T–S fuzzy model has been a

powerful tool in the analysis and synthesis to a non-linear

control system [16–18].

Many papers have been studying the observer design

for fuzzy T–S systems by using different techniques such

as the linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) approach, the

sliding mode technique and the adaptive method to design

the fuzzy observer [19–23]. However, the observer design

problems are more challenging in the presence of unknown

time-varying output disturbances [24]. Although there was

remarkable success in the observer design for linear crisp

system with measurement noise [25], the observer technique

for the crisp system cannot be utilised directly in the

fuzzy observer design because of the existence time-varying

weights in the fuzzy inference engine. In the presence of

bounded non-differentiable disturbances, adaptive observers

have been developed in [26–28] to guarantee bounded state

and parameter estimation errors.

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 1

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Therefore how to design the fuzzy observer for T–S fuzzy

systems with output disturbances is worth being studied. The

paper [24] studied the observer design technique for the

T–S fuzzy system with output disturbance. However, it

did not deal with the T–S fuzzy system with uncertain

parameters since uncertainties make the observer design

much more complicated. There is a pioneer paper

investigating the observer-controller design for T–S fuzzy

uncertain system [29] in which the stability criterion and

robustness area with respect to a single-grid-point in the

parameter space are derived. The paper [30] presents an

adaptive approach for the synchronisation of T–S chaotic

systems to estimate the uncertain parameters. Although the

objective can be completely achieved, the paper requires

a constraint (in Assumption 1) for the solution of LMI

problems. In the example, the authors have to use variables

in the state and input matrices which are found after the

common positive deﬁnite matrix P. Although in the systems

the state and input matrices are originally and normally

ﬁxed.

The design of adaptive observer for uncertain non-

linear systems containing disturbance has attracted great

attention recently. The paper [31] demonstrates a robust

adaptive observer for multiple-in multiple-out non-linear

system with uncertain non-linearities and disturbances. The

existing problem in the paper is that the state estimation

error is uniformly bounded and does not converge to zero

asymptotically. The fuzzy observer-based fuzzy controller

is developed in [32]. The proposed methods efﬁciently

attenuate the peak of perturbation because of persistent

bounded disturbances. The question of bounded disturbance

is represented in [33] to deliver a method as using the

strictly positive real theory and Lyapunov stability theory

to design the state observer. All of the authors in [31–33]

use the popular lemma as Meyer–Kalman–Yakubovich [34]

about assumption of common matrix P for all subsystems.

This however seems to be a common practice in the related

literature.

In this paper, the problem to be handled is the estimation

of state and disturbance subjected to the inﬂuence of

unknown output disturbances and uncertain parameters in

the T–S fuzzy system. The work proposes a robust adaptive

fuzzy observer to accurately estimate the system state

and the output disturbance at the same time under the

existence of uncertainties. First, this work generates an

augmented system for uncertain T–S fuzzy model. Then,

the main theorem for the adaptive observer design is

proposed and LMIs tool [35, 36] is used to ﬁnd the solution

of parameters such that the observer system can achieve

the goals. Finally, the computer simulation is conducted

to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method. The

rest of paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, some

preliminaries for T–S fuzzy model of uncertain system with

output disturbance and problem formulation are given. In

Section 3, the adaptive fuzzy state/disturbance observer is

designed and the conditions ensuring global and asymptotic

convergence of estimation error are derived as a set of LMI

terms. A numerical example is given in Section 4 to illustrate

the design procedure and the effectiveness of the proposed

approach. Finally, a conclusion is given in Section 5.

2 System model and problem description

A T–S fuzzy model described by IF-THEN rules is

considered, and each rule represents the local linear

input–output relation from a non-linear uncertain system.

The ith rule of the fuzzy model is of the following form:

Plant Rule i

IF z

1

is μ

i1

and … and z

s

is μ

is

, then

_

˙ x(t) = (A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t), i = 1, . . . , r

y(t) = C

i

x(t)

(1)

where x(t) ∈ R

n

is the unavailable state, u(t) ∈ R

m

is the

control and y(t) ∈ R

p

is the output. In general, z

j

∈ Z

j

(j =

1, 2, . . ., s) are the antecedent variables which may be some

of the states, the function of states or the function of output

[36], but the states are unavailable, here, z

j

will be the

output y or some function of y. Moreover, μ

ij

(i = 1, 2, . . ., r;

j = 1, 2, . . ., s) are the fuzzy sets that are characterised by

membership functions, r is the number of IF–THEN rules

and s is the number of the premise variables. The matrices

A

i

, B

i

and C

i

are with appropriate dimensions and A

i

denotes the bounded uncertain constant matrix satisfying

A

i

≤ ε

i

. The overall fuzzy model achieved from plant

rules in (1) is given by

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩

˙ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t)}

y(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z)C

i

x(t)

(2)

where

z(t) = [z

1

(t), . . . , z

s

(t)], h

i

(z) =

ψ

i

(z)

r

i=1

ψ

i

(z)

,

ψ

i

(z) =

s

j=1

μ

ji

(z)

Here, h

i

(z) is regarded as the normalised weight of each

IF-THEN rule and h

i

(z) ≥ 0,

r

i=1

h

i

(z) = 1

In real systems, it is possible that the system contains

uncertain parameters and output disturbance as follows

˙ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t)}

y(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z)C

i

x(t) +ω(t)

(3)

where ω(t) ∈ R

p

stands for the unknown output disturbance.

Since x(t) is unavailable and ω(t) is unknown, designing an

observer to estimate of the state and the disturbance for the

system (2) is the main objective of this paper.

3 Observer design

First, let us consider the particular case which has equal

output matrices in (3), that is, C

i

= C for all i. Subsequently,

this technique will be applied to the general case in which

the system contains different output matrices.

