2013 Conference on Control and Fault-Tolerant Systems (SysTol)

October 9-11,2013. Nice, France

Discrete-Time Design of State-Derivative Feedback Control Laws*

1
l
2
Fernanda Quelho Rossi , Marcelo Carvalho Minhoto Teixeira , Roberto Kawakami Harrop Galvao and
2
Edvaldo Assun\;ao

Ahstract- State-derivative feedback control laws can be very

the pole-placement problem for linear systems using state

derivative feedback were proposed in [2]. A linear quadratic
regulator (LQR) design scheme was presented in [5], [6].
The synthesis of state-derivative feedback controllers using
usual state feedback design methods was described in [7].
A comparative study involving state feedback and state
derivative feedback in linear time invariant systems can
be found in [8]. An approach to the stabilizability and
stability robustness of state-derivative feedback, including
fragility, was presented in [9]. A method using Hoo-control
of continuous-time systems with state-delay was proposed in
[10]. In [11], [12], [13] the robust stabilization of descriptor
linear systems was discussed. Methods for pole placement
of multivariable systems with state-derivative feedback were
proposed in [14], [15], [16]. Robust state-derivative feedback
designs based on linear matrix inequalities were derived
in [17], [18] for linear time-invariant systems with model
uncertainties.
Despite the significant research effort devoted to state
derivative feedback design, it is worth noting that most
work has been concerned with continuous-time controllers.
It might be argued that discrete-time counterparts for digital
control could be implemented by using emulation techniques
[19], but in that case stability and performance cannot be
guaranteed if the sampling period is not sufficiently small.
To the authors' knowledge, the issue of discrete-time design
of state-derivative feedback controllers was only discussed
in a paper by Cardim and collaborators [20]. That paper
was mainly concerned with the problem of digital redesign
(i.e. the design of a suitable analogue controller followed by
conversion to an equivalent digital controller [21 D, but the
results also included expressions to obtain the discrete-time
state-derivative feedback controller from a given discrete
time state feedback controller.
The present paper addresses the problem of obtaining a
discrete-time state-derivative feedback controller that pro
vides the same control actions as compared to a given
discrete-time state feedback controller. It is assumed that
the plant dynamics are described by a linear, time-invariant
model and that a state feedback gain matrix has already been
obtained by using standard methods such as pole placement
or discrete LQR design [19]. The contribution with respect to
the method proposed in [20] consists of a simpler procedure
to relate the state-derivative measurement with the control
update at each sampling time. Indeed, the main theoretical
result in [20] assumed that the sensor measurements and
the control update occurred simultaneously, which caused
difficulties associated to the presence of an algebraic loop in-

useful in the control of systems using accelerometers as sensors.

Moreover, in cases where both state and state derivative mea
surements are available, a state-derivative feedback controller
can be employed as a backup alternative in the case of sensor
failure. The present work is concerned with the design of such
a controller in a discrete-time framework, assuming that the
plant input is kept constant between sampling times, which
is typically the case in digital control implementations. More
specifically, this paper proposes a method to design a state
derivative feedback gain matrix in order to obtain equivalence
to a given discrete-time state feedback control law. It is assumed
that the plant is linear and time-invariant, and that the sampling
of the state-derivative occurs just before the update of the
control value. The proposed method consists of a direct digital
design in the sense that it does not require the preliminary
design

of

continuous-time

controller.

For

illustration,

simulated example involving the suppression of vibrations in

a mechanical system is presented. The results show that the
state-derivative feedback controller provides suitable damping
of the vibrations in the case of failure of a displacement sensor
employed by the conventional state feedback controller, even in
the presence of measurement noise and parameter variations.

