You are on page 1of 9

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser.

B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735


DOI 10.1007/s40031-014-0114-z

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

A Set of Stabilizing PD Controllers: An Application to Robot


Manipulator
G. Leena K. B. Datta G. Ray

Received: 19 October 2012 / Accepted: 20 February 2014 / Published online: 8 July 2014
 The Institution of Engineers (India) 2014

Introduction

paper considers the problem of designing a class of stabilizing PD controllers for a robot manipulator. A major
obstacle of designing the best controller has been the difficulty in characterizing the entire set of stabilizing controllers. Very few papers are published [13] where a class
of stabilizing controllers is designed. An effective solution
to this problem was obtained in [1]. This is accomplished
by generalizing a classical stability result developed in the
last century, the Hermite Biehler theorem. The characterization of all feedback gain values is useful for carrying out
optimal designs with respect to various performance indices. In this communication, an attempt has been made to
obtain a class of PD controllers based on PD stabilization
theorem obtained from generalized Hermite Biehler theorem for each subsystem of MIMO nonlinear systems. The
significant results of Siljak and Stipanovic [4] demonstrate
how the linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) formulation can
be used to quadratically stabilize linear/nonlinear interconnected system via centralized/decentralized linear
constant feedback laws. Motivated by the work of Siljak
and Stipanovic [4], the method by which the designed set
of controllers for each subsystems can stabilize the MIMO
nonlinear systems has been established.

One of the simplest position controllers for robot manipulator is the proportional derivative (PD) control. This

A Brief Description of all Stabilizing PD Controllers

G. Leena (&)
Department of Electrical and Electronics, Faculty of Engineering
and Technology, Manav Rachna International University,
Sector 43, Aravali Hills, Faridabad, India
e-mail: leenagjeevan@rediffmail.com

The feedback control system considered is shown in Fig. 1.


Here r is the command signal; y is the output, G(s) = N(s)/
D(s) is the plant to be controlled; N(s) and D(s) are coprime
polynomials. The controller C(s) is to be designed which is
given by

Abstract This paper considers the problem of designing


a class of stabilizing proportional derivative (PD) controllers for multi-input multi-output (MIMO) nonlinear systems. For a MIMO nonlinear system a set of stabilizing PD
controllers were designed for each subsystem. The design
approach is based on PD stabilization theorem derived
from generalized result of the classical Hermite Biehler
theorem. By considering the nonlinear terms as interconnections, a linear matrix inequalities optimization problem
is formulated to ensure the stability of the composite
nonlinear system with the designed decentralized controller
parameters. A genetic algorithm based search technique is
adopted to select an optimal PD controller gain from a
search space of stabilizing controllers in order to have an
optimum value of performance index. A two-link robot
manipulator system is considered to show the effectiveness
of the design procedure.
Keywords Proportional derivative  Robot manipulator 
Hermite Biehler theorem  Robust stabilizing controller

K. B. Datta  G. Ray
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India

Cs Kp sKd

The closed-loop characteristic polynomial is

123

28

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735

G(s) =

C(s)

pf x; Kp

N (s)
D( s)

qf x; Kd

Fig. 1 Feedback control system

ds; Kp ; Kd Ds Kp sKd Ns

The problem of stabilization using a PD controller is to


determine the value of Kp, and Kd for which the closedloop characteristic polynomial d(s, Kp, Kd) is Hurwitz. A
new polynomial is constructed by multiplying d(s, Kp, Kd)
with N  s [N  s Ns Ne s2  sNo s2 ; where Ne
and No are the even and odd parts of N(s)] and examining
the resulting polynomial, one can write
rr ds; Kp ; Kd N  s
lds; Kp ; Kd N  s  rds; Kp ; Kd N  s
lds; Kp ; Kd  rds; Kp ; Kd  lNs  rNs
3
where l(d(s, Kp, Kd)) and r(d(s, Kp, Kd)) indicate the roots
of characteristic polynomial d(s, Kp, Kd) in left and right
half of complex plane respectively. Now, the closed-loop
characteristic polynomial d(s, Kp, Kd), of degree n is
Hurwitz if and only if l (d(s, Kp, Kd)) = n and r (d(s, Kp,
Kd)) = 0. Equation (3) can be restated as