2 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

www.ietdl.org

3.1 Particular case

If output matrices of all subsystems are equal, that is, C

i

= C

for all i, (3) becomes

˙ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t)}

y(t) = Cx(t) +ω(t)

(4)

Rewrite (4) as the following augmented form

¯

E

˙

¯ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(

¯

A

i

+

¯

A

i

)¯ x(t) +

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

Nω(t)}

y(t) =

¯

C¯ x(t) = C

0

¯ x(t) +ω(t)

(5)

where

¯ x(t) =

_

x(t)

ω(t)

_

,

¯

E =

_

I

n

O

p

O

p

O

p

_

,

¯

A

i

=

_

A

i

O

p

O

p

−I

p

_

,

¯

A

i

=

_

A

i

O

p

O

p

O

p

_

,

¯

B

i

=

_

B

i

O

p×m

_

,

¯

N =

_

O

n×p

I

p

_

,

¯

C = [C I

p

] and C

0

= [C O

p

] (6)

and O

p

denotes a p ×p zero square matrix and O

n×p

is an

n ×p zero matrix. Add

¯

L˙ y(t) to both sides of (5), it yields

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

˙

¯ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(

¯

A

i

+

¯

A

i

)¯ x(t)

+

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

Nω(t) +

¯

L˙ y(t)}

y(t) =

¯

C¯ x(t) = C

0

¯ x(t) +ω(t)

(7)

where

¯

L ∈ R

(n+p)×p

will be determined later. Since ω(t) =

y(t) −C

0

¯ x(t), then (7) becomes

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

˙

¯ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

0i

¯ x(t) +

¯

A

i

¯ x(t)

+

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

Ny(t) +

¯

L˙ y(t)} (8)

where

¯

A

0i

=

¯

A

i

−

¯

NC

0

. Suppose that, the pairs (

¯

A

0i

, C) is

observable, the fuzzy observer is proposed as follows

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

˙

ˆ

¯ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

0i

ˆ

¯ x(t) +

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

H

i

(y(t)

− ˆ y(t)) +

ˆ

¯

A

i

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t) +

¯

Ny(t) +

¯

L˙ y(t)}

ˆ y(t) =

¯

C

ˆ

¯ x(t)

(9)

where

ˆ

¯ x(t) ∈ R

n+p

is the estimate of ¯ x(t) and ˆ y(t) ∈ R

p

is the

observer output,

ˆ

¯

A

i

is used to estimate

¯

A

i

. Moreover,

the gain

¯

H

i

∈ R

(n+p)×p

of the ith local observer will be

determined later.

Let

¯ e(t) = ¯ x(t) −

ˆ

¯ x(t) and

e

y

(t) = y(t) − ˆ y(t) =

¯

C¯ e(t)

(10)

From (9) to (10), the error dynamics is

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

˙

¯ e(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(

¯

A

0i

−

¯

H

i

¯

C)¯ e(t)

+

¯

A

i

¯ x(t) −

ˆ

¯

A

i

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)} (11)

Furthermore

rank

_

¯

E

¯

C

_

= rank

_

I

n

0

0 0

C I

p

_

= n +p

Thus, we can ﬁnd a

¯

L ∈ R

(n+p)×p

to satisfy rank[

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C] =

n +p such that (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

exists. Rewrite (11) as the form

below

˙

¯ e(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

[(

¯

A

0i

−

¯

H

i

¯

C)¯ e(t)

+

¯

A

i

¯ x(t) −

ˆ

¯A

i

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)]}

=

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(

¯

A

1i

−

¯

H

1i

¯

C)¯ e(t) +

¯

A

1i

¯ x(t) −

ˆ

¯

A

1i

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)}

=

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

2i

¯ e(t) +

¯

A

1i

¯ x(t) −

ˆ

¯

A

1i

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)} (12)

where

¯

A

1i

= (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

¯

A

0i

,

¯

A

1i

= (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

¯

A

i

and

ˆ

¯

A

1i

= (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

ˆ

¯

A

i

(13)

¯

H

1i

= (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

¯

H

i

,

¯

A

2i

=

¯

A

1i

−

¯

H

1i

¯

C (14)

Now, suppose

¯

A

1i

and

ˆ

¯

A

i

can be represented as

¯

A

1i

= M

¯

θ

i

(15a)

and

ˆ

¯

A

1i

= M

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t) (15b)

respectively, where M is a constant matrix with dimensions

(n +p) ×p;

¯

θ

i

∈ R

p×(n+p)

is uncertain constant matrices

satisfying

¯

θ

i

≤ γ

i

and

ˆ

¯

θ

i

is the estimate of

¯

θ

i

. Furthermore,

since ||A

i

|| ≤ ε

i

, then

¯

A

i

≤ ε

i

imply

¯

A

1i

≤ ε

1i

,

where ε

1i

= (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

ε

i

. From (12) and (15), it yields

˙

¯ e(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

2i

¯ e(t) +M

¯

θ

i

¯ x(t) −M

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)}

=

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

2i

¯ e(t) +M

¯

θ

i

¯ x(t) −M

¯

θ

i

ˆ

¯ x(t)

+M

¯

θ

i

ˆ

¯ x(t) −M

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)}

=

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

2i

¯ e(t) +M

¯

θ

i

¯ e(t) +M

¯

θ

ei

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)} (16)

where

¯

θ

ei

(t) =

¯

θ

i

−

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t). Before deriving the main result, the

following lemma is required.

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 3

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Lemma 1 [37]: Let x and y denote two constant vectors,

then x

T

y = tr(xy

T

), where tr(G) is the trace of the constant

matrix G.

Theorem 1: Consider the system (8) and the observer (9),

suppose

¯

A

1i

satisﬁes (15) with

¯

A

1i

≤ ε

1i

and

¯

θ

i

≤ γ

i

.