Index Terms- state-derivative feedback, discrete-time, sensor

failure accommodation.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Although conventional feedback control systems are usu

ally designed by using state variables, in some cases the use
of state-derivative feedback can be more convenient in view
of the available measurements [1]. Indeed, in mechanical
systems, state-derivative information can be readily obtained
from instrumentation sets employing accelerometers. Exam
ples include vibration suppression systems [2], active sus
pension of vehicles [3], as well as aeronautical [4], and civil
engineering [5] applications. State-derivative feedback can
also be of value as a backup alternative to a state feedback
controller in fault-tolerant schemes employing both state and
state derivative sensors. For instance, if a displacement sensor
is lost, it may still be possible to carry out the control task
by using the remaining acceleration and velocity sensors.
In recent years, the issue of state-derivative feedback has
drawn much attention in the literature. Procedures for solving
*This work was supported by Brazilian agencies FAPESP (research
grant 20111l761O-0),CAPES (Pr6-Engenharias MSc scholarship) and CNPq
(research fellowships).
1 F. Q. Rossi and R. K. H. Galvao are with the Department of Elec
tronic Engineering, Tnstituto Tecnol6gico de Aeromiutica, 12228-900 Sao
Jose dos Campos, SP, Brazil. Emails: fer. qrossi@gmail.com;
kawakami@ita.br.
2M. C. M. Teixeira and E. Assun<;:ao are with the Department of
Electrical Engineering, UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista, 15385-000
llha Solteira, SP, Brazil. Emails:marcelo@dee.feis.unesp.br;
edvaldo@dee.feis.unesp.br.

978-1-4799-2855-2/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

808

The solution for this problem is provided in Theorem I

below.

volving the dependence of the state-derivative on the control

and vice-versa. To circumvent this problem, an implemen
tation scheme employing additional auxiliary variables was
developed in [20]. The procedure proposed herein addresses
this issue in a substantially simpler manner, which should be
of greater appeal for prospective users.
Within the scope of fault-tolerant control, the proposed
method is illustrated in a simulated case study involving
the suppression of vibrations in a mechanical system. It is
assumed that displacement and velocity measurements are
available for use in a state feedback controller, whereas
velocity and acceleration measurements are available for
a backup state-derivative feedback controller. The results
show that such a backup controller can provide suitable
suppression of the vibrations in the case of total loss of
one of the displacement sensors, even in the presence of
measurement noise and parameter variations.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section
II presents the proposed method for discrete-time state
derivative feedback design. Section III introduces the case
study, including a description of the plant, the controller
design, the sensor failure under consideration, and the pro
cedure for failure accommodation through controller com
mutation. The simulation results are presented in Section IV.
Finally, concluding remarks are presented in Section V.
II.

Theorem J. Assume that matrix Ac is invertible and that

the state derivative x(t) is available for feedback at each
sampling time t
kT. If the control law given by
=

u(kT) +

-LA;:-l [x(kT) - Beu((k -l) T) +]

(4)

is employed with system (I), then the control values will

match those provided by the state feedback law (2)
Proof Under the assumption that the control is only
updated after the sensor readings are acquired, the state
derivative of system (1) at time t
kT is given by
=

x(kT)

Aex(kT)

Bcu((k -l) T) +

(5)

Assuming that matrix Ae is invertible, it follows from (5)

that
(6)
x(kT) A;:-l [x(kT) - Beu((k -l) T) +]
=

By substituting (6) for x(kT) in (2), it follows that

u(kT) +

-LA;:-l [X(kT) - Beu((k -l) T) +]

(7)

which corresponds to the control law (4) in Theorem J

I-u(t)
u(kTt

PROPOSED METHOD FOR DISCRETE-TIME

STATE-DERIVATIVE FEEDB ACK DESI GN

Consider a system described by a continuous-time model

of the form
(1)
where x(t) E ]Rn, is the state vector, u(t) E ]Rn" is
the control input, and Ae E ]Rn" xn", Be E ]Rn" xn" are
constant matrices. Assume that the state x(t) is available for
feedback at sampling times t
kT, k E Z, where T is the
sampling period. Moreover, consider that closed-loop control
is generated by a linear state-feedback law with a given gain
matrix L E ]Rn"xn" as

u((k-1 )Tt
o

u(kT) +

-Lx(kT)

Fig. l.

u(kT) +, (kT) + .-::: t'-::: (k + l) T

kT

(k-1)T

Update of the control input

u(t)

(k+1)T

at the sampling times.