rr ds; Kp ; Kd N s n  lNs  rNs

Determination those values of Kp, Kd is required for


which (4) holds and d(s, Kp, Kd) N  s has the following
expression:
s2 Do s2 No s2 De s2 Ne s2
Kp Ne s2 Ne s2  s2 No s2 No s2 
2

1 x2 mn=2

;
:

It is to be seen from Eq. (6), that Kd appear in the odd


part whereas Kp appears in the even part. Furthermore for
every fixed Kp, the zeros of p(x, Kp) will not depend on Kd.
The range of Kd for a fixed Kp can be obtained by solving
the PD stabilization theorem. The PD stabilization theorem
is derived from the results given in Ref. [1]. Further details
on this theorem is shown in Appendix. Our main
contribution is to develop a set of stabilizing PD controllers
for a class of MIMO nonlinear system and subsequently to
investigate the stability of the controlled system based on
LMI framework [5].

A Set of Stabilizing PD Controllers for a Class


of Nonlinear System
Let us consider a class of MIMO nonlinear system, which
arises out of n interconnected subsystems, is described by
x_i Ai xi Bi ui Bi hi t; x;

i 1; 2; . . .; n;

yi Cni xi

where xi are the states; ui, the inputs; and hi(t, x) are the
nonlinear terms. The only information about the
nonlinearity is that it satisfies the quadratic constraint.
The transfer function of the ith decoupled system (without
interaction terms, i.e. hi t; x 0) is described by
i 1; 2; . . .; n

and a set of stabilizing PD controllers for each decoupled


system was designed using the method described in [1].

sDo s Ne s  No s De s

Stability Analysis

Kd Ne s2 Ne s2  s2 No s2 No s2 

The nonlinear system (7) can be rewritten as

The new polynomial with s = jx is given by


djx; Kp ; Kd N  jx px; Kp jqx; Kd

where p(x, Kp) = p1(x) ? Kp p2(x), q(x,Kd) = q1(x) ?


Kd q2(x)


p1 x De x2 Ne x2 x2 Do x2 No x2 ;


p2 x Ne x2 Ne x2 x2 No x2 No x2 ;


q1 x x Do x2 Ne x2  De x2 No x2 ;


q2 x x Ne x2 Ne x2 x2 No x2 No x2 :
The new polynomial described by (6) is normalized in
the following manner.

123

1 x2 mn=2
qx; Kd

Cni sI  Ai 1 Bi ;

ds; Kp ; Kd N  s

px; Kp

x_i Ai xi Bi ui wi t; x
yi Cni xi ;

i 1; 2; . . .; n

where wi Bi hi : It is assumed that the pair (Ai, Bi) is


stabilizable and the ith nonlinear term wi satisfies the
quadratic constraints
wTi t; xwi t; x  a2i xT WiT Wi x;

i 1; 2; . . .; n

10

where ai [ 0 are bounding parameters; and Wi are constant


matrices of appropriate dimensions. Figure 2 shows the ith
subsystem with the PD controller.

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735

29

wi(t, x)(nonlinear term)


refi +

ith PD
Controller

Bi

xi


i C

Fig. 2 ith Subsystem with the PD controller for a nonlinear system

The input ui to the ith subsystem is


11

where ei = refi - yi is the error of ith subsystem, Kpi and Kdi


are respectively, the proportional and derivative (PD)
controller gains of the ith subsystem. Assume refi = 0, then
12