Then, the estimation errors (16) of the state and the output

disturbance converge to zero asymptotically if

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t) = h

i

(z)

i

e

y

(t)

ˆ

¯ x

T

(t) (17)

where

i

is any positive-deﬁnite matrix, and there exist a

common symmetric positive deﬁnite matrix P = P

T

and a

matrix

¯

H

i

such that

¯

A

T

2i

P +P

¯

A

2i

+2ε

1i

P < 0, i = 1, 2, . . . , r (18)

and

M

T

=

¯

CP

−1

(19)

Proof: Let the Lyapunov function candidate be

V = ¯ e

T

(t)P¯ e(t) +

r

i=1

tr(

¯

θ

T

ei

(t)

−1

i

¯

θ

ei

(t)) (20)

The time derivative of V(t) along function trajectories of

system (16) is shown as follows

˙

V =

˙

¯ e

T

(t)P¯ e(t) + ¯ e

T

(t)P

˙

¯ e(t) +

r

i=1

tr(

˙

¯

θ

T

ei

(t)

−1

i

¯

θ

ei

(t))

+

r

i=1

tr(

¯

θ

T

ei

(t)

−1

i

˙

¯

θ

ei

(t))

As

˙

¯

θ

ei

(t) = (

˙

¯

θ

i

−

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t)) = −

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t) then

˙

V =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)(

¯

A

T

2i

P +PA

2i

)¯ e(t)}

+2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)M

¯

θ

i

P¯ e(t)}

+2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)PM

¯

θ

ei

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)}

−2

r

i=1

tr(

¯

θ

T

ei

(t)

−1

i

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t)) (21)

By Lemma 1, (17) and (19), the last term of (21) is shown

as follows

2

r

i=1

tr(

¯

θ

T

ei

(t)

−1

i

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t))

= 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){tr(

¯

θ

T

ei

(t)

−1

i

i

e

y

(t)

ˆ

¯ x

T

(t))}

= 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){tr(

¯

θ

T

ei

(t)e

y

(t))(

ˆ

¯ x

T

(t))}

= 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z)e

T

y

(t)

¯

θ

ei

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)

= 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)

¯

C

T

¯

θ

ei

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)}

= 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)PM

¯

θ

ei

(t)

ˆ

¯ x(t)} (22)

According to (22), the sum of the last two terms of (21)

equals to zero. Thus

2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)M

¯

θ

i

P¯ e(t)}

≤ 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)M

¯

θ

i

P¯ e(t)}

= 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)

¯

A

1i

P¯ e(t)}

≤ 2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)ε

1i

P¯ e(t)}

Then

V ≤

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)(

¯

A

T

2i

P +PA

2i

)¯ e(t)}

+2

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)ε

1i

P¯ e(t)}

If (18) holds

˙

V ≤

r

i=1

h

i

(z){¯ e

T

(t)[

¯

A

T

2i

P +P

¯

A

2i

+2ε

1i

P]¯ e(t)} ≤ 0 (23)

The proof is completed.

Remark 1: Based on Theorem 1, the fuzzy observer (9)

is obtained and the condition (19) is used for supporting

the solution of LMI (18) which is originally from Meyer–

Kalman–Yakubovich Lemma [34].

3.2 General case

The output matrices of all subsystems are not necessary to

be equal, that is, C

i

= C

j

, for i = j. Then, the T–S fuzzy

system (3) can be rewritten as a new form

˙ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t)}

y(t) = Cx(t) +

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C)x(t) +ω(t)

(24)

where C is the matrix chosen from the set {C

1

, C

2

, . . ., C

r

}.

Let

ω

0

(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C)x(t) +ω(t)

the (24) becomes

˙ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t)}

y(t) = Cx(t) +ω

0

(t)

(25)

4 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

www.ietdl.org

Similar to (4), (25) can be rewritten as

¯

E

˙

¯ x

0

(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(

¯

A

i

+

¯

A

i

)¯ x

0

(t) +

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

Nω

0

(t)}

y(t) =

¯

C¯ x

0

(t) = C

0

¯ x

0

(t) +ω

0

(t)

(26)

where ¯ x

T

0

= [x(t) ω

0

(t)] and the state-space system

coefﬁcients

¯

A

i

,

¯

B

i

,

¯

N,

¯

C, C

0

,

¯

E and

¯

A

i

are deﬁned as the

same as those in (6). Add L˙ y(t) to both sides of (26), it

yields

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

˙

¯ x

0

(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){(

¯

A

i

+

¯

A

i

)¯ x

0

(t)

+

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

Nω

0

(t) +

¯

L˙ y(t)}

y(t) = C

0

¯ x

0

(t) +ω

0

(t) (27)

Substitute ω

0

(t) = y(t) −C

0

¯ x

0

(t) into (27)

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

˙

¯ x

0

(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

0i

¯ x

0

(t) +

¯

A

i

¯ x

0

(t)

+

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

Ny(t) +

¯

L˙ y(t)} (28)

which is similar to (8). Therefore we can design the T–S

fuzzy state-space observer (30) to estimate x(t) and ω

0

(t)

of system (28) by using the approach given in Theorem 1.

Since

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω(t)

_

=

⎡

⎢

⎣

I

n

0

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C) I

p

⎤

⎥

⎦

−1

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t) (29)

where

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t) is the estimate of ¯ x

0

(t) let the T–S fuzzy

observer (30) be designed to estimate x(t) and ω

0

(t)

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

˙

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

0i

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t) +

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

H

i

(y(t)

− ˆ y(t)) +

ˆ

¯

A

i

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t) +

¯

Ny(t) +

¯

L˙ y(t)}

ˆ y(t) =

¯

C

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t) (30)

It is seen that (30) is similar to (9). Let ¯ e

0

(t) = ¯ x

0

(t) −

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t),

and e

0y

(t) = y(t) − ˆ y(t) =

¯

C¯ e

0

(t). Therefore by similar

derivations of (12) and (15)

¯ e

0

(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z){

¯

A

2i

¯ e

0

(t) +M

¯

θ

i

¯ e

0

(t) +M

¯

θ

ei

(t)

ˆ

¯ x

0

(t)} (31)

is obtained.

Theorem 2: Suppose

¯

A

1i

can be represented as the form

(15) with

¯

A

1i

≤ ε

1i

and

¯

θ

i

≤ γ

i

, then the fuzzy

observer (30) can asymptotically estimate the state and the

output disturbance of the fuzzy system (28), if the conditions

in (18) and (19) of Theorem 1 hold simultaneously and the

adaptive law in (17) is updated by

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

i

(t) = h

i

(z)

i

e

0y

(t)

ˆ

¯ x

T

0

(t) (32)

where

i

is any positive-deﬁnite matrix.