Remark 1: The condition on the invertibility of Ae has

also been assumed in the literature on continuous-time state
derivative feedback, which presents many practical problems
where this condition holds [2], [7], [8], [13], [17]. If Ae is
not invertible, unstable systems in the form (1) cannot be
stabilized by the continuous-time state-derivative feedback
[22]. Furthermore, in [22] is proved that the system (1),
considering the output y(t)
dx(t) /dt, is observable if and
only if Ac is invertible.

(2)

where superscript + is employed to indicate that the control

is updated immediately after the state is measured at each
sampling time. Finally, assume that a zero-order hold is
employed to keep the control u(t) constant between sampling
times, i.e.

u(t)

(k-2)T

(3)

Remark 2: The assumption on the use of a zero-order hold

is employed to obtain (5) from (1) by replacing u(kT) with

as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The problem addressed in this work can be stated as
follows:

u((k -l) T) +.

Remark 3: In practice, there is a delay between the

acquisition of sensor measurements through an analog-to
digital (AID) converter, and the update of the control through
a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter. In this case, the analysis
presented above will be applicable provided that the delay is
sufficiently small to have a negligible effect on the systems

Problem 1: Given matrices Ae, Be and L, design a

discrete-time state-derivative feedback controller for system
(1), such that the control actions implemented according to
(3) match those provided by the state feedback control law
(2).

809

dynamics. Alternatively, in the case of large delays, the

effect of the delay can be included in the analysis in an
explicit manner by using an augmented state-space model,
as described, for instance, in [23].

The open-loop poles for this system (i.e. the eigenvalues

of Ae) are

Remark 4 (Initial conditions for the state derivative

feedback controller): At k
0, it follows from (5) that
Aex
.
In
the simulations that will be
X( O )
(O) + Beu( -T) +
presented for illustration, it is assumed that u(t)
0 prior
to the beginning of the control task, and thus u( -T) +
O.
It follows from (4) that the state-derivative feedback control
at the initial time k
0+ will be given by

It is assumed that the closed-loop poles should be placed

at the following positions:

Al,2

-2.18 70.13i , A3,4

81,2

-20 35i , 83,4

-0.92 51.30i

-10 55i

A discrete-time state-feedback controller was designed by

adopting a sampling period T
0.018. For this purpose,
the desired positions for the closed-loop poles were mapped
from the 8- to the z - plane according to z
esT [19],
which resulted in

u (O ) +

-LAl [x(O) - Beu( -T) +]

-LAlx(O)
-Lx(O) (8)
-LAl [Aex(O) + Beu( -T) +]

z1.2

which corresponds to the initial control value generated by

the state feedback law.
III.

CASE

x((k

STUDY

0.769 0.281i , Z3.4

discrete-time
+

l) T)

model

Ax(kT)

0.771 0.473i
of

the

form

Bu(kT) + was obtained by

discretizing the state equation (1) with the zero-order-hold

method [19], which resulted in:

Fig. 2 presents a mechanical system in which a controlled

vibration absorber m2 is used to suppress the vibrations of
the primary mass ml [2].

0.8100
0.1630
-36.5401
29.8935

0.0165
0.8290
3.0605
-32.7683

0.0093
0.0008
0.7992
0.2079

0.0001
0.0092
0.0208
0.7835

' (10)

(11)

Finally, by using a pole placement procedure with the

(A, B) matrices and the desired closed loop poles Zl,2, Z3,4 ,
the following gain matrix L was obtained for the discrete
time state feedback controller:

Mechanical system for vibration suppression.