To study the stability of the interconnected system


substitute for ui in Eq. (9) to get
Eni x_i Ani xi wi x

w x

" XN
 
a2 W T Wi
i1 i i

yi

Ai

ui Kpi yi Kdi y_i

ui Kpi ei t Kdi e_i t

13

#"

x
wx

#
0

15

For the descriptor system (14), an augmented system


was introduced to get the following equation.
 wxt

F z_ Az
" #16



x
I 0
0
I
where F
; A
; z
is
0 0
An En
x_
"
#
0

2n 9 1 vector and wx

:
wx
A Lyapunov function candidate [6] is chosen for the
descriptor system (16) as
V zT FPz

P1
where P
P2

0
P3

17


is non-singular with P1

PT1

[0

and P2, P3 [ 0 and FP FPT due to special structures of


F and P. Then the following Eq. (18) is being simplified as
 w
T xPz zT PT wx

V_ zT AT P PT Az

where
Eni I Bi Kdi Cni ;
i 1; 2; . . .; n

The descriptor system (16) is stable, provided the


following conditions hold.

Ani Ai  Bi Kpi Cni ;

It may be noted that the set of PD decoupled controllers


results the matrices Ani and Ei are in interval form. In a
compact form the Eq. (13) can be rewritten as
En x_ An x wx

P1 [ 0;

 w
T xPz zT PT wx\0

zT AT P PT Az
18

Equation (18) is equivalently written as

14

where An = diag{An1, An2,, Ann} and En = diag{En1,


En2,, Enn}are interval matrices of appropriate dimensions. In the compact notation, w = (wT1 , wT2 ,, wTn )T and
x = [xT1 , xT2 ,, xTn ]T are the interconnection vector and the
state vector respectively. A descriptor system approach to
stability analysis is carried out [6] for the composite non-

P1 [ 0;

xT ATn P2 PT2 An x x_T EnT P3  PT3 En x_

x_T P1  EnT P2 PT3 An x xT ATn P3 P1  PT2 En x_


wT xP2 x wT xP3 x_ xT PT2 wx x_T PT3 wx\0
19
These inequalities can be rewritten as,

P1 [ 0;
2 T
A P2 PT2 An
 T T T 6 nT
x x_ w x 4 P3 An P1  EnT P2
P2

ATn P3 P1  PT2 En
PT3 An P1  EnT P2

3
PT2
7
EnT P3  PT3 En PT3 5

P3

linear system while employing a set of decoupled PD


controllers is discussed below.
The constraint (10) is equivalent to the quadratic
inequality [4]

6
7
6 x_
7\0
4
5
wx

20

By using S-procedure [7] it is possible to combine


quadratic inequalities (15) and (20) into one single
inequality (LMI) such that

123

30

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735

P
ATn P2 PT2 An b Ni1 a2i WiT Wi
4
PT3 An P1  EnT P2
P2

3
PT2
PT3 5\0
b I

ATn P3 P1  PT2 En
EnT P3  PT3 En
P3

where P1 [ 0 and a number b [ 0. By repeatedly applying


the Schur-complement formula to Eq. (21) and b = 1, the
Eq. (21) can be rewritten as

ATn P2 PT2 An
6 PT An P 1  E T P 2
n
6 3
6
P2
6
6
W1
6
6
..
4
.
Wn

ATn P3 P1  PT2 En
EnT P3  PT3 En
P3
0
..
.

PT2
PT3
I
0
..
.

W1T
0
0
c1 I
..
.





..
.

Arn1 T P2 PT2 Arn1


6 PT Ar 1 P1  E r 2 T P 2
n
6 3 n
6
P
2
6
6
W1
6
6
..
4
.
Wn

123

where r1 ; r2 1; 2; . . .; 2n ; ci 1=a2i ;n is the size of the


matrices An and En, i 1; 2; . . .; n:

WnT
0
0
0
..
.