Proof: As the forms of the fuzzy system (28) and of the

fuzzy observer (30) are similar to the forms of the fuzzy

system (8) and of the fuzzy observer (9), respectively, based

on Theorem 1, we obtain that

lim

t→∞

__

x(t)

ω

0

(t)

_

−

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω

0

(t)

__

= 0 (33)

where ˆ x(t) is the estimate of x(t). Since h

i

(t) is bounded for

any i ∈ r we have

lim

t→∞

⎡

⎢

⎣

I

n

0

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C) I

p

⎤

⎥

⎦

−1

__

x(t)

ω

0

(t)

_

−

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω

0

(t)

__

= 0

(34)

Using ω

0

(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C)x(t) +ω(t) and the (29),

it has (see (35))

From (34) and (35), it yields

lim

t→∞

__

x(t)

ω(t)

_

−

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω(t)

__

= 0 (36)

Therefore the proof is completed.

Remark 2: Let us deﬁne Q

i

= P

¯

H

1i

, based on (14), (18) can

be rewritten as the form

¯

A

T

1i

P +P

¯

A

1i

−

¯

C

T

Q

T

i

−Q

i

¯

C +2ε

1i

P < 0 ∀i ∈ r (37)

Here, P and Q

i

can be obtained by means of LMI method

and then by (14),

¯

H

i

is obtained. Based on Theorems 1

_

x(t)

ω(t)

_

−

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω(t)

_

=

_

x(t)

ω(t)

_

−

⎡

⎢

⎣

I

n

0

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C) I

p

⎤

⎥

⎦

−1

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω

0

(t)

_

=

⎡

⎢

⎣

I

n

0

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C) I

p

⎤

⎥

⎦

−1

×

⎧

⎪

⎨

⎪

⎩

⎡

⎢

⎣

I

n

0

r

i=1

h

i

(t)(C

i

−C) I

p

⎤

⎥

⎦

_

x(t)

ω(t)

_

−

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω

0

(t)

_

⎫

⎪

⎬

⎪

⎭

=

⎡

⎢

⎣

I

n

0

r

i=1

h

i

(z)(C

i

−C) I

p

⎤

⎥

⎦

−1

×

__

x(t)

ω

0

(t)

_

−

_

ˆ x(t)

ˆ ω

0

(t)

__

(35)

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 5

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

and 2, we can construct the procedure as follows to design

the fuzzy observer. Before the observer design, some known

parameters are stated in advance. For the system (3), A

i

is the uncertainty satisfying (15), where A

i

| ≤ ε

i

and

¯

θ

i

≤ γ

i

with known bounds ε

i

and γ

i

, respectively. Finally,

the procedure of the observer design is summarised as

follows.

Step 1: Find the matrix

¯

L such that (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

exists, and

then ε

1i

is also obtained.

Step 2: Give a positive value p to satisfy p ≤ (ε

1i

/

¯

Cγ

i

)

and assume P

−1

≤ p. The reason is as below. With

the aids of (19), we have

¯

A

1i

≤ P

−1

¯

C

T

¯

θ

i

≤≤

P

−1

¯

Cγ

i

≤ ε

1i

. Therefore

P

−1

≤

ε

1i

¯

Cγ

i

(38)

Step 3: Deﬁne Q

i

= P

¯

H

1i

by means of LMI method, P and

¯

H

1i

in (37) are obtained. Substitute P into (38) to check

whether P

−1

≤ p holds? If not, go back to Step 2 and

give another p and re-run LMI again to solve (37) until

P

−1

≤ p holds. Then, go to next step.

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the fuzzy observer design

Step 4: Obtain M from (19).

Step 5: Choose the any positive symmetric matrix to

obtain the adaptive law (32).

Finally, the observer design is completed. The above

procedure is presented as the ﬂowchart in Fig. 1.

Remark 3: In Step 3, using LMI method to solve (37) and

check P

−1

≤ p are two iterative processes. We can give

the initial p to be equal to (ε

1i

/

¯

Cγ

i

), and decrease p to

p −p until the suitable P is found, where p is a very

small value.

4 Numerical example

Example 1: Consider an uncertain non-linear system des-

cribed by the following T–S fuzzy system.

Rule 1: If y

2

1

(t) is μ

1

(small), then

_

˙ x(t) = (A

1

+A

1

)x(t) +B

1

u(t)

y(t) = C

1

x(t)

Rule 2: If y

2

1

(t) is μ

2

(large), then

_

˙ x(t) = (A

2

+A

2

)x(t) +B

2

u(t)

y(t) = C

2

x(t)

where y

1

∈ [01], and A

i

, B

i

and C

i

are given as follows

x(t) = [x

1

(t) x

2

(t) x

3

(t)]

T

, y(t) = [y

1

(t) y

2

(t) y

3

(t)]

T

A

1

=

_

−1.25 −2.05 0

2.025 −1.025 0

1.05 0.05 −3

_

, B

1

=

_

1

0

0

_

,

C

1

=

_

1 0 0

−1 1 0

0 0 1

_

, A

2

=

_

−2 1.05 0

0 −0.5 −1.025

1.05 0 −1

_

,

B

2

=

_

0

1

0

_

, C

2

=

_

1 0 0

1 0 1

0 1 0

_

Identical to the deﬁnition in the paper [36], let μ

1

= 1 −

y

2

1

(t) and μ

2

= y

2

1

(t), then

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎨

⎪

⎪

⎩

h

1

(z) =

ψ

i

(z)

r

i=1

ψ

i

(z)

= 1 −y

2

1

(t)

h

2

(z) =

ψ

i

(z)

r

i=1

ψ

i

(z)

= y

2

1

(t)

(39)

In practical, the fuzzy system may be disturbed by some

output disturbance as follows

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩

˙ x(t) =

2

i=1

h

i

(θ)(A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t)

y(t) =

2

i=1

h

i

(θ)C

i

x(t) +ω(t)

(40)

where ω(t) represents the unknown disturbance output.