The plant dynamics are described by the continuous-time

state equation (1) with the following matrices Ae and Be:

Ac

0
0

-kJ -k)
m,
.!5:L
m2

1
0

0
0
.k2...
m,
-k2
ffi2

-bJ -b2
m,
lL
m2

0
1
lL
m,
-b2
m2

0
0
-1

1 [ 1
, Be

'1'

m2

(9)

The state vector is given by x

[Xl X2 Xl X2] T, where Xl
and X2 denote the vertical displacements of masses ml and
m2, respectively, and Xl and X2 denote the corresponding
velocities. The control input u is a force provided by an
actuator between the two masses. The parameters kl and k2
are spring constants, and bl and b2 are damping constants.
In this case study, the model parameters were taken as
=

ml 100kg, m2 10kg, kl 360kN/m, k2 36kN/m,

bl 70N8/m and b2 50N8/m. The initial condition was
set to x(O)
[0.05 0.05 0.2 0.2jT.
=

104

[1.985

-2.487

-0.119

0.018 1

(12)

It is worth noting that the (A, B) matrices were only

employed in the pole placement procedure for design of
the state feedback controller. After the gain matrix L was
calculated, the state-derivative feedback control law was
obtained by using the (Ae, Be) matrices as in (4).
It is assumed that, under normal operating conditions, the
vibration suppression system has sensors for measuring the
displacements, velocities and accelerations of the masses ml
and m2. A small delay of T!100 was introduced between
sensor readings and control update at each sampling time, to
represent the delay associated to analog-digital conversion,
computational processing and digital-analog conversion.
Simulations were also carried out to investigate the effect
of plant-model mismatch and measurement imperfections.
For this purpose, the plant parameters ml, m2, kl, k2, bl,
b2 were randomly changed by up to 20% with respect to
the values employed in the design model. Moreover, zero
mean, white Gaussian noise was added to the state and
state-derivative measurements. The standard-deviation of the
noise for each measured variable was set to 5% of the
maximum absolute value of that variable obtained in a noise
free simulation.

"

Fig. 2.

810

noise and variations in the plant parameters. For better clarity,

the signals depicted in these graphs correspond to the actual
system states, rather than the noisy measurements employed
for feedback.

Three cases were considered in the simulations:

In Case 1, the system operates under normal conditions

(i.e. without sensor failures). This case is used to
illustrate the equivalence between the state feedback and
state-derivative feedback controllers.
In Case 2, the system is operated under state feedback
control and a failure in the displacement sensor of mass
m2 is introduced at time t
0.28. For this purpose, the
measured value of X2 is replaced with zero from the
time of the failure onset until the end of the simulation.
In Case 3, the system is initially operated under state
feedback control and the sensor failure is introduced
at t
0.28, as in the previous case. However, at time
t
0.38 the state feedback controller is replaced with
the state-derivative feedback controller, which employs
the measurements from the velocity and acceleration
sensors. The 0.18 time difference between the onset of
the failure and the switching between the controllers is
introduced to represent a delay in the detection of the
sensor failure.

0.2 ,---,---,---.,----,---,----,---,--...,.,-----;:;,
x,(l)
,_, _,

__

x,(I)

,-,-, dx,(I)Jdl

__

dX,(I)Jdl

_10L-__'_____--'--___'___---'-_----'__ __'_____--'--_ _
4000 ,---,----,---,---;--,-1_---U(;:;lI)
L-

___.J

2000
:;

All simulations were carried out by using the Mat

lab/Simulink software with ode4 (Runge-Kutta) solver and
a fixed step size of T/1000.
IV.

__'__

Cl.

.S

-2000

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

-4000 __'_____--'--___'___---'-_----'__'---__'_____--'--_ ____.J

o
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.7 0.8 0.9
__'__

1(8)

Fig. 3 presents the time evolution of the displacement, ve

locity and control variables using the state feedback control
law under normal operating conditions (Case 1). The time
responses obtained by using state-derivative feedback were
exactly the same, as expected due to the equivalence between
the two controllers.

0.2 ,---,----,---,---;--rl

Fig. 4. Case I: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete
time state feedback under normal operating conditions in the presence of
measurement noise and parameter variations.

0.2
I

' - , - , X,(I)
__

,-,-,x,(I)
__

x,(I)

c
Q)
E
Q)
"
'"
a.

X,(I)

c
Q)
E
Q)
"
'"
a.