7
7
7
7
7\0
7
7
5

22

   cn I

where ci 1=a2i :
The matrices An and En of Eq. (22) are interval matrices
[obtained from Eq. (13)]. A sufficient condition for the
stability robustness of interval matrices, i.e., matrices
having the elements varying within given bounds, requires
that the Lyapunov equation be negative definite when
evaluated at the so-called corner matrices [8, 9]. The corner
matrices of an n 9 n interval matrix A is defined as
2
Ar = {arij}, r 1; 2; . . .; 2n with arij = alij or auij, i,
j = 1, 2,, n, where alij and auij are minimum and maximum values respectively of ijth element of interval matrix.
Hence Eq. (22) should be satisfied for all the corner
matrices of An and En to ensure that the composite system
(16) to be asymptotically stable. The matrix Wi is computed so that constraint (10) is satisfied and the bounding
parameter ai is to be maximized. Hence Eq. (22) can be
reformulated as an LMI optimization problem as stated
below
P
Minimize Ni1 ci ; subject to P1 [ 0, and

21

In other words, system (7) is robustly stabilized by the set


of decoupled stabilizing PD controllers provided the LMI
problem (23) has a feasible solution for all corner matrices.

Simulation Results
The two-link manipulator has been considered as shown in
Fig. 3 and its dynamics can be described by the nonlinear
equation given below [10].
_ Gh
s Mhh Vh; h

24

where M(h) is the 2 9 2 symmetric positive definite inertia


_ is a 2 9 1 of Coriolis and centrifugal
matrix; Vh; h
vector; G(h) is a 2 9 1 gravity vector of the manipulator; h
is the 2 9 1 vector representing joint angular positions;
and s is the 2 9 1 vector of applied joint torques.
The manipulator dynamic model (24) shows strong interactions between joint motions, since each element of M, N

Arn1 T P3 P1  PT2 Enr2


Enr2 T P3  PT3 Enr2
P3
0
..
.

PT2
PT3
I
0
..
.

W1T
0
0
c1 I
..
.





..
.

WnT
0
0
0
..
.



cn I

3
7
7
7
7
7\0
7
7
5

23

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735

31

and
 G
 can in general be a function of all joint variables
h; h_ and M is a non-diagonal matrix, indicating inertial
coupling between joint accelerations.
For simplicity, it is denoted that
_ Vh; h
_ Gh
Nh; h

25

_ due to
There are uncertainties in M(h) and Nh; h
unknown loads on the manipulator and unmodelled frictions.
The following bounds are assumed on the uncertainties [11]:
1.
2.

There exist positive definite matrices Mu(h) and Ml(h)


such that Ml h  Mh  Mu h;
_ and a nonnegative scalar function
There exist Nu h; h


_
_  Nh; h
_   nmax h; h
_
nmax h; h such that Nu h; h

The state variables are defined to be x1 h1 h2 T ;


x2 h_ 1 h_ 2 T and the concept of inverse dynamics of
robot manipulator is utilized to have the control law in the
form
_
u Mu h1 s  Nu h; h

26

Then x_1 h_ x2 ;
_
x_2 h Mh1 s  Nh; h
_  Nh; h
_
Mh1 Mu hu Mh1 Nu h; h
Mx1 1 Mu x1 u Mx1 1 Nu x1 ; x2  Nx1 ; x2
27
The state space representation of Eq. (27) is represented by
x_ Ax Bu f xu Bhx

28

where f x Mx1 1 Mu x1  I; hx Mx1 1 Nu x1 ;


"
#
" #
" #
0 I
0
x1
x2  Nx1 ; x2 ; A
;B
and x
:
0 0
I
x2
Bf (x) is the uncertainty in the input matrix and in order to
make its effect maximum f(x) is taken as
f x Ml x1 1 Mu x1  I

29

where Ml and Mu are the lower and upper bounds of inertia


matrix which is found out as explained in [12]. In general,
one can rewrite the Eqs. (24)(29) for an n-link manipulator
by considering h = [h1 h2]T and the basic structure of these
equations are remain unchanged. After obtaining f(x) using
Eq. (29), the combined system input matrix is transformed in
decoupled form by considering f(x) as
f x diagkmax f x;