Suppose the constant uncertainty A

i

, i = 1, 2 are bounded

by ε

1

= 0.0608 and ε

2

= 0.1216, respectively. Moreover,

6 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

www.ietdl.org

(15) holds and

¯

θ

i

, i = 1, 2 are bounded by γ

1

= 0, 01 and

γ

2

= 0, 02, respectively. Assume A

i

is formulated as below

A

1

=

_

0.0608 0 0

0 0.06 0

0 0 0.03

_

η,

A

1

=

_

0.1216 0 0

0 0.1 0

0 0 0.03

_

η

(41)

where η is any constant belonging to the interval [−1, 1].

Now, according to the procedure in Section 3, let us start

the fuzzy observer design.

Step 1: Choose

¯

L

T

=

_

0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 1

_

and C = C

1

such that (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

exists in which

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

1 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0

−1 0 0 1 0 0

1 −1 0 0 1 0

0 0 −1 0 0 1

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

Step 2: Based on Remark 1, give an initial p to be equal to

(ε

1i

/

¯

Cγ

i

) = 6.6990

Step 3: Utilise LMI-Toolbox of MATLAB to obtain the

feasible solution P and

¯

H

1i

of (37), then based on

Remark 3, the matrix P satisﬁes P

−1

≤ 6.6987 = p, and

(see equations at the bottom of the page)

Step 4: Obtain M from (19)

M =

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

0.7358 −0.7358 −0.2700

0.0000 0.7358 −0.3812

0.0000 0.0000 1.6248

0.7358 0.0000 0.2700

0.0000 0.7358 0.1113

0.0000 0.0000 0.2149

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

Step 5: Let

1

=

2

= diag[5, 1, 1], then the adaptive law

(32) is established as follows

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

1

(t) = h

1

(z)

1

e

0y

(t)

ˆ

¯ x

T

0

(t)

˙

ˆ

¯

θ

2

(t) = h

2

(z)

2

e

0y

(t)

ˆ

¯ x

T

0

(t)

Suppose u(t) = sin(t) and ω(t) = [ω

1

(t) ω

2

(t) ω

3

(t)]

T

,

where

ω

1

(t) =

_

0.2 sin

2

(3(t −2)π), t ≥ 2

0 else

ω

2

(t) =

_

0.3 cos

2

(4(t −3)π), t ≥ 3

0 else

and ω

3

(t) = 0.4(sin

2

2πt +cos 3πt), t ≥ 0.

Let the initial conditions be selected as x(0) =

(0.5, 0.7, −0.5)

T

and ˆ x(0) = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)

T

. The results of

simulation are shown in Figs. 2–8. It can be observed from

Figs. 2–4 that the state estimate of ˆ x(t) the proposed adaptive

fuzzy observer (30) indeed converges asymptotically to the

original state x(t) of the uncertain fuzzy system (3). On

the other hand, it can be seen from the Figs. 5–7, the

estimated output ˆ ω(t) indeed converges asymptotically to

the original disturbance ω(t) of the uncertain fuzzy system

(3). Speciﬁcally, Fig. 8 shows the curves of the state errors.

One can see that the estimation performance is desired in

the disturbance and perturbed environment.

Next, we consider about the estimate of state and sensor

fault signal in Example 2.

Example 2: Consider the following fuzzy system with sensor

fault [24]

˙ x(t) =

2

i=1

h

i

(θ)(A

i

+A

i

)x(t) +B

i

u(t)

y(t) =

2

i=1

h

i

(θ)C

i

x(t) +D

s

f

s

(42)

P =

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

1.0840 0.0017 0.1464 0.2751 −0.2769 0.0556

0.0017 1.2450 0.2543 −0.0017 0.1158 0.2306

0.1464 0.2543 0.6544 −0.1464 −0.1079 0.5807

0.2751 −0.0017 −0.1464 1.0840 0.2769 −0.0556

−0.2769 0.1158 −0.1079 0.2769 0.9664 −0.1750

0.0556 0.2306 0.5807 −0.0556 −0.1750 0.9025

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

Q

1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

99.5520 99.3547 24.0209

−99.1200 −0.7214 −36.6378

12.0081 36.1252 1.2277

−0.2736 100.2149 −11.7282

−100.6824 −0.2151 −36.2771

11.8713 36.4382 −0.0028

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

; Q

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

−62.5805 −61.9457 −102.2214

62.3312 0.2077 74.4519

26.2671 −74.9067 0.8658

−0.1426 −62.8342 −25.9078

62.2580 −0.0966 75.3775

26.0239 −74.9049 −0.1093

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

and

¯

H

1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

69.5174 62.9193 16.5113

−77.2680 −14.4091 −27.4455

19.9466 58.8165 5.7446

73.0467 146.8385 9.0447

−220.2577 −73.7918 −71.3230

21.6974 67.0093 2.2743

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

;

¯

H

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

−53.3387 −24.9351 −76.3845

35.8656 28.7691 54.3257

43.4246 −122.3873 4.9702

−46.1502 −91.8100 −94.2744

137.7150 45.6598 185.4529

48.2914 −138.1335 1.9888

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 7

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 2 State x

1

(t) and the estimated state ˆ x

1

(t)

Fig. 3 State x

2

(t) and the estimated state ˆ x

2

(t)

Fig. 4 State x

3

(t) and the estimated state ˆ x

3

(t)

8 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 5 Output disturbance ω

1

(t) and the estimated output disturbance ˆ ω

1

(t)

Fig. 6 Output disturbance ω

2

(t) and the estimated output disturbance ˆ ω

2

(t)

Fig. 7 Output disturbance ω

3

(t) and the estimated output disturbance ˆ ω

3

(t)

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 9

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 8 State estimated errors

a x

1

(t) − ˆ x

1

(t)

b x

2

(t) − ˆ x

2

(t)

c x

3

(t) − ˆ x

3

(t)

where f

s

∈ R

k

is the sensor fault, D

s

∈ R

p×k

is full column,

and all other matrices are deﬁned as before. Let

ω(t) = D

s

f

s

(t) (43)

The (42) has the similar form to (24). Then, we

can apply the fuzzy observer (30) for estimating the

sensor fault f

s

(t). Suppose x(t) = [x

1

(t) x

2

(t) x

3

(t)]

T

, y(t) =

[y

1

(t) y

2

(t) y

3

(t)]

T

and A

i

B

i

and C

i

are same in [24].