'"
is

'"
is

10
,--_,--_-,-_-,-_--,-_---;__,--_,----1

' -,-, dx,(I)Jdl

, _ , _

-- dX,(I)Jdl

, dX,(I)Jdl

__

dX,(I)Jdl

.s

'0
0
Qi
>

-10
4000

-10L------L---L--------====
(I)
4000 -,---,---.,----,---,----,---,--...,.i.:-=-=-=.'::U
I

-- u(l)

2000

2000

:;

:;

Cl.

.S

Cl.

.S

"2

-2000

-2000

_
__'___---'-_----'__
-4000 __'____--'--_
o
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

1(8)

-4000

__'_____--'--___'______.J

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.2

03

0.4

1(8)

OJ

Fig. 3. Case 1: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete
time state feedback or state-derivative controllers under normal operating
conditions.

Fig. 5. Case I: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete
time state-derivative feedback under normal operating conditions in the
presence of measurement noise and parameter variations.

Fig. 4 (state feedback) and Fig. 5 (state-derivative feed

back) show the results obtained by introducing measurement

As expected, the vibration suppression performance in

Figures 4 and 5 is somewhat worse as compared to the ideal

811

case presented in Fig. 3. However, it is worth noting that

the state feedback and state-derivative feedback results are
very similar, which indicates that these two controllers are
comparable in terms of robustness and sensitivity to noise.
Fig. 6 presents the simulation results for Case 2, in which
a sensor failure was introduced at t
0.28, as indicated
by a dashed vertical line. As mentioned above, the failure
consisted of a total loss of the X2 sensor readings, which were
replaced with zero in the control calculations until the end of
the simulation. As can be seen in Fig. 6, the resulting state
trajectories no longer converge to the equilibrium. Indeed,
upon the failure in the X2 sensor, the closed loop system
matrix becomes (A - BCL) , where C
diag(l , 0, 1, 1) is
a diagonal output matrix representing the fault effect. Under
this condition, the closed-loop poles (i.e. the eigenvalues of
A - BCL) become
=

similar result, with some performance loss, was obtained in

the presence of measurement noise and variations in the plant
parameters, as depicted in Fig. 8. It can be concluded that
the proposed method provides appropriate accommodation
of the displacement sensor failure even with imperfections
in the design model and sensor measurements.

0.2 ,------,----__,_----._-_,____-....-1
I
c
Q)
E
Q)
"
'"
a.

0.592 0.538i ,

Z3,4(f)

- . - . x (I)
,
(1)
2

-- x

<f)

is

Zl,2 (f)

'

10 .__--__,_-__,_----.__-_,____---1
!!!.

' _,_,
--

dx (I)/dl
,
dx (1)/dl
2

.s
.c
'13
0
Qi
>

0.889 0.497i

-10
4000

As can be seen, the Z3,4(f) poles are outside the unit circle,
which shows that the closed-loop system is unstable.

--

u(l)

2000
-s

Cl.

.E

'2

c
Q)
E

8-2000

C,)

2l

'"
a.

-4000

<f)

is

10 ,------,--------____I

'

0.1

0.2

02

0.4

05

I(s)

OB

OB

Fig. 7.
Case 3: Time response of the mechanical system with a sensor
failure at t = 0.28 (first vertical dashed line). The discrete-time state
feedback controller was replaced with the backup derivative-state feedback
controller at t = 0.38 (second vertical dashed line).

- , - , dX (I)/dl
,

--:-:-l
0.2 .__-_,___-__,_-__,_----.__-_,___
_
--.-1_
x, (I)
,_, _,

-10L--------------- ==

4000 -,-----,-----,---- -,------,------,-- ---,-----,-i.:-=-=-=-'=-U (I)

-- x/I)

c
Q)
E

2l

'"
a.

2000
-s

<f)

is

Cl.

.E

'2

8-2000

C,)

, _, _,

-4000 "---'----'---'---'
o
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

--

I(s)

dx (I)/dl
,
dx (1)/dl
2

.c
'13
o
Qi
>

Fig. 6. Case 2: Time response of the mechanical system using the discrete
time state feedback controller with a sensor failure at t = 0.28 (vertical
dashed line).