30

which is obtained from the Rayleigh quotient lemma


kmin f xT x  xT k x  kmax f xT x

31

where kmin and kmax are minimum and maximum


eigenvalues of f(x). The uncertainty h(x) has the following
bounds [13]:



khxk Mx1 1 Nu x1 ; x2  Nx1 ; x2 


 Mx1 1   kNu x1 ; x2  Nx1 ; x2 k

32

1

 kM l x1 k nmax x1 ; x2
In many cases, the largest feasible region of x can be
found out to determine a quadratic bound for khxk2 such
that
hxT hx  xT Qx

33

where Q is a positive definite matrix. For the development


of the decentralized control scheme, it is convenient to
view each joint as a subsystem of the entire manipulator
system and state variables are rearranged in Eq. (28) and
are written as
x_ An x Bn u Bhx;

y Cn x

34

where An diagfA1 ; A2 g; Bn B Bf diagfBn1 ; Bn2 g


[f obtained from Eqs. (29) and (30)] and x x11 x12 x21
x22  T h1 h_ 1 h2 h_ 2 T :
For the two-link robot considered, the matrices M(h),
_ and G(h) are
Vh; h


m11 m12
Mh
m12 m22


a1 a2 2a3 cos h2 a2 a3 cos h2

;
a2 a3 cos h2
a2
2
3
2
35
 a3 sin h2 h_ 2 2h_ 1 h_ 2
_ 4
5;
Vh; h
2
a3 sin h2 h_ 1
"
#
a4 cos h1 a5 cos h1 h2
Gh
a5 cos h1 h2
In the above expressions a1, a2, , a5 are constant
parameters obtained from mass (m1, m2) and length (l1, l2)
of robot links, that is, a1 m1 m2 l21 ; a2 m2 l22 ; a3
m2 l1 l2 ; a4 m1 m2 l1 g; a5 m2 l2 g: The parameters
are m1 = m2 = 1.0 kg, l1 = l2 = 1.0 m and g = 9.81 m/
s 2.
For the system (34), with the expressions (35) the following numerical values are obtained
"
#
0 1
A1 A2
;
0 0
"
#
0
Bn1 Bn2
;
5:8
" #
0
;
B1 B2
1
Cn1 Cn2 1

0;

and

123

32

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735

"
hx

1:72x212 1:68x222 3:36x12 x22


 5:12x212 1:72x222 3:44x12 x22

"

h1 x

m2

h2 x
36

l2

A Set of PD Controllers for a Two-Link Robot


Manipulator
A set of decentralized PD controllers was designed for each
of the two subsystems of (34) considering nonlinear
interconnection term hi(x) as zero, as discussed in section
A Brief Description of all Stabilizing PD Controllers.
The transfer function for each subsystem is given by
Gi s 5:8=s2 ;

i 1; 2

m1
l1

37

The set of PD controllers for two subsystems is obtained


as Kp1 [ 0; Kd1 [ 0 and Kp2 [ 0; Kd2 [ 0: From the class
of stabilizing decentralized PD controllers a region is
selected as
Kp1 2 0:9 500;
Kd1 2 0:9 100;

Fig. 3 Schematic of two-link revolute robot

38

Kp2 2 0:9 500;


Kd2 2 0:9 100

Suppose the desired positions for the robot is hd1 = 30,


hd2 = 45. From the set of stabilizing controllers given in
Eq. (38), optimal controller gains were found out using
genetic algorithm based optimization technique [14] by
maximizing fitness function
1
;
Jf
1J

Zt

e2i dt; i1; 2

39

where ei hdi  hi ; hdi and hi are the desired and actual


positions of joints 1 and 2 of the robot manipulator. The
genetic operations applied were arithmetic crossover,
uniform mutation and ranking selection. The population
size of 80 was taken and GA was run for 25 generations.
The optimal gain parameters obtained for hd1 = 30,
hd2 = 45 are

Kp1
466:28;


Kd1
48:68


Kp2
221:12;