A

1

=

_

−1 −2 0

2 −1 0

1 0 −3

_

, B

1

=

_

1

0

0

_

, C

1

=

_

1 0 0

−1 1 0

0 0 1

_

A

2

=

_

−2 1 0

0 −0.5 −1

1 0 −1

_

, B

2

=

_

0

1

0

_

, C

2

=

_

1 0 0

1 0 1

0 1 0

_

The constant uncertainties A

i

, i = 1, 2 are bounded by

ε

1

= 0.1199 and ε

2

= 0.2512, respectively. Moreover, (15)

holds and

¯

θ

i

, i = 1, 2 are bounded by γ

1

= 0.01 and γ

2

=

0.02, respectively. Assume A

i

is formulated as below

A

1

(t)

⎡

⎣

0.1199 0 0

0 0.1 0

0 0 0.009

⎤

⎦

η,

A

2

(t)

⎡

⎣

0.2512 0 0

0 0.135 0

0 0 0.03

⎤

⎦

(44)

where η is any constant belonging to the interval [−1, 1].

Choose f

s

(t) = [f

s1

(t) f

s2

(t) f

s3

(t)]

T

, where

f

s1

(t) =

_

0.2 sin(3(t −2)π, t ≥ 2

0 else

f

s2

(t) =

_

0.2 sin(4(t −3)π), t ≥ 3

0 else

(45)

f

s3

(t) = 0.4(sin 2πt +cos 3πt), t ≥ 0

and f

s3

(t) = 0.4(sin 2πt +cos 3πt), t ≥ 0.

Now, continue to establish the fuzzy observer design. We

will obtain as follows (see equations at bottom of the page)

P =

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

1.0985 0.0050 0.1473 0.2634 −0.2684 0.0552

0.0050 1.2579 0.2537 −0.0050 0.1090 0.2311

0.1473 0.2537 0.6561 −0.1473 −0.1064 0.5819

0.2634 −0.0050 −0.1473 1.0985 0.2684 −0.0552

−0.2684 0.1090 −0.1064 0.2684 0.9845 −0.1758

0.0552 0.2311 0.5819 −0.0552 −0.1758 0.9040

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

Q

1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

65.4924 65.2214 −11.3705

−65.0034 −0.7170 15.2140

−4.4217 −15.7164 1.2280

−0.3128 66.1576 4.7099

−66.5728 −0.2609 15.5540

−4.5701 −15.3885 −0.0041

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

; Q

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

157.2621 157.9240 35.0218

−157.5289 0.2073 52.1182

−88.6387 −52.5717 0.8765

−0.1320 157.0138 88.9878

−157.6156 −0.0911 53.0445

−88.8707 −52.5709 −0.1129

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

and

¯

H

1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

48.8341 51.5411 −9.4400

−45.8567 5.2319 10.7011

−6.7262 −25.1635 5.6746

47.8579 96.4646 −4.8905

−144.6969 −48.6067 30.9400

−8.5007 −28.1772 2.2373

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

;

¯

H

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

138.3019 130.0065 24.6232

−82.6335 19.7876 37.8285

−141.8137 −85.2032 4.9397

115.3722 231.2420 91.0537

−346.8630 −115.8698 51.5007

−162.0611 −96.4272 1.9691

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

10 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

www.ietdl.org

Let

1

=

2

diag[10, 1, 1] and the initial conditions

be selected as x(0) = (0.2, −0.3, 0.5)

T

and ˆ x(0) = (0, 0,

0, 0, 0, 0)

T

. The simulation results are shown in

Figs. 9–15. Figs. 9–11 show the curves of state estimation.

Figs. 12–14 express the estimated sensor fault

ˆ

f

si

(t) with

the different form of sensor fault f

si

(t) respectively.

Fig. 15 shows the curves of the state estimation

errors.

The above two examples show that the estimation

performance of the designed fuzzy observer is achieved

under the existence of uncertain parameters and output

disturbance.

To reinforce the application value of the proposed fuzzy

observer, the following Example 3 shows the approach

to be applied into a real example adopted from the

paper [8].

Example 3: Consider the dynamics of single link robot arm

with a revolute elastic joint in a vertical plane in [8]

_

J

1

¨ q

1

+k(q

1

−q

2

) +mgl sin q

1

= 0

J

2

¨ q

2

−k(q

1

−q

2

) = u

(46)

All parameters are the same as those in the example of [8].

We obtain the state equations of (47)

⎧

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎨

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎪

⎩

˙ x

1

= x

2

˙ x

2

= x

3

−10 sin x

1

−10x

1

˙ x

3

= x

4

˙ x

4

= 50x

1

−5x

3

+5u

y = x

1

+d

(47)

Fig. 9 State x

1

(t) and the estimated state ˆ x

1

(t)

Fig. 10 State x

2

(t) and the estimated state ˆ x

2

(t)

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 11

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 11 State x

3

(t) and the estimated state ˆ x

3

(t)

Fig. 12 Fault f

s1

(t) and the fault estimate

ˆ

f

s1

(t)

Fig. 13 Fault f

s2

(t) and the fault estimate

ˆ

f

s2

(t)

12 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 14 Fault f

s3

(t) and the fault estimate

ˆ

f

s3

(t)

Fig. 15 State estimated errors

a x

1

(t) − ˆ x

1

(t)

b x

2

(t) − ˆ x

2

(t)

c x

3

(t) − ˆ x

3

(t)

where x

1

∈ (−/2, π/2), Let sin(x

1

(t)) be represented as

follows

θ(t) = sin(x

1

(t)) =

_

2

i=1

h

i

(θ(t))b

i

_

x

1

(t) (48)