-10 "---'----'---'---'
4000 ,-------,----,-----.---,-,_-_-u(;;;ll)

It is worth noting that the failure in the X2 displacement

sensor could be detected in a simple manner by comparing
the position readings with the corresponding velocity and
acceleration measurements. Upon detection of the failure, the
control law could be switched to state-derivative feedback
in order to use the velocity and acceleration sensors. This
procedure was employed in Case 3, with results presented
in Fig. 7. In this figure, the first dashed line indicates the
failure onset, whereas the second dashed line indicates the
time at which the backup state-derivative feedback controller
was brought into operation. As can be seen, the resulting
state trajectories converged to equilibrium at the origin, thus
circumventing the loss of the X2 displacement sensor. A

2000
-S

Cl.

.E

'2
C

8 -2000

-4000 "---'----'---'---'
o
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.7 0.8 0.9
I(s)

Fig. 8.
Case 3: Time response of the mechanical system with a sensor
failure at t = 0.28 (first vertical dashed line) in the presence of measurement
noise and parameter variations. The discrete-time state feedback controller
was replaced with the backup derivative-state feedback controller at t =
0.38 (second vertical dashed line).

812

V.

CONCLUSION

This paper proposed a method to design a discrete-time

state-derivative feedback control law in order to obtain
equivalence to a given state feedback controller. Within the
scope of digital fault-tolerant control, the proposed method
can be of value to design backup controllers that employ
state-derivative measurements in the case of failure of the
state sensors. A typical application consists of vibration
suppression systems, in which accelerometers can be used to
obtain state-derivative measurements. In the simulated case
study presented for illustration, the state-derivative feedback
controller was shown to provide suitable suppression of the
vibrations in the case of failure of a displacement sensor em
ployed by the conventional state feedback controller. Suitable
results were obtained even in the presence of measurement
noise and plant/model mismatch.
Future studies could be concerned with the use of filtering
methods to combine noisy measurements of the state and
state derivative into a single estimate of the state vector.
In addition, extensions of the present work to the design
of discrete-time robust controllers could be pursued. It is
worth noting that, under the equivalence stated in Theorem 1,
closed-loop stability using the state feedback controller guar
antees closed-loop stability with the state-derivative feedback
controller. Nevertheless, perfect equivalence is only valid
for the nominal case. The simulation results suggest that
the state-derivative feedback control law possesses certain
robustness with respect to the mismatch between the plant
dynamics and the design model adopted. However, further
analysis of the robustness of the state-derivative feedback
controller, in comparison with the state feedback controller,
should be carried out. Possible investigations along this
line may include LMI-based formulations for state-derivative
feedback design, as presented in [l7], [18].
ACKNOW LED GMENT S

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support

of FAPESP (grant 2011117610-0), CAPES (Pro-Engenharias
MSc scholarship) and CNPq (research fellowships).
REFERENCES

[1] FL. Lewis and VL. Syrmos, "A geometric theory for derivative
feedback", IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 36, no. 9,
pp. 1111-1116,1991.
[2] TH.S. Abdelaziz and M. Valasek, "Pole-placement for S1S0 linear
systems by state-derivative feedback", lEE Proceedings: Control The
ory and Applications, vol. 151,no. 4,pp. 377-385,2004.
[3] E. Reithmeier and G. Leitmann, "Robust vibration control of dynam
ical systems based on the derivative of the state", Archive of Applied
Mechanics, vol. 72,no. 11-12,pp. 856-864,2003.
[4] S. K. Kwak, G. Washington, and R. K. Yedavalli, "Acceleration
feedback-based active and passive vibration control of landing gear
components", Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
1-9,2002.
[5] YF Duan, YQ. Ni, and J.M. Ko, "State-derivative feedback control
of cable vibration using semiactive magnetorheological dampers",
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 20,no. 6,
pp. 431-449,2005.
[6] S.K. Kwak, G. Washington, and R. K. Yedavalli, "Acceleration-based
vibration control of distributed parameter systems using the 'reciprocal
state-space framework' ", Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 251,
no. 3,pp. 543-557,2002.