Kd2
48:89

40

Simulation results with the optimal gains given in


Eq. (40) are shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The plots showing the
desired position and actual position of joint 1 and 2 are
sketched in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
Stability Analysis of Two-Link Robot Manipulator
The stability analysis of the two-link robot manipulator
(34) was studied by solving the LMI optimization problem

123

Fig. 4 hd1 and h1 with optimal PD gains K*p1 = 466.28, K*d1 = 48.68,
K*p2 = 221.12, K*d2 = 48.89

(23) for all the corner matrices of An and En. The designed
ranges of An and En are calculated using Eq. (14) with the
controller gains (38) and are given by
An diagfAn1 ; An2 g;

41
En diagfEn1 ; En2 g




0
1
1
0
; En1
;
where An1
2900  5:22 0
5:22 580 1




0
1
1
0
and En2
:
An2
2900  5:22 0
5:22 580 1
As given by Eq. (10), the term wt; x; can be bounded
by a quadratic inequality and is constrained as

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735

33

2
wT1 t; xw1 t; x 3:36x12 x22 1:72x212 1:68x222
 17:07x12 x22  8:54x212 x222  xT a21 W1T W1 x;
 29:44x12 x22  14:72x212 x222  xT a22 W2T W2 x 42
(since x12 and x22 are much less than unity and the terms
associated with the power of x12 and x22 equal to three or
more than three are neglected), where a1 ; a2 [ 0 and W1
and W22are found out as 3
0
0
0
0
6 0 2:92 0
0 7
6
7
W1 6
7
40
0
0
0 5
2

0
0

0
0

6 0 3:87
6
W2 6
40
0
0

0
0
0

2:92
3
0
0 7
7
7
0 5

3:87

43

Conclusions

Fig. 5 hd2 and h2 with optimal PD gains K*p1 = 466.28, K*d1 = 48.68,
K*p2 = 221.12, K*d2 = 48.89
Table 1 Corner matrices of An and En
A1n fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

En1 fEn1 2; 1; En2 2; 1g

A2n
A3n
A4n

fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

En2 fEn1 2; 1; En2 2; 1g

fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

En3 fEn1 2; 1; En2 2; 1g

fAn1 2; 1; An2 2; 1g

En4 fEn1 2; 1; En2 2; 1g

Table 2 a1 ; a2 values obtained solving LMI problem with PD


controller
En1

En2

Two elements each of An and En are of interval form, i.e.,


four corner matrices for each of An and En are obtained.
Table 1 shows the corner matrices of An and En. Thus there
are sixteen combinations for which optimization problem
(23) is solved using LMI control toolbox [15] with W1 ; W2
taken as Eq. (43). Table 2 shows the values of a1 ; a2 the
bounding parameter values of the interconnection terms
obtained by solving the LMI problem (23) with the designed
range of controller parameters (30). It is seen that a feasible
solution exists for all the combination of corner matrices.
Hence, it is concluded that the set of decentralized PD
controllers designed based on PD stabilization theorem
stabilizes the two-link manipulator system (34).
where Ani 2; 1 andAni 2; 1denote the lower and upper
limits of (2, 1)th element of matrix Ani :

En3

En4

A class of stabilizing PD controllers for a multi-input


multi-output nonlinear system is designed based on generalized Hermite Biehler theorem. The nonlinear terms
associated with the system dynamics were considered as
interconnection terms. The set of stabilizing controllers is
designed for the linear model (neglecting nonlinear interaction terms) and it is then proved that the designed set of
PD controllers stabilizes the nonlinear system provided the
nonlinearity term satisfies certain quadratic constraints and
subsequently, the feasible solution of bounding parameters
(a) for the nonlinear terms exits. The proposed decentralized information structure constraints ensure connective
stability of the composite system while a set of decentralized robust stabilizing controller is adopted for a class of
nonlinear interconnected systems. The genetic algorithm
based optimization technique is employed to get an optimal
controller gain from the range of stabilizing controller
parameters. Simulation results are given to illustrate the
efficacy of the proposed set of PD controller for a two-link
robot manipulator system.