Let the membership functions be the form as (49a) and (49b)

which satisfy the property: h

1

(θ(t)) +h

2

(θ(t)) = 1, where

h

1

(θ(t)) =

⎧

⎨

⎩

θ(t) −(2/π) sin

−1

(θ(t))

(1 −2/π) sin

−1

(θ(t))

, θ(t) = 0

1 otherwise

(49a)

and

h

2

(θ(t)) =

⎧

⎨

⎩

sin

−1

(θ(t)) −θ(t)

(1 −2/π) sin

−1

(θ(t))

, θ(t) = 0

0 otherwise

(49b)

which are shown in Fig. 16. Then, we arrive at the following

T–S fuzzy model

Rule 1: If θ(t) is ‘zero’, then

_

˙ x(t) = A

1

x(t) +B

1

u(t)

y(t) = C

1

x(t) +d(t)

Rule 2: If θ(t) is ‘not zero’, then

_

˙ x(t) = A

2

x(t) +B

2

u(t)

y(t) = C

2

x(t) +d(t)

where, d(t) is the same form as the disturbance in [8], that

is d(t) is a measurement noise of 5% of the maximum value

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 13

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 16 Membership functions of two-rule model

of the output with zero mean and standard deviation 1

A

1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎣

0 1 0 0

−20 0 1 0

0 0 0 1

50 0 −5 0

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎦

, A

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

0 1 0 0

−

20

π

−10 0 1 0

0 0 0 1

50 0 −5 0

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

,

B

1

= B

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎣

0

0

0

5

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎦

, C

T

1

= C

T

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎣

1

0

0

0

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎦

Construct the augmented system (50) as below

¯

E

˙

¯ x(t) =

r

i=1

h

i

(θ){

¯

A

i

¯ x(t) +

¯

B

i

u(t) +

¯

Nω(t)}

y(t) = C

0

¯ x(t) +d(t) =

¯

C¯ x(t)

(50)

where

¯

A

1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

0 1 0 0 0

−20 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0

50 0 −5 0 0

0 0 0 0 −1

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

;

¯

A

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

0 1 0 0 0

−20/π −10 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0

50 0 −5 0 0

0 0 0 0 −1

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

;

¯

B

1

=

¯

B

2

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

0

0

0

5

0

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

;

¯

N =

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

0

0

0

0

1

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

and

¯

C

T

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

1

0

0

0

1

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

Now, let us establish the fuzzy observer design as follows:

Choose L

T

= [0 0 0 0 1] to guarantee (

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

existing, such that

(

¯

E +

¯

L

¯

C)

−1

=

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

1 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0

−1 0 0 0 1

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

Utilise LMI-Toolbox of MATLAB to obtain the feasible

solution P and

¯

H

i

as follows

P =

⎡

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎢

⎣

2.2592 −0.2010 −0.5134 −0.0768 2.7653

−0.2010 1.0801 −0.0789 0.1328 0.2981

−0.5134 −0.0789 0.1644 −0.0119 −0.1504

−0.0768 0.1328 −0.0119 0.0583 −0.0878

2.7653 0.2981 −0.1504 −0.0878 16.3296

⎤

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎥

⎦

Q

T

1

= [−1.1295 −14.9640 1.1771 −0.0706 −31.2045]

Q

T

2

= [−1.4065 −13.0016 1.0337 0.1706 −30.7511]

¯

H

T

1

= [27.8133 −8.7405 89.7378 65.7083 22.5315]

and

¯

H

T

2

= [29.2736 −6.4259 94.4479 67.1429 23.7811]

The simulation was carried out to compare with the

performance among the proposed observer, the proportional

high gain observer (PO) and the PI high gain observer (PIO)

in of [8]. Fig. 17 shows the estimation of x

3

(t) using PO

and Fig. 18 shows the estimation of x

3

(t) applying PIO.

Furthermore, Fig. 19 shows the curve of the estimation state

x

3

(t) using the proposed adaptive fuzzy observer. It is seen

that there exists chattering phenomenon in Fig. 17 and the

estimation performance is not perfect in Fig. 18. Although

in Fig. 19, the estimation performance is much better than

the above two ﬁgures.

Fig. 17 State x

3

(t) and state estimation ˆ x

3

(t) using PO [8]

Fig. 18 State x

3

(t) and state estimation ˆ x

3

(t) using high gain PI

observer [8]

14 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022

www.ietdl.org

Fig. 19 State x

3

(t) and state estimation ˆ x

3

(t) using the proposed adaptive fuzzy observer

5 Conclusion

In this paper, an adaptive fuzzy observer design for the

fuzzy system with unknown output disturbance and bounded

constant parameter uncertainty has been presented. The

fuzzy system is with equal output matrices or with different

output matrices, the estimation of the state and disturbance

is achieved. Based on the proposed main theorems, the

fuzzy observer is designed under the existence of uncertain

parameters and output disturbance. The procedure of the

observer design is also summarised. Simulation results have

been shown that the observer design is successful. Finally,

the proposed fuzzy observer has been applied into a real

example and the estimation performance comparison is

shown in the last example.

6 References

1 Rojas, C.R., Rojas, R.A., Salgado, M.E.: ‘Equivalence between

transfer-matrix and observed-state feedback control’, IEE Proc.

Control Theory Appl., 2006, 153, pp. 147–155

2 Kabore, P., Wang, H.: ‘Design of fault diagnosis ﬁlters and fault-

tolerant control for a class of nonlinear systems’, IEEE Trans. Autom.