813

[7] R. Cardim, M.C.M. Teixeira, E. Assun<;:ao, and M. Covacic, "Design

of state-derivative feedback controllers using a state feedback control
design", Proceedings of the 3rd IFAC Symposium on System, Structure
and Control, vol. I,pp. 135-141,Iguassu Falls, Brazil, 2007.
[8] J.M. Araujo, A.c. Castro, FG.S. Silva, E.TF Santos, and C.E.T
Dorea, "Comparative study on state feedback and state-derivative
feedback in linear time invariant systems", Proceedings of 3rd IFAC
Symposium on System, Structure and Control, vol. 3, Iguassu Falls,
Brazil, 2007.
[9] W. Michiels, T Vyhldal, H. Huijberts, and H. Nijmeijer, "Stabilizabil
ity and stability robustness of state derivative feedback controllers",
SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 47,no. 6,pp. 31003117,2008.
[10] E. Fridman and U. Shaked, "H=-control of linear state-delay descrip
tor systems: an LMI approach", Linear Algebra and Its Applications,
vol. 351,pp. 271-302,2002.
[ I I] G. R. Duan, G. W. Irwin, and G. P. Liu, "Robust stabilization of
descriptor linear systems via proportional-plus-derivative state Feed
back", Proceedings of the 1999 American Control Conference, pp.
1304-1308,1999.
[12] R. Cardim, M.C.M. Teixeira, E. Assun<;:ao, and FA. Faria, "Control
designs for linear systems using state-derivative feedback", Systems,
Structure and Control, pp. 1-28,In-Tech, Vienna, Austria, 2008.
[13] F A. Faria, E. Assun<;:ao, M. C. M. Teixeira, and R. Cardim, "Ro
bust state-derivative feedback LMIbased designs for linear descriptor
systems", Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2010, Article
927362,2010.
[14] TH.S. Abdelaziz, "Pole assignment by state-derivative feedback for
single-input linear systems", Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engi
neers. Part I, vol. 221,no. 7,pp. 991-1000,2007.
[15] TH.S. Abdelaziz, "Robust pole assignment for linear time-invariant
systems using state-derivative feedback", Proc. Institution of Mechan
ical Engineers. Part I, vol. 223,no. 2,pp. 187-199,2009.
[16] TH.S. Abdelaziz, "Optimal control using derivative feedback for linear
systems", Proc. Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part I, vol. 224,
no. 2,pp. 185-202,2010.
[17] E. Assun<;:iio, M.C.M. Teixeira, FA. Faria, N. A.P. da Silva, and R.
Cardim, "Robust state-derivative feedback LMl-based designs for
multivariable linear systems", International Journal of Control, vol.
80,no. 8,pp. 1260-1270,2007.
[18] FA. Faria, E. Assuncao, M.C.M. Teixeira, R. Cardim, and N. A.P. da
Silva, "Robust state-derivative pole placement LMI-based designs for
linear systems", International Journal of Control, vol. 82, no. 1, pp.
1-12,2009.
[19] G.F Franklin, J.D. Powell, and M. Workman, Digital control of
dynamical systems, 3rd Edition, USA, California: Addison-Wesley,
1997.
[20] R. Cardim, M.C.M. Teixeira, F Faria, and E. Assun<;:iio, "LMI-based
digital redesign of linear time invariant systems with state-derivative
feedback", Proceedings of IEEE Multi-Conference on Systems and
Control, vol. 1,pp. 745-749,Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2009.
[21] W. Chang, J.B. Park, H.1. Lee, and YH. Joo, "LMI approach to digital
redesign of linear time-invariant systems", lEE Proceedings - Control
Theory and Applications, vol. 149,no. 4,pp. 297-302,2002.
[22] M.R. Moreira, E.I. Mainardi Junior, TT Esteves, et aI., "Stabilizability
and disturbance rejection with state-derivative feedback;' Mathemati
cal Problems in Engineering, vol. 2010, Article 123751,2010.
[23] J. M. Maciejowski, Predictive control with constraints. Harlow: Pren
tice Hall, 2002.