Appendix: PD Stabilization Theorem


With a fixed Kp, the gain Kd is solvable for a plant with
transfer function G(s) if and only if the following conditions hold:
1.

a1

a2

a1

a2

a1

a2

a1

a2

A1n

0.0216

0.0188

0.0216

0.0188

0.0216

0.0188

0.2225

0.1933

A2n

0.0216

0.0188

0.0216

0.0188

0.1973

0.1714

0.2228

0.1953

A3n

0.1970

0.1712

0.1973

0.1714

0.1973

0.1714

0.2246

0.1950

A4n

0.0216

0.0188

0.1973

0.1714

0.0216

0.0188

0.2228

0.1935

FK p is not empty i.e., at least one feasible string exists


and FK p is given as

FK p AKp n  lNs  rNs

44

The set AKp is defined as a set of all possible strings of


1s, 0s and -1s whose length is l or l ? 1 depending on

123

34

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735



x Njx2 [ 0 since N  s does not have any zeros
on jx axis. Hence

the value of n ? m (even or odd) for three possible conditions of N  s:


If N  jxt 0 for some t = 1, 2, , (l - 1), then
define it 0;
(b) If N  s has a zero of multiplicity k at the origin, then
define

(a)

q1 xj
\Kd
q2 xj

if

ij q2 xj [ 0

47

i0 sgnq1f 0
where q1f x
(c)

For all other N jxt 6 0; t = 0, 1, 2, , l,


it 2 f1; 1g

ffi0 ; i1 ; . . .; il1 g for


ffi0 ; i1 ; . . .; il g
for

A Kp

2.

(b)
q1 x
1x2 mn=2


n m eveng
for n m oddg

45

There exists a string R fi0 ;i1 ;...g 2 FK p such that


h
i
h
i
1
1
Re

maxit 2R;it [0 Re  jxt Gjx
\min
i
2R;i
\0
t
t
jxt Gjxt
t

where for a given fixed Kp, let 0\x1 \x2 \


x3 \    \xl1 be the real, nonnegative, distinct finite
zeros of pf (x, Kp) with odd multiplicities (it is to be
noted that these zeros are independent of Kd). Also, if the
feasible strings satisfy the above conditionR1 ; R2 ; . . .;
Rs 2 FK p ; then the set of all stabilizing gains is given
by
s

Kd [ Kr

46

r1

where
0
B
B
Kr B
@


1
max Re 
;
it 2Rs ;it [ 0
jxt Gjxt


1
min Re 
it 2Rs ;it \0
jxt Gxt

1
C
C
C;
A

r 1; 2; . . .; s

Proof From Eq. (4), it is found that ds; Kp ; Kd is


Hurwitz if and only if
R 2 AKp n  lNs  rNs
k
sgnqf 0; Kd ; ij

sgnqf
where R fi0 ; i1 ; . . .g; i0
xj ; Kd  and j = 1, 2, , (l - 1) or j = 1, 2, , l,
accordingly as (m ? n) is even or odd. Now consider two
different cases:
Case 1: N  s does not have any zeros on the imaginary
axis: In this case for all stabilizing values of the gain
Kd ; ds; Kp ; Kd N  s will also not have any zeros on the jx
axis so that ij 2 f1; 1g for j = 1, 2, , l. Two different
possibilities are considered below.
(a)

If ij [ 0, then the stability requirement is q1 xj


Kd q2 xj [ 0: From Eq. (44), it is noted that q2 x

123

If ij \ 0, then the stability requirement is q1 xj


Kd q2 xj \0: According to the same explanation as
given in (a) and subsequently, q2 x [ 0; it follows
that