Control, 2001, 46, pp. 1805–1810

3 Gao, Z., Breikin, T., Wang, H.: ‘Reliable observer-based control

against sensor failures for systems with time delays in both state

and input’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A, 2008, 38,

pp. 1018–1029

4 Rugh, W.J.: ‘Linear system theory’ (Prentive Hall, NJ, 1996)

5 Reilly, J.O.’: ‘Observers for linear systems’ (Academic Press, NY,

1983)

6 Zhang, S.Y.: ‘Function observer and state feedback’, Int. J. Control,

1987, 46, pp. 1295–1305

7 Luenberger, D.G.: ‘An introduction to observers’, IEEE Trans. Autom.

Control, 1971, 16, pp. 596–602

8 Busawon, K.K., Kabore, P.: ‘Disturbance attenuation using

proportional integral observers’, Int. J. Control, 2001, 74, pp. 618–627

9 Gao, Z., Ho, D.W.C.: ‘Proportional multiple-integral observer design

for descriptor systems with measurement output disturbances’, Proc.

Inst. Electr. Eng., 2004, 151, pp. 279–288

10 Cao, Y.Y., Frank, P.M.: ‘Analysis and synthesis of nonlinear time-

delay systems via fuzzy control approach’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,

2000, 9, pp. 200–211

11 Xu, C., Shin, Y.C.: ‘Design of a multilevel fuzzy controller for

nonlinear systems and stability analysis’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,

2005, 13, pp. 761–778

12 Li, H.X., Tong, S.: ‘A hybrid adaptive fuzzy control for a class

of nonlinear MIMO systems’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 2003, 11,

pp. 24–34

13 Yi, Z., Heng, P.A.: ‘Stability of fuzzy control systems with

bounded uncertain delays’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 2002, 10,

pp. 92–97

14 Li, T.H.S., Lin, K.J.: ‘Composite fuzzy control of nonlinear singularly

perturbed systems’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 2007, 15, pp. 176–187

15 Tseng, C.S., Chen, B.S., Uang, H.J.: ‘Fuzzy tracking control design

for nonlinear dynamic systems via T-S fuzzy model’, IEEE Trans.

Fuzzy Syst., 2001, 9, pp. 381–392

16 Takagi, T., Sugeno, M.: ‘Fuzzy identiﬁcation of systems and its

applications to modeling and control’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.,

1985, 15, pp. 116–132

17 Wang, H.O., Tanaka, K., Grifﬁn, M.F.: ‘An approach to fuzzy control

of nonlinear systems: stability and design issues’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy

Syst., 1996, 4, pp. 4–23

18 Taniguchi, T., Tanaka, K., Wang, H.O.: ‘Fuzzy descriptor systems and

nonlinear model following control’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 2000, 8,

pp. 442–452

19 Yoneyama, J., Nishikawa, M.: ‘Output stabilization of Takagi-Sugeno

fuzzy systems’, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2000, 111, pp. 253–266

20 Tong, S., Tang, Y.: ‘Analysis and design of fuzzy robust observer

for uncertain nonlinear systems’. Proc. Ninth IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy

Systems, 2000, pp. 993–996

21 Ma, X., Sun, Z.: ‘Analysis and design of fuzzy reduced-dimensional

observer and fuzzy functional observer’, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2001, 120,

pp. 35–63

22 Ma, K.M.: ‘Observer design for a class of fuzzy systems’. Proc. Int.

Conf. Machine Learning Cybernetics, 2002, pp. 46–49

23 Bergsten, P., Palm, R., Driankov, D.: ‘Observers for Takagi–Sugeno

fuzzy systems’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B, 2002, 32,

pp. 114–121

24 Gao, Z., Shi, X., Ding, S.X.: ‘Fuzzy state/disturbance observer

design for T–S fuzzy systems with application to sensor fault

estimation’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. B, 2008, 38, pp.

875–880

25 Gao, Z., Wang, H.: ‘Descriptor observer approaches for multivariable

systems with measurement noises and application in fault detection

and diagnosis’, Syst. Control Lett., 2006, 55, pp. 304–313

26 Kim, Y., Lewis, F.L., Abdallah, C.: ‘A dynamic recurrent neural

network based adaptive observer for a class of nonlinear systems’,

Automatica, 1997, 33, pp. 1539–1543

27 Marino, R., Santosuosso, G.L., Tomei, P.: ‘Robust adaptive observer

for nonlinear systems with bounded disturbances’, IEEE Trans. Autom.

Control, 2001, 46, pp. 967–972

28 Stepanyan, V., Hovakimyan, N.: ‘Robust adaptive observer design for

uncertain systems with bounded disturbances’, IEEE Trans. Neural

Netw., 2007, 18, pp. 1392–1403

IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16 15

doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022 © The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012

www.ietdl.org

29 Lam, H.K., Leung, F.H.F., Tam, P.K.S.: ‘On design of stable and

robust observer-controller for uncertain nonlinear systems based on

a grid-point approach’. Conf. Industrial Electronics, ISIE 97, 1997,

vol. 3, pp. 998–1005

30 Kim, J.H., Hyun, C.H., Kim, E.: ‘Adaptive synchronization of

uncertain chaotic systems based on T-S fuzzy model’, IEEE Trans.

Fuzzy Syst., 2007, 15, pp. 359–369

31 Tseng, C.S., Hwang, C.K.: ‘Fuzzy observer-based fuzzy control design

for nonlinear systems with persistent bounded disturbances’, Fuzzy

Sets Syst., 2007, 158, pp. 164–179

32 Liu, Y.S.: ‘Robust adaptive observer for nonlinear systems with un-

modeled dynamics’, Automatica, 2009, 45, pp. 1891–1895

33 Wang, Y.: ‘State observer-based adaptive fuzzy output-feedback

control for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems’, Inform. Sci., 2010,

180, pp. 5029–5040

34 Ionnou, P.A., Sun, J.: ‘Robust adaptive control’ (Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996)

35 Boyd, S., Ghaoui, L.E., Feron, E., Balakrishnan, V.: ‘Linear matrix

inequalities in system and control theory’ (Society for Industrial and

Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1994)

36 Tanaka, K., Wang, H.O.: ‘Fuzzy control systems design and

analysis: a linear matrix inequality approach’ (Wiley, New York, 2001)

37 Angeles, J.: ‘Fundamentals of robotic mechanical systems: theory,

methods, and algorithms’ (Springer, NewYork, 2003)

16 IET Control Theory Appl., pp. 1–16

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2012 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0022