q1 xj
[ Kd
q2 xj

48

Case 2: N  s has one or more zeros on the jx axis


including a zero of multiplicity k at the origin. In this case
for all stabilizing values of the gain Kd ; ds; Kp ; Kd N  s
will also have the same set of jx axis zeros. Furthermore, it
is clear that these zero locations will be a subset of
fx1 ; x2 ; . . .; xl1 g: Since the location of these zeros
depends on N  s and is independent of the gain Kd, it is
reasonable to expect that such a zero, at xm say, will not
impose any additional constraint on Kd. Instead, it will
constrain im 2 R to a particular value. Those conditions
have been incorporated in the definition of AKp [(a) and
(b) of Eq. (45)].
Of the two cases discussed above, only case 1 imposes
constraints on Kd as given by Eqs. (48) and (49). Thus it is
concluded that each ij [ 0 in the string R 2 AKp n 
lNs  rNs contributes a lower bound on Kd
while ij \0 contributes to the upper bound on Kd. For a
fixed Kp, in order that the string R 2 AKp n  lNs 
rNs corresponds to a stabilizing Kd, the condition to
be satisfied is




q1 xt
q1 xt
max
\ min
49
it 2R; it [ 0 q2 xt
it 2R; it \0 q2 xt
2

Ne s sNo s
Now, Gs Ns
Ds De s2 sDo s2 ; so that

1
De x2 j x Do x2

jxGjx jx Ne x2 j x No x2 


q1 x jp1 x

q2 x
Hence it follows that


q1 x
1

Re 
q2 x
jxt Gjxt

50

h
i
1
Thus, from hEq. (49),i maxit 2R; it [ 0 Re  jxt Gjx
t
1
\ minit 2R; it \0 Re  jxt Gjx
:
t

J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. B (JanuaryMarch 2015) 96(1):2735

This is condition (2) in the statement of the theorem.


This completes the proof of the necessary and sufficient
conditions for the existence of a stabilizing Kd. The set of
all stabilizing Kds is now determined by taking the union
of all Kds that are obtained from all feasible strings which
satisfy (2).

References
1. S.P. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, L.M. Keel, Linear Control Theory:
Structure, Robustness And Optimization, Automation and Control
Engineering Series (CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, 2009)
2. M.-T. Ho, C.-Y. Lin, PID controller design for robust performance. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 48(8), 14041409 (2003)
3. M.-T. Ho, S.-T. Huang, On the synthesis of robust PID controllers for plants with structured and unstructured uncertainty. Int.
J. Robust Nonlinear Control 15(6), 269285 (2005)
4. D.D. Siljak, D.M. Stipanovic, Robust stabilization of nonlinear
systems: the LMI approach. Math. Prob. Eng. 6, 461493 (2000)
5. S. Boyd, E. Feron, L.E. Ghaoui, V. Balakrishnan, Linear Matrix
Inequalities in System and Control Theory (SIAM, Philadelphia,
1994)

35
6. Y.Y. Cao, Z. Lin, A descriptor system approach to robust stability
analysis and controller synthesis. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control
49(11), 20812084 (2004)
7. V.A. Yakubovich, The S-procedure in nonlinear control theory,
English Translation in Vestnik Leningrad Univ. Math., 4, 7393
(1977)
8. M. Mansour, Sufficient condition for the asymptotic stability of
interval matrices. Int. J. Control 47(6), 19731974 (1988)
9. F. Garofalo, G. Celentano, L. Glielmo, Stability robustness of
interval matrices via Lyapunov quadratic forms. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control 38(2), 281284 (1993)
10. M.W. Spong, M. Vidyasagar, Robot Dynamics and Control
(Wiley, New York, 1989)
11. Z. Qu, D.M. Dawson, Robust Tracking Control of Robot
Manipulators (IEEE Press, New York, 1996)
12. F. Lin, Robust Control Design: An Optimal Control Approach
(Wiley, New York, 2007)
13. F. Lin, R.D. Brandt, An optimal control approach to robust
control of robot manipulators. IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 14(1),
6977 (1998)
14. D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and
Machine Learning (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1999)
15. P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A.J. Laub, M. Chilali, LMI Control
Toolbox for use with Matlab. (The Math Works Inc, 1995)